verne arase

gatorguy said:

lowededwookie said:

Didn’t Apple already open up the iMessage protocols but the industry didn’t care?

Nope, not as far as I know. It was promised when first announced, but Apple reneged, as is their right of course.

You're thinking of FaceTime … Apple may have thought about doing iMessage at one time but no promises were ever made.

Not sure why the EU/EC has such a bug up their butts over this - Apple doesn't restrict messaging apps in iOS.

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.

Just why is it that the EU/EC thinks they can force developmental changes to Apple's messaging app to shoehorn in other people's messaging protocols?

Is it just some minister saying, "I use WhatsApp and I hate it when I have to tell the recipient to download WhatsApp and they refuse to do so?"

Why is it that EU regulators think they're software/hardware engineers? Are they just frustrated that they don't have a domestic phone platform they can ruin through their meddling?

So are they trying to screw with the iMessage protocol, or the Message app implementation? Do they want Messages to handle other protocols, or group message implementation? For instance, RCS has end-to-end encryption but only on Google's servers - and they don't have a group messaging E2E encryption model (unlike iMessage). EU/EC meddling threatens to turn a relatively clean app/protocol into a rats nest with exceptions out the wazoo.

The security of your communications is only as strong as the weakest link, so the potential for compromise increases with every protocol used/implemented.

Let's not kid ourselves … this is all about protecting Spotify.

Spotify has been tugging on mommy's sleeve for quite some time, and this is the EU/EC political response.

So … who is the EC protecting?

The EC has a long history of protecting EU consumers and EU companies … and that's all they seem to care about.

The artists who compose and make the music that Spotify is based on? They can go pound sand.

Spotify pays the lowest royalties in the business, and has actually sued the artists for asking for a bigger cut of the pie. So the content creators - the ones who make the music which is at the core of the streaming business - get no protection from those capitalizing on their work.

If they wanted to, the EC could come up with regulations to protect the artists and establish a minimum payment for steamed music back to the artists - but the EC doesn't care about them. They're just the creatives: the force behind the whole business.

As long as the consumers get cheap music and Spotify can distribute it at minimum wage, the EC is happy.

And that, my friends, is why the EU countries have dropped from the European Center of intellectual property development into an also ran block of bureaucratically connected counties.

There is no longer any respect for the rights of the creators.

You guys really need to take a look at Letric eBikes.

Cheaper with more features and foldable - a better package all around (and capable of up to 28 mph).

avon b7 said:
A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.

Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.