[foota]

I don't think this is an accurate take. The DMA is about businesses and their relationships with consumers, so any regulation has to be targeted to that.

The argument is that Apple not allowing businesses to use a protocol on par with iMessage is the issue here.

[funnybeam]

“ businesses and their relationships with consumers”

Sounds like spam to me

[kevingadd]

You realize there are actual legitimate uses of SMS and people choose to use it, right?

[frizlab]

There are few, and it open the door to spam, yes. I’d rather than not even have the possibility.

[smoldesu]

Any sufficiently advanced networked computer will have the potential for spam or malicious users. iMessage already sees this without being an open protocol; it's deeply-integrated nature makes it a prime vector for malware and 0-click spyware. Adversaries like NSO Group actively exploit this.

The goal isn't a more locked-down phone, it's transparent communications infrastructure that inherently resists attackers. Anything else is an imperfect solution that relies on trust more than mechanical security. If Apple wants to lead the way on that, they should do the world a favor and propose their own open SMS encryption standard. As it stands, their 'ours is better but we wont show you' approach is about as obvious as security theater gets.

[foota]

How is this related to spam? Apple has the same ability to filter SMS messages as it does iMessage, this is purely about the format.

[TheNewsIsHere]

It’s a cudgel.

Apple has an iMessage for Business service. You can use it to chat directly to representatives of enrolled businesses. Right from iMessage.

Google wants to use that and the DMA to create precedents that they can use against Apple in their quest to get access to iMessage.

It’s fairly transparent, IMHO.