auxio

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

luxuriant said:

I understood that Apple's implementation of RCS won't initially do E2E encryption, as it's not part of the official standard, but, rather, a Google-proprietary add-on for Android. Apple says it will work to get some form of E2E encryption (maybe not Google's) into the standard, at which point it will implement it. If my information's out-of-date or incorrect, please put me right!

Apple made one comment about it, and it was not a clear commitment to getting encryption added to the RCS standard. Their comment only referred to improving the security of RCS and working with "GSMA members" to do so, not necessarily doing so within the GSMA standards group nor making it end-to-end encryption. In essence, they stopped short of committing, and as far as I know, they have not made a comment since.

Google, for their part, has tried working with GSMA for nearly a decade to set an E2EE standard, to no avail. Google had to take it upon itself to enable it for the benefit of Google Android users.

E2EE isn't on the GSMA priority list based on appearances, and I don't know why Apple would be encouraging it either since it would make RCS as a service across all providers as private and secure as iMessage and thus cost them a marketing point. 

And let's put all the information out on the table to avoid marketing bias. Google's implementation of E2EE is proprietary to Android, and thus isn't completely open for anyone to use either. So it's using the same marketing point against competing Linux-based phones.

Well, of course it is. GSMA won't implement it, so Google can do what it can at its own expense or wait. I can just about guarantee that if GSMA makes it a requirement in the standard, Google won't hesitate to drop committing its own servers and money to the "proprietary to Android" version. There's no love in covering at their response for what the GSMA and carriers should be doing.

Only one of the two duopolists considers E2EE to be a competitive advantage, and may not want to see it enabled on RCS. 

So why didn't they make it open source/open protocol and allow Linux-based phone manufacturers to be interoperable?

On Google servers at Google's expense? 

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

luxuriant said:

I understood that Apple's implementation of RCS won't initially do E2E encryption, as it's not part of the official standard, but, rather, a Google-proprietary add-on for Android. Apple says it will work to get some form of E2E encryption (maybe not Google's) into the standard, at which point it will implement it. If my information's out-of-date or incorrect, please put me right!

Apple made one comment about it, and it was not a clear commitment to getting encryption added to the RCS standard. Their comment only referred to improving the security of RCS and working with "GSMA members" to do so, not necessarily doing so within the GSMA standards group nor making it end-to-end encryption. In essence, they stopped short of committing, and as far as I know, they have not made a comment since.

Google, for their part, has tried working with GSMA for nearly a decade to set an E2EE standard, to no avail. Google had to take it upon itself to enable it for the benefit of Google Android users.

E2EE isn't on the GSMA priority list based on appearances, and I don't know why Apple would be encouraging it either since it would make RCS as a service across all providers as private and secure as iMessage and thus cost them a marketing point. 

And let's put all the information out on the table to avoid marketing bias. Google's implementation of E2EE is proprietary to Android, and thus isn't completely open for anyone to use either. So it's using the same marketing point against competing Linux-based phones.

Well, of course it is. GSMA won't implement it, so Google can do what it can at its own expense or wait. I can just about guarantee that if GSMA makes it a requirement in the standard, Google won't hesitate to drop committing its own servers and money to the "proprietary to Android" version. There's no love in covering at their response for what the GSMA and carriers should be doing.

Only one of the two duopolists considers E2EE to be a competitive advantage, and may not want to see it enabled on RCS. 

gatorguy said:

luxuriant said:

I understood that Apple's implementation of RCS won't initially do E2E encryption, as it's not part of the official standard, but, rather, a Google-proprietary add-on for Android. Apple says it will work to get some form of E2E encryption (maybe not Google's) into the standard, at which point it will implement it. If my information's out-of-date or incorrect, please put me right!

Apple made one comment about it, and it was not a clear commitment to getting encryption added to the RCS standard. Their comment only referred to improving the security of RCS and working with "GSMA members" to do so, not necessarily doing so within the GSMA standards group nor making it end-to-end encryption. In essence, they stopped short of committing, and as far as I know, they have not made a comment since.

Google, for their part, has tried working with GSMA for nearly a decade to set an E2EE standard, to no avail. Google had to take it upon itself to enable it for the benefit of Google Android users.

E2EE isn't on the GSMA priority list based on appearances, and I don't know why Apple would be encouraging it either since it would make RCS as a service across all providers as private and secure as iMessage and thus cost them a marketing point. 

charlesn said:

Thank god they're trimming the bezels by 2/100ths of an inch! That extra half millimeter on my 15 Pro has been keeping me up nights. But hey... NEVER underestimate Apple Marketing's ability to make the seemingly insignificant the key, must-have feature. They'll probably brand these as "Magic Bezels" and hire David Copperfield to do a cheeky testimonial that even he can't explain how Apple made them disappear. 

nubus said:

I'm tired of gatekeepers breaking business models as they please. Meta/Facebook completely removed Groups API with v19.0 and with that integrations and companies that had built plugins around that API (https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/05/meta-cuts-off-third-party-access-to-facebook-groups-leaving-developers-and-customers-in-disarray/) 

We have Google planning to deprecate some cookies. Not to limit tracking but to force companies to do tracking through Google Advertising Manager with PPID.

And we have Apple being so tired of creators that editing the products from publishers is fine with Apple. 

Content can be financed either by ads and/or by paywall. Removing ads without paying is stealing. Surely there must be legal limitations to tracking etc. and users should have the option to avoid tracking by paying. But to let customers skip payment and modify products shouldn't be allowed. And yes... the first digital device from Jobs/Woz allowed people to call long distance without paying. To see something similar from Apple today is not OK.