5 ms·
Yup. The shaming campaigns are just a way to play the moral high ground in their effort to replace an actual messaging standard with their own proprietary servi
by hbn 3y ago
Yup. The shaming campaigns are just a way to play the moral high ground in their effort to replace an actual messaging standard with their own proprietary service.
SMS is certainly long overdue to be replaced, but I don't want it replaced with a Google service. Hopefully the iPhone adoption will be some incentive for carriers to implement RCS properly.
- lxgr 3y agoI'm afraid that the only incentive for carriers to invest anything into RCS would be being able to charge for it or use it as a way to lock in their customers. As antiquated as SMS is, at least all carriers support it, and people largely don't need to worry about their existing conversation threads being interrupted when they switch carriers. I believe that that's not true for RCS at least for group conversations.
- kelnos 3y agoI don't really care if the shaming was done in good or bad faith. At the end of the day, I'm an Android user in a sea of iPhone users, and I'm tired of the fact that our default communication mode has to be SMS or MMS. If this fixes that problem, I don't quite care how we got here.
- izacus 3y agoIt's kind of bizarre that people here would rather have shitty experience talking to their friends just to defend the honor megacorporations. Apple and Google ARE NOT PEOPLE. They do NOT HAVE FEELINGS you need to defend. Jesus. Being able to send a rich message from iPhone to Android and back (including location, pictures, videos) is really not something that will cause you pain and Apple won't lash out and punish you for it.
- randomdata 3y ago> Apple and Google ARE NOT PEOPLE. That's incorrect. Apple here refers to a group of people, not the fruit. Google here too refers to a group of people, not the software that provides search features. > They do NOT HAVE FEELINGS you need to defend. Their feelings need to be defended as much as any other person. Which, logically, is not at all, but as you are defending your own feelings here what is logical is already violated, so...
- izacus 3y agoLet's use the term "corporate entity" instead of "group of people". Because corporate entities do not have human emotions or human properties and actively work on suppressing them to generate (or extract) value.
- randomdata 3y agoA 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.
- dragonwriter 3y agoYes, 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.
- randomdata 3y agoYes, 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.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> 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.
- randomdata 3y agoRight. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?