241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why most people (should) opt to use a cross platform messenger, such as Signal.
If signal would officially allow third party clients, non-phone-number-bound users and maybe federation that'd be great. It does not.
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. 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…
We can all have our preferences. But I love having a very fast laptop that lasts 18 hours on a single charge, for under $1,000, with a high-dpi screen. My Macbook Air M1 is a product I and a lot of people love.
There's not much else I can say to the discussion but just wanted to reiterate my point that I'm not hating others for the reason but just disliking for the reasons. I've never been a laptop fan.
With awkward hands, handheld consoles, controllers, laptops have never jelled for me. Yet constantly disappointed for that they've have never been taken catered for. As VR with glasses, Netflix non-continuing content I enjoy; everything I seem to enjoy just vanishes. Sad, as after experiencing tech at such a young age with so much potential; for it to be regurgitated to how it is, singular devices makes it depressing.
I must be a niche but I just assume companies have to cater to the majority, for which I'm not one.
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.
The reason the iphone users don't like it is because Apple specifically and artificially makes the experience annoying and shitty in several different ways, for the iphone users not just for the Android users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that this is spin — Erik's statement is ridiculous, and he knows it. To think that Apple would somehow not treat Beeper like any other bad actor hacking iMessage protocols is delulu.
Sure, that's fair. But if he knows that, why spend the time to build this app in the first place? Is it a marketing play? It did buy them a whole lot of attention.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The good thing though is that Apple finally announced RCS support > https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
Good? RCS isn't universal. Am I gonna be sending and receiving Google, Verizon, TMobile, or Samsung messages? It's not universally encrypted either. No way am I turning it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I never understood what the point of comments like this is. You know what you’re describing is never going to happen. So is it just philosophical musing about what the ideal society would look like?
Also there are a lot of things people could say “You know what you’re describing is never going to happen.” That did happen.
I’m not suggesting this one is. I don’t think so either, but it isn’t a very productive attitude.
> "if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS?" - Eric Migicovsky 1. If Apple sees this as a gap, it is very obvious that they would address that themselves, rather than by allowing a hack to exploit loopholes in their architecture 2. Since Appl…
(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.
My guess is Beeper calculated this was likely to happen eventually (maybe not this fast), but that they would get good press on the initial launch and on the shutdown announcement and that press would be worth the technical investment they made. They do have a different service they still offer and some percentage of people are looking at that now.
I find this a bit confusing though. It seems like this was an inevitable outcome, but what do they gain from this technical investment aside from exposure. Their website doesn't steer users to anything other than the now cut-off Beeper mini?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Since Apple has no control over the Beeper mini client, they would not consider it safe, it could easily be spying on users without their knowledge. Since I have no control over iMessage, I would not consider it safe. It could easily be spying on me without my knowledge.
If you don’t trust Apple, then obviously you don’t use it. If you do, then it shouldn't be possible for a 3rd party client to break that trust. Users only see iMessage vs no-iMessage and have no other way to identify the client to decide for themselves whether to trust it.