40 ms·

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

• rbanffy 4y ago
  Apple could, at the very least, have a web version like they have for many iCloud apps. Crappy as they are, they are still life savers.
• mhoad 4y ago
  Reading the article, everything in there actually sound quite reasonable and good for users.
• anaganisk 4y ago
  If stars align right for Apple, this can at least with some probability that they can kill WhatsApp in a few countries. If they implement a few features.
  • viraptor 4y ago
    What do you mean by kill WhatsApp? This wouldn't make iMessage available to everyone. It would just enforce iMessage users being able to talk with others. Which, if Apple actually implemented it in non-malicious way, would let people who use an iPhone mostly because of iMessage migrate away.
  • gloryjulio 4y ago
    Lmao. How? This just means that msging apps on Android will finally be able to break the blue bubble problem. There will be even less incentive for ppl to switch to iphone to enjoy the 'privilege'
    • perceptronas 4y ago
      Instead of ugly green bubble, android users will be shown as ugly yellow bubbles, reminding everyone of urine
      • gloryjulio 4y ago
        As a multiphone holder(from the work), it's interesting to observe ppl to have such a sense of superiority of some msg apps
        • perceptronas 4y ago
          Its a joke that people here seem not to get because I did not add /s at the end. Obviously there is no superiority, but its pretty clear that green bubble design makes it unpleasant to look at [1] [1] - https://uxdesign.cc/how-apple-makes-you-think-green-bubbles-gross-e03b52b12fed https://uxdesign.cc/how-apple-makes-you-think-green-bubbles-...
    • teekert 4y ago
      I only recently heard of the "green bubble stigma", it's not a thing here in the Netherlands at least. People use Whatsapp.
      • izacus 4y ago
        Being locked into Facebooks app vs. Apple's app isn't such a great positive now, is it?
        • teekert 4y ago
          Definitely not, we got lured into it by the original WA owners under (later) false pretenses. Back when we would just pay a euro one time, or every year with a big focus on privacy. Now it's just everywhere, helpdesks, schools, classes, parents, sportsclubs. All WA groups sadly. We even have this: [0], like it's some government sanctioned platform. Disgusting. I am getting more and more people into Signal though. Some geeks on Element.io. [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=attentie+buurtpreventie+whatsapp&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.nieuws.nl%2Fmedia%2Fsites%2F305%2F2015%2F12%2F05153708%2Fattentie-whatsapp-buurtpreventie.jpg https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=attentie+buurtpreventie+wha...
          • deaddodo 4y ago
            I don't understand what this sign is supposed to mean, can you give some deeper context?
            • imp0cat 4y ago
              Neighborhood watch using Whatsapp.
              • deaddodo 4y ago
                Yes, I can also Google translate. That wasn’t the question. The question was: “What does that mean? And why is it particularly nefarious/concerning?” If I said “Neighborhood watch at /r/MyNeighborNameWatchDiscussion on reddit”, is that concerning too?
    • snehk 4y ago
      This isn't at all aimed at Apple, it's aimed at Facebook. Apple already has SMS messaging integrated, it just has a green bubble and there's nothing in the proposal that would force Apple to change anything about how the messages are presented.
    • techpression 4y ago
      There's nothing in the regulation saying Apple has to make everything look the same, they're free to put whatever color they want on third party integrations.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • paganel 4y ago
    They probably won't, and even if they did, I won't hold my breath. As it is the difference between sending photos via iMessage vs sending photos via WhatsApp is like night and day. I don't know how Apple managed to f. that up but if I have to send more than 2-3 photos the app asks me to do horizontal scrolling, which is not optimal, to say the least. Plus the very process of sending and receiving the photos themselves seems very clunky in comparison.
  • Kipters 4y ago
    I don't see how they could, iMessage is severely lacking in features compared to WhatsApp and users don't like change, iMessage doesn't need to have feature parity but it has to be massively better - and so far it's not
    • EduardoBautista 4y ago
      Severely lacking? You can build basic app functionality into iMessage, something you can't do with WhatsApp. The desktop app for iMessage is simple, but efficient and gets the job done. The WhatsApp desktop app is slow by comparison. WhatsApp has the user numbers, but it has never been the best when it comes to functionality.
      • petodo 4y ago
        you don't need whatsapp desktop app, just go to web.whatsapp.com in browser, why would anyone bother with app (which can't be even installed on work computers)
        • prepend 4y ago
          I like the desktop app better as it’s integrated better and thus easier to use. I have notifications set up for many different apps not just messages so I want them all to function the same. Also, I just think native apps still perform better than web apps. And I can install it on my work computer
          • petodo 4y ago
            Not sure how it can be easier to use than already supereasy web app, notifications work same via browser and you don't need to install anything, these are really no arguments for desktop app. If you would say desktop app can do voice/video calls which you actually use (I don't, not gonna open laptop with closed lid and external display for that) I can understand using the desktop app, but for someone who doesn't need voice/video calls on computer and is fine with better camera in phone there is no benefit in installing additional dedicated app.
  • realusername 4y ago
    I don't think that will be enough, yeah sure compatibility with Android will help imessage but they will also need some big marketing change, right now it's marketed as an SMS app and SMS is pretty much a dead platform in the EU
• whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  Hey, they did say they were going to make it open at launch remember…
  • oblio 4y ago
    Hey, it's only been 12 years, wait a few more decades and a few more billions of dollars and it will surely happen, when a VP there wants to get fired.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    They never said any such thing about imesssge.
• fwlr 4y ago
  A 40 billion dollar fine if you don’t do as the EU says… at some point tech companies are just going to pull out of the EU, right? For most (but not all!), GDPR was worth complying with (and had benefits for citizens). This is likely to also be worth complying with (and also has benefits for citizens), but I imagine the EU is going to run out of ideas that legitimately benefit users long before it runs out of desire to levy huge fines.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • eckesicle 4y ago
    Why do you assume bad faith on behalf of the EU? Maybe when they run out of things to fine firms for that don't benefit their citizens ... they'll just stop fining them ...
  • LoveMortuus 4y ago
    The EU doesn't exist for the purpose of giving fines to companies, if they "run out of ideas", they just keep doing what they're already doing most of the time. The whole 'fines' thing is just a small part of a much bigger thing.
  • yourusername 4y ago
    If you pull out of the EU you've now created a unified market of half a billion consumers that need a alternative to your product. That seems like a good way to kickstart a competitor.
    • 988747 4y ago
      Except EU is not a single market: there's 27 countries, speaking multiple languages, having different laws, so to serve the EU you need at least a dozen versions of your app. Also, EU has just decided that this half billion of consumers will be downgraded to the third world standard of living (google "Fit for 55"), so they won't really have much money to spend on tech toys anyway...
• luismedel 4y ago
  For the love of $DEITY, I read 'Europe will acquire Apple to open up iMessage' and had to re-check today isn't April 1st :-)
  • microtherion 4y ago
    Since they seem to be determined to legislate every detail of the product, from ports used to software protocols, maybe they should indeed just skip the middleman and acquire the phone makers.
    • oblio 4y ago
      > Since they seem to be determined to legislate every detail of the product, from ports used to software protocols, maybe they should indeed just skip the middleman and acquire the phone makers. And in every case where they don't legislate it, companies don't give a crap. Silly example. I went to buy a broom/mop stick to use with broom/mop heads I had at home. Guess what, they stopped making the original, and 3 different supermarkets had slightly different stick diameters, so they weren't compatible with the other brands. I really need that level of innovation in my life...
• sonu27 4y ago
  The article is from March 24, 2022. Has anything changed?
  • Signez 4y ago
    The Digital Markets Act [0] was voted, published, and parts of it will be applicable as of beginning of May 2023. Some technical workshops [1] are being organized with interested stakeholders to receive their views on specific issues and questions that may arise in relation to the specific implementing measures by gatekeepers that are to ensure effective compliance with that legislation. [0]: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... [1]: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/dma/dma-workshops_en https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/dma/dma-workshops_en
• asimpletune 4y ago
  The main benefit of iMessage over all the other messaging platforms is there's a lot less spam. I hope this decision doesn't threaten that.
  • ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Anecdotally I never received any spam on the other proprietary messaging platforms, except SMS.
    • Jochim 4y ago
      To add my own: I've received one, maybe two spam SMS messages in my entire life, none at all in the last few years. I have received one or two spam messages in WhatsApp.
    • m_eiman 4y ago
      Facebook Messenger is pretty spammy for me, as is Twitter DMs.
      • ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        Ok but I was talking about dedicated messenger apps, not the messaging feature of what are basically social media apps. Those are all full of spam if you've got enough contacts and liked enough things.
  • foepys 4y ago
    Is that a problem worldwide or more localized to the US? I am using Signal, Threema, and WhatsApp and never received spam on any messanger, only occasionally via SMS.
    • nordsieck 4y ago
      I receive more spam than legitimate messages on WhatsApp. But I also don't use it a whole lot. I suspect that, a bit like email addresses, being very selective about who you give your "address" to is the most important bit. Sadly, phone numbers, unlike email addresses, are such a small address space that it's possible to just message all of them.
• aboringusername 4y ago
  The source article [1] claims that " the largest messaging services (such as Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage) will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms" I am very intrigued to see how the various platforms will enable such features in software terms - WhatsApp recently allowed the usage of proxies via their platform, and there is talk of Apple maintaining the Made for iPhone program when they roll over to USB-C which is allowed under the "USB-C for phones" law they passed recently. So expect some creative applications/interpretations of the DMA. I think it'll work similar to telegram, they'll "open up" without the E2EE aspect and basically enable a "compatibility" mode. Otherwise, and being more cynical, this does feel like a 'ploy' to get around E2EE by making large, privacy-focused platforms such as Signal 'open up' (I do wonder if Signal would be classified under the rules for turnover etc). Suppose it depends on the final text of the law and how lawyers interpret what "opening up" means. Haven't really seen much about what the EU is going to expect there. But if we are cynical, expect the end of E2EE messaging apps entirely. [1]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IPR25504/deal-on-digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-competition-and-more-choice-for-users https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IP...
  • ThatPlayer 4y ago
    The actual law does say they have to keep E2EE enabled. >The level of security, including the end-to-end encryption, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved across the interoperable services. [0] As for forcing them to open up, I think Matrix has a good response to it [1]. As well as their follow-up technical implementation article [2]. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1925#007.003 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... [1] https://matrix.org/blog/2022/03/25/interoperability-without-sacrificing-privacy-matrix-and-the-dma/ https://matrix.org/blog/2022/03/25/interoperability-without-... [2] https://matrix.org/blog/2022/03/29/how-do-you-implement-interoperability-in-a-dma-world https://matrix.org/blog/2022/03/29/how-do-you-implement-inte...
  • madeofpalk 4y ago
    > they'll "open up" without the E2EE aspect and basically enable a "compatibility" mode Isn't that exactly what the Messages app does now? SMS is that compatibility mode.
• ddevault 4y ago
  I'm very excited about the Digital Markets Act. Some things that excite me which are definitely in scope: - Interopability between walled gardens like messenger apps - Side-loading software on your devices I'm also hoping that we see this specifically lead to the following: - Installing your own operating system on any electronic device - Third-party video games running on proprietary consoles without the vendor's approval
  • TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Will it also lead to: Installing your own OS on your car's infotainment? Because that would be really interesting.
    • satvikpendem 4y ago
      We have a Tesla and I hate that I can't run something like Android Auto on it without inferior web-based workarounds, so this would be pretty nice.
  • minton 4y ago
    Also - Less tech-savvy folks side loading viruses Can’t wait for all the calls for help from my parents and friends. It’ll be just like the good old days. /s
    • shaky-carrousel 4y ago
      Give them some credit, they are not as stupid as you think they are. All my relatives use Android and not a single one "side loaded a virus".
    • CastFX 4y ago
      I bet Apple will include a switch (off by default) to allow side-loading. Less tech-savvy folks will not even know how to enable side-loading.
  • the_duke 4y ago
    I agree, and I also feel we should stop using the term sideloading. It has a very negative connotation, like you are doing something odd, out of the ordinary, unorthodox, even semi-forbidden. In reality it's just: installing and running the software of your choice on a device you own.
• Scubabear68 4y ago
  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”.
  • singularity2001 4y ago
    >>> allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store Just in time to replace that broken Siri thing with OpenAI based assistants! Previous app submissions were rejected on the basis of being "too close to existing functionality". Maybe they meant dysfunctionality? If the EU needs witnesses of anti-competitive behavior I volunteer.
    • nunez 4y ago
      Absolutely cannot wait. Siri is garbage and has only existed this long because of it being the default.
      • Scubabear68 4y ago
        It is frustrating and hilarious that saying my son's name triggers Siri every time, and it really not very close to "Hey Siri".
    • xiphias2 4y ago
      Is there a good integration for Android? I never used Google Assistent, when I tried, it failed for basic tasks. I rented a car with Android Auto, went inside my podcast app, and couldn't go back to Google maps, and of course Android Auto makes google maps stop working on my mobile phone when android auto is on. So i was trying things like ,,go to maps'', ,,go to navigation'', ,,maps'', but none of them worked. Disconnecting and reconnecting andorid auto worked mostly (but not always)
    • corobo 4y ago
      > Just in time to replace that broken Siri oooh that would be awesome. I'm at a point where I only use it for timers and it even gets that wrong sometimes "I created an alarm named Timer for 01:30am".. oh yeah I can't just say "timer one hour thirty" because Siri hates British people and parses the numbers wrong lmao. Also can we get multiple timers yet? Why is a device more powerful than the computer we used to send people to the moon limited to one timer? Can't wait!
• black_13 4y ago
  [dead]
• perryizgr8 4y ago
  The basic message from EU to innovators is: don't bother. If you manage to create a successful business out of your innovation we will punish you. You created an advanced easy to use connector for your line of phones? Fuck you, you have to change it to a plug that came later and has a different set of trade offs that may not align with your product. You created a messaging service that was way ahead of its time, and it basically took a decade for others to catch up? Fuck you, provide the fruits of your innovation to everyone for free, erasing your competitive advantage.
  • TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    If everyone would release their own incompatible version of TCP protocol, internet would have never happen to be. This is just same interoperability on higher level.
    • DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      It happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars
    • microtherion 4y ago
      Interoperability undoubtedly has advantages in the long run. But there's a delicate balance to be struck at what point in product evolution to standardize. I'm fine with standardizing on USB-C (even though the cable situation is a mess). But IMHO USB micro would have been inferior to lightning, and forcing Apple to standardize on that would have set back the industry. And imagine laptops if the EU had decided to solve the conference room projector problem by mandating VGA ports in every laptop. I also can't help shaking the feeling that the EU is so happy regulating cell phones and internet services because they have no major players in that field left anymore. Conversely, they seem to be incapable of mandating a unified standard for grounded AC power outlets, although that would surely be equally beneficial.
      • oblio 4y ago
        I did the required reading so you don't have to. This is the law passed: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0338_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0338... -> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2021-0291_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2021-0... Guess what, on page 10 the text says: > With respect to charging by means other than wired charging, divergent solutions could be developed in the future, which could have negative impacts on interoperability, on consumer convenience and on the environment. <<Whilst it is premature to impose specific requirements on such solutions at this stage, the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonising such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the internal market.>> Unlike the US Constitution, EU laws are not set in stone and they <<are>> updated. > I also can't help shaking the feeling that the EU is so happy regulating cell phones and internet services because they have no major players in that field left anymore. Conversely, they seem to be incapable of mandating a unified standard for grounded AC power outlets, although that would surely be equally beneficial. Hotels and many other places have started offering USB A and USB C ports. I think we're close to the point (5-10 years away?) where you could go to the US from Europe with just a laptop, for 2 weeks, and you'd be able to charge it just by using USB C ports available in restaurants, hotels, bars, offices, etc. On top of that, for wall outlets the EU is mostly standardized except for Denmark, I think.
• satvikpendem 4y ago
  Now will Apple bring the same benefits to the US and other countries not in the EU?
  • DeathArrow 4y ago
    If Apple would want the customers to have benefits there wouldn't be a need for legislation such as this. So probably no, unless a law demands it.
    • satvikpendem 4y ago
      Then we need something like this in the US too.
• jjtheblunt 4y ago
  I wonder if these old articles are being used by day traders posting to HN.
• willyt 4y ago
  If everyone's messaging has to be compatible with everyone else's then maybe we will finally only need one messaging app on our phones again instead of 5. Sounds great. I just want to be able to send messages without thinking about which app I need to go into to communicate with a particular person; that really breaks my flow when I'm trying to get something done. I don't give a shit about any features apart from pictures, groups and emojis.
  • guestbest 4y ago
    I thought email already did all of this
    • barelysapient 4y ago
      Exactly! And now messaging can work exactly like it!
    • willyt 4y ago
      I forgot email. Even better, integrate messages with my email client and then they would all be in one place. Can't wait. Don't care how they are sent, just want to know if I write something to someone it gets there. Don't want random strangers to be able to write to me without my consent. That's my spec for the ideal setup.
      • djtango 4y ago
        I had a globally distributed family and WhatsApp was literally a life changer for me back in 2009/2010. I'm sure other people in a similar position will also know what I'm talking about. It was super lightweight, cheap, multiplatform - when I was interning in Singapore in 2012, I was able to stretch a 2MB pay as you go SIM plan over 2 months using WhatsApp over WAP on a Symbian iPhone. There are few things I will be more loyal to. Now, with my biases declared, I am genuinely open to understanding why SMTP/IMAP based chat didn't take off. I don't know much about the protocols but as you say, email should have solved this problem. But somehow it lacked that immediacy of instant messaging that made me feel that much more connected to my family halfway across the planet. Maybe that's what it was - email delivered in 1-5 seconds is completely fine, but instant messaging needs to be delivered in under 500ms ideally. Is there something about the email protocol that makes it slower due to some tradeoffs?
• logicalmonster 4y ago
  My concern is that this nice-sounding policy is ultimately a backdoor for removing as much encryption and protection of data as possible.
  • _2uwr 4y ago
    It could well be, remember the state (police) have the monopoly on the evidence gathering process for criminal prosecutions. I sometimes think the fictional authoring skills of the Police is highly under estimated, certainly their criminal ingenuity and sexual depravity as undercover cops is all state sanctioned.
• onphonenow 4y ago
  Get ready for the spam!
• justinzollars 4y ago
  Europes biggest export: regulations Europe: a museum with regulations
  • numbers_guy 4y ago
    Another way of seeing it is that Europe maintains a standard of living high enough, that US companies are interested in the European user base. Then the EU is legitimate in demanding whatever for access to that market. I find nothing wrong with that.
• sylware 4y ago
  and discord?
• amelius 4y ago
  Meanwhile WhatsApp installs only on one device (phone OR tablet, not both). You can use the web version, but it sucks on a tablet.
  • ris58h 4y ago
    > Meanwhile WhatsApp installs only on one device (phone OR tablet, not both). You can link a device (but I haven't checked it) https://faq.whatsapp.com/1317564962315842/ https://faq.whatsapp.com/1317564962315842/ https://faq.whatsapp.com/378279804439436 https://faq.whatsapp.com/378279804439436 WhatsApp companion mode lets you use the same account on multiple phones https://mashable.com/article/whatsapp-companion-mode-multiple-phones https://mashable.com/article/whatsapp-companion-mode-multipl...
  • govg 4y ago
    They have changed it now. You can have first class clients on both a tablet and a phone. At least, that's how it is on Android (have WhatsApp installed natively on a phone and a tablet, also use it via web client on desktop).
  • isametry 4y ago
    > phone OR tablet Android tablet, that is. If it's an iPad, you're SOL completely. Even funnier is that the new native app for macOS [0] (i.e. not using Electron) is made with Catalyst… a tool made for porting iPad apps to macOS. Somewhere, someone at WhatsApp works on a version of the app for the SOLE PURPOSE of porting it to another platform, while NOT releasing the original. It's completely baffling. 0 – https://wabetainfo.com/whatsapp-native-beta-for-macos-is-now-available-for-download/ https://wabetainfo.com/whatsapp-native-beta-for-macos-is-now...
• userbinator 4y ago
  Very aptly-named site for this article. As someone who benefitted greatly from the era when thirdparty MSNP clients were extremely common, I think they need to do the same with Microsoft Teams.
• codethief 4y ago
  Does anyone know whether there's any implication for Signal? Will they have to comply as well and make their app interoperable with other messaging apps?
  • Gepsens 4y ago
    There is a signal api already
    • codethief 4y ago
      Sure but that's completely different from requiring the Signal app to allow exchanging messages with Facebook/WhatsApp/iMessage/…
      • norman784 4y ago
        I read a while ago that the regulation will require them to build an API that other apps can access it, so you could use an alternative app if you want to. I'm not sure if they will force them to receive messages from other services.
  • sofixa 4y ago
    No, because the regulation would only apply to market-leading "gatekeepers", with thresholds for revenues after which it would apply, so Signal are safe.
    • codethief 4y ago
      That's fantastic news, thank you!
• Raed667 4y ago
  There was a brief period of time where I was able to use IRC, Facebook and MSN from the same client: Pidgin https://pidgin.im/ https://pidgin.im/
  • nik736 4y ago
    Yes, I remember using Pidgin, awesome times.
  • LinuxBender 4y ago
    Adding to that Pidgin has a nice plugin called OTR that enables E2EE regardless of the platform/transport being used. OTR exists for Weechat [1] as well. [1] - https://github.com/mmb/weechat-otr https://github.com/mmb/weechat-otr
    • rjzzleep 4y ago
      Signal encryption was born out of OTR, because of the need to do the key exchanges while one party is offline.
      • LinuxBender 4y ago
        I am not a fan of offline key exchanges through a centralized privacy-focused server as in, the server stores a key. Moxie knows why too. I wish he would come here so we could have that discussion. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I prefer military procedure of go for authentication in an out-of-band communication and verifying via voice each others key fingerprints or better, physically exchanging keys in person.
  • sva_ 4y ago
    ICQ as well
    • doublerabbit 4y ago
      WarSheep
  • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ris58h 4y ago
  It should have 2022 in the title.
• ajaimk 4y ago
  I hate it. European politicians are ruining the internet.
• ognarb 4y ago
  In case this interest someone, I attended on Monday a workshop from the eu commission and wrote about it here https://carlschwan.eu/2023/03/02/digital-market-act-workshop-in-brussels/ https://carlschwan.eu/2023/03/02/digital-market-act-workshop...
  • arlcode 4y ago
    Thank you. Actual insights with how things might be going forward is something nobody else here said so far.
• mattrighetti 4y ago
  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 why you would regulate such a thing. I get the feeling that people here enjoy seeing big tech companies "owned" by big governments without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases.
  • pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    What sort of features would prevent a client from receiving a text-based message? XMPP used to work across platforms but commercial interests killed it. Surely, messaging clients can publish a protocol and provide a reference library for others to use to directly contact users on their platforms?
    • tekknik 4y ago
      It’s called SMS
    • owlbite 4y ago
      Well looking at Apple's more recent features for iMessage, Animoji and Memoji related features are presumably non-trivial to slap into an existing app.
      • mattrighetti 4y ago
        I was thinking just about those, same goes for reactions for messages on other platforms, stickers, etc.
      • dghlsakjg 4y ago
        Why, is that true? They interoperate fine with older iPhones, Macs and iPads that don't have those features.
• quitit 4y ago
  This is one of those things which sounds great on the surface, but isn't going to work out like they assume it will. It just seems like it'll end up being SMS 2.0. For example Meta's Instagram chat doesn't even have feature parity across devices. Let alone into their other properties, so the idea that they'd be able to telegraph features into some interoperable standard isn't realistic, however I can imagine them slashing features until they meet the required level of interoperability. At its core the problem is that governments write tech legislation under the wrong assumption that these companies will take it then innovate from that point onwards - but that's not how it plays out. Developers aren't mind readers, so the moment the government says they're interested in legislating how some kind of service should be run, development freezes in wait of the final legislation (and if need be, any court cases that may stem from that legislation.) From this point development is focused on meeting the legislative requirements and the usually short timelines imposed by the EU (Because bugs never happen and testing is just something we do for lolz.) Depending on the wording of the legislation there are limited opportunities to differentiate the product and there is the constant risk that the EU interprets any new features as an attempt to circumvent the legislation. So the best thing to do is just put the product out to pasture. I'm also entirely of the mind that this is simply not needed. What is so hard in closing one chat app and opening another? The majority of people in the EU are using whatsapp, and new entrants are constant. This just seems like such a non-issue, especially as the mac notification system allows for immediate replies regardless of where the message came from, that is totally abstracted.
• danrl 4y ago
  A convenient first step for European governments towards killing effective end-to-end cryptography usage in everyday messaging. It used to be checks notes „terrorism“ and „child safety“ and now the hot new thing is „interoperability“. Who would have thought, that of all the above, „interoperability“ would be the one that makes it into legislation.
  • MattJ100 4y ago
    Fact check: The Digital Markets Act explicitly calls out end-to-end encryption as a feature that MUST be preserved if the platform supports it. From Article 7: "The level of security, including the end-to-end encryption, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved across the interoperable services."
    • closetnerd 4y ago
      Is there more on this? Can this as is really be enough to maintain the security guarantees Apple currently provides?
      • f_devd 4y ago
        What security guarantees do Apple currently provide? I can't imagine much more than E2EE & maybe encrypted-at-rest (which is not a protocol-level feature anyway).
        • hedora 4y ago
          Well, the security coprocessor on every iPhone and Mac runs a formally verified operating system that manages the at-rest encrypted messages. Also, all software running on the phone is vetted before being allowed to hit consumer devices, which adds an extra level of security between malicious developers and kernel APIs. There's no way Android will support that stuff across its entire ecosystem, so I guess it means the law is toothless? Maybe it means it will be up to each hardware manufacturer to ensure interoperability?
• yoz-y 4y ago
  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.
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    > 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?
    • yoz-y 4y ago
      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.
• tokinonagare 4y ago
  I don't care about Messages (somehow most of my friends have an iPhone and noone use it), but it would be nice to have at least basic interoperability between the biggest chat software. I mean it's very annoying to have some apps like X, Y, Z for a few contacts while most of the other are in A and B. A nice feature of Windows Phone 7 at release was it's consolidated chat app that allowed to send SMS, chat with people on Fb Messenger, and people on Skype.
• m3kw9 4y ago
  And then Apple makes it so certain encryption/features require a proprietary apple chip feature
  • rahkiin 4y ago
    I’d argue that is already the case, with the secure enclave. They don’t need to ‘make it so’. Allowing other apps must not cause the protocol to be less secure
• steno132 4y ago
  Horrible idea. Really what the regulation states is that iMessage must be interoperable with other chat apps. In order words, if it wants to improve its service, it will need to get buy in from a committee of its competitors. This is a solution in search of a problem. Consumers today can choose from iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, Slack, Google Chat. There's competition, and there's so many great options for each person. This regulation can only make things worse.
• baby 4y ago
  Honestly I don’t get it. I don’t know anyone who uses iMessage besides my apple store. Everyone I know uses whatsapp.
  • CastFX 4y ago
    Mostly all of American iPhone owners
    • baby 4y ago
      I live in the US and I have an iPhone :|
  • crazygringo 4y ago
    The second paragraph makes clear that WhatsApp will need to open up equivalently. In other words, iMessage will need to be able to send messages to WhatsApp, and WhatsApp needs to be able to send messages similarly to iMessage.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  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 the hardware that I want it to seamlessly integrate with (i.e., mine), because my suite of apps and hardware is exactly the kind of platform that I want to offer? Isn't it regulatory overreach when lawmakers are dictating how an OS should be designed and how a company should differentiate its product from the rest of the market?
  • ixwt 4y ago
    According to this[0] post, the legislation only applies to 75 billion or more Euro companies. So, you won't have to worry about that until you reach 75 billion Euros. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473
  • Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    Communication infrastructure is comparable to interstate networks, utilities, etc. If one is serving an appreciable percent of humanity expect to have your work, at least in part, and development avenues, decided for you by the governments representing the people you serve. I believe there is a philosophical misunderstanding here. Your users do not exist to serve your whims. Your projects continued existence is not a right and is subject to the will of the people as decided by their representative governments. If that bothers you, perhaps you’re part of the problem? Collaboration is how humanity has survived so long and you’re seemingly arguing against that for your own fights of fancy without an iota of respect for the overwhelming population of people effected by your whims. I struggle to wrap my head around how accomplished professionals can be so cavalier when speaking about civilization scale problems. I’m not sure if it’s hubris, mental illness, immaturity, or what. Regardless, it is revolting behavior to witness.
    • stevehawk 4y ago
      There's is a near infinite number of competitors to iMessage. There's Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Viber, Kik, Skype, Whatever Google Makes that they'll kill in six months, WeChat, Snapchat, Lime, Telegram... and I'm sure a bunch of others I've never heard of but other people live and die by. Not mention SMS and MMS. As a result, I don't understand why people are so mad at iMessage that they need it crippled. You're not forced to use it. Apple doesn't block other messaging applications. Plus, this law in question is a great foot in the door. Wait until they start lowering the monetary valuation of companies to slowly encompass all major messaging apps. At which point they'll have leveraged themselves right into a position of ending E2EE forever.
• dustedcodes 4y ago
  I don't get it. Isn't SMS the cross platform open standard to send text messages? Why force a proprietary product to open up? Feels like a big overreach of governmental powers.
  • gpvos 4y ago
    SMS is currenty being undermined by Google's RCS on Android.[0] Some SMSes sent by Google Messages already don't arrive at non-RCS clients. So that also should be forced to open up. In fact, this is a large part of why Signal is dropping SMS support.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services [1] https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/ https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/
    • rootusrootus 4y ago
      > Some SMSes sent by Google Messages already don't arrive at non-RCS clients That's a problem worth solving. Apple Messages falls back from iMessage to SMS transparently; Google RCS should do the same.
  • adam_arthur 4y ago
    Wouldn't the world be a better place with interoperable messaging standards and needing only a single messaging app for global communication? Yes. Is this happening organically via market forces? No. That's why. If there were a common standard that was widely supported and cross-app compatible, these regulations wouldn't have happened. Email doesn't cut it for real time messaging. Governments will pursue no brainer policy like this if the private sector doesn't reach the conclusion on their own.
    • irusensei 4y ago
      > Wouldn't the world be a better place with interoperable messaging standards and needing only a single messaging app for global communication? No. I prefer diversity and the advantages it brings. For example, not being tied to a certain type of account, address or the phone number.
• kitsunesoba 4y ago
  As nice as interoperability (and the accompanying possibility of something like a modern-day Adium) is, I worry that this will introduce SMS' rampant spam problems to iMessage and the various other messaging services that will also be required to open up. Part of the reason spam is so rare on iMessage is because it requires an iCloud account on an Apple device, which not only raises the barrier to entry significantly but also means that spammers are easily dealt with via account and device serial bans.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • blep-arsh 4y ago
    I'm receiving lots of (non-SMS) spam over iMessage, though. Sometimes daily.
    • kitsunesoba 4y ago
      Interesting, I've received maybe a single digit number of the course of a decade and some change. SMS spam on the same number and on a number only used on an Android phone is much more frequent.
• roody15 4y ago
  The seems to be an organized slow and steady push to turn computers into consoles for the vast majority of users. They use "privacy" "security" "protect children" etc etc as methods to move closer in this direction. I worry we will end up with one (or two) unified "approved" messaging platform and all sorts of tech will be added to your device as binary blobs that run scans on your device. Looking and ChromeOS, iOS, and even direction taking by Windows 11.
• yalogin 4y ago
  This is 10yrs late. Messages is not a texting clone anymore. I don't see why this makes sense.
• lampshades 4y ago
  How ridiculous. A big reason I buy Apple products is because of the walled garden. This feels like Europeans interjecting theirselves into my personal life and personal opinions. Hopefully Apple decides to just drop iMessage support for Europe instead of ruining a great product that Americans want to keep.
• sigzero 4y ago
  iMessage is an exclusive Apple application/service that differentiates them over others and they should not be forced to open it up at all (and I don't even use it). This is clearly overreach and I don't see Apple doing anything of the kind.
• throwawayapples 4y ago
  Like most approaches to antitrust enforcement, this one is probably meaningless at best, and might also result in the loss of choice for customers. Apple will probably make it very, very challenging to access this "open" iMessage outside of EU, and/or will make it very uncomfortable to use (especially for competing developers, but we've already seen this with the blue/green imessage bubbles) Microsoft responded to a similar 'integration' sort of scenario with neutered versions of Windows (such as Windows N/Windows KN) that almost no one outside of the targeted areas would choose, which is almost certainly similar to how Apple will respond. They might also release different versions of hardware with different components missing. In fact, Apple has already responded this way already, with regional iPhones: * Japan iPhones have an obnoxious shutter-click sound because that's required for all cameras, so people know when they're being photographed. * Chinese iPhones have no option to make Audio Facetime calls, only video. * United Arab Emirates (UAE) do not support Facetime at all. So, I don't see that this will likely result in much change at this point. Apple has proven itself to be smart, wily, and very aggressive about flouting laws or regulations that might reduce its stranglehold on its customers.
• glonq 4y ago
  It's disgraceful that Apple has been able to fragment/break something as fundamental as "SMS with extra sprinkles" for so many years. I know people who are trapped on iOS because they will become second-class citizens within their social circles if they "downgrade" to an android phone. Opening up iMessage is a decent move, but we also need to get RCS well-supported everywhere so that we can all share a reasonably modern communication foundation.
• dbg31415 4y ago
  I don't want this. I think this is the worst idea. I don't need Apple Message to work with Facebook or Android. Who wants that? All it means is spammers from Facebook are going to find me on Apple Message. Oof. Why do we think having government mandating what tech can do, or how tech can work, is a good thing? Apple has made two dumb decisions in 40 years... the touchbar on the MBP, and all the dongles on the last-gen of MBP. Everyone is allowed to fail, but jumping straight to, "We need government to tell companies how things should work..." No, that's fucking cringe. This just comes across as super anti-American. "We don't like that American companies doing stuff, let's penalize them!"
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    > "We don't like that American companies doing stuff, let's penalize them!" The irony being that the universal messaging app of choice in Europe is made by Facebook.
• cipher0932 4y ago
  It's all wrong. Forcing some company to support rival platforms is plainly wrong.
• flenserboy 4y ago
  Of course they are. Another step toward making sure they are able to harvest every message that flows through the system. Using "consumer choice" and "anti-competitive practices" are strong, useful levers to get what they want.
• jeppester 4y ago
  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 concern is either blown out of proportions or can easily be solved with the slightest bit of willpower. Choice leads to better competition and thus better products whereas lock-in leads to complacency and stagnancy.
  • cbeach 4y ago
    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 public interest when it comes to legislating messaging services.
    • bobbruno 4y ago
      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, directly elected. You could argue it is less problematic. > will force a lowest-common-denominator implementation on independent private companies who, up to this point, Havel all been innovating in this space I prefer to see this as “they will mandate a minimum interoperaability standard on a public, regulated, communications service, which is conceded by the nations. And colouring bubbles green or blue is not innovation. Neither is refusing to work with others that have at least as good implementations just to keep your walled garden. > the EU desperately wants to compromise end to end encryption Not “the EU”, some council members. A sufficiently large number of EU countries are adamantly against that proposed legislation, it has more chance of not passing at this point.
• barkerja 4y ago
  When an application has ideas for enhancing the messaging experience, who governs those changes? What if an application refuses to incorporate those changes, or refuses to make those changes interoperable? And who decides which application(s) are forced to implement those enhancements? For example, iMessage supports iMessage apps. I imagine providing interoperability for those would be a monumental task, if not impossible. Would Apple now be forced to abandon its iMessage app store due to lack of interoperability? Or does this new law apply only to the core tenants of a message application? That a message app must only be interoperable with other apps/services in the sense that it can send and receive basic text?
• fennecfoxy 4y ago
  I love this idea. I've always been a proponent of the idea that a base protocol for a "thing" should be implemented and supported by major companies, so that it's interoperable across all devices. Then if they want to layer some custom stuff on top and disable it if one device doesn't support it then fine. For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/channel (local where possible) so that they're totally interoperable. Everyone cries about innovation etc etc but think about Apple: they love their custom stuff like this, iMessage, Lightning, AirDrop etc, they always come up with such nice marketable names. But where would they be without supporting _standard_ bluetooth/wifi as well, hmm? Tbh I think if Apple _could_ get away with it then they'd create their own "AirConnectProMax" wireless communication standard and force everyone to buy new routers that only work with iPhones and MacBooks.
  • Doxin 4y ago
    > For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/channel (local where possible) so that they're totally interoperable. Honestly this is suprisingly close to how it works for a fair subset of devices. I.e. I can get basically any zigbee enabled device and expect it to work with my home assistant setup.