19 ms·

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

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.
lentil_soup 4y ago
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
- MikeKusold 4y ago
  iMessage already has that, by falling back to SMS.
  - MattJ100 4y ago
    The problem is that SMS is nowadays a poor fallback, lacking support for a number of widespread features that are part of the EU's required baseline for interoperability.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Why is it a poor fallback? It supports less but mostly it’s a message size limitation. This seems like exactly what they want.
      - MattJ100 4y ago
        The DMA requires interoperability without a decrease in security - this explicitly includes end-to-end encryption, which iMessage supports. Since SMS has no standard for key distribution/discovery, it already fails at that hurdle. It also requires that features such as group messaging and audio/video calling.
        hcurtiss 4y ago
        So, let me get this straight -- the EU is now requiring end to end encryption? Haven't they been harping this whole time on how that enables child predators?
  - robertoandred 4y ago
faitswulff 4y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 4y ago
  This is not industry-wide standardization/requirements, it is targeted specifically at dominant players[1]. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473
- Laaas 4y ago
  There should be a browser plug-in that makes ChatGPT check whether your comment is against HN guidelines, upholds standards for a good discussion, and whether the argument is sound or not. Issue is ChatGPT is too politically biased for many discussions unfortunately.
dijit 4y ago
> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemicals? What about regulations that disallow predatory gambling, or the sale of products that do not meet their claims? Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. If you think the regulations are bad then you should genuinely consider sending updated versions to your representatives.
- tekknik 4y ago
  Except in this case there are no lives being saved, it’s turning green bubbles blue. That’s all this regulation is really about.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoeNr76 4y ago
    Not just that, it's removing barriers for competition. Which is what good regulations is all about. (and, technically it more than just bubble color, it's also including everyone in group chats)
    - hwbehrens 4y ago
      I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself. That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors. > [...] want to implement something "different" [...] The slippery-slope argument we're seeing here is that eventually, regulations would require all products and services to be exactly the same for inter-compatibility, which in turn induces a cooling effect on any innovation or novel developments (at least for existing product verticals under regulatory capture).
theloco 4y ago
>I don't get why you would regulate such a thing The job of most government officials is to find plausible solutions to real problems, get a mob engaged and mobilized to solve it, then get the money voted into play so they can extract it via kickbacks and other indirect payments from the contractors. They're gonna be trying to regulate anything they think is capable of justifying the racket. Example: Youtube.com 17million dollars running for 18 months, healthcare.gov, 2 billion dollars failed on launch and not used at all.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  Healthcare.gov was famously a boondoggle, and did have to be rebuilt. But comparing a notorious failure to a generational success is a bit disingenuous. To say that no one uses healthcare.gov is also a bit disingenuous. It set a record for signups in 2022 at 16 million plans sold. For a different comparison, why don't we look at Uber: it has market dominance to the point of being a verb, yet it loses more money per year than Healthcare.gov has cost in its entire existence. Also, worth noting is that dozens of states managed the Obamacare site rollouts just fine as an example of government managing tech projects just fine.
jjulius 4y ago
>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 market capitalization reaches at least 75 billion euros or whose annual turnover exceeds 7.5 billion euros. To qualify as gatekeepers, these companies must also provide certain services such as browsers, messaging or social media which have at least 45 million end users per month in the EU and 10,000 business users per year. [0]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IPR25504/dma-une-concurrence-equitable-et-plus-de-choix-pour-les-utilisateurs https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IP...
- mh- 4y ago
  Aren't there only, say, two or three companies that fit that criteria? The legislators may as well have called them out by name.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    well this is the way legislation works, it's considered bad form to call them out by name so you choose some few characteristics that apply to them which has the side benefit that if in the future some other company comes along with those characteristics the same laws apply to them.
    - afiori 4y ago
      Also I am quite sure that such a law would be unconstitutional in a lot of places.
      - harywilke 4y ago
        yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
soerxpso 4y ago
> What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" That's allowed. There's not some new law that all messaging apps must implement the iMessage protocol, or that they must interoperate with iMessage.
wakannai 4y ago
> 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? That's still possible. The company owning that platform just has to ensure that its services are accessible by any client. Protocols/APIs can still be further developed or brand new ones introduced. But they still have to be documented & be made accessible.
saiya-jin 4y ago
You come up with some unknown theoretical magical features which will suddenly make it impossible to implement due to this ruling. That's not what this is about, and I think everybody on this forum understands a bit too well the current situation on the market, and the reason for this ruling. I couldn't care less if Apple is 'owned' or not, its nothing special to me compared to all other corporations. Having at least a bit compatible messengers is definitely something positive, its quite a mental gymnastics to immediately try to come up with some theoretical reasons why this shouldn't happen at all (and failing at that). If apple didn't do typical apple thing to create its own standards and share it with nobody, they wouldn't be hammered by regulators 15 years down the line (lightning port, now this, we will see what comes next, plenty of topics to pick up). Apple knew very well this will eventually come, same for USB, but they made it into operational cost of having some sort of advantage to get more income till its stopped. Now correction happens. You regulate such thing because clearly corporations only care about profits. And markets, as wonderful as they are, always put money on the first place so waiting for them to move corps into more considering-society territory is often a fruitless effort unless you have gigatons of patience.
jrm4 4y ago
Citation please? Seriously, there's no serious argument that suggests that this is the likelihood. Sometimes it gets better, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, no one notices the good stuff due to regulation because you're just used to it. Frankly, it's getting irritating that people aren't understanding this more?
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that 3+3=6 is as axiomatically "truthful" as "regulation is bad for business?"
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      No, why do you get that impression from what I actually said?
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong. You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist? Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue. What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically obvious. Or like a medieval scientist arguing that Spontaneous Generation (Mice spawn in straw by themselves) is a law of physics and it's logically obvious.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Lol, Making me flex this one. I have an undergrad degree in economics from Harvard University. Gotta say it makes me pretty well equipped to poke at how BS it often is. edit: this is me idiotically angrily responding incorrectly to the wrong person. leaving it for the message "don't trust these clowns with fancy degrees, they often are clueless" :)
idiotsecant 4y ago
>it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Yes all those regulations that actually make things worse. Which ones are those again? specifically? I find that generally people who make hand-wavey boogeyman 'regulation is bad' arguments typically struggle to identify which regulations are bad and why, and conveniently forget about the thousands of regulations that make their life livable every day.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Please accept all cookies to receive your response.
  - dangus 4y ago
    Cookie regulation is great. If you block the cookie message elements, the websites have to default to necessary cookies only. Before the regulation, sites would do whatever they wanted if your browser settings weren't set up perfectly.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Or you could have turned off cookies entirely or per site in your browser since 1996, and not depend on the goodwill and compliance of an advertising company. But as has been demonstrated there are a bazillion ways to track you even with cookies blocked that you have no control over nor are covered by this spam pop up inducing bit of transnational bureaucracy.
  - mort96 4y ago
    I agree with your criticism of the companies who time and time again decide to utterly destroy their user experience just so that they can spy on people. They should avoid that. But you didn't respond to the regulations thing.
    - baby 4y ago
      It made browsing the web an inferior experience for all users. Come on. Let’s not continue this charade and just accept a valid argument when you see one
WithinReason 4y ago
It's possible to update the HTML standard while the entire world is using it.
iSnow 4y ago
I've heard the same when the US forced MS to allow different browsers as default, when the EU mandated a common charging port for mobiles and again when they mandated USB-C. I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation. This again is a talked up hypothetical problem at best. We've had chat for 30y now and while progress has been disruptive in the beginning, things have considerably consolidated. I don't quite get what's so great about having to install 5 different chat clients just because your social network is too varied to force them onto one. It's a case of corporate greed where sensible solutions (like licensing out the protocol) are not done to damage the opponent. I don't profit from this - if companies hadn't been this evil, the EU wouldn't have come down on them. If they don't like it, they can just stop selling smartphones in Europe.
- prionic6 4y ago
  > I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation. Of course you don't see it, the innovation was stifled by the regulation! /s
fluidcruft 4y ago
Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp aren't baked into the devices people buy, though. I don't know if that is a valid distinction in terms of the EU's thinking, but it's one I would be perfectly happy with.
jjav 4y ago
> What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better This is never how it was supposed to be. The internet was the massive success it is because it is built on open standards. Back in the day, if anyone wanted to build a better protocol at something, you had open discussions and eventually come up with an RFC that anyone and everyone can implement and be interoperable. While it's difficult to shove that genie back into the bottle, anything that in any way promotes interoperable standards above these terrible proprietary walled gardens is a huge win.
grishka 4y ago
Maybe not regulate. Maybe just don't prevent adversarial interoperability from happening. In an ideal world, a company trying to sue someone who built an unofficial client for their service should be laughed out of the court building and fined for wasting judge's time. Remember ICQ? The official clients were bloated and generally meh. Many people didn't ever see them, not even once. Almost everyone I knew used QIP, Miranda, Adium, or something else third-party. ICQ the company sometimes broke the protocol and then there was a massive uproar. Then clients got updated and everyone carried on messaging. But the system being involuntarily open like this meant that there were ICQ clients for so many things that wouldn't ever get official treatment otherwise. Basically — if it has a network interface, a screen, a means of text input, and can run arbitrary code, it'd have an ICQ client built for it at some point. There was one in the form of an ELF binary for Siemens phones for example. No one is asking for a standardized protocol. It is my understanding that what is being asked for here is the documentation of their existing protocol that would allow third-party clients and bridges to be built. And this is an unequivocally good thing.
flohofwoe 4y ago
What's there to do 'differently' about a chat client? They haven't changed in the last 30 years or so. "Special features" could still be implemented by non-standard protocol extensions while still being able to exchange bare bones messages with all clients which accept the standard protocol.
rowanG077 4y ago
I struggle to see how it's not possible to have features gated based on the capabilities of the partner you are chatting with.
surge 4y ago
I think it's more it's an SMS replacement or extension, which is supposed to be an open protocol, and they're not opening up the API to support the additional extended features (which is something out of Balmer/Gates era embrace and extend playbook, "we'll extend JavaScript, but you'll need IE to use any websites using the extended features and the site features will be broken without it" which is an anti-competitive practice that breaks what are supposed to be open platform independent protocols). Do something new, sure, extend features of an open protocol, sure, but if you're going to communicate with other Messaging platforms as a feature, you need to allow other messaging platforms the option to support those features on their end as well. Such as encryption, the ability to add emojis to a comment, full size attachments, etc. Signal is actually removing SMS support, so problem solved on that end. But Signal can be installed on most platforms anyway, so if someone wanted to participate in the extra features, they always had the option of simply installing the client app. I can't install iMessage for Android if I want to be in the family group message and not see "Mom liked an image" 15 times. I personally dislike iPhones, but I still want to participate in my family's group chat, Apple doesn't give me that option. At least with WhatsApp, Signal or whatever what phone we have doesn't matter and we don't have to join the walled garden to use really basic features. I don't know what phone my friends in Signal group chats or WhatsApp use, because it doesn't matter. If you're going to bridge different platforms, allow the other platforms to update to support it. It is exclusionary. Apple does this with FaceTime, I have my family install Duo/Meet on their Apple phones because I have to explain to them I don't have an Apple device for it, or if I do, its my work machine. At least that's a little less hostile than, "you can chat with your family but you're going to see activity you can't participate in".
Reason077 4y ago
> "Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer?" No, I don't think so. You can set a standard that defines a baseline of features that all interoperable messaging apps must support. But that doesn't preclude apps from offering additional functionality over and above the standard.
- rbits 4y ago
  I don't even think they have to do that. I think the law will just mean that they have to allow other apps to implement their protocol, not forcing them to follow a specific standard. Like, they can still use iMessage and add new features, as long as there's some way for third party apps to use it as well. Idk though maybe I misunderstood it
dcow 4y ago
> 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 features to the <Open Message Protocol> and force everyone to comply and implement them. What regulators are saying is that Apple can't deliberately make Sneetches out of us and needs to allow interoperability on their human-critical messaging platform. In the US the DMCA actually makes it explicitly legal to reverse engineer a protocol for the purpose of interoperability. This idea basically extends that to "and you can't punish users for building applications that interoperating with it" but of course is framed as "just fucking stop disallowing it greedy asshats". If I could install a 3rd party SMS app on iPhone (like how Signal used to work on Android) I'd be more skeptical about needing this regulation. If Apple wasn't doing this artificially and iMessage actually had features that were innovative, and that other people couldn't reasonably be expected to implement in a way that wouldn't be a detriment to the protocol, I'd be more skeptical. (TBH they've probably spent more resources on preventing interoperability than if they didn't care and let it be open...) > Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? No, degrade gracefully. If the feature is an improvement for everyone and should be required, we know how to have working groups update a spec and have implementers follow (even when one leads the pack and drives the spec changes in the first place as is often the case these days). If that doesn't work build a new protocol and win people over with your obviously better CoolNewFeature. 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. You're spreading FUD.
- _cenw 4y ago
  > It's like you don't believe it's possible with the countless man years 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. Every instance of that is a huge guesswork mess that I wouldn't wish upon average people to navigate though. RCS has tons of "maybe implement" features, and don't even get me started on the mess that's XMPP. If you ever tried to use OMEMO from two different clients at once, you know what I'm talking about.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> 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? Just open the standard/api/protocol, document it, and it'll get integrated into pidgin or some other alternative within a few days. Currently it's not a problem of not having apps trying to integrate protocols, but protocol designers intentionally locking other apps out of the ecosystem.
- _cenw 4y ago
  But also, you generally want to iterate faster than "write a new spec and wait 2 years for implementations to support half of it". The alternative to which is just implementing it and hoping the other party can somehow make sense of it. Emoji reactions being supported by only a few activitypub implementations is an example of it. This is incidentally the reason moxie cited for not making Signal federated.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Why "hoping"? Just bake the ability to advertise and query for capabilities into the protocol. This is an issue that has been solved many times before. And yes, it might mean that only one client would support a shiny new feature for a while. But that's exactly the situation with iMessage, s/for a while/forever/.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> people here enjoy seeing big tech companies "owned" by big governments Absolutely. These corporations laugh all the way to the bank as they destroy our privacy and exploit us for profit with surveillance capitalism, destroy our computer freedoms with hardware cryptography only they have the keys for, pollute our web with unending advertising and annoyances driven by "engagement engineering". Someone really ought to check their goddamn audacity. My only complaint is the fines aren't big and frequent enough to surpass their cost of doing business. I'm sorry, I just don't feel sorry at all about the trillion dollar corporations. Maybe they should try not being monopolists who want to own the platform and their users. Then maybe the state won't feel the need to remind them we are not cattle to be sold to the highest bidder.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Apple didn't destroy our privacy. The others, this law is trying to force interaction with, not just did, but actively and aggressively do. To the point that Brian Acton of WhatsApp walked away from a billion dollars and donated $50M to Signal rather that watch it happen.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Apple didn't destroy our privacy. Tell that to its threats to do client side scanning on what's supposed to be our devices. The fact they can even get away with even suggesting such crap points to the fact their crimes are a lot worse and more fundamental than privacy violations: they destroyed our fundamental computer freedoms by denying us the capability to run or not run whatever software we want. Under Apple and its peers, we are oppressed at a fundamental level by being forced to accept whatever bullshit whims a corporation decides to impose upon us with a software update. They have the keys to the machine, they determine what code it runs and doesn't run. > The others, this law is trying to force interaction with, not just did, but actively and aggressively do. They are not excused either. They should be sanctioned even harder until they cease and desist all exploitative behavior.
SergeAx 4y ago
Telegram recently implemented some new features, and I was too lazy to update the client. It showed "you need a recent version of Telegram to see this" message instead of new functional. I don't see how other messengers won't do exactly that for unsupported types of content.
rjh29 4y ago
Just like with the deliberate sabotaging of non-certified (read: cheap) USB cables to make them slower, HN posters never fail to defend Apple at every opportunity.

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.

lentil_soup 4y ago

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

MikeKusold 4y ago
iMessage already has that, by falling back to SMS.
- MattJ100 4y ago
  The problem is that SMS is nowadays a poor fallback, lacking support for a number of widespread features that are part of the EU's required baseline for interoperability.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Why is it a poor fallback? It supports less but mostly it’s a message size limitation. This seems like exactly what they want.
    - MattJ100 4y ago
      The DMA requires interoperability without a decrease in security - this explicitly includes end-to-end encryption, which iMessage supports. Since SMS has no standard for key distribution/discovery, it already fails at that hurdle. It also requires that features such as group messaging and audio/video calling.
      - hcurtiss 4y ago
        So, let me get this straight -- the EU is now requiring end to end encryption? Haven't they been harping this whole time on how that enables child predators?
- robertoandred 4y ago

faitswulff 4y ago

[flagged]

jjulius 4y ago
This is not industry-wide standardization/requirements, it is targeted specifically at dominant players[1]. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473
Laaas 4y ago
There should be a browser plug-in that makes ChatGPT check whether your comment is against HN guidelines, upholds standards for a good discussion, and whether the argument is sound or not. Issue is ChatGPT is too politically biased for many discussions unfortunately.

dijit 4y ago

> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemicals? What about regulations that disallow predatory gambling, or the sale of products that do not meet their claims? Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. If you think the regulations are bad then you should genuinely consider sending updated versions to your representatives.

tekknik 4y ago
Except in this case there are no lives being saved, it’s turning green bubbles blue. That’s all this regulation is really about.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JoeNr76 4y ago
  Not just that, it's removing barriers for competition. Which is what good regulations is all about. (and, technically it more than just bubble color, it's also including everyone in group chats)
  - hwbehrens 4y ago
    I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself. That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors. > [...] want to implement something "different" [...] The slippery-slope argument we're seeing here is that eventually, regulations would require all products and services to be exactly the same for inter-compatibility, which in turn induces a cooling effect on any innovation or novel developments (at least for existing product verticals under regulatory capture).

theloco 4y ago

>I don't get why you would regulate such a thing The job of most government officials is to find plausible solutions to real problems, get a mob engaged and mobilized to solve it, then get the money voted into play so they can extract it via kickbacks and other indirect payments from the contractors. They're gonna be trying to regulate anything they think is capable of justifying the racket. Example: Youtube.com 17million dollars running for 18 months, healthcare.gov, 2 billion dollars failed on launch and not used at all.

dghlsakjg 4y ago
Healthcare.gov was famously a boondoggle, and did have to be rebuilt. But comparing a notorious failure to a generational success is a bit disingenuous. To say that no one uses healthcare.gov is also a bit disingenuous. It set a record for signups in 2022 at 16 million plans sold. For a different comparison, why don't we look at Uber: it has market dominance to the point of being a verb, yet it loses more money per year than Healthcare.gov has cost in its entire existence. Also, worth noting is that dozens of states managed the Obamacare site rollouts just fine as an example of government managing tech projects just fine.

jjulius 4y ago

>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 market capitalization reaches at least 75 billion euros or whose annual turnover exceeds 7.5 billion euros. To qualify as gatekeepers, these companies must also provide certain services such as browsers, messaging or social media which have at least 45 million end users per month in the EU and 10,000 business users per year. [0]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IPR25504/dma-une-concurrence-equitable-et-plus-de-choix-pour-les-utilisateurs https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IP...

mh- 4y ago
Aren't there only, say, two or three companies that fit that criteria? The legislators may as well have called them out by name.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  well this is the way legislation works, it's considered bad form to call them out by name so you choose some few characteristics that apply to them which has the side benefit that if in the future some other company comes along with those characteristics the same laws apply to them.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Also I am quite sure that such a law would be unconstitutional in a lot of places.
    - harywilke 4y ago
      yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

soerxpso 4y ago

> What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" That's allowed. There's not some new law that all messaging apps must implement the iMessage protocol, or that they must interoperate with iMessage.

wakannai 4y ago

> 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? That's still possible. The company owning that platform just has to ensure that its services are accessible by any client. Protocols/APIs can still be further developed or brand new ones introduced. But they still have to be documented & be made accessible.

saiya-jin 4y ago

You come up with some unknown theoretical magical features which will suddenly make it impossible to implement due to this ruling. That's not what this is about, and I think everybody on this forum understands a bit too well the current situation on the market, and the reason for this ruling. I couldn't care less if Apple is 'owned' or not, its nothing special to me compared to all other corporations. Having at least a bit compatible messengers is definitely something positive, its quite a mental gymnastics to immediately try to come up with some theoretical reasons why this shouldn't happen at all (and failing at that). If apple didn't do typical apple thing to create its own standards and share it with nobody, they wouldn't be hammered by regulators 15 years down the line (lightning port, now this, we will see what comes next, plenty of topics to pick up). Apple knew very well this will eventually come, same for USB, but they made it into operational cost of having some sort of advantage to get more income till its stopped. Now correction happens. You regulate such thing because clearly corporations only care about profits. And markets, as wonderful as they are, always put money on the first place so waiting for them to move corps into more considering-society territory is often a fruitless effort unless you have gigatons of patience.

jrm4 4y ago

Citation please? Seriously, there's no serious argument that suggests that this is the likelihood. Sometimes it gets better, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, no one notices the good stuff due to regulation because you're just used to it. Frankly, it's getting irritating that people aren't understanding this more?

phendrenad2 4y ago
Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?
- jrm4 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that 3+3=6 is as axiomatically "truthful" as "regulation is bad for business?"
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    No, why do you get that impression from what I actually said?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong. You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist? Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue. What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically obvious. Or like a medieval scientist arguing that Spontaneous Generation (Mice spawn in straw by themselves) is a law of physics and it's logically obvious.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Lol, Making me flex this one. I have an undergrad degree in economics from Harvard University. Gotta say it makes me pretty well equipped to poke at how BS it often is. edit: this is me idiotically angrily responding incorrectly to the wrong person. leaving it for the message "don't trust these clowns with fancy degrees, they often are clueless" :)

idiotsecant 4y ago

>it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Yes all those regulations that actually make things worse. Which ones are those again? specifically? I find that generally people who make hand-wavey boogeyman 'regulation is bad' arguments typically struggle to identify which regulations are bad and why, and conveniently forget about the thousands of regulations that make their life livable every day.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
Please accept all cookies to receive your response.
- dangus 4y ago
  Cookie regulation is great. If you block the cookie message elements, the websites have to default to necessary cookies only. Before the regulation, sites would do whatever they wanted if your browser settings weren't set up perfectly.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Or you could have turned off cookies entirely or per site in your browser since 1996, and not depend on the goodwill and compliance of an advertising company. But as has been demonstrated there are a bazillion ways to track you even with cookies blocked that you have no control over nor are covered by this spam pop up inducing bit of transnational bureaucracy.
- mort96 4y ago
  I agree with your criticism of the companies who time and time again decide to utterly destroy their user experience just so that they can spy on people. They should avoid that. But you didn't respond to the regulations thing.
  - baby 4y ago
    It made browsing the web an inferior experience for all users. Come on. Let’s not continue this charade and just accept a valid argument when you see one

WithinReason 4y ago

It's possible to update the HTML standard while the entire world is using it.

iSnow 4y ago

I've heard the same when the US forced MS to allow different browsers as default, when the EU mandated a common charging port for mobiles and again when they mandated USB-C. I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation. This again is a talked up hypothetical problem at best. We've had chat for 30y now and while progress has been disruptive in the beginning, things have considerably consolidated. I don't quite get what's so great about having to install 5 different chat clients just because your social network is too varied to force them onto one. It's a case of corporate greed where sensible solutions (like licensing out the protocol) are not done to damage the opponent. I don't profit from this - if companies hadn't been this evil, the EU wouldn't have come down on them. If they don't like it, they can just stop selling smartphones in Europe.

prionic6 4y ago
> I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation. Of course you don't see it, the innovation was stifled by the regulation! /s

fluidcruft 4y ago

Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp aren't baked into the devices people buy, though. I don't know if that is a valid distinction in terms of the EU's thinking, but it's one I would be perfectly happy with.

jjav 4y ago

> What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better This is never how it was supposed to be. The internet was the massive success it is because it is built on open standards. Back in the day, if anyone wanted to build a better protocol at something, you had open discussions and eventually come up with an RFC that anyone and everyone can implement and be interoperable. While it's difficult to shove that genie back into the bottle, anything that in any way promotes interoperable standards above these terrible proprietary walled gardens is a huge win.

grishka 4y ago

Maybe not regulate. Maybe just don't prevent adversarial interoperability from happening. In an ideal world, a company trying to sue someone who built an unofficial client for their service should be laughed out of the court building and fined for wasting judge's time. Remember ICQ? The official clients were bloated and generally meh. Many people didn't ever see them, not even once. Almost everyone I knew used QIP, Miranda, Adium, or something else third-party. ICQ the company sometimes broke the protocol and then there was a massive uproar. Then clients got updated and everyone carried on messaging. But the system being involuntarily open like this meant that there were ICQ clients for so many things that wouldn't ever get official treatment otherwise. Basically — if it has a network interface, a screen, a means of text input, and can run arbitrary code, it'd have an ICQ client built for it at some point. There was one in the form of an ELF binary for Siemens phones for example. No one is asking for a standardized protocol. It is my understanding that what is being asked for here is the documentation of their existing protocol that would allow third-party clients and bridges to be built. And this is an unequivocally good thing.

flohofwoe 4y ago

What's there to do 'differently' about a chat client? They haven't changed in the last 30 years or so. "Special features" could still be implemented by non-standard protocol extensions while still being able to exchange bare bones messages with all clients which accept the standard protocol.

rowanG077 4y ago

I struggle to see how it's not possible to have features gated based on the capabilities of the partner you are chatting with.

surge 4y ago

I think it's more it's an SMS replacement or extension, which is supposed to be an open protocol, and they're not opening up the API to support the additional extended features (which is something out of Balmer/Gates era embrace and extend playbook, "we'll extend JavaScript, but you'll need IE to use any websites using the extended features and the site features will be broken without it" which is an anti-competitive practice that breaks what are supposed to be open platform independent protocols). Do something new, sure, extend features of an open protocol, sure, but if you're going to communicate with other Messaging platforms as a feature, you need to allow other messaging platforms the option to support those features on their end as well. Such as encryption, the ability to add emojis to a comment, full size attachments, etc. Signal is actually removing SMS support, so problem solved on that end. But Signal can be installed on most platforms anyway, so if someone wanted to participate in the extra features, they always had the option of simply installing the client app. I can't install iMessage for Android if I want to be in the family group message and not see "Mom liked an image" 15 times. I personally dislike iPhones, but I still want to participate in my family's group chat, Apple doesn't give me that option. At least with WhatsApp, Signal or whatever what phone we have doesn't matter and we don't have to join the walled garden to use really basic features. I don't know what phone my friends in Signal group chats or WhatsApp use, because it doesn't matter. If you're going to bridge different platforms, allow the other platforms to update to support it. It is exclusionary. Apple does this with FaceTime, I have my family install Duo/Meet on their Apple phones because I have to explain to them I don't have an Apple device for it, or if I do, its my work machine. At least that's a little less hostile than, "you can chat with your family but you're going to see activity you can't participate in".

Reason077 4y ago

> "Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer?" No, I don't think so. You can set a standard that defines a baseline of features that all interoperable messaging apps must support. But that doesn't preclude apps from offering additional functionality over and above the standard.

rbits 4y ago
I don't even think they have to do that. I think the law will just mean that they have to allow other apps to implement their protocol, not forcing them to follow a specific standard. Like, they can still use iMessage and add new features, as long as there's some way for third party apps to use it as well. Idk though maybe I misunderstood it

dcow 4y ago

> 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 features to the <Open Message Protocol> and force everyone to comply and implement them. What regulators are saying is that Apple can't deliberately make Sneetches out of us and needs to allow interoperability on their human-critical messaging platform. In the US the DMCA actually makes it explicitly legal to reverse engineer a protocol for the purpose of interoperability. This idea basically extends that to "and you can't punish users for building applications that interoperating with it" but of course is framed as "just fucking stop disallowing it greedy asshats". If I could install a 3rd party SMS app on iPhone (like how Signal used to work on Android) I'd be more skeptical about needing this regulation. If Apple wasn't doing this artificially and iMessage actually had features that were innovative, and that other people couldn't reasonably be expected to implement in a way that wouldn't be a detriment to the protocol, I'd be more skeptical. (TBH they've probably spent more resources on preventing interoperability than if they didn't care and let it be open...) > Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? No, degrade gracefully. If the feature is an improvement for everyone and should be required, we know how to have working groups update a spec and have implementers follow (even when one leads the pack and drives the spec changes in the first place as is often the case these days). If that doesn't work build a new protocol and win people over with your obviously better CoolNewFeature. 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. You're spreading FUD.

_cenw 4y ago
> It's like you don't believe it's possible with the countless man years 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. Every instance of that is a huge guesswork mess that I wouldn't wish upon average people to navigate though. RCS has tons of "maybe implement" features, and don't even get me started on the mess that's XMPP. If you ever tried to use OMEMO from two different clients at once, you know what I'm talking about.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

> 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? Just open the standard/api/protocol, document it, and it'll get integrated into pidgin or some other alternative within a few days. Currently it's not a problem of not having apps trying to integrate protocols, but protocol designers intentionally locking other apps out of the ecosystem.

_cenw 4y ago
But also, you generally want to iterate faster than "write a new spec and wait 2 years for implementations to support half of it". The alternative to which is just implementing it and hoping the other party can somehow make sense of it. Emoji reactions being supported by only a few activitypub implementations is an example of it. This is incidentally the reason moxie cited for not making Signal federated.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Why "hoping"? Just bake the ability to advertise and query for capabilities into the protocol. This is an issue that has been solved many times before. And yes, it might mean that only one client would support a shiny new feature for a while. But that's exactly the situation with iMessage, s/for a while/forever/.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> people here enjoy seeing big tech companies "owned" by big governments Absolutely. These corporations laugh all the way to the bank as they destroy our privacy and exploit us for profit with surveillance capitalism, destroy our computer freedoms with hardware cryptography only they have the keys for, pollute our web with unending advertising and annoyances driven by "engagement engineering". Someone really ought to check their goddamn audacity. My only complaint is the fines aren't big and frequent enough to surpass their cost of doing business. I'm sorry, I just don't feel sorry at all about the trillion dollar corporations. Maybe they should try not being monopolists who want to own the platform and their users. Then maybe the state won't feel the need to remind them we are not cattle to be sold to the highest bidder.

Terretta 4y ago
Apple didn't destroy our privacy. The others, this law is trying to force interaction with, not just did, but actively and aggressively do. To the point that Brian Acton of WhatsApp walked away from a billion dollars and donated $50M to Signal rather that watch it happen.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Apple didn't destroy our privacy. Tell that to its threats to do client side scanning on what's supposed to be our devices. The fact they can even get away with even suggesting such crap points to the fact their crimes are a lot worse and more fundamental than privacy violations: they destroyed our fundamental computer freedoms by denying us the capability to run or not run whatever software we want. Under Apple and its peers, we are oppressed at a fundamental level by being forced to accept whatever bullshit whims a corporation decides to impose upon us with a software update. They have the keys to the machine, they determine what code it runs and doesn't run. > The others, this law is trying to force interaction with, not just did, but actively and aggressively do. They are not excused either. They should be sanctioned even harder until they cease and desist all exploitative behavior.

SergeAx 4y ago

Telegram recently implemented some new features, and I was too lazy to update the client. It showed "you need a recent version of Telegram to see this" message instead of new functional. I don't see how other messengers won't do exactly that for unsupported types of content.

rjh29 4y ago

Just like with the deliberate sabotaging of non-certified (read: cheap) USB cables to make them slower, HN posters never fail to defend Apple at every opportunity.