Lawmakers Express Concern Over Apple's 'Anticompetitive Treatment' of iMessage for Android App

[dannyyankou]

Its not. But Micro USB at that time wasn’t leaps ahead of the 30 pin connector like how USB-C is.

Ok, but I think they would've eventually switched to USB C anyway. They were gradually transitioning their products to it even before the stuff in the UK. In fact, Apple had one of the first consumer notebooks with USB C, I think it might've actually been the first.

 

[TonnyM]

Getting access to Apple’s servers by creating fake credentials is absolutely not acceptable. Apple should stop this madness taking more serious steps.

 

[truthsteve]

You can’t name 5 things that they contributed to the industry in the last 5 years.

1. Contributed to USB4
2. Contributed to Qi2
3. Open sourced FoundationDB
4. Contributed to OpenUSD
5. Contributed to Matter standard

We get it, you just don't like Apple, but come on.

 

[truthsteve]

iMessage is not end to end encrypted though.

"iMessage is end-to-end encrypted" https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/messages/

 

[Shirasaki]

While people here rehearse all the old points involving similar topics, I am glad to see the utilisation of fear-mongering is not unique between government/corporation and citizens/customers, but also between government and corporations. It’s fun to see big arms wrestling for power like that on various issues.

 

[deevey]

iMessage is not end to end encrypted though. It's the most common target of high profile hackers.

Source?

 

[scorpio vega]

Android users are annoying

 

[il_teo77]

It still amazes me how this is a thing in the US. the rest of the world is basically WhatsApp, Telegram only. Granted, Whatsapp is really dragging its feet on some aspects (AppleWatch image preview is really bad, just to name one and only a months ago it finally added an option for better quality pictures). But it is the de-facto standard and it doesn't get as nearly as many complaints for the lack of interoperability (you can't send or receive sms or any other message except whatsapp in whatsapp). iMessage in Europe is used only by stubborn people like me...

 

[Jetscreamer]

Like it or not, Apple’s great walled garden is starting to crumble. First from the E.U., and now also Congress. Makes no difference to me though, I still plan to use an iPhone today and in the future.

 

[strongy]

No one is complaining about the UI, it's the lack of features and lower quality experience. Group messages are worse when non-iOS devices are involved. Images are compressed. Video is garbage. Nothing is encrypted. If you don't care about any of those things, that's fine, but let's not pretend that it's just people whining because the interface is bad. It's a bad experience for me as an iOS user to message people not on iOS because of the choices Apple is making.

You could just use any other messenger stop repeating all the other crap

 

[strongy]

Reverse engineering, under most circumstances, is completely legal. They didn't crack encryption, break into Apple's servers, or anything that would violate the CFAA.

They literally admit to using apples servers without authorisation.

 

[Sorinut]

They literally admit to using apples servers without authorisation.

Connecting to servers is legal. Using an API, under a legally created Apple account is legal. They didn't "use apples servers" in any way, other than a with a valid Apple ID and that was only the user.

To use this, you had to create an Apple ID, which you don't need any Apple devices to do.

Beeper didn't connect with Apple servers at all. Only the end-user did.

 

[wanha]

It's funny that everyone screaming "anti-competitive behavior" completely forgets the news from just a few weeks back where Apple said they would implement the RCS messaging standard so that Android and Apple can have a compatible internet messaging protocol... 🤷‍♂️

But hey, whatever suits your agenda.

 

[darkpaw]

iMessage is an Apple innovation, and it's exclusively available on Apple's platforms. Now, if you text someone who cannot receive iMessages it falls back to the standard SMS/MMS. This is as advertised. Apple implementing RCS will just mean that iMessages will still be sent to iMessage recipients, and anyone not using iMessage will have it fall back to using SMS/MMS or RCS if Apple implement it. I can't see Apple replacing the guts of iMessage with RCS just to please people who haven't bought an Apple device. That's not innovation.

 

[strongy]

Connecting to servers is legal. Using an API, under a legally created Apple account is legal. They didn't "use apples servers" in any way, other than a with a valid Apple ID and that was only the user.

To use this, you had to create an Apple ID, which you don't need any Apple devices to do.

Beeper didn't connect with Apple servers at all. Only the end-user did.

simping illegal activity wow a new low

 

[BC2009]

So Twitter (X) and Reddit can ban third party clients from their public API’s but Apple cannot block an authorized third party client from using a private API? Maybe Apple should publish the API and charge $500 per API call

 

[BC2009]

Since last summer, Bell has complained that some Oklahomans are illegally "reselling" local exchange phone service to the public by allowing anyone to deposit a quarter, or more, into a privately owned phone to place a call.

Pretty sure Beeper Mini is not depositing a quarter per message. I think your analogy would be better if you referenced phone phreaking to get free long distance calls from a pay phone.

 

[NufSaid]

Nadler is a piece of work.

The homepage of Macrumors has "Apple to halt sales of Apple watch" because of a patent dispute.
This issue is "apple is being forced to basically release their technology for others to profit from."

An aspect of fascism is you get to own your own stuff but the dictator tells you how you can use it.

 

[kc9hzn]

So Twitter (X) and Reddit can ban third party clients from their public API’s but Apple cannot block an authorized third party client from using a private API? Maybe Apple should publish the API and charge $500 per API call

*unauthorized* third party client from using a private API call.

To be honest, this article was MacRumors looking for a nice clickbaity headline as nothing much is gonna come of this, looking at the senators and representatives in question. None of them appear to be high ranking members of some relevant committee, and the one whose name I instantly recognize is one that doesn’t have much clout with the current administration.

Come on, do better, MacRumors.

 

[Pentium]

it will take lawmakers 2000 years before they understand how iMessage works....

 

[Sorinut]

simping illegal activity wow a new low

Lay out the specific law(s) that were broken, and how. I'll wait.

I also had to look up "simping". What a ridiculous word.

 

[strongy]

Lay out the specific law(s) that were broken, and how.

I'll wait.

classic response do your own leg work

 

[Sorinut]

classic response do your own leg work

I already have.

• DMCA - Charging a monthly fee was possibly a violation under 1201(a)(1)(c)(ii) (according to my lawyer wife, but that's not a given at all since it applies to copyright), but no encryption, or DRM, was broken or circumvented.
• CFAA - Beeper didn't/doesn't log in or connect to any Apple servers in any way. The end-user does, with a valid Apple ID that they (end-user) signed up for.
• Van Buren v. United States (2021) - The Supreme Court decided that people are allowed to find flaws in services without repercussion
• Reverse Engineering - Legal under 1201(f)(1), except under an NDA, for the purposes of obtaining interoperability.
• 1201(f)(2) - a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1).

 

[siddavis]

Lawmakers rarely express concern over their suppression of competition from the people.

 

[laptech]

What Beeper is doing is not illegal, they are not breaking any laws, all they have done is used Apple's services in a way Apple does not like so Apple has shut it down.

As pointed out in @Sorinut post above, everything Beeper has done is within the acceptable confines of the law BUT Apple used the excuse 'Security and Privacy' to shut them down. THIS is the probable reason why lawmakers are looking into this because whether Apple likes it or not, not in this case, Beeper has done nothing wrong, again as per @Sorinut's post BUT Apple used 'Privacy and Security' as the reason to shut them down. That action can be construed as anticompetitive because Apple is preventing a competitor from doing something that is perfectly acceptable within the confines of the law.