4 ms·

Why is the answer not to force interoperability? This is exactly what we should be doing because it's generally good for the communications ecosystem and the ov

by XorNot 4y ago

Why is the answer not to force interoperability? This is exactly what we should be doing because it's generally good for the communications ecosystem and the overall marketplace. It's not an answer to the problem of teenagers having to learn decency, but I'm failing to see a downside to taking Apple to task on this.

CharlesW 4y ago
> Why is the answer not to force interoperability? Do you want the U.S. government to just strong-arm a private company into adopting a not-very-popular plaintext messaging standard, or do you want them to force the licensing of Google's proprietary extensions that support encryption for 1-to-1 messages as well? (Even with proprietary extensions, group messages are always plaintext.)
- dotnet00 4y ago
  The US government can mandate some amount of compatibility just as the EU recently mandated USB-C
- akmarinov 4y ago
  To also give up control back to carriers, so that they can sell you packs of RCS messages with your plan.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The US Government can declare that the companies involved must come up with a way to provide equivalent functionality when interoperating between platforms, and then the companies can figure out how best they want to do that. Then every day that's not the case after a grace period, or without convincing evidence they're working on it, they can eat fines or sanction from the FCC. I don't care how they solve this problem, just that they do and that's what effective regulation is about.
- fyvhbhn 4y ago
  Force them to implement Matrix
cykros 4y ago
Forcing interoperability sounds like a good idea, until you recognize that it results in a system of compliance that absolutely stands in the way of innovation for years if not decades to come. Look at seatbelts: the technology has come leaps and bounds in recent decades, with 5 point harnesses being common in racecars, however, you'll probably notice that the seat belts in your current car look a lot like the seatbelts in your first car, because of a government enforced standard. This is the issue with the EU's recent adoption of a mandate that all devices use USB-C (never mind if some of the proprietary chargers that were in use were able to provide a faster charging speed) as well. Now, admittedly, it isn't impossible to have regulations like this revisited on a schedule to make sure they're still making sense and adjust them, but considering how well that approach has panned out for the USA-PATRIOT Act, I'm not holding my breath on politicians coming up with a reasonable solution here. If your kid complains about the phone they have, I suggest getting them a job application from the nearest retail store. If they're too young for that, perhaps it's a bit soon to have a phone in the first place.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  Besides, it’s kind of absurd to imagine government regulation of bubble hue. On the other hand, I’d love to see the government regulate Apple’s right to keep using port interface changes as financing events. Every time they change their chargers we’re forced to pay for the new ones which creates waste and is just plain shameless greed on their part. And of course Right-to-repair + Planned-obsolescence.
- dzikimarian 4y ago
  Except there is no meaningful innovation in instant messaging for decades now. This argument is boilerplate of all Apple-related discussions and yet I fail to see what would we actually loose. Also argument about fast charging is invalid. You are free to have own faster standard, as long as you also support PD over usb-c and that non-issue, as all faster chargers(eg. One Plus), were already working over usb-c.
- franga2000 4y ago
  I don't see how your examples stand in the way of innovation. Both seatbelts and the type c requirement are written as minimum requirements, not as "no more no less". Extensions and improvements are allowed or even common, as long as they preserve the base functionality. A car needs a seatbelt that passes whatever certification is required by law, but there's nothing stopping you from making it better. There are 5 point harnesses out there which are street legal, but the only people buying them are car modders who want to use their racing car on the street and managed to get the rest of the car approved already. Mainstream manufacturers have also experimented with fancier seat belts, but there was no market demand for them. Type C is similar - the new law requires a device to have a type C port that supports at least all the basic functions. If a manufacturer wants to include their own improvements, they can either use the Type C port like everyone has been doing for years (Warp/Dash charge, QuickCharge, analog audio, thunderbolt 4...) and/or add a second connector. The only one who hasn't been taking this approach was Apple and they haven't done anything innovative with Lightning since it was introduced.

by XorNot 4y ago

CharlesW 4y ago

> Why is the answer not to force interoperability? Do you want the U.S. government to just strong-arm a private company into adopting a not-very-popular plaintext messaging standard, or do you want them to force the licensing of Google's proprietary extensions that support encryption for 1-to-1 messages as well? (Even with proprietary extensions, group messages are always plaintext.)

dotnet00 4y ago
The US government can mandate some amount of compatibility just as the EU recently mandated USB-C
akmarinov 4y ago
To also give up control back to carriers, so that they can sell you packs of RCS messages with your plan.
XorNot 4y ago
The US Government can declare that the companies involved must come up with a way to provide equivalent functionality when interoperating between platforms, and then the companies can figure out how best they want to do that. Then every day that's not the case after a grace period, or without convincing evidence they're working on it, they can eat fines or sanction from the FCC. I don't care how they solve this problem, just that they do and that's what effective regulation is about.
fyvhbhn 4y ago
Force them to implement Matrix

cykros 4y ago

Forcing interoperability sounds like a good idea, until you recognize that it results in a system of compliance that absolutely stands in the way of innovation for years if not decades to come. Look at seatbelts: the technology has come leaps and bounds in recent decades, with 5 point harnesses being common in racecars, however, you'll probably notice that the seat belts in your current car look a lot like the seatbelts in your first car, because of a government enforced standard. This is the issue with the EU's recent adoption of a mandate that all devices use USB-C (never mind if some of the proprietary chargers that were in use were able to provide a faster charging speed) as well. Now, admittedly, it isn't impossible to have regulations like this revisited on a schedule to make sure they're still making sense and adjust them, but considering how well that approach has panned out for the USA-PATRIOT Act, I'm not holding my breath on politicians coming up with a reasonable solution here. If your kid complains about the phone they have, I suggest getting them a job application from the nearest retail store. If they're too young for that, perhaps it's a bit soon to have a phone in the first place.

raydiatian 4y ago
Besides, it’s kind of absurd to imagine government regulation of bubble hue. On the other hand, I’d love to see the government regulate Apple’s right to keep using port interface changes as financing events. Every time they change their chargers we’re forced to pay for the new ones which creates waste and is just plain shameless greed on their part. And of course Right-to-repair + Planned-obsolescence.
dzikimarian 4y ago
Except there is no meaningful innovation in instant messaging for decades now. This argument is boilerplate of all Apple-related discussions and yet I fail to see what would we actually loose. Also argument about fast charging is invalid. You are free to have own faster standard, as long as you also support PD over usb-c and that non-issue, as all faster chargers(eg. One Plus), were already working over usb-c.
franga2000 4y ago
I don't see how your examples stand in the way of innovation. Both seatbelts and the type c requirement are written as minimum requirements, not as "no more no less". Extensions and improvements are allowed or even common, as long as they preserve the base functionality. A car needs a seatbelt that passes whatever certification is required by law, but there's nothing stopping you from making it better. There are 5 point harnesses out there which are street legal, but the only people buying them are car modders who want to use their racing car on the street and managed to get the rest of the car approved already. Mainstream manufacturers have also experimented with fancier seat belts, but there was no market demand for them. Type C is similar - the new law requires a device to have a type C port that supports at least all the basic functions. If a manufacturer wants to include their own improvements, they can either use the Type C port like everyone has been doing for years (Warp/Dash charge, QuickCharge, analog audio, thunderbolt 4...) and/or add a second connector. The only one who hasn't been taking this approach was Apple and they haven't done anything innovative with Lightning since it was introduced.