this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
237 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

58055 readers
4766 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JASN_DE@lemmy.world 117 points 7 months ago (9 children)

Not surprising considering iMessage is nearly irrelevant outside the US.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago (4 children)

US is still stuck on SMS, so much that they even made an upgrade to it with RCS.

It felt like an upgrade to the DVD disk when you have the Internet.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

IMHO, I’ll gladly take RCS over the world’s most popular messaging clients - Meta products.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't know why people have more faith in cellular providers. They have been selling all of your data before Meta was a thing.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which is why I said RCS and not SMS or MMS.

Once we get that new open end to end encrypted RCS protocol, that’s the thing to migrate to. Fuck SMS, MMS, Meta products, WeChat, etc. One end to end encrypted standard, that can be used by any messaging client, on any mobile OS.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

RCS only increased the meta-data the cellular providers and messaging apps is selling on you.

They don't care about the content in your message, so e2ee is useless in this case.

They're selling who you message, when, and where you are when you do it. They collect data on which cellular tower transmitted your message. And now with RCS they also know when you read the message.

Which means RCS is just as useless in terms of privacy. They only enriched the data. So it's probably worse.

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago

Messaging sevices 😅

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago

It supports encryption and all they had to do was type “y” when setting it up.

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

DVDs are still not bad if someone really wants to buy a movie. Cheaper than BluRay and with much weaker DRM. Video is very low quality in today's standards, but bitrate and autio quality is better than any streaming.

I know a nice comparason, faxes. Imagine a fax 2.0 protocol released just before sending documents by email become normal that do not got adapted, but all of a sudden Google start promoting it as nudging Apple to adapt it. Advertised as a better quality, faster fax, with (yet ro standardize) encryption.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

DVDs are still not bad if someone really wants to buy a movie. Cheaper than BluRay and with much weaker DRM. Video is very low quality in today's standards, but bitrate and autio quality is better than any streaming.

DVD bitrate is only 9.8 Mbit and uses this very inefficiently due to the use of MPEG-2 encoding. When DVD was invented we did not have the processing power in affordable hardware for better codecs. Streaming services can do at least twice that bitrate and with much, much better codecs. Audio quality is similar, streaming services actually have higher bitrate audio than most DVDs (AC-3 at 448 kbit on DVD vs ~770 kbit EAC-3 on streaming). DTS could have higher bitrates (it was either 768 kbit or 1.5Mbit) but only supported 5.1 channels.

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I get not defending the use of DVD over Blu-Ray at this point, but the downsides of streaming and digital "ownership" have been a sizeable portion of tech news for a while.

And honestly? US/Canada using the standardized protocol and Europe using the walled garden developed by an eviler-than-normal corporation sounds kinda backwards from the cultural differences between US and Europe we usually hear.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

iMessage is the same though... It only falls back to sms when required (like everything else) and people hate it when it does.

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago

RCS has with all the major reasons that iMessage became preferred, and Apple is adding RCS support to iOS. It'll take some time, but I do think there'll be a cultural shift.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There's better standards than rcs? Over here Google's been taking ads out begging apple to switch over

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

XMPP had more features than RCS even when RCS was being created and was actively developed for all those years unlike RCS. It also much simpler to implement and you don't have to be cellular provider to have a server.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

They finally compromised and Apple agreed to jump over if the parts of RCS that Google was gatekeeping were opened up.

Phase 1 of RCS on iOS will be sans E2EE sometime this year. Likely iOS 18 this fall. Phase 2 will roll in the security once the new open encryption protocol is good to go.

All in all, RCS looks like a lock as the next thing. All the major players are in.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 24 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'm more disappointed by their decision to not consider Microsoft's Edge and Bing as core platforms, even though the former is being pushed way too hard in Windows and the later is used as part of other search engines' indexes (ie. DuckDuckGo, Kagi, Qwant)

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago

I think the core platform user threshold is a sensible way to determine core platforms. I don't know if bing has so many users and what its market share is.

I think the situation with edge is different though, it should not be allowed to be forced down to windows users by bundling without allowing the user to decide which default browser to use first.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 months ago

Qwant actually have their own indexer, but even then I feel like Microsoft can push their own products as they want given you are free to ignore it... It's not like there's no alternative browsers, search engine indices or operating systems, and loads of other products are built off shared technology without it being an issue that it's closed off generally

[–] dontcallmewoody@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Wait, Duck Duck Go is powered by Bing?

[–] erranto@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yep, even when bing censors something, it gets censored by DDG aswell, DDG is just a fancy proxy.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

There are only like 4 actual search indexes online (Google, Bing, Yandex, and I can't remember the 4th), and every other search engine just uses one or more of those for results.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think Baidu, Qwant, Mojeek & Brave all use fully independent indices, but there are likely more. This is excliding eg. Kagi who use a combination of their own and other indices.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I actually thought Brave still used Bing, but Mojeek was what I was trying to think of. I'm sure there are a ton more, but those 4 seem like the biggest players most metasearch engines like to use.

[–] myxi@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago

stract.com has their own indexer, fully open-source.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Too irrelevant to be covered by the law

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How so? iMessage isn't getting more popular

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Because that way you're always chasing the problem instead of anticipating it. We know how Apple/iMessage behave, there is no point in waiting for them to become a problem.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Ok, agreed with how apple act, but iMessage won't become a problem here, because nobody uses it.

And if they do, which they won't, then apple can be added.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fine, but why we should always wait for something to become (evenatually) a problem ?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Stop saying it's going to be a problem, there's zero evidence that it will be. iMessage is dead in the water.

Additionally, this law is restricting large chat apps that can dictate the market. iMessage can't do that. It makes no sense to cover them here.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 7 months ago

Stop saying it’s going to be a problem, there’s zero evidence that it will be. iMessage is dead in the water.

Ok, I understant that. I am not saying that iMessage will be a problem, I am saying that if it will be ever become a problem, then you are will be in a rush to fix it when you could have simply prevented it.

Additionally, this law is restricting large chat apps that can dictate the market. iMessage can’t do that. It makes no sense to cover them here.

The law should apply to all chat apps in my opinion.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago

Yep. They need to have broad competition rules. Not one per instance of competition issues. It's same damn problem again and again; anticompetitive practices. Somehow the anticompetitive practices moving to the digital world means law makes can't see them.

[–] L_Acacia@lemmy.one 4 points 7 months ago

Whatsapp is europe's iMessage

[–] erranto@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I have been following the DMA closely, and so far it has been a big disappointment, just as I expected.

The way the EU approaches this walled garden problem, is to try and offer ways for other competitors to tap into the user base of the bigger players instead of trying to allow all EU citizens to chat with any other EU citizen who uses META Products regardless of their host platform. meaning "us" people who wish to self host an xmpp or Matrix servers and chat with facebook friends, It won't be straight forward or entirely possible for us to do so. unless maybe by doing a KYC with META. and signing up very stringent service agreements.

Meta will be creating all sorts of hurdles the DMA laws will allow them to, to cripple interoperability, from making other plateform signing up to special permissions from Meta, to hiding interoperability settings and making them opt-in, and building a scary rhetoric why you shouldn't be allowing other people outside of META to get in contact with you. There are some valid concerns, but I suspect Meta will implement the most spiteful procedures they can get away with, then spin up a rhetoric about proving their users being massing against interoperability.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's funny how a few short years ago both FB and Google ran with jabber and jingle and we were accidentally chatting between one another.

Seems they just need to roll the code back and they're set.

Makes the upcoming spite just a little more bitter.

[–] mcx808@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Messages on OSX (pre-iMessage) supported ICQ and jabber too if I remember.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Yahoo and MSN too, IIRC.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The way the EU approaches this walled garden problem, is to try and offer ways for other competitors to tap into the user base of the bigger players instead of trying to allow all EU citizens to chat with any other EU citizen who uses META Products regardless of their host platform.

Probably because of spam? I don't think you can open up all the communicators to every self hosted server there is. It would be a disaster.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 1 points 7 months ago

I don't think I ever got spam from any jabber server even when google and Facebook were running them. You still have to opt in to messages from something. If I had to guess ,I'd guess every chat service is still an xmpp server under a surface level encryption.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago

That's a very bad call from them. I'm disappointed.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Commission also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search engine, and advertising business as core platform services.

Although it designated Apple’s App Store, Safari browser, and iOS operating system as core platform services, it held off on making a final decision on iMessage until an investigation could be completed.

Although iMessage has avoided the burden of complying with rules that comes with the official DMA designation, the period of regulatory scrutiny coincided with Apple announcing support for the cross-platform RCS messaging standard on iPhones, which Google has been pushing for.

Apple has made it clear that it’ll support the cross-platform standard alongside iMessage; it’s not replacing the company’s proprietary messaging service.

Apple’s Safari browser, iOS operating system, and App Store still have to comply with the regulation’s strictest requirements when DMA comes fully into force on March 7th.

Apple recently announced a range of changes it’s making to comply with the regulation, which include allowing alternative app stores and browser engines other than WebKit.


The original article contains 567 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›