Grustaf

13 ms·

121.
by Grustaf 3y ago
It’s not Stockholm syndrome, you incorrectly assume that every iPhone owner is some kind of mini Stallman. Most people really don’t care about all this stuff, they just want a product that works well, with minimum fuss. They don’t care abou
122.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Even if they did, Apple doesn’t care about that. If they wanted an Android client they’d make one, not allow some random company to do it.
123.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Sure, but I reacted to the idea that some people were not “allowed”.
124.
by Grustaf 3y ago
From a philosophical or practical standpoint? For me personally, I don’t care at all, i have no philosophical objections to companies running their own, closed chat apps. There are no hurdles for new entrants. And practically speaking, it’s
125.
by Grustaf 3y ago
If they have the same combined population, then it’s not misleading. There are no other first world countries with 300 million people, so it’s pretty obvious that the comparison is with the combined 6 countries.
126.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Why aren’t they allowed to become doctors?
127.
by Grustaf 3y ago
I'm not making an argument, I just found it humorous to say that a company had a monopoly on one of their own products. Not a category, but a specific product. The whole idea is just absurd.
128.
by Grustaf 3y ago
> Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky [...] spoke out against Apple's iMessage monopoly I hope he will also speak out against Signal's Signal Monopoly, and Facebooks Whatsapp monopoly
129.
by Grustaf 3y ago
That rule would probably then apply to all message apps
130.
by Grustaf 3y ago
They do charge for iCloud, they charge the person that put the photos there.
131.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Because half the population have an iPhone, a tiny fraction have macs, and the overlap between mac and iphone owners is probably very large - if you like the mac you probably like the iphone. And there are benefits to getting both from the
132.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Which illegal barrier are you talking about? The App Store may be illegal, but on what grounds would there be anything illegal about preventing other companies from using your servers? And note that they are not even discouraging third-part
133.
by Grustaf 3y ago
The difference between being able to send unlimited messages for free, and having to get a new phone every hundred or so texts is pretty large. Free vs 1 dollar per spam text.
134.
by Grustaf 3y ago
In the upper middle class in Copenhagen it’s more than that, seeing an android phone is very rare. Even in the metro you can go days without seeing one.
135.
by Grustaf 3y ago
It’s not just about market share. In Scandinavia about 90% of middle class people use iphones, but this whole blue-green bubble nonsense is a total non-issue. We have group chats in whatsapp, fb messages or sms, nobody cares.
136.
by Grustaf 3y ago
I have never received a single spam message through iMessage, but regardless. If they have to keep buying new phones all the time as they get blacklisted, in order to keep spamming, the economics of spamming changes.
137.
by Grustaf 3y ago
I think the main thing with all the cringeworthy talk about green bubbles is about android being perceived as less glamorous - on average android users have less money, and/or are ideologically motivated - like some linux users. In a w
138.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Beeper should care about their investors, since they are using their money. I think they raised something like 15m.
139.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Weird thing to comment on, especially as it definitely is an example of something that a company may be focused on, rather than making a profit.
140.
by Grustaf 3y ago
> Since I have no control over iMessage, I would not consider it safe. I would trust iMessage about 95% less if I had written, or even implemented, the protocols myself, and I consider myself a pretty good developer.
141.
by Grustaf 3y ago
If you don't want to communicate with other Apple owners over iMessage, then there is no issue. What Beeper set out to do was to solve the opposite problem, people who don't have Apple devices, but want to use iMessage. And the po
142.
by Grustaf 3y ago
> Security isn't about Apple knowing if an app is spying on users Clearly, what matters to Apple is what _they_ believe is secure, and they of course trust themselves more than they trust Beeper. > At best a third party iMessage
143.
by Grustaf 3y ago
How would third-party clients _increase_ security (other than indirectly, by people using SMS less)? On the contrary, third-party clients is a gigantic security hole, since Apple can't even know if a client app is spying on users.
144.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Sure, that's fair. But if he knows that, why spend the time to build this app in the first place? Is it a marketing play? It did buy them a whole lot of attention.
145.
by Grustaf 3y ago
As pointed out below, "they" is Apple, but I would also assume that at least 99.9% (really) of users would trust Apple more than Beeper, i they had to choose.
146.
by Grustaf 3y ago
It's a pretty indirect gap, since it has nothing to do with Apple's infrastructure, it's about users choosing to interact with users of non-Apple platforms using insecure means. There are dozens of secure cross-platform messe
147.
by Grustaf 3y ago
> "if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS?" - Er
148.
by Grustaf 3y ago
In Japan the percentage is very low, but you can still have all the foreign food you want. Most foreigners in any country are doing other things than running restaurants, so it's pretty orthogonal.
149.
by Grustaf 3y ago
Video cameras in unmanned libraries definitely don't exist in order to spy on people. I can assure you that whatever its other faults, the municipality of Copenhagen is not interested in spying on readers.
150.
by Grustaf 3y ago
The food is also very safe in Switzerland

More ›