[aednichols]

It seems like DOJ might force Apple to make separate "SMS" and "iMessage" apps, and perhaps forbid preinstalling iMessage so users have to download it from the App Store when they get a new phone (giving it equal footing with its competitors). This would diffuse the claim that iOS is downgrading Android users within the same app.

[kelnos]

I would prefer they just require Apple implement RCS (which they've already agreed to do), and -- crucially -- require feature parity with Android's RCS implementation. Which means standardizing Google's proprietary E2EE extension, and implementing that as well.

While I'd prefer being able to install a standalone Android iMessage app over the current situation, I really don't need or want another chat app.

[hmage]

End result - Apple is forced to do whatever Google wants.

I find it hard to imagine a company - that cares about its own future - would agree that they are required to implement things that their _competitor_ decides.

That scenario will just hand over the monopoly keys to Google, and we're back to square one.

[catlikesshrimp]

Square one is Apple preventing users to communicate with android, to leverage phone sales.

Square two would be having an iMessage for Android, or at least not preventing someone else to do it. (Hello, Beeper?)

Square three would be to interact with other chat applications across platforms. iMessage to and from Signal, wechat, telegram, etc.

[aalimov_]

Apple is adopting the Universal profile. If GSMA wants to add E2EE to that profile then they should. I believe that there was some talk of Apple working with GSMA to add or improve encryption on that profile. AFAIK rcs is licensed out to OEMs and so there are a number of different implementations around. In my opinion it would be better for all if there was a secure standard in place - for all to adopt - instead of hoping that everyone works with google to try to get googles proprietary implementation working.

[aednichols]

I’m sure RCS messages would stay green though, so it’s less than clear that your proposal addresses the alleged social lock-in.

[jupp0r]

I'm sure the next major antitrust lawsuit will focus on the set of supported emojis.

[Andrex]

The only open question (in my mind) is if Google's E2EE extension is intrinsically tied to Jibe. If it wasn't designed to eventually become part of the RCS standard, it could be real messy trying to open it up after the fact while remaining security.

[khazhoux]

> I would prefer they just require Apple implement RCS

I would prefer the US Government not dictate to private companies what protocols they have to use. That would be a preposterous overreach.

[dfawcus]

Possibly split Messages and SMS in to distinct apps.

Have the latter handle SMS/MMS/RCS with options (in its settings area) to enable/disable each of the three, such that any or all of them may be individually allowed (or not).

Then also have an additional pair of options in the SMS app to indicate which other message app can operate as a proxy. Said proxy being able to send or receive SMS/MMS/RCS as appropriate. Possibly have the default set to Messages, but allow it to be set to any other app which has opted in.

Remove all of the SMS/MMS options from Messages, except the 'Send as SMS', which would then try to do the existing fall back when there is no data service.

The default behaviour would be as now. Disabling the 'Send as SMS' option would keep Messages and SMS as two distinct services, and one could then run the that way. Further flipping the config in SMS would allow any other app to be the preferred primary contact point.

I'm not sure how one would handle 'Group Chats' in such a situation.

With such a situation, I'd split the two and operate as distinct systems, iMessages in its own app, SMS/MMS/RCS in the SMS app, all other message facilities confined to their own playpen.

I know some relatives who would prefer to keep the proposed defaults such that everything appears in the Messages app.

[SllX]

The DOJ can’t really force Apple to do anything here without a consent decree, and with the case they just filed I’ll be surprised if they even get that much. Although, who knows, maybe a New Jersey district court will be a friendlier jurisdiction for this spaghetti case.

[pityJuke]

Man that would so awesome. The lack of control over what I'm actually sending the message on is annoying as hell on iPhone's. I want to explictly send and receive SMSes at points.

[tiltowait]

So in order to protect users from a beneficial service they like, the DOJ would force Apple to gut the user experience?

[aednichols]

I hope the UX changes are limited to that extent, yes. I’m concerned about another cookie banner unintended consequences situation.