691–700 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can they know whether it respects their privacy or not? How can you know whether Apple would actually respect your privacy or not? If it's on-device you can audit it, but how can you prove their cloud is actually respecting your privacy? If you have an answer to this then why can't third-parties also do the same?
Third parties don’t have to do the same. And they won’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voting the world over is a joke. IIRC it was Carlin who said “if voting mattered they wouldn’t met us do it”.
People the world over: (die for the right to vote) One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable. The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third parties don’t have to do the same. And they won’t.
And Apple has to? Why? What forces Apple to do this?
Would it be better if something forced them to? Probably so! But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple was literally the first major company to go all-in on USB-C. They shipped entire devices that only had USB-C ports. If anything, I would wager they were happy about it. They were going to have to do it anyway, and it would inevitably cause friction for users who were already invested in Lightning cables and third-party devices. The EU forcing this just meant they could shift the blame for any negative sentiment…
They weren’t all-in or first because they refused to add them to their mobile products until years after everyone else. They fought tooth and nail against integrating it into the iPhone until the EU forced them to. It’s well documented. The MFi program - namely the associated accessories - was very important to them. Putting USB-C on their laptops in 2016 is a different discussion and it wasn’t a tough decision becau…
If you want evidence that Apple was going to move to USB-C anyway, consider that at no point after 2012 did they invest in improvements to Lightning. They never upgraded the protocol speeds, never pushed higher wattage charging. That’s not the behavior of a company that wants to extend a platform’s life.
When the EU forced the USB-C switch, Apple notably didn’t fight it as hard as people assumed they would. The EU handed them a smooth exit ramp on a platter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's flatly not true. imessage interop means not just the person who installs the other app, but the data of everyone with whom they message loses the security/privacy guarantees created by imessage and Apple as a corp. Including massive resources pointed at securing the app itself. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea from a competition point of view, but good ideas can be discussed w/ an honest view of t…
Apple could have worked with other companies to make RCS secure by default instead of building their own little thing that openly and intentionally discriminates non-members of their club.
Apple was not the problem for rcs; the carriers are and were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's not in the EU parliaments jurisdiction, it's in the EU council's. As a rule, all members states have to be democratic and you can simply vote out your EU council member i.e. your head of state. It is democratic.
The EU Councils decisions are taken in secret. You have no idea if it's democratic or not, nor does it matter even if they do hold a vote because by convention none of them ever campaign on the decisions they make there. To see this, try and find out how Ursula von der Leyen ended up the most powerful woman in Europe. What qualified her for that, who were the alternative candidates considered, what was said during th…
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-c...
But the European Parliaments votes can be by secret vote, which is bad in my opinion, and ironic considering they're the ones we directly elect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it. The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense. It is not the state's place to tell people what they s…
That is quite a libertarian point of view, and Europeans tend to disagree with it. The most extreme example could be the legislation on weapons. A less extreme example could be legislation on food additives or PFAS.
QED, Europeans don't tend to disagree with the basic principle of letting people buy things to harm themselves and those around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite a libertarian point of view, and Europeans tend to disagree with it. The most extreme example could be the legislation on weapons. A less extreme example could be legislation on food additives or PFAS.
The most extreme example would be child prostitution or child porn, in my opinion. But I guess it would be authoritarian to deny people from purchasing such services/items???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to. Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons. I…
> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it. The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense. It is not the state's place to tell people what they s…
Remember Silk Road? You could order cocaine, heroin, and even execution contracts, which the founder himself go caught doing. I don't think making something illegal to buy is authoritarian nonsense. I don't want people ordering a murder on me from Uber Hits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People the world over: (die for the right to vote) One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable. The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.
Tons of people have died for a variety of causes throughout human history. It does not mean that the causes were not silly or deluded. (e.g religious wars, Communism, Fascism etc.)