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 @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.