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.
@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)
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.
@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.