6 ms·
>The company contends that iMessage [doesn’t fall within the scope of the DMA] as it is not a fee-based service and it does not monetise it via the sale of hard
by sigmar 3y ago
>The company contends that iMessage [doesn’t fall within the scope of the DMA] as it is not a fee-based service and it does not monetise it via the sale of hardware devices nor via the processing of personal data.
oh, cool. Where do I go to get my no-fee access to iMessage with my pixel phone?
- freedomben 3y agoI'm guessing you just need to install one of the five app stores onto your Pixel, and then you can install iMessage from there
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elashri 3y agoAlthough it is on app stores, iMessage updates happens with the iOS updates itself. It is just there because you can actually remove the Messages app and then re-install it later if you want.
- b112 3y agoIt just happens to be bundled with the OS. Updates come from the app store. Otherwise you'd need to update the entire OS, just for a minor security fix to imesssgae.
- interactivecode 3y agoI mean it's apple, that's not a stretch
- ryanpetrich 3y agoYes, that's right. You need to update the entire OS for a minor security fix to iMessage.
- b112 3y agoBut.. you're serious?! Honestly, I've never used anything in that ecosystem, but.. I'm baffled.
- tikkabhuna 3y agoOS updates on iPhones frequently list new emoji in the release notes. It would be interesting to see what the most mundane reason for an iOS update is.
- frumper 3y agoEmoji are not just iMessage characters.
- pests 3y agoThis is deliberate. It's the carrot. The expectation is users will download for the new emojis and in the process get all their security updates. Before, people would delay updating forever as they would see no noticible benefits and even sometimes decreased performance. Kinda the same reasoning auto updates are on by default and we have the concept of evergreen browsers etc.
- eitally 3y agoIn that way, is it similar to Google bundling various Google 1P apps with AOSP images (not to mention partnership deals with various Android OEMs)?
- lern_too_spel 3y ago> Google bundling various Google 1P apps with AOSP images Huh? The only AOSP images Google produces that I'm aware of are GSIs, which build directly from AOSP and therefore can't have proprietary apps. https://source.android.com/docs/core/tests/vts/gsi#building-gsis https://source.android.com/docs/core/tests/vts/gsi#building-...
- gregoriol 3y agoI don't remember seeing it popping as an update through the App Store ever.
- raverbashing 3y agoThat sounds almost like "IE on Windows" though the fact it can be removed is surprising (Also reminds me of Android messaging nagging me to push RCS messaging - ain't nobody has time for that Mr. Google)
- zilti 3y agoRCS isn't by Google, it's a standard that Apple refuses to support.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoLast I heard, Apple announced (directly to 9to5Mac for some reason) that it will support RCS this year, probably to head off litigation. Google, on the other hand, still doesn't support RCS in Google Voice and has announced no plans to do so.
- zilti 3y agoWhy the hell should Google Voice support it? It's an SMS successor that gets provided by the carriers and is bound to the phone.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 3y ago
- bee_rider 3y agoIt is a bit of a weird quote, they are quoting Reuters but I’m not sure if they are arguing against them or what. They also say: > While iMessage has so far not been deemed a platform – as it doesn’t have enough regular users in Europe (WhatsApp is far more popular there, even among iPhone users)
- zuppy 3y agoI honestly don't understand why everyone misses a very important fact: iMessage is not an app, it's a service that uses Apple's servers and Apple's engineers to maintain it and you have not paid for it. No, as an Android user you do not have a right for free access, use SMS for that. It would have been nice if there was an Android iMessage App, but demanding for someone else to pay for you is dishonest.
- Almondsetat 3y agoI honestly don't understand why everyone misses a very important fact: iCloud email is not an app, it's a service that uses Apple's email servers and Apple's engineers to maintain it. No, as an Android user you do not have a right for free access to other people's iCloud inboxes. It would have been nice if there was an Android email client, but asking for someone else to pay for you is dishonest.
- throwaway22056 3y agoWell yep, that's how it is. You don't get iCloud email account without an Apple device.
- Almondsetat 3y agoThat's not what I said, mister throwaway :)
- throwaway22056 3y agoSo what did you say? You actually want access to others' inboxes? I don't understand what that means. That's usually password protected and considered private data.
- arghwhat 3y agoThey highlighted that the original logic was somewhat faulty, and could be applied to say "Non-apple users should not be allowed to send emails to Apple users, because they have not paid Apple to maintain the iCloud email infrastructure!".
- throwaway22056 3y agoYou don't. You get no-fee access to iMessage with your Apple devices (phones, tablets, laptops, desktops). Why is that relevant though? Why should Apple be forced to support apps on their competitor's platform?
- kmeisthax 3y agoBecause the EU specifically wrote a law requiring (among other people) Apple to support apps on their competitor's platform, as a response to a bunch of anti-competitive nonsense the tech industry does with messaging apps.
- throwaway22056 3y agoNo, they didn't. There might be something about interoperability of the service with other services, but they definitely didn't do what you claim.
- arghwhat 3y agoTo clarify: The Digital Markets Act includes a requirement for large message services to be interoperable (e.g., that you can chat with a WhatsApp user from Telegram), but Apple argues that iMessage does not have enough users in the EU to qualify. Apple might be correct in this regard, as iMessage is not very popular in EU specifically. For this to apply here, either Apple would have to be caught lying about their numbers (not impossible), the EU would have to lower the minimums, or the US would have to create their own counterpart as iMessage is much more popular in the US.
- pmontra 3y agoEverybody really use WhatsApp to send messages to friends here, especially in group chats. I'm using Telegram with some friends and for some groups but WhatsApp is bigger. Anything else is a rounding error. It's not even easy to know who's got an iPhone now: it's just a big phone with lots of cameras as any other one. However it's likely that two close friends, families, etc all using iPhones could decide to use iMessage for their own messages. Same as for... (had to google it) FaceTime.
- CodeWriter23 3y agoThe bullet points-read of the DMA do's and don'ts is Apple is only obliged to not impose barriers to installing third party messaging apps, browsers, mail clients, camera apps, etc.
- nerdix 3y agoIts pretty funny because one of the only decent arguments against Beeper was that iMessage isn't actually free because it is a service that is funded by hardware sales so therefore Apple is under no obligation to provide it to non-customers.
- Arnt 3y agoApple is saying, separately, «our reason to run iMessage isn't selling hardware» and «funding for running iMessage comes from customers and we won't provide it to non-customers». Both paraphrased by me. I've no idea why they do develop and run iMessage, but I also don't necessarily see a conflict between the two sentiments.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoI don't charge a fee to sit at my dining room table and eat the food I cook. But that doesn't mean anyone can come sit at my table and eat my food. Nobody reasonable thinks it does.
- gnfargbl 3y agoIn this case you only allow people to sit at your table who have bought a $1000 device from you, and you are also claiming that the food is free.
- Spivak 3y agoYes, and in this case the food is still free. Buy one get one doesn't make the second one not free. You bought access to the table and we provide free food to entice you into the purchase, but we're allowed to revoke the food at any time because you're not paying for it. It's like how mobile carriers will give you access to Netflix/HBO Max for free while you use them.
- sigmar 3y agoThat's a great reason why your dinner table is not covered by the Digital Markets Act. But here they're trying to argue the law shouldn't apply because Apple isn't getting money from iMessage, when it's clearly been part of their strategy for selling more iPhones for a long time[1][2]. [1] https://bgr.com/tech/apple-had-a-good-reason-to-bring-imessage-to-android/ https://bgr.com/tech/apple-had-a-good-reason-to-bring-imessa... [2] https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-biden-outlines-where-the-chips-act-money-is-going-111512550.html?guccounter=1 https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-biden-outlines-wh...
- seabass-labrax 3y agoThe DMA defines a 'gatekeeper service' as one that has more than 45 million European users. Thus, this would be more like you've laid a table for 45 million Europeans and invited them to eat your food on condition that they don't eat any other food apart from yours. I think you'd get a fair amount of scrutiny from EU officials if you did that!
- Arnt 3y agoThat's interesting. I wonder which of the built-in apps Apple regards as being monetised via the sale of phones and which not. (Just to be clear: I have no problems believing that it is like that. I've worked at a company that spent a lot of effort on a service that earned nothing, I asked about it, the CEO looked at me blankly and just said that that service wasn't monetised. People make choices I don't understand. Why shouldn't Apple do that?)
- qgin 3y agoSame place you can demand Burger King sell you a Big Mac