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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 11:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4fpa$3jave$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145416 |
On 2024-12-20 11:02, Andrew wrote: > 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. For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the internet or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G1ednb-7Bb5NX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_rczs6s@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #145418 |
In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-12-20 11:02, Andrew wrote:
> > 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.
> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the
> internet or not.
Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed.
--
"'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 | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk4ier$1174$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145419 |
Ant wrote on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:17:36 +0000 : >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the >> internet or not. > > Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. The funny thing is Apple users are clueless that they are logging into Apple's mainframe servers 24/7/365 for all those "walled garden" goodies. Ant... could you do all of us a small favor before you respond please? 1. First, log out of iMessages, the App Store, FaceTime, iCloud, etc. 2. Then try to access all those "walled-garden" goodies you love. Tell us all how well that works out for you please. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4p3j$3javd$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145421 |
On 2024-12-20 12:01, Andrew wrote: > Ant wrote on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:17:36 +0000 : > >>> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to >>> the internet or not. >> >> Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. > > The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log > into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. This is completely false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso788Fo80oU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145421 |
Andrew, 2024-12-20 21:01: > Ant wrote on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:17:36 +0000 : > >>> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the >>> internet or not. >> >> Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. > > The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log > into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. I got an iPhone SE from my employer and can't reproduce this. Even without internet and without connection to Apple it still works. I can take pictures with it, listen to music which is stored on the device and even call people if I only have GSM without internet. So what exactly do you mean? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk7arg$15dv$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145486 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:04:26 +0100 : >> The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log >> into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. > > I got an iPhone SE from my employer and can't reproduce this. > > Even without internet and without connection to Apple it still works. I > can take pictures with it, listen to music which is stored on the device > and even call people if I only have GSM without internet. > > So what exactly do you mean? Arno, Do you know that I've been using iOS & Android for many years? Do you know that I *test* what they can and cannot do without accounts? If not, then you need to TRY it yourself. Let's take the simplest case possible, Arno. a. Buy a new iOS device b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., Apple) c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do Then let's repeat that simplest case, Arno, for all other OSs. a. Buy a new Windows or Android device b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., MS or Google) c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do Do you see a difference? Is it astoundingly huge? Why? HINT: The iOS device can't do *anything* without that mothership account. Which is why iOS owners are logged into Apple servers 24/7/365 forever. Yes. Even you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk7d6j$81b3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145518 |
On 2024-12-21 13:10, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:04:26 +0100 : > >>> The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log >>> into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. >> >> I got an iPhone SE from my employer and can't reproduce this. >> >> Even without internet and without connection to Apple it still works. I >> can take pictures with it, listen to music which is stored on the device >> and even call people if I only have GSM without internet. >> >> So what exactly do you mean? > > Arno, > > Do you know that I've been using iOS & Android for many years? > Do you know that I *test* what they can and cannot do without accounts? > > If not, then you need to TRY it yourself. > Let's take the simplest case possible, Arno. > > a. Buy a new iOS device > b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., Apple) > c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do > > Then let's repeat that simplest case, Arno, for all other OSs. > a. Buy a new Windows or Android device > b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., MS or Google) > c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do > > Do you see a difference? > Is it astoundingly huge? > > Why? > > HINT: The iOS device can't do *anything* without that mothership account. > Which is why iOS owners are logged into Apple servers 24/7/365 forever. > > Yes. Even you. I have an iPad. I've just logged out of my Apple Account (formerly called "AppleID"). It seems to be working fine. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsumr1Fpk7mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145518 |
Andrew, 2024-12-21 22:10: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:04:26 +0100 : > >>> The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log >>> into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. >> >> I got an iPhone SE from my employer and can't reproduce this. >> >> Even without internet and without connection to Apple it still works. I >> can take pictures with it, listen to music which is stored on the device >> and even call people if I only have GSM without internet. >> >> So what exactly do you mean? > > Arno, > > Do you know that I've been using iOS & Android for many years? > Do you know that I *test* what they can and cannot do without accounts? So what? I talk about using the device when not having an active connection to Apple servers and not about using it without setting up an Apple account at all. > If not, then you need to TRY it yourself. > Let's take the simplest case possible, Arno. > > a. Buy a new iOS device > b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., Apple) > c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do JFTR: I got from my employer was already configured and I do *not* have an Apple account and I can *not* use stuff like the Apple App store. So Apple seems to provide options for companies to give their employees devices but without the need for an Apple account on the device itself. > Then let's repeat that simplest case, Arno, for all other OSs. > a. Buy a new Windows or Android device > b. Do NOT create a mothership account on it (i.e., MS or Google) Which is not possible in Windows 11 nowadays without any "hacks". The default is, that Windows won't install without a "mothership account". > c. Tell us all what that device can do and cannot do > > Do you see a difference? > Is it astoundingly huge? For Windows 11: no. > Why? Because Apple wants it this way. If you don't like that, don't use the devices - problem solved. > HINT: The iOS device can't do *anything* without that mothership account. > Which is why iOS owners are logged into Apple servers 24/7/365 forever. It depends what you define as "logged into Apple servers". > Yes. Even you. No, not me personally - see above, I don't have a personal Apple account on the device which I got from my employer and can't even install apps there. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 09:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vke0mp$8bq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145561 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:07:13 +0100 : > Because Apple wants it this way. If you don't like that, don't use the > devices - problem solved. With that idiotic statement, you're completely misunderstanding the point. I have plenty of Apple devices. Jesus. It's not about liking it or not. I have them because I test them. They are what they are. I understand them. And what they are, is clearly they're designed to be very dumb terminals. Devoid of any useful functionality without logging into Apple servers. You can't deny nearly 100% of iOS owners are always logged into Apple servers, nor that most of the walled garden is inside those Apple servers. Which means Apple tracks *everything* you do on those devices. Think about that. It's reality. Not marketing bullshit. Please don't be like Apple trolls like Alan Baker who have an IQ of 40. They *love* Apple devices (which is fine); but they know nothing about them The fact I know about Apple devices doesn't mean I have to like them. Or not like them. That's immaterial. What matters is that what I say about them almost nobody knows. Because nobody thinks about how the Apple ecosystem is designed. An iPhone is designed to be a dumb terminal which suits Apple's profits. That's just a fact. If you're ignorant of the fact that people are constantly logged into Apple's mainframe tracking servers, then you need to learn that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsvnkqF4l5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145578 |
Andrew, 2024-12-24 10:59: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:07:13 +0100 : > >> Because Apple wants it this way. If you don't like that, don't use the >> devices - problem solved. > > With that idiotic statement, you're completely misunderstanding the point. Ok, then you don't care for this requirement and it is fine for you - problem solved. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkf1g3$31ib$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145580 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:27:06 +0100 :
>> With that idiotic statement, you're completely misunderstanding the point.
>
> Ok, then you don't care for this requirement and it is fine for you -
> problem solved.
This is a technical group, is it not?
There is no "problem" to solve other than to UNDERSTAND what Apple does.
The "problem" is only one out of a million people UNDERSTANDs Apple.
Because most people are incredibly ignorant about what Apple does.
You keep misunderstanding that it's not about whether I care or not.
It's not about whether I can solve all of Apple's problems or not either.
_It's about *U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G* what Apple is._
Most people don't understand what Apple is because they only know what
Apple advertises - but they don't actually UNDERSTAND what Apple does.
Apple designs the iPhone as a dumb terminal which requires 24/7/365
constant access to Apple's mainframe servers to do stuff people do.
Even if most people do not understand that rather astute observation,
nobody can deny that almost every one of the billions of Apple iPhone
owners is constantly logged into the Apple servers 24/7/365.
Why is that a fact?
Think about the answer to that sagacious question before you respond.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 18:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt2sefFfd2mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145591 |
Andrew, 2024-12-24 20:19: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:27:06 +0100 : > >>> With that idiotic statement, you're completely misunderstanding the point. >> >> Ok, then you don't care for this requirement and it is fine for you - >> problem solved. > > This is a technical group, is it not? No, not all of the groups where you crosspost, are a "technical group". > There is no "problem" to solve other than to UNDERSTAND what Apple does. What Apple does should be well known. They've been doing this now for more than 15 years. So why did you bring this up at all if you don't have a problem with it? > The "problem" is only one out of a million people UNDERSTANDs Apple. > Because most people are incredibly ignorant about what Apple does. People are ignorant about EVERYTHING and not just Apple. Nearly ALL companies do this. Google Play Services are a requirement(!) for many apps. Microsoft 365 also requires(!) an online account. [...] > Even if most people do not understand that rather astute observation, > nobody can deny that almost every one of the billions of Apple iPhone > owners is constantly logged into the Apple servers 24/7/365. Same as with Microsoft, Google and WhatsApp and a dozen other services. That's how business works today. Welcome to the present, welcome to capitalism. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkhhnp$8s4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145596 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 25 Dec 2024 18:07:27 +0100 : >> There is no "problem" to solve other than to UNDERSTAND what Apple does. > > What Apple does should be well known. Agree - but there are many people on the Apple newsgroups who are clueless. All they know is the propaganda Apple feeds them to believe. > They've been doing this now for more than 15 years. Agree. For example, Apple's strategy of not providing external memory hardware is likely designed to feed iCloud storage subscriptions. > So why did you bring this up at all if you don't have a problem with it? I didn't bring it up. You did. I politely responded to what you brought up. >> The "problem" is only one out of a million people UNDERSTANDs Apple. >> Because most people are incredibly ignorant about what Apple does. > > People are ignorant about EVERYTHING and not just Apple. Agree. For example, some people think gravity is a force. They're stupid. <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=why+is+gravity+not+a+force&ia=web> > Nearly ALL companies do this. Agree; luckily for Android, Google doesn't require an account on the device for the device to work perfectly fine. Everyone knows this to be a fact. > Google Play Services are a requirement(!) for many apps. Agree that <com.google.android.gms> is a requirement for many Android apps; but that's not the same thing as the device requiring a mothership account. Only Apple devices require a mothership account just to activate them. From your comments, I'm slowly realizing you don't appear to understand there is a difference between an operating system versus apps on it. > Microsoft 365 also requires(!) an online account. One of us doesn't understand what "Microsoft 365" is if you say that. <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=what+is+microsoft+365> I'm slowly realizing you don't know the difference between an operating system versus a suite of software that runs on that operating system. >> Even if most people do not understand that rather astute observation, >> nobody can deny that almost every one of the billions of Apple iPhone >> owners is constantly logged into the Apple servers 24/7/365. > > Same as with Microsoft, Google and WhatsApp and a dozen other services. Again, the reason you don't appear to understand how operating systems work is your statements show you've never been taught that there is a difference between what an operating system is, versus what an app running on it is. Please look up what an "operating system" is before responding. Thanks! <https://duckduckgo.com/&q=what+is+the+difference+between+an+os+vs+an+app+that+runs+on+that+os> Please respond only when you figure out that an operating system isn't the same thing as the apps that run on that operating system. This is key to understanding that only the Apple iOS operating system requires you to be on the Internet to activate just to boot to it. Nobody else. Just Apple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 01:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt3m0iFj6f8U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145600 |
Andrew, 2024-12-25 19:08: > Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 25 Dec 2024 18:07:27 +0100 : > >>> There is no "problem" to solve other than to UNDERSTAND what Apple does. >> >> What Apple does should be well known. > > Agree - but there are many people on the Apple newsgroups who are clueless. > All they know is the propaganda Apple feeds them to believe. > >> They've been doing this now for more than 15 years. > > Agree. For example, Apple's strategy of not providing external memory > hardware is likely designed to feed iCloud storage subscriptions. > >> So why did you bring this up at all if you don't have a problem with it? > > I didn't bring it up. You did. I politely responded to what you brought up. Nope. You startet this in message <vk4ier$1174$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>: Quote: The iPhone is a dumb terminal - devoid of functionality if you don't log into the Apple mainframe servers 24/7/365 just for basic functionality. The funny thing is Apple users are clueless that they are logging into Apple's mainframe servers 24/7/365 for all those "walled garden" goodies. (End of quote) > >>> The "problem" is only one out of a million people UNDERSTANDs Apple. >>> Because most people are incredibly ignorant about what Apple does. >> >> People are ignorant about EVERYTHING and not just Apple. > > Agree. For example, some people think gravity is a force. They're stupid. > <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=why+is+gravity+not+a+force&ia=web> > >> Nearly ALL companies do this. > > Agree; luckily for Android, Google doesn't require an account on the device > for the device to work perfectly fine. Everyone knows this to be a fact. It depends on how you define "work perfectly fine". Many apps and services do *not* work without a Google account on the device since they *require* Google Play Services. >> Google Play Services are a requirement(!) for many apps. > > Agree that <com.google.android.gms> is a requirement for many Android apps; > but that's not the same thing as the device requiring a mothership account. Which makes not a big difference. And com.google.android.gms is not the only requirement, there are lot more services which apps need, depending on what the app does. And good luck getting Google Wallet or banking apps running without a Google Account. > Only Apple devices require a mothership account just to activate them. So what? > From your comments, I'm slowly realizing you don't appear to understand > there is a difference between an operating system versus apps on it. And from your comments I believe you don't understand that this makes no difference. When users need an account and online services to be able to use something, then it does not matter, if that requirement comes from the OS or the apps or both - in the end you still need the online account and services. Most users *will* need a Google account for their Android smartphones since they *need* certain apps - e.g. banking apps which will not work without Google Play services. So it does not matter, if the device itself may work without an account - in the end you still need it. Yes, with microG you may provide this without the need of an "official" Android but with using e/OS/ or similar - but you still need to create and use a Google account for certain apps. >> Microsoft 365 also requires(!) an online account. > > One of us doesn't understand what "Microsoft 365" is if you say that. > <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=what+is+microsoft+365> I work in a company where Microsoft 365 and Azure Cloud Clients and Azure Desktop get implemented for thousands of employees. What is your professional experience with that? > I'm slowly realizing you don't know the difference between an operating > system versus a suite of software that runs on that operating system. I wouldn't be so sure about this: <https://github.com/arnowelzel/> -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac454e2a8510e5c7a05b14c25d605d52bbb822a1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145419 |
Using <news:G1ednb-7Bb5NX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_rczs6s@earthlink.com>, Ant wrote: >>>> 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. > >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the >> internet or not. > > Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 13:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4pc3$3jave$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145423 |
On 2024-12-20 12:50, david wrote: > Using <news:G1ednb-7Bb5NX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_rczs6s@earthlink.com>, Ant wrote: > >>>>> 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. >> >>> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to >>> the internet or not. >> >> Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. > > 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? How can ANY smartphone do something that is INHERENTLY between different devices without network access. That's not the same as claiming it's a "dumb terminal" without network access. Looking at my home screen: I can have on-phone contacts. On-phone notes On-phone reminders The camera still takes pictures, and I can still view and edit them in Photos. My calculator still calculates. The clock still tells time. My on-phone music still plays. And there are loads more apps and functionality that-- while requiring internet access --in no way depend on being logged into ANYTHING Apple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VcucnXSovc9Ad_j6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #145423 |
In misc.phone.mobile.iphone david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
> Using <news:G1ednb-7Bb5NX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_rczs6s@earthlink.com>, Ant wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >
> >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the
> >> internet or not.
> >
> > Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed.
> 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?
--
"'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 | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2af3c8a2acec02b0176595ce3795478098fa2e2a@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145429 |
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. 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 15:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4t1s$3li1m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145430 |
On 2024-12-20 14:58, david wrote: > 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). The claim was: "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" > > Your iOS device does almost nothing without logging into Apple's servers. > > 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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <569ee34268f1bec75dd875ab3182119017406f0f@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145431 |
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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web