Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

huge_apple_fangirl

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2019
758
1,283
SMS doesn’t have E2E encryption.
Pretty sure the EU isn't a huge fan of that anyways... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/orders-top-eus-timetable-dismantling-end-end-encryption
And still if I use sms I end up with the same problem. I can’t send sms to WhatsApp, Viber, signal, telegram, messenger etc. I am forced to use these apps.
What do the existence of other apps have to do with it? You can reach every mobile device with SMS. The fact that other options exist seems to me a good thing and the sign of a free and competitive market. Or does the EU now oppose users having many options?
My Jobb group last year decided to use WhatsApp as a group chat, forcing be to use it as I’m unable to communicate or be communicate with unless I submit and install the app.
What does that have to do with anything? So if your job requires Microsoft Windows, Microsoft and Apple should be forced to make the Windows API work on Mac so you can use a Mac at work? In reality, your work was the one choosing in the free market in this scenario, and they chose WhatsApp. If a proprietary solution is winning over an open one, we must ask ourselves what that solution is doing right. Perhaps having a single company control a standard, without having to deal with other stakeholders or keep the API stable, allows for certain advantages in creating a better product or service.
A good solution would be if they all must support RCS as a fallback protocol to make it easy to message between users. Or use a different modern standard
Why must everyone support RCS? I agree Apple should allow chat apps to support SMS/MMS/RCS if they want to (which is forbidden now). But why should a chat app be forced to support a certain standard? If someone feels they can build something better, go for it. I think mandating that all chat apps support a committee driven, lowest common denominator solution indefinitely is a terrible idea that will retard progress in this space. Consortiums and open standards can be great, but the industry needs to be committed to them. If it gets tacked on as part of a compliance order it will end up as a stagnant security nightmare that no one actually cares or uses about but is part of every chat app to fulfill this law. And at the very least, before the EU mandates a "different modern standard", they should work with industry stakeholders to actually develop one.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,161
6,976
That doesn’t sound like what is being described in this proposed law. Can you please provide an example, from the text of this proposed law, as to how Apple can continue it’s business as is: for those of us who want to choose that?
That’s not what was said. Continuing business as usual isn’t an option for Apple under this law, but it is for users. I don’t get why you need there to be a big shiny lock keeping you from installing from other sources? Just don’t do it and your phone experience will remain unchanged.

Either way, I’m sure Apple will have some form of “only allow App Store apps” toggle for everyone who’s shaking in their boots at the thought of installing an app that Tim Cook hasn’t personally given his blessing.
 

0924487

Cancelled
Aug 17, 2016
2,699
2,808
Pretty simple to comply on paper: on first boot allow users to pick full iOS or a custom, stripped-down Darwin kernel with no security provisions. Third parties can feel free to build their own window manager, file system, App Store, browsers, services for it. Philosophically something akin to AOSP - with great freedom comes great responsibility to build your own everything (to install apps users clone a git repo, modify the source themselves if they wish and make the binaries using gcc or clang on device for the ultimate In customizability)

Then EU would argue this remedy impractical and fine Apple because they de facto didn’t comply. EU laws take intention into consideration, not just word games and finding loopholes like it is here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boss.king

0924487

Cancelled
Aug 17, 2016
2,699
2,808
Pretty sure the EU isn't a huge fan of that anyways... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/orders-top-eus-timetable-dismantling-end-end-encryption

What do the existence of other apps have to do with it? You can reach every mobile device with SMS. The fact that other options exist seems to me a good thing and the sign of a free and competitive market. Or does the EU now oppose users having many options?

What does that have to do with anything? So if your job requires Microsoft Windows, Microsoft and Apple should be forced to make the Windows API work on Mac so you can use a Mac at work? In reality, your work was the one choosing in the free market in this scenario, and they chose WhatsApp. If a proprietary solution is winning over an open one, we must ask ourselves what that solution is doing right. Perhaps having a single company control a standard, without having to deal with other stakeholders or keep the API stable, allows for certain advantages in creating a better product or service.

Why must everyone support RCS? I agree Apple should allow chat apps to support SMS/MMS/RCS if they want to (which is forbidden now). But why should a chat app be forced to support a certain standard? If someone feels they can build something better, go for it. I think mandating that all chat apps support a committee driven, lowest common denominator solution indefinitely is a terrible idea that will retard progress in this space. Consortiums and open standards can be great, but the industry needs to be committed to them. If it gets tacked on as part of a compliance order it will end up as a stagnant security nightmare that no one actually cares or uses about but is part of every chat app to fulfill this law. And at the very least, before the EU mandates a "different modern standard", they should work with industry stakeholders to actually develop one.
The point is, big companies must not have a comparative market advantage over smaller companies, and they will not be allowed to act as gatekeepers.
 

0924487

Cancelled
Aug 17, 2016
2,699
2,808
Very dubious definition of markets and competition, reads more like a punitive regulation drafted by spiteful bureaucrats without understanding how tech & security work.

I wonder how much regulation would be too much for Apple to swallow before saying “thx, but we will no longer be doing business in EU”?
I don’t think anyone would miss it. If there is a void, new life will grow to take its place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vipergts2207

0924487

Cancelled
Aug 17, 2016
2,699
2,808
They want Apple (& Google?) to fundamentally alter how their OS and other core software works completely within 6 months??!! The EU is high on crack! As a dev I know it's hard enough to get big features integrated in several months. They clearly have no idea the level of complexity their asking for - which shows how little they know about tech in general.
Apple and Google already have backup solutions built to test internally.
 

RadioHedgeFund

Cancelled
Sep 11, 2018
422
869
You speak for everyone in the EU and UK?

All people in those jurisdictions do just what you do?
Yeah, pretty much. I only use iMessage to text my family because we all have use iDevices. *Everybody* uses WhatApp. It’s on every business listing, every group chat and every workplace. Even the UK government has been in trouble for doing its business on it during lockdown!

My friends in Turkey, Cambodia and Germany? All contactable on WhatsApp.

Opening up interoperability is a good idea but honestly nobody outside the states relies on iMessage for anything.
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,433
2,271
Scandinavia
They aren't mandated to open up their engine bay. :)
Well they are mandated to stop preventing other from opening up the engine bay
You just don’t get it. Sure you vote for a representative, but that’s not democracy. Money, fear and ignorance buy power. I absolutely agree your system is way better than the USA, but in reality the EU is just running about 10 years behind the US as far as corruption goes.
I do get it, EU parties get 90% of their funding from the government, donations are transparent. Candidates can’t get donations, only the party. Spending limits exist. the European Parliament (EP) is a non-majoritarian institution where policy-making takes place through concessions and collaboration. Currently private donations are limited to maximum 10% of a parties budget and is set to shrink to 5%.

Forcing the vote or voting against the party line happens all the time and is normal. I would dare to say EU is 100 years ahead of USA when it comes to anti corruption and real democratic influence.
Yep it’s been pushed, but fortunately elected officials can’t propose laws but just ask for an investigation to the commission, a legislative body run by civil servants who a few months late came to the conclusion we must have encryption
What do the existence of other apps have to do with it? You can reach every mobile device with SMS. The fact that other options exist seems to me a good thing and the sign of a free and competitive market. Or does the EU now oppose users having many options?
It’s a fragmented market you can’t easily compete in as every app is locked to their group. SMS is barely used today. And even tho you can register your WhatsApp, iMessage, Viber, WeChat, signal etc with your phone number you are still unable to send text communications to these groups without downloading the app and they can’t text me without me also downloading the same app. Interoperability on the basic level would allow users more freedom to use any application according to its functions and custom protocols. If RCS( includes E2EE) was used as the fallback standard between different platforms (or something else) it would still allow iMessage to use it’s proprietary system to other imessage users and RCS to other phones or apps such as signal or WhatsApp instead of SMS or needing to download a new app.
What does that have to do with anything? So if your job requires Microsoft Windows, Microsoft and Apple should be forced to make the Windows API work on Mac so you can use a Mac at work? In reality, your work was the one choosing in the free market in this scenario, and they chose WhatsApp. If a proprietary solution is winning over an open one, we must ask ourselves what that solution is doing right. Perhaps having a single company control a standard, without having to deal with other stakeholders or keep the API stable, allows for certain advantages in creating a better product or service.
this was not a company decision but a worker’s group where everyone communicated with each other. Checking if someone could change days, get more supplies, ask for help etc etc. it was the group chat because not everyone have iPhones, not everyone have Facebook so everyone is forced to use WhatsApp instead of their preferred program

You can have two standards without sacrificing your advantage. iPhone have Bluetooth but can use the H1 chip for superior experience with beats and apple headphones. AirPods Pro can still connect to android or windows devices over Bluetooth and still use H1 chip for iOS unique features.

Mac and iOS have Wi-Fi, but still have airplay that you can only use to other apple conpatib products and TVs as a uneque feature, security and selling point. Etc etc
Why must everyone support RCS? I agree Apple should allow chat apps to support SMS/MMS/RCS if they want to (which is forbidden now). But why should a chat app be forced to support a certain standard? If someone feels they can build something better, go for it. I think mandating that all chat apps support a committee driven, lowest common denominator solution indefinitely is a terrible idea that will retard progress in this space. Consortiums and open standards can be great, but the industry needs to be committed to them. If it gets tacked on as part of a compliance order it will end up as a stagnant security nightmare that no one actually cares or uses about but is part of every chat app to fulfill this law. And at the very least, before the EU mandates a "different modern standard", they should work with industry stakeholders to actually develop one.
They don’t need to use RCS. No standard is proposed, but the industry will have to decide for themselves as always. Eu have never mandated a security standard, they regularly dictate minimum standards or minimum requirements that periodically gets stricter in a bid to encourage industry stakeholders to collaborate and develop standards.

Eu compared to USA don’t care to dictate how you do something, just provide qualifications you need to meet in whatever way you deep appropriate.

Eu talked with phone manufacturer to come together and try to and agree to standard port. And everyone in the industry signed this agreement. Now 10 years later EU have decided to force the TYP-C contact everyone else uses to be standard because apple failed to follow the agreement to work for a common charging solution. Apple could have proposed a new lightning port as the standard but didn’t. Now in the future the port will change when the group agrees to change it
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SFjohn

wanha

macrumors 68000
Oct 30, 2020
1,557
4,495
All you people don’t seem to understand the text or any soother will work.
The text says explicitly that basic functions should work. Interoperability is easily implemented if the messaging program also contains the API to decrypt a message from the other apps. An even easier solution is to have a separate protocol that can be used as a backup. When you write a iMessage text it can discover if the other number is registered with iMessage, and if it can’t see iMessage it just falls back on normal SMS protocol, this can just use a new secure messaging protocol as a fallback for other services.

You claim that this is simple and well thought out. It is anything but.

For instance, iMessage does not have a groups function, but WhatsApp does. If the EU mandates interoperability, does Apple have to build a groups function that works the way the WhatsApp one does? Also, WhatsApp limits message forwarding, but Apple doesn't (as far as we know). Who decides? Who enforces that?

Also, mandating an end-to-end encrypted namespace across many providers is a very difficult engineering challenge.
 
Last edited:

ct2k7

macrumors G3
Aug 29, 2008
8,369
3,436
London
You claim this is that this is simple and well thought out. It is anything but.

For instance, iMessage does not have a groups function, but WhatsApp does. If the EU mandates interoperability, does Apple have to build a groups function that works the way the WhatsApp one does? Also, WhatsApp limits message forwarding, but Apple doesn't (as far as we know). Who decides? Who enforces that?

Also, mandating an end-to-end encrypted namespace across many providers is a very difficult engineering challenge.
iMessage has a group chat function.
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,433
2,271
Scandinavia
You claim this is that this is simple and well thought out. It is anything but.

For instance, iMessage does not have a groups function, but WhatsApp does. If the EU mandates interoperability, does Apple have to build a groups function that works the way the WhatsApp one does? Also, WhatsApp limits message forwarding, but Apple doesn't (as far as we know).
1: it is if you actually read the legislation. EU legislations work on the principle of saying what standards must be met, and what objective is to be met. Then it's 100% up to the market to decide the how and everything above it.

2: iMessage have group function. And as described in the text. Basic functions,
is WhatsApp unique grouping function an important function? is messaging forward an important function?

Who decides? Who enforces that?
the market decides. And the market enforces it. EU will just monitor it and companies will be free to file a complaint to the EU court if they believe the regulation isn't followed
Also, mandating an end-to-end encrypted namespace across many providers is a very difficult engineering challenge.
not at all, as you can use multiple standards, or even develop or agree to a new standard for everyone to use as the official standard between platforms. EU isn't the babysitter for companies
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,345
24,091
Gotta be in it to win it
Well they are mandated to stop preventing other from opening up the engine bay

I do get it, EU parties get 90% of their funding from the government, donations are transparent. Candidates can’t get donations, only the party. Spending limits exist. the European Parliament (EP) is a non-majoritarian institution where policy-making takes place through concessions and collaboration. Currently private donations are limited to maximum 10% of a parties budget and is set to shrink to 5%.

Forcing the vote or voting against the party line happens all the time and is normal. I would dare to say EU is 100 years ahead of USA when it comes to anti corruption and real democratic influence.

Yep it’s been pushed, but fortunately elected officials can’t propose laws but just ask for an investigation to the commission, a legislative body run by civil servants who a few months late came to the conclusion we must have encryption

It’s a fragmented market you can’t easily compete in as every app is locked to their group. SMS is barely used today. And even tho you can register your WhatsApp, iMessage, Viber, WeChat, signal etc with your phone number you are still unable to send text communications to these groups without downloading the app and they can’t text me without me also downloading the same app. Interoperability on the basic level would allow users more freedom to use any application according to its functions and custom protocols. If RCS( includes E2EE) was used as the fallback standard between different platforms (or something else) it would still allow iMessage to use it’s proprietary system to other imessage users and RCS to other phones or apps such as signal or WhatsApp instead of SMS or needing to download a new app.

this was not a company decision but a worker’s group where everyone communicated with each other. Checking if someone could change days, get more supplies, ask for help etc etc. it was the group chat because not everyone have iPhones, not everyone have Facebook so everyone is forced to use WhatsApp instead of their preferred program

You can have two standards without sacrificing your advantage. iPhone have Bluetooth but can use the H1 chip for superior experience with beats and apple headphones. AirPods Pro can still connect to android or windows devices over Bluetooth and still use H1 chip for iOS unique features.

Mac and iOS have Wi-Fi, but still have airplay that you can only use to other apple conpatib products and TVs as a uneque feature, security and selling point. Etc etc

They don’t need to use RCS. No standard is proposed, but the industry will have to decide for themselves as always. Eu have never mandated a security standard, they regularly dictate minimum standards or minimum requirements that periodically gets stricter in a bid to encourage industry stakeholders to collaborate and develop standards.

Eu compared to USA don’t care to dictate how you do something, just provide qualifications you need to meet in whatever way you deep appropriate.

Eu talked with phone manufacturer to come together and try to and agree to standard port. And everyone in the industry signed this agreement. Now 10 years later EU have decided to force the TYP-C contact everyone else uses to be standard because apple failed to follow the agreement to work for a common charging solution. Apple could have proposed a new lightning port as the standard but didn’t. Now in the future the port will change when the group agrees to change it
There is no legislation for interoperability of car engine bays, why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: huge_apple_fangirl

Razorpit

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2021
1,127
2,371
One funny thought - will Epic have to allow side loading, open up their store to third parties and other payment systems? Valve?
That would be good. I was thinking about other systems such as PlayStation and Xbox. Thats going to be very interesting.

Come to think of it, what about the current system where you can buy vouchers on Amazon, and other services and redeem them on the PS and Xbox stores? Would that solve the problem here?
 

Stunning_Sense4712

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2021
339
497
It's really simple for Apple.

Allow a store to produce apps for the phone. However you don't get access to ANYTHING on the phone. No contacts, Camera, Photos, Map data, Any security stuff, Microphone, music, Limited single touch even. There is zip all reason they HAVE to allow any access to that.

So web apps.. which you can already do.

Done. Thanks Apple please pay me my Lawerly Fee of 1 Million dollars.
That would trigger the EU to go after Apple since that would violate the spirit of the law they passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wanha

Stunning_Sense4712

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2021
339
497
End to end encryption isn’t beholden to the servers or companies - it’s literally the point of it. EU is not the enemy here - in fact they finance Signal.
My understanding is law enforcement agency’s complained about E2E encryption and Apple shelved E2E for the foreseeable future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

Stunning_Sense4712

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2021
339
497
They built an open standard for this (RCS) which is run by the (ugh) carriers with no transport or legal neutrality in place.

It doesn't even support end to end encryption. I suspect intentionally as there is commercial and surveillance value in the message contents based on how pissy the carriers get if you ever mention encryption.
I do not think we will see widespread E2E unless they put in a back door for law enforcement purposes which would defeat the purpose of E2E. World Government's are not going to tolerate not being able to see what kinds of information their citizens are sending/receiving.
 

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,536
4,340
Opening up interoperability is a good idea but honestly nobody outside the states relies on iMessage for anything.

The problem I see is interoperability reduces security and is likely to be a lowest common denominator that no one finds as useful as the app''s version. It's likely to be some SMS+variant as a standard.

Here's another issue with interoperability. An app can control where the data servers are hosted, how data is retaineed, etc. Open up interoperability and you lose control of the data and information about the user base.

You can have two standards without sacrificing your advantage. iPhone have Bluetooth but can use the H1 chip for superior experience with beats and apple headphones. AirPods Pro can still connect to android or windows devices over Bluetooth and still use H1 chip for iOS unique features.

Except companies will demand access to the H1 chips features as well; claiming it gives Apple an unfair advantage.

You claim this is that this is simple and well thought out. It is anything but.

For instance, iMessage does not have a groups function, but WhatsApp does. If the EU mandates interoperability, does Apple have to build a groups function that works the way the WhatsApp one does? Also, WhatsApp limits message forwarding, but Apple doesn't (as far as we know). Who decides? Who enforces that?

Also, mandating an end-to-end encrypted namespace across many providers is a very difficult engineering challenge.

Good points. I think companies will be unwilling to replace their encryption method with some standard, for a variety of reasons, such as less assurance of true E2E encryption, losing users as the large companies build out an app that has all the features of theirs, etc.

I can see them expecting Apple, Google, et. al. to support their standard, which is not realistic since it would mean they had to build in multiple solutions.

iMessage has a group chat function.

However, it is nowhere near as good as WhatsApp's.

2: iMessage have group function. And as described in the text. Basic functions,
is WhatsApp unique grouping function an important function?

Yes. I can create multiple groups for each project and easily add/remove members while ensuring all of teh team gets each message or call.

is messaging forward an important function?

No, but the ability to block forwarding is.

That would trigger the EU to go after Apple since that would violate the spirit of the law they passed.

Which is why Apple should build in user selectable levels of access and ability to allow side loading. For side loading, they could add warnings like built into MacOS if you decide to allow it or even toggle off warnings. That would comply with the letter and spirit of the law, allow greater user choice and let the market decide if all that is valuable to consumers.
 
Last edited:

SactoGuy18

macrumors 601
Sep 11, 2006
4,418
1,561
Sacramento, CA USA
The best solutions:

1. Allow multiple app stores, but every app store much conform to a single set of strict security requirements.
2. Apple and Google should agree to essentially merge iMessage and RCS into a single unitary standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ct2k7
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.