Steve Troughton-SmithNonsense; Apple's Messages app already has an unencrypted pathway — using SMS. And unencrypted RCS, as of next year. A bridge to a competing service could also be unencrypted in the same form. If you really need to message somebody not using an encrypted service, you should get a warning in the app, but it should still be possible. It *will* be possible, and unencrypted, if other services interoperate with RCS directly
John Gruber@stroughtonsmith RCS can’t be the interop between messaging platforms. The platforms all allow for client devices that aren’t cellular, and RCS only works with cellular devices.
@gruber WhatsApp until recently has required a single device with a cell number, even if it had a bridge that worked on the desktop using a pairing process. What is WhatsApp meant to interoperate with in the first place, under these laws? The only interop that matters is between Messages and WhatsApp users
@stroughtonsmith So what protocol are you proposing would be used to send messages between, say, WhatsApp and iMessage?
@gruber that's the kind of implementation detail that laws don't need to specify, as long as both parties are compelled to interoperate. If you only compel one party, nobody's going to make a compatible protocol. Apple could be leading an E2EE initiative here on a shared protocol; the alternative is that something lesser is going to be forced upon them some years down the line that they could have completely avoided if they did the right thing from the start.
…like ALL of this regulation 😅
@stroughtonsmith No, I think they'd just pull iMessage from the EU.
@gruber that sure sounds like the petty and vindictive Apple we all know! If they did try that, I’d leave the platform and change careers for sure
@stroughtonsmith I don't think it's petty or vindictive to object to a dumb law.
charlesesmith
@gruber that's not an objection, that's collective punishment. It would be an egregious betrayal of every user who has invested in, and been locked in to, iMessage for over a decade, for completely self-serving purposes on Apple's part. There is a clear user benefit to interoperability. And today's news re push notifications underscores that Apple's ‘E2EE’ means nothing in the real world because they have secret deals for governments to do an end-run around it anyway
@gruber (also: Apple removing iMessage would have little impact if Messages were interoperable in the first place, anyway. We'd just move on with our lives and continue using the app as normal.
Which is exactly why this isn't a 'dumb law’. It removes Apple's ability to bully and blackmail, which sounds like exactly what they would choose to do if that's what you're hearing from your PR contacts)
Steve Sebban, CSI@stroughtonsmith @gruber also remember, iMessage is (almost) inexistant in Europe. Almost no one is using it. WhatsApp is the de-facto standard here.
Michael Sliwinski@stevesebban @stroughtonsmith @gruber totally. In Spain WhatsApp is the SMS.
Many of my friends who have iPhones don’t know what iMessage is and that they have it. They’re surprised and confused when send them a message outside of WhatsApp.
@michael @stroughtonsmith @gruber After some researches, I created this spreadsheet to understand the daily message usage by platform.
The most interesting fact is the low engament of the iMessage user base: WeChat has 5 times more daily messages for the same user base and WhatsApp 17 times more daily message with only 50% more user.
iMessage is really tiny and people don’t use it.
My take? Apple made a huge mistake by making it exclusive to iOS.
The same goes for FaceTime btw.
Thom, exceedingly pure@stroughtonsmith @gruber People like John really like to play into the US right-wing playbook of hating on the government, and channel that to simp for Apple. Not only is the EU incredibly popular among EU citizens as every poll shows, laws like the DMA and DSA are also very popular.
As an EU citizen, I don't give a rat's ass how this law affects Apple or anyone else. Messaging platforms have become hugely important to the social fabric of society, and need to be interoperable. Ideally, Apple, Facebook, Google, and so on get together and hammer out a proper, E2EE open source messaging service anyone can tap into (or opt to use one of the existing ones). The free market can kiss my ass, because as usual, it's clearly not working because I have to use like four garbage closed-off first-party messaging applications to keep up with friends and family. It's anti-user bullshit that needs to be fixed. By legal/financial force, if necessary.
Work it out, or get fucked.
Abazigal@thomholwerda I don’t live in the EU, I for one can’t imagine how this might work, and I agree that Apple will likely just pull iMessage out of the EU to avoid dealing with this mess instead (which is a valid response, IMO).
@thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith What you're proposing is almost literally this XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/927/
@stroughtonsmith @gruber If Apple used that new service in iMessage, Google in whatever their chat app at that time would be, and Facebook in WhatsApp and Messenger, it would be THE standard overnight.
That comic is, in this case, a strawman, and you know it.
@thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith But then how would anyone add their own new features? You're arguing for a lowest common denominator consortium backed protocol. People are quite happy with the current state, where we have a bunch of good secure platforms to choose from.
@stroughtonsmith @gruber What choice? You use what your friends and family use, or stop talking to them. It's like how yes, technically you can choose not to pay taxes.
There are countless way to add new features. The Unicode Consortium works just fine adding new emoji all the time, for instance. It's not like sending text messages, short videos, and images is some sort of rocket science only a select few people can implement. How many actual "features" that aren't just various variations of "send file" are there?
𝒜dam 𝒮cheinberg // sethadam1@thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith @gruber Not taking a side here, but: tapbacks/reactions, iMessage apps integration, group chat titles, group image, dynamic stickers, disappearing messages, and many more fairly recent messaging features in several apps that aren't just "send file" variations. All of these would be tough to integrate if it weren't part of the standard. And I'll add - whatever the standard is on day 1, it's unlikely to see regular major feature enhancements b/c of backwards compat.
Bret Carmichael@sethadam1 @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith @gruber The value of iMessage as a social network of sorts is baked into the value of the iPhone. It makes the iPhone sticky. Google knows it, which is why they’re lobbying EU regulators to make Apple open up iMessage. Apple is smart to fight that tooth and nail. Google benefits by making differentiated Apple features undifferentiated and generic.
@bretcarmichael @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith @gruber And if they double down on that lock-in, it will drive more and more people, especially outside the US, to WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, etc. I believe evidence shows us that users are fed up with incompatible messaging apps, and Apple stands to lose out in the long run. For example, I have plenty of non-iMessage chats because people can't run it on their laptops at work.
@sethadam1 @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith @gruber The ecosystem of messaging apps is more diverse outside of the US where iMessage is preferred. Apple isn’t blocking apps, but declining to make them interoperable with iMessage. Other messaging apps are available on iOS, plus iMessage, which is not available on non-iOS devices. Whether Apple opens up iOS, or people stop using it, the effect is the same: a loss of lock-in. Their business incentive to keep iMessage differentiated and not generic.
@bretcarmichael @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith @gruber Not sure if you saw my reply. I'm arguing that a closed off iMessage keeps people on iPhones but encourages the use of alternative, more cross platform friendly services. I think this is a long-term bad move by Apple.
@thomholwerda @gruber there was a point not so long ago when the Messages app supported iMessage, AIM, and Jabber simultaneously. iMessage was essentially a plug-in to the existing app. There are so many technical ways to do this that don't touch the security of iMessage itself
@stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda But that's arguing that to comply with the DMA in the EU, each messaging app, from each company, needs to support all of the services. So Apple Messages would need to support WhatsApp and FB Messenger, WhatsApp would need to support iMessage and Messenger, and Messenger would need to support WhatsApp and iMessage.
@gruber @thomholwerda nobody expects this to be frictionless; this isn't a request, this is a corrective measure to ensure abusive, monopolistic companies do the right thing. These companies behaved so egregiously that half the world decided to legislate to put a stop to it. If Apple thinks it has a moral high ground here, it's wildly out of touch. Which is why I think it would be ridiculous for Apple to get away with having iMessage excluded—every single product they make should be scrutinized
Hunter Hillegas@stroughtonsmith @gruber Half the world by what measure? I do find the difference of opinion fascinating. I’m an American and my default take is that the current behavior is certainly not abusive or defacto ‘the wrong thing’. But while not universal, it seems like I see a lot of the “takes” I see break down based on where people are from. That’s interesting…
@stroughtonsmith @hunter That’s a weird list. The only country that’s pushed Apple around isn’t even on your list: China.
Narain@stroughtonsmith @gruber @hunter it’s hard to argue that any company has a monopoly in messaging. It’s. It like someone with a phone is unreachable by someone else with a phone because a platform is preventing them from doing so. What we have is choice and network effects…competition. If WhatsApp hadn’t demonstrated that enough people care about e2ee it’s unlikely that other platforms would’ve adopted it. GIFs, rich formatting, groups, channels, bots, etc. are the dividend of this.
Dominic Hopton@stroughtonsmith @gruber @hunter isn’t the china that pushed apple to a) stand up a DC in china *specifically* so b) they could hand over the keys to the govt c) completely mess up games in the store in china for lots of political reasons.
I don’t think you can say ‘china didn’t push apple around’ with a straight face.
@grork @gruber @hunter …I didn’t. I've only ever been talking about regulating the app store and Apple services for anticompetitive behavior. Wherever China fits into Apple's story, it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about (as far as I know?), and I didn't bring it up. I listed the countries that either already have legislation, or are in the process of it. I don't know why Americans keep bringing up China 😅
China didn’t make Apple design a USB-C phone or sideloading. The EU did
@stroughtonsmith @hunter The only reason Apple changed course on RCS is China.
@gruber @hunter I can see that China is in the process of making RCS mandatory for 5G phone certification in the country, but I'm not aware of any indication that that's part of anticompetition legislation. There have been many changes Apple have made around the world due to shifting infrastructure landscapes — GLONASS in Russia, for example
@cundravy@stroughtonsmith @gruber @hunter India is now forcing USB-C on sold iPhones by 2025 - https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/05/apple-india-exempt-usb-c-charging-standard/
At the risk of stating the obvious, inter-op can and likely will have privacy and security feature diff compared to iMessage. I think most people get this distinction given "e2ee" isn't the priority for the choice of their messenger.
It seems like John and you don't share the same definition of interop and I'd love to hear what John would like from interop (if at all).
@stroughtonsmith @hunter I think "anticompetitive" is the wrong framework. It's "regulatory”, and that's where China has pushed them around. They built out an entire fork of iCloud inside China for regulatory compliance. Now they've completely reversed course on RCS, and I believe that's all about China.
@gruber @stroughtonsmith @hunter meanwhile, Meta discontinues interop between their messaging apps…
David R@gruber @stroughtonsmith @hunter Speaking of China, having a centralize messaging platform would sure make spying on those messages easier.
Sean@hunter @stroughtonsmith @gruber exactly this. And don’t forget that iMessage is in no way a dominant or major player in Europe.
Aleksandar Vacić@stroughtonsmith @gruber @thomholwerda Jobs did say that FaceTime would be open standard. 🙃
This is a chance to go one up and make both Messages and FaceTime an open standard. That is another instance of the thing Apple loves most — positive PR — it’s just bonus.
This is a chance to go one up and make both Messages and FaceTime an open standard. That is another instance of the thing Apple loves most — positive PR — it’s just bonus.
@aleck @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda I’m sure one of the great computer companies in the EU will solve this.
@gruber @aleck @stroughtonsmith Good luck building any of Apple's products without ASML or ARM.
I hear the Chinese are finally catching up to where Intel was 4 years ago. Should make for great iPhones. 👍
Venkat@gruber @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda I’m sure quite a few US companies will waste lots of money doing the same
Mikael Hansson@gruber @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda As someone who used to run Pidgin (https://pidgin.im) before the various IM services started going proprietary and hard(er) to backwards-engineer, I completely fail to see how it would be bad to return to open - but E2E encrypted - protocols for instant messaging from a consumer perspective. Today’s situation is only good for vendor lock-in.
@mikael @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda It's impractical though. Who runs content moderation? Who controls the namespace for user IDs?
It's not even like there is an open E2E messaging protocol that's being ignored. There isn't one that exists. Signal is closest I suppose.
@gruber @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda Regarding content moderation, that’s not something you’d expect in an instant messaging protocol: Apple doesn’t moderate iMessage, do they? And we have several examples of working namespaces, from email addresses to phone numbers. Mastodon is - not fully decentralized but “a set of islands” - and solves it with an “email-like” namespace. You only need a way to initiate direct contact between individuals.
@mikael @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda Apple deletes the accounts of spammers on iMessage every day.
@gruber @stroughtonsmith @thomholwerda Thanks; I didn’t think of that as content moderation, but of course it is.
Zsolt Benke@stroughtonsmith There was even an iChat services plugin system, which nobody used. forums.macrumors.com/threads/i...
iChat Service Plugins
Hello I didn't see a thread devoted to this topic, and info on it is scarce anywhere, so I thought I would start one. I'm really looking forward to the new iChat service plugins. I prefer iChat over other IM apps, but I've always missed the lack of MSN and other service protocols. Lion's...
Tad van Sander 🇺🇦🇵🇸@gruber @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith Matter, the smart home “14th competing standard” developed with heavy Apple involvement works pretty well for smart devices - and by extension for users. I don’t see a reason why a bunch of 1+ TN dollar companies couldn’t work out “Matter for messaging” when forced to.
@thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith «Ideally, Apple, Facebook, Google, and so on get together and hammer out a proper, E2EE open source messaging service anyone can tap into» sounds like a fantasy to me, and if it came to fruition, it would constitute a new messaging platform. Each of these platforms has their own unique features, like the rules for deleting and editing messages, tapbacks, etc. They also have their own namespaces for identity.
scbarton@gruber @thomholwerda @stroughtonsmith
This is a situation where the companies involved need motivation to collaborate on building such a protocol, to get us out of the wild west situation of siloed apps. Not to replace competing protocols- there currently is no common protocol. These companies are obliged to *at least try*, because they have built their closed protocols on top of public goods- cellular bandwidth and the internet.
Michael@stroughtonsmith @gruber if adding another messaging service to the messaging app would comply with the law, all anyone would have to do is add RCS texting. They are *already* complying by that definition. But thats not what the law says.
Invisible@stroughtonsmith @gruber I wouldn’t agree that todays news means E2EE means nothing. My understanding is that developers are able to encrypt the payload of push notifications. The news today just means unencrypted notifications and metadata may be shared. Agreed the metadata piece is problematic, but not to the point where it “means nothing”.
Leon Cowle@stroughtonsmith @gruber Maybe I'm wrong, but the push notification news wasn't that secret deals meant govts could READ encrypted push notification contents, which ARE E2EE. It's just that govts could see who got push notifications for which apps, and using that *meta* data, could deduce things. An example I saw: US reporter breaks a China scandal. China govt sees many WhatsApp notifications at the same time the day before to that reporter & to one of their govt employees. Busted!
@leoncowle @gruber there are precious few non-messaging apps that use E2EE for their push notifications, and there's a whole lot of information you can deduce from notification payloads and metadata
@stroughtonsmith @gruber Agreed. I think I was more typing out my own understanding, hoping you'll tell me “no, read here, govts can read ALL your notifications' contents”, afterwhich I would of course be outraged, too. Seems it's somewhere in the middle, though. Mild outrage warranted. :)
gormster@gruber @stroughtonsmith maybe pop yourself back over to the bird site with these hot takes john
Ville Turpeinen@gruber @stroughtonsmith Well, they did see that interoperability was a way to go with home automation, so maybe there’s hope.
Surely Apple/Facebook/Google has enough brainpower to figure out and build some kind of Federation style discovery/interoperability messaging protocol that doesn’t require central exchange.