New EU rules would force Apple to open up iMessage

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 103
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,002member
    Apple has nowhere close to monopolistic status both in terms of overall market share and with easily available alternatives from a myriad of other phone makers.

    If one wants to argue that Apple has a "monopoly" over their own products and service, you are nuts.
    edited March 2023 watto_cobrastrongy
  • Reply 42 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.

    The reason why iMessage defaults to SMS is because an SMS client is installed on every cell phone by the carriers. (Even iPhones use iMessage as an SMS client.) There is no need for the user to install any special app in order to receive SMS. RCS is not being used by every mobile carrier. It's more common in Europe. And because texting is no longer a big money maker for carriers, they are reluctant to invest in it. 

    So Google comes along and offer to host their RCS messages on Google servers, at no cost to the carrier, if the carrier uses Google Messages as their default SMS client. Which Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to do. But AFAIK, none of them are going to remove their SMS client and use only RCS for messaging. Not so long as many businesses (including spam) still uses SMS as SMS is all they need. So there's now E2EE between users of Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and other carriers that chooses to use Google Messages as their RCS client. But not every carrier is using Google Messages as their RCS client or using RCS at all.

    And there's no way to have E2EE from iMessage to RCS. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/20/22584443/verizon-android-messages-rcs


    watto_cobraFileMakerFellerstrongy
  • Reply 43 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.


    The same applies to iMessage, doesn't it? It is not a secure E2EE protocol unless all participants are using Apple's service on an Apple device. Wouldn't it be better for all if Apple and Google figured out how to make messaging secure for all, E2EE regardless of iOS or Android? They can. 

    Thus the reason the EU is getting involved to force cooperation between messaging providers. 
    edited March 2023 sphericFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 44 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true
    You mean Microsoft Xbox is not a proprietary product and Microsoft don't have the right to be as proprietary as they wish with it?

    The reason why MS could not be as proprietary with MS Windows as they would like, is because Windows was a monopoly by being the OS on over 95% of the World's desktop computers. Not only that, Microsoft did not build or own the hardware that MS Windows was on.  Which is why products like the Xbox and iDevices are different and can't be compared to products like MS Windows.  
    Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly", or you don't think mentioning Microsoft was a valid response to the comment from Thrang: "It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish."?

    Or perhaps claiming both to be true? If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 

    Oh, and that Xbox thing you introduced?
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/microsoft-hit-with-antitrust-suit-from-gamers-seeking-to-block-activision-deal-1235285760/
    You're the one that brought up "Microsoft". You didn't mention any Microsoft  products, as though you meant all of them. So I gave an example of a proprietary product (platform) made by MS, that is some what similar to Apple iPhone. 

    Is anyone forcing MS to allow side loading games into an Xbox? What about allowing third party app stores? Why not? An Xbox is much more like a PC than an iPhone is like a Mac. What about their 30% app store commission? No one seem to be complaining about that. Even though MS have a "monopoly" with their Xbox app store. No problem with them having their Edge browser pre-installed. I bet Bing is the default search. Anyone complaining that they are a "gatekeeper" and can't favor their own products? Anyone forcing MS to allow an Xbox to play Sony game discs? Can I install some other OS into an Xbox?  Why no Steam Game App?  Why must Xbox users use their Edge browser to play Steam games? It seems MS is enjoying a lot of proprietariness with their Xbox, that Apple is not. 

    MS trying to acquire Activision have nothing to do with the proprietariness of their Xbox. 
    dewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true
    You mean Microsoft Xbox is not a proprietary product and Microsoft don't have the right to be as proprietary as they wish with it?

    The reason why MS could not be as proprietary with MS Windows as they would like, is because Windows was a monopoly by being the OS on over 95% of the World's desktop computers. Not only that, Microsoft did not build or own the hardware that MS Windows was on.  Which is why products like the Xbox and iDevices are different and can't be compared to products like MS Windows.  
    Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly", or you don't think mentioning Microsoft was a valid response to the comment from Thrang: "It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish."?

    Or perhaps claiming both to be true? If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 

    Oh, and that Xbox thing you introduced?
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/microsoft-hit-with-antitrust-suit-from-gamers-seeking-to-block-activision-deal-1235285760/
    You're the one that brought up "Microsoft". You didn't mention any Microsoft  products, as though you meant all of them. So I gave an example of a proprietary product (platform) made by MS, that is some what similar to Apple iPhone. 

    Is anyone forcing MS to allow side loading games into an Xbox? What about allowing third party app stores? Why not? An Xbox is much more like a PC than an iPhone is like a Mac. What about their 30% app store commission? No one seem to be complaining about that. Even though MS have a "monopoly" with their Xbox app store. No problem with them having their Edge browser pre-installed. I bet Bing is the default search. Anyone complaining that they are a "gatekeeper" and can't favor their own products? Anyone forcing MS to allow an Xbox to play Sony game discs? Can I install some other OS into an Xbox?  Why no Steam Game App?  Why must Xbox users use their Edge browser to play Steam games? It seems MS is enjoying a lot of proprietariness with their Xbox, that Apple is not. 

    MS trying to acquire Activision have nothing to do with the proprietariness of their Xbox. 
    Nicely worded post, lots of things discussed re:Microsoft. Only the tiniest bit had anything to do with what I wrote, but you did successfully avoid answering the questions I posed:

    -Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly".
    -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone?
    -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules?
    -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 

    spheric
  • Reply 46 of 103
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,002member
    If Russia's legislature passes a law that says criticizing Putin publicly is cause for arrest due to suspicion of treason, insurrection, inciting unrest, or whatever, then sure, Russia has the "right" to apply that law, and the people will have to change their behavior or risk jail, or worse. But that does not make the law right, justified, sensible, fair or logical in the larger context of free will and free speech.

    There are countries that already have "laws" that suppress free speech. Yet they are condemned by the rest of world.

    So the discussion is not about whether the EU or whatever country can pass whatever law or regulation they wish, but of course, if such law or regulation is right or justified.

    There is little basis for forcing any private enterprise to make arbitrary changes to their product or service just to help the competition, unless there was some clear and overwhelming harm to the public (there isn't), supported by substantial public outcry (there is none), or there is demonstrable and clear evidence of market coercion to harm competitors (there isn't). And to ignore the fact the companies invest substantially to stand out from competitors, to engineer superior solutions, with (in cases such as technology) a critical focus on security and interoperability, is just plain ignorant.

    Beating your competition because you're really good, smart, and win the hearts and minds of the marketplace is not a crime that needs to be regulated.

    I think the USB-C ruling is quite dumb actually. Everyone gets all green about the environmental reasoning, but really, do you want regulators clamping on innovation? What if Apple or Samsung or someone else devises a new connector that offers substantially superior functionality over USB-C? For the benefit of its customers and itself. Does it ever see the light of day? Hell, Lightning was created all those years ago as a superior solution to micro-usb connections of the time, and that was great. If these laws existed then, what would have happened to Lightning?

    edited March 2023 watto_cobraFileMakerFellerbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 47 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member
    thrang said:
    If Russia's legislature passes a law that says criticizing Putin publicly is cause for arrest due to suspicion of treason, insurrection, inciting unrest, or whatever, then sure, Russia has the "right" to apply that law, and the people will have to change their behavior or risk jail, or worse. But that does not make the law right, justified, sensible, fair or logical in the larger context of free will and free speech.

    There are countries that already have "laws" that suppress free speech. Yet they are condemned by the rest of world.

    So the discussion is not about whether the EU or whatever country can pass whatever law or regulation they wish, but of course, if such law or regulation is right or justified.

    There is little basis for forcing any private enterprise to make arbitrary changes to their product or service just to help the competition, unless there was some clear and overwhelming harm to the public (there isn't), supported by substantial public outcry (there is none), or there is demonstrable and clear evidence of market coercion to harm competitors (there isn't). And to ignore the fact the companies invest substantially to stand out from competitors, to engineer superior solutions, with (in cases such as technology) a critical focus on security and interoperability, is just plain ignorant.

    Beating your competition because you're really good, smart, and win the hearts and minds of the marketplace is not a crime that needs to be regulated.

    I think the USB-C ruling is quite dumb actually. Everyone gets all green about the environmental reasoning, but really, do you want regulators clamping on innovation? What if Apple or Samsung or someone else devises a new connector that offers substantially superior functionality over USB-C? For the benefit of its customers and itself. Does it ever see the light of day?

    Ah, now you and I are more in agreement than not.

    But there was no uproar here when the EU has flexed its authority muscles before, "they can't do that to (Company B), it's unjust when they are smart, really good, and won hearts and minds" as long as it wasn't Apple.  Perhaps the complaints would carry more weight if they started BEFORE it was Apple's turn to be inspected.
    edited March 2023 sphericmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 103
    1348513485 Posts: 338member
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish. They have the right and responsibility to determine the best blend of proprietary and open standards as they see fit, measured against whatever criteria they wish, but certainly in relation to security, competitive advantage, market preference, and success. And they have the fiscal responsibility to be as profitable as possible.

    The marketplace will decide if they've turned the dials correctly. And thus far, its very clear they have.

    As others have posted, this seems to be more about trying to degrade the protection of end to end encryption by forcing alternative means, and/pr dismantle success to exert control.

    Plenty of other messaging apps are available on the iPhone if you want them as well. 

    You don't like Apple's approach? Who cares. Get an Android phone, Plenty of options.




    No one has the right you are proclaiming.

    Everything falls under the different treaties and laws that have been signed. 

    No one is immune to that. 

    Those treaties and laws are there to be followed. 

    Apple and others are probably thankful they have managed to get so far unchallenged. 

    Apple could probably lighten the scrutiny and investigative load by simply pulling back from offering services to the outside world. Close the platform off from external apps, bring everything in-house. 

    The platform would quickly die without access to the outside world as Apple would not be able to satisfy everybody's needs. 

    The solution therefore is to continue as is, but by complying with legislation. 

    These situations are not really EU specific. They are being played out in various non-EU countries. 


    "No one has the right you are proclaiming."

    Oh THAT'S hilarious, since you seem to think whatever the EU conjures up automatically becomes a "consumer right", as you almost always think about the EU's farcical proposals/legislations. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    13485 said:
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish. They have the right and responsibility to determine the best blend of proprietary and open standards as they see fit, measured against whatever criteria they wish, but certainly in relation to security, competitive advantage, market preference, and success. And they have the fiscal responsibility to be as profitable as possible.

    The marketplace will decide if they've turned the dials correctly. And thus far, its very clear they have.

    As others have posted, this seems to be more about trying to degrade the protection of end to end encryption by forcing alternative means, and/pr dismantle success to exert control.

    Plenty of other messaging apps are available on the iPhone if you want them as well. 

    You don't like Apple's approach? Who cares. Get an Android phone, Plenty of options.




    No one has the right you are proclaiming.

    Everything falls under the different treaties and laws that have been signed. 

    No one is immune to that. 

    Those treaties and laws are there to be followed. 

    Apple and others are probably thankful they have managed to get so far unchallenged. 

    Apple could probably lighten the scrutiny and investigative load by simply pulling back from offering services to the outside world. Close the platform off from external apps, bring everything in-house. 

    The platform would quickly die without access to the outside world as Apple would not be able to satisfy everybody's needs. 

    The solution therefore is to continue as is, but by complying with legislation. 

    These situations are not really EU specific. They are being played out in various non-EU countries. 


    "No one has the right you are proclaiming."

    Oh THAT'S hilarious, since you seem to think whatever the EU conjures up automatically becomes a "consumer right", as you almost always think about the EU's farcical proposals/legislations. 
    Did you read where that line came from? 

    Did you read the original comment? 

    The treaties and laws are there. It's a question of compliance. 

    Within the EU who do you think will decide that? 
    sphericmuthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 50 of 103
    davidw said:
    portowine said:
    This is daft.

    Its liking saying to UPS, here is a fedex package, deliver it.
    No, it's more like the road to your house was built by company X, and the road to my house was built by company Y, therefore I can't visit you even if you gave me an invite. DMA rules are about big companies not abusing the network effect. 

    You meet a new person, they tell you to WhatsApp them. I hate WhatsApp and FB, but I still need to install WhatsApp on my phone to communicate with them. Good luck trying to get that person to install any other messenger because a lot of people can barely tell the difference between different messengers. If instead WhatApp could send a message, even without e2ee to my messenger using internet, without SMS charges, then that will do. I don't necessarily need video calling and that as we could negotiate what platform we could use to communicate later. 

    All the provider needs to say on their app is that messages sent to this user won't be e2ee. For people worrying about WhatsApp spam to iMessage, all they need to be given is an option to block all messages for WhatsApp or any external provider they don't like. Now I am not an Apple user and don't know how apple users typically communicate with outsiders, but can't see why a mechanism to do so without SMS charges is not in the interest of apple users.

    And for the example of streaming services like Spotify, one could think of entertainment more like luxury although it's preferable that they provide their services on a standard browser and they do but basic text communication can be treated more like a utility these days.
    Not quite.

    There is already a road that goes to every house, that all delivery services can use. Let's call it the "Internet" or "Mobile Cellular Network"  However, the driveway leading from the road to your front door, is on your property and thus it is up to you whether to allow any delivery service to use your driveway. Every drive way is already built to allow deliveries by Service X (SMS). And every delivery service can use Service X path, providing they modify their delivery to Service X standards. But other delivery services must have your permission to build a special path on your driveway, just for them. Some delivery services will modify their delivery, so they can use Service X path. You still get most of the message but also might lose part of it. Others will not. In which case you get nothing delivered.

    It's up to you choose what delivery services can use your driveway. It's your driveway. It's your right to choose. But you don't have the right to force any delivery service to modify their delivery, so to be able to use one of the paths you chose to have built on your driveway. It's not like you're going to pay them for the delivery. They get paid the same whether you accept any delivery from them or not. 
    I am in some WhatsApp groups. If I choose to uninstall WhatsApp I can't participate in those groups. That means WhatsApp is literally the road. While you can say that the Internet is the road, that analogy is not relevant here. Moreover most users of WhatsApp think of it as the road thereby forcing more users to the network and reinforcing this perception collectively. In fact it's mainly because WhatsApp is thought of as a road that WhatsApp is popular.  Something cannot pretend to be a delivery service in one context and a road in another, that is like having your cake and eating it too. 

    I am not talking about iMessage here though, as this may not apply to it from what I read over here, but I am not an Apple user to say for sure.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 51 of 103
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.

    The reason why iMessage defaults to SMS is because an SMS client is installed on every cell phone by the carriers. (Even iPhones use iMessage as an SMS client.) There is no need for the user to install any special app in order to receive SMS. RCS is not being used by every mobile carrier. It's more common in Europe. And because texting is no longer a big money maker for carriers, they are reluctant to invest in it. 

    So Google comes along and offer to host their RCS messages on Google servers, at no cost to the carrier, if the carrier uses Google Messages as their default SMS client. Which Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to do. But AFAIK, none of them are going to remove their SMS client and use only RCS for messaging. Not so long as many businesses (including spam) still uses SMS as SMS is all they need. So there's now E2EE between users of Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and other carriers that chooses to use Google Messages as their RCS client. But not every carrier is using Google Messages as their RCS client or using RCS at all.

    And there's no way to have E2EE from iMessage to RCS. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/20/22584443/verizon-android-messages-rcs


    I'm sorry, but Whatsapp is just a terrible app. 

    As far as E2EE through RCS, technically E2EE can be enabled for iMessage to RCS messages literally if Apple just worked with Google to make it work. It's not that hard to just work on making RCS work properly between iPhones and Androids, and once Google opens up the RCS APIs, then Google Messages won't be one of the only apps that's needed for RCS (Samsung Messages actually works as well for Samsung devices) 

    At the end of the day, while there's no need to force RCS, there's also no reason to NOT go and try replacing SMS. SMS is outdated already. These other messaging apps only work because people HAVE to use other apps to text others with a good experience. But when you start having people split into all kinds of apps, some on WhatsApp, some on Signal, others using even FB Messenger. It's becoming ridiculous. I shouldn't need to install another app just to talk to people and still be able to send good quality images just because businesses like Apple don't want to adopt better protocols that will only improve the standard default texting experience. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 52 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true
    You mean Microsoft Xbox is not a proprietary product and Microsoft don't have the right to be as proprietary as they wish with it?

    The reason why MS could not be as proprietary with MS Windows as they would like, is because Windows was a monopoly by being the OS on over 95% of the World's desktop computers. Not only that, Microsoft did not build or own the hardware that MS Windows was on.  Which is why products like the Xbox and iDevices are different and can't be compared to products like MS Windows.  
    Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly", or you don't think mentioning Microsoft was a valid response to the comment from Thrang: "It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish."?

    Or perhaps claiming both to be true? If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 

    Oh, and that Xbox thing you introduced?
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/microsoft-hit-with-antitrust-suit-from-gamers-seeking-to-block-activision-deal-1235285760/
    You're the one that brought up "Microsoft". You didn't mention any Microsoft  products, as though you meant all of them. So I gave an example of a proprietary product (platform) made by MS, that is some what similar to Apple iPhone. 

    Is anyone forcing MS to allow side loading games into an Xbox? What about allowing third party app stores? Why not? An Xbox is much more like a PC than an iPhone is like a Mac. What about their 30% app store commission? No one seem to be complaining about that. Even though MS have a "monopoly" with their Xbox app store. No problem with them having their Edge browser pre-installed. I bet Bing is the default search. Anyone complaining that they are a "gatekeeper" and can't favor their own products? Anyone forcing MS to allow an Xbox to play Sony game discs? Can I install some other OS into an Xbox?  Why no Steam Game App?  Why must Xbox users use their Edge browser to play Steam games? It seems MS is enjoying a lot of proprietariness with their Xbox, that Apple is not. 

    MS trying to acquire Activision have nothing to do with the proprietariness of their Xbox. 
    Nicely worded post, lots of things discussed re:Microsoft. Only the tiniest bit had anything to do with what I wrote, but you did successfully avoid answering the questions I posed:

    -Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly".
    -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone?
    -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules?
    -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 
    I'm not claiming any of that because your reply to @thang was regarding his comment 

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    And your reply was ...

    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true.

    It was YOU the place that part of his comment in bold. Therefore your reply "Microsoft would have loved for that to be true." must have pertained to what you boldface. Now you want to move the goalpost and claimed you were referring to the parts of @Thang comment that you not only didn't boldface, but that you completely edited out of your comment. How was anyone to know your reply to @thang was referring to the parts of his comment that you completely edited out of your reply to @thrang comment and not what you put in bold?  

    And now you're trying use some form of logic fallacy to wiggle out of this. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.

    The reason why iMessage defaults to SMS is because an SMS client is installed on every cell phone by the carriers. (Even iPhones use iMessage as an SMS client.) There is no need for the user to install any special app in order to receive SMS. RCS is not being used by every mobile carrier. It's more common in Europe. And because texting is no longer a big money maker for carriers, they are reluctant to invest in it. 

    So Google comes along and offer to host their RCS messages on Google servers, at no cost to the carrier, if the carrier uses Google Messages as their default SMS client. Which Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to do. But AFAIK, none of them are going to remove their SMS client and use only RCS for messaging. Not so long as many businesses (including spam) still uses SMS as SMS is all they need. So there's now E2EE between users of Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and other carriers that chooses to use Google Messages as their RCS client. But not every carrier is using Google Messages as their RCS client or using RCS at all.

    And there's no way to have E2EE from iMessage to RCS. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/20/22584443/verizon-android-messages-rcs


    I'm sorry, but Whatsapp is just a terrible app. 

    As far as E2EE through RCS, technically E2EE can be enabled for iMessage to RCS messages literally if Apple just worked with Google to make it work. It's not that hard to just work on making RCS work properly between iPhones and Androids, and once Google opens up the RCS APIs, then Google Messages won't be one of the only apps that's needed for RCS (Samsung Messages actually works as well for Samsung devices) 

    At the end of the day, while there's no need to force RCS, there's also no reason to NOT go and try replacing SMS. SMS is outdated already. These other messaging apps only work because people HAVE to use other apps to text others with a good experience. But when you start having people split into all kinds of apps, some on WhatsApp, some on Signal, others using even FB Messenger. It's becoming ridiculous. I shouldn't need to install another app just to talk to people and still be able to send good quality images just because businesses like Apple don't want to adopt better protocols that will only improve the standard default texting experience. 
    I don't know what people are thinking when they think that just because WhatApp is a "terrible" messaging app, that some how Google Messages will be any better?

    Here's a link to the long history (15 years) of Google attempts at messaging. The pertinent part is in 2019. When Google adopted RCS. (It's on page 7 of this very long history of Google's failures in developing a messaging app that Android users actually want to use.) But the whole article is a very interesting read, if you have the time. 

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-of-instability-the-history-of-google-messaging-apps/7/#h4

    About the only thing one can say about Google RCS, is that it's better than SMS. That alone don't make Google Messages any better than WhatsApp or any other messaging apps. 

    If one had to choose who is worse when it comes to protecting the privacy of your personal data ...... Google or Facebook? ...... It's going to be a coin flip for many.  
    edited March 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    thrang said:
    Once again, the stupidity of a government entity rears its head...

    The success of iPhone is highly driven by the controlled ecosystem that Apple has built and its consumers desire, the very ecosystem that the governments are trying to tear down. It's ludicrous and dangerous. Apple operates in the private market, they are not a public utility or governmental agency.

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true
    You mean Microsoft Xbox is not a proprietary product and Microsoft don't have the right to be as proprietary as they wish with it?

    The reason why MS could not be as proprietary with MS Windows as they would like, is because Windows was a monopoly by being the OS on over 95% of the World's desktop computers. Not only that, Microsoft did not build or own the hardware that MS Windows was on.  Which is why products like the Xbox and iDevices are different and can't be compared to products like MS Windows.  
    Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly", or you don't think mentioning Microsoft was a valid response to the comment from Thrang: "It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish."?

    Or perhaps claiming both to be true? If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 

    Oh, and that Xbox thing you introduced?
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/microsoft-hit-with-antitrust-suit-from-gamers-seeking-to-block-activision-deal-1235285760/
    You're the one that brought up "Microsoft". You didn't mention any Microsoft  products, as though you meant all of them. So I gave an example of a proprietary product (platform) made by MS, that is some what similar to Apple iPhone. 

    Is anyone forcing MS to allow side loading games into an Xbox? What about allowing third party app stores? Why not? An Xbox is much more like a PC than an iPhone is like a Mac. What about their 30% app store commission? No one seem to be complaining about that. Even though MS have a "monopoly" with their Xbox app store. No problem with them having their Edge browser pre-installed. I bet Bing is the default search. Anyone complaining that they are a "gatekeeper" and can't favor their own products? Anyone forcing MS to allow an Xbox to play Sony game discs? Can I install some other OS into an Xbox?  Why no Steam Game App?  Why must Xbox users use their Edge browser to play Steam games? It seems MS is enjoying a lot of proprietariness with their Xbox, that Apple is not. 

    MS trying to acquire Activision have nothing to do with the proprietariness of their Xbox. 
    Nicely worded post, lots of things discussed re:Microsoft. Only the tiniest bit had anything to do with what I wrote, but you did successfully avoid answering the questions I posed:

    -Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly".
    -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone?
    -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules?
    -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 
    I'm not claiming any of that because your reply to @thang was regarding his comment 

    It's Apple's proprietary product and related services, and they have the right to be as proprietary as they wish.
    And your reply was ...

    Microsoft would have loved for that to be true.

    It was YOU the place that part of his comment in bold. Therefore your reply "Microsoft would have loved for that to be true." must have pertained to what you boldface. Now you want to move the goalpost and claimed you were referring to the parts of @Thang comment that you not only didn't boldface, but that you completely edited out of your comment. How was anyone to know your reply to @thang was referring to the parts of his comment that you completely edited out of your reply to @thrang comment and not what you put in bold?  

    And now you're trying use some form of logic fallacy to wiggle out of this. 
    Not at all trying to wiggle out but instead curious if you feel Apple cannot be compelled to modify their services by various authorities because they aren't a monopoly. I get you'd prefer not to be put on the spot but really it doesn't matter. We both know the answer. Yes they can despite what anyone might think is the less legal view. 

    As for my mention of Microsoft, it was more of a lighthearted reply to a universal claim he made that fails under lighting, and thus pertinent to his comment. 
    spheric
  • Reply 55 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    ackpfft said:
    Europe regulates when they have competitively failed.

    One of the few things I appreciated about the prior US administration- but at least they stood up for the US companies and interests.
    That is incorrect. The EU has legislated to stimulate competition, protect consumer rights and reduce deterioration of the environment. 

    Making carriers share their infrastructure is an example from years back.

    The very idea is probably unthinkable in the US. Is their even any competition among US carriers? I hear so many people say they have access to just one provider. 



    Dude, you sound like a politician at times. Why stick up for them liars?
    It does not matter what I sound like. 

    Do I sound better or worse than Tim Cook when he says Apple is all for competitive markets, not harming consumer choice and that Apple has values (without stating what those values really are)? 

    'spin' is associated with politicians and marketers and I don't spin things. 

    We had access to internal communications at Apple on Messages during the Epic - Apple trial. 

    'lock in', 'obstacles to switching', user cost and confusion were all blatantly banded around at Apple.

    Apple was well aware of the reasons it did not want users to have what the EU is proposing now because it simply wasn't in its interests.

    It's difficult to argue against what Apple itself has admitted through its own inner circles and at the highest levels. 


    edited March 2023 sphericFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 56 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,104member
    davidw said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.

    The reason why iMessage defaults to SMS is because an SMS client is installed on every cell phone by the carriers. (Even iPhones use iMessage as an SMS client.) There is no need for the user to install any special app in order to receive SMS. RCS is not being used by every mobile carrier. It's more common in Europe. And because texting is no longer a big money maker for carriers, they are reluctant to invest in it. 

    So Google comes along and offer to host their RCS messages on Google servers, at no cost to the carrier, if the carrier uses Google Messages as their default SMS client. Which Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to do. But AFAIK, none of them are going to remove their SMS client and use only RCS for messaging. Not so long as many businesses (including spam) still uses SMS as SMS is all they need. So there's now E2EE between users of Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and other carriers that chooses to use Google Messages as their RCS client. But not every carrier is using Google Messages as their RCS client or using RCS at all.

    And there's no way to have E2EE from iMessage to RCS. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/20/22584443/verizon-android-messages-rcs


    I'm sorry, but Whatsapp is just a terrible app. 

    As far as E2EE through RCS, technically E2EE can be enabled for iMessage to RCS messages literally if Apple just worked with Google to make it work. It's not that hard to just work on making RCS work properly between iPhones and Androids, and once Google opens up the RCS APIs, then Google Messages won't be one of the only apps that's needed for RCS (Samsung Messages actually works as well for Samsung devices) 

    At the end of the day, while there's no need to force RCS, there's also no reason to NOT go and try replacing SMS. SMS is outdated already. These other messaging apps only work because people HAVE to use other apps to text others with a good experience. But when you start having people split into all kinds of apps, some on WhatsApp, some on Signal, others using even FB Messenger. It's becoming ridiculous. I shouldn't need to install another app just to talk to people and still be able to send good quality images just because businesses like Apple don't want to adopt better protocols that will only improve the standard default texting experience. 
    I don't know what people are thinking when they think that just because WhatApp is a "terrible" messaging app, that some how Google Messages will be any better?

    Here's a link to the long history (15 years) of Google attempts at messaging. The pertinent part is in 2019. When Google adopted RCS. (It's on page 7 of this very long history of Google's failures in developing a messaging app that Android users actually want to use.) But the whole article is a very interesting read, if you have the time. 

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-of-instability-the-history-of-google-messaging-apps/7/#h4

    About the only thing one can say about Google RCS, is that it's better than SMS. That alone don't make Google Messages any better than WhatsApp or any other messaging apps. 

    If one had to choose who is worse when it comes to protecting the privacy of your personal data ...... Google or Facebook? ...... It's going to be a coin flip for many.  
    OK, this is becoming a recent habit I hadn't noticed from you before. Vaguely worded implications or red-herring replies are not what I typically expect when I read your posts.  

    The OP was arguing for Apple's adoption of RCS. You respond by pointing to a history of Google's messaging apps?? How is that related to the far better security RCS brings to the table?

    You then imply in so many words that Google Messages is not as secure as iMessage, and that Google is managing to access those communications to use the private and personal data they contain for profit. Are you claiming that as fact?

    As far as you can tell from researching, is Google's implementation of RCS in Messages as secure and private between that service's users as Apple's iMessage is for theirs?  

    I'd ask you why Apple should not be working to make communications far more secure and private for ALL users by adopting RCS over the privacy leaking SMS. They don't have to open up iMessage to the masses to do so, and working with Google to help make it so would not be a first for them, they work with Google on many other things (AV1, Thread, etc.) Seriously, do you have anything besides lock-in making Apple more money? Yes, that's a reason, but hardly a user-friendly one. 
    edited March 2023 sphericmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 57 of 103
    darelrexdarelrex Posts: 127member
    ...
    I have Signal on my iPhone because it allows for multi-platform end-to-end encryption with certain features like message expiration, and I don't expect Messages to handle this simply because I want those features.
    ...
    Speaking of Signal: The UK government is considering whether to require Signal (and other, similar apps) to have a backdoor to get in when the government asks them to. In response, Signal publicly stated that it will "absolutely, 100% walk" away from the UK if this rule is enacted.
    watto_cobradanoxstrongy
  • Reply 58 of 103
    chutzpahchutzpah Posts: 392member
    Illus1ve said:
    So @chutzpah , it’s just as I said it would be. First, there was USB-C. Then, there’s this trash. What’s next? It’s basically ‘taking over our cars because we let them pass seatbelt laws first.’ I wonder when the US speaks up about this at last. 
    What makes you think an industry-wide hardware requirement is at all related to an industry-wide software interoperability standard?  Neither of these exclusively target Apple, or any firm or even country in particular.

    Stop thinking like a victim.
    spheric
  • Reply 59 of 103
    ampoampo Posts: 2member
    This is daft.

    Its liking saying to UPS, here is a fedex package, deliver it.
    Apple doesn't need to "deliver" anything, they just need to accept delivery of a similar service/features from a competing brand instead of blocking it's delivery.
    From the smartphone users perspective everyone wins. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 60 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    Didn’t Apple already open up the iMessage protocols but the industry didn’t care?
    Nope, not as far as I know. It was promised when first announced, but Apple reneged, as is their right of course.
    You're thinking of FaceTime … Apple may have thought about doing iMessage at one time but no promises were ever made.
    sphericwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
Sign In or Register to comment.