4 ms·

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 b

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.
danaris 4y ago
> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol Do you know the specific requirements of the law, and that this would be within their terms? Because, as I stated fairly clearly, I do not know what the law requires, and was working based on one possible (fairly strict) version of what it could be. If the law just says Apple has to open the protocol, then that certainly reduces the potential problems—but, as hellojesus points out, there may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets. Now, you and I may not particularly care whether Apple is able to protect every single one of its trade secrets, but I guarantee you they do, and unless the law is worded such that it requires them to give those away (again: Do you know the wording of the law? If so, please share and enlighten us!), I think that there's a very good chance that they will choose to remove functionality from iMessage rather than do so. To be quite clear, on the whole, I think that opening up iMessage will be for the best, even being an Apple and iMessage user myself. I was simply responding to a post that was asking for potential ways in which existing iMessage users could suffer because of it.
- brokenmachine 4y ago
  >may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets It's a chat app. It's one of the first apps a programmer learns to make. The one and only thing separating iMessage from 10,000 other chat apps is the fact it's the default on the most common phone. The trade secret is inertia and anti competitive lock-in.

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.

danaris 4y ago

> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol Do you know the specific requirements of the law, and that this would be within their terms? Because, as I stated fairly clearly, I do not know what the law requires, and was working based on one possible (fairly strict) version of what it could be. If the law just says Apple has to open the protocol, then that certainly reduces the potential problems—but, as hellojesus points out, there may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets. Now, you and I may not particularly care whether Apple is able to protect every single one of its trade secrets, but I guarantee you they do, and unless the law is worded such that it requires them to give those away (again: Do you know the wording of the law? If so, please share and enlighten us!), I think that there's a very good chance that they will choose to remove functionality from iMessage rather than do so. To be quite clear, on the whole, I think that opening up iMessage will be for the best, even being an Apple and iMessage user myself. I was simply responding to a post that was asking for potential ways in which existing iMessage users could suffer because of it.

brokenmachine 4y ago
>may be aspects of the service that Apple is unwilling to give away because they involve trade secrets It's a chat app. It's one of the first apps a programmer learns to make. The one and only thing separating iMessage from 10,000 other chat apps is the fact it's the default on the most common phone. The trade secret is inertia and anti competitive lock-in.