Google, European Telecoms Giants Call on EU to Force Open iMessage

[jlc1978]

But they all do work properly. So far I have not had one not work properly for me. They all sync and charge my devices.
Maybe I have just been lucky.

I'm sure many will; especially ones from reputable manufacturers.

I'm just saying the EU rule doesn't ensure one cable to rule them all. Having a single connector is good long term but even with that one proprietary implentations can be used and be within the rule.

 

[BaldiMac]

No tangent here...you listed a very very niche example trying to insinuate it as the norm.
Those speeds area fraction of the USB-C speeds.

"Most Lightning devices only supported USB 2.0, which has a maximum transfer speed of 480 mbps or 60 MB/s. Only the 12.9-inch iPad Pro (1st and 2nd generation) and 10.5-inch iPad Pro support USB 3.0 (now USB 3.2 Gen 1), which has a maximum transfer speed of 5 gbps or 625 MB/s."

Lightning (connector) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A niche example that proves the point. Lightning is capable of transfers faster than USB2. Do you deny that fact?

 

[Stromos]

Apple offered the carriers iMessage (on Apple’s terms)

Those are key words. Apple terms. Apple's terms tend to have MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE poison pills so it is a non starter.
You are right RCS was experimental back in 2011. That is very different than joining and and working on setting a new standard. Apple said FU to do that. We are not year later.

As for Hangout being maintain it would not be a case here. What makes iMessage so powerful is they integrated into the text messaging platform and it defaults to using that system if possible. It was to the point Apple got sued and LOST about locking up peoples phone numbers after they left Apple eco system making it damn near impossible for a while to force iPhone users to send SMS to a given user.

Hangouts would of match that is google followed suit and did the same thing. Sadly Apple never would of implemented the cross talk system in place so not there.

People saying Apple opened standard it and "offered" it to others are repeating a lie. You basically just lied and repeated it. End of the day Apple is the odd one out here.

Extremely laughable TIL poison pills are no tracking and privacy. Why HomeKit is frowned upon things have to work locally without the "cloud".

Look at what's happening with MyQ right now. No local access and pay to use. They discontinued the HomeKit bridge then turned around and are charging subscriptions to open garage doors from your car. Something that's built into CarPlay. Then let's not even get started on their App that makes you scroll through ads to get to your garage doors.

 

[kc9hzn]

Apple offered the carriers iMessage (on Apple’s terms)

Those are key words. Apple terms. Apple's terms tend to have MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE poison pills so it is a non starter.
You are right RCS was experimental back in 2011. That is very different than joining and and working on setting a new standard. Apple said FU to do that. We are not year later.

As for Hangout being maintain it would not be a case here. What makes iMessage so powerful is they integrated into the text messaging platform and it defaults to using that system if possible. It was to the point Apple got sued and LOST about locking up peoples phone numbers after they left Apple eco system making it damn near impossible for a while to force iPhone users to send SMS to a given user.

Hangouts would have match that is google followed suit and did the same thing. Sadly Apple never would have implemented the cross talk system in place so not there.

Hangouts did actually support sending SMS at one point in time. Google eventually removed it for fear of pissing off the carriers.

I feel like you’re taking the carriers’ side of the situation re: iMessage. (And it’s not obvious why a customer should take the carriers’ side.) Basically Apple’s “poison pill” wouldn’t allow them to gauge for text messaging, which was quite lucrative for them. It’s because of that desire to directly monetize messaging on the parts of the carriers that we’re in the world we’re in. It’s why iMessage caught on in the US and why WhatsApp caught on in Europe, the price gauging for SMS/MMS. It’s why there was no steam behind RCS before Google (because the monetization ship had sailed). It’s actually the carriers’ fault we’re in this mess, and yet they’re the ones (along with Google) pushing for the EU to push for RCS.

 

[cthompson94]

Hangouts did actually support sending SMS at one point in time. Google eventually removed it for fear of pissing off the carriers.

I feel like you’re taking the carriers’ side of the situation re: iMessage. (And it’s not obvious why a customer should take the carriers’ side.) Basically Apple’s “poison pill” wouldn’t allow them to gauge for text messaging, which was quite lucrative for them. It’s because of that desire to directly monetize messaging on the parts of the carriers that we’re in the world we’re in. It’s why iMessage caught on in the US and why WhatsApp caught on in Europe, the price gauging for SMS/MMS. It’s why there was no steam behind RCS before Google (because the monetization ship had sailed). It’s actually the carriers’ fault we’re in this mess, and yet they’re the ones (along with Google) pushing for the EU to push for RCS.

Carriers also probably feared the government since subpoenas always get sent for phone records, we all see how Apple simply can state "iMessage is E2E encrypted and we don't even have the keys so sorry not sorry." as previously done in the past, and glad someone else said it that it is all on the Telecoms/carriers we are in this situation, but it is easier for them to band together and blame one company than take the blame themselves.

 

[jamezr]

A niche example that proves the point. Lightning is capable of transfers faster than USB2. Do you deny that fact?

yes....it was not a lightening cable on its own....it had to have an adapter. So on its own it could not....it needed help lol. Then all of my context and posts were about lightening and USB-C. So nice try buddy...but no joy for you.

 

[BaldiMac]

yes....it was not a lightening cable on its own....it had to have an adapter. So on its own it could not....it needed help lol. Then all of my context and posts were about lightening and USB-C. So nice try buddy...but no joy for you.

Again, you're conflating the connector with the protocol. The lightning connector could support faster USB 3 speeds. It could not support the USB 3 protocol without an adapter because of a lack of extra pins.

 

[kc9hzn]

yes....it was not a lightening cable on its own....it had to have an adapter. So on its own it could not....it needed help lol. Then all of my context and posts were about lightening and USB-C. So nice try buddy...but no joy for you.

Of course Lightning is not physically compatible with USB-C connectors and would need an adapter (and that’s no different than USB-C and USB-A or micro-USB B and USB-C, for that matter). But the Lightning controller on iPads could handle faster (potentially USB 3.0) speeds, even though the iPhone’s Lightning controller only supported USB 2.0 speeds.

 

[jamezr]

Again, you're conflating the connector with the protocol. The lightning connector could support faster USB 3 speeds. It could not support the USB 3 protocol without an adapter because of a lack of extra pins.

no.... you are saying the lightening cable can attain speeds it can't on its own. It can only do that with the help of an adapter!

Lightning (connector) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Might as well say a lightening cable can surf the internet...when connected to an iPhone....

 

[BaldiMac]

no.... you are saying the lightening cable can attain speeds it can't on its own. It can only do that with the help of an adapter!
View attachment 2309994



Might as well say a lightening cable can surf the internet...when connected to an iPhone....

I didn't say anything about the cable at all. Again, we're talking about the connector.

 

[kc9hzn]

no.... you are saying the lightening cable can attain speeds it can't on its own. It can only do that with the help of an adapter!
View attachment 2309994

Lightning (connector) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Might as well say a lightening cable can surf the internet...when connected to an iPhone....

The adapter doesn’t and physically can’t make a slower connection faster, the hardware on device is what supports USB 3 speeds. That’s just as true on PCs as it is on phones or tablets. Adapters are always a pass through.

 

[SpaceJello]

A niche example that proves the point. Lightning is capable of transfers faster than USB2. Do you deny that fact?

Apple is one of the first to use the USB-C socket design if not the first.

They used it for Thunderbolt 3 which was way faster than USB 2, and was introduced way earlier than USB 3 and what we know of as USB-C today.

Apple continued to use the same socket design for Thunderbolt 4 and 5 today.

As USB 3 and finally USB-C continued to develop and catch up to Thunderbolt 3 speeds, Apple now has moved its handheld products from Lightening to USB-C/Thunderbolt.

However, not all USB-C sockets are created equal. While Thunderbolt cables can be backward used with any USB-C socket, it cannot be said of USB-C ones with Thunderbolt sockets.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

iMessage in its current form can’t be made interoperable because it relies on a private key burned into every apple devices’ Secure Enclave during manufacturing to decrypt the incoming message. If you have an iPhone and iPad and someone sends you an iMessage you are actually getting 2 separate messages each encrypted with a different public key. This hardware specific feature is only found on apple silicon.

There is a solution to comply however:

(A) disable iMessage for all apple devices sold in the EU
(B) disable end to end encryption for iMessage for EU devices. All messages sent to devices sold in the region are plain text. Then install a gateway to forward messages from other messaging systems into/out of iMessage ecosystem.

You know what is the biggest impediment to communication interoperability in the EU? The plethora of languages! They need to mandate that everyone in the union speaks a single language! /s 😆

Ah ok, so you're saying it uses a public-private key encryption. And, somehow, magically, only iPhones are capable of producing a private key. Sheesh. OMFG, the ridiculous excuses people come up with to excuse Apple for their most atrocious behaviours.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I’m so sick of companies who cannot compete whining to governments to change the rules. Either make a decent competitor people want to use or shut up. It’s getting really old.

It's not about competing, there's nothing special or superior about iMessage.

It's about interoperability when you want to message someone.

If Google had it's own version of iMessage, that was exclusive to Pixel Phones, and Samsung had another version exclusive to their phones, and say, both versions were just as good, or even better, that still wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is you have a widely used messaging app that you can only use to message people who have the same phone type as yours. Whereas for all the other messaging apps, it doesn't matter squat what phone the other person has.

These companies don't want to steal iMessage, they merely want to be able to implement a messaging app that can read and write to the same standard, so that people with iPhones and people with non-iPhones can message each other without only some of the recipients being able to read the entire message content.

It blows my mind that people wouldn't want that. Do you really actually like it that you can send an iMessage to someone, and unless you happen to know for sure that they have an iphone, you then have no idea at all if they can even read the entire message or not? Is that something you genuinely think is just fine and dandy?

 

[minimo3]

Ah ok, so you're saying it uses a public-private key encryption. And, somehow, magically, only iPhones are capable of producing a private key. Sheesh. OMFG, the ridiculous excuses people come up with to excuse Apple for their most atrocious behaviours.

Yup you can find a high level overview here https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-and-receives-messages-sec70e68c949/web. Not only are the messages encrypted but they are signed to ensure non-repudiation.

 

[boswald]

It's not about competing, there's nothing special or superior about iMessage.

It's about interoperability when you want to message someone.

If Google had it's own version of iMessage, that was exclusive to Pixel Phones, and Samsung had another version exclusive to their phones, and say, both versions were just as good, or even better, that still wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is you have a widely used messaging app that you can only use to message people who have the same phone type as yours. Whereas for all the other messaging apps, it doesn't matter squat what phone the other person has.

These companies don't want to steal iMessage, they merely want to be able to implement a messaging app that can read and write to the same standard, so that people with iPhones and people with non-iPhones can message each other without only some of the recipients being able to read the entire message content.

It blows my mind that people wouldn't want that. Do you really actually like it that you can send an iMessage to someone, and unless you happen to know for sure that they have an iphone, you then have no idea at all if they can even read the entire message or not? Is that something you genuinely think is just fine and dandy?

I’m an “Apple Guy.” I use Apple products. My friends and family use Apple products. So for me, personally, I couldn’t care less about Google’s struggles with iMessage. However, I understand it’s an issue for those with android phones, so best of luck to them in the courtroom.

 

[jlc1978]

These companies don't want to steal iMessage, they merely want to be able to implement a messaging app that can read and write to the same standard, so that people with iPhones and people with non-iPhones can message each other without only some of the recipients being able to read the entire message content.

We have a standard. It's called SMS.

It blows my mind that people wouldn't want that. Do you really actually like it that you can send an iMessage to someone, and unless you happen to know for sure that they have an iphone, you then have no idea at all if they can even read the entire message or not? Is that something you genuinely think is just fine and dandy?

Yes, but I'm not against Apple opening up iMessage. What I don't want is for it to become less secure and messages not controlled E2E by Apple servers. If companies are willing to implement the same level of security as Apple on devices and Apple licenses any proprietary tech on a free and reasonable basis I see no problem with it. If Apple is forced to open up, and says "here is what is needed to interoperate," the companies will whine Apple isn't playing fair because they won't water down their message protocol so we can easily implement it and won't want to pay to use Apple's IDS or iCloud.

The companies pushing for that don't want that. They want to be able have access to the message stream and the info it would provide for free. This isn't about interoperability or helping the user, it's a money grab, pure and simple. It would not surprise me if telcos said, if Apple is forced to open up, "Here's the pricing for access to iMessage compatibility..."

How happy would you be knowing your messages may be less secure, and that Google or any other company is now collecting your email address, phone number if you have one, device ids, etc. just to let you send an iMessage? Ad know knows who you are sending the message to?

There is more to this push than simply making messaging interoperable.

 

[I7guy]

It's not about competing, there's nothing special or superior about iMessage.

Good there are choices if imessage doesn’t work for you, including the common standard SMS.

It's about interoperability when you want to message someone.

[…]

Buy android then. Why force a company to make it’s proprietary ip into a public utility?

 

[1129846]

We have a standard. It's called SMS.

No it is not. SMS requires a cell number. iMessage does not. iMessage is closer to the old Blackberry messager than SMS.
That is not a fall back standard.

Yes, but I'm not against Apple opening up iMessage. What I don't want is for it to become less secure and messages not controlled E2E by Apple servers. If companies are willing to implement the same level of security as Apple on devices and Apple licenses any proprietary tech on a free and reasonable basis I see no problem with it. If Apple is forced to open up, and says "here is what is needed to interoperate," the companies will whine Apple isn't playing fair because they won't water down their message protocol so we can easily implement it and won't want to pay to use Apple's IDS or iCloud.

It would not be less secure. Saying it would be less secure by opening it up is just miss infomations. Between Apple devices it would still be E2E secure.
Security only dropps if you are messaging someone outside of the Apple platform and even then it could be E2E secure assuming the other platform enables it. Your security knowledge ends when it crossed the boundaries.

The companies pushing for that don't want that. They want to be able have access to the message stream and the info it would provide for free. This isn't about interoperability or helping the user, it's a money grab, pure and simple. It would not surprise me if telcos said, if Apple is forced to open up, "Here's the pricing for access to iMessage compatibility..."

Again no. Some might but a bigger one is to allow other messaging platforms to not be strangled out by not being able to hit critical mass. What iMessage has it critcal mass. I can make a messaging system that blows Apples out of water in terms of features and quality but it would lack the users and a way to get the users to critical mass so never going to happen. The cost to switch to the users would be to great to be worth the price.

How happy would you be knowing your messages may be less secure, and that Google or any other company is now collecting your email address, phone number if you have one, device ids, etc. just to let you send an iMessage? Ad know knows who you are sending the message to?

Just going to say yoa are repeating lies at this point.
Even in this system all that would be known to say Google is XYZ address (could be a single use created by apple) goes to Apple systems to redirect. That is it. All that is going to be known is a little infomation to know what bigger server to redirect messaging to and let those companies servers handle it from there. The device ID is not pass along and plus the device ID is honestly useless on Apple devices. Each app created by a developer gets is own random device id. That ID is changed if all app from a given developer are removed. On the next reinstalled a new device id is supplied.

There is more to this push than simply making messaging interoperable.

A little big more but not much. It is more about breaking down walled gardens. Apple's iMessage is was not even new or novel when it came out. It simplely provided a really nice interface and put SMS and messaging platform at a single point and defaulted to use iMessage if possible. Apple also "cheats" by not allowing another mesaging platform like say whatsApp from sending and reading SMS so WhatsApp on iOS could not duplicate it. On android they can and Android messaging app plays by the exact same rules as all other apps. Other apps could create and able to get access to SMS part and companied the 2. Do note on android if you want an app to do that it requires a lot of permission giving and multiple approvals before granted.

This is more about getting a standard and letting other messaging platforms to either service or get critical mass and grow.

 

[spinedoc77]

WhatsApp was not always and forever owned by Facebook, they bought it. AFTER the original owners made it so gosh darned useful, of course.

It's not only the privacy issues which baffle me, although I can't say anyone is really protected using Google, and even Apple has been caught with its own privacy issues. My bafflement is much more directed towards actually getting every one of your contacts to use WhatsApp instead of the myriad other messaging apps out there including the messaging apps included with a new phone. I'm in the US so can only guess, but I'll bet a lot of Europeans most likely have a hodge podge of messaging apps and contacts with WhatsApp probably being the main app. Or am I wrong and do most Europeans completely and totally ascribe to ONLY WhatsApp and nothing else?

 

[kc9hzn]

It's not only the privacy issues which baffle me, although I can't say anyone is really protected using Google, and even Apple has been caught with its own privacy issues. My bafflement is much more directed towards actually getting every one of your contacts to use WhatsApp instead of the myriad other messaging apps out there including the messaging apps included with a new phone. I'm in the US so can only guess, but I'll bet a lot of Europeans most likely have a hodge podge of messaging apps and contacts with WhatsApp probably being the main app. Or am I wrong and do most Europeans completely and totally ascribe to ONLY WhatsApp and nothing else?

I suspect a great deal of them mostly use WhatsApp exclusively (as everyone in their social circle uses it*). I’d assume that alternatives like Telegram are most commonly used by younger people or people wanting something that’s not owned by Meta.

* Not unlike how quite a few people use Facebook as their sole social media service and how younger people are more likely to use different (and more) social media services.

 

[Fille84]

People who are against this is plain stupid, just give me one good argument this is not good.

It's 2023, I shouldn't have to think about what app I need to communicate with who. Just open the standard message app that comes with your phone and start text or send images/videos and it should work as it is year 2023 and not 1997.

 

[minimo3]

People who are against this is plain stupid, just give me one good argument this is not good.

It's 2023, I shouldn't have to think about what app I need to communicate with who. Just open the standard message app that comes with your phone and start text or send images/videos and it should work as it is year 2023 and not 1997.

Today I can open up message app and send a text message to an android user, or a blackberry user, or a Nokia 3210 user. I can even send them a picture… works just fine with green bubbles. Why do they need to open up iMessage again?

 

[BaldiMac]

People who are against this is plain stupid, just give me one good argument this is not good.

Insults aside, that’s easy enough. It will increase spam and confusion and decrease privacy and security. While providing minor benefits to some people who would prefer fewer apps.

In my opinion, this is far and away the worst of the DMA regulations.

 

[1129846]

Today I can open up message app and send a text message to an android user, or a blackberry user, or a Nokia 3210 user. I can even send them a picture… works just fine with green bubbles. Why do they need to open up iMessage again?

Minus the fact that the pictures are of lower quality, group messages are flaky. Videos are over compressed. Oh and Apple is the one using older protocols and lower quality.

Also not everyone has a cell number. iMessage can work with out a cellphone.

So no not a valid argument or alternative