When Ma Bell didn't let people use third-party phones with their service, the government made them change their ways. Why is the government letting Apple get away with the equivalent?
Don't get me wrong, I love that these guys are poking the bear. I wish Apple would do something to let me send high-quality photos and videos to my Android-owning friends via "text". But I don't think the government has a place to force that issue. Plenty of alternatives exist.
(…which naturally leads to the question: why is there no Lambda-like serverless compute substrate that allows your function to speak a connection-oriented protocol, by externalizing the connection-hold-open and per-connection book-keeping state into the routing layer, such that your own function in the system could scale-to-zero? Exactly like Pusher did for websockets 15 years ago, but routing to a vertically-integrated serverless compute layer rather than a “passive” PHP/CGI-ish REST backend. Seems like an obvious extension for Cloudflare Workers…)
Fastly Fanout + Compute?
(disclosure: Fanout tech lead)
I'm talking about a routing layer that could allow a serverless function to be the backend for an arbitrary stateful TCP protocol, e.g. IRC, SMTP, FTP, PGSQL, etc; where the service doesn't need to add support for a new L7 protocol for functions to use it; instead, the support for the L7 protocol is part of the function, the same way it's part of a regular network daemon.
I would imagine that this would work like the following:
- the logic for the L7 protocol's connection state-transitions lives within the stateless function;
- each call to the stateless function is handed the pre-transition L7 state, and returns the new post-transition L7 state, with the routing layer persisting this state between calls. (Compare/contrast: Erlang gen_server state management, between the gen_server module [routing layer] and the user-supplied delegate module [compute layer].) Any arbitrary compute node can then handle each "step" of the computation... but only one compute "worker" at a time will ever be tasked with handling messages for a given connection, because each call requires an input L7 state, which depends on the output L7 state of the previous compute-step;
- the function declares in its metadata what L4 protocols it accepts (TCP/UDP, maybe SCTP or DTLS, or TCP+TLS, etc); the routing layer then manages flows for these as portable persisted state-machine-state resources on virtual IPs owned collectively by the routing layer mesh — similar to how a distributed wireless AP or eNodeB manages established flows across its listeners;
- likely, the L4 state lives in the same persisted (distributed KV?) store as the L7 state, but just isn't passed back to the serverless function — except for maybe SNI info in the case of TLS. (This would make sense to me because you're never going to update the L7 state without also updating the L4 state. I can imagine a connection-listener state machine that touches the "L4 part" of a backing data-structure in response to most L4 packets, but then, when it's built up enough of a buffer to have a complete L4 message†, it would pass the message to the L7 and get an L7 update in response, and then commit a new L4+L7 state together.)
- And yes, the †ed part above means that another required part of the serverless function's metadata, would be a definition in some language of a lexer/parser for recognizing+extracting toplevel L7 messages from the carrier stream, such that the routing layer would then use this lexer/parser to know when it has one or more lexically-complete messages in its buffer to be pushed down atomically to the compute layer. (I say "lexer/parser" because mostly this code wouldn't have to parse messages — the L7 is still receiving just a stream of bytes it's expected to parse itself; but it's required to be "just a stream of bytes" sliced to consist of exactly one L7 message per call. So for most protocols, this would be cheap: most stateful protocols are either "newline is always toplevel break" or they're binary length-prefixed, and these can both be delimited by a dumb lexer, or even a fixed-buffer DSP-alike. Sadly, though, some stateful protocols require full parsing to know where each message ends. So the routing layer would need to support both — probably with a lot of "function compilation time" grunt-work put into recognizing when the routing layer can apply less than a full Turing-complete parser to the task.) Probably for most protocols this could look like an abstract-DSL version of something with capabilities equivalent to a Wireshark dissector definition or eBPF bytecode; and that in turn could be abstracted over with something like a "buildpack" / "cloud-init" sort of strategy, where instead of supplying the code yourself, you supply the URL of a repo that contains the code.
Currently, Fanout supports HTTP in addition to WebSockets. We consider the system to be generalized, in the sense that the user can build whatever they want on top of the available primitives, and we can always add more primitives. Most people are implementing "web" protocols (REST, SSE, GraphQL, etc), so what's available today gets us pretty far. You're right of course that we don't support arbitrary TCP protocols.
I suppose the reason we don't support bare TCP is Fanout is optimized for implementing pub/sub-style interfaces with minimal compute. In that context, it is preferable to work with coarse-grained input in order to avoid per-session processing. However, with Fastly Compute now in arms reach, I think we could embrace per-session processing, in which case implementing arbitrary TCP protocols could become practical.
Your idea of supplying custom L7 parsers to the routing layer is clever, and is not too far off from some things already on our mind. For example, our routing layer supports inspecting requests using custom rules supplied by the compute layer, though this is not yet exposed to Fastly users. Relatedly, the routing layer has an internal component that parses TCP streams into messages (by known protocol) and ships them over an IPC without caring about their content. So it's not too much of a jump to imagine how we could get to user-supplied L7 parsing.
As much as I would like to see Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and the like not have so much power (socially, economically, most likely at the government level as well), I think the only way we'll actually make any progress towards the problems that allow large companies like that and allow their negative consequences is to attack some of the specific aspects of our current system they abuse to their benefit, and not them specifically.
For example, very strict privacy laws and control over tracking to curtail the biggest problems of the data companies, laws about control over your own devices and what you do on them (software) and with them (repair) for the hardware companies, etc. Otherwise we'll just see some other company take up the same practice and have all the same problems.
Because it would be the most sure-fire way to be certain that it actually gets done, whereas "the market" is less certain and prone to manipulation tactics such as lock-in. Returning to my original question that you kind of dodged, why not let them intervene?
I've been wondering if we can already see the foreshadows of Apple's next move, actually: CKV is already only possible between modern (iOS 17.2 or macOS 14.2 and above only) devices, and their RCS implementation will presumably not be end-to-end encrypted.
I could see them opening up "legacy iMessage" (i.e. non-CKV, non-ephermerally-encrypted) and integrating RCS, but assigning new color to "modern iMessage" exclusively. That would credibly count as opening up their service, while still preserving a distinguishing feature for Apple devices, and even nudging people to upgrade some old devices.
Can you change the SMS app on Apple devices now?
This thread is about asking the government to step in to allow 3rd party devices into iMessage, which is decidedly outside of SMS, but gov won't step in because iMessage isn't a monopoly on messaging nor SMS. It's a monopoly on... it's own protocol/service?
Android users always get a message an iPhone user sends so to claim gov intervention monopoly on the basis that the end user can't change the SMS app isn't an argument.
People tend to misinterpret what it means to be a monopoly for antitrust law. The obvious example here is United States v. Microsoft Corp., where the inability to remove Internet Explorer was at issue. Being unable to set an alternative messaging app with equivalent functionality (such as Signal) on a mobile phone is at least as cumbersome to the user as being unable to uninstall Internet Explorer, despite the ability to install competing browsers. The iMessage case is arguably worse because the competing browsers had the same features as IE. Apple uses its control of the handset to disable other messengers from supporting SMS on iOS.
Also relevant in that case is that Microsoft was argued to be a monopoly not over all computers or even all desktop computers, but over intel-based personal computers. This illustrates that the scope of the market in these cases is often smaller than one might initially think.
The FTC has a page here that goes into it [0].
> Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident....Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.
In this case, forcing users to use iMessage for SMS decreases the likelihood that users will install an alternative messenger with a smaller feature set due to Apple's control over the OS.
That reduced likelihood compounds quickly because the popularity of a messenger tends to scale with the square of the install base.
[0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
For discussion, using MSFT vs US as the central point, it seems as if US was arguing that Windows and IE were "one and the same" or at least inseparable as concepts while the US gov said no way.
Applying that central argument to this situation doesn't feel the same in that, if US gov tried to apply the same argument it would lose in this case.
When I think "phone device", I think phone calls and SMS are inseparable ideas to the device itself. That they are functions that belong to the phone. Probably stems from my days of owning a Nokia or Razor.
But maybe that is an out dated concept and my thinking needs to change because any program should be able to control the phone's SMS and calling function via API.
I'm unsure is all I can really say.
Having a monopoly is not illegal.
Here's an explanation of the verdict from a lawyer familiar with tech and antitrust.
> EPIC WIN | Why Google Lost and What it Means For Apple
What I DO care about in that they intentionally degrade the experience for communicating outside their garden.
Maybe it'll get better with them finally supporting RCS, but I doubt it. If only they were compelled to let users install an SMS handler app of their choice, then this whole "green bubble" thing would instead be a "geez, why is my iPhone so shitty at handling SMS" thing instead.
This is one messaging app on one brand of phone. Nothing stops you from using another phone, or multiple or other messaging apps. And messaging apps aren’t restricted by a “default” in quite the same way a web browser is. I have friends on WhatsApp and Signal and Instagram and I message them all without any appreciable difference in effort.
Any service online is under no obligation to allow for widespread interpoperation - that would be madness.
Lol, "madness". The Digital Services Act in the EU would like a word.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/apple-ime...
Messages on iPhone is interoperable with any other mobile device - it supports SMS!
and isn't RCS support coming too?
In the case of Bell, the universal lines already existed, the problem was that Bell owned them all and wouldn't let anyone else use them. That was a "monopoly" so there was an argument for breaking it up so that everyone could use the lines.
In the case of iMessage (and others), the creators are deliberately building out many different incompatible "lines", and not letting anyone else use those lines. And now people are coming along and saying because it's not a "monopoly", we can't do anything about that. But the real goal was the same in both cases - making universal communication possible. That's what we're all frustrated about here, and the fact that there are dozens of apps trying to wall off competitors is part of the cause of that. Apple is a target because iMessage is the largest such "private line" in the United States.
What gets a bit lost in the conversation for iMessage is that the protocol/infra and implementation get merged into one. This is approached in many countries for telcos by splitting the companies providing the lines from the companies providing service on top of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than previous approaches.
Interestingly enough, one of the outcomes of that case was IE for the Mac.
Do you realise phones cost money and not everyone can afford an iPhone?
If the third party phones allowed users access to Ma Bell's network, switching systems, etc, without paying Ma Bell - then it might be equivalent.
I'm pretty sure that would be considered theft of communication services.
It's more like phone manufacturer X that accesses Ma Bell's network creates phone with slightly better call quality that only works with other X phones and is worse with anyone else's phones. And they start doing that once they have >50% market share.
Servers handle routing and storing. iMessage will deliver and store the message to server, and then to receiver when it is online.
It is major cost when there are millions of users on, top of notifications.
User pays for ISP, only up to the closest link.
Aaron Swartz was hounded to death by the Feds for unauthorized access to a website and charged with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
He wasn't even trying to turn a profit.
SMS still gets through, and other apps still work. It seems weird to focus so much on this and not on just using something that fits your use case, but maybe I’m missing something.
Thankfully, here outside America, this isn't an issue: absolutely no one uses SMS or cares about this stuff.
They aren't. The bubble color thing is an exaggerated claim and a lot of whining from a bunch of clowns. No one actually cares in the US except for a bunch of children (who are always prone to following trends for the sake of following the trend) and a handful of immature adults. The rest of the country doesn't know or care
We can disagree about solutions, but strawmanning stuff is dumb, and then dismissing the problem that you strawmanned is even more dumb
The strawmanning is done by the people claiming iPhone users are, as a whole, excluding Android users from their communications over it. That's what I'm rebutting, not that MMS sucks. Only children and immature adults do that. The vast majority of people don't care. They either use MMS and accept it sucks or switch to another service, they don't exclude people over it.
Anecdotes about mean girls on Tinder dumping Android users don’t really seem compelling, either.
However, there are a lot of people who are impacted, and it's not always the case of the mean girl on tinder dumping an Android user. I know people who have group chats with family and friends, that will be left out because the iPhone is programmed to downgrade the entire group's chat if a single member is an Android user. This makes it so that messages don't work all the way, quality on images and video is garbage, and other legitimate usability concerns. Are super snooty, it's that it truly is very difficult to communicate from an iPhone to an Android phone.
Of course everyone can switch to Signal and this is a moot point, but millions of Apple users use iMessage and aren't likely to switch.
Doesn’t this mean that most people simply don’t care?
I would suggest that is exactly what Beeper is doing. Not the end users ISP / WAN connection obviously, but certainly Apple's iMessage infrastructure (servers, switches, bandwidth, etc).
iMessage is not a simple P2P platform.
In the US, iMessage market share is much higher because back in the aughts we didn't have the sky high SMS rates which forced so many users to other messaging services in other countries.
They are making supporting argument for Apple, unfortunately, if any regulation happens.