Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 645 posts

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#631

Post by Schroedingersat »

988747 wrote: post #630
Schroedingersat wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No scifi nuclear reactor concept is going to be mass deployed by the early 2030s. The only nuclear fuel source that has ever been used in commercial application is U235, with a little bit of Pu239 to boost yield. There is no viable source of U235 for even a fraction of current energy use. OP's claim is garbage (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than…

> (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than hindering them) That's not at all what "Fit for 55" program is about. I agree, those things, over long enough timespan (say, 20 years) could be net positive. Instead, "Fit for 55" means imposing additional "carbon tax" on many industries, and on goods imported from China, based on how much carbon was emitted…

So distribute those taxes to the poor.

Problem solved. It won't hurt anyone but anybodybwho is already doing the right thing will be far better off.

If people who choose to drive (and it will be a choice because non-car infrastructure is part of the plan) pay more, then nothing of value has been lost.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#632

Post by 988747 »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #631
988747 wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than hindering them) That's not at all what "Fit for 55" program is about. I agree, those things, over long enough timespan (say, 20 years) could be net positive. Instead, "Fit for 55" means imposing additional "carbon tax" on many industries, and on goods imported from China, based on how much carbon was emitted…

So distribute those taxes to the poor. Problem solved. It won't hurt anyone but anybodybwho is already doing the right thing will be far better off. If people who choose to drive (and it will be a choice because non-car infrastructure is part of the plan) pay more, then nothing of value has been lost.

When was the last time in history of mankind when taxes were actually distributed to the poor? I mean in significant amounts, not as a lame attempt to win upcoming elections.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#633

Post by cbeach »

dontlaugh wrote: post #612
cbeach wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from the U.K. which is why I care deeply about representative democracy. Our system has stood the test of time. You criticise companies for “refusing to work with others” on messaging. Why should companies be forced into a cartel-like relationship with each other? Surely innovation absolutely depends on companies independently creating new technologies and benefiting from that R&D directly? How can consumers have…

The UK’s “democracy” is a joke. Between an unelected head of state, first past the post and the most corrupt financial system on earth, almost any country does better.

The UK has an elected Prime Minister who acts as the head of state in all meaningful functions. The monarch has held a merely ceremonial position since 1688 (the Glorious Revolution).

Regarding electoral systems, I'd choose PR over FPTP, because PR suits my political aims at the current time.

Despite this, I understand the benefits of FPTP as a system, and I can see why a country with a long-running and mature democracy (like the UK) would want it. It's important that political parties are forced to develop a long-term record, and credibility. If we ditch FPTP, then single-issue parties will come and go frequently, allowing bad politicians to go somewhat unchecked.

In terms of corrupt financial systems, I think you need to read up on some history if you think the UK has the worst. Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Russia. And of course, the US, whose regulatory failures, speculation and novel (AKA sketchy) forms of debt caused the World's largest economic shocks in both the 20th and 21st centuries.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#634

Post by Schroedingersat »

988747 wrote: post #632
Schroedingersat wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So distribute those taxes to the poor. Problem solved. It won't hurt anyone but anybodybwho is already doing the right thing will be far better off. If people who choose to drive (and it will be a choice because non-car infrastructure is part of the plan) pay more, then nothing of value has been lost.

When was the last time in history of mankind when taxes were actually distributed to the poor? I mean in significant amounts, not as a lame attempt to win upcoming elections.

Then agitate for thwt rather than simping for daddy Koch.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#635

Post by yoz-y »

rootusrootus wrote: post #546
yoz-y wrote: post #225

Looking at the amount of applications I have in the messaging folder on my iPhone, it doesn't seem to me that opening up iMessage is that necessary. From what I understand in the US it's more common for people who have iPhones to stick to iMessage but in Europe not so much.

> From what I understand in the US it's more common for people who have iPhones to stick to iMessage but in Europe not so much. Something I find fascinating. Apple bad, Facebook good?

I think it's more about the prevalence of iPhones amongst young people. If most of your friends don't have iPhones, then it makes more sense to use a messaging system everybody can use. US has ~60% iOS market share, European countries have 20-40. Especially for group chats, if you have 10 people in a group, there is very little probability everybody will have an iPhone.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#636

Post by dontlaugh »

cbeach wrote: post #633
dontlaugh wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK’s “democracy” is a joke. Between an unelected head of state, first past the post and the most corrupt financial system on earth, almost any country does better.

The UK has an elected Prime Minister who acts as the head of state in all meaningful functions. The monarch has held a merely ceremonial position since 1688 (the Glorious Revolution). Regarding electoral systems, I'd choose PR over FPTP, because PR suits my political aims at the current time. Despite this, I understand the benefits of FPTP as a system, and I can see why a country with a long-running and mature democr…

Tories think that. Almost no one else here does.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#637

Post by kingkawn »

hellojesus wrote: post #429
kingkawn wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many generations of people fought and died to not just let the monstrous assholes with resources decide everything.

The market decides, which is a collection of signals from an amount of players that outweighs any one individual. It is a much better method of concensus than regulation when no involuntary third party harm exists. It ensures those that have a stake are able to vote, where the size of your vote is proportional to the resources dedicated. Of course not everyone has equal voting power. Why should they when it comes to…

Because it turns into an exploitation shit show incompatible with a stable prosperous society if we just satisfy your fetish for the perfect embodiment of abstractions like “the market.”

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#638

Post by rbits »

Reason077 wrote: post #379
mattrighetti wrote: post #165

This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not. Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps? I don't get w…

> "Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer?" No, I don't think so. You can set a standard that defines a baseline of features that all interoperable messaging apps must support. But that doesn't preclude apps from offering additional functionality over and above the standard.

I don't even think they have to do that. I think the law will just mean that they have to allow other apps to implement their protocol, not forcing them to follow a specific standard. Like, they can still use iMessage and add new features, as long as there's some way for third party apps to use it as well.

Idk though maybe I misunderstood it

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#639

Post by d35007 »

dncornholio wrote: post #101
Scubabear68 wrote: post #34

Misleading headline. This affects many apps and is much broader. In fact, this line from the article is far more serious: “Apple, for instance, will also need to contend with a reported requirement to allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store, something it's spent years fighting internationally”.

I'm wondering what the people who say that no sideloading is a feature have to say now.

Why do you think this would change their minds?

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#640

Post by brokenmachine »

danaris wrote: post #543
KiwiJohnno wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on. Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available…

> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol Do you know the specific requirements of the law, and that this would be within their terms? Because, as I stated fairly clearly, I do not know what the law requires, and was working based on one possible (fairly strict) version of what it could be. If the law just says Apple has to open the protocol, then that certainly reduces the potential pr…

>may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets

It's a chat app. It's one of the first apps a programmer learns to make.

The one and only thing separating iMessage from 10,000 other chat apps is the fact it's the default on the most common phone.

The trade secret is inertia and anti competitive lock-in.

Post reply on HN