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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 17:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk5512$3ml19$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145434 |
On 2024-12-20 17:04, david wrote: > Using <news:vk4t1s$3li1m$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need >>> to log >>> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). >> >> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" > > You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. > That's "constant Internet access". You might CHOOSE to do that... ...but there is no NECESSITY to do that to make use of an iPhone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b9de699e92e73cd793cc843298b33f70b1fad48@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145438 |
Using <news:vk5512$3ml19$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: >>>> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need >>>> to log >>>> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). >>> >>> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" >> >> You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. >> That's "constant Internet access". > > You might CHOOSE to do that... > > ...but there is no NECESSITY to do that to make use of an iPhone. Sure 0.00000000000001% of iOS users are NOT logged into it all the time. But 99.999999999999% of iOS users are logged into Apple's servers 24/7/365. Because without being logged in 24/7/365, the walled garden doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 18:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk58bf$3nphf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145446 |
On 2024-12-20 18:13, david wrote: > Using <news:vk5512$3ml19$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>>>> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need >>>>> to log >>>>> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install >>>>> apps). >>>> >>>> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" >>> >>> You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. >>> That's "constant Internet access". >> >> You might CHOOSE to do that... >> >> ...but there is no NECESSITY to do that to make use of an iPhone. > > Sure 0.00000000000001% of iOS users are NOT logged into it all the time. > > But 99.999999999999% of iOS users are logged into Apple's servers 24/7/365. > > Because without being logged in 24/7/365, the walled garden doesn't work. I'm sorry, but that's just so much bullshit. See my other message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8177c726f151de60ca2305a0fc8666136ed6f496@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145448 |
Using <news:vk58bf$3nphf$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: >>> You might CHOOSE to do that... >>> >>> ...but there is no NECESSITY to do that to make use of an iPhone. >> >> Sure 0.00000000000001% of iOS users are NOT logged into it all the time. >> >> But 99.999999999999% of iOS users are logged into Apple's servers 24/7/365. >> >> Because without being logged in 24/7/365, the walled garden doesn't work. > > I'm sorry, but that's just so much bullshit. > > See my other message. This lying idiot doesn't even know the difference between being on the internet & logging into a specific walled-garden account on Apple servers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145446 |
david, 2024-12-21 03:13: > Using <news:vk5512$3ml19$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>>>> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need >>>>> to log >>>>> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). >>>> >>>> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" >>> >>> You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. >>> That's "constant Internet access". >> >> You might CHOOSE to do that... >> >> ...but there is no NECESSITY to do that to make use of an iPhone. > > Sure 0.00000000000001% of iOS users are NOT logged into it all the time. > > But 99.999999999999% of iOS users are logged into Apple's servers 24/7/365. > > Because without being logged in 24/7/365, the walled garden doesn't work. And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't need to be logged in all the time. So what? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5baee99b3b93efd1791556b16b9529af13ac19f4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145490 |
Using <news:lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel wrote: > And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't > need to be logged in all the time. So what? Nobody on iOS is NOT logged into Apple's servers 100% of the time. 100% of iOS users are logged into Apple servers 100% of the time. Which is why Android (not iOS) has by far the word market share. That's what The iPhone is strategically designed from the start to be a dumb terminal. It doesn't do anything useful that people like without Apple's servers. Only people in rich countries can afford to be always logged into mainframe servers just to get the device to do the basic things that people like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 12:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk797p$6o2d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145510 |
On 2024-12-21 12:35, david wrote: > Using <news:lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel wrote: > >> And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't >> need to be logged in all the time. So what? > > Nobody on iOS is NOT logged into Apple's servers 100% of the time. > 100% of iOS users are logged into Apple servers 100% of the time. Again: There is a difference between what CAN be done and what MOST people choose to do... ...Arlen. > > Which is why Android (not iOS) has by far the word market share. > That's what > > The iPhone is strategically designed from the start to be a dumb terminal. > It doesn't do anything useful that people like without Apple's servers. I've challenged you to present something I can't do on an iPhone when I'm definitely disconnected from Apple's servers... ...but you don't appear to be able to think of one. Aside from getting apps from the iOS app store of course. But you can USE those apps without being logged in. > > Only people in rich countries can afford to be always logged into mainframe > servers just to get the device to do the basic things that people like. Ah, and now we introduce another straw man!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 14:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lggl3lxr73.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145510 |
On 2024-12-21 21:35, david wrote: > Using <news:lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel wrote: > >> And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't >> need to be logged in all the time. So what? > > Nobody on iOS is NOT logged into Apple's servers 100% of the time. > 100% of iOS users are logged into Apple servers 100% of the time. > > Which is why Android (not iOS) has by far the word market share. > That's what Which is why...? Sorry, there is no logic in that statement. > > The iPhone is strategically designed from the start to be a dumb terminal. > It doesn't do anything useful that people like without Apple's servers. > > Only people in rich countries can afford to be always logged into mainframe > servers just to get the device to do the basic things that people like. Arlen? Is that you? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsumugFpk7mU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145510 |
david, 2024-12-21 21:35: > Using <news:lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel wrote: > >> And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't >> need to be logged in all the time. So what? > > Nobody on iOS is NOT logged into Apple's servers 100% of the time. > 100% of iOS users are logged into Apple servers 100% of the time. > > Which is why Android (not iOS) has by far the word market share. > That's what No, Android has the market share because the devices are damn cheap. If iPhones would also be available for less than 100 USD like many cheap Android devices, than the market share would be much higher. Most people don't care for privacy, really. Only money is important. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <imnq3lxu5g.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145562 |
On 2024-12-24 04:09, Arno Welzel wrote: > david, 2024-12-21 21:35: > >> Using <news:lso7ksFo80oU6@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel wrote: >> >>> And if you don't need the walled garden all the time, then you don't >>> need to be logged in all the time. So what? >> >> Nobody on iOS is NOT logged into Apple's servers 100% of the time. >> 100% of iOS users are logged into Apple servers 100% of the time. >> >> Which is why Android (not iOS) has by far the word market share. >> That's what > > No, Android has the market share because the devices are damn cheap. If > iPhones would also be available for less than 100 USD like many cheap > Android devices, than the market share would be much higher. > > Most people don't care for privacy, really. Only money is important. Not "only", but money is certainly important. I need a number of features, and I will not pay 600€ for them. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 18:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt2slhFfd2mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145584 |
Carlos E.R., 2024-12-24 13:57: > On 2024-12-24 04:09, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >> No, Android has the market share because the devices are damn cheap. If >> iPhones would also be available for less than 100 USD like many cheap >> Android devices, than the market share would be much higher. >> >> Most people don't care for privacy, really. Only money is important. > > Not "only", but money is certainly important. I need a number of > features, and I will not pay 600€ for them. In my experience, money is the only important thing for most people. Privacy is not important at all - otherwise companies like Apple, Microsoft or Google wouldn't be that successful. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso7jlFo80oU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145434 |
david, 2024-12-21 02:04: > Using <news:vk4t1s$3li1m$2@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need to log >>> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). >> >> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" > > You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. > That's "constant Internet access". Maybe you are - but I am not. My employers iPhone SE is *not* always logged in since I sometimes have it with me at places where there is no network available. And the device still works and still can be used as camera, music player, calculator etc.. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk796i$2h2i$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145489 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:10:31 +0100 : >> You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. >> That's "constant Internet access". > > Maybe you are - but I am not. My employers iPhone SE is *not* always > logged in since I sometimes have it with me at places where there is no > network available. And the device still works and still can be used as > camera, music player, calculator etc.. Nope. You're wrong. You know nothing about how iOS works. But see for yourself BEFORE you respond please. Try this BEFORE you respond please. 1. Log out of the iCloud, Facetime, Messages, AppStore, etc. 2. Then try to do something you like in the walled garden. You can't. Worse, the iPad will nag you until the end of time to log back in. Ask me how I know this? Eventually, after two years (on two different iPads) Apple will brick the account (again, ask me how I know this). Then you have to go to the Apple store and present your government ID. Only then will Apple unlock your account that you didn't log into. Ask me how I know all this. You know NOTHING whatsoever about this. Because you never tried logging OUT of Apple's accounts. Please TRY IT FIRST before you respond. I have so you can do it too since you're smarter than I am Arno. 1. Apple "ID Verification" prompts come up ten, twenty or more times a day. <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> 2. Apple "Sign-in to iCloud" prompts come up a dozen or more times a day. <https://i.postimg.cc/Y9kkj19v/appleid12.jpg> 3. Apple won't let you sign in even with the _correct_ login & password. <https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> 4. The Apple web site is so poorly designed it doesn't even tell you why. <https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg> 5. Eventually, as it did with one of my iPads already, Apple destroys it. <https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> 6. On my 2nd iPad, the Apple apps stop working (but everything else works!) <https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> 7. Every single day, many times a day, you're confronted with tracking crap such as this "Some account services require you to sign in again" <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> 8. Interestingly, you can update your iOS (which I almost never do) as shown here where I updated this week from iOS 13 to iOS 15 (and it let me). <https://i.postimg.cc/nLjqk2HD/osupdate03.jpg> 9. And you can wipe out your Siri recordings (due to the recent zero-day). <https://i.postimg.cc/sfZ0XP71/osupdate02.jpg> 10. Yet Apple tracking servers still require "Apple ID Verification" <https://i.postimg.cc/gj0r2cBP/osupdate01.jpg> 11. And, you can install an app, but if you delete it, you can't re-install. <https://i.postimg.cc/bJPKDSZ1/osupdate04.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> 12. In the end, if you attempt that forced validation on VPN, Apple unilaterally destroys your investment by locking you out of it forever! <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> 13. All because Apple tracking servers _require_ periodic ID verification. <https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> If you don't even *L@@K* at that proof, then you will continue to know absolutely nothing about how iOS actually works, Arno. Nothing works on iOS that you like once you log out of Apple's accounts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsun0lFpk7mU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145511 |
Andrew, 2024-12-21 21:41: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:10:31 +0100 : > >>> You're always logged in. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. >>> That's "constant Internet access". >> >> Maybe you are - but I am not. My employers iPhone SE is *not* always >> logged in since I sometimes have it with me at places where there is no >> network available. And the device still works and still can be used as >> camera, music player, calculator etc.. > > Nope. You're wrong. You know nothing about how iOS works. > But see for yourself BEFORE you respond please. > > Try this BEFORE you respond please. > > 1. Log out of the iCloud, Facetime, Messages, AppStore, etc. I can't. The device is completely controlled by my employer. I don't have access to the AppStore anyway. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso7h9Fo80oU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145430 |
david, 2024-12-20 23:58: > Using <news:VcucnXSovc9Ad_j6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant wrote: > >>> How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other >>> Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the Internet? >> >> Why would I want those when I don't want to be bothered? > > You're the one who lied about iOS not always needing internet access to use > the features locked inside Apple's walled garden (such as to install apps). > > Your iOS device does almost nothing without logging into Apple's servers. "Almost nothing"? Well - calling people on the phone is possible, taking pictures, listening to music stored on the device, checking the current time, using the calculator and *all* other apps which don't need an active internet connection to work... I would not call this "almost nothing". It's not less as with Android devices when you don't have internet access. > It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need to log > into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). Installing apps and using Apple services is just a part of the device features. You also don't need Google services all the time to use an Android device. But without *any* network connection *all* smartphones have limited functionality. So why do you consider this "almost nothing" when it comes to Apple devices? Do Android devices also do "almost nothing" without internet connection and access to Google services, just because you can't access Google Play? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk7a24$b9n$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145488 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:09:15 +0100 : >> Your iOS device does almost nothing without logging into Apple's servers. > > "Almost nothing"? Arno - I thought you knew something about Android. I thought you were smart. Not stupid. I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. But I must have been wrong. We're talking about the "walled garden" Arno. Even you should know that. > Well - calling people on the phone is possible, taking > pictures, listening to music stored on the device, checking the current > time, using the calculator and *all* other apps which don't need an > active internet connection to work... Try logging out of your Apple account and then sharing files across devices on your own LAN, Arno. Do that please BEFORE you respond 'cuz you can't. > I would not call this "almost > nothing". It's not less as with Android devices when you don't have > internet access. We're talking about the "walled garden" things you like, Arno. Log out of your many Apple accounts (iCloud, Messages, FaceTime, AppStore, etc.) and then *try* all those walled-garden things you love to do. You can't do them without being logged in 24/7/365 Arno. >> It's up to you, not me, to explain why you lied that you don't need to log >> into Apple's servers to use the walled garden (such as to install apps). > > Installing apps and using Apple services is just a part of the device > features. You also don't need Google services all the time to use an > Android device. C'mon. Even you, Arno, mut know that you do NOT need to have a Google Account set up on Android to install apps and use Google Services. If you don't know something that simple, then I gave you more credit for understanding how Android works than I should have since you're a smarter man than I am (or so I had thought). What makes you think I need to add a Google Account to my phone, for example, to check my email (even if it's a Google Email)? I don't. What makes you think I need to add a Google Account on my phone to download apps (even apps off the Google Play store)? I don't. C'mon Arno. You're not that ignorant. You must know that you *must* set up an iPhone with an account, right? And you must know that no other operating system (except Apple's) requires that account just to get the phone to do *anything* (yes, even make calls!). You can't be *that* ignorant of either Android or iOS, can you? > But without *any* network connection *all* smartphones > have limited functionality. C'mon Arno. That's something so stupid that only Alan Baker would be confused about the difference between being on the Internet and being logged into a mothership mainframe server. How can you NOT understand something so basic, Arno? I thought you were smart, Arno? I thought you knew the absolute basics Arno? You don't seem to understand that being on the Internet is not the same thing as logging into a mothership mainframe server account, Arno. Look up the difference. Use something called "google" or "duckduckgo". Ask "What is the difference between the Internet and logging into a mainframe account on a mothership server on the Internet" for example. Do that lookup BEFORE you respond Arno. Because you sound stupid claiming that the Internet is the same thing as logging into a mothership mainframe server account. Every claim you made in this post was that of a stupid ignorant person, Arno. > So why do you consider this "almost nothing" > when it comes to Apple devices? Do you even realize that you can't even "make calls" on an iPhone until you get on the Internet and log into Apple's mainframe servers, Arno? Seriously. Everything you've said shows you know NOTHING about iOS. > Do Android devices also do "almost > nothing" without internet connection and access to Google services, just > because you can't access Google Play? Arno. Seriously. I thought you knew something about Android. Yet you know NOTHING about Android. I don't have a Google Account set up on my Android phone, Arno. I've *never* had a Google Account set up on my Android phone, Arno. And I can do more than most people can do on my Android phone, Arno. For you to claim otherwise simply means you know NOTHING about Android. Stop making idiotic claims. Being on the Internet is NOT the same thing as logging into Google accounts. For you to claim they're equivalent is absurd, Arno. Learn the DIFFERENCE between these two things BEFORE you respond, Arno. 1. The Internet 2. Logging into an account on the Internet Why can't you discern there is a difference between those two things? Talking to you is like talking to Alan Baker. I thought you were smarter than he. In your response, please explain what YOU THINK is the difference between logging into a specific account on the Internet, and the Internet itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsun42Fpk7mU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145514 |
Andrew, 2024-12-21 21:56: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:09:15 +0100 : > >>> Your iOS device does almost nothing without logging into Apple's servers. >> >> "Almost nothing"? > > Arno - I thought you knew something about Android. > I thought you were smart. Not stupid. > > I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. > But I must have been wrong. No, you just don't tell what you *REALLY* mean. If you want to express "one needs to create an Apple account to use an iPhone" than say it! And don't say, that an iPhone has to PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to the internet all the time! -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkdcmb$11aa$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145564 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:03 +0100 : >> I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. >> But I must have been wrong. > > No, you just don't tell what you *REALLY* mean. > > If you want to express "one needs to create an Apple account to use an > iPhone" than say it! And don't say, that an iPhone has to PHYSICALLY > CONNECTED to the internet all the time! How is the Apple messaging going to work among other Apple users (other than plain jane sms) without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? How is Apple's facetime going to work without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? If you don't log into Apple servers, Apple will brick your account, Arno. (Ask me how I know this). And then you have to visit the Apple store with your government ID just to get Apple to let you log back in (when you had never ever logged out!). Only Apple requires you to log into their servers to use YOUR device. Nobody else. Just Apple. How is an iPhone even going to be initialized with the Internet Arno? (Only after iPhone 14 and even then only with an eSIM can you initialize an iPhone WITHOUT the Internet Arno - and even then - it's over the cellular network). The iPhone is a completely brain-dead dumb terminal if the user doesn't log into Apple servers every moment of every day of the rest of their lives. Apple designed the iPhone as a dumb terminal. No other operating system is anywhere near as brain dead as iOS is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkdkq6$1n1v9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145572 |
On 2024-12-23 20:18, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:03 +0100 : > >>> I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. >>> But I must have been wrong. >> >> No, you just don't tell what you *REALLY* mean. >> >> If you want to express "one needs to create an Apple account to use an >> iPhone" than say it! And don't say, that an iPhone has to PHYSICALLY >> CONNECTED to the internet all the time! > > How is the Apple messaging going to work among other Apple users (other > than plain jane sms) without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? How is ANY messaging service going to work without a connection to the servers that implement it? > > How is Apple's facetime going to work without logging into an Apple server > on the Internet? Same question. > > How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on > the Internet? > > If you don't log into Apple servers, Apple will brick your account, Arno. > (Ask me how I know this). You lie? > > And then you have to visit the Apple store with your government ID just to > get Apple to let you log back in (when you had never ever logged out!). > > Only Apple requires you to log into their servers to use YOUR device. > Nobody else. > > Just Apple. > > How is an iPhone even going to be initialized with the Internet Arno? > (Only after iPhone 14 and even then only with an eSIM can you initialize an > iPhone WITHOUT the Internet Arno - and even then - it's over the cellular > network). > > The iPhone is a completely brain-dead dumb terminal if the user doesn't log > into Apple servers every moment of every day of the rest of their lives. > > Apple designed the iPhone as a dumb terminal. > No other operating system is anywhere near as brain dead as iOS is. False.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsvo52F4l5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145572 |
Andrew, 2024-12-24 05:18: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:03 +0100 : > >>> I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. >>> But I must have been wrong. >> >> No, you just don't tell what you *REALLY* mean. >> >> If you want to express "one needs to create an Apple account to use an >> iPhone" than say it! And don't say, that an iPhone has to PHYSICALLY >> CONNECTED to the internet all the time! > > How is the Apple messaging going to work among other Apple users (other > than plain jane sms) without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? > > How is Apple's facetime going to work without logging into an Apple server > on the Internet? > > How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on > the Internet? It wont't. But that was not the point. I talked about using the phone at all. Even an iPhone does stop working COMPLETELY just because there is no internet. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web