3 ms·

He has a huge hard on for hating on the EU for daring to regulate Apple. It’s been endless hit pieces about how they suck at innovation and how having Apple In

He has a huge hard on for hating on the EU for daring to regulate Apple. It’s been endless hit pieces about how they suck at innovation and how having Apple Intelligence is better than having Fortnite and how users having the option to install what they want on their device is the worst thing to ever happen. Hypocritically being silent when China forces Apple to adopt RCS and has countless regulations on what they can do. It’s almost as if he’s trying to push Apple’s agenda of why they shouldn’t be regulated anywhere. A more cynical person might even consider that he’s compensated to do so. But then you look at his past pieces of remote work being the devil, even though he’s worked like that his whole life and the simplest explanation of him being on out of touch person seems to be the right one.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Hypocritically being silent when China forces Apple to adopt RCS and has countless regulations on what they can do. He recognizes China forcing Apple's hand (not the EU) when it comes to RCS, and since China is a large market, and Apple is mostly/generally a hardware company, they want to sell hardware there: * https://daringfireball.net/2024/02/eu_rcs_imessage https://daringfireball.net/2024/02/eu_rcs_imessage Gruber is not a fan of RCS because it lacks E2E encryption: * https://daringfireball.net/2024/07/att_data_breach_rcs_ios https://daringfireball.net/2024/07/att_data_breach_rcs_ios When I read that post, I didn't necessarily disagree with Gruber on the encryption front, I just think having a better base for 'cross-platform' message that didn't involve third-party software (Signal, WhatsApp (and having to use their infra)) was still worth it—even if unencrypted. Gruber wants the features of RCS but also encryption: > Ihnatko is right, but only if you believe that carrier-based messaging should remain the baseline. I do not. And it’s also a U.S.-centric viewpoint. In most countries around the world, platforms like WhatsApp, Line, and Facebook Messenger serve that role, as the baseline “everyone has it” messaging platform — and those countries are better for it. I prefer iMessage, personally, for multiple reasons, but iMessage is fundamentally limited from serving that “everyone has it” baseline role by Apple’s decision not to ship an Android client. Eddy Cue doesn’t lose many arguments but he lost that one. All of the effort spent pushing Apple to support RCS would have been better spent pushing Apple to ship iMessage for Android. And without a supported iMessage client for Android, that role ought to go to WhatsApp, not RCS. WhatsApp is free, secure, and works equally well on all phones. > Meta knows this, and clearly smells the opportunity. Does Apple? * Ibid Google's E2E RCS is a proprietary extension, and I'm not sure how telcos can implement E2E given things like CALEA in the US, so E2E may be stuck in the realm of the non-telco (unlike SMS and RCS, which are telco-run).

throw0101c 2y ago

> Hypocritically being silent when China forces Apple to adopt RCS and has countless regulations on what they can do. He recognizes China forcing Apple's hand (not the EU) when it comes to RCS, and since China is a large market, and Apple is mostly/generally a hardware company, they want to sell hardware there: * https://daringfireball.net/2024/02/eu_rcs_imessage https://daringfireball.net/2024/02/eu_rcs_imessage Gruber is not a fan of RCS because it lacks E2E encryption: * https://daringfireball.net/2024/07/att_data_breach_rcs_ios https://daringfireball.net/2024/07/att_data_breach_rcs_ios When I read that post, I didn't necessarily disagree with Gruber on the encryption front, I just think having a better base for 'cross-platform' message that didn't involve third-party software (Signal, WhatsApp (and having to use their infra)) was still worth it—even if unencrypted. Gruber wants the features of RCS but also encryption: > Ihnatko is right, but only if you believe that carrier-based messaging should remain the baseline. I do not. And it’s also a U.S.-centric viewpoint. In most countries around the world, platforms like WhatsApp, Line, and Facebook Messenger serve that role, as the baseline “everyone has it” messaging platform — and those countries are better for it. I prefer iMessage, personally, for multiple reasons, but iMessage is fundamentally limited from serving that “everyone has it” baseline role by Apple’s decision not to ship an Android client. Eddy Cue doesn’t lose many arguments but he lost that one. All of the effort spent pushing Apple to support RCS would have been better spent pushing Apple to ship iMessage for Android. And without a supported iMessage client for Android, that role ought to go to WhatsApp, not RCS. WhatsApp is free, secure, and works equally well on all phones. > Meta knows this, and clearly smells the opportunity. Does Apple? * Ibid Google's E2E RCS is a proprietary extension, and I'm not sure how telcos can implement E2E given things like CALEA in the US, so E2E may be stuck in the realm of the non-telco (unlike SMS and RCS, which are telco-run).