Department of Justice and FTC Looking Into Beeper iMessage Controversy

[dwaite]

For those who are on the side of Apple and wants to keep iMessage on their iPhones... need to understand that allowing iMessage on Android benefits you (shocker!).

Maybe short-term, but if it creates more uptake of iMessage rather than an interoperable standard, it still increases Apple's overall power in the market. Messaging is a network effect system, so if we get a majority of US Android users are now _also_ using an iMessage-supporting app for SMS/MMS and iMessage (and it would be a ****** experience otherwise), it will be next to impossible to ever break that hold.

iMessage is designed so that Apple sets the formats allowed for messages, and all traffic goes through Apple servers, using an Apple account. Compare this to RCS, SMS, MMS, Matrix and XMPP where groups of companies have agreed on a baseline level of functionality and can all build their own servers and client software.

You won't have to be concerned about "oh, they have an Android... I don't care to message them." Look at the data from teenagers and especially in the dating world. It removes that barrier. And I know you might be wondering... well, there's plenty of other messaging platforms to exchange messages with for Android users.

I have zero, ZERO concern about messaging people based on what their phone make and model is. My discrimination against android phone users starts and stops at technical support. However I'm both unqualified to do such support, and the android UX is lousy enough that I want to throw the damn phone against a wall - probably not what they want.

But the issue is that most iPhone users IN THE US... gravitate toward iMessage. If we (in the states) can agree to move to a cross-platform messaging app... this whole situation would be mute.

An official iMessage for Android would effectively kill usage of several other messaging products in the US, including likely Google's.

 

[DakotaGuy]

That remains to be seen. If Apple do their proprietary version of RCS like Google did, or if it remains regionally restricted due to requiring provider buy-in, not a lot will be solved.

There is no proprietary version.

Apple has already stated they will be using the RCS universal profile. Google uses the RCS universal profile. They will communicate just fine. What remains to be seen is if/how encryption is added. Right now, Google uses an extension to the profile to encrypt RCS messages between Google Message users. If encryption is not added to the universal profile what will happen is messages between Android devices will be encrypted and messages from Android to Apple won't. At least not E2E.

It has been a common misconception around here that somehow Google has some special RCS that's not compatible with the universal profile. They use the universal profile with an added extension for encryption. If that extension is missing on another device the message is only encrypted in transit, not end to end. Even without E2E, RCS is still by far more secure than SMS which sends plain text from start to end and can be intercepted by anyone and read.

 

[1129846]

How can they be abusing iMessaging by not building an app for Android?

You can make the case that by not allowing other apps to build SMS fallback into their apps that they are abusing their position as the default messaging app on iOS to push iMessage but that isn't quite the same thing. That is abusing their position as the default app not iMessage itself.

And you listed some of the reasons.
No other App can access SMS messages or fall back to it. Add in every iPhone is defaulted into iMessage and defaulted to get an iMessage account. iMessage on the iPhone is opt out not opt in which is a huge difference. That has been going on for years so it is not something can be unwound. It is just that power so it is not like they could fix it at this point by opening things up as it might already be to late and as such needs to forced to open up.

It is not going to be a single issue. It is multiple issue that add up and could potentially have caused Apple to cross the line. At best right now Apple is in the massive grey area the real question is have they gone to far and need to be force back or broken up a little in that area or is Apple still in a position they can do some of it themselves and not need the federal oversight or massive hammer.

 

[bcortens]

And you listed some of the reasons.
No other App can access SMS messages or fall back to it. Add in every iPhone is defaulted into iMessage and defaulted to get an iMessage account. iMessage on the iPhone is opt out not opt in which is a huge difference. That has been going on for years so it is not something can be unwound. It is just that power so it is not like they could fix it at this point by opening things up as it might already be to late and as such needs to forced to open up.

It is not going to be a single issue. It is multiple issue that add up and could potentially have caused Apple to cross the line. At best right now Apple is in the massive grey area the real question is have they gone to far and need to be force back or broken up a little in that area or is Apple still in a position they can do some of it themselves and not need the federal oversight or massive hammer.

I didn't list reasons why iMessage was anticompetitive though (which was your original claim):

I would say the backdooring part yeah not good but I do think Apple should be looked at for other reason on iMessaging and if it being abused. Beeper just got FTC attention on it but Beeper itself should not be the reason Apple is in trouble. There are a long list of other reason that iMessage and Apple have in anti trust.

I listed reasons that Apple might be abusing it's position as the default in iPhone messaging. It may be splitting hairs but that is important in legal proceedings. iMessage ≠ Messages app

 

[AndiG]

DOJ should hunt Apple down

 

[1129846]

I didn't list reasons why iMessage was anticompetitive though, rather reasons that apple might be abusing it's position as the default in iPhone messaging. It may be splitting hairs but that is important in legal proceedings. iMessage ≠ Messages app

While iMessage ≠ Messages app at this point they also are starting to be intertwined hence even iMessage at this point might have to be looked at due to abusing this position as the defaulting and forced opt in on the iPhone.
It is not the first time Apple has gotten looked at for it as Apple only iMessaging service in the pass is known to lock up phone numbers and cause almost all iPhone users sending test message to a given number to us iMessage even if the person has left the platform causing the messages to get lost.
It is how on the iPhone it has gotten to the point it is almost 1 and the same.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Tim Apple needs to have his Android team publish an official iMessages app for that platform. Restricting people who used Android phones from being able to communicate is a form of discrimination.

Found the guy always finding a way to be a victim.

 

[bcortens]

While iMessage ≠ Messages app at this point they also are starting to be intertwined hence even iMessage at this point might have to be looked at due to abusing this position as the defaulting and forced opt in on the iPhone.
It is not the first time Apple has gotten looked at for it as Apple only iMessaging service in the pass is known to lock up phone numbers and cause almost all iPhone users sending test message to a given number to us iMessage even if the person has left the platform causing the messages to get lost.
It is how on the iPhone it has gotten to the point it is almost 1 and the same.

Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.

There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.

The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.

 

[Macusercom]

I don't know what is more ridiculous. Beeper Mini trying to survive or Apple trying to gatekeep their service.

Lucky for Apple, the EU decided iMessage isn't popular enough here in Europe. Otherwise Apple's current push against Beeper Mini would not be in their favour

 

[WolfSnap]

This is no different than Macy's telling me that I can't impersonate a Macy's employee, and set up a booth inside their store to sell my own merchandise. Beeper is using Apple's servers without authorization, by pretending they're something different than they are, and trying to profit from it. There's no part of what they're doing that's ok.

 

[bcortens]

I don't know what is more ridiculous. Beeper Mini trying to survive or Apple trying to gatekeep their service.

Lucky for Apple, the EU decided iMessage isn't popular enough here in Europe. Otherwise Apple's current push against Beeper Mini would not be in their favour

Apple shouldn't be prevented from gatekeeping the iMessage protocol and app, and even if it was popular in the EU they wouldn't be required to bring everything iMessage does to everyone, nor would they be required to release iMessage for Android.

The EU requires interoperability of messaging apps which is leading them to work on an interoperable protocol with E2EE. I think the E2EE is the major difficulty which is going to slow this down. Interoperability will hopefully work well once it is implemented but I doubt it is going to make messaging between services indistinguishable from messaging within a service.

 

[CapitalIdea]

You cannot have something without paying for it, period.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

​

Finally. I think that Biden should...!

Note: There was no actual political content in this joke I was simply joking about the fact that political content is allowed.

 

[erikkfi]

Cool. They are using human psychology to market their products, just like every other company.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Or just a cool nugget of information you were sharing?

No, it's not supposed to be a bad thing, it manifestly is a bad thing. As a consumer, you should want more choices. It drives costs down and leads to better products in the long run. The stickier iOS gets, the fewer people can make a reasonable choice to leave it if they don't like decisions Apple is making. That's hell for consumers. If you don't share that perspective, 👍 good for you!

 

[erikkfi]

Sure, Apple doesn't want to give away a competitive advantage. Isn't that how competition is supposed to work? They create an app that gives their platform an edge. If Google had something compelling maybe they could lure people to use it, it's not Apple's fault Google is failing to compete.

I don't expect them to change their mind about where iMessage is going to go. I expect and hope governments will eventually do that for them. What I do want them to do is stop lying about their reasons for not putting it onto other platforms. Not one more nauseating word about privacy and security. "We don't put iMessage on Android because we prefer it to be on just our platform." At least that would be honest.

 

[bumblebritches5]

Tim Apple needs to have his Android team publish an official iMessages app for that platform. Restricting people who used Android phones from being able to communicate is a form of discrimination.

Discrimination is protected under the constitution as the Freedom of Association.

 

[RalfTheDog]

If Apple allows third party content onto their network, what is to stop spammers from flooding the system? As it is, spammers would be forced to send all of their traffic through a single device and all of the spam would be from that single device's owner. Allowing anyone to put any message from any person on the network does not sound as if it would improve the quality of that network.

 

[RalfTheDog]

You cannot have something without paying for it, period.

You can, but only if you are the product being sold.

 

[bcortens]

No, it's not supposed to be a bad thing, it manifestly is a bad thing. As a consumer, you should want more choices. It drives costs down and leads to better products in the long run. The stickier iOS gets, the fewer people can make a reasonable choice to leave it if they don't like decisions Apple is making. That's hell for consumers. If you don't share that perspective, 👍 good for you!

But that isn't an argument for making iMessage available for Android, that is an argument for making it easier to switch between messaging platforms...

Apple should try and make its platform stickier by making sure it is better than competing platforms, that means they should keep iMessage and all its fancy features locked to iOS.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.

There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.

The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.

SMS is part of the baseband functionality. That is a low level OS function. It would be like saying, third parties can control the cell modem or memory allocation.

 

[msackey]

Mostly agree with this, I think that for interoperability between messaging apps (something the EU is currently legislating) all messaging apps should fallback to either SMS or (better) RCS. This would of course require Apple to allow third party SMS/RCS apps which would be a good thing IMO.

There is absolutely no reason Beeper should get to essentially steal another companies messaging service for their own use.

I generally agree, but I'm not sure how to really think about the following: that Apple should allow third party SMS/RCS apps. Ok, sure. But what about the phone app? Should Apple also allow another phone "app" to operate on iPhone so that if I don't like Apple's version I can use another?

At what point is the thing (phone) the thing itself versus an app? In other words, if we are going to say the app for SMS is just another app, then so too is the phone, no?

 

[bcortens]

SMS is part of the baseband functionality. That is a low level OS function. It would be like saying, third parties can control the cell modem or memory allocation.

I actually don't know if making SMS the fallback interoperability protocol between all messaging apps is a good idea.

Given that the EU legislation requires that security not be worse for people using the interoperable protocol means that SMS cannot be the fallback protocol in the EU.

There should be some sort of fallback protocol, even in the US, that is interoperable between all messaging platforms, but that doesn't have to be iMessage nor does it have to be SMS, perhaps it shouldn't even be SMS.

My point is more that the interoperable protocol should be standard across all messaging apps (if SMS is the only interoperable protocol we have in North America then by perhaps Apple should provide an API to access it through other apps. I understand this poses its own security risks and might not be a smart solution though so perhaps some other solution is required).
iMessage on Android is, by definition not a protocol that allows users of different messaging platforms to talk to one another.

 

[msackey]

SMS is part of the baseband functionality. That is a low level OS function. It would be like saying, third parties can control the cell modem or memory allocation.

Agreed! I think this is why in my other recent post in this thread I'm kinda thinking it doesn't seem to fully make sense to say allow other SMS apps; what about allowing other phone apps?

 

[bcortens]

I generally agree, but I'm not sure how to really think about the following: that Apple should allow third party SMS/RCS apps. Ok, sure. But what about the phone app? Should Apple also allow another phone "app" to operate on iPhone so that if I don't like Apple's version I can use another?

At what point is the thing (phone) the thing itself versus an app? In other words, if we are going to say the app for SMS is just another app, then so too is the phone, no?

Just addressed this above. SMS/RCS might not be the best choice since it is a fundamental feature of the phone rather than being a more generic messaging protocol.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Hope they are looking into the fraud and illegal access of a computer network that the developer was doing.