Closing the Loop: Is Interoperability Really Necessary for My Messaging Apps?

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) was approved by the European Union (EU) in 2022, and in 2024, businesses were required to abide by its interoperability regulations. Meta allowed interoperability on WhatsApp and Messenger in the EU in March 2024 after complying with the DMA. What exactly is messaging app interoperability, and should businesses use it? In this article, I examine messaging app interoperability and go further into its benefits and drawbacks.

A Argument in Favor of Messaging App Interoperability

Let's start by quickly reviewing what interoperability in the context of messaging applications is. Consider emails as an example. Emails may be easily sent from Gmail to Outlook users. Sending emails to Outlook users does not need you to have an account. In a similar vein, sending emails to Gmail or Yahoo users from Outlook is seamless. This is compatible with all email providers.

A more localized point: How UPI works in India. Without a GPay account, you may transfer money to a GPay user using PhonePe. It works with every UPI app.

That's what interoperability is all about. The ability of a service to interact with other third-party services and function outside of its platform is a feature. Governments, particularly those in the EU, have been pressuring firms to provide interoperability to messaging applications over the last several years.Because this rule allows a WhatsApp user to send messages to users of other messaging applications, it may be quite useful for users. It is not necessary for the user to be using a specific messaging app in order to send or receive messages. Users don't have to worry about if their contacts also use the same messaging app; they may choose the one that best suits their requirements. It might result in a flawless communications experience.The main benefit of interoperability is that it avoids platform lock-in. Apple has been using the lock-in of iMessage to entice new users. Users are regrettably trapped into the platform and unable to leave it easily as a result of this lock-in, also known as the Network Effect. Do you recall Tim Cook urging someone in the crowd to get an iPhone so he could give his mother better videos?Thus, there's unquestionably a strong rationale for messaging applications to become interoperable. What are the downsides, though? Let's investigate below.

What Negative Aspects Exist?

Despite the fact that Meta has made WhatsApp and Messenger compatible with third parties in the EU, there are still some problems that need fixing. Primarily, it is crucial to sustain end-to-end encryption (E2EE) while adhering to interoperability standards.As everyone is aware, E2E encryption is enabled by default on WhatsApp, and Meta is in the process of enabling default E2EE for Facebook Messenger. In addition, E2E encryption is provided by Signal and Google Messages. All of these messaging applications have one thing in common: they all use end-to-end encryption using the well-tried Signal Protocol.

whatsapp interoperability simplified diagram — Photograph by Meta

According to Meta, it would "maximize user security" if third-party messaging applications used the same Signal Protocol for E2E encryption. Additionally, the business claims that additional compatible protocols will be supported; however, the protocol must have the "same security guarantees as Signal.""The takeaway is that a common cryptographic protocol is necessary to preserve E2E encryption while providing interoperability. There should be absolutely no leakage while the message is being sent from one service to another.Although we have developed a secure interop solution that encrypts messages in transit using the Signal Protocol, we are unable to provide the same guarantee as we cannot control what a third-party provider does with messages sent or received without ownership of both clients (endpoints), states Meta.It implies that achieving interoperability in messaging applications still involves controversial security issues. Not to add, different proprietary encryption protocols are used by Telegram and Apple's iMessage. It would be hard to support dozens of chat applications with various protocols. As a side note, because so few individuals in the EU utilize iMessage, it is not covered by the EU's interoperable rule.

Oh, and spam.

In addition to security issues, there are worries around phishing and spam in messaging applications. Interoperability would make personal messaging a nightmare since messaging is more private than email services.We already know that almost anybody can send us unwanted emails, phishing scams, and spam into our email inboxes. Allowing third-party services to enter the fray would allow hostile actors to use the larger communication network to launch phishing and spam campaigns.

Concluding Remarks: Does Interoperability Make Sense?

While platform lock-in is avoided and user convenience is increased by interoperability, it is also true that ensuring absolute security across third-party services is a more difficult technological issue to resolve. Different security protocols used by messaging applications may provide additional vulnerabilities. Not to add, the pleasure of personal texting might be ruined by spam and phishing communications.Apple is currently compelled to support the RCS communication protocol, in regards to platform lock-in. and plans to update iMessage with RCS support in 2024. At last, it will take the place of the unencrypted SMS protocol as iMessage's backup option. However, it is rumored that Apple does not use the Signal protocol for RCS. Together with the GSMA, it will create a unique RCS encryption standard. Additionally, Android texts will continue to appear as green bubbles.What are your thoughts on the EU's decision, while the battle for messaging app compatibility rages on? Please share your opinions in the comments section below.