Not true at all. Monopolies suppress innovation. Its economics 101.
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.
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If my product supports the standard for interoperability (SMS, RCS, or whatever it may be), but then also has some other innovative features that work only when using my app with another user of my app, how does that not still add value to my product?
If you want RCS to be the standard, don't look to Apple, look to the carriers. Google had to cajole almost every one to adopt it. Even then, they had to do a lot of the heavy lifting on their own.
SMS today is the lead standard of interoperability. Is government going to force interoperability by enforcing adoption of a specific protocol? Or are proprietary features a thing of the past?
Not true. We have a lot of what we have today in terms of telcomm infrastructure due to AT&T, Lucent. But Apple isn't a monopoly in the smartphone market, far from it.
More than one party can be responsible for the lack of a move to RCS, and Apple certainly isn't helping things. But this is rather besides the broader point, as I don't care if RCS is the standard or not.
Well iMessage already supports SMS and MMS, what other standard do you want then?
That question remains to be seen. It may depend on how nicely the companies decide to play with each other. If any of them wants to act like a brat, then the EU should put them in timeout. I'm sure the EU would rather the companies decide for themselves how to work together on the standard.
Say it with me, "interoperability doesn't require feature parity." Again, "interoperability doesn't require feature parity." One more time, "interoperability doesn't require feature parity."
There is a standard! It's called SMS! And SMS, which is designed by carriers, sucks. Apple created iMessage in order to make something better- something that needs to be done unilaterally. I presume the same is true for other chat apps. It's the same reason Apple is abandoning standards like OpenGL, not because Apple hates open standards but because they want to build something without having to go through a committee.
What I would support is Apple being forced to allow other chat apps on iOS to integrate SMS functionality if they so choose. This way, all apps can communicate with each other using the already existing standard. No one would be forced to support it, nor would anyone be forced to support some other API. Everyone arguing for "standards" needs to ask themselves why SMS stagnated for so long, and explain how replacing SMS with some other standard like the WhatsApp protocol would avoid a repeat of that situation.
And heavy regulation caused AT&T to be broken up in the 80s. Without that, the iPhone wouldn’t even exists. Neither would cell phones. We’d still be renting our landlines from the phone company if they hadn’t been broken up
And socialism is responsible for the internet.
Now perhaps you're getting it. Maybe Apple needs to do nothing more than allow a user to choose for SMS/MMS messages to be sent to another app instead of Messages. Or maybe they need to do a little more work and allow a different interoperability standard (in addition to the current iMessage, SMS, and MMS) to be received by Messages. Hell, Apple could still make those messages show up as green bubbles if they want. We don't know how the final implementation will look, especially since this hasn't even officially become law yet. Whatever the end result is, it seems like what the EU is asking for is for my iPhone to be able to receive a message from someone using WhatsApp on their phone, without me having to have WhatsApp actually installed on my phone. This is not much different than the way it works today when someone using an Android receives a message from me that I sent through Apple's Messages app, which they obviously don't have installed on their phone.
Last edited:
Not at all, it’s in the firmware, which is also region-locked. With a VPN, a Euro model should work fine, though it might be more trouble than it’s worth.
That remains to be seen if the proprietary features are regulated out of existence due to interoperability.
A MONOPOLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY COMPANY HAS THE SAME THING AND ACCESS TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S STUFF!
Sheesh. Stifle innovation? Last I saw, there were other companies with cell phones, and even smart phones, and even app stores and payment options and all the other crap that so many people expect Apple to be forced to accept. It's utter idiocy.
Sheesh. Stifle innovation? Last I saw, there were other companies with cell phones, and even smart phones, and even app stores and payment options and all the other crap that so many people expect Apple to be forced to accept. It's utter idiocy.
Again, final implementation remains to be seen. You're asking questions nobody has the answer to yet.
This is just fear mongering. Why not take it a step further?
"It remains to be seen if smartphones are regulated out of existence due to interoperability."
See, it's not hard to come up with fake things to be afraid of. The article says the legislation seeks to "ensure the interoperability of their instant messaging services' basic functionalities." It doesn't say feature parity.
And while you're talking about this being the death of innovation, it looks quite likely to do the opposite.
"Today's announcement focuses on services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and iMessage, which will have to 'open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms, if they so request,' according to the EU. 'Users of small or big platforms would then be able to exchange messages, send files or make video calls across messaging apps, thus giving them more choice.'
So let's say a developer comes up with some awesome new feature for a messaging app. Today the problem exists that, in order for the app to be successful they have to work tremendously hard to try to get existing users of well-established platforms like iMessage and WhatsApp to use it. As cool as the new innovative feature may be, it's useless to a user if there's nobody else to communicate with on the app. But if interoperability is required, now suddenly the developer's users can communicate with everyone else already. While these users can't use the innovative app-specific feature with non-users of the app, they're still able to interoperate on the basics of the standard for communication, just like every other app. There's a built-in, basic, and level playing field. If the feature is really that innovative, they'll eventually be able to amass a sizable number of app users. Conversely, today because of the difficulty of the prospect of breaking through to users of established players, Apple or Google may see this new feature and decide to buy them out, with the developer taking them up on the offer because they realize the prospect of succeeding is low and it's a big payday. So now instead of "future SnapChat" some day becoming a large company of their own, it becomes just another cog in the Apple or Google machine. This is what really kills innovation. Large competitors buying up smaller, innovative ones, just to add their IP to their own portfolio. If regulation can make it more viable for smaller players to exist on their own, rather than having to count on a buyout from a FAANG company, then that's a win for both innovation and competition.
Last edited:
In other words, the death of innovation resulting in less choice overall. What’s made up is that this is a benefit to consumers. It’s a race to the bottom.
And don’t forget that there are quite a few web app functionalities that Apple has not implemented (or arbitrarily restricts in their implementation) in WebKit on iOS but are readily available elsewhere — likely in furtherance of making web apps a poor experience on iOS and protecting the App Store. And, of course, you can’t put a different browser engine on your iOS device, either.
Last edited:
Lol, no not in other words. You'll have to expand on how you inexplicably managed to arrive at that conclusion. Having viable apps for consumers to choose from smaller players and not only the big players is exactly the opposite of less choice..
I don't see a single area where the proposed legislation actually threatens anyone privacy. Stop drinking the apple juice.
I respect that your opinion is that this will stifle innovation. I believe you are wrong. Analogies are always difficult to use because they rearly match whatever you're discussing. Let me ask you a question. Many, many things in our modern society require interoperability. We now draw the line in the sand with tech companies. Is the internet not interoperable? Every car sold in the US must meet US safety requirements. All of them. Every TV built must be interoperable with multiple carriers and streaming services. You know I could go on and on with things that right now require some standards be meet so that all can use them. Why are these tech companies exempt?
Also, I know this is an Apple site and we are looking at this from their perspective, but this will affect all of these large companies, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.
Do you actually believe we would all be better of if all those options had succeeded and we had 5, 10, or more mobile platforms out there??? You realize there are reasons why sometime monopolies (or duopolies) are actually better right?
And what did Apple recently do with their Apple TV+ app on andriod???? They removed functionality because hey didn't want to pay Google its 30% commission that Apple is demanding from people on its platform!! They are hypocrites.
Which, imo, results in a race to the bottom. Scamware, malware, copycat apps, lower prices due to more competition of lower quality results in less revenue for the dev and the like.
Yes, it would have been better if all the other options hadn't crashed and burned, especially Nokia. To be honest, I really do wish the EU had a better tech sector that would cater to their markets' interests. Now Apple and Google have to try and make products that fit everyone's needs. Google was the worse actor in this case however, as they refused to support Windows Phone and other competing platforms. I imagine the only reason they supported Apple was because Apple naively allowed them to develop the original Maps app. It was the Microsoft double-cross all over again.
Lots of companies bypass Apple's commissions, including Netflix and Google. Like in the Epic case, users were not forced to use Apple's IAP system. Most apps do because many users prefer to manage payments and subscriptions through Apple. I do agree that Apple should lower commissions, and should allow a limited set of alternate payment systems. They should move toward the MSDN model and charge more for development tools. They set the bar too low, and the store is littered with a lot of junk apps and abandonware.