There was a brief period of time where I was able to use IRC, Facebook and MSN from the same client: Pidgin
If everyone's messaging has to be compatible with everyone else's then maybe we will finally only need one messaging app on our phones again instead of 5. Sounds great. I just want to be able to send messages without thinking about which app I need to go into to communicate with a particular person; that really breaks my flow when I'm trying to get something done. I don't give a shit about any features apart from pictures, groups and emojis.
Misleading headline. This affects many apps and is much broader.
In fact, this line from the article is far more serious: “Apple, for instance, will also need to contend with a reported requirement to allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store, something it's spent years fighting internationally”.
A convenient first step for European governments towards killing effective end-to-end cryptography usage in everyday messaging. It used to be checks notes „terrorism“ and „child safety“ and now the hot new thing is „interoperability“. Who would have thought, that of all the above, „interoperability“ would be the one that makes it into legislation.
I can't quite wrap my head around why people think that it is a good thing for Apple to be regulated into "opening up" (i.e. as opposed to being a "walled garden" platform).
If I were an entrepreneur, and say that I wanted to fork a Unix-like OS so that I could make a cross-device OS for consumer hardware that I, too, make---shouldn't I have the right to program my OS to seamlessly integrate only with the apps and the hardware that I want it to seamlessly integrate with (i.e., mine), because my suite of apps and hardware is exactly the kind of platform that I want to offer? Isn't it regulatory overreach when lawmakers are dictating how an OS should be designed and how a company should differentiate its product from the rest of the market?
My concern is that this nice-sounding policy is ultimately a backdoor for removing as much encryption and protection of data as possible.
This is one of those things which sounds great on the surface, but isn't going to work out like they assume it will. It just seems like it'll end up being SMS 2.0.
For example Meta's Instagram chat doesn't even have feature parity across devices. Let alone into their other properties, so the idea that they'd be able to telegraph features into some interoperable standard isn't realistic, however I can imagine them slashing features until they meet the required level of interoperability.
At its core the problem is that governments write tech legislation under the wrong assumption that these companies will take it then innovate from that point onwards - but that's not how it plays out. Developers aren't mind readers, so the moment the government says they're interested in legislating how some kind of service should be run, development freezes in wait of the final legislation (and if need be, any court cases that may stem from that legislation.)
From this point development is focused on meeting the legislative requirements and the usually short timelines imposed by the EU (Because bugs never happen and testing is just something we do for lolz.)
Depending on the wording of the legislation there are limited opportunities to differentiate the product and there is the constant risk that the EU interprets any new features as an attempt to circumvent the legislation. So the best thing to do is just put the product out to pasture.
I'm also entirely of the mind that this is simply not needed. What is so hard in closing one chat app and opening another? The majority of people in the EU are using whatsapp, and new entrants are constant. This just seems like such a non-issue, especially as the mac notification system allows for immediate replies regardless of where the message came from, that is totally abstracted.
It's the same every time. When Apple gets called out for monopolistic anti-consumer behaviour, an army shows up to defend Apple with a bunch of FUD.
No, it won't hurt you or your grandma that you can choose app store, choose browser engine, choose payment provider, that you can charge with usb c, etc., and in this case that non-apple users won't be mocked with different colored bubbles and other limitations. Every concern is either blown out of proportions or can easily be solved with the slightest bit of willpower.
Choice leads to better competition and thus better products whereas lock-in leads to complacency and stagnancy.
The article is from March 24, 2022. Has anything changed?
In case this interest someone, I attended on Monday a workshop from the eu commission and wrote about it here https://carlschwan.eu/2023/03/02/digital-market-act-workshop...
I'm very excited about the Digital Markets Act. Some things that excite me which are definitely in scope:
- Interopability between walled gardens like messenger apps
- Side-loading software on your devices
I'm also hoping that we see this specifically lead to the following:
- Installing your own operating system on any electronic device
- Third-party video games running on proprietary consoles without the vendor's approval
If stars align right for Apple, this can at least with some probability that they can kill WhatsApp in a few countries. If they implement a few features.
Does anyone know whether there's any implication for Signal? Will they have to comply as well and make their app interoperable with other messaging apps?
I don't get it. Isn't SMS the cross platform open standard to send text messages? Why force a proprietary product to open up? Feels like a big overreach of governmental powers.
I wonder if these old articles are being used by day traders posting to HN.
Apple could, at the very least, have a web version like they have for many iCloud apps.
Crappy as they are, they are still life savers.
As nice as interoperability (and the accompanying possibility of something like a modern-day Adium) is, I worry that this will introduce SMS' rampant spam problems to iMessage and the various other messaging services that will also be required to open up.
Part of the reason spam is so rare on iMessage is because it requires an iCloud account on an Apple device, which not only raises the barrier to entry significantly but also means that spammers are easily dealt with via account and device serial bans.
The source article [1] claims that " the largest messaging services (such as Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage) will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms"
I am very intrigued to see how the various platforms will enable such features in software terms - WhatsApp recently allowed the usage of proxies via their platform, and there is talk of Apple maintaining the Made for iPhone program when they roll over to USB-C which is allowed under the "USB-C for phones" law they passed recently. So expect some creative applications/interpretations of the DMA.
I think it'll work similar to telegram, they'll "open up" without the E2EE aspect and basically enable a "compatibility" mode. Otherwise, and being more cynical, this does feel like a 'ploy' to get around E2EE by making large, privacy-focused platforms such as Signal 'open up' (I do wonder if Signal would be classified under the rules for turnover etc). Suppose it depends on the final text of the law and how lawyers interpret what "opening up" means. Haven't really seen much about what the EU is going to expect there.
But if we are cynical, expect the end of E2EE messaging apps entirely.
[1]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20220315IP...
Like most approaches to antitrust enforcement, this one is probably meaningless at best, and might also result in the loss of choice for customers.
Apple will probably make it very, very challenging to access this "open" iMessage outside of EU, and/or will make it very uncomfortable to use (especially for competing developers, but we've already seen this with the blue/green imessage bubbles)
Microsoft responded to a similar 'integration' sort of scenario with neutered versions of Windows (such as Windows N/Windows KN) that almost no one outside of the targeted areas would choose, which is almost certainly similar to how Apple will respond.
They might also release different versions of hardware with different components missing. In fact, Apple has already responded this way already, with regional iPhones:
* Japan iPhones have an obnoxious shutter-click sound because that's required for all cameras, so people know when they're being photographed.
* Chinese iPhones have no option to make Audio Facetime calls, only video.
* United Arab Emirates (UAE) do not support Facetime at all.
So, I don't see that this will likely result in much change at this point. Apple has proven itself to be smart, wily, and very aggressive about flouting laws or regulations that might reduce its stranglehold on its customers.
I love this idea. I've always been a proponent of the idea that a base protocol for a "thing" should be implemented and supported by major companies, so that it's interoperable across all devices. Then if they want to layer some custom stuff on top and disable it if one device doesn't support it then fine.
For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/channel (local where possible) so that they're totally interoperable.
Everyone cries about innovation etc etc but think about Apple: they love their custom stuff like this, iMessage, Lightning, AirDrop etc, they always come up with such nice marketable names. But where would they be without supporting _standard_ bluetooth/wifi as well, hmm?
Tbh I think if Apple _could_ get away with it then they'd create their own "AirConnectProMax" wireless communication standard and force everyone to buy new routers that only work with iPhones and MacBooks.
The main benefit of iMessage over all the other messaging platforms is there's a lot less spam. I hope this decision doesn't threaten that.
Meanwhile WhatsApp installs only on one device (phone OR tablet, not both).
You can use the web version, but it sucks on a tablet.
When an application has ideas for enhancing the messaging experience, who governs those changes? What if an application refuses to incorporate those changes, or refuses to make those changes interoperable?
And who decides which application(s) are forced to implement those enhancements?
For example, iMessage supports iMessage apps. I imagine providing interoperability for those would be a monumental task, if not impossible. Would Apple now be forced to abandon its iMessage app store due to lack of interoperability?
Or does this new law apply only to the core tenants of a message application? That a message app must only be interoperable with other apps/services in the sense that it can send and receive basic text?
Of course they are. Another step toward making sure they are able to harvest every message that flows through the system. Using "consumer choice" and "anti-competitive practices" are strong, useful levers to get what they want.
I don't want this.
I think this is the worst idea.
I don't need Apple Message to work with Facebook or Android.
Who wants that? All it means is spammers from Facebook are going to find me on Apple Message. Oof.
Why do we think having government mandating what tech can do, or how tech can work, is a good thing?
Apple has made two dumb decisions in 40 years... the touchbar on the MBP, and all the dongles on the last-gen of MBP. Everyone is allowed to fail, but jumping straight to, "We need government to tell companies how things should work..." No, that's fucking cringe.
This just comes across as super anti-American. "We don't like that American companies doing stuff, let's penalize them!"
Hey, they did say they were going to make it open at launch remember…
I don't care about Messages (somehow most of my friends have an iPhone and noone use it), but it would be nice to have at least basic interoperability between the biggest chat software. I mean it's very annoying to have some apps like X, Y, Z for a few contacts while most of the other are in A and B. A nice feature of Windows Phone 7 at release was it's consolidated chat app that allowed to send SMS, chat with people on Fb Messenger, and people on Skype.
It's disgraceful that Apple has been able to fragment/break something as fundamental as "SMS with extra sprinkles" for so many years.
I know people who are trapped on iOS because they will become second-class citizens within their social circles if they "downgrade" to an android phone.
Opening up iMessage is a decent move, but we also need to get RCS well-supported everywhere so that we can all share a reasonably modern communication foundation.
Horrible idea. Really what the regulation states is that iMessage must be interoperable with other chat apps.
In order words, if it wants to improve its service, it will need to get buy in from a committee of its competitors.
This is a solution in search of a problem. Consumers today can choose from iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, Slack, Google Chat. There's competition, and there's so many great options for each person. This regulation can only make things worse.
Honestly I don’t get it. I don’t know anyone who uses iMessage besides my apple store. Everyone I know uses whatsapp.
Reading the article, everything in there actually sound quite reasonable and good for users.
It should have 2022 in the title.
Very aptly-named site for this article.
As someone who benefitted greatly from the era when thirdparty MSNP clients were extremely common, I think they need to do the same with Microsoft Teams.
The seems to be an organized slow and steady push to turn computers into consoles for the vast majority of users. They use "privacy" "security" "protect children" etc etc as methods to move closer in this direction. I worry we will end up with one (or two) unified "approved" messaging platform and all sorts of tech will be added to your device as binary blobs that run scans on your device.
Looking and ChromeOS, iOS, and even direction taking by Windows 11.
And then Apple makes it so certain encryption/features require a proprietary apple chip feature
This is 10yrs late. Messages is not a texting clone anymore. I don't see why this makes sense.
iMessage is an exclusive Apple application/service that differentiates them over others and they should not be forced to open it up at all (and I don't even use it). This is clearly overreach and I don't see Apple doing anything of the kind.
It's all wrong. Forcing some company to support rival platforms is plainly wrong.
How ridiculous. A big reason I buy Apple products is because of the walled garden. This feels like Europeans interjecting theirselves into my personal life and personal opinions. Hopefully Apple decides to just drop iMessage support for Europe instead of ruining a great product that Americans want to keep.
Now will Apple bring the same benefits to the US and other countries not in the EU?
Looking at the amount of applications I have in the messaging folder on my iPhone, it doesn't seem to me that opening up iMessage is that necessary. From what I understand in the US it's more common for people who have iPhones to stick to iMessage but in Europe not so much.
Get ready for the spam!
and discord?
Europes biggest export: regulations Europe: a museum with regulations
I hate it. European politicians are ruining the internet.
For the love of $DEITY, I read 'Europe will acquire Apple to open up iMessage' and had to re-check today isn't April 1st :-)
A 40 billion dollar fine if you don’t do as the EU says… at some point tech companies are just going to pull out of the EU, right? For most (but not all!), GDPR was worth complying with (and had benefits for citizens). This is likely to also be worth complying with (and also has benefits for citizens), but I imagine the EU is going to run out of ideas that legitimately benefit users long before it runs out of desire to levy huge fines.
The basic message from EU to innovators is: don't bother. If you manage to create a successful business out of your innovation we will punish you.
You created an advanced easy to use connector for your line of phones? Fuck you, you have to change it to a plug that came later and has a different set of trade offs that may not align with your product.
You created a messaging service that was way ahead of its time, and it basically took a decade for others to catch up? Fuck you, provide the fruits of your innovation to everyone for free, erasing your competitive advantage.
This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not.
Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps?
I don't get why you would regulate such a thing. I get the feeling that people here enjoy seeing big tech companies "owned" by big governments without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases.