Apple Argues iMessage Isn't Popular Enough in the EU to Be Regulated

[TimFL1]

100% agree that a common standard would be better, but it also is very unlucky to emerge unless it is imposed by regulations because every messaging platform is basically a way to retain users in a proprietary ecosystem and profit from that user base one way or another, so there is no incentive for key players to go that route (actually things have been headed the opposite direction over time: old-timers will remember that back in the mid 2000s many major messaging platforms did implement XMPP and were interoperable, but all of them gradually retired it).

I also agree that proprietary gateways will make interoperability more difficult, but where we disagree is your assessment that it will be impossible/impractical to implement. Yes it will be a lot more work, but for someone who puts in that work, it will be very valuable as they will basically hold a universal key to all messaging platforms which is something most users want. One way it could evolve is for a few players to do all the hard development and maintenance work to access the various gateways, and bring to the market a middleware which has a simple API to abstract all that complexity for whomever wants to communicate with the gateways in a unified manner.

There are many ways for big players to retain users even when they provide interoperability. Apple could‘ve been very smart about iMessage on Android, because it gives them a way to expose Android users to the Apple ecosystem by e.g. requiring the Android app to use an Apple ID. Combine that with keeping features like these exclusive to Apple devices:
- Memoji recording (requires Apple hardware), show them as videos on Android
- iMessage App store (show fancy placeholders for apps / games on Android, allow stickers to be viewed but not added on Android)
- SharePlay on Apple devices (tease them with a chat message that says other Apple users started SharePlay)
- Apple Cash on iOS etc only

Stuff like basic texting, media attachments, replies, tapbacks etc could all be available on an Android app. Keep the bells and whistles to iOS only (stuff that requires the actual hardware / ecosystem).

To add to your API idea, someone potentially creates something like that but then again, it‘s still only be offered as a glorified wrapper app. You can‘t add interoperability for people not on your App, because WhatsApp and Telegram probably will never interop. Chats will be limited to one interoperability mode (e.g. only WhatsApp users and the custom app, because Telegram and WhatsApp wont relay messages between their clients. Your custom app is merely mimicking a half-assed WhatsApp client because it speaks „WhatsApp“ to the WhatsApp clients).

The beauty of interoperability should be that it doesn‘t matter what app I use, I can talk to people on other apps. Like Mail functions, which wont happen with this nonsense.

 

[Krizoitz]

Except no.

It's right about 25% so it's 3:1. Source https://www.statista.com/statistics/1232268/apple-smartphone-market-share-in-europe/

Market share != usage share

It’s 2:1.

 

[bob24]

The beauty of interoperability should be that it doesn‘t matter what app I use, I can talk to people on other apps. Like Mail functions, which wont happen with this nonsense.

Of course a unified protocol similar to emails would be better for users. But again, we can keep dreaming about it for another decade (with a very low chance of it happening for the commercial reasons I mentioned), or we can take what we’re being given. All I’m saying is that I’ll take effective imperfect interoperability over a dream of perfect interoperability.

 

[bob24]

Tweet with the list of gatekeepers just dropped: https://x.com/thierrybreton/status/1699354391101260102?s=61&t=qo8Xgv406R0SBtoFLdt7MA

But it is a little confusing as only companies are listed, not specific services. So Apple is on the list but iMessage not specifically mentioned. Not sure if it means iMessage is de facto covered or if a more detailed list of services will be posted for each company.

The full list is: Alphabet , Amazon , Apple , ByteDance , Meta , Microsoft.

Edit: actually there are more details here: https://x.com/eu_commission/status/1699356831259234750?s=61&t=qo8Xgv406R0SBtoFLdt7MA

The only 2 messaging platforms are WhatsApp and Messenger (I assume this is Facebook Messenger) so this indeed seems to confirm Apple’s statement that iMessage isn’t impacted.

 

[Krizoitz]

Of course a unified protocol similar to emails would be better for users.

Not necessarily. A unified protocol means least common denominator status. No one can add anything new or innovative unless everyone involved agrees. Japanese phones (pre-smartphone even!) had emoji for more than a decade before most of the rest of the world.

Or how about something more critical like End to End encryption. RCS, the supposed SMS replacement Google is pushing STILL doesn’t support it. In order to add E2E to Google Messages they had to add it on top of RCS, meaning it’s not a standard. iMessage has used E2E encryption for over a decade.

Protocols and standards have their place. But that doesn’t mean they are always the better solution.

 

[mrochester]

Tweet with the list of gatekeepers just dropped: https://x.com/thierrybreton/status/1699354391101260102?s=61&t=qo8Xgv406R0SBtoFLdt7MA

But it is a little confusing as only companies are listed, not specific services. So Apple is on the list but iMessage not specifically mentioned. Not sure if it means iMessage is de facto covered or if a more detailed list of services will be posted for each company.

The full list is: Alphabet , Amazon , Apple , ByteDance , Meta , Microsoft.

Edit: actually there are more details here: https://x.com/eu_commission/status/1699356831259234750?s=61&t=qo8Xgv406R0SBtoFLdt7MA

The only 2 messaging platforms are WhatsApp and Messenger (I assume this is Facebook Messenger) so this indeed seems to confirm Apple’s statement that iMessage isn’t impacted.

Google are certainly clearly in the firing line with that list.

 

[bob24]

Not necessarily. A unified protocol means least common denominator status. No one can add anything new or innovative unless everyone involved agrees. Japanese phones (pre-smartphone even!) had emoji for more than a decade before most of the rest of the world.

Or how about something more critical like End to End encryption. RCS, the supposed SMS replacement Google is pushing STILL doesn’t support it. In order to add E2E to Google Messages they had to add it on top of RCS, meaning it’s not a standard. iMessage has used E2E encryption for over a decade.

Protocols and standards have their place. But that doesn’t mean they are always the better solution.

Agree to say standards aren't always the better solution, but specifically in the context of telecommunication systems, interoperability is key as otherwise you can't have ubiquitous coverage. And there is no interoperability without common standards (unless you are willing accept the establishment of a complete monopoly based on a single proprietary platform, which in itself is bad for users and for innovation).

So while I don't disagree with the points you mentioned, I would question their relevance here if in the end all they lead to is the creation of either fragmented communication networks or a monopoly (which are both bad outcomes for users).

Google are certainly clearly in the firing line with that list.

And actually does anyone know what the implications are for Youtube which listed on there as an impacted video sharing platform?

 

[mrochester]

And there we have it, iMessage is not on the list of gatekeeper services; only WhatsApp and Facebook messenger are.

 

[ozaz]

And there we have it, iMessage is not on the list of gatekeeper services; only WhatsApp and Facebook messenger are.

I guess they could still impact iMessage by forcing iOS (which is a gatekeeper OS) to allow user to change default messaging app.

 

[mazz0]

And where I said it is?

My point still stands and the sourced article talks about UK which post I responded to talked about.

Oh yeah, sorry, I misread that comment chain. I recant my Thumbs Down!

 

[mrochester]

I guess they could still impact iMessage by forcing iOS (which is a gatekeeper OS) to allow user to change default messaging app.

Maybe, but I think people who want to use alternatives on iOS already do so.

 

[ozaz]

Maybe, but I think people who want to use alternatives on iOS already do so.

I think what many people like about messages app in iOS is it combines basic messaging (SMS) and enhanced messaging (iMessage) in a single app. No one else can currently offer this on iOS (for example no one can offer an app which combines SMS and RCS) but I think its something people could be interested in. Would be interesting to see how well iMessage competes if people had the option of replacing messages with another app for SMS.

 

[bob24]

I think what many people like about messages app in iOS is it combines basic messaging (SMS) and enhanced messaging (iMessage) in a single app. No one else can currently offer this on iOS (for example no one can offer an app which combines SMS and RCS) but I think it’s something people could be interested in. Would be interesting to see how well iMessage competes if people had the option of replacing messages with another app for SMS.

I would for sure be interested, but are you positive the EU regulation would be forcing Apple do do this?

 

[ozaz]

I would for sure be interested, but are you positive the EU regulation would be forcing Apple do do this?

I don't know if they will be forced to do it.

The FAQ website includes the following

Some examples of the obligations imposed on gatekeepers include the following:

Allow end users to easily un-install pre-installed apps or change default settings on operating systems, virtual assistants or web browsers that steer them to the products and services of the gatekeeper, and provide choice screens for key services;

It's not clear to me if this is all that OS gatekeeps will be required to do (provided as an example of gatekeeper requirements in general) or if these OS gatekeeper requirements are a subset of a wider list of OS gatekeeper requirements.

 

[mrochester]

I think what many people like about messages app in iOS is it combines basic messaging (SMS) and enhanced messaging (iMessage) in a single app. No one else can currently offer this on iOS (for example no one can offer an app which combines SMS and RCS) but I think its something people could be interested in. Would be interesting to see how well iMessage competes if people had the option of replacing messages with another app for SMS.

I don’t think it’ll make much difference. The people who deliberately want to use iMessage are already doing so and the people who are not deliberately using iMessage are also the people who probably won’t deliberately start using a different app to send/receive SMS.

I can’t see the cross-over of people who don’t care whether they do/don’t use iMessage but do care very deeply about using a different app for SMS being particularly large.

I don't know if they will be forced to do it.

The FAQ website includes the following



It's not clear to me if this is all that OS gatekeeps will be required to do (provided as an example of gatekeeper requirements in general) or if these OS gatekeeper requirements are a subset of a wider list of OS gatekeeper requirements.

What’s not clear from that is what requirements are placed for the sending and receiving of SMS. SMS is not an Apple product or service so I presume that means Apple messages can continue to be the only app that can send/receive SMS. What Apple might have to do is prompt to request a user opt-in to using iMessage as opposed to defaulting to on.

 

[bob24]

What’s not clear from that is what requirements are placed for the sending and receiving of SMS. SMS is not an Apple product or service so I presume that means Apple messages can continue to be the only app that can send/receive SMS. What Apple might have to do is prompt to request a user opt-in to using iMessage as opposed to defaulting to on.

This would be my understanding as well related to SMS, but it would probably go a bit further than what you say in terms of selecting the default messaging app. Rather than just asking whether the user wants to enable iMessage when they setup a new device, Apple might need to display a list of alternative options and automate their setup in a way which isn’t more difficult that setting-up iMessage (i.e. iOS would need to automatically download the appropriate App, let the user easily sign-in or sign-up, and set that App as the default option when doing things such as asking Siri to send a message or using the sharing menu).

 

[nrose101]

I do trust open source standard. For instance GPG or PGP is pretty secure.

I have been a coder since 1994 and I will never trust open source.

WhatsApp is definitely more popular than iMessage. But don’t know whether the argument will help Apple

Depends where you live.

 

[hacky]

I have been a coder since 1994 and I will never trust open source.

OK. It’s an interesting, but still an opinion…

So seems like you trust more some blackbox (closed source) solution where you are unable to check whether there’s any encryption or recording going on - by design. All right.

 

[ozaz]

What’s not clear from that is what requirements are placed for the sending and receiving of SMS. SMS is not an Apple product or service so I presume that means Apple messages can continue to be the only app that can send/receive SMS. What Apple might have to do is prompt to request a user opt-in to using iMessage as opposed to defaulting to on.

Yeah, I suppose forcing user to engage with an opt-in/opt-out iMessage option may be a way to address competitive advantage iMessage gains by being bundled in the messages app. But I feel basic SMS handling is more of a "key service" for a phone OS than enhanced messaging, so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were forced to allow users to use a different app for SMS.

 

[nrose101]

Yeah, I suppose forcing user to engage with an opt-in/opt-out option may be a way to address competitive advantage iMessage gains by being bundled in the messages app. But I feel basic sms handling is more of a "key service" for a phone OS than enhanced messaging, so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were forced to allow users to use a different app for SMS.

Yes in the early 90s, Black Box theory was taught, encouraged, and used throughout 2001 and higher....and no I wouldn't take anyone's code, but only people from people in the companies I work. For my own stuff, I code everything by hand. I don't want other people's spaghetti code.

 

[mrochester]

Yeah, I suppose forcing user to engage with an opt-in/opt-out iMessage option may be a way to address competitive advantage iMessage gains by being bundled in the messages app. But I feel basic SMS handling is more of a "key service" for a phone OS than enhanced messaging, so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were forced to allow users to use a different app for SMS.

The way I read the wording is that the OS vendor must offer the option to delete or set different defaults for apps that steer a user to that vendors own product or service. SMS is not a product or service of Apple so my reading would not require Apple to provide users with a choice for SMS handling.

 

[mazz0]

I have been a coder since 1994 and I will never trust open source.

That must be a difficult position to maintain. You don't touch Linux servers then?

 

[nrose101]

That must be a difficult position to maintain. You don't touch Linux servers then?

Nope. Unless you count dropping down to the terminal on my Mac. All coding is Windows and Windows servers. Before that OS/2

 

[ozaz]

The way I read the wording is that the OS vendor must offer the option to delete or set different defaults for apps that steer a user to that vendors own product or service. SMS is not a product or service of Apple so my reading would not require Apple to provide users with a choice for SMS handling.

That's like saying the internet is a not a product or service of Apple so therefore Apple won't be required to provide users with ability to change default app (web browser) for accessing the internet. But it does seem like the the act will include requirement for OS gatekeepers to allow users to pick default web browser.

 

[bob24]

The way I read the wording is that the OS vendor must offer the option to delete or set different defaults for apps that steer a user to that vendors own product or service. SMS is not a product or service of Apple so my reading would not require Apple to provide users with a choice for SMS handling.

Would that force Apple to separate iMessage and SMS into different Apps then?

Because right now, offering the option to delete iMessage basically means deleting the Message app and thus killing SMS functionality, as both features reside in the same App.