verne arase

Huh … installed Petey today and later got my first spontaneous Apple Watch reboot later this evening on my Ultra.

avon b7 said:

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. 

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.

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.

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.