Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #37065 > unrolled thread

Facetime on Android

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 07:36 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2016-12-31 09:25 +0100
      Re: Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 20:17 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-31 04:07 -0500
      Re: Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 20:17 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 08:36 +0000
      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 08:58 -0500
        Re: Facetime on Android Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2017-01-06 16:20 +0100
          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 11:03 -0500
            Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-06 19:48 +0000
              Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:16 -0500
                Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-06 20:40 +0000
                  Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:48 -0500
                    Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 11:08 +0000
                      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 13:06 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 19:54 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 15:11 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 22:57 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:23 -0500
                    Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 19:54 +0000
                      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 15:11 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 21:29 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:23 -0500
                            Re: Facetime on Android tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-08 00:48 -0500
                            Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-08 17:00 +0000
                              Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-10 21:41 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#37065 — Facetime on Android

I have Android where others have Facetime.
I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37066

Am 31.12.16 um 07:36 schrieb Stijn De Jong:
> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?
>
I don't know a solution for you to get Facetime on your Android-device.

Nevertheless both platforms ar able to handle Skype and WhatsApp. You 
can even reach people on Windows-PCs, Linux- or OSX-machines.

If you don't need the camera-functionality there are a lot of other 
platform-independent solutions.

Joerg

-- 
http://www.albasani.net/index.html.de
Ein freier und kostenloser Server fuer Usenet/NetNews (NNTP)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37086

Op Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:25:51 +0100, Joerg Lorenz schreef:

> I don't know a solution for you to get Facetime on your Android-device.
> 
> Nevertheless both platforms ar able to handle Skype and WhatsApp. You 
> can even reach people on Windows-PCs, Linux- or OSX-machines.
> 
> If you don't need the camera-functionality there are a lot of other 
> platform-independent solutions.

I don't need the camera (but it would be nice) but the problem is that I
don't control the software on the recipient's side.

So I just want an android-to-facetime alternative, where facetime is the
end result on the recipient's side.

I suspect it's impossible to get Skype and WhatsApp (and the others) to
talk directly to Facetime, but there may be a gateway somewhere, which is
why I asked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37067

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 07:36:55 +0100, Stijn De Jong wrote:

> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?

See whether any of the alternatives suggested at
<http://phandroid.com/2015/02/19/how-to-facetime-on-android-alternatives/>
or
<http://www.geek.com/android/the-5-best-alternatives-to-facetime-for-android-1553276/>
can be of help. Cheers, -- tlvp 
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37085

Op Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:07:54 -0500, tlvp schreef:

> See whether any of the alternatives suggested at
> <http://phandroid.com/2015/02/19/how-to-facetime-on-android-alternatives/>

That article is confusing to me.

Reading that article, I can't tell what they're talking about.

We all already know that VOIP exists on Android, where that article lists
the following VOIP "alternatives" to facetime.
1 google hangouts
2 skype
3 viber
4 tango 
5 ooVoo
6 line
7 snapchat
8 facebook messenger 

Reading the article, I don't see how any of these solve the initial
question.

That VOIP exists was never was the question (so we can just assume that and
not say it anymore).

The question was how to make and receive from Android calls to and from an
iOS user on Facetime.

In that confusing article, when they say 'facetime', they seem to mean
"video calls" which we already know exist in droves on Android but which
aren't the question.

When they say 'facetime replacement', again, it's confusing because they
mean to use instead of facetime, which isn't the question.

> <http://www.geek.com/android/the-5-best-alternatives-to-facetime-for-android-1553276/>
> can be of help. Cheers, -- tlvp

That article discussed
1 google hangouts
2 skype
3 viber
4 tango
5 ooVoo

None seem to interface to Facetime.

I do thank you for the search but I already ran searches and I already know
about all the "alternative" solutions. 

But what I'm asking for is a gateway or tunnel into Facetime from Android.
Does that exist yet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37442

Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> wrote:
> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?
> 

Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
outside of iOS and macOS.

In order to communicate with someone on iOS or macOS you both need to use a
third party solution eg Skype or Google voice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37449

In article <o4nku8$1kp$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?
> > 
> 
> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
> outside of iOS and macOS.

apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was forced
to not do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37450

nospam wote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
>>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on Android?
>>
>> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
>> outside of iOS and macOS.
> 
> apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> forced to not do that.

Sued for what?

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37451

In article <o4ocjt$5eq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:

> >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> >>> Android?
> >>
> >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
> >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > 
> > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > forced to not do that.
> 
> Sued for what?

patent troll bullshit.

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/patent-troll-virnetx-beats-a
pple-again-awarded-302m-in-facetime-damages/>
  An East Texas jury concluded late Friday that Apple must pay a patent
  troll $302.4 million in damages for infringing two patents connected
  to Apple's FaceTime communication application.
  The verdict is the third in the long-running case in which two
  earlier verdicts were overturned‹one on appeal and the other by the
  Tyler, Texas federal judge presiding over the 6-year-long litigation.

four years ago:
<https://techcrunch.com/2012/11/07/u-s-court-orders-apple-to-pay-368-mil
lion-damages-for-facetime-patent-infringement/>
  The BBC reports that the damages award is around half the amount
  VirnetX had originally sought. It also notes that VirnetX has
  previously secured a $200m settlement from Microsoft over similar
  claims.
  The company, which has a patent portfolio of 20 U.S. and 26
  international patents, has also brought cases against Cisco, Avaya
  and Siemens for allegedly infringing the same patents.

more about the 'secure communications' here:
<http://betanews.com/2010/03/17/microsoft-loses-another-jury-verdict-thi
s-time-over-obviousness-of-vpn-patent/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37461

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <o4ocjt$5eq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
> <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> > >>> Android?
> > >>
> > >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
> > >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > > 
> > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > forced to not do that.

  But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.

> > Sued for what?
> 
> patent troll bullshit.
> 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/patent-troll-virnetx-beats-a
> pple-again-awarded-302m-in-facetime-damages/>
>   An East Texas jury concluded late Friday that Apple must pay a patent
>   troll $302.4 million in damages for infringing two patents connected
>   to Apple's FaceTime communication application.
>   The verdict is the third in the long-running case in which two
>   earlier verdicts were overturned?one on appeal and the other by the
>   Tyler, Texas federal judge presiding over the 6-year-long litigation.
> 
> four years ago:
> <https://techcrunch.com/2012/11/07/u-s-court-orders-apple-to-pay-368-mil
> lion-damages-for-facetime-patent-infringement/>
>   The BBC reports that the damages award is around half the amount
>   VirnetX had originally sought. It also notes that VirnetX has
>   previously secured a $200m settlement from Microsoft over similar
>   claims.
>   The company, which has a patent portfolio of 20 U.S. and 26
>   international patents, has also brought cases against Cisco, Avaya
>   and Siemens for allegedly infringing the same patents.
> 
> more about the 'secure communications' here:
> <http://betanews.com/2010/03/17/microsoft-loses-another-jury-verdict-thi
> s-time-over-obviousness-of-vpn-patent/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37463

In article <edaaknF8nmpU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > > >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> > > >>> Android?
> > > >>
> > > >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
> > > >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > > > 
> > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > forced to not do that.
> 
>   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.

because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
were zero (which they aren't).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37467

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <edaaknF8nmpU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > > > >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> > > > >>> Android?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made available
> > > > >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > > > > 
> > > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > > forced to not do that.
> > 
> >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> 
> because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
> were zero (which they aren't).

  I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?

  BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
stuff?

[1] Both de jure and de facto.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37468

In article <edadmkF9g1qU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > > > > >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> > > > > >>> Android?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made
> > > > > >> available
> > > > > >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > > > forced to not do that.
> > > 
> > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> > 
> > because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
> > were zero (which they aren't).
> 
>   I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
> hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?

the only walls are those *you* put up.

>   BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
> Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
> who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
> stuff?

facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
*wanted* it to be open source.

your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37504

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <edadmkF9g1qU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
>>>>>>>>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
>>>>>>>>> Android?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made
>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>> outside of iOS and macOS.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
>>>>>>> forced to not do that.
>>>> 
>>>> But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
>>>> platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
>>> 
>>> because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
>>> were zero (which they aren't).
>> 
>> I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
>> hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?
> 
> the only walls are those *you* put up.
> 
>> BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
>> Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
>> who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
>> stuff?
> 
> facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> *wanted* it to be open source.

I don't see how those two are linked? Apple can be sued regardless of the
licensing terms of the code.

What you've shown is that Apple was sued. Any evidence that Apple 'wanted'
to OSS FaceTime? It would have been an odd departure for them. Yes, they
contribute to existing OSS projects like Darwin and webkit, but they've
never afaik voluntarily open sourced their own stuff.


> your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.

The sooner the U.S. patent office is closed, the better. US patents are
just bargaining chips for the wealthiest orgs. They offer very little
protection for smaller parties.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37508

In article <o4qi7a$60p$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > 
> > facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> > *wanted* it to be open source.
> 
> I don't see how those two are linked? Apple can be sued regardless of the
> licensing terms of the code.

apple had to change it and could possibly be using something that
prevents them from doing what they originally planned. or maybe they
just said fuck it, it's not worth the hassles. who knows.

the point is that they originally planned to do it and actions of a
third party caused them to change.

> What you've shown is that Apple was sued. Any evidence that Apple 'wanted'
> to OSS FaceTime? It would have been an odd departure for them. Yes, they
> contribute to existing OSS projects like Darwin and webkit, but they've
> never afaik voluntarily open sourced their own stuff.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxf9tEXEKQ>
  "And we're going to take it all the way. We're going to the standards
  bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open
  industry standard."

> > your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> > texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> > said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> > there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.
> 
> The sooner the U.S. patent office is closed, the better. US patents are
> just bargaining chips for the wealthiest orgs. They offer very little
> protection for smaller parties.

there's no reason to close the entire patent office just because there
are some problems that need to be fixed, namely patent trolls who
*abuse* the system by buying patents and suing people. they don't make
products or use the patents for anything, other than to sue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37520

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[...]

[About FaceTime:]

> apple had to change it and could possibly be using something that
> prevents them from doing what they originally planned. or maybe they
> just said fuck it, it's not worth the hassles. who knows.
> 
> the point is that they originally planned to do it and actions of a
> third party caused them to change.

  And there we have yet another back-pedal! So your "your issue is not
with apple" comment is false and, as you now - implicitly - admit, the
issue *is* with Apple, as I/'we' said from the very beginning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37524

In article <edcvbjFslbhU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> [About FaceTime:]
> 
> > apple had to change it and could possibly be using something that
> > prevents them from doing what they originally planned. or maybe they
> > just said fuck it, it's not worth the hassles. who knows.
> > 
> > the point is that they originally planned to do it and actions of a
> > third party caused them to change.
> 
>   And there we have yet another back-pedal! So your "your issue is not
> with apple" comment is false and, as you now - implicitly - admit, the
> issue *is* with Apple, as I/'we' said from the very beginning.

the issue is not with apple. it's *entirely* with patent trolls, in
this case virnetx.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37535

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <o4qi7a$60p$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
>>> *wanted* it to be open source.
>> 
>> I don't see how those two are linked? Apple can be sued regardless of the
>> licensing terms of the code.
> 
> apple had to change it and could possibly be using something that
> prevents them from doing what they originally planned. or maybe they
> just said fuck it, it's not worth the hassles. who knows.

Waffle.

> the point is that they originally planned to do it and actions of a
> third party caused them to change.
> 
>> What you've shown is that Apple was sued. Any evidence that Apple 'wanted'
>> to OSS FaceTime? It would have been an odd departure for them. Yes, they
>> contribute to existing OSS projects like Darwin and webkit, but they've
>> never afaik voluntarily open sourced their own stuff.
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxf9tEXEKQ>
>   "And we're going to take it all the way. We're going to the standards
>   bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open
>   industry standard."

An open standard is not the same as open source. For example, Adobe acrobat
is still proprietary yet pdfs are open.

It's just another word for interoperability. Why they didn't follow through
can't have anything to do with being sued. No-one gets sued for creating an
open standard.

>>> your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
>>> texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
>>> said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
>>> there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.
>> 
>> The sooner the U.S. patent office is closed, the better. US patents are
>> just bargaining chips for the wealthiest orgs. They offer very little
>> protection for smaller parties.
> 
> there's no reason to close the entire patent office just because there
> are some problems that need to be fixed, namely patent trolls who
> *abuse* the system by buying patents and suing people. they don't make
> products or use the patents for anything, other than to sue.

If the USPO did anything more than just accept the money for each
application that would be a good start. They are complicit with the
problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37538

In article <o4rrp4$rb2$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > the point is that they originally planned to do it and actions of a
> > third party caused them to change.
> > 
> >> What you've shown is that Apple was sued. Any evidence that Apple 'wanted'
> >> to OSS FaceTime? It would have been an odd departure for them. Yes, they
> >> contribute to existing OSS projects like Darwin and webkit, but they've
> >> never afaik voluntarily open sourced their own stuff.
> > 
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxf9tEXEKQ>
> >   "And we're going to take it all the way. We're going to the standards
> >   bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open
> >   industry standard."
> 
> An open standard is not the same as open source. For example, Adobe acrobat
> is still proprietary yet pdfs are open.
> 
> It's just another word for interoperability. Why they didn't follow through
> can't have anything to do with being sued. No-one gets sued for creating an
> open standard.

it has everything to with being sued when part of the proposed standard
supposedly infringes on someone else's ip.

> >>> your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> >>> texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> >>> said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> >>> there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.
> >> 
> >> The sooner the U.S. patent office is closed, the better. US patents are
> >> just bargaining chips for the wealthiest orgs. They offer very little
> >> protection for smaller parties.
> > 
> > there's no reason to close the entire patent office just because there
> > are some problems that need to be fixed, namely patent trolls who
> > *abuse* the system by buying patents and suing people. they don't make
> > products or use the patents for anything, other than to sue.
> 
> If the USPO did anything more than just accept the money for each
> application that would be a good start. They are complicit with the
> problem.

there are a number of issues. shutting it down is definitely not the
solution because the patent system is vital to motivate people to
invent new stuff. the *abuse* needs to be stopped. proper use is a good
thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37521

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <edadmkF9g1qU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > >>> I have Android where others have Facetime.
> > > > > > >>> I suspect the answer is no but is there any way to get Facetime on
> > > > > > >>> Android?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Nope. It's Apple proprietary and no clients have been made
> > > > > > >> available
> > > > > > >> outside of iOS and macOS.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > > > > forced to not do that.
> > > > 
> > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> > > 
> > > because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
> > > were zero (which they aren't).
> > 
> >   I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
> > hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?
> 
> the only walls are those *you* put up.

  Nope, *Apple* put up those walls, or better, did not pull them down.

> >   BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
> > Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
> > who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
> > stuff?
> 
> facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> *wanted* it to be open source.

  Non sequitur! As mentioned/quoted above, it doesn't have to be open
source to be ported (by Apple):

[Rewind:]

> > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.

> your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.

  It's not 'my' issue, but *the* issue, and it *is* with Apple.

  *If* what you imply is true - which it clearly is not - Apple would
have to withdraw the iOS/OS X versions as well. Since they don't,
there's nothing which prevents them to *porting* it to other platforms.

  So please keep your baseless FUD to yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web