11 ms·
I guess this kind of fully removes the "they're making money out of it" argument from the discussion on the moral(?) implications of reverse engineering the iMe
by adlpz 3y ago
I guess this kind of fully removes the "they're making money out of it" argument from the discussion on the moral(?) implications of reverse engineering the iMessage proto.
Now it's just a matter of: is Apple justified in actively sabotaging interoperability in general?
- bigyanshr 3y agoI don’t think any business is obliged to make their products/services interoperable. It’s their business and their decision.
- candiddevmike 3y agoAt a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
- olliej 3y agoSo if a company is large enough it should be forced to provide free use of its infrastructure? Can I also demand google provide me with free use of their infrastructure?
- wefarrell 3y agoIf it's the only way to achieve interoperability with a communication protocol, then yes. Core infrastructure like this should be treated and regulated more like a utility.
- jmye 3y agoSuggesting that iMessage, and not SMS/data connectivity, is “core infrastructure” is bizarre, especially given that no one else in the world uses it or cares about it - essentially proving that it’s not.
- junofan 3y agoI think the government should not force Apple to route customer data (messages) to third-party services.
- redcobra762 3y agoWhat justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue.
- mikem170 3y agoDevil's advocate... Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good. If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it. Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
- redcobra762 3y agoSo you see iMessage as the only available option for people to use in order to obtain open messaging? Worth violating society's understanding of ownership and property (you may think corporations aren't people, but people do own corporations, and those people have property rights). And how far does "most people want <X>" go? If "most people want" to prevent people from being married, is that justifiable?
- mikem170 3y agoPeople are not granted limited liability like corporations are. The original intention was not that corporations are given permission to pursue profits without regard to any other factors. What would be so wrong with the people mandating a next generation messaging standard and requiring all cell phone manufacturers add support for the new standard? Kind of like Europe did with charging cables. Would that make the world a better or a worse place? I never said anything about making iMessage the only available option. Apple users could keep iMessage, too. Worst case their users have more options. I agree that it is an interesting question on how far the will of the people goes, i.e. democracy vs mob rule. But I wouldn't put corporate profits on a pedestal over all other considerations.
- redcobra762 3y ago
- woodruffw 3y agoOur monopoly laws are indeed outdated. But I don't think adoption is the right metric; adoption without alternatives is much closer to a reasonable consumer protection. I don't think iMessage is in a position of "adoption without alternatives."
- solardev 3y ago> Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces What do you mean by this? Don't most lines of business naturally trend towards monopolies and captive markets...? Railroads, newspapers, grocery stores, utilities, cloud services...?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3836293648 3y agoWelcome to Europe, that's exactly how the new Digital Markets act works. And Apple would have to open up iMessage if only they were actually popular outside of the US
- ssss11 3y agoWhile that makes sense if you of one company, but if you think of the interconnectedness of everything digital, it becomes problematic for the end user and there should be rules of interoperability they need to abide by.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- Rygian 3y agoWelcome to the EU, where Apple and a bunch of others at the top are legally mandated to make their messaging interoperable.
- olliej 3y agoI'll try phrasing this differently: should any company be required to provide free use of their infrastructure to non-customers?
- progbits 3y agoWouldn't even have to be free. But currently there is no option.
- olliej 3y agoOk, should Sony be _required_ to support playing playstation games on an Xbox if people are willing to pay?
- gary_0 3y agoCommunication protocols and interactive 3D software applications are not at all equivalent.
- dwrowe 3y agoGoing down the protocol route here - this would be more like Sony blocking game developers from allowing interoperability between Playstations and Xboxes. Crossplay is most definitely a thing - without requiring Xbox versions of games running on Sony hardware.
- acer4666 3y agoIt would have to be free, otherwise they become customers. The current option is to pay for an apple device.
- gary_0 3y agoI'll respond to your question with a question: Why don't you have to pay to send e-mail to GMail users from a non-GMail host?
- olliej 3y agoBecause google is an advertising company, and makes money by spying on users. Google being found to scan emails received in gmail and advertise on that basis is why amazon receipt/invoice emails no longer include details inline. GMail is not a free product. You are paying google with incredible amounts of your "private" information.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]