2 ms·
Apple could never out-Google Google, and they knew it. Accepting Google's suit without their own alternatives by default would have relegated their platform to
by PeterStuer 7y ago
Apple could never out-Google Google, and they knew it. Accepting Google's suit without their own alternatives by default would have relegated their platform to be just another Google app launcher for key functionalities.
They instead opted to pursue a business model that played to their own strengths.
You seem to believe that Apple's iMessage service is somehow exempt from Lawful Intercept requirements. Let me quote from those in the EU (China's requirements could be more lenient, but I somehow doubt that):
"3.3 If network operators/service providers initiate encoding, compression or encryption of telecommunications traffic, law enforcement agencies require the network operators/service providers to provide intercepted communications en clair."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1996:329:FULL&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C...
- simonh 7y agoOn iPhones running google services, either Apple is in it just for the money or they aren't. Apple maps cost them a fortune and makes them no money, that's just a fact. They could also have easily played Google, facebook and twitter against each other, instead they said no to them all. Lawful Intercept has a fatal flaw. It doesn't require the service provider to have encryption keys for the traffic, and they can't provide what they don't have.
- PeterStuer 7y agoLawful Intercept has no such flaw. It does not let you of the hook just because you think you are clever and say "Oopsy, I can't". If your service can't comply with regulation when requested or inspected, then your service will be disallowed until you can.