561–570 of 902 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Beeper will fight it either way. That sounds nice and all, but what happens when the first bill comes due from their legal team?
I have a hard time believing that the folks who were smart enough to do all this work somehow forgot that lawyers cost money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would make sense: because Apple have deeply coupled iMessage to the OS they can’t simply roll out a new version of the app with protocol changes that would block Beeper, they’d have to release entire OS updates. No matter the method it would be a scorched earth approach. I suspect the number of people actually using Beeper will be far below a rounding error for Apple.
> because Apple have deeply coupled iMessage to the OS No they haven't. On my Mac it's just an app and a reusable framework. There is nothing stopping them releasing it on the App Store similar to Mail.
In the sense that the app is just a wrapper around a system framework, sure. But changing that framework would be an OS release.
This seems like it won't last, but it's AWESOME and I really hope you survive Apple's inevitable attempts to kill this. A universal chat application would be amazing, and will maybe help bring attention to the value of standards and interoperability (hopefully by governments/regulators).
On the contrary, the EU law that enforces interoperability should put some wind under this project's wings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Apple needs an even blue-r bubble to set apart the super attested users from the mere blue bubble peasants
they could call it "apple blue" and charge a few bucks a month for it. People love that stuff
The longer the anti-customer behavior continues the greater the resentment becomes. Customers do not like being treated as captives to Wall Street thinking. Mega-tech will face consequences for the unapologetic greed they exhibit right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did google break out Google Play Services as a separate app, was that when they started integrating more with third-party android phone suppliers, and they didn't want to have to wait for OS upgrade cycles from slower-moving companies?
Probably they originally did it because Android has high-assurance embedded use-cases (compare/contrast: Windows IoT Core) where you want to strip out everything possible from the attack surface. But mainly it's because base Android (AOSP) can be arbitrarily modified by the OEM; and Google doesn't want to have to trust installations of Google Play Services that have been arbitrarily modified by OEMs. (Especially beca…
Dang, I support your efforts but I just don't have any incentive to pay for a texting app. Normal texting and WhatsApp and discord and Instagram and tiktok messages etc etc are all free. So I just don't really have a reason to subscribe to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d donate to a legal fund on this personally. I think a lot of people and large corporations would like to see Apple have to make concessions here. I think if it comes to it, Apple will wind up looking very bad in a trial. Their behavior here is deeply anticompetitive. iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. If Apple doesn’t want to make an Android app, they should…
> iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. What do you mean; if a private company creates something, and enough people buy/use it, at some point it becomes a common good? I like the idea of iMessage being open, but I don't like the idea of forcing Apple under government threat to open it
iMessage is so important today, especially to young Americans, that its exclusivity to iOS has become a significant barrier to Android or other operating systems from being competitive.
It’s up to regulators and the court system to decide whether that is a violation of antitrust law. But if it is, then yes, the government should force them to open it. That’s what it means to enforce antitrust law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d donate to a legal fund on this personally. I think a lot of people and large corporations would like to see Apple have to make concessions here. I think if it comes to it, Apple will wind up looking very bad in a trial. Their behavior here is deeply anticompetitive. iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. If Apple doesn’t want to make an Android app, they should…
> iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. What do you mean; if a private company creates something, and enough people buy/use it, at some point it becomes a common good? I like the idea of iMessage being open, but I don't like the idea of forcing Apple under government threat to open it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The excitement is because previously it was impossible for Android users to communicate with iPhone users over iMessage. If you're not in the US, you probably won't get this, but in the US it's very easy to be "the odd man out" as the only Android user in a group of friends. Group chats between iMessage and Android users is basically horrible right now - I seriously considered getting an iPhone solely because friends…
What is it about iMessage that breaks group chats? Where I live everyone uses WhatsApp (SMS is for 2fa codes pretty much exclusively for me)