-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.
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.
Awfully naïve, aren't you?
You don't think such discussions take place in every company in the world?
Just because privileged transcripts were revealed at trial doesn't mean they're a matter of public record.
Lord knows what kind of dialog would be revealed if were could get transcripts of European Council internal discussions.
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.
Awfully naïve, aren't you?
You don't think such discussions take place in every company in the world?
Just because privileged transcripts were revealed at trial doesn't mean they're a matter of public record.
Lord knows what kind of dialog would be revealed if were could get transcripts of European Council internal discussions.
Naive is putting it into text knowing full well your dominant position and knowing it is precisely the kind of stuff any authority could use against you.
Or maybe just plain stupid is the word we're looking for here.
-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.
-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.
This funny. Some commenting on this platform are just anti-Apple and it is obvious; it is the only reason they signed up on AppleInsider. It is really simple. iMessages is only one of many messaging Apps available on the iPhone, and users are free to use any messaging app they like. There is a trend in the EU of targeting Apple either to benefit their own companies (Spotify), or to extract money from Apple. The buzz words like monopoly, anticompetitive, etc that they use to target Apple are just excuses. They would not call similar practices by other companies monopolistic or anticompetitive. Apple is not a monopoly by the standard definition of monopoly, and they are not blocking anyone else from innovating or bring a new product to market. They do not harm the consumers (as many people commented here, no one asks the consumers). They support their products with free software updates for many years, and their product quality is well known, and many Apps on the App Store are free. iPhone, iPad and the Apple ecosystem came from nowhere. Apple was not a rich company at the time, and did not have any significant market share in portable devices (the Newton). They just innovated themselves to where they are now. There is no reason those who are today in the position where Apple was then could not come up with something new that people want. Unfortunately there are a lot of parasites who want to feed on successful companies to make money without having to do the hard work themselves or pay their dues/fare share. People buy Apple products because they have a choice and they choose Apple. Most apps on the iPhone now are either free or subscription-based, so the argument that people are trapped in Apple ecosystem because they invested in software does not hold. Many Apps are also now cross-platform, and are easy to transfer the data in these Apps to other platforms.
Anti Apple, pro Apple, neutral on Apple.
It's irrelevant.
This legislation is not there to target only 'Apple'. Google, Meta etc are affected too.
Those 'free' OS updates are not free at all. They are included in the price of the phone but never detailed. What is 'funny' is that the EU is preparing a directive to tackle that aspect. If everything goes through as proposed you will have a minimum support period, it will be made clear at sale and any new functionality that gets added in later updates will have to be downgradeable (including firmware) if users feel it compromises performance etc. Again this won't apply to just Apple.
Most apps being free or cross platform is also irrelevant.
Messages isn't cross platform, and Apple has recognised internally that it is well aware that that aspect is a known obstacle for users who might want to switch. They even used the words 'lock in'. I assume exporting data out of Messages for import into a competing app on another platform is also designed to be an obstacle or perhaps outright impossible without jumping through major hoops.
Whatsapp has an export chat feature built in but only to plain text and it will happily ask you if you want to include media files and then not include all of them (and not inform you of the fact).
I think that until relatively recently you couldn't backup Whatsapp chats on iOS to anything but iCloud and the storage space probably wasn't big enough to use without a paid upgrade to iCloud.
Whatsapp was and is what people want from an IM app. It is also one of the top iOS downloads. That said, I'm sure more people would switch away from it and to other smaller platforms if they could take their chats with them. It isn't so much because of the app but because of the owner.
Luckily, the EU restricts what Meta can get away with here so users are definitely better off. EU users also have the 'right to be forgotten' although that option isn't applicable to Google's non-EU search engines for example.
Lots of work needs to be done to bring instant messaging into line now it has become the de facto method of personal (and increasingly business to individual) communication.
The only way to do that in a uniform manner is through clearly defined legislation. The further we go digital the more legislation we will need. Our digital legacies are still a legal mess even in 2023.
The DSA/DMA go some of the way towards reaching certain goals. It won't be the perfect solution out of the gate but will lay the groundwork for what is to come.
-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:
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?)
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 willallow 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.
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.
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.
Because safety as an issue with SMS is a red-herring created by Google and its history of messaging service shows that safety is not the main reason they are so adamant about Apple not supporting RCS. (And most don't buy the "green bubble" theory either.) Google main concern is trying to figure out how to get Google Messages to be the default messaging service that more Android users will turns to for all their messaging needs.
If SMS is such a safety issue, then why do Google Messages still support SMS? Shouldn't Google show by example and stop supporting SMS on their own messaging service? They will not because they also know that SMS is still popular with businesses and people that don't need any more than SMS to send a simple text. SMS is still the only service protocol that can send a text to every one with a cell phone, including iPhones. Google real issue is that Google Messages is not as popular as they would like it to be on Android. Even though (by now) it's available on every Android phone, most Android users are either using some other messaging services that are better than Google Messages or just staying with the carrier SMS client (if SMS is all they need.). Much like how iMessage is on every iPhone but not every iPhone users need iMessage for much more than SMS texting. If there were, then iMessage would be much more popular in the US (not just with teens). 50% of mobiles users in the US, uses an iPhone. Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are the most popular messaging services in the US. But that can change if the carriers makes Google Messages their default RCS client. Which is why Google Messages must still support SMS. SMS is never going to go away unless the carriers stop supporting it. And there are probably way more Android users not using Google Messages to receive (and send) RCS messages, than there are iOS users.
For most mobile users, safety is not the main issue with SMS, it's the lack of features. SMS do not have all the features of most (probably all) other messaging services. But for businesses that only need to send a simple text, it's still the best messaging service. Do doctors really need to be able to use half a dozen messaging services to send their patients a reminder of an appointment? How about retails informing their customers that their curbside pick up is ready? Or DoorDash informing your order been delivered. Do pizza take-outs really need to ask you what messaging service you're using, so they can text you when your order is ready? Do any of these type of messages need to have E2EE? Or be able to send a photo? Or need more that 160 characters. These type of short text messages are still very common.
Apple iMessage is not what's stopping RCS from becoming the standard messaging protocol, it's the mobile carriers. As long as they have customers that just need a simple text messaging service and businesses that might still be paying for it, they will stick with SMS as their standard. They already had over 12 years to convert over to RCS and they still see no reason why they should invest money in competing with better messaging services that are free.
If Apple users want to text securely with Android users, they can use Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, SnapChat, WeChat, Signal, etc.. Apple have no problem with that. That's what most iPhone users around the World do. But Google would rather Apple users use RCS with Google Messages. (ironic how RCS can only be received on Android using Google Messages and I think on some Samsung phones through a special deal with Google.) Having iMessage default to the carrier RCS on Android is a big step toward making Google Messages a more popular messaging service as more and more carriers (by Google urging) are using Google version of RCS that must use Google Messages as the default RCS client. But that will only happen if the carriers stop using SMS as the standard text messaging protocol. Which is still unlikely and why both iMessage and Google Messages still support SMS.
Don't take offense to the link I provided. It was the first link that provided a good write up of Google attempt of getting RCS as the standard on Android. I only got page 7 first, the RCS part and didn't know it was 8 pages long until I got to the bottom of the page.
Here are two, much more neutral article, that is much shorter and just as informative. I know your not going to be too happy with these write ups was well, as it also puts Google in a bad light. But at least it also puts Apple some what in a bad. But I don't take offense to that.
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?)
>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.
Some of the largest pharmaceuticals are in the EU and it's a sure bet that they are spending lobbying money in the US, to keep drug prices high in the US. It's where most, if not all, of the profits made by the big pharmaceuticals are made. It's one of the reasons why drug prices for the same drugs are much cheaper in the EU. The US ends up paying for most of the RD that goes into coming up with new and better drugs. While the EU government force the pharmaceuticals to lower the price of their drugs in their countries.
-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.
LOL!
You really need to think about that statement...
Here's a fact.
There would have been no Global Economy without the U.S. and specifically, the U.S. Navy providing freedom of navigation around the world, nor of the U.S. nuclear umbrella provided to prevent the Soviet Union, nee Russian Federation, from expansionism. That required a huge number of U.S. bases in friendly countries, true, but it allowed those countries to build their economies without having to also support a large military establishment, hence NATO.
The EU would not be as it is today, and thankfully, the EU is finally realizing that U.S. support of Europe is the primary reason that the EU even exists today. Meanwhile, the EU is reevaluating its positions on the Russian Federation, and China trade, and making solid steps to finally provide a modicum of its own security.
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 willallow 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Good for them, hopefully Apple will just offer a EU phone offering nothing more than Core Apple software, no public appstore no other apps other than the ones Apple makes, such a phone will be a best seller among the upper 10% of the population…… I wonder why?
This funny. Some commenting on this platform are just anti-Apple and it is obvious; it is the only reason they signed up on AppleInsider. It is really simple. iMessages is only one of many messaging Apps available on the iPhone, and users are free to use any messaging app they like. There is a trend in the EU of targeting Apple either to benefit their own companies (Spotify), or to extract money from Apple. The buzz words like monopoly, anticompetitive, etc that they use to target Apple are just excuses. They would not call similar practices by other companies monopolistic or anticompetitive. Apple is not a monopoly by the standard definition of monopoly, and they are not blocking anyone else from innovating or bring a new product to market. They do not harm the consumers (as many people commented here, no one asks the consumers). They support their products with free software updates for many years, and their product quality is well known, and many Apps on the App Store are free. iPhone, iPad and the Apple ecosystem came from nowhere. Apple was not a rich company at the time, and did not have any significant market share in portable devices (the Newton). They just innovated themselves to where they are now. There is no reason those who are today in the position where Apple was then could not come up with something new that people want. Unfortunately there are a lot of parasites who want to feed on successful companies to make money without having to do the hard work themselves or pay their dues/fare share. People buy Apple products because they have a choice and they choose Apple. Most apps on the iPhone now are either free or subscription-based, so the argument that people are trapped in Apple ecosystem because they invested in software does not hold. Many Apps are also now cross-platform, and are easy to transfer the data in these Apps to other platforms.
In the end, what they want is for Apple to be like everyone else mediocre.
-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.
LOL!
You really need to think about that statement...
Here's a fact.
There would have been no Global Economy without the U.S. and specifically, the U.S. Navy providing freedom of navigation around the world, nor of the U.S. nuclear umbrella provided to prevent the Soviet Union, nee Russian Federation, from expansionism. That required a huge number of U.S. bases in friendly countries, true, but it allowed those countries to build their economies without having to also support a large military establishment, hence NATO.
The EU would not be as it is today, and thankfully, the EU is finally realizing that U.S. support of Europe is the primary reason that the EU even exists today. Meanwhile, the EU is reevaluating its positions on the Russian Federation, and China trade, and making solid steps to finally provide a modicum of its own security.
'LOL'?
You didn't tackle what I suggested.
I just re-checked some data I have knocking around. In the so-called 'sensitive ecosystems' the US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
Source:
Brussels, 5.5.2021
SWD(2021) 352 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Strategic dependencies and capacities
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
-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.
-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.
-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.
In 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.
Of course, an avon b7 diatribe about how great the EU is, would be nothing without a throwing his favorite Chinese State Owned Enterprise into the mix.
Comments
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.
Or maybe just plain stupid is the word we're looking for here.
ASML alone would make the EU one of the most important markets in technology.
It's irrelevant.
This legislation is not there to target only 'Apple'. Google, Meta etc are affected too.
Those 'free' OS updates are not free at all. They are included in the price of the phone but never detailed. What is 'funny' is that the EU is preparing a directive to tackle that aspect. If everything goes through as proposed you will have a minimum support period, it will be made clear at sale and any new functionality that gets added in later updates will have to be downgradeable (including firmware) if users feel it compromises performance etc. Again this won't apply to just Apple.
Most apps being free or cross platform is also irrelevant.
Messages isn't cross platform, and Apple has recognised internally that it is well aware that that aspect is a known obstacle for users who might want to switch. They even used the words 'lock in'. I assume exporting data out of Messages for import into a competing app on another platform is also designed to be an obstacle or perhaps outright impossible without jumping through major hoops.
Whatsapp has an export chat feature built in but only to plain text and it will happily ask you if you want to include media files and then not include all of them (and not inform you of the fact).
I think that until relatively recently you couldn't backup Whatsapp chats on iOS to anything but iCloud and the storage space probably wasn't big enough to use without a paid upgrade to iCloud.
Whatsapp was and is what people want from an IM app. It is also one of the top iOS downloads. That said, I'm sure more people would switch away from it and to other smaller platforms if they could take their chats with them. It isn't so much because of the app but because of the owner.
Luckily, the EU restricts what Meta can get away with here so users are definitely better off. EU users also have the 'right to be forgotten' although that option isn't applicable to Google's non-EU search engines for example.
Lots of work needs to be done to bring instant messaging into line now it has become the de facto method of personal (and increasingly business to individual) communication.
The only way to do that in a uniform manner is through clearly defined legislation. The further we go digital the more legislation we will need. Our digital legacies are still a legal mess even in 2023.
The DSA/DMA go some of the way towards reaching certain goals. It won't be the perfect solution out of the gate but will lay the groundwork for what is to come.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
If SMS is such a safety issue, then why do Google Messages still support SMS? Shouldn't Google show by example and stop supporting SMS on their own messaging service? They will not because they also know that SMS is still popular with businesses and people that don't need any more than SMS to send a simple text. SMS is still the only service protocol that can send a text to every one with a cell phone, including iPhones. Google real issue is that Google Messages is not as popular as they would like it to be on Android. Even though (by now) it's available on every Android phone, most Android users are either using some other messaging services that are better than Google Messages or just staying with the carrier SMS client (if SMS is all they need.). Much like how iMessage is on every iPhone but not every iPhone users need iMessage for much more than SMS texting. If there were, then iMessage would be much more popular in the US (not just with teens). 50% of mobiles users in the US, uses an iPhone. Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are the most popular messaging services in the US. But that can change if the carriers makes Google Messages their default RCS client. Which is why Google Messages must still support SMS. SMS is never going to go away unless the carriers stop supporting it. And there are probably way more Android users not using Google Messages to receive (and send) RCS messages, than there are iOS users.
For most mobile users, safety is not the main issue with SMS, it's the lack of features. SMS do not have all the features of most (probably all) other messaging services. But for businesses that only need to send a simple text, it's still the best messaging service. Do doctors really need to be able to use half a dozen messaging services to send their patients a reminder of an appointment? How about retails informing their customers that their curbside pick up is ready? Or DoorDash informing your order been delivered. Do pizza take-outs really need to ask you what messaging service you're using, so they can text you when your order is ready? Do any of these type of messages need to have E2EE? Or be able to send a photo? Or need more that 160 characters. These type of short text messages are still very common.
Apple iMessage is not what's stopping RCS from becoming the standard messaging protocol, it's the mobile carriers. As long as they have customers that just need a simple text messaging service and businesses that might still be paying for it, they will stick with SMS as their standard. They already had over 12 years to convert over to RCS and they still see no reason why they should invest money in competing with better messaging services that are free.
If Apple users want to text securely with Android users, they can use Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, SnapChat, WeChat, Signal, etc.. Apple have no problem with that. That's what most iPhone users around the World do. But Google would rather Apple users use RCS with Google Messages. (ironic how RCS can only be received on Android using Google Messages and I think on some Samsung phones through a special deal with Google.) Having iMessage default to the carrier RCS on Android is a big step toward making Google Messages a more popular messaging service as more and more carriers (by Google urging) are using Google version of RCS that must use Google Messages as the default RCS client. But that will only happen if the carriers stop using SMS as the standard text messaging protocol. Which is still unlikely and why both iMessage and Google Messages still support SMS.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3646870/android-ios-messaging.html
>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.
Some of the largest pharmaceuticals are in the EU and it's a sure bet that they are spending lobbying money in the US, to keep drug prices high in the US. It's where most, if not all, of the profits made by the big pharmaceuticals are made. It's one of the reasons why drug prices for the same drugs are much cheaper in the EU. The US ends up paying for most of the RD that goes into coming up with new and better drugs. While the EU government force the pharmaceuticals to lower the price of their drugs in their countries.
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00011599/
https://tennesseestar.com/commentary/commentary-trump-was-right-again-about-the-u-s-subsidizing-europeans-healthcare-and-defense/admin/2022/03/08/
You really need to think about that statement...
Here's a fact.
There would have been no Global Economy without the U.S. and specifically, the U.S. Navy providing freedom of navigation around the world, nor of the U.S. nuclear umbrella provided to prevent the Soviet Union, nee Russian Federation, from expansionism. That required a huge number of U.S. bases in friendly countries, true, but it allowed those countries to build their economies without having to also support a large military establishment, hence NATO.
The EU would not be as it is today, and thankfully, the EU is finally realizing that U.S. support of Europe is the primary reason that the EU even exists today. Meanwhile, the EU is reevaluating its positions on the Russian Federation, and China trade, and making solid steps to finally provide a modicum of its own security.
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.
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.
You didn't tackle what I suggested.
I just re-checked some data I have knocking around. In the so-called 'sensitive ecosystems' the US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
Source:
Like the UK with Brexit, the EU is overplaying it’s hand.
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.
https://www.edn.com/the-truth-about-smics-7-nm-chip-fabrication-ordeal/
Of course, an avon b7 diatribe about how great the EU is, would be nothing without a throwing his favorite Chinese State Owned Enterprise into the mix.