CelTan

When will people understand that less privacy does not mean more safety?
I had this discussion this week twice and each time the terrorist card was played:
"If the government reading my iMessage just stops 1 terror attack then I am happy to give up my privacy!" 
Great in theory and if the magic would exist to keep it "good governments" only and if I would believe it would stop a single incident, then I may even be persuaded.

Herein lies the tri-fold issue:
1. This magic does not exist - it will get out and will get exploited. It's either total encryption or none
2. There are not so good governments, and you can't really say: Australia is nice, but I don't give it to North Korea (anybody having issues with North Korea reading their communications? 
3. Once all the big messaging providers comply, the 'bad guys' will just make their own little encryption up and load it on their android cheap phones. - IE: They can still communicate 'securely' while the rest of the 'good people' are exposed.

Funny enough the "I don't need privacy" people I talked to did not understand any of the above points.

The only feature that I don’t understand is Walkie-Talkie - having people's  watches randomly announce messages does not seem a good idea in any environment.
I set mine to absolute silent and rely on the haptic feedback to get my notifications. 

Also: messages already supports voice messages and I can listen to them at my convenience on any of my  devices. 

flaneur said:
 One semi-technical area of debate not yet covered here, or left unstated: How does your phone differ from your filing cabinet, your closet, your car, your safe -- all of which are open for inspection by investigators with a warrant?

The government can have access to my filing cabinet. 
However, if I use a cipher for all my files and the only place where the cipher is kept is my head, then the government looks at funny sounding words on paper. 

The same as the government can take my phone but not force me to remember my passcode. 

There is no security without full, complete end2end encryption. 
And as other said, as soon as it becomes public that any government can have access to all your communication, those that require privacy, like corporations and crime organisations will go for their own proprietary encryption and just make an app for communication. 

And what else should they do? "So sorry, mr. Apple, we gave those 70m cameras to... oh wait, there is nobody else that uses that high quality sensors to that scale" It could also go like this: "Sorry, Mr. Apple, we used our capacity to prioritise some cheap iCopies, would you mine coming back next quarter?" Right after that stocks plummet and people get fired for being morons. Same as the nintendo sorry, you produce for your biggest client.

Frankly. What else should publishers say?
yea we are super happy with the split, actually we would be happy to get less?

the only way to get more in a negotiation is to be unhappy with the current offer...

Hmmm. What else can Netflix say?
”oh my god we will lose 15% of our subscription base” would not send a good message to shareholders. 

Of course they will say “no problem, we good” until they aren’t. 

1) This does not fit in may office spaces where iMacs are present, often they stand on a desk with no wall behind - so I don't think this is something that will happen (soon) - unless Apple comes up with a way to project in mid-air. 2) Queue accessory makers creating snap on projection panels 😎