New EU rules would force Apple to open up iMessage

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    danox said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    -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? 
    The simplest thing to do would be to ship EU phones without Messages installed, and make it available for download in the app store.

    The EU/EC are waaayyyy too full of themselves, and the best thing to do is to ship crippled phones to EU customers and let EU customers know it's EU rules and regulations causing it.

    The EU has already crippled their native industries, and outside of a couple of infrastructure companies there are no big tech companies left within their jurisdiction.

    The fact that the EU thinks it's appropriate to go after revenues made outside of the EU just shows how fatheaded they've become.
    The last time I checked, the US was waaayyy more strategically dependent on the EU than the EU was on the US. 


    Aside from ASML, the EU and the UK have retreated on the tech front across the board when compared to the USA, the EU and the UK screwed up, big-time when it allowed Arm Holdings to sell out maybe the EU and UK are trying to make up for the tech blunder of the century.

    Like the UK with Brexit, the EU is overplaying it’s hand.
    Strategic dependencies don't only relate to technology and can be deceiving.

    When SMIC was seen to be producing 7nm chips, the key takeaway wasn't that they found a way of doing something that many thought was years off, but that no US company was capable of doing the same. 

    Just recently an Industry deep dive discovered something even more shocking. If China were to reconfigure its chip capacity to focus solely on 7nm, its capacity would be higher than that of TSMC and Samsung combined

    Irrelevant in this particular case though, as strategic dependencies stretch further than purely cutting edge technologies. 

    ASML is being hindered by US geopolitical interests but the EU is doing just fine in many technology areas. Advanced manufacturing is actually one such area. Of course there is Big Pharma too. 

    There is always room for improvement and that is why projects like the EU processor initiative have been underway for a few years now. 

    Right now, the key tech driver for the economy is services over 5/5.5/6G.

    That will have an impact on all areas of life. Ports, airports, aviation, mining, manufacturing, health, education, agriculture, fintech. 

    Anywhere where time and productivity can reduce costs. 

    The US is literally not in the game when it comes to those core technologies. It's why they want Huawei out of the picture. 


    You really haven't a clue about the cost the SMIC has to absorb in achieving 7nm without EUV. They have to use multi patterning, which is a very slow and expensive process, and good luck on scaling it beyond 7nm, and yeah, still aren't going to get EUV.

    https://www.edn.com/the-truth-about-smics-7-nm-chip-fabrication-ordeal/

    n this particular backdrop, Douglas Fuller, an expert on China’s semiconductor industry, told Financial Times that the furor over SMIC’s 7-nm progress is overblown and that China’s top fab is using extra exposure to make up for the lack of EUV tools. He also resonated doubts about the yield of SMIC’s 7-nm chip fabricating process.

    According to some industry observers, SMIC’s 7-nm yields per wafer are in the range of 15%. That, in turn, makes the chips manufactured at this process node very costly, around 10 times the market price of a chip manufactured at TSMC’s 7-nm node. It’s also worth noting that the crypto-miner chip known to have been manufactured at SMIC’s 7-nm node features a highly parallel design, which implies lower complexity.

    Maybe time for you to stop carrying Xi's water...

    You throw cost into the ring? 

    Firstly, cutting edge nodes represent less than 2% of world production. 

    Contrary to your claims (and supported by someone with real insight - the CEO of ASML) cutting edge nodes are NOT used for military purposes. 

    The point, which you miss time and time again, was that if China did decide to reconfigure its node output to 7nm it would be vastly  superior output from any other country. The report I saw mentioned South Korea and Taiwan. Of course, the US does not have much if any 7nm capacity.

    And if that, for whatever reason, were necessary, do you really think cost would be an issue?

    Let it go, now. It's not relevant to any of this anyway. 
    ctt_zhmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 82 of 103
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,530member
    davidw said:
    spheric said:
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 


    Sounds like business to me. Ain’t nothin’ personal. 
    Perhaps you’re more impartial than I am, though. I tend to question anything politicians do just because they’re…well, politicians. 
    Works the other way, too. Politicians standing aside, not doing anything while big corporations take advantage of their market position and indirectly or directly hurting consumers as a result is as much a decision as it is to step in and regulate harmful corporate behaviour. 

    (See also: insulin in the United States for an example of this. Do we really want to know why legislators stood and watched insulin makers literally killing the constituents they, the politicians, are under oath to protect from harm?)
    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/who-benefits-when-the-price-of-insulin-soars

    >Our review of the evidence suggests that contrary to some claims, the three manufacturers that dominate the insulin market – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi – have indeed seen higher net revenues from insulin product lines during the past decade as list prices have increased.  ......

    ..... In the case of insulin, analysis of the companies’ cash flows suggests that shareholders of Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi have seen huge gains as the list price of insulin has grown. The companies have collectively distributed a total of $122 billion to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and cash dividends over the period 2009-2018.<

    Novo Nordisk and Sanfi are headquartered in the EU. (Denmark and France)  I bet the EU will not step in and regulate their harmful corporate behavior. 


    ߘⰟ肰ߘⰟ肰ߘⰟ肰ߘ⦬t;br>
    …seriously?

    a) companies pay taxes in the countries where they make their profits (unless politics explicitly creates loopholes for them). So massive profits made by EU corps are a benefit to the States, and CERTAINLY a benefit to the politicians rewarded with board chairs, advisory contracts, and generous campaign donations in exchange for their inaction on unethical business practices. 

    b) this kind of shit is almost completely impossible in Europe due to our healthcare systems, in which it is the insurers that deal out the pricing with pharma corps, because it is THEM, and NOT patients, who pay for them. People dying because they can’t afford medical care just doesn’t happen here. We literally stare at the US in complete disbelief and cannot fathom how that could be considered acceptable. 

    And your comment shows how you’re so utterly unaware of how fucked up that is. 
    edited March 2023 ctt_zhgatorguymuthuk_vanalingamstrongy
  • Reply 83 of 103
    dutchlorddutchlord Posts: 201member
    From a user standpoint it is better to be able to send/receive messages across multiple platforms and service providers. Like sending a mail from Apple mail to Google Gmail.
    avon b7Illus1ve
  • Reply 84 of 103
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    2old4fun said:
    avon b7 said:
    This is daft.

    Its liking saying to UPS, here is a fedex package, deliver it.
    Not really. When you call me from the US, your phone company isn't delivering the call. It's my phone company. 

    Same thing happens with SMS. 

    Dame thing happens with email. 

    The DSA is basically looking for interoperability as an end goal. 

    Not exactly. Lowest common denominator service is available for messaging and it is SMS. Lowest common denominator service for telephone calls is available but higher quality calls with FaceTime Audio offers superior sound between Apple devices. If I want improved services then I can purchase the equipment that provides it. I don’t expect the cheapest auto to provide the best ride because it is on European roads. 
    That completely misses the point: interoperability. 

    When I send a package to my parents using Correos Express, there is no 'lowest common denominator' on the delivery side in the other country even if Correos Express doesn't deliver it. 

    SMS is what it is (old) because when it was created that is what was available. The same with POP3 email etc. 

    There is virtually no analogue phone service in Spain. It is VoIP. Quality ultimately depends on many factors. The same with any realtime video/audio transmission. Including FaceTime. 

    FaceTime to FaceTime quality is irrelevant here. As is MeeTime to MeeTime quality. Or any other native protocol.

    Again, we already have interoperability, it’s called SMS. Apple invented its own protocol for its own new features which are supported by its devices. There is no expectation that other non-Apple products should be entitled to the same features — they didn’t invent them (but could have). 
    Really? How does SMS handle audio, video and images? How does using SMS avoid charges for people who still have to pay for them?

    SMS is an an example of interoperability. Messages using SMS as a fallback option definitely does not mean interoperability

    [emphasis added]

    I disagree. Messages is not claiming to be a superset of SMS, nor does it modify the standard in any way. The Messages app simply conducts some of its data transfer using that ubiquitous protocol.

    Interoperability means that two entities can interact to the fullest extent possible. It does not mean that every interaction makes available every possible feature that either entity offers, but it guarantees that any agreed-upon protocol will be supported. It also does not mean that a given entity must support every available protocol, or define its own custom protocol, or make any such custom protocol publicly available.

    --

    When you start to think about it, messaging is a really, really thorny problem to solve. The existing systems don't have security and privacy baked in at the design level and they're constantly being patched and upgraded to deal with operating at a global scale. But somehow each device is still individually addressable thanks to a hodgepodge of phone numbers, account IDs with the major providers (Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft) and DNS. This de facto global identity system is "trusted" because it mostly works well enough, but we're seeing the cracks appear; replacing it with something designed for modern needs is ironically an uphill battle because people will become aware of this technical identity management problem and (rightly) air their concerns.
  • Reply 85 of 103

    danvm said:
    blastdoor said:
    Can apple charge for it? 

    If so, then “iMessage is free for iPhone users” could be presented as a perk of buying an iPhone 
    Apple could make an app for Android and Windows, and keep the platform closed.  And even charge something, as you said.  I suppose that could be an option.
    And Apple realised this before developing iMessage, and chose not to.

    Differentiation is required to avoid commoditisation. Messages is a key product differentiator. That is worth more money at a strategic level than charging for use on other platforms.
  • Reply 86 of 103
    dewme said:
    Apple wasn’t forced have to open up its email stack to allow it to work with Outlook/Exchange so why should different flavors of instant messaging be treated any differently?
    IIRC, Apple had to license code from Microsoft for compatibility with certain features of MS Exchange - push email, I think it was. So your argument holds, but there's a cost for interactions that go beyond common standards.
    Illus1ve
  • Reply 87 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.
    I believe you are referencing the FaceTime fiasco rather than the iMessage protocol. Apple was going to open source the FaceTime protocol but were then sued either because they had included some proprietary library or infringed on someone's patent (I can't remember which, off the top of my head). So rather than potentially saddling users across the globe with legal risk, Apple back-tracked their initial plan and paid licensing fees to the IP owner solely for use with Apple's operating systems.
    strongy
  • Reply 88 of 103

    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
    Microsoft got in trouble for coercive business practices, not for providing proprietary software (and proprietary extensions to common standards).
    thrang
  • Reply 89 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Agreed, but you're perhaps asking a bit much given this forum is for the discussion of Apple-related matters. Instigating such a discussion without an article promoting the subject may get the topic removed for irrelevance.

    But it was the same when Creative Technology sued Apple over the iPod and won. Nobody remembered that when the patent wars over the iPhone started.
  • Reply 90 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    Google's history with messaging is pertinent to the argument. Do you want to support a standard being promoted by someone with a history of changing their plans around messaging as frequently as Google has?

    Not to mention that RCS is based on the phone number as the user identity - the protocol was agreed upon by the telecommunications carriers but few of them committed to supporting it; the only reason RCS has traction is because Google was looking for a differentiator against Apple.

    Further, the only reason RCS will support E2EE in group chats is because of proprietary extensions to the protocol that Google developed, and Google is on the hook for maintaining that service. Now in this case it might stick because Google can extract some revenue from big players who might sign on for a global long-term commitment (as opposed to offering free service to consumers funded by the big bucket of advertising dollars brought in by their other products), but the company's reputation is such that wariness is warranted. And really, E2EE is optional in RCS so it's very hard to recommend the protocol as an alternative to iMessage - you're reliant on every provider in the chain supporting the feature in their particular implementation; with Apple that chain is just one provider.

    SMS has value because it is part of a lower layer of the networking stack - nestled in with the phone service implementation rather than being at the application level, which made it cheap to implement. RCS is part of the application layer (the top layer) of the networking stack, just like iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal and so on. So RCS doesn't make sense as a fallback in the way SMS does - SMS will get sent even if you don't have a robust data connection, as long as you can actually connect to a tower.

    It's worthwhile going through the Wikipedia pages on SMS and RCS. Interestingly, Samsung was supporting RCS before Google, and Microsoft is also supporting RCS but the protocol still isn't ubiquitous the way SMS is. It's not as good as iMessage in some critical areas and lacks the few valuable parts of SMS. There's no reason for Apple to support it.
    strongy
  • Reply 91 of 103
    chutzpahchutzpah Posts: 392member
    danox said:
    Dooofus said:
    avon b7 said:
    This is daft.

    Its liking saying to UPS, here is a fedex package, deliver it.
    Not really. When you call me from the US, your phone company isn't delivering the call. It's my phone company. 

    Same thing happens with SMS. 

    Dame thing happens with email. 

    The DSA is basically looking for interoperability as an end goal. 

    iMessage is neither e-mail nor SMS. It is a proprietary service hosted on Apple infrastructure for Apple customers. Not surprisingly, Europeans imagine they deserve access handed over to them free of charge.

    They sure do Europeans want free, Spotify makes no money and pays the artist very little. That’s probably part of the reason Linux has not gone anywhere on the desktop free pizza and beer can only go so far.

    Next up, for the EU require Apple to make Linux work on Apple Silicon at Apple’s expense.
    I guess if Apple shipped a Mac where alternative operating systems couldn't be installed then the European Commission might have a problem with that.  But since Linux already works on Apple Silicon Macs then there's no problem at all.
  • Reply 92 of 103
    darelrex said:
    ...
    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.
    The UK government at this stage is proposing a Draconian digital law every year which usually doesn't pass, but still serves for a horror show. This year they are even going after phones that have any sort of modifications from what is "commercially available". Yes, don't dare to be a challenger to any existing big tech. Can the CCP do this better?
  • Reply 93 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    2old4fun said:
    avon b7 said:
    This is daft.

    Its liking saying to UPS, here is a fedex package, deliver it.
    Not really. When you call me from the US, your phone company isn't delivering the call. It's my phone company. 

    Same thing happens with SMS. 

    Dame thing happens with email. 

    The DSA is basically looking for interoperability as an end goal. 

    Not exactly. Lowest common denominator service is available for messaging and it is SMS. Lowest common denominator service for telephone calls is available but higher quality calls with FaceTime Audio offers superior sound between Apple devices. If I want improved services then I can purchase the equipment that provides it. I don’t expect the cheapest auto to provide the best ride because it is on European roads. 
    That completely misses the point: interoperability. 

    When I send a package to my parents using Correos Express, there is no 'lowest common denominator' on the delivery side in the other country even if Correos Express doesn't deliver it. 

    SMS is what it is (old) because when it was created that is what was available. The same with POP3 email etc. 

    There is virtually no analogue phone service in Spain. It is VoIP. Quality ultimately depends on many factors. The same with any realtime video/audio transmission. Including FaceTime. 

    FaceTime to FaceTime quality is irrelevant here. As is MeeTime to MeeTime quality. Or any other native protocol.

    Again, we already have interoperability, it’s called SMS. Apple invented its own protocol for its own new features which are supported by its devices. There is no expectation that other non-Apple products should be entitled to the same features — they didn’t invent them (but could have). 
    Really? How does SMS handle audio, video and images? How does using SMS avoid charges for people who still have to pay for them?

    SMS is an an example of interoperability. Messages using SMS as a fallback option definitely does not mean interoperability

    [emphasis added]

    I disagree. Messages is not claiming to be a superset of SMS, nor does it modify the standard in any way. The Messages app simply conducts some of its data transfer using that ubiquitous protocol.

    Interoperability means that two entities can interact to the fullest extent possible. It does not mean that every interaction makes available every possible feature that either entity offers, but it guarantees that any agreed-upon protocol will be supported. It also does not mean that a given entity must support every available protocol, or define its own custom protocol, or make any such custom protocol publicly available.

    --

    When you start to think about it, messaging is a really, really thorny problem to solve. The existing systems don't have security and privacy baked in at the design level and they're constantly being patched and upgraded to deal with operating at a global scale. But somehow each device is still individually addressable thanks to a hodgepodge of phone numbers, account IDs with the major providers (Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft) and DNS. This de facto global identity system is "trusted" because it mostly works well enough, but we're seeing the cracks appear; replacing it with something designed for modern needs is ironically an uphill battle because people will become aware of this technical identity management problem and (rightly) air their concerns.
    SMS is not a valid substitute for IM. 

    It has potential costs associated with it. No image or audio functionality. It is also constrained by text length and type of text. 

    The 'S' in SMS says it all. Nowadays IM has substituted my need to use a phone as a phone. Talking takes up only a fraction of my time using it. SMS could never fulfil the same function. 

    There are many standards that are available to industry but not implemented. I have no copper phone lines in my area. They were phased out years ago. Everything is VoIP. 

    My chip based bank cards support authentication by signature (along with ID) but the banks do not implement it. It has to be authenticated by PIN.

    The worst thing about Messages is how Apple integrates SMS into it and glosses over all the limitations. The two services really should be separated into different apps. That would put the spotlight on the limitations of Messages, especially outside the US.

    It is also worth highlighting that the EU is not calling for 100% interoperability across the different feature sets. 
    edited March 2023
  • Reply 94 of 103
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,530member
    avon b7 said:
    The worst thing about Messages is how Apple integrates SMS into it and glosses over all the limitations. The two services really should be separated into different apps. 
    ARGH NO. 

    I currently have business and private communications sprawling across WhatsApp (by far most of them), Signal, Telegram, iMessage, E-Mail, Slack, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram Messages, and I noticed that some time ago, someone tried to reach me via LinkedIn private messages. Occasionally, stuff will start on one messenger and then spread out across two others (e.g. start on FB and continue in WhatsApp and Telegram). 

    That's EIGHT FUCKING CLIENT APPS. Sure, let's break out a ninth one. 

    It's already a friggin' nightmare. 
  • Reply 95 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    spheric said:
    avon b7 said:
    The worst thing about Messages is how Apple integrates SMS into it and glosses over all the limitations. The two services really should be separated into different apps. 
    ARGH NO. 

    I currently have business and private communications sprawling across WhatsApp (by far most of them), Signal, Telegram, iMessage, E-Mail, Slack, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram Messages, and I noticed that some time ago, someone tried to reach me via LinkedIn private messages. Occasionally, stuff will start on one messenger and then spread out across two others (e.g. start on FB and continue in WhatsApp and Telegram). 

    That's EIGHT FUCKING CLIENT APPS. Sure, let's break out a ninth one. 

    It's already a friggin' nightmare. 
    This will be dependent on how interoperability is achieved. 

    There could be 50 IM apps on the market and maybe you would need all 50 if that's what your contacts have. That would be between you and your contacts to determine. It would be one way to do it. 

    An alternative could be a 'plug-in' system where the native apps aren't necessary for every client, or maybe 'quick apps' would do the trick. That could be another way. 

    Or perhaps a standard, cross-app, cross-platform protocol for where everything is managed from a single client.

    The onus seems to be on the big players having to find a way to inject non-native chats into their apps.

    I use WhatsApp for basically everything that is day-to-day. Apart from that I also have Telegram, Line, Signal and Viber installed. 
  • Reply 96 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    The ComputerWorld article is a very good one, pointing out that there's lots of blame to go around. Everyone should read it before commenting IMO. And it brings us to today.

     While Google created its own mess in messaging, it's now Apple stubbornly refusing to do the right thing and improve both features and security by ditching the 80's and integrating RCS as the fallback for communicating with non-Apple users. It's currently supported by all the major US carriers, plus:

    Orange
    Deutsche Telekom
    NTT Docomo
    Vodafone
    America Movil
    Claro
    Rogers
    Freedom Mobile
    Telefonica
    Softbank
    Telstra

    and probably at least another dozen worldwide. And the list is growing.

    Neither article you linked offers any technical reason for Apple to cling to SMS, nor any reason at all that benefits its users. 

    Yup, Google created their own mess, they are not blameless. But now that a clear and widely supported solution made available from carriers worldwide is underway, wouldn't Apple be better off walking the walk and not just talking the talk? They should prove they honestly put our privacy and security as Apple users above Apple profits. Love to see you argue against that. 

    But Apple won't, and so the EU decided they should push'em all down that path anyway. And here we are. 


    That's it? What about these. ...


    Not sure how old the list is and some of the networks might no longer be in business or merged/bought out by others. But it gives you the idea of just how many networks carriers there are. And I bet nearly everyone of them support SMS by default. None of the users on any of these networks needs to install anything, in order to use SMS to text nearly everyone with a cell phone. Including burner phones without a data plan. Don't forget, SMS do not use data, but RCS does. If you do a lot of RCS texting, then you might need to increase your data plan. Unlimited texting in your mobile plan only pertains to SMS.

    The vast majority of Android users are already using messaging services that are more secure than SMS. There is no urgent need for Apple to adopt RCS with iMessage. It only benefit the Android users that are using Google Messages as their messaging service.

    The bottom line is this. Both Apple and Google are looking after their own self interest. Apple make most of their profits selling their brand of hardware. Investing the time and money to implement RCS so that it's compatible with all Android phones with RCS, without compromising iMessage, might not be worth the effort, if it doesn't lead to more hardware sales. iMessage is a messaging service Apple provide to it's users so they can message other Apple users, for free. The only reason why SMS is part of iMessage is because if an Apple user pays for a plan with texting, the carrier must provide a SMS client on their iPhone. Or Apple must provide one.  Apple could just as easily not put SMS into iMessage and have their users use a separate already installed app for SMS.  But having one GUI for both iMessage and SMS makes for a better user experience. It's the same reason why Facebook Messenger can send and receive SMS.

    Google on the other hand makes most of their profits with targeted ads. The more users using free services provided by Google, the more users to data mine for more accurate targeted ads. So getting Apple to implement Google proprietary version of RCS with E2EE (if E2EE would even be possible) so that Android users must use Google Messages whenever Apple users uses iMessage to text Android users, is what Google is really after. Google proprietary version of RCS requires the use of Google Messages. And only Google Messages can be use when the carrier are implementing Google version of RCS with E2EE, that must be hosted on Google servers. So far, Google has not opened up their proprietary version of RCS to any third party Android messaging services (Except maybe to Samsung on a few of their smartphones models.) And it's not sure they ever will. Google wants Google Messages to be Android's version of iMessage.. And Google Messages RCS will default to SMS for users not using Google Messages.

    Why isn't there a Google Messages App on iOS? Ever wonder about that? Wouldn't that solve the problem of Apple having to support RCS with iMessage? If Apple allows all the other messaging services to have an app and use what ever protocol they have, then It would make sense that it's not Apple that is blocking Google from having their Google Messages App on iOS. Google Messages is not a real competitor to iMessage. No more than WhatsApp, Signal or SnapChat or any of the other third party messaging apps on iOS are. iMessage is designed to be use between Apple users only. There are over half of dozen messaging service that Apple users can use to text with Android users, without using SMS. And I bet most Apple users uses third party messaging services to text with their Android friends, rather than using SMS in iMessage. WhatsApp and Facebook are very popular on iOS. I can think of two possible reasons. Not that many Android users are using it, so there's no real need for Apple users to have the app. And maybe Apple ATT will affect Google ability to data mine, like it did with Facebook. 

  • Reply 97 of 103
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,530member
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    avon b7 said:
    The worst thing about Messages is how Apple integrates SMS into it and glosses over all the limitations. The two services really should be separated into different apps. 
    ARGH NO. 

    I currently have business and private communications sprawling across WhatsApp (by far most of them), Signal, Telegram, iMessage, E-Mail, Slack, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram Messages, and I noticed that some time ago, someone tried to reach me via LinkedIn private messages. Occasionally, stuff will start on one messenger and then spread out across two others (e.g. start on FB and continue in WhatsApp and Telegram). 

    That's EIGHT FUCKING CLIENT APPS. Sure, let's break out a ninth one. 

    It's already a friggin' nightmare. 
    This will be dependent on how interoperability is achieved. 

    There could be 50 IM apps on the market and maybe you would need all 50 if that's what your contacts have. That would be between you and your contacts to determine. It would be one way to do it. 

    An alternative could be a 'plug-in' system where the native apps aren't necessary for every client, or maybe 'quick apps' would do the trick. That could be another way. 
    There is a multi-protocol client that does virtually everything except iMessage and SMS called Franz https://meetfranz.com/ , but they want 3€/month if you use the app for more than three services. 

    They're also desktop-only. 🫤
  • Reply 98 of 103
    FIRST: For those of you who are unaware, all major cellular carriers in the U.S. and probably in the EU and elsewhere are now actually data only (LTE and 5G) but Calls (VoLTE, HD Voice, VOIP, etc.), SMS, and some MMS are not charged as data or at all depending on your plan. Thankfully, the interoperability between carriers still works as usual as far as we the customers are concerned. However, cellular carriers have left us with the lowest common denominator, meaning no video calls without third party apps and problematic/marginal MMS. 

    SECOND: The EU has realized that the cellular carriers of the world will never come up with a viable solution to all of the things that it would like and has decided that it will just threaten the big four with huge fines and see if they come up with a solution. Not going to happen!
    Illus1ve
  • Reply 99 of 103
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    spheric said:
    gatorguy said:
    -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? 
    The simplest thing to do would be to ship EU phones without Messages installed, and make it available for download in the app store.

    The EU/EC are waaayyyy too full of themselves, and the best thing to do is to ship crippled phones to EU customers and let EU customers know it's EU rules and regulations causing it.

    The EU has already crippled their native industries, and outside of a couple of infrastructure companies there are no big tech companies left within their jurisdiction.

    The fact that the EU thinks it's appropriate to go after revenues made outside of the EU just shows how fatheaded they've become.
    The point of fines is that they’re supposed to hurt. 

    Even with fat headed global megacorps who figure they don’t need to follow laws because they can afford the cash to violate them. 

    The US courts generally seem to agree, btw. Look up this famous case for an inkling of how silly you sound: 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
    No, your link shows the the US court disagree. The $2.7M was for punitive damages awarded by a jury, not the government. And the courts lowered the jury $2.7M award for punitive damages by about 80%, to $480K. The $2.7M award was based on 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales and not McDonalds total annual revenue. 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales only amounted to .54% of McDonalds annual coffee sales revenue. It's a rounding error compared to McDonalds total annual revenue. But the US courts still saw fit to lower the jury $2.7 award by 80%. The final award is confidential, after the plaintiff and McDonalds agreed to an out of court settlement, upon appeal.

    Here in the US, we have the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution which states ....

    >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. < 

    This prevent the government from levying excessive fines for the violation of any laws. The fines must be in proportion to the harm done. Not some random amount arrived by using a percentage of the violators wealth. A wealthy person violating a law don't do any more harm than a poor person violating the same law. That would be like writing a $50 parking ticket for a ten old Honda and a $500 parking ticket for a 2022 Mercedes, for the same parking violation.  

    However, a jury can award punitive damages that might be considered excessive. Punitive damages awarded by a jury in not a government fine. But the government can still step in and reduce that punitive damage award, if they think the amount of the award is excessive and violates the 8th Amendment concerning excessive fines. As they did in the Lieback vs McDonalds case. 


    edited March 2023 spheric
  • Reply 100 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,534member
    DangDave said:
    FIRST: For those of you who are unaware, all major cellular carriers in the U.S. and probably in the EU and elsewhere are now actually data only (LTE and 5G) but Calls (VoLTE, HD Voice, VOIP, etc.), SMS, and some MMS are not charged as data or at all depending on your plan. Thankfully, the interoperability between carriers still works as usual as far as we the customers are concerned. However, cellular carriers have left us with the lowest common denominator, meaning no video calls without third party apps and problematic/marginal MMS. 

    SECOND: The EU has realized that the cellular carriers of the world will never come up with a viable solution to all of the things that it would like and has decided that it will just threaten the big four with huge fines and see if they come up with a solution. Not going to happen!
    The EU can force the carriers to comply if it falls under legislation. 

    The carriers cannot exist without the governments as it is the governments that licence the frequencies that the carriers need. 

    How hard they push and in what way is another matter. The EU has historically tried to foster agreement with industry. It is normally the first (and easiest option). 

    That's why the common charging initiative started out as a simple MoU. Over a decade later it was decided that not enough had been achieved and legislation has been created to remedy the situation. 

    The interoperability situation is quite light at the moment and quite open to interpretation. The onus though is very much on the dominant players to open up. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.