This is an interesting point and I think it needs clarification from regulators. Because if your logic is correct it has further implications: for exemple Apple would need to allow third-party Apps to make regular voice calls and access voicemail instead of using the default Phone App.
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.
Apple Argues iMessage Isn't Popular Enough in the EU to Be Regulated
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is an interesting point and I think it needs clarification from regulators. Because if your logic is correct it has further implications: for exemple Apple would need to allow third-party Apps to make regular voice calls and access voicemail instead of using the default Phone App.
Yes but that might be related to the browser engine, not the internet itself. But it’s not particularly clear.
iMessage is a special case because it has a switch in the settings menu to turn it off. That is effectively ‘deleting’ it as it removes the functionality from the messages app.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is for EU regulators to decide, but IMO it would en very bad faith from Apple to bundle iMessage and SMS in a single App (giving iMessage a clear advantage over competitors), and to clame that a software switch allowing to disable it is the same as deleting the App.
It’s not very clear. The purpose of the DMA is to prevent big companies from using their power in one market to coerce users into other services that commercially or financially benefit themselves. It’s difficult to see how Apple commercially or financially benefits from forcing users to use the Apple phone app so it seems unlikely the DMA would require Apple to facilitate that.
We do have precedent that the EU is happy for the software to come pre installed and for the user to be given a choice list on first use. iMessage would just remain off unless the user specifically opted into using it.
I suspect that as long as it is easy for a consumer to switch off iMessage (which it already is) it will be deemed as sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the DMA.
Last edited by a moderator:
no one is forcing anyone to use the stock apps though?
and in case of iMessage: this is far from being a monopoly or gate keeping, as anyone who is required or wants to communicate with more than just a handful of people is using something else anyway
and as has been mentioned before... there is SMS too to reach pretty much anyone.
sure, that means completely unprotectect/unencrypted plain text and it is not free everywhere in every contract, but so is most email too.
maybe the EU could just change that, as it really makes no sense that some cheap sub 10kB SMS should cost extra if someone is paying for flatrates several thousand times larger than that already.
don't get me wrong: i like the idea of cross-service interoperability, but only if there is not a single drawback regarding security to it
and in case of iMessage: this is far from being a monopoly or gate keeping, as anyone who is required or wants to communicate with more than just a handful of people is using something else anyway
and as has been mentioned before... there is SMS too to reach pretty much anyone.
sure, that means completely unprotectect/unencrypted plain text and it is not free everywhere in every contract, but so is most email too.
maybe the EU could just change that, as it really makes no sense that some cheap sub 10kB SMS should cost extra if someone is paying for flatrates several thousand times larger than that already.
don't get me wrong: i like the idea of cross-service interoperability, but only if there is not a single drawback regarding security to it
Given that the purpose of those regulations is to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, I would question your reasoning: by bundling SMS and iMessage in the same App and only having a software toggle to disable iMessage as opposed to actually deleting the App and replacing it by a competing one, Apple would clearly be using their position as an OS developer to give their own messaging protocol a competitive advantage over others.
But we shall see what the EC comes-up with.
Last edited:
I think where the EU chooses to impose requirement on OS gatekeepers will probably depend on where they see OS gatekeepers gaining too much of a competitive advantage. I don't think inability for users to choose a phone app really gives Apple any real competitive advantage. But I do think lack of choice of SMS handler app gives iMessage a strong competitive advantage. On the other hand, if iMessage was a standalone app separate from an SMS-only Messages app I wouldn't think there was any need to allow users to choice of SMS app.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand you correctly the reason you see iMessage as getting a competitive advantage in this case is because it is bundled into the SMS App (and I agree with this).
But in that case, what is the difference with the fact that FaceTime is also bundled into the standard phone App? (if you open a contact or type a phone number in the Phone App, you can chose between initiating a regular call, a FaceTime Audio call, and a FaceTime Video call)
In the UK and I hate WhatsApp, I'll take iMessage anyday. The only time I use WhatsApp is when I have no other choice.
A software toggle to indicate a preference is a widely accepted means for a consumer to indicate a preference, so I've no idea why it would not be accepted in this instance.
But as it is currently so unclear as to what these companies will need to do to adhere to the new regulations, this is all up in the air.
The problem isn‘t the software toggle in itself. It is the difference of treatment between Apple’s messaging protocol (which would be accessible in the core SMS App and impossible to actually uninstall from the device) and competing protocols (which wouldn’t have those privileges). Being bundled with a core functionality of any phone (SMS) and being impossible to remove from the device clearly isn’t competing on a level playing field, unless you offer a technical way for competitors to enjoy the same privileges (which might or might not be possible, but probably isn’t something Apple would be willing to facilitate).
Does that matter though as long as the user is proactively given the choice of using a competing messaging service? It was fine for Microsoft to give the user a browser ballet screen even though internet explorer was pre-installed. Apple might simply need to offer a ‘messaging ballet screen’ to adhere.
There is nothing in the DMA that would require a ballot screen for messaging apps. Apple can bundle first party apps. People are just projecting their own arguments onto the DMA.
Are you for real? Plenty of European innovative tech companies. Your comment seems to be typical American view - we have all and others do not have anything. That's really out of reality. Did you travel to the Europe at least once?
Some source to back-up my claim https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-most-innovative-companies-europe-201200980.html?guccounter=1
What are the 10 most innovative European companies?
Answer: In depends massively on how you define innovation, as you can see from three online lists that all ostensibly answer this question. The World's Most Innovative Companies by Forbes uses the concept of "Innovation Premium", calculated by comparing Net Present Value of cash flows from exist...www.quora.com
You realise that Europe's big tech companies such as ASML is owned by the USA right? Look at who the shareholders are.
I'm not entirely clear how the obligations on OS gatekeepers will be interpreted, but this seems like a highly artificial argument to me.
The DMA tries to prevent gatekeepers from using their core platform services to gain an unfair advantage. Operating systems is one such core platform service, and iOS has made the cut, but so are number-independent interpersonal communications services and iMessage wasn't designated.
So the argument boils down that Apple is gaining an unfair advantage by bundling a service that doesn't make Apple a gatekeeper with an application that most people barely use.
Maybe under the strictest interpretation of the OS gatekeeper obligations, but it doesn't seem very sensible and the harm it creates is minimal.
This is one concern I have about regulations like this - I worked in the utility space for a bit with smart meters and building/deploying/managing combination AI/ML/Physics apps on them. It was (still is) fairly disruptive in that industry, but has very low applicability in the EU as at least for some types of meters, they effectively have 'standardized' it into for example, <anyone that can build something to this very specific spec for $30UKP> - there is no feasible way to get a competent smart meter for that price point, so effectively it's had the effect of seriously limiting innovation and benefits.
Without going too much into the details there, a 'basic interoperability standard' is OK, but there are limits at which point it can have significant negative impact, for example - replace iMessage with something simpler and less chance of added value/interesting features either now or in the future.
They can't see your data? Are you kidding? WhatsApp is unusable unless you share ALL of your contacts with Facebook. They could have chosen to just let you create contacts specific to their App, but intentionally decided not to to force you to give them everything.
Every messaging platform needs an address so people can communicate but all your information such as what you have typed, what images you uploaded, what videos you uploaded are completely hidden from them.
Like sending an encrypted email. Everyone can see who the recipient is but no one apart from the recipient can read the email.
I think @randyhudson is saying your entire device contact list gets shared with Facebook. If true, this is shady data harvesting as it means I'm giving Facebook the contact details of all the contacts on my phone without the consent of those contacts (and presumably used for targeted advertising towards me and my contacts). From a technical perspective this probably isn't necessary. The app could probably be programmed in a way where it reads your contacts list to find contacts on WhatsApp without sharing the whole list with Facebook for advertising.
Facebook knowing the phone number of a recipient of a particular WhatsApp message is different as that recipient would have signed up to WhatsApp so already opted into Facebook/WhatsApp knowing something about them.
Last edited: