4 ms·

Again, they would have to answer to EU courts. They are legally required to be interoperable now. Banning non-iPhones would definitely be litigated.

gabeio 3y ago
Good luck testifying that they specifically adjusted a private internal protocol to block an App vs improve/iterate on the existing protocol.
- nicolas_17 3y ago
  That would break old devices.
- freedomben 3y ago
  That would be easy and wouldn't even require lying. "We identified and fixed a security vulnerability and fixed it"
dbbk 3y ago
This is not true. iMessage hasn't been declared a core service by the EU. This takes seconds to Google.
- modeless 3y ago
  Yet. There's a decision happening next year. This also "takes seconds to Google". https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessage-should-be-regulated-by-the-eus-digital-markets-act/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessa... They are already a gatekeeper with core services that are required to be interoperable. Even if iMessage specifically hasn't yet been declared a core service, Apple is in the crosshairs and behavior like banning competitors will be harmful to their legal position at a very sensitive time for them.
  - danaris 3y ago
    Your link—hell, even the URL slug and headline—make it clear that this is something Google is claiming to the EU, not something the EU itself is claiming. Yes, it's possible that the EU will rule that iMessage needs to fall under these rules, too, but citing a major competitor (who's even more under the gun for the same stuff themselves) making the argument that Apple should be restricted is, shall we say, not super persuasive on its own.
    - entropicdrifter 3y ago
      >who's even more under the gun for the same stuff themselves Are they, though? Google allows alternative app stores on Android, they already implement an interoperable, open standard in their primary texting app (RCS), they allow alternative browsers on the Play store itself, and they don't block interoperability with other platforms the way Apple does. That's not to say they're not under the gun, but what they're under the gun for is different, like bribing Epic and others to not move to their own app store or make a self-updating app downloadable from their website. They're both monopolistic asshole companies, don't get me wrong, but they're using fairly different strategies.
      - willseth 3y ago
        > they already implement an interoperable, open standard in their primary texting app (RCS) Yes, but Apple has announced they will do the same thing. That is not the same thing as interop with the actual iMessage protocol. Similarly, Google Messages does not allow interop with its encryption and newly announced sticker/effects, which remain proprietary to the Google Messages app.
  - dbbk 3y ago
    You said "They are legally required to be interoperable now." which is factually incorrect. It's okay to just admit that you were wrong.
    - modeless 3y ago

gabeio 3y ago

Good luck testifying that they specifically adjusted a private internal protocol to block an App vs improve/iterate on the existing protocol.

nicolas_17 3y ago
That would break old devices.
freedomben 3y ago
That would be easy and wouldn't even require lying. "We identified and fixed a security vulnerability and fixed it"

dbbk 3y ago

This is not true. iMessage hasn't been declared a core service by the EU. This takes seconds to Google.

modeless 3y ago
Yet. There's a decision happening next year. This also "takes seconds to Google". https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessage-should-be-regulated-by-the-eus-digital-markets-act/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessa... They are already a gatekeeper with core services that are required to be interoperable. Even if iMessage specifically hasn't yet been declared a core service, Apple is in the crosshairs and behavior like banning competitors will be harmful to their legal position at a very sensitive time for them.
- danaris 3y ago
  Your link—hell, even the URL slug and headline—make it clear that this is something Google is claiming to the EU, not something the EU itself is claiming. Yes, it's possible that the EU will rule that iMessage needs to fall under these rules, too, but citing a major competitor (who's even more under the gun for the same stuff themselves) making the argument that Apple should be restricted is, shall we say, not super persuasive on its own.
  - entropicdrifter 3y ago
    >who's even more under the gun for the same stuff themselves Are they, though? Google allows alternative app stores on Android, they already implement an interoperable, open standard in their primary texting app (RCS), they allow alternative browsers on the Play store itself, and they don't block interoperability with other platforms the way Apple does. That's not to say they're not under the gun, but what they're under the gun for is different, like bribing Epic and others to not move to their own app store or make a self-updating app downloadable from their website. They're both monopolistic asshole companies, don't get me wrong, but they're using fairly different strategies.
    - willseth 3y ago
      > they already implement an interoperable, open standard in their primary texting app (RCS) Yes, but Apple has announced they will do the same thing. That is not the same thing as interop with the actual iMessage protocol. Similarly, Google Messages does not allow interop with its encryption and newly announced sticker/effects, which remain proprietary to the Google Messages app.
- dbbk 3y ago
  You said "They are legally required to be interoperable now." which is factually incorrect. It's okay to just admit that you were wrong.
  - modeless 3y ago