EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[iAFC]

It weakens the security and privacy of the iphone so that even if you do not sudelaod etc you STILL get hacked and have all your privacy destroyed.
The EU has no clue! Politicians are lousy and rubbish at understanding tech so they should let experts help create legislation or tech and they should leave well alone.

Lol wut.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This messenger interoperability will lead to crippled functions and a least common denominator mentality. As much as the EU always claims to advocate for the customer, I doubt that this is what the customer wants.

First of, eu is working on a separate bill Digital service bill that includes mandatory encryption and hard privacy requirements for everyone.
And

• Ensure the interoperability of their instant messaging services' basic functionalities.

Read it again

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This messenger interoperability will lead to crippled functions and a least common denominator mentality. As much as the EU always claims to advocate for the customer, I doubt that this is what the customer wants.

You might be a little wrong on the “consumers want”

 

[I7guy]

Just don’t shop outside of the App Store? People keep bringing this up like they’re going to be forced to shop in sketchy stores. You won’t be.

Because we don’t want the walled garden to be turned into a garbage heap.

 

[I7guy]

View attachment 1981228
You might be a little wrong on the “consumers want”

As a consumer I’d like to see Honda mandated to support Porsche engines for free. I’m sure a consumer poll on that would should what the consumer really wants as well. I’d like to see interoperability that is not legislated. Again vote with your $$$.

 

[turbineseaplane]

View attachment 1981228
You might be a little wrong on the “consumers want”

I have to laugh at the votes of “no absolutely not!”

Why would anybody not want their messaging app to do more and be better at everything instead of having these weird message silos in different apps for every different ecosystem some rando may be using?

 

[I7guy]

I have to laugh at the votes of “no absolutely not!”

Why would anybody not want their messaging app to do more and be better at everything instead of having these weird message silos in different apps for every different ecosystem some rando may be using?

Because some software is developed from the ground up with ideas protected by patents. Why should a developer be FORCED to open up their platform, which is what I disagree with.

 

[ct2k7]

Because some software is developed from the ground up with ideas protected by patents. Why should a developer be FORCED to open up their platform, which is what I disagree with.

When you get to a certain size, you attract regulation. I can see why people who not like to see the platform being opened up, I think in either case there's going to be problems.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

A 6 month provision after enactment to have everything done seems quite unreasonable. If all this comes to pass with little change, I predict the European versions of Android and iOS to be very problematic and buggy for some time to come.

This has been in the works for years, and google is almost completely following the legislation, so apple will be more hurt, google barely need to change.

Remember to opt out from any class action when shady lawyers begin to point fingers towards Apple when blamed offering an insecure device that harvested data of your own children.

Class action can’t be started by a lawyer, The European class action model allow only qualified entities, such as consumer organisations, to represent groups of consumers and bring lawsuits to court, instead of law firms. And the “loser pays principle”, which ensures that the defeated party pays the costs of the proceedings of the successful party is standard for all lawsuits.

What a terrible piece of legislation, in my own opinion.


So if Ford gathers information from you when you buy a Mustang, Ford can't turn around use that information to sell you an F-150? Really?

No, it’s covering so Facebook can’t use their information to benefit WhatsApp. It separate the use of consumer info to unrelated services.

It could be a sinister motive to prevent messenger apps from using proper end to end encryption. I would not rule that out.

Not a chance, eu is working to implement mandatory encryption and privacy requirements. And making it illegal for any member state from outlawing encryption.

I think we have our own special turd sandwich lined up.

The EU have come up with some completely bananas legislation recently. Along the lines of “everyone has a right to privacy, apart from everyone who has a phone which we want to look into”.

I suspect this whole thing is going to line up with a “now your platform is open we want X implanted in iMessage”

Lol, eu is even including privacy for phones. It’s in a different legislation related to Facebook threatening to leave EU over privacy rules, and EU giving them the finger and saying nothing would be lost if they left.

 

[ct2k7]

Lol, eu is even including privacy for phones. It’s in a different legislation related to Facebook threatening to leave EU over privacy rules, and EU giving them the finger and saying nothing would be lost if they left.

Safe Harbour.

Though I'd happily see Facebook out of Europe...

 

[I7guy]

When you get to a certain size, you attract regulation. I can see why people who not like to see the platform being opened up, I think in either case there's going to be problems.

Really? There should be some regulation, but regulating iMessage is overreach. Fairness in the App Store? Sure? Ability to have apple act as an editor? Yep? Regulate iMessage? Nope.

[…]

No, it’s covering so Facebook can’t use their information to benefit WhatsApp. It separate the use of consumer info to unrelated services.
[…]

Exactly my point about how not to regulate. I can only hope the tech in the EU over time reflects this draconian regulation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Watching the legislation being passed won’t be anywhere near as interesting as watching Apple’s response to it.

I have mentioned this before, and I believe the main challenge the EU faces is in wording this set of laws in manner that doesn’t allow Apple any room to wriggle out of them, the same way Apple is trying to have their cake and eat it too with the other Netherlands lawsuit (where developers using third party payments still have to pay Apple a cut, on top of allowing Apple to audit their books).

Oh it will be very interesting to see how they will try and weasel themselves out of this one. ?

They could also make the process pretty onerous and inconvenient for the end user, from maybe requiring a backup of their device, to voiding warranty, to disabling iCloud features like wallet and Apple Pay, to peppering them with various notifications of possible security and privacy implications.

Hehe, already blocked. Apple needs by law prove what the consumer did is cause for the damages or still be forced to provide 2 years warranty at a minimum. Apple tried it with the liquid stickers detectors and was torn to shreds.

It shouldn’t be too hard to frame this as protecting the user’s privacy and security, since their device is now effectively jailbroken and is presumably no longer as secure as before.

Either way, your move, Apple.

Apple have tried this, but ironically EU have looked at apple’s privacy implementations and want’s to implement similar or stricter for everyone in the digital service act.

So it’s also been thrown out as nonsensical, compared to current EU privacy laws, such that USA servers aren’t considers secure for consumers privacy for lack of federal laws protecting users. ?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Safe Harbour.

Though I'd happily see Facebook out of Europe...

Safe harbor aren’t legally valid for user privacy. USA unfortunately have so weak privacy laws and can’t guarantee the privacy of EU users data that the agreement between EU and USA was invalidated in the Supreme Court

 

[ct2k7]

Really? There should be some regulation, but regulating iMessage is overreach. Fairness in the App Store? Sure? Ability to have apple act as an editor? Yep? Regulate iMessage? Nope.

To me, I see regulation of iMessage as a byproduct - to be fair. I remember when iChat on macOS used to exist and I loved it - being able to use Apple's platform for connecting to various services: the user experience was great. Nowadays, the state of clients is in disarray. Of course, less people are using these services due to the rise of things such as Discord and Matrix etc (actually Matrix is special because it allows various services).

What I believe the regulation is meaning is interoperability. That doesn't necessarily mean making iMessage insecure or not necessarily using Apple as a central backend for routing, but rather for other features which can include secure messaging.

Sure other applications can build it - but then we're stuck in a situation whereby theoretically vendors such as Apple can reject applications which offer similar functionality. Of course, if they do that, they immediately attract the unwanted attention of regulators.

 

[ct2k7]

Safe harbor aren’t legally valid for user privacy. USA unfortunately have so weak privacy laws and can’t guarantee the privacy of EU users data that the agreement between EU and USA was invalidated in the Supreme Court

Yes, I was trying to prompt you to go on

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Exactly my point about how not to regulate. I can only hope the tech in the EU over time reflects this draconian regulation.

then so be it. User privacy should still be protected

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's interesting that with all of these efforts to take down Big Tech on both sides of the Atlantic, we're still not seeing comprehensive privacy legislation to protect consumers - at least not here in the U.S. If government was really concerned about consumer rights, privacy legislation would come first. I'm not sure what the deal is with this in the EU.

We already have great privacy legislations. And a parallel bill called the digital service act will implement some of the apple AppStore privacy rules universally.

In eu we actually care about privacy. And not having our government spy on us for “safety”

 

[I7guy]

To me, I see regulation of iMessage as a byproduct - to be fair. I remember when iChat on macOS used to exist and I loved it - being able to use Apple's platform for connecting to various services: the user experience was great. Nowadays, the state of clients is in disarray. Of course, less people are using these services due to the rise of things such as Discord and Matrix etc (actually Matrix is special because it allows various services).

What I believe the regulation is meaning is interoperability. That doesn't necessarily mean making iMessage insecure or not necessarily using Apple as a central backend for routing, but rather for other features which can include secure messaging.

Sure other applications can build it - but then we're stuck in a situation whereby theoretically vendors such as Apple can reject applications which offer similar functionality. Of course, if they do that, they immediately attract the unwanted attention of regulators.

I understand. Imo, this regulation will have a long term chilling effect on what or how tech companies deploy tech in the EU.

 

[MysticCow]

Yeah yeah yeah, sure, just like what happens on macOS, you know, the Apple OS that does, and always has, allowed sideloading. Somehow without any of the plethora of imagined problems that everyone against these proposals comes up with.

Who would have thought it huh. macOS, the Apple OS that is simultaneously open, and yet is secure.

You don’t understand humanity and it’s urge to pull a fast one on other members of humanity.

 

[ct2k7]

I understand. Imo, this regulation will have a long term chilling effect on what or how tech companies deploy tech in the EU.

I too am unsure where it'll lead - I hope it will be good, but only time will tell. That said, I may be shielded from this merely by being outside of the EU, but given the UK's proximity, I doubt it.

One thing I'll say is that they've generally had good intentions, but sometimes to actual execution leads to poor UI/X (I'm looking at you cookies) - but I am much more informed about where my data and information is good so I suppose it works in a way?

 

[Bonte]

Is this happening with Android today?
Now say after me, say … N O. No.
I knew you could.

True, but even Google will need to open up much more than it is now.

But then again, the US is also heading this way. I'm OK with it if I can easily opt-out of all this crap. I don't want PC-freedom on my phone.

Apple and Google seem spooked by bill requiring more app stores and sideloading

Bill would make iOS and Android more open to 3rd-party stores and sideloaded apps.

arstechnica.com

 

[4743913]

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Pretend I am a business owner who creates a wedding vendor venue where everyone can come and sell. I build the building and pay all the utilities. I want to charge people to sell in there. No problem.

Now I am forced to allow competition. No problem. Build your own building.

But NO....I am now forced to build sidewalks to the other buildings. Allow them to walk in a promote inside my building all why paying me nothing. And occasionally one of them comes in my building sick and makes everyone else sick and I get the bad press and get sued.

Lol, you aren’t forced to do anything, you just can’t stop other people from connecting their road to your road

Forcing iMessage to be interoperable with WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, and hundreds of minor texting apps.... will equate to thousands of glitches and bugs every week. Absolutely stupid.


It would be a different story had the EU simply laid forth a strategy saying: "By so-and-so Year, all major texting apps should adopt a single universal open standard, which would easily facilitate inter-operability regardless of what app is being used to send or receive the messages."

THAT kind of strategy would be more adoptable by companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc. In fact, they already embrace texting standards to a good degree.... embracing SMS, MMS, and universal Emoji standards.


Simply threatening companies like Microsoft, Apple, or Facebook to "Open up or else" is stupid and near-sighted. Which then results in the chaos and thousands of glitches situation as I stated above.

I, for one, don't really mind having to use multiple messaging clients.

The reason I worry about forcing all messaging apps to be interoperable is because it is almost certain to create a lowest common denominator behavior and stifle innovation.

Just look how much innovation there has been around the open standards of email and SMS vs messaging apps.

Tl;dr - Interoperability is a nice convenience to have, but losing innovation is too high a price to pay for it, imo.

Hmm… that’s actually not a bad idea! Although a common standard already exists- SMS/MMS. Maybe Apple could comply by allowing apps other than iMessage to be an SMS/MMS client and say they are “interoperable” that way. Although they still would have issues if other chat apps didn’t integrate that functionality. But if the EU actually wants Apple to change the protocol so they can fit with all other chat apps- that’s insane. At that point Apple should just pull iMessage from the EU. Wouldn’t even be such a big deal because it’s mostly used in the Anglosphere.

All you people don’t seem to understand the text or any soother will work.
The text says explicitly that basic functions should work. Interoperability is easily implemented if the messaging program also contains the API to decrypt a message from the other apps. An even easier solution is to have a separate protocol that can be used as a backup. When you write a iMessage text it can discover if the other number is registered with iMessage, and if it can’t see iMessage it just falls back on normal SMS protocol, this can just use a new secure messaging protocol as a fallback for other services.

They don’t mean you will have every app in one app…

As discussed previously in this thread, importing a Euro phone will most likely not help, since all this new "openness" will be a software thing anyway. Especially with a phone where you select a (US based) carrier, it will be hard to pretend you are based in EU with your EU phone. Notwithstanding problems with network frequencies and other minor details.

But anyway, what I don't get in all these discussions about freedom of choice and the closed Apple eco system is that there are people who, from all the hundreds of available phones out there, pick an iPhone with it's walled garden approach, and then complain about exactly this one point that sets Apple's product apart from the competition.
Following the discussions here, it seems Apple is not ahead in display tech, upgradability, camera quality, or even user experience. So why not just get a non-iPhone if you don't want the one feature that sets iPhone apart from the rest?

It will likely be hardware locked. Especially when EU laws covers citizens abroad and their property purchases in the union. So it will likely be a special EU model with some marker that ensures the correct iOS version is installed. Just as Apple Watch with ECG was disabled in EU on launch but apple watches sold in USA had it activated even in EU.

 

[4743913]

No, but it could have a two-speed system in which the EU doesn't get all the services and features that US, UK and RoW get.

apple is not going disrupt their plans for eu revenue streams either. the shareholders will not allow that. sideloading is coming. learn to love it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't feel any of this is necessary. I do feel Apple should have a cap on their commission, but forcing them to have iMessage work with other apps is ridiculous. It's like telling Microsoft that Office HAS to work with Google Docs. Sideloading also, shouldn't be able to be forced. It's basically telling a store they must carry every product.

Well it is compatible. If you press export you can create a google doc or other standards. And in google docs you can export word documents. This is interoperability. It doesn’t mean word must be able to read google doc files and vice-versa