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 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.