521–530 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, that was probably the same opinion you expressed when buying an iPhone. Nobody thinks about the consequences of who they can text when they buy a phone, and why should they?
> Nobody thinks about the consequences of who they can text when they buy a phone, and why should they? Many of my friends have made the choice to get an iPhone so that they can use iMessage (and FaceTime)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp... Okay, this is where I think we need to make clear who this requirement applies to. If we click through the first link, found in the first sentence in the article, to the actual source text[0] and run it through Google Translate, we can find that this requirement only applies to companies... >... whose…
I can't wait to forever jump from app to app because as soon as one company exceeds 7.5 billion euros, it'll get struck by this new set of laws that makes its entire business model impossible. Of course, that's assuming that the EU doesn't expand this when they notice that happening...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is your entire comment not a mere assumption that the issue is within iMessage itself and not other logically possible factors, such as your carrier, your reception, or your mother using her phone incorrectly? Also, allowing alternative messaging apps to be installed in your OS is exactly the opposite of “flagrant abuse”.
>How is your entire comment not a mere assumption that the issue is within iMessage itself and not other logically possible factors, such as your carrier, your reception, or your mother using her phone incorrectly? Because it's not an isolated incident. I've heard many people complain about the exact same thing online over the years. Just google it and you will see. Is it rare? Sure. But it's also not uncommon. You p…
I don't think that's the definition of market abuse at all. Apple created a device and bundled a free "good enough" messaging service with it. If you want to use something else, there's nothing stopping you beyond inertia. Apple clearly isn't going out of it's way to hinder adoption of alternative messaging services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't get why you would regulate such a thing. Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. We literally have seen leaked emails where Apple deliberately does this as an anti-consumer platform lock in play. The slippery slope hypothetical you provide is not the reality. Nobody is asking governments to regulate adding cool new…
> It's like you don't believe it's possible with the countless man centuries of resources these companies have to have software both interoperate and degrade gracefully when one client doesn't support all protocol features. I don't buy it; I believe we can. Did you ever look into what happened with XMPP extensions?
I can't quite wrap my head around why people think that it is a good thing for Apple to be regulated into "opening up" (i.e. as opposed to being a "walled garden" platform). If I were an entrepreneur, and say that I wanted to fork a Unix-like OS so that I could make a cross-device OS for consumer hardware that I, too, make---shouldn't I have the right to program my OS to seamlessly integrate only with the apps and th…
If you are starting to corner the market and are able to use your leverage to block competitors in a way that threatens to undermine their business, then the EU (and to an extend the USA) will regulate you. I can flip your question around and ask "should you have the right to play dirty?". Which is what Apple has been doing, there's exactly zero good reason to not license out access to the protocol. I don't own Apple…
There's at least three good reasons:
* Keeping the protocol private is a competitive advantage * Licensing a protocol and managing those licensees is not free * A shared protocol dramatically decreases Apple's ability to innovate on top of that protocol
I would argue that it'd be worth while to ignore these issues if Apple was hampering competition in the messaging space, but I just don't see it. I can easily use any messaging app I want on my phone, the only thing stopping me is that iMessage is good enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can’t have choice if bodies like the EU (led by appointed, not elected, politicians) decide on technical standards. It’s egregious that the EU will force a lowest-common-denominator implementation of messaging on independent private companies who, up to this point, have all been innovating in this space. The EU desperately wants to compromise end to end encryption, so we KNOW that that the EU is not acting in the…
I’m taking the leap that you’re from the US - if you’re not, then the first comment may not apply to you. > bodies like the EU (led by appointment, not elected politicians) decide on technical standards The president of the United States is not directly elected.They are voted by the electoral college, which introduces all the problems of gerrymandering. EU council are appointed - by politicians from each country, dir…
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 choice, and how can innovation flourish if companies are required to collude, rather than compete, on developing products?
It's the same every time. When Apple gets called out for monopolistic anti-consumer behaviour, an army shows up to defend Apple with a bunch of FUD. No, it won't hurt you or your grandma that you can choose app store, choose browser engine, choose payment provider, that you can charge with usb c, etc., and in this case that non-apple users won't be mocked with different colored bubbles and other limitations. Every co…
I don’t see speech bubble color. I see speech bubble contents.
Making iMessage available to android would be nice, but there’s no way Apple would make it convenient.
It's the same every time. When Apple gets called out for monopolistic anti-consumer behaviour, an army shows up to defend Apple with a bunch of FUD. No, it won't hurt you or your grandma that you can choose app store, choose browser engine, choose payment provider, that you can charge with usb c, etc., and in this case that non-apple users won't be mocked with different colored bubbles and other limitations. Every co…
I don’t see speech bubble color. I see speech bubble contents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine they'd setup a basic protocol for interoperability of simple messages and then each client can build anything they want on top? Similar to other protocols. At least that's what I am hoping for
iMessage already has that, by falling back to SMS.