I kinda understand it, because iMessage is completely irrelevant outside the US. It still sucks, bacuse more choice and less lock in is always better for consumers.
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
198 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
73727 readers
3546 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So the EU grew some balls and then lopped one off, how disappointing...
To be honest I don't know anyone in Europe using iMessages. We are using Viber, WhatsApp, Messenger, Signal, Telegram, Threema, etc. and none of those options are iOS or Android exclusive.
iMessage is a typical American thing which, we Europeans, have a really hard time comprehending what is the obsession with it.
And we also have a much bigger Android market share, so it would be stupid for iOS users to use some messaging app, that would be iOS exclusive.
The US can’t even stop robocalls
iMessage is a typical American thing which, we Europeans, have a really hard time comprehending what is the obsession with it.
To help you comprehend - the big difference is SMS has been free for a long long time in the USA. No other text messaging service has ever been able to get off the ground because why on earth would anyone sign up for Viber / WatsApp / Messenger / Signal / Telegram / Threema / etc, when you could just use SMS which works fine and works for everyone?
Then iMessage came along, and you could keep using "SMS", only now it's more reliable, has high resolution photos, delivery confirmation, etc. That was a real improvement over SMS, with no cost at all other than having to stay on the iPhone platform, which you were already on, and who's going to switch? You've got all these apps you found/like and who knows which ones work on Android?
Also, it's not just the USA. iMessage is big in other markets too. Also ones where SMS has historically been free. The cost of having to pay to send SMS between London/Paris is a pain we never really experienced here, so there was no motivation to try WhatsApp/etc.
Woah. What a great explanation. I legitimately never understood the deal with iMessage too and you made a logical explanation that clicks. Thank you.
I think it's some kind of flex they like about blue or green bubbles. Somehow they are just behind on tech in the common man's world. I remember when the world was on smartphon/cool gadgety phones pre first iphone, I was in America and most people still used black and white simple phones. They thought it was cool if some phone model had a few extra ringtones...
The US never moved past SMS for instant messaging. iMessage extends SMS seamlessly (to iOS users).
Honestly i tried using different apps with different people groups and ended up dumping all of those apps over time since they 1) sucked battery and 2) weren’t that great and 3) were either ad-supported or were free with questions on what they company was doing to stay afloat.
iMessage solves all of these issues without needing to explain anything. Occasionally i will laugh when i see granny (liked this message) knowing she uses android and had to type that out but whatever.
Occasionally i will laugh when i see granny (liked this message) knowing she uses android and had to type that out but whatever.
Actually, that's just another example of Apple's shittiness. When you see that, that's not someone typing it out, that's when an Android user uses a reaction on our side.
Which should speak volumes to you, iOS was perfectly capable of understanding what an Android phone sent, but instead of simply matching it to an applicable iOS reaction (Or even just defaulting to a thumbs up or whatever), it just...does that.
The funny part is that on the Android side when an iOS/iMessage user a reaction it does exactly what you'd expect, it matches it to the applicable Android reaction lmao
here in the US in my situation it boils down to my parents/grandparents not being able to understand the difference between any texting application. I'm fine using SMS/iMessage because I know everyone has it. I'd say the vast majority of non-technologically savvy people I know are incapable or unsure how to use the basic functions of their phone (very few people I know in this category use their phone for anything else but calls, texts, and the web browser; everything else is just unused for either lack of understanding or lack of interest).
NO one cares about iMessage here, legislate yourselves.
It doesn't have a big enough footprint to regulate it in such a way, it's entirely practical not to do anything.
Damn. Good burn! I wish my legislators would do something good..
iMessage really is just mostly used in the US, like Japan with Line. Most countries around the world don't use any SMS(or adjacent) services for chatting. So its not really a priority when people barely use it. Unlike the AppStore where every Apple user is forced to use it anyway
The article says that Apple is still planning on making iMessage compatible with RCS, but isn't Apple's incentive gone if there's no longer any EU pressure? How likely is it that Apple will cancel their RCS plans?
There's still plenty of EU pressure. This was a close enough thing that the EU spent months investigating it before making a decision.
That sends a pretty clear message to Apple "we're OK with what you're doing with messaging right now, but only just barely". If Apple does something the EU doesn't like, new legislation can be written.
There's also pressure in the USA and other countries where iMessage is far more widely used. The pressure hasn't gone anywhere yet, but it definitely could. The USA came down hard on Ma Bell when they dominated the phone industry. They're so dead most people have forgotten they existed. They were arguably the biggest company in the entire world at the time. Just like Apple is now.
Part of the order against Ma Bell was to order the company to stop selling phones. Imagine if the USA did that again, with Apple this time. I listened to an interview with an antitrust regulator in the USA yesterday (Decoder podcast)... he said they're short staffed and rely on punitive damages so harsh that other companies choose voluntary compliance, removing the need to actually regulate the whole industry (they don't have enough people to do that). Pretty scary stuff - the EU's approach is far gentler.
“we’re OK with what you’re doing with messaging right now, but only just barely”. If Apple does something the EU doesn’t like, new legislation can be written.
Because of the "only just barely" part, new legislation might not even be necessary.
If Apple only narrowly avoided falling under the core platform definition, just a change in market share might be enough for that to change under the existing rules.
Can't apple do something good for a change and adopt Matrix?
You joke, but Matrix has been working on protocol design specifically for the Digital Markets Act. If iMessage were to be ruled subject to the DMA, it might mean Apple having to interoperate with (a future version of) Matrix.
(The DMA part of that talk starts at 25:00.)
I don't like Matrix, but that'd be an improvement.
(It supports bridging anyway, so one could use an XMPP-Matrix bridge and a Matrix-crapland bridge simultaneously)
What's wrong with Matrix?
From practice - performance of clients and of servers too.
From emotion - it uses Web technologies.
From some logic maybe - if they are doing something new, then why not distributed architecture like Tox (at least identities not tied to servers), and if they choose something architecturally similar to XMPP, why not use XMPP.
However, emotion again, I really like Matrix APIs, these are definitely designed to be used by anyone at all.
Oh no! Web based protocol! Not stability, ease of debugging, less block rate, and easy SSL protection! The horror!!
Not stability,
What does this even mean in the context of data you'd transfer in Matrix?
ease of debugging
Ease in which context? What's so much harder to which you are comparing it?
less block rate,
Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.
and easy SSL protection
PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.
The horror!!
Nobody said that.
And such an esteemed thing as Gnutella uses Web technologies.
I just don't like it. It's my opinion. Just as you have yours.
What does this even mean in the context of data you'd transfer in Matrix?
It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol (referring to HTTP)
Ease in which context? What's so much harder to which you are comparing it?
It’s a robust, well tested, and well known protocol.
Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.
Average company firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to Deny to any
PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.
What’s the better solution?
I just don't like it. It's my opinion. Just as you have yours.
Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it. Still better than anything else.
It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol (referring to HTTP)
XMPP by now is no less well-tested.
Average company firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to Deny to any
Average company firewall shouldn't allow 80 and 443 to outside anyway.
Anyway, that could have been a fallback, it's the only way instead.
Doing an IM over TCP I can understand. VoIP signalling over TCP is not serious.
What’s the better solution?
Look at Retroshare. In this particular regard (not its whole model of security, which is seemingly not good, but I'm not a specialist) it does things right, I think.
Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it.
And which are not in your opinion?
Still better than anything else.
Still not better than XMPP, so factually wrong. =)
By firewall I mean outgoing. And XMPP is kind of a non-starter.
Peer to peer is also a non starter. You have to have some kind of email-like structure.
What’s so good with XMPP?
By firewall I mean outgoing.
I got what you meant. Anyway, if it's a company network, then they can, you know, allow something else.
Peer to peer is also a non starter.
That was in response to you asking how to do things without PKI, so I referred you to Retroshare as an example of using something like web of trust to that end.
P2P is irrelevant here. What does email have to do with this? Do you mean federation as in having servers, as opposed to distributed model? Do you mean identities being tied to servers?
And also why would that be "a non-starter"? Old Skype was P2P, using central servers for authentication only. I think we all agree it worked very well.
If you mean that it's hard - I agree, I love to blabber about P2P solutions, but these are harder.
(Say, since old Skype people got used to downloading their history on a new device, which didn't always work, but that can be solved by supernodes\servers to store and forward encrypted data with that history, a bit like Freenet. Only the person who can design something like that is definitely not me.)
What’s so good with XMPP?
What the other user said, plus having lots of good clients.
In general with XMPP thanks to the extension model (administrative one) good and bad things have already been tried, some discarded, and there's a specific set of XEPs making it a very usable protocol supported by all relevant clients.
YESSSS! Let's hope apple does have to adopt this, it would be so helpful when communicating with apple users
It is only a suggestion. Like, if a gatekeeper wants to actually become open and adopt a protocol here we are showing you the path. But Apple is not like that, they would do absolute minimum and propably even less.
Not going to happen. How do you think they became 2.000.000.000.000 + company? D finitely by not letting their customers off the hook.
They might earn some respect from people who use android, and they might buy an iPhone
lmao
how are they supposed to keep up with microsoft with an open messaging standard? can't miss out on being the most valuable company with a market cap at more than 3 trillion dollars...
Apple has announced they are adding RCS support.
As if Play Store + App Store duopoly was not enough of a headacke for everyday living, now I would need to explain myself of not using iMessage or Google Messages.
RCS is not an open standard and is partially owned by Google.
If RCS is such an awesome standard, why not mandate it for all EU phones? Apple already supports the current standard, which is SMS. The idea that they have to open up their proprietary software seems silly to me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The iMessage service did meet the definition of a "core platform," serving at least 45 million EU users monthly and being controlled by a firm with at least 75 billion euros in market capitalization.
But after "a thorough assessment of all arguments" during a five-month investigation, the Commission found that iMessage and Microsoft's Bing search, Edge browser, and ad platform "do not qualify as gatekeeper services."
While Apple has agreed to take up RCS, an upgraded form of carrier messaging with typing indicators and better image and video quality, it will not provide encryption for Android-to-iPhone SMS, nor remove the harsh green coloring that particularly resonates with younger users.
Apple is still obligated to comply with the Digital Markets Act's other implications on its iOS operating system, its App Store, and its Safari browser.
While it's unlikely to result in the same kind of action, Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said at a conference yesterday that the FCC "has a role to play" in investigating whether Apple's blocking of the Beeper Mini app violated Part 14 rules regarding accessibility and usability.
The blocking and workarounds continued until Beeper announced that it was shifting its focus away from iMessage and back to being a multi-service chat app, minus one particular service.
The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Lol, Lmao even. All regulators have had their teeth pulled.