191–200 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) is exactly what that quote is pointing out. If Apple actually cared about its users' security, they would see this as a gap, and would have addressed it already. The fact that they haven't means that, despite all their posturing about being a security-first platform, they care more about lock-in and marketing than they do about user security.
An intentional gap? Or a bug that they've now fixed?
One thing which is really confusing is why are Android users obsessed with iMessage? Android users can send text messages to iPhones, the can call iPhone users, and they can use third party messaging apps to communicate with iPhone users. It really isn’t clear to me why so many people are so angry they cannot use iMessage on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is probably the company that most has my interests at heart: they're very privacy focused, masterful at encryption and making it simple, and makes products I love. Do you really think they're the worlds most valuable company because of "corporate interests" and not because people like their products?
> Apple is probably the company that most has my interests at heart: they're very privacy focused, masterful at encryption and making it simple, and makes products I love. Apple is a business, they have no users interests at heart. They may be very privacy focused, and maybe masterful at encryption but for sure they do not make products I love. Their instant change of UI, forceful updates and territoriality behaviour…
One thing which is really confusing is why are Android users obsessed with iMessage? Android users can send text messages to iPhones, the can call iPhone users, and they can use third party messaging apps to communicate with iPhone users. It really isn’t clear to me why so many people are so angry they cannot use iMessage on Android.
It’s less about a specific feature set and more about inclusion and acceptance from/by peers.
This is especially prevalent among the younger crowd. Think high school group dynamics playing out with phones.
And then on top of that, photos/videos are terrible quality.
Crazy that the CEO even tried to create an entire company based on something that they absolutely cannot control. Was this an acquisition play?
I used to think like this before I saw companies like Instagram and Tiktok thrive in the app store, which they absolutely cannot control. It is often worth a shot.
It’s impossible to avoid relying on other people’s platforms. (Unless you want approximately zero customers, I guess) I wish these monopolistic corps didn’t have such an iron grip, but I’m not demanding creators single handedly remove every dependency on them. There is no ethical consumption (or production) in late stage capitalism.
The EU should, like they did years ago with PC operating systems, mandate a default browser selection screen. And a default messenger selection screen. And a default app store selection screen. Not that we'd get it in the US but it would help reduce Apple/Google market capture efforts.
Let's think higher than that. Let's just get rid of megacorporations: let's mandate that any company with more than amount of X employees should be broken down into smaller divisions, with a separate board and CEO, and make it that no one can be on more than one board at the same time. Make X low enough, 250, and all of this would go away: no more corporatism, no more monopolies, no more special groups interests payi…
Now I have a company that cannot compete at the scale some chinese company can. OK so we close the border to imports from companies that are larger than our rules. When has that ever worked out?
This is a wake-up call. It's high time we demand open-source messaging standards across all platforms. Imagine a world where communication isn't dictated by corporate interests but by user needs and innovation.
Oh right. No one cares. Apple’s iMessage is the only one a large number of people seem to care about.
I’ve never seen anyone call for opening the others. But Apple? Constantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks to me like there is an advantageous business relationship between Beeper and their customers. As a general rule, Apple is free to change their programs and how they work. However, I think there’s a plausible argument for tortious interference here if the sole purpose was to prevent interoperability.
Maybe (or maybe not) plausible, but I think it's irrelevant, because there's no way a small company like Beeper could beat Apple's lawyers at this game. It will end up bankrupting Beeper long before it would even matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bunch of reasons why this is unlikely to be tortious interference, but one of the obvious ones is the contractual Terms & Conditions that apply between Apple and its users; I doubt Beeper is liable here, but if interference was a thing, my bet (not a lawyer!) is that the liability would point the other direction.
My read of GP's comment was that the claim of tortious interference would be by Beeper against Apple (for interfering with Beeper's relationship with Beeper's customers).