4 ms·

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 garde

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.
  - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
    I know this thread is from the EU- but I'm giving the US perspective here just FYI. >There's is a near infinite number of competitors to iMessage 50% of phones in the US are apple phones. Nearly everyone is exclusively using iMessage (and doesn't even realize that it's proprietary while trying to mix in SMS). Hardly anyone uses anything like whatsapp here. Good luck getting any somewhat older person to use multiple messaging apps. So to say there are an infinite number of competitors is completely disengenious. >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 First, apple is not perfect with SMS integration. I was on android for many years. My mom (an apple fanatic) would constantly complain that her messages wouldn't go through, or my messages wouldn't come in. Apple has some SMS issues that, while rare, are either intentional to some degree or they refuse to fix. It got to the point that my mom literally wanted me to move to an iphone simply so I could message her properly. THIS IS WHAT APPLE WANTS. You are absolutely a fool if you don't acknowledge that. They have half the market share and create a walled garden to the point where people feel they must move to their platform simply to properly communicate with people. That being said, I did move to iphone recently. Not just for this- I was sick of android because I want a phone that just works. However, even I felt compelled to just make the switch since everyone I know does use an iphone and iMessage will make it easier for me to communicate with everyone. It was definitely a large factor, even though I hate myself for doing it. Apple is not innocent at all here- it's an objective fact that they have half the market share and specifically do not open up their messaging platform in order to get more people to switch over. It's a flagrant abuse of their power.
iSnow 4y ago
If you are starting to corner the market and are able to use your leverage to block competitors in a way that threatens to undermine their business, then the EU (and to an extend the USA) will regulate you. I can flip your question around and ask "should you have the right to play dirty?". Which is what Apple has been doing, there's exactly zero good reason to not license out access to the protocol. I don't own Apple, I am a consumer. If this leads to me not having to install 5 different chat clients, I am grateful. It was the exact same with all the proprietary charging plugs for smartphones.
- kmlx 4y ago
  > "should you have the right to play dirty?" is Apple playing dirty in this scenario? and if it is, then what exactly is stopping regulators from improving SMS thus making Apple's position moot?
  - iSnow 4y ago
    Regulators can't improve SMS, they aren't tech companies or telcos.
    - kmlx 4y ago
      of course they can. just like they can force tech companies to share their internet based messaging systems.
- stevehawk 4y ago
  What market have they cornered? They're not even the number one messaging app on the continent that's imposing this rule.
- jkubicek 4y ago
  > there's exactly zero good reason to not license out access to the protocol. There's at least three good reasons: * Keeping the protocol private is a competitive advantage * Licensing a protocol and managing those licensees is not free * A shared protocol dramatically decreases Apple's ability to innovate on top of that protocol I would argue that it'd be worth while to ignore these issues if Apple was hampering competition in the messaging space, but I just don't see it. I can easily use any messaging app I want on my phone, the only thing stopping me is that iMessage is good enough.
clum 4y ago
They aren't banning a company from seamlessly integrating their apps with the OS. They are essentially banning companies from preventing the seamless integration of 3rd party apps into the OS. Additionally, this law only applies to major companies.

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.
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago
  I know this thread is from the EU- but I'm giving the US perspective here just FYI. >There's is a near infinite number of competitors to iMessage 50% of phones in the US are apple phones. Nearly everyone is exclusively using iMessage (and doesn't even realize that it's proprietary while trying to mix in SMS). Hardly anyone uses anything like whatsapp here. Good luck getting any somewhat older person to use multiple messaging apps. So to say there are an infinite number of competitors is completely disengenious. >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 First, apple is not perfect with SMS integration. I was on android for many years. My mom (an apple fanatic) would constantly complain that her messages wouldn't go through, or my messages wouldn't come in. Apple has some SMS issues that, while rare, are either intentional to some degree or they refuse to fix. It got to the point that my mom literally wanted me to move to an iphone simply so I could message her properly. THIS IS WHAT APPLE WANTS. You are absolutely a fool if you don't acknowledge that. They have half the market share and create a walled garden to the point where people feel they must move to their platform simply to properly communicate with people. That being said, I did move to iphone recently. Not just for this- I was sick of android because I want a phone that just works. However, even I felt compelled to just make the switch since everyone I know does use an iphone and iMessage will make it easier for me to communicate with everyone. It was definitely a large factor, even though I hate myself for doing it. Apple is not innocent at all here- it's an objective fact that they have half the market share and specifically do not open up their messaging platform in order to get more people to switch over. It's a flagrant abuse of their power.

iSnow 4y ago

If you are starting to corner the market and are able to use your leverage to block competitors in a way that threatens to undermine their business, then the EU (and to an extend the USA) will regulate you. I can flip your question around and ask "should you have the right to play dirty?". Which is what Apple has been doing, there's exactly zero good reason to not license out access to the protocol. I don't own Apple, I am a consumer. If this leads to me not having to install 5 different chat clients, I am grateful. It was the exact same with all the proprietary charging plugs for smartphones.

kmlx 4y ago
> "should you have the right to play dirty?" is Apple playing dirty in this scenario? and if it is, then what exactly is stopping regulators from improving SMS thus making Apple's position moot?
- iSnow 4y ago
  Regulators can't improve SMS, they aren't tech companies or telcos.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    of course they can. just like they can force tech companies to share their internet based messaging systems.
stevehawk 4y ago
What market have they cornered? They're not even the number one messaging app on the continent that's imposing this rule.
jkubicek 4y ago
> there's exactly zero good reason to not license out access to the protocol. There's at least three good reasons: * Keeping the protocol private is a competitive advantage * Licensing a protocol and managing those licensees is not free * A shared protocol dramatically decreases Apple's ability to innovate on top of that protocol I would argue that it'd be worth while to ignore these issues if Apple was hampering competition in the messaging space, but I just don't see it. I can easily use any messaging app I want on my phone, the only thing stopping me is that iMessage is good enough.

clum 4y ago

They aren't banning a company from seamlessly integrating their apps with the OS. They are essentially banning companies from preventing the seamless integration of 3rd party apps into the OS. Additionally, this law only applies to major companies.