Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's iMessage May Dodge EU Regulatory Demand for Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An action that increases opportunity of competition to compete.
Exactly like any other messaging app. No third party is required for iMessage to work.
Beeper is a messaging server and they will integrate beeper mini to their normal network so users can message WhatsApp, messenger, viber etc etc
Completely wrong. The minimum requirement are listed. Extra functionality isn’t required to be compatible
That’s always the case with sms.
That's bad advice. The private key on your device needs to be protected. Yes, it works in pairs, but the public key is (shockingly) public.
I disagree. It will lead to more spam, less security, and more confusion. Upgrading from SMS to RCS solves most of the issues that interoperability seeks to address.
No need. Nobody uses it anyways.Hmmm, it seems like Apple needs to delete this page and decommission the feature asap...this certainly doesn't help their argument.
iOS - Messages for Business
Messages for Business lets you easily connect with companies to ask questions, schedule appointments, and make purchases right from the Messages app.www.apple.com
The (private) key is very much not useless to have. Your metaphor also is false, it‘s not two parts of a key, it‘s 2 separate keys with separate purposes.
The encryption works like this: your message is encrypted using the public key, which anyone can obtain and is essentially publicly listed next to your name. The public key encryption is a one-way mechanism, you can only encrypt something that way. That‘s where the second, the private key, comes into play. It never leaves your device and is the single key to unlock anything that‘s been encrypted with your public key.
In real world scenarios, obtaining the private key from a compromised device (e.g. Beeper mini user) allows the thief to decrypt all incoming encrypted messages the device receives (at least the ones that match the private keys companion public key), but NOT decrypt any messages sent to other devices (which may or may not be needed anyways when someone has access to your device and can grab the raw content before encryption anyways).
So yeah, your iPhone friends texting you are vulnerable to their sent messages being exposed.
That being said, you have bigger problems when someone manages to break into your device and grab private keys.
That's the challenge - not every regulation does that, some create barriers to entry that help entrenched companies; and regulations can and do have outcomes that are counter to their intent. Some, such as local content rules, limit entry, for example, by a cheaper competitor and protect local industries.
If you want competition to lower prices and or add features, regulations don't always do that.
Regulations aren't per se bad, just that they don't aren't always "An action that increases opportunity of competition to compete.
My point was now you've added a third party beyond Apple you have to trust to keep their word.
Nothing inherently wrong with that.
Today. It's not a stretch to see regulators could decide a feature introduced later must be made compatible; they can't anticipate what will happen in the future and thus can only attempt to regulate what is available currently.
Depends on your carrier. Mine doesn't charge, in the US or EU.
Well no as the private key is used to encrypt your messages combined with their public key
Well in a sense but irrelevant as it’s just the protocol, APIs and encryption. Everything that deals with communication must 100% work or it will give you errors or fail. There’s nothing as 99% working it’s 100% or 0%
Everything else you see is just esthetics and doesn’t matter l.
True they might do that, but they haven’t done that with any other third party solutions. It’s legally protected to reverse engineer software to make things work together with other devices as long as no original source code is used.
And there’s no ability to access the source code unless someone inside Apple leaks it.
Again, public keys are public. So if you have a Bob's private key, you can decrypt Bob's messages.
FWIW, your illustration is a description of generating a shared key for symmetric key encryption. Messaging systems such as iMessage generally use asymmetrical encryption.
Accessing a computer network without permission is illegal.
Indeed. Even if iMessage is exclusive to Apple, it sends and receives MMS/SMS just like any other messaging app. The only hang up people have is the bubble color.🙄 Hail, I can change the bubble color on my messaging app, so I don't see the appeal.😏
My wife and kids uses iMessage to issues orders to me.
"Take out the papers and the trash or you don't get no spending cash."😉
Basic MMS and SMS is all I care for. Anything more elaborate or extensive, I prefer email.
Exactly.
It makes me wonder if the EU knows the difference between iMessage (the protocol) and Messages (the app)
😋
Sure, but that depends on the goal of the regulation. Competition to lower prices isn’t always interesting or the goal. And adding features aren’t ether the goal.
Such as the EU regulations they don’t care about more/less features or lower/higher prices as it’s completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the purpose of the marketplace.
But the goal and intention of regulation is polar opposite between EU and US legislators. Protecting local industries is extremely illegal and government run businesses are not allowed to operate under different rules than the exact same as the market.
And assume in the USA that state/federal enterprises must compete on the free market on equal terms and that states aren’t allowed to make laws that protects local industries from competition in other states.
Their word in what? The code is open source and the trust is same as any messaging service
Well I would say it absolutely is as there’s no historical precedent for that ever happening. And it’s past the scope of the law and goal of the commission.
At least for EU as it dictate minimum interoperability of essential functions.
But allowing the market to dictate how that function is met.
Just how web browsers have common standards to offer minimum functionality parity set by the industry while full functionality of proprietary solutions for those who want it.
Interesting, I can’t text Japan for free or Africa etc.
Yes. They know.
They are not US police officers.
They know, that why they call it a number independent communication service. This includes the app and protocol that users interact with to send/receive iMessages
Beeper is an independent company, he is working as a contractor to them. And they have existed for a long while.
Their service is one app for all messaging services as they currently offer
I guess you haven't used MMS?
You can't even send a picture with decent quality (300kB!). Actually "could", because many European providers have already shut down MMS, because it was so bad and expensive that nobody used it anymore since WhatsApp came around.It's really not about color, it's lack of features. The "hang up" Americans have about is that the majority has selected a preferred modern replacement that won't run on their device. And sure, that does suck for them.
In most other countries, the majority picked cross-platform services. But nowhere do people still want to use SMS. Not because of bubble color, but because SMS just isn't good enough.
Apple is slow walking this because their solution will be worse than what the EU envisions.
Sideloading will require app signing, from Apple. No iOS app can run without Apple's digital signature, now side loading gets around this with dev accounts, but Apple has already laid the groundwork to avoid this req.
But just remember, that if side loading is official, it will be a very controlled and locked down process. It's not gonna be just install and run. It will be sandboxed and have severe restrictions. And then APPLE will make it OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY, which they are allowed to do as Apple does not support Apps that have not gone through their app review process. This won't hold against the DMA, but then Apple will switch tactics to allowing Third Party App stores to proliferate.
For the first year, all hell will break loose and Apple will just tell their customers "You installed software we don't support on the device. I am sorry that you downloaded a third party App Store, and then downloaded an app not reviewed by us, but your warranty does not cover the problem. Please contact your representative to change the EU law.
Sideloading will require app signing, from Apple. No iOS app can run without Apple's digital signature, now side loading gets around this with dev accounts, but Apple has already laid the groundwork to avoid this req.
But just remember, that if side loading is official, it will be a very controlled and locked down process. It's not gonna be just install and run. It will be sandboxed and have severe restrictions. And then APPLE will make it OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY, which they are allowed to do as Apple does not support Apps that have not gone through their app review process. This won't hold against the DMA, but then Apple will switch tactics to allowing Third Party App stores to proliferate.
For the first year, all hell will break loose and Apple will just tell their customers "You installed software we don't support on the device. I am sorry that you downloaded a third party App Store, and then downloaded an app not reviewed by us, but your warranty does not cover the problem. Please contact your representative to change the EU law.
You've drawn some pretty hard conclusions about Apple's business plans. Just because the Android side of the fence jumped onto foldable tech before Apple doesn't mean that Apple is "refusing". Apple delivers something when they are ready to deliver it, not because some consumers demand it.
It requires more brain cells, but why do people think they need to use just _one_ messaging app, one browser, etc? We are living in a very diverse time of lots of apps. It just requires the skill to switch to the right app at the right time.
I'm curious how different chat networks would interoperate? If I jump into Messages, how would I choose and communicate with a WhatsApp user? Would they just magically show up in my Contacts list, and be identified by a WhatsApp icon? Could get messy and confusing.
I have these same questions too.
Will I be able to communicate with a WhatsApp user without having a WhatsApp account myself? And is that good or bad? It sounds like that's what the EU wants to happen. But I'm not sure the services themselves are too keen on it.
If every service can communicate with every other service... then what's the point of the service? It may turn into a dumbed-down experience for everyone. It'll be interesting to see how this will work.
🤔
What is the purpose of competition if it doesn't add value at the same price or lower prices?
So what is the purpose of a market place if not to provide a competitive market where consumers benefit from price/value competition?
What do you see as the difference?
IIRC, France has attempted to protect local industry such as publishing from competition from non-French companies, as an example.
Countries often subsidize government entities or provide incentives for companies operating in their region.
Not really, unfortunately.
They are. Liquor for example by forbidding import by non-retailers; which hurts competition.
One never knows when a company will decide data collection on use habits is worth monetizing.
Well, the EU has change the 1995 data protection law with the 2016 GDPR. My point was regulators like to regulate and will make changes over time to laws.
So do you think, as messaging evolves, wat are considered essential functions will not change?
You need a better provider if that is mission critical.