681–690 of 729 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.
Yes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have many, many incentives and pretending otherwise is naive and obtuse. Okay. The main incentive is to create a competitive method for messaging which allows rich communication with everyone, regardless of platform or ecosystem just via their phone number. Name five more.
Running a messaging gateway means Google gets all that sweet metadata at the very least and message content in the many cases where E2EE isn't enabled. That's a lot of data to build advertising derivatives all linked to a specific identity.
There is little new information to gain for them, no matter how Android users communicate with Apple users right now.
There is however a lot to gain for them if a unified rich communication standard is established in the market, because apart from finally being able to replace SMS, it would drive platform-agnostic innovation in this area.
Google and Apple agreeing on a standard could disrupt the ecosystems of Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Vibr, Zoom, MS Teams etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.
Yes, but the corporate entity is not a thing in and of itself. It is just a language device used in communication to identify the actual thing: People.
No, its not.
Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others.
But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the corporate entity is not a thing in and of itself. It is just a language device used in communication to identify the actual thing: People.
> Yes, but the corporate entity is just another way to say group of people No, its not. Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others. But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, but the corporate entity is just another way to say group of people No, its not. Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others. But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
Right. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?
No, that's exactly what I said it was not.
A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carriers supported it. Just Apple didn't, for a long time. The reason is obvious: To increase their market dominance in the US, where iMessage is common. Especially among US teens this was apparently successful. Teens didn't want to be the lame green bubble kids with reduced messaging features. They flocked to iPhones. RCS is (was) the prime example of Apple's anticompetitive behavior, after the App Store exclusivity…
Google could have released a rcs messenger app on iOS this whole time. Not sure what they were doing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?
> Like you say, a group of people. No, that's exactly what I said it was not. A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like you say, a group of people. No, that's exactly what I said it was not. A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
You suggested that is what it is not, but then went on to say that is what it is. You just did it again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You suggested that is what it is not, but then went on to say that is what it is. You just did it again.
No, I didn't, but if you can't understand language enough to recognize that there is no point in further discussion.