commoner

> iOS products like 1Blocker work as well in practice

iOS content blockers don't work in any browser except Safari due to Apple's restrictions, which limits Firefox's usefulness and hurts Firefox adoption on iOS in an anticompetitive way. That is one of the reasons Apple should not restrict Firefox from implementing extensions on iOS. There is no reasonable justification for limiting browser extensions to Safari on iOS.

> I’m under the impression that Firefox on Android only supports a tiny percentage of Firefox extensions.

Firefox for Android can install every Firefox extension from addons.mozilla.org as of December 2023. Turn on desktop mode on addons.mozilla.org to see all of the options. Also, the beta channel of Firefox for Android can sideload any extension through the settings and this feature is on track to make it to the stable release.

> actually improving the browser to be a competitive product

Firefox would be more competitive on iOS with Gecko-based WebExtensions on iOS such as uBlock Origin, which is exactly what Mozilla is advocating for with this page. It's contradictory to argue that people don't want ad blocking on Firefox by claiming that Mozilla isn't trying to improve Firefox, when in reality, Mozilla is pushing for the removal of Apple's restrictions, which would enable Mozilla to improve Firefox on iOS with WebExtensions, ad blocking, and other useful features.

> Of course it is in their interest - because they are Google's sock-puppet.

It would be Mozilla's interest to challenge Safari's Apple-imposed monopoly on iOS even if they received all of their funding from other sources, and the reasoning is simple. Mozilla is harmed by Apple hindering Firefox in all of the ways that the page mentions, all of which limit Firefox's capabilities, convenience, and attractiveness. To credibly claim that it's not in Mozilla's best interest to challenge Apple's restrictions, you would have to show that Apple's restrictions benefit Mozilla indirectly in some way that fully offsets all of the ways it directly hurts Mozilla. And Mozilla does not benefit from Apple's restrictions in any significant way.

Many users do care whether their web browser has an effective ad blocker and other extensions. Apple's iOS restrictions prevent Firefox from implementing extensions like uBlock Origin. Remove those restrictions and Firefox becomes much more attractive on iOS. I can tell you that I'll switch the default browser from Safari to Firefox on all of the iOS devices I manage the moment uBlock Origin becomes available, and I'm not the only one with that preference.

Mozilla should have pushed for the removal of these anticompetitive platform restrictions sooner and more vigorously. But with Apple, Google, and Microsoft all under the antitrust spotlight right now, it's as good of a time as ever for Mozilla to highlight how these companies are using their platforms to hurt Firefox adoption.

Of course it's in Mozilla's interest to challenge Safari's Apple-imposed monopoly on iOS. Firefox does not benefit from being suppressed on iOS just because Chrome is also suppressed on iOS. Removing Apple's restrictions that prevent Firefox from implementing Gecko and Gecko-based WebExtensions (especially ad blockers) can only increase Firefox's market share on iOS. Those new iOS Firefox users would then be encouraged to adopt Firefox on their desktop computers, because they would finally be able to sync desktop Firefox with an adblock-enabled Firefox on iOS.

Google Voice does not handle on-device SMS/MMS messages on iOS. Most phone users expect to use the phone number that comes with their cell phone plan, not a separate VoIP service like Google Voice that uses a different phone number. Special pleading is arguing that Apple is exempt from the same FTC regulations that bind other U.S. companies.

As a user, I do want an alternative to Apple's Messages app (such as Beeper Cloud or a standalone SMS/MMS client with additional features) that can handle SMS/MMS messaging on iOS. Your choice to use Apple's Messages app does not justify Apple's anticompetitive measures to ban competing SMS/MMS apps on iOS for me or anyone else. If you don't want to switch to a non-Apple SMS/MMS app, then simply don't do it.

It's common sense that when Apple forbids competitors from implementing a feature that they use for their own product, competitors are harmed. Apple previously made Apple Mail the default email client on iOS with no option to change it. After Apple removed this anticompetitive restriction in iOS 14, competing apps such as Proton Mail and Tuta (which used their own protocols instead of the default IMAP/SMTP protocol to support end-to-end encryption) immediately became more convenient to use on iOS.

The issue with Apple's SMS/MMS client restriction is more severe. Not only am I not able to designate a different messenger as the default SMS/MMS app on iOS, I cannot install one in the first place because Apple has banned them altogether.

It is obviously absurd to compare messaging protocols to airline lounges. Messaging protocols are digital and required for text message communications, an essential technology used by almost every smartphone user. Airline lounges are luxury physical spaces and nobody needs an airline lounge to get on a plane.

Apple's anticompetitive conduct is that it bans third-party SMS/MMS clients as a way to boost usage of its iMessage protocol and disadvantage competing cross-platform messenger services. Microsoft never banned competing web browsers from accessing any protocol (e.g. HTTP or FTP) on Windows, so Apple's conduct in the messaging space is more egregious than Microsoft's previous conduct in the browser space.

Beeper (Beeper Cloud) already supports SMS/MMS from Android devices, but is unable to do so for SMS/MMS from iOS devices due to Apple's restriction.

As a Signal user, you might have remembered when Signal/TextSecure supported SMS/MMS on Android in addition to Signal Protocol messages, which was a big factor in helping Signal onboard new Android users when it had a smaller user base. Signal never had the opportunity to do the same on iOS because Apple only allows its own Messages client to handle on-device SMS/MMS messages, which gave Messages (and iMessage) an unfair advantage over Signal (and the Signal Protocol).

Anticompetitive measures like Apple's SMS/MMS client restriction harm the market even when alternatives to Apple's products exist. The entire blue vs. green bubble issue would not be a problem in the first place had iOS users been able to switch to a competing messenger app that supports both SMS/MMS messaging and a newer cross-platform messaging protocol (instead of iMessage).

> This would of course be different if Apple prevented you from sending SMS messages via iMessage, or from installing third party messengers. But they don’t do either of these things.

Apple does, in fact, prevent you from installing a third-party messenger on iOS that uses the device's native SMS/MMS capabilities. Apple's own Messages app is the only app that is allowed by Apple to handle SMS/MMS on iOS.

The fact that Apple has made iMessage exclusive to Messages, paired with the Messages app's privileged position as the only SMS/MMS client Apple allows on iOS, gives the Messages app and iMessage an unfair advantage over competing messengers and messaging protocols.

Counterpoint Research shows Apple at 53% of smartphone shipments in the U.S. during Q2 2022 - Q3 2023:

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/us-smartphone-...

That market share is certainly enough to warrant FTC regulation. The FTC investigates anticompetitive activity even when the perpetrator is not a monopoly.

While Microsoft had a higher market share, Windows never prevented users from installing a third-party web browser. On the other hand, Apple is actively blocking third-party SMS/MMS clients from iOS via its App Store restrictions. This factor makes it more likely that Apple will be regulated despite iOS currently having a lower market share than Windows during Microsoft's antitrust trial.

iMessage is a proprietary messaging protocol developed by Apple that is only supported on Apple's Messages app as a business decision. The Messages app is exclusive to iOS, macOS, and other Apple OSes. iMessage has a broader feature set than the older (but open) SMS and MMS protocols, such as higher-quality audio and video, more controls over chat groups, reaction emojis, and end-to-end encryption.

In the Messages app, messages sent with the iMessage protocol are displayed in blue bubbles and messages sent with SMS/MMS are displayed in green bubbles. The Messages app automatically uses iMessage if the recipient has a phone number registered to use iMessage, and otherwise falls back to SMS/MMS. In group chats, the Messages app only uses iMessage if all participating phone numbers also use iMessage.

On iPhones (and iPads), Apple does not allow apps other than Messages to access the device's SMS/MMS functionality. This means every iPhone user's only SMS/MMS app automatically switches to iMessage when possible unless the user specifically deregisters their phone number from the iMessage system. With Apple's restriction, iOS users cannot switch to a different messaging app that supports a combination of on-device SMS/MMS and a newer protocol that is not iMessage.

In the U.S., some iPhone users who are accustomed to features found in iMessage but not supported by SMS/MMS are upset when they are in a conversation with a phone number that is not registered to use iMessage. This was originally due to SMS/MMS having fewer features than iMessage, but has evolved into a social signal for some U.S. iPhone users who are typically younger. This has led those iPhone users to stigmatize the green bubbles in Apple's Messages app and exclude Android users from their conversations.*

The portion of Apple's conduct that is most applicable to FTC regulation, in my opinion, is not that Apple limits iMessage to Apple devices, but that Apple implements App Store restrictions to forbid iOS/iPadOS from supporting third-party SMS/MMS clients.

* Why Apple’s iMessage Is Winning: Teens Dread the Green Text Bubble: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-... (https://archive.ph/gGNel)

> no OS-level restrictions on the capability of those messaging services (that is, a third-party app can effectively take the place of iMessage with no loss of device or app functionality)

iMessage is not an app, but Apple Messages is. On iOS and the App Store, Apple forbids third-party apps from supporting SMS/MMS from the device, which unfairly disadvantages competitors to Apple Messages (and competitors to iMessage).

The main takeaway from the article is:

> The FTC will closely scrutinize any claims that competition must be impeded to advance privacy or security.

While Apple has frequently made the claims that the FTC is now scrutinizing, I think a more likely outcome is that Apple will be compelled to remove restrictions from iOS and the App Store that are found to be anticompetitive.

The Apple restriction that applies most to Beeper is the fact that iOS and the App Store disallow third-party SMS/MMS apps. If iPhone users gain the ability to choose a default SMS/MMS app other than Apple's Messages, iPhone users would be able to make their default messenger app Beeper (Beeper Cloud) or a wide range of messengers that also support SMS/MMS on Android.

These alternatives don't lock iPhone users in to iMessages, which doesn't support anything other than Apple devices. These alternatives also don't mark SMS/MMS with the green bubbles that have been stigmatized by some U.S. iPhone users as a result of that platform lock-in.

Apple doesn't allow any apps on iOS other than Apple's own Messages app to use the phone's native SMS/MMS functionality. Due to Apple's restriction, Beeper (Beeper Cloud) does not support SMS/MMS from iOS devices like it supports SMS/MMS from Android devices.

https://beeper.notion.site/a96db72c53db4a9883e1775bcb61bb80?...

I find F-Droid more trustworthy than the Google Play Store because the F-Droid maintainers are much more transparent and communicative than Google is. The Play Store review process doesn't do a thorough job of checking apps for privacy or security issues and doesn't require apps to disclose anything other than their permissions. F-Droid reviews every app before accepting it into the main repository, and labels apps with tracking or other potential issues with "Anti-Features" labels.[1]

Any user can inspect the source code of any app in F-Droid, while that's not even an option for proprietary apps in the Play Store. When someone notices an issue and reports it to F-Droid, the maintainers listen and either change or remove the app listing, with these removals being logged in their weekly updates.[2] For Google Play apps with issues that you happen to notice despite most of the apps being closed source, unless they get media coverage, you'd be lucky to get anything other than canned responses from Google when you report them.

F-Droid also has some great apps that depend on sensitive permissions that are forbidden by Google Play, such as the AdAway[3] ad blocker which uses either the Android VPN interface or system hosts file. AdAway enhances user privacy and security by blocking trackers and malware hosts, so Google did not improve Android by removing AdAway from the Play Store.

[1] Anti-Features on F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/

[2] F-Droid weekly updates: https://f-droid.org/en/news/

[3] AdAway: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.adaway/

I'm having a great experience using microG, which lets me selectively enable and disable cloud messaging for every app that attempts to use Google Play Services. microG does not implement the ads and tracking (Google Analytics) APIs of Google Play Services. microG also lets me use Mozilla Location Services to replace Google Location Services, which obtains a location much faster than GPS alone. With microG being free and open source, I trust it much more than the proprietary Google Play Services, even with sandboxing applied.

It's weird that the article doesn't mention microG even once, since it's what /e/ uses instead of the Google Play Services client.

I'm not sure why the site is unavailable for you, but here's a copy from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231220025346/https://www.ftc.g...

I believe those restrictions are in addition to the ban:

> I. Use of Facial Recognition or Analysis Systems Prohibited

> IT IS ORDERED that Respondents, in connection with the activities of any Covered Business, are prohibited for five (5) years from the effective date of this Order from deploying or using, or assisting in the deployment or use of, any Facial Recognition or Analysis System, whether directly or through an intermediary, in any retail store or retail pharmacy or on any online retail platform.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid... (PDF, page 14)

It's not "entitlement" to share my purchasing preferences with Proton. I am glad to pay for Proton Mail subscriptions, but I am unwilling to pay for Proton Drive subscriptions (including Proton subscription bundles) until Proton releases a free and open source Proton Drive client for Linux. This is a perfectly rational position to take, since nobody wants to pay for things they aren't able to properly use.

I'm not the only one who is demanding a Proton Drive client for Linux. On Proton's user feedback forum, this feature is the second-most highly voted suggestion for Proton Drive: https://protonmail.uservoice.com/forums/932839-proton-drive/...

While you're certainly able to communicate with Proton however you like, it's not anyone's place to tell me and other Linux users what we can say to Proton on an online forum or whether we're allowed to express annoyance. There's no better way to let Proton know how I will vote with my wallet than to tell them directly.

While I will appreciate the Proton Mail Linux app when it is eventually released, I refuse to pay for a Proton Unlimited, Proton Family, or Proton Business subscription until Proton Drive has a free and open source client for Linux.

There are currently 3,609 people on your user feedback forum requesting a Linux client for Proton Drive: https://protonmail.uservoice.com/forums/932839-proton-drive/...

Linux support is essential for cross-platform privacy-oriented services. I hope your company is able to provide a specific timeline for when Linux will be supported in Proton Drive, instead of ignoring Linux completely like your company is doing in your product roadmap (https://proton.me/blog/proton-drive-roadmap).

I completely agree, Mozilla has made a ton of mistakes with Firefox for Android in the last few years. That's why I'm happy to see Mozilla finally follow through with their promise to expand add-ons for Android and pleasantly surprised that sideloading is about to be enabled in the stable channel of Firefox for Android.

Give it another try. The current version of Nightly (v122.0a1) from the Play Store has functional sideloading for me after I unlock the "secret menu" in the settings by going to "About Nightly" and tapping the Nightly icon several times.

Before Bypass Paywalls Clean (D) existed, I was able to install Violentmonkey on Firefox for Android through the add-on collections workaround to use the Bypass Paywalls Clean userscript. You need to enable desktop mode when assembling the add-on collection (or do it from a computer) for Violentmonkey to show up as an option in the search.

Beeper (Beeper Cloud) is a cross-platform stack that supports multiple messaging systems (not just iMessage) and has been in development for years.[1] This is different from Beeper Mini, which is a recently launched Android-exclusive app that only supports SMS/MMS and iMessage.[2]

The release of Beeper Mini certainly gained publicity for Beeper Cloud, and I don't see why Beeper Mini would cause Beeper Cloud to go defunct.

[1] Beeper Cloud: https://www.beeper.com/cloud

[2] Beeper Mini: https://blog.beeper.com/p/introducing-beeper-mini-get-blue

Wow, thanks for sharing. I just installed Firefox Nightly (v122.0a1) from the Play Store and sideloading does work again. After tapping the Nightly logo several times, an "Install add-on from file" option shows up in the settings. I can even install an unsigned add-on with "xpinstall.signatures.required" set to "false" in about:config. For the longest time, Nightly allowed users to set up the "Custom Add-on collections" workaround to install add-ons from addons.mozilla.org but not sideload add-ons directly, so this is a major improvement.

Edit: Nightly gained the ability to sideload add-ons 2 weeks ago from the pull request at https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-android/pull/4568. Also, a Mozilla employee has confirmed that sideloading is going to make it to the release channel of Firefox for Android!* Firefox is having an incredible month. It took time, but I'm extremely glad Mozilla is taking user feedback seriously.

* "We do want this feature in Release." https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-android/pull/4568#...

This is progress, but Mozilla needs to do more. Firefox for Android still lacks the ability to sideload add-ons, a feature that works on the desktop version of Firefox. This means Android users aren't able to install extensions outside addons.mozilla.org (AMO) unless they switch to a Firefox alternative that supports it, such as Iceraven[1] or SmartCookieWeb-Preview.[2]

For me, the most important add-on that has been removed from AMO is Bypass Paywalls Clean, which is the easiest way to bypass paywalls on popular news sites. In April of this year, a French website filed a DMCA copyright takedown notice, causing Mozilla to remove the extension from AMO.[3] The add-on developer (magnolia1234) did not want to challenge the DMCA notice, probably because it would require them to break anonymity and be subject to legal liability.[4]

Fortunately, in September, another developer (dbmiller) was willing to reupload the add-on to AMO as "Bypass Paywalls Clean (D)" with no changes.[5] The hope is that dbmiller will keep this add-on up to date with the source and challenge any DMCA notices filed against this new upload.

However, the fact remains that Bypass Paywalls Clean was unavailable on Firefox for Android for 5 months because the browser did not allow sideloading. In the announcement, Mozilla says their mission is to maintain "an open and accessible internet for all" and that extensions are meant to help users obtain "more personal agency out of their online experience". To achieve this mission and better distinguish Firefox from browsers that gate add-ons through app stores (Safari on iOS), Mozilla should allow users to enable sideloading on Firefox for Android as an option.

[1] Iceraven: https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser

[2] SmartCookieWeb-Preview: https://github.com/CookieJarApps/SmartCookieWeb-preview

[3] https://www.ghacks.net/2023/04/20/mozilla-removes-bypass-pay...

[4] https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...

[5] Bypass Paywalls Clean (D): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...

Have you tried writing for Wikinews?

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

Unlike Wikipedia, Wikinews allows and encourages original reporting. You don't need a journalism degree to contribute an article.

Third-party SMS and MMS messaging apps already exist on Android, such as the free and open source QKSMS[1] and Simple SMS Messenger.[2] Signal also used to support SMS and MMS on Android until last year.[3] There isn't a shred of evidence that these non-default SMS/MMS apps increase spam to any measurable extent compared to SMS/MMS apps that are preinstalled on Android phones.

[1] QKSMS: https://github.com/moezbhatti/qksms

[2] Simple SMS Messenger: https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools/Simple-SMS-Messenger

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33179047

Nothing is stopping you from using Messages by Google or Apple's Messages app if you prefer. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt over unnamed "security issues" is not a good reason to prevent other developers from creating clients for RCS, which is intended to be an open protocol to replace SMS and MMS, and not a closed "ecosystem" consisting of 2 apps from 2 of the largest tech companies.

You can deregister your phone number from Messages by Google here:

https://messages.google.com/disable-chat

This is similar to Apple's iMessage deregistration page.[1]

Google has been funneling RCS messages through its own servers to bypass wireless carriers, which were slow or unwilling to directly support RCS.[2] Unfortunately, this has centralized RCS communications through Google and allowed Google to make end-to-end encryption available to RCS users as a proprietary extension that Google never contributed back to the RCS Universal Profile specification.[3]

For RCS on Android to be decentralized again, your wireless carrier would need to support RCS on the network level and Android would also need to implement RCS in a way that does not require interaction with Google servers. This would make deregistration unnecessary.

[1] https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/

[2] https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/302020-google-will-bypass...

[3] https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/16/apples-flavor-of-...