EU will require iMessage, WhatsApp to communicate with smaller messaging services

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,626member
    crofford said:
    Hmmm….I wonder who elected these guys?  This is another example of why the EU will eventually fail. Unelected officials that make rules forcing them on other countries. 
    This takes the prize for the most ignorant comment of all, methinks. 

    Apart from not unterstanding how representative democracy works (where elected officials in turn elect, say, heads of state to represent them — and the people), the European Parliament is the ONE EU governing body that is actually DIRECTLY ELECTED by the citizens of the EU. 

    So even if you choose to believe the stupid propaganda about how the EU allegedly doesn’t represent the people, criticising the Parliament for it is literally the only way to utterly fail out. 
    baconstangmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 22 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,626member
    lkrupp said:
    What we are seeing is the homogenization of technology by the EU. No innovation without permission. Hardware is next with government mandating of ports, cables, specs, chargers, power supplies, maybe even SSD and DRAM capacities. The EU could even force Apple’s to cancel the M1 SOC if they mandate slots and upgradeable CPUs, SSDs, DRAM. Unfortunately, many here would just love to see something like that implemented.
    Messaging has long reached the point where there is nothing happening except Yet Another Messenger App. I’ve got SMS, iMessage (through the same app), WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, all of which do exactly the same thing, and NONE of which interoperate with one another (except SMS/iMessage being the same app). 

    If they can get encryption sorted, I’m all for homogenisation. There has been no “innovation” here beyond encryption for years now, and there isn’t likely going to be much. 

    I miss Jabber. 
  • Reply 23 of 38
    The idea is ok, but I wonder how it will be implemented. I already get spam in iMessage, and I assume that's the most locked down of the messaging apps.

    Also can I just turn off the cross platform support.

    From the small sample I have of European friends, they all use WhatsApp and don't use iMessage even though they all have iPhones.
    sphericbaconstangradarthekat
  • Reply 24 of 38
    So if they want everything uniform, why don’t they pick a language to be used for all of the EU and require everyone to speak and write it. That way everyone could participate. 

    I guess they wouldn’t like that. 
    foregoneconclusionroundaboutnowapplguyfreeassociate2radarthekat
  • Reply 25 of 38
    bshankbshank Posts: 256member
    crowley said:
    Apple will probably make the bubbles for other chat apps yellow.
    Piss poor yellow. I’m all for it!
  • Reply 26 of 38
    bshankbshank Posts: 256member
    spheric said:
    bshank said:
    Shouldn’t the EU be focused on other things like Nord Stream 2 and what they’re going to do to heat their homes?
    Shouldn’t you be focused on providing clean drinking water to American citizens and repairing failing bridges and power grids, rather than worrying about what the EU is concerned about? 
    We might be able to get to those things if we didn’t always have to jump in to save the EU from itself all the time
    radarthekat
  • Reply 27 of 38
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    What’s the benefit of end to end encryption when the EU demands you open a door for other “well meaning” messaging services. Would Apple have to work with these other companies before they can add functions/features to iMessage? Or can Apple say those changes is happening next week. Make sure your app can handle them. 

    We know how it takes for Standards groups to define a standard.  


    radarthekat
  • Reply 28 of 38
    There’s a very obvious easy solution for allowing messaging platforms to communicate freely and easily without breaking encryption.  You do it all on device.  For instance if you want WhatsApp messages in iMessage. You have to have the What’s app app installed. But on install you get promoted to connect to the iMessage app. From then on you never open Whatsapp it works like a plug-in within iMessage. 
    baconstangradarthekat
  • Reply 29 of 38
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,110member
    And here I though message-spam couldn't get any worse.
    tmay
  • Reply 30 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,903member
    Convergence is the way to go to make IM universal to all (or at least the major platforms, irrespective of device/OS.

    The objective is great and you can be sure that everything is technically feasible in spite of all the scare mongering. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 31 of 38
    bshankbshank Posts: 256member
    sflocal said:
    And here I though message-spam couldn't get any worse.
    Vestager wants a fair playing field for hackers and scammers to run their phishing operations as well. It’s only fair 
  • Reply 32 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,903member
    It's not just the technical issues involving both the user apps and the iCloud servers, it's also the cost of providing the services. If I were Tim Cook, I would publicly ask the EU how exactly the EU expects Apple to collect money from the companies (and from the users of non-Apple devices) who use iCloud servers to process messages and data.

    Also, this looks like an illegal subsidy to me. Doesn't the WTO get involved to resolve disputes on illegal subsidies?

    https://www.trade.gov/trade-guide-wto-subsidies <--

    Actionable Subsidies

    A subsidy granted by a WTO member government is “actionable” under the Agreement (again, certain exceptions are made for agricultural subsidies) if it “injures” the domestic industry of another country, or if it causes “serious prejudice” to the interests of another country. Serious prejudice can arise in cases where a subsidy:

    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports into the market of the subsidizing country;
    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports to third countries;
    • significantly undercuts the price of a “like product” (e.g., an identical or similar product produced by another country; or,
    • increases the world market share of the subsidizing country for a particular primary product or commodity.
    Not too many years ago Telefonica presented a case at MWC for charging big tech companies for overloading its carrier networks with data.

    It was supported by many carriers but there was pushback from big tech and government. 

    They were already charging users for receiving the data. How could they then also charge big tech for data flow to those same users?

    Nowadays EU carriers are forced to share infrastructure. The tower I have sitting 400m from my flat is operated by Vodafone but it handles traffic from Orange, Telefonica and all the virtual carriers out there. There aren't a ton of antennas on that tower from different carriers. That makes a lot of sense. 

    Where I live the same applies to voice traffic (nationally and internationally), electricity distribution, gas distribution, rail services, etc. 

    How do you think the internet itself works? Email? 

    What you are pointing out should be a problem once the technicalities are sorted. 



    cropr
  • Reply 33 of 38
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,111member
    avon b7 said:
    It's not just the technical issues involving both the user apps and the iCloud servers, it's also the cost of providing the services. If I were Tim Cook, I would publicly ask the EU how exactly the EU expects Apple to collect money from the companies (and from the users of non-Apple devices) who use iCloud servers to process messages and data.

    Also, this looks like an illegal subsidy to me. Doesn't the WTO get involved to resolve disputes on illegal subsidies?

    https://www.trade.gov/trade-guide-wto-subsidies <--

    Actionable Subsidies

    A subsidy granted by a WTO member government is “actionable” under the Agreement (again, certain exceptions are made for agricultural subsidies) if it “injures” the domestic industry of another country, or if it causes “serious prejudice” to the interests of another country. Serious prejudice can arise in cases where a subsidy:

    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports into the market of the subsidizing country;
    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports to third countries;
    • significantly undercuts the price of a “like product” (e.g., an identical or similar product produced by another country; or,
    • increases the world market share of the subsidizing country for a particular primary product or commodity.
    Not too many years ago Telefonica presented a case at MWC for charging big tech companies for overloading its carrier networks with data.

    It was supported by many carriers but there was pushback from big tech and government. 

    They were already charging users for receiving the data. How could they then also charge big tech for data flow to those same users?

    Nowadays EU carriers are forced to share infrastructure. The tower I have sitting 400m from my flat is operated by Vodafone but it handles traffic from Orange, Telefonica and all the virtual carriers out there. There aren't a ton of antennas on that tower from different carriers. That makes a lot of sense. 

    Where I live the same applies to voice traffic (nationally and internationally), electricity distribution, gas distribution, rail services, etc. 

    How do you think the internet itself works? Email? 

    What you are pointing out should be a problem once the technicalities are sorted. 




    And in that move Telefonica (maybe once a leader in it’s area of the world) was reduced to tech Serfdom.
    edited March 2022 radarthekat
  • Reply 34 of 38
    So does the EU have ANYBODY in their legislature that has any idea how any of this stuff could be accomplished?

    The only way I know that would allow interoperability between different encrypted platforms would take a can opener to the encryption and would compromise security.
    Unless the Messages app supports the protocols for these other services, meaning the chat would work in iMessage, but explicitly be limited to Facebook messenger for instance if that’s how the chat started, so you’d have to login in Messages with a Facebook account to send/receive to people on Facebook.  And to use the iMessage protocol in messages, you’d still have to login to iCloud.  So essentially each service would be sandboxed, but dislayable in the app.

    but that may not be what they are talking about here, which in that case, you’d be correct unless each separate service understood the same encryption protocol and keys.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 35 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,903member
    danox said:
    avon b7 said:
    It's not just the technical issues involving both the user apps and the iCloud servers, it's also the cost of providing the services. If I were Tim Cook, I would publicly ask the EU how exactly the EU expects Apple to collect money from the companies (and from the users of non-Apple devices) who use iCloud servers to process messages and data.

    Also, this looks like an illegal subsidy to me. Doesn't the WTO get involved to resolve disputes on illegal subsidies?

    https://www.trade.gov/trade-guide-wto-subsidies <--

    Actionable Subsidies

    A subsidy granted by a WTO member government is “actionable” under the Agreement (again, certain exceptions are made for agricultural subsidies) if it “injures” the domestic industry of another country, or if it causes “serious prejudice” to the interests of another country. Serious prejudice can arise in cases where a subsidy:

    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports into the market of the subsidizing country;
    • impedes or displaces another country’s exports to third countries;
    • significantly undercuts the price of a “like product” (e.g., an identical or similar product produced by another country; or,
    • increases the world market share of the subsidizing country for a particular primary product or commodity.
    Not too many years ago Telefonica presented a case at MWC for charging big tech companies for overloading its carrier networks with data.

    It was supported by many carriers but there was pushback from big tech and government. 

    They were already charging users for receiving the data. How could they then also charge big tech for data flow to those same users?

    Nowadays EU carriers are forced to share infrastructure. The tower I have sitting 400m from my flat is operated by Vodafone but it handles traffic from Orange, Telefonica and all the virtual carriers out there. There aren't a ton of antennas on that tower from different carriers. That makes a lot of sense. 

    Where I live the same applies to voice traffic (nationally and internationally), electricity distribution, gas distribution, rail services, etc. 

    How do you think the internet itself works? Email? 

    What you are pointing out should be a problem once the technicalities are sorted. 




    And in that move Telefonica (maybe once a leader in it’s area of the world) was reduced to tech Serfdom.
    Telefonica is still a powerhouse (even across Europe) but competition has clipped its wings the new players are having a competitive impact.

    When I saw the speech from the then CEO I truly thought he was drunk. If you understand Spanish it is worth trying to hunt down on the internet. It was all a bit surreal. 

    Anyway, here is the gist of his argument almost a decade ago:

    https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2013/02/25/inenglish/1361805644_068660.html

    edited March 2022
  • Reply 36 of 38
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,920member
    Where does this stop ? Next EU will ask Apple to allow other OS like Android variant to run on iPhone or Windows on MAC. So, whole concept of vertical integration, increasing features,performance and safety of user will greatly compromised. You can ask manufacturers to standardize certain hardware aspects like charging port/cables for reducing environmental impact but software is dynamic and innovation moves fast. So EU stop getting into every part of every businesses to force your views.
    EU should also allow anyone to come and legally live and see how that works out. No wonder UK left EU.
    edited March 2022 radarthekat
  • Reply 37 of 38
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    wood1208 said:
    Where does this stop ? 
    Somewhere.  Probably before the slippery slope nightmare scenarios that you guys love to cook up.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,626member
    bshank said:
    spheric said:
    bshank said:
    Shouldn’t the EU be focused on other things like Nord Stream 2 and what they’re going to do to heat their homes?
    Shouldn’t you be focused on providing clean drinking water to American citizens and repairing failing bridges and power grids, rather than worrying about what the EU is concerned about? 
    We might be able to get to those things if we didn’t always have to jump in to save the EU from itself all the time
    What are you talking about? If you're still thinking of that war eighty years ago (yes, yes, we're all grateful to the generations who rid us of that scourge — I'm sure you, personally, had absolutely nothing to do with it), it might interest you that the European Union happened AFTER that, with the precise goal to make sure that such intervention would never be necessary ever again. 

    How has the US been doing since then?
    crowleytmay
Sign In or Register to comment.