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

Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#51

Post by timeon »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #43
SirMaster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if I put someone's phone number into my Messages app, 100% of people will receive my messages with no issue. To decide to use WhatsApp or Signal or Telegram etc I would have to find out if they even have that service/app set up or not. And they have to have the app installed and signed in etc. With iMessage/SMS there is no setup, no sign-in, no approval process or anything.

Take Apple fanboying out of your mind. This is exactly how it happens, you just add someone's phone number to your address book and... and it works? All those services rely on the phone numbers to discover if you can message to the other party. You literally see if the addressee can be called/sent message through WhatsApp. Sure, it's not in your Messages app, but that's because Apple doesn't allow you to see any mess…

How it is Apple fanboying? As far as I know, every phone already has SMS by default. On iPhone some messages goes throug by iMessage - but if other side has no iMessage it is sent as SMS. I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages. Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#52

Post by remotefonts »

nerdjon wrote: post #16

I do have some slightly concerns about iMessage being opened up and no longer linked to Apple products for a spam standpoint. But I get plenty of SMS spam so I guess it's really not much of a difference. However kinda related I am curious about RCS. I tried looking this up but I can't find much concrete information on it. Is it actually universally E2E or only some? I find some reddit posts implying it's some. Do all…

Do cell phone network carriers even have any part on RCS messages? If I have no wifi and no mobile data but still have minutes and sms's no RCS message will ever leave my device, so I would say all of them will go though google servers, because if they can't reach google servers they will not even leave your phone to go anywhere. Such a beautiful mess. What's not to love about it?

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#53

Post by koyote »

nerdjon wrote: post #20
mattmanser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were actually late to text messages, not early. The US still had huge pager numbers when consumers in the EU was all in on text messages. For example this article discusses low SMS usage in the US from 2000: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/07/technology/us-is-lagging-... Just like you were late to dropping cheques vs chip and pin, the US has been a laggard in consumer adoption of some technologies. Might be somet…

I can't read the article but going on what you said... that's interesting. Then I really don't understand why did the EU just not stick with SMS (and iMessage). Like what was the value of going with a new app. I was just using this same number with SMS on dumb phones... why would I switch?

> I was just using this same number with SMS on dumb phones... why would I switch?

We did use SMS extensively in the early 2000s. But many people also used things like Google Talk (and MSN Messenger on the PC) early on as it allowed you to send more than just text. MMS never really took off because not all phones supported it the same way and a lot of carriers charged for it (it also felt clunky).

Once you get used to one app, it's easy to move to another one. WhatsApp quickly took off as it was very easy to set up (install, enter phone number, you're done), worked on literally any phone OS and was simple to use.

It's a bit like wondering why everyone is using Slack when there's E-mail.

iMessage was a non-starter because the iphone was just not that popular here (and still isn't what the majority use in most countries), so using an app that only works with a phone that less than half of your friends use made no sense.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#54

Post by kelnos »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #43
SirMaster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if I put someone's phone number into my Messages app, 100% of people will receive my messages with no issue. To decide to use WhatsApp or Signal or Telegram etc I would have to find out if they even have that service/app set up or not. And they have to have the app installed and signed in etc. With iMessage/SMS there is no setup, no sign-in, no approval process or anything.

Take Apple fanboying out of your mind. This is exactly how it happens, you just add someone's phone number to your address book and... and it works? All those services rely on the phone numbers to discover if you can message to the other party. You literally see if the addressee can be called/sent message through WhatsApp. Sure, it's not in your Messages app, but that's because Apple doesn't allow you to see any mess…

As a complete Apple non-fanboy (I have an Android phone and run Linux on my Framework laptop; yes I'm one of those people), I don't think your argument holds water.

If I send a message through the Android Messages app, I know it will get to its destination (well, modulo occasional SMS unreliability). I don't have to know or care if the recipient has the right app or not. Everyone can receive SMS.

I do have a bunch of other messaging apps on my phone, but, for the most part, I've had to actively get people to install those apps in order to use them (or they've explicitly asked me if I have so-and-so messaging platform).

For people I tend to chat with often, I'll usually try to get them to install Signal if they don't have it. But otherwise, I don't really have the energy to evangelize anything, so I just use SMS (or, if I'm really lucky, and they also use Android -- rare! -- RCS) with them.

I'm frankly just completely sick of this situation. If iMessage & RCS were both built into the Android Messages app, I probably wouldn't use anything else. The only reason I use other platforms at all is because I like E2EE, the ability to send photos and videos that don't have to be downscaled and recompressed into oblivion, and non-terrible group chat management. iMessage and RCS fix all of those things.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#55

Post by nickpp »

broken_clock wrote: post #31
LispSporks22 wrote: post #27

Why doesn't Google have a go at building something better than iMessage rather than beg for regulations? Also, wrt to RCS its very much carrier oriented, and I personally would not want to have anything to do with them – next thing you know they'll have pay-for tiers or goddamn advertising in my messages.

Why didn't other oil companies have a go at building something better than Standard Oil?

Actually they did. Standard Oil was already on the way out at the time of its anti-trust action and subsequent breakup. It's well documented.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#56

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

kwanbix wrote: post #7

I really don't get what is it that people like so much about iMessage that they use it instead of WhatsApp or even Telegram or Signal. I really don't get it. Can anyone explain what is it that is so good that you end up using a solution that 40% in the USA and 60% in the rest of the world cannot use?

I don’t want to install Facebook anything onto my device? A company that has repeatedly engineered techniques to escape the app sandbox to exfiltrate personal data is not my friend.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#57

Post by paddez »

nerdjon wrote: post #47
marcod wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SMS were expensive in Europe.

Interesting, did you not have unlimited texting? I feel like unlimited texting was standard here since 2007 at least.

If my memory recalls correct, in Ireland, Pay-as-you-go was relatively popular for a number of different demographics.

Most networks implemented some kind of Top up €20, get 200 free minutes, 200 free texts, unlimited same-network texts, and X GB of data for the month.

WhatsApp came in, which meant that that all networks could now talk to each other using the Data allowance for free, essentially - which I think convinced people to use WhatsApp rather than dwindle down their network text quota.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#58

Post by ghusto »

kwanbix wrote: post #7

I really don't get what is it that people like so much about iMessage that they use it instead of WhatsApp or even Telegram or Signal. I really don't get it. Can anyone explain what is it that is so good that you end up using a solution that 40% in the USA and 60% in the rest of the world cannot use?

I’ve always been curious about this too, and the answers here are not exactly enlightening. They seem to boil down to either SMS being cheaper in the U.S.A. and the lack of unlimited texting in Europe (not true), or “because I use it”.

I like Messages, I think it’s great, but that doesn’t explain what happened here.

Re: Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

#60

Post by dagmx »

nerdjon wrote: post #16

I do have some slightly concerns about iMessage being opened up and no longer linked to Apple products for a spam standpoint. But I get plenty of SMS spam so I guess it's really not much of a difference. However kinda related I am curious about RCS. I tried looking this up but I can't find much concrete information on it. Is it actually universally E2E or only some? I find some reddit posts implying it's some. Do all…

It is implementation dependent. Google’s version is E2E (for single chats at least, not sure for multiple) but others may not be.
Post reply on HN