Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #145304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 10:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-17 10:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 14:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-17 23:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 22:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 15:08 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:48 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-17 23:12 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 21:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 21:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:43 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 22:47 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-18 10:35 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:36 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 01:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:39 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 08:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 17:47 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 10:09 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 21:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:22 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 17:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:51 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:15 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 08:31 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:01 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 03:21 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:34 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 21:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:20 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 19:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 11:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:17 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 20:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:54 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:10 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 09:59 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:27 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 19:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-25 18:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:23 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 13:50 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 22:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 15:58 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 15:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:18 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:44 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-21 13:35 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 12:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-22 14:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 13:57 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:36 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-24 11:27 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:53 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:42 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:46 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 14:21 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:05 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:04 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:24 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:36 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:52 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 15:00 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2024-12-27 15:22 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 16:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 11:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-27 13:45 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:48 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:41 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:39 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:26 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 11:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 09:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 17:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:13 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:32 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 17:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 18:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:46 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 21:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 22:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:37 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 17:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:41 -0800
For the record and just the facts, an iPad without an AppleID (was Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:38 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> - 2024-12-20 13:47 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-20 22:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 14:00 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:45 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:54 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 19:05 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:14 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 02:13 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:44 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:24 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-29 02:51 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 19:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:50 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-31 19:19 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-18 08:22 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 00:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-21 08:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 00:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:13 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 08:59 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 09:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 11:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 10:53 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-18 18:55 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-17 18:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:50 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 16:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 07:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:38 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 14:02 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 14:52 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-25 19:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjv1rr$9v$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145375 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:37:04 +0100 : >> The only reason RCS is in iPhones is the EU demanded Apple add it. >> RCS encryption isn't there only because the EU didn't demand that too. > > The EU did not think Apple would be that stupid as to not implement it. I agree with you and I disagree with Frank who had chastised you. What appears to be transpiring are the following events: 1. Apple said in court the last thing they'll ever want to do is to interoperate with Android. That's a fact, paraphrased. 2. The EU forced Apple to interoperate (a little bit) with Android. 3. Unfortunately, the EU didn't force Apple to handle encryption. 4. So nobody gets interoperability (with encryption) because Apple execs decided interoperability is a threat to their profits. 5. And it is. 6. Meanwhile, most people are completely clueless that the problem is that Apple has no intention of ever interoperating with Android. 7. Hence, the FBI warned people that, essentially, there is no encryption when Apple messages are involved with Android devices. The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 10:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vjv349$2d2mi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145384 |
On 2024-12-18 09:47, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:37:04 +0100 : > >>> The only reason RCS is in iPhones is the EU demanded Apple add it. >>> RCS encryption isn't there only because the EU didn't demand that too. >> >> The EU did not think Apple would be that stupid as to not implement it. > > I agree with you and I disagree with Frank who had chastised you. > > What appears to be transpiring are the following events: > > 1. Apple said in court the last thing they'll ever want to do > is to interoperate with Android. That's a fact, paraphrased. Then let's see the exact quote rather than your interpretation of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <i9nb3lx48d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145384 |
On 2024-12-18 18:47, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:37:04 +0100 : > >>> The only reason RCS is in iPhones is the EU demanded Apple add it. >>> RCS encryption isn't there only because the EU didn't demand that too. >> >> The EU did not think Apple would be that stupid as to not implement it. > > I agree with you and I disagree with Frank who had chastised you. > > What appears to be transpiring are the following events: > > 1. Apple said in court the last thing they'll ever want to do > is to interoperate with Android. That's a fact, paraphrased. > > 2. The EU forced Apple to interoperate (a little bit) with Android. > > 3. Unfortunately, the EU didn't force Apple to handle encryption. > > 4. So nobody gets interoperability (with encryption) because Apple > execs decided interoperability is a threat to their profits. > > 5. And it is. > > 6. Meanwhile, most people are completely clueless that the problem is > that Apple has no intention of ever interoperating with Android. > > 7. Hence, the FBI warned people that, essentially, there is no > encryption when Apple messages are involved with Android devices. > > The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. > But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. It is, however, reasonable for a company to say that they will only implement the approved standard. However, I don't know for what reasons, the standard will not be expanded for some reason I don't know, either temporarily or permanently. That company should push hard for the standard to expand. Maybe this can not be. And say clearly when the standard is expected to be ready. IF. In that case, said company should implement instead the existing proprietary method, which perhaps, I do not know, has been offered free of charge. Even as a temporary measure while the standard is developed, for the benefit of all users. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk021c$1r0c$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145391 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:18:26 +0100 : >> The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. >> But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. > > It is, however, reasonable for a company to say that they will only > implement the approved standard. However, I don't know for what reasons, > the standard will not be expanded for some reason I don't know, either > temporarily or permanently. That company should push hard for the > standard to expand. Maybe this can not be. And say clearly when the > standard is expected to be ready. IF. > > In that case, said company should implement instead the existing > proprietary method, which perhaps, I do not know, has been offered free > of charge. Even as a temporary measure while the standard is developed, > for the benefit of all users. We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). We also all know Apple is being forced to care about the customer by EU laws, where we all know Apple implements as little as it can get away with. In addition, we all know the Epic deposition showcased Apple executives' emails, which said that the messaging platform is one of the most critical components of the walled garden that Apple does NOT want interoperable. With all that in mind, we also all know Apple (and Google) are on the same standards committee - where - we don't really know what goes on behind those closed doors. Is Apple stalling? I don't know. Does anyone have more data on what Apple's specific objections are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 19:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk03hk$2ihce$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145395 |
On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:18:26 +0100 : > >>> The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. >>> But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. >> >> It is, however, reasonable for a company to say that they will only >> implement the approved standard. However, I don't know for what >> reasons, the standard will not be expanded for some reason I don't >> know, either temporarily or permanently. That company should push hard >> for the standard to expand. Maybe this can not be. And say clearly >> when the standard is expected to be ready. IF. >> >> In that case, said company should implement instead the existing >> proprietary method, which perhaps, I do not know, has been offered >> free of charge. Even as a temporary measure while the standard is >> developed, for the benefit of all users. > > We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is > interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). And yet you won't provide it. Weird. > > We also all know Apple is being forced to care about the customer by EU > laws, where we all know Apple implements as little as it can get away with. > > In addition, we all know the Epic deposition showcased Apple executives' > emails, which said that the messaging platform is one of the most critical > components of the walled garden that Apple does NOT want interoperable. > > With all that in mind, we also all know Apple (and Google) are on the same > standards committee - where - we don't really know what goes on behind > those closed doors. > Is Apple stalling? > I don't know. And yet you'll claim they are. Weird.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 10:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsksnjF7rfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145397 |
Alan, 2024-12-19 04:22: > On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: [...] >> We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is >> interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). > > And yet you won't provide it. > > Weird. Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least compatible with anything else? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk47uh$3c49e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145407 |
On 2024-12-20 01:46, Arno Welzel wrote: > Alan, 2024-12-19 04:22: > >> On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: > [...] >>> We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is >>> interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). >> >> And yet you won't provide it. >> >> Weird. > > Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least > compatible with anything else? iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0ousatn8vq7lx002@reader443.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #145412 |
Alan wrote: >>Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least >>compatible with anything else? >iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages. Not exactly. Messages app lets you send iMessages, SMS, RCS messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 09:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4ar2$3hsum$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145413 |
On 2024-12-20 09:30, badgolferman wrote: > Alan wrote: > >>> Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least >>> compatible with anything else? > >> iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages. > > Not exactly. Messages app lets you send iMessages, SMS, RCS messages. Yeah, yeah... I used the wrong term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G1ednby7Bb7wX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_pBU1Mx@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #145413 |
In misc.phone.mobile.iphone badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >>Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least
> >>compatible with anything else?
> >iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages.
> Not exactly. Messages app lets you send iMessages, SMS, RCS messages.
RCS messages if using iOS v18 and higher. IIRC, the carriers must support RCS too.
--
"'Do not be afraid,' Samuel replied. 'You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart.'" --1 Samuel 12:20. Thank God 4 not going out 2day on a slammy Th.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso71nFo80oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145412 |
Alan, 2024-12-20 18:02: > On 2024-12-20 01:46, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Alan, 2024-12-19 04:22: >> >>> On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: >> [...] >>>> We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is >>>> interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). >>> >>> And yet you won't provide it. >>> >>> Weird. >> >> Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least >> compatible with anything else? > iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages. I would not call this "compatible" since you can use it in the same way as with other Apple users. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk6qgm$4gr0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145485 |
On 2024-12-21 08:00, Arno Welzel wrote: > Alan, 2024-12-20 18:02: > >> On 2024-12-20 01:46, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Alan, 2024-12-19 04:22: >>> >>>> On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is >>>>> interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). >>>> >>>> And yet you won't provide it. >>>> >>>> Weird. >>> >>> Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least >>> compatible with anything else? >> iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages. > > I would not call this "compatible" since you can use it in the same way > as with other Apple users. > Messages is compatible with any platform that sends and receives SMS messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsumfoFpk7mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145494 |
Alan, 2024-12-21 17:31: > On 2024-12-21 08:00, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Alan, 2024-12-20 18:02: >> >>> On 2024-12-20 01:46, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Alan, 2024-12-19 04:22: >>>> >>>>> On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> We all know from Apple's history that the last thing Apple wants is >>>>>> interoperability with other platforms (the proof is rampant everywhere). >>>>> >>>>> And yet you won't provide it. >>>>> >>>>> Weird. >>>> >>>> Is iMessage or FaceTime available for Android or Windows or at least >>>> compatible with anything else? >>> iMessage let's you send and receive SMS messages. >> >> I would not call this "compatible" since you can use it in the same way >> as with other Apple users. >> > > Messages is compatible with any platform that sends and receives SMS > messages. Yes, it is able to send and receive SMS - nothing else. In this meaning, iPhones are compatible to nearly every other computer or phone in the world, since some kind of data exchange or phone calls is mostly possible. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkd9as$1kou$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145560 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:01:12 +0100 : >> Messages is compatible with any platform that sends and receives SMS >> messages. > > Yes, it is able to send and receive SMS - nothing else. In this meaning, > iPhones are compatible to nearly every other computer or phone in the > world, since some kind of data exchange or phone calls is mostly possible. Hi Arno, Bear in mind the guy you're conversing with, Alan Baker, is a moron. He has an IQ of about 40 so he loves to argue about everything for fun. Note that it used to be there is no iPhone in the world which can be initialized without connecting to the Internet. It's impossible. And yet, Alan Baker claims he did the impossible. Just as he claims to teach auto racing, Alan Baker doesn't know the first thing about racing. He claims to own bimmers and he doesn't know teh most basic of the simplest things about bimmers. Alan Baker is an IQ 40 moron in everything. As for the more recent iPhones, if they have an eSIM and if it's an iPhone 14 or greater, only after that can someone initialize it WITHOUT the Internet. But all iPhones prior to the 14 *require* the Internet to initialize. <https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+initialize+a+brand+new+iphone+without+internet> No other operating system on the planet requires the Internet just to use the phone. Just Apple. The iPhone is nothing more than a dumb terminal without the Internet. It can't even make phone calls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 22:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkdkm4$1n1v9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145570 |
On 2024-12-23 19:21, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:01:12 +0100 : > >>> Messages is compatible with any platform that sends and receives SMS >>> messages. >> >> Yes, it is able to send and receive SMS - nothing else. In this meaning, >> iPhones are compatible to nearly every other computer or phone in the >> world, since some kind of data exchange or phone calls is mostly >> possible. > > Hi Arno, > > Bear in mind the guy you're conversing with, Alan Baker, is a moron. > > He has an IQ of about 40 so he loves to argue about everything for fun. > > Note that it used to be there is no iPhone in the world which can be > initialized without connecting to the Internet. It's impossible. And > yet, Alan Baker claims he did the impossible. I never made such a claim. > > Just as he claims to teach auto racing, Alan Baker doesn't know the first > thing about racing. He claims to own bimmers and he doesn't know teh most > basic of the simplest things about bimmers. > Alan Baker is an IQ 40 moron in everything. For the record, I do, indeed, teach road racing. I was invited to join the Sports Car Club of British Columbia's Race Drivers Committee at the conclusion of the 2016 racing season. For the record, I own a 2012 BMW 135i M Sport Edition. > > As for the more recent iPhones, if they have an eSIM and if it's an iPhone > 14 or greater, only after that can someone initialize it WITHOUT the > Internet. But all iPhones prior to the 14 *require* the Internet to > initialize. > <https://www.google.com/search? > q=can+you+initialize+a+brand+new+iphone+without+internet> This is false. > > No other operating system on the planet requires the Internet just to use > the phone. Just Apple. > > The iPhone is nothing more than a dumb terminal without the Internet. > It can't even make phone calls. This is also false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjvfhs$11se8$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145384 |
Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: > > The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. > But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. > In my opinion Apple would not lose customers if they made RCS interoperability possible with Android. People buy Apple products not for their messaging app, but for many other features. If Google and Apple could agree on an encryption protocol — even temporarily — it would show goodwill to all their customers. Having said that, I’m glad Apple adopted some RCS functions. At least now I can see when people have read my messages (if they’ve turned that feature on) and reactions are now possible with my Android friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk0203$1pdc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145392 |
badgolferman wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:41:16 -0000 (UTC) : >> The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. >> But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. >> > > In my opinion Apple would not lose customers if they made RCS > interoperability possible with Android. People buy Apple products not for > their messaging app, but for many other features. Hi badgolferman, I can speak with you normally, where I don't have to dumb down the message. Knowing that Apple is one of the most brilliant marketing organizations in the world, and assuming Apple legal must also be the best in the world, and knowing that Apple only tells the truth in court, we can perhaps ascertain Apple's true intentions by their own executives' emails deposed in the Epic case. We've discussed those very emails on this very newsgroup in gory detail, so there's no need to repeat them other than to summarize that Apple considers interoperability outside the walled garden to be a dire threat to profits. And it is. Since we discussed this many times, you're likely well aware those Apple executives said in those published internal emails that the messaging app allowed Apple to lock people into the walled garden ecosystem - particularly - Apple execs stated - young impressionable kids whose parents buy their iPhones for them and whose parents want to give the kids what their peers ask them to have. This is, almost certainly, why some of those impressionable kids make such a big deal out of green/blue bubbles, where, ironically, these non-technical kids are surprisingly clueless that a green bubble message with Android RCS users means that the messaging is NOT encrypted. If Google and Apple could > agree on an encryption protocol - even temporarily - it would show goodwill > to all their customers. It's not Google holding it up. It's Apple. (See above reason why.) Remember, the executives publicly said interoperability petrified them. > Having said that, I'm glad Apple adopted some RCS functions. At least now I > can see when people have read my messages (if they've turned that feature > on) and reactions are now possible with my Android friends. +1. Agree. It's great that the EU is slowly forcing Apple to do things that their customers want them to do but which Apple feels decreases profits. The last thing Apple wants to do is interoperate with any other ecosystem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 19:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk03ef$2ihce$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145394 |
On 2024-12-18 18:56, Andrew wrote: > badgolferman wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:41:16 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. >>> But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. >>> >> >> In my opinion Apple would not lose customers if they made RCS >> interoperability possible with Android. People buy Apple products not for >> their messaging app, but for many other features. > > Hi badgolferman, > > I can speak with you normally, where I don't have to dumb down the message. > > Knowing that Apple is one of the most brilliant marketing organizations in > the world, and assuming Apple legal must also be the best in the world, and > knowing that Apple only tells the truth in court, we can perhaps ascertain > Apple's true intentions by their own executives' emails deposed in the Epic > case. > > We've discussed those very emails on this very newsgroup in gory detail, so > there's no need to repeat them other than to summarize that Apple considers > interoperability outside the walled garden to be a dire threat to profits. > > And it is. > > Since we discussed this many times, you're likely well aware those Apple > executives said in those published internal emails that the messaging app > allowed Apple to lock people into the walled garden ecosystem - > particularly - Apple execs stated - young impressionable kids whose parents > buy their iPhones for them and whose parents want to give the kids what > their peers ask them to have. > > This is, almost certainly, why some of those impressionable kids make such > a big deal out of green/blue bubbles, where, ironically, these > non-technical kids are surprisingly clueless that a green bubble message > with Android RCS users means that the messaging is NOT encrypted. > > If Google and Apple could >> agree on an encryption protocol - even temporarily - it would show >> goodwill >> to all their customers. > > It's not Google holding it up. It's Apple. (See above reason why.) > Remember, the executives publicly said interoperability petrified them. I love how with each repetition (of a claim you won't actually support), it gets more dramatic. "Petrified them"? Please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 10:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lskt5cF7rfiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145392 |
badgolferman, 2024-12-18 22:41: > Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> The FBI doesn't take sides so they don't mention Apple is the problem. >> But anyone with half a brain is well aware that Apple is the problem. >> > > > In my opinion Apple would not lose customers if they made RCS > interoperability possible with Android. People buy Apple products not for > their messaging app, but for many other features. If Google and Apple could > agree on an encryption protocol — even temporarily — it would show goodwill > to all their customers. On the other hand Apple customers don't care. They also don't care that FaceTime is only possible with other Apple users. In the US iOS has a market share of nearly 60% and the Android market share is declining slowly: <https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users> So in the US Apple is like Nokia was in the past. Yes, some people still use Android devices, but not the majority. It's just the worldwide market share where Android is still dominant because manufacturers can offer much cheaper devices this way. > Having said that, I’m glad Apple adopted some RCS functions. At least now I > can see when people have read my messages (if they’ve turned that feature > on) and reactions are now possible with my Android friends. ACK - I hope one day RCS with encryption will be an official standard and we can finally get rid of proprietary messengers. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk4f0p$1mik$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145408 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:53:49 +0100 : > On the other hand Apple customers don't care. They also don't care that > FaceTime is only possible with other Apple users. In the US iOS has a > market share of nearly 60% and the Android market share is declining slowly: > <https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users> Given the US is only about half Android and yet the world is overwhelmingly Android, we all need to keep in mind Apple's vaunted "walled garden" doesn't work unless you have constant 24/7/365 Internet access which most of the world may not necessarily have. The fact Apple devices have the highest overall cost of ownership and the least functionality also plays a role as only people in rich countries can afford to buy back the functionality that Apple removes from their devices. > So in the US Apple is like Nokia was in the past. Yes, some people still > use Android devices, but not the majority. It's just the worldwide > market share where Android is still dominant because manufacturers can > offer much cheaper devices this way. In other words, Apple's strategy of designing the iPhone as a dumb terminal which requires 24/7/365 Internet access to the "walled garden" coupled with Apple's strategy of removing functionality so the user has to buy it back - means only people in rich countries can afford such an abusive use model. >> Having said that, I'm glad Apple adopted some RCS functions. At least now I >> can see when people have read my messages (if they've turned that feature >> on) and reactions are now possible with my Android friends. > > ACK - I hope one day RCS with encryption will be an official standard > and we can finally get rid of proprietary messengers. Everyone wants (except Apple) seamless messaging interoperability between platforms (where Apple execs said they were "terrified" of that happening).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web