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

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by xigoi »

ericmay wrote: post #41
sigmar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple stopped using their iMessage-noninteroperability to dissuade consumers (via network effects, degraded quality of images, etc) from trying other mobile OS platforms , wouldn't that also help any third party that wanted to challenge Apple and Google's dominance?

Probably not. It’s better to think of this as Google trying to go after Apple to the sole benefit of Google than it is to think of this as “if Google wins this it will create lots of third party challengers”. Network effects also aren’t really all that bad. Would you want 15 apps that you have to rotate through to communicate to different people with, all with different features and capabilities? Probably not. You’d…

I'd rather have 15 different open protocols that someone could create an universal app for than 7 different proprietary protocols that each require you to have a specific app.

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

#82

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

funnybeam wrote: post #39
foota wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is an accurate take. The DMA is about businesses and their relationships with consumers, so any regulation has to be targeted to that. The argument is that Apple not allowing businesses to use a protocol on par with iMessage is the issue here.

“ businesses and their relationships with consumers” Sounds like spam to me

It’s a cudgel.

Apple has an iMessage for Business service. You can use it to chat directly to representatives of enrolled businesses. Right from iMessage.

Google wants to use that and the DMA to create precedents that they can use against Apple in their quest to get access to iMessage.

It’s fairly transparent, IMHO.

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

#83

Post by repelsteeltje »

xigoi wrote: post #81
ericmay wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. It’s better to think of this as Google trying to go after Apple to the sole benefit of Google than it is to think of this as “if Google wins this it will create lots of third party challengers”. Network effects also aren’t really all that bad. Would you want 15 apps that you have to rotate through to communicate to different people with, all with different features and capabilities? Probably not. You’d…

I'd rather have 15 different open protocols that someone could create an universal app for than 7 different proprietary protocols that each require you to have a specific app.

That's off course the point Mike Masnick (of TechDirt fame) has been making:

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a...

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

#84

Post by gilcot »

kemayo wrote: post #76
justsomehnguy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app ... do you understand what iMessage is just another app, the only difference is what it's shipped with every iPhone and that's why it works? Apple has replaced a universal protocol, SMS, with their own app which is not available anywhere except iOS. And you are happy and try to convince everyone what this is totally fine. You are okay for people to buy an iPho…

They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage. It's fine if you don't like their reason, but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does. I mean, in practice the curre…

I may be wrong, but I think RCS protocol is published (so Apple and any other can support it if they want) whereas the protocol for iMessage is not (so no one but Apple can make compatible app under Android)

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

#85

Post by justsomehnguy »

mcphage wrote: post #80
justsomehnguy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so I just use SMS Get out of this 3rd world country *smug_face* Honestly I do remember when I used the SMS lately - a once this year to contact a person whose contact was relayed to me through 3rd party. As soon as we confirmed what we are those who we are we moved on to Telegram. In the retrospect I should had just added his number to the address book and I would had seen what he is available on Telegram from the…

> Everyone else moved on because it's better. But because "it's the way" they "need it"(tm) and hence are quite defensive of anything what can even remotely change the status quo. I mean, Telegram and WhatsApp are all available in the US. I don't quite get your sense of smug superiority about which specific flavor of multinational corporation sponsored messaging app you use.

> are all available in the US

Did you read the thread? People up there literally question why they need to bother with anything else than SMS and iMessage. More so, they in GTFOMyLawn mode about using anything else than iMessage.

> which specific flavor of multinational corporation sponsored messaging app

There is one difference between Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp and iMessage. Do I need to spell it out?

> sense of smug

That was about using SMS, not iMessage and had a lot of implied /s.

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

#86

Post by justsomehnguy »

kemayo wrote: post #76
justsomehnguy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app ... do you understand what iMessage is just another app, the only difference is what it's shipped with every iPhone and that's why it works? Apple has replaced a universal protocol, SMS, with their own app which is not available anywhere except iOS. And you are happy and try to convince everyone what this is totally fine. You are okay for people to buy an iPho…

They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage. It's fine if you don't like their reason, but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does. I mean, in practice the curre…

> They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage

They are answering the question why they (and in their mind - everyone else/sane/both) wouldn't ever use anything other than iMessage. They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. I'm not sure what [most] people even understand how it uses their phone number[0]

> but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird.

Well, they don't. I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Quite unsurprisingly, if both parties already have Signal/Whatsapp/whatever they don't need to download or register on it, too.

> I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does

There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order. Those people really believed in a (quite clever I must say) totally-not-an-ad rumour what Apple does not give out any info. So while there is no objective reasons to object, those people would, just because it's Google or not Apple.

Though I doubt it would happen, the ship sailed along with Google+/Hangouts.

[0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage.

And one last thing, RCS is still SMS in it's spirit - not as means to deliver text, but as means for cellular providers to print money from the thin air. Do you know how much it costed for the celluar provider to send one SMS between it's own customers on GSM?

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

#87

Post by kwanbix »

andyferris wrote: post #15
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 think built-in to your phone is part of it. It’s also very simple and replaces SMS automagically. Otherwise you need to sign up and log in to some other service. Meaning everyone you talk to needs to do the same. With the SMS fallback this doesn’t “feel” like that.

Thanks, I see your point, but registering an account with WhatsApp is one of the easiest things to do, you just give your phone number, and you get an SMS that WhatsApp even reads itself (at least on android), and that's it.

On the other side, with iMessage, there is a huge chance somebody does not have it, and worst, cannot have it because they don't have an iPhone. Again, 40% of the people in the USA owns an Android phone. Is a lot.

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

#88

Post by kwanbix »

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?

Because SMS sucks big time: limited characters, cannot send videos, cannot send images, cannot do groups, it was charged by message, the interface really sucked.

So the question is, why won't you switch?

In my home country, lots of people just had a BlackBerry because they wanted to do better chat. Then WhatsApp came, which did not require a BlackBerry worked in all types of phones (Android and iOS included), it used your same phone number, it did not charge by message, could do images, videos, groups, the interface was great, and it spread like fire.

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

#89

Post by kwanbix »

intothemild wrote: post #75
kelnos wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainly just defaults. In the US, SMS was always pretty dominant. We didn't gravitate to a single third-party platform like Whatsapp or FB Messenger or Telegram like a lot of people in other countries did. So in practice we all have lots of messaging apps installed on our phones, and SMS is still widely used. Messages is installed by default on iPhones, so people who are used to using SMS (most people) just use iMessa…

What I would ultimately want from all this is that SMS goes away. That we get something better, I know there's that new protocol the IEEE have been working on, and there's RCS. I don't care which, or anything else is used, as long as it's platform independent, secure, seamless, and enables all the features of modern messaging platforms. Wife has an iPhone I have an android. One of the big problems with that downgrade…

> I don't care which, or anything else is used, as long as it's platform independent, secure, seamless, and enables all the features of modern messaging platforms.

You are describing WhatsApp (or telegram or signal) or am I missing something?

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

#90

Post by intothemild »

kwanbix wrote: post #89
intothemild wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would ultimately want from all this is that SMS goes away. That we get something better, I know there's that new protocol the IEEE have been working on, and there's RCS. I don't care which, or anything else is used, as long as it's platform independent, secure, seamless, and enables all the features of modern messaging platforms. Wife has an iPhone I have an android. One of the big problems with that downgrade…

> I don't care which, or anything else is used, as long as it's platform independent, secure, seamless, and enables all the features of modern messaging platforms. You are describing WhatsApp (or telegram or signal) or am I missing something?

I'm describing the replacement for SMS. Whatever the fallback is.
Post reply on HN