4 ms·

This is a great point which I haven't heard before in this age-old debate. But until Apple's dominance starts to wane, there's no chance in hell they will prov

by dt2m 4y ago

This is a great point which I haven't heard before in this age-old debate. But until Apple's dominance starts to wane, there's no chance in hell they will provide iMessage for other platforms unless forced by regulation. If push comes to shove, they can implement heuristics which run texts from non-Apple devices through a harder spam filter. Spam isn't non-existent on the iMessage network, and there already seems to be a rudimentary spam filter in place.

jacooper 4y ago
Well Apple is going to be forced anyway, the EU's Digital Markets Act will be enforced soon. And fines are up to 20% of global revenue.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Is iMessage a "Number-independent interpersonal communication services (e.g., messengers)"? It's a messenger but it's based on phone numbers AFAIK--unlike something like WhatsApp.
  - rdsnsca 4y ago
    It is, I use it from my Mac Mini without owing an iPhone.
  - frumper 4y ago
    You can sign up and use an email for iMessage through wifi
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Ah. I've only used it as a default SMS alternative on Apple devices including iPhone.
- Seanambers 4y ago
  As an iPhone user I do not like EU dictating how Apple software should work at all. The same with chargers as well. Sure we can all have a discussion about how it should work - but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever I agree wholeheartedly, but what's the alternative? The so-called "free market" (not that such a thing actually exists) clearly has not solved this problem for us.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      It's a problem for you only because you want to use iMessage. iMessage is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
      - worthless-trash 4y ago
        Who else 'sells' imessage ?
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        Signal
        worthless-trash 4y ago
        Explain how please.
        sbuk 4y ago
        So every app is a monopoly now? This is getting ridiculous.
  - dt2m 4y ago
    As much as I agree with this in principle, there is absolutely no denying that Apple is abusing their power when it comes to consumer lock-in. I find it very hard to argue against regulation which is only meant to make devices more interoperable. USB-C for charging is mature enough at this point that it seems reasonable to declare it THE charging port. An interesting - partially ironic - observation here, is that Apple actually designed the reversible USB-C connector and submitted it to the USB-IF - a team of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats, who of course previously were responsible for blunders such as micro-USB-B 3.0, and more recently, the ambiguous shitshow that is the current state of the USB spec. I wholeheartedly believe that Apple is such a design-driven company that they would actually engage with regulators again (gasp, even the EU), if they were to come up with a better connector design down the road. Everybody wins.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
altairprime 4y ago
Apple could easily charge $1/mo or $10/year for iMessage on secured devices, with automatic refund and prorated cancellation if no secured device is signed in within a given billing period; and then discount $1/mo if one or more Apple devices are signed in and active during a given billing period. They'd make a billion dollars a month off of secured Android users, without exposing themselves to any new spam whatsoever, and showing Android users that Apple users have a better experience. Win-win for platform marketing and cloud services revenue. iMessage spam isn't non-existent because sometimes someone tries to spam, gets a few messages out, and then their device gets console-banned. The iMessage "unsend" feature doesn't yet exist in any released iOS or macOS, so it can't be used to hide the spam after the fact.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Hell, they could charge a token amount for un-secured devices, which I imagine could make things prohibitively expensive for spammers. I would (grudgingly, because the whole thing is just stupid) pay 3 bucks a month or so to be able to message iPhone users from Android without dealing with unreliable message delivery and ordering, and photos and videos pixelated to hell. I have a ton of barely-recognizable videos of my niece and nephews from my sister because she always forgets that sending me video over MMS is a boatload of fail.
  - altairprime 4y ago
    I don’t expect Apple to ever allow unsecured devices into the iMessage network.
    - unknownaccount 4y ago
      iMessage worked fine on Jailbroken iOS devices since.. always.
      - altairprime 4y ago
        Jailbreaking iOS doesn’t affect the OS on the Secure Encoave chip. Crypto attestations of device identity can be protected from alteration by jsilbreakers.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Apple is already not even close to dominant in a lot of EU countries. As a result nobody uses iMessage here (I never get any, nor SMS). That never swayed them to open it up.

by dt2m 4y ago

jacooper 4y ago

Well Apple is going to be forced anyway, the EU's Digital Markets Act will be enforced soon. And fines are up to 20% of global revenue.

ghaff 4y ago
Is iMessage a "Number-independent interpersonal communication services (e.g., messengers)"? It's a messenger but it's based on phone numbers AFAIK--unlike something like WhatsApp.
- rdsnsca 4y ago
  It is, I use it from my Mac Mini without owing an iPhone.
- frumper 4y ago
  You can sign up and use an email for iMessage through wifi
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Ah. I've only used it as a default SMS alternative on Apple devices including iPhone.
Seanambers 4y ago
As an iPhone user I do not like EU dictating how Apple software should work at all. The same with chargers as well. Sure we can all have a discussion about how it should work - but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever I agree wholeheartedly, but what's the alternative? The so-called "free market" (not that such a thing actually exists) clearly has not solved this problem for us.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    It's a problem for you only because you want to use iMessage. iMessage is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
    - worthless-trash 4y ago
      Who else 'sells' imessage ?
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        Signal
        worthless-trash 4y ago
        Explain how please.
      - sbuk 4y ago
        So every app is a monopoly now? This is getting ridiculous.
- dt2m 4y ago
  As much as I agree with this in principle, there is absolutely no denying that Apple is abusing their power when it comes to consumer lock-in. I find it very hard to argue against regulation which is only meant to make devices more interoperable. USB-C for charging is mature enough at this point that it seems reasonable to declare it THE charging port. An interesting - partially ironic - observation here, is that Apple actually designed the reversible USB-C connector and submitted it to the USB-IF - a team of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats, who of course previously were responsible for blunders such as micro-USB-B 3.0, and more recently, the ambiguous shitshow that is the current state of the USB spec. I wholeheartedly believe that Apple is such a design-driven company that they would actually engage with regulators again (gasp, even the EU), if they were to come up with a better connector design down the road. Everybody wins.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

altairprime 4y ago

Apple could easily charge $1/mo or $10/year for iMessage on secured devices, with automatic refund and prorated cancellation if no secured device is signed in within a given billing period; and then discount $1/mo if one or more Apple devices are signed in and active during a given billing period. They'd make a billion dollars a month off of secured Android users, without exposing themselves to any new spam whatsoever, and showing Android users that Apple users have a better experience. Win-win for platform marketing and cloud services revenue. iMessage spam isn't non-existent because sometimes someone tries to spam, gets a few messages out, and then their device gets console-banned. The iMessage "unsend" feature doesn't yet exist in any released iOS or macOS, so it can't be used to hide the spam after the fact.

kelnos 4y ago
Hell, they could charge a token amount for un-secured devices, which I imagine could make things prohibitively expensive for spammers. I would (grudgingly, because the whole thing is just stupid) pay 3 bucks a month or so to be able to message iPhone users from Android without dealing with unreliable message delivery and ordering, and photos and videos pixelated to hell. I have a ton of barely-recognizable videos of my niece and nephews from my sister because she always forgets that sending me video over MMS is a boatload of fail.
- altairprime 4y ago
  I don’t expect Apple to ever allow unsecured devices into the iMessage network.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    iMessage worked fine on Jailbroken iOS devices since.. always.
    - altairprime 4y ago
      Jailbreaking iOS doesn’t affect the OS on the Secure Encoave chip. Crypto attestations of device identity can be protected from alteration by jsilbreakers.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Apple is already not even close to dominant in a lot of EU countries. As a result nobody uses iMessage here (I never get any, nor SMS). That never swayed them to open it up.