5 ms·

> Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good". As an iPhone, iPad, and iMessage user, please explain how I will "suffer ho

> Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good". As an iPhone, iPad, and iMessage user, please explain how I will "suffer horribly" from being able to interact with the iMessage service from non-Apple devices.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
Apple seems to keep spam on iMessage fairly well controlled. If anyone can do iMessage on any device, it is logical that these protections may weaken over time.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  I'll grant you that - but the proposed legislation isn't requiring Apple to allow iMessage users to receive unsolicited messages from external services.
  - sidlls 4y ago
    It would require additional effort on Apple's part to keep third party tools' spam efforts at bay. At some point the cost of doing that isn't something Apple could justify, and at that time unsolicited messages absolutely will increase in volume.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  That changes nothing. I can't receive unsolicited messages on my xmpp and matrix accounts until I allow the contact invitation. At worst you could be flooded with invites but that wouldn't be much different than any one of our linkedin accounts and there could be easy mechanism to ban external servers that are reported to allow too many spammers.
danaris 4y ago
1) If it is prohibitively difficult (with what that means entirely defined by Apple) for them to fully support all features of iMessage to non-Apple users, and the law requires that other devices have full parity (I don't know if it does; the article is pretty short and detail-light), then Apple may have to remove features from iMessage even on Apple devices. 2) Apple may choose not to try to implement new features that they otherwise would have, for several possible reasons: similar to #1, they don't think they can feasibly implement them cross-platform; due to the extra effort of supporting multiple platforms, they no longer have the dev resources to devote to it; they think it will no longer be as profitable; etc
- KiwiJohnno 4y ago
  Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on. Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available and are clearly not responsible to implement or support these changes on platforms other than their own. Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    > Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage. > All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Your very argument is contradictory. The law does require Apple to do something. It requires them to reveal trade secrets and IP.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      This is nitpicky. Fine. It does not require Apple to "build" something or to engage in additional work.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Agreed. It was nitpicky. But it still remains that the legislation removes a competitive advantage and possibly forces IP to be revealed.
        jrm4 4y ago
        Yes. That would be the point. I don't think anyone would meaningfully argue AGAINST the idea that it is "detrimental to Apple and their interests," which is literally all this means.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

Apple seems to keep spam on iMessage fairly well controlled. If anyone can do iMessage on any device, it is logical that these protections may weaken over time.

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
I'll grant you that - but the proposed legislation isn't requiring Apple to allow iMessage users to receive unsolicited messages from external services.
- sidlls 4y ago
  It would require additional effort on Apple's part to keep third party tools' spam efforts at bay. At some point the cost of doing that isn't something Apple could justify, and at that time unsolicited messages absolutely will increase in volume.
prmoustache 4y ago
That changes nothing. I can't receive unsolicited messages on my xmpp and matrix accounts until I allow the contact invitation. At worst you could be flooded with invites but that wouldn't be much different than any one of our linkedin accounts and there could be easy mechanism to ban external servers that are reported to allow too many spammers.

danaris 4y ago

1) If it is prohibitively difficult (with what that means entirely defined by Apple) for them to fully support all features of iMessage to non-Apple users, and the law requires that other devices have full parity (I don't know if it does; the article is pretty short and detail-light), then Apple may have to remove features from iMessage even on Apple devices. 2) Apple may choose not to try to implement new features that they otherwise would have, for several possible reasons: similar to #1, they don't think they can feasibly implement them cross-platform; due to the extra effort of supporting multiple platforms, they no longer have the dev resources to devote to it; they think it will no longer be as profitable; etc

KiwiJohnno 4y ago
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on. Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available and are clearly not responsible to implement or support these changes on platforms other than their own. Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  > Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage. > All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Your very argument is contradictory. The law does require Apple to do something. It requires them to reveal trade secrets and IP.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    This is nitpicky. Fine. It does not require Apple to "build" something or to engage in additional work.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Agreed. It was nitpicky. But it still remains that the legislation removes a competitive advantage and possibly forces IP to be revealed.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        Yes. That would be the point. I don't think anyone would meaningfully argue AGAINST the idea that it is "detrimental to Apple and their interests," which is literally all this means.