CloudTalkin

Beats said:

So Apple is obligated to give their software away now?
Someone mentioned car engines. Great analogy. Apple isn’t obligated to support iKnockoffs any more than McDonalds is obligated to offer their hamburgers(for free)  at Burger King. These arguments have no logic.

And my goodness these are the absolute worse replies in AI history.

I don’t know where to begin.

InspiredCode said:

I agree with Eddy Cur on this one. The view that Apple VPs didn’t think Apple devices could stand on their own against Android if Apple made cross-platform communication better is pretty paranoid. At least Apple seems to be moving away from this point of view with their services push taking a higher priority. If anything messages could have been a gateway in to a subscription Facebook alternative which is something everyone wants.

Android is a knockoff Apple platform with knockoff hardware to compliment it. Exclusive software and features like privacy are the only way Apple can differentiate now.

I always thought Apple could sell a subscription for knockoff iPhones/knockoff iPads at $.99/month for both FaceTime and iMessage. This would pay development, patent trolls, lawsuits(androids crappy security) etc.

CloudTalkin said:

DangDave said:

Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd. 

Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions.  No app in the Play Store has to do that.  Where'd you even get an idea like that?  The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store.  Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android.  iMessage would have been an app just like any other.  

COMPLETE BULL**IT.

One of the biggest complaints about android is having to develop for thousands of knockoff iPhones.

Can someone post the Vine where a developer shows off knockoff iPads/knockoff iPhones all reacting differently to a compass on a flat table?? That was FRUSTRATING!!


I’m gonna stop here because most of the replies don’t make sense. Like the theory that Apple giving away their apps for free would
magically make people buy iPhones. No, iTunes on Windows doesn’t count because it didn’t run on knockoff iPods from Microsoft. Even when Zune came out years later it was somewhat original and not a knockoff. Copying? Yes but not a ripoff like android is.

DangDave said:

Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd. 

urahara said:

dysamoria said:

I have absolutely taken notice of Apple’s packaging, when I buy new Apple products. It’s beautiful, and it’s also egregiously wasteful of materials. I don’t throw it away, either. When I pass the device on to someone else later in its lifespan, the box goes with it.

To this day, Apple refuses to use post-consumer recycled materials in their packaging. They act like their claim of “responsibly sourced” paper is meaningful. It means nothing more than greenwashing. “Carbon neutrality” is an insufficient goal, and it is, in many cases, already just a lie. This doesn’t even cover the unnecessary use of plastic film where reusable twist ties could be used, or just more recycled paper.

Just like religions, taking something as “sacred” tends to cause people not to question it. Apple needs to stop acting like their packaging is sacred. It’s not. It’s offensive.

It seems that you mean that other corporations do better than apple in terms of 'responsibly sourced" and "carbon neutrality'?
Please give us examples how Apple could use those companies as examples to improve.

Or maybe it seems that you are just angry and want to sound cool against apple - to sound 'offended'?

Which one is that?

StrangeDays said:

CloudTalkin said:

I don't know man.  This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing.  Right up until the moment they introduce the thing.  I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more.  Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences?  Probably.  Likely.  

It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience. 

They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.

spheric said:

CloudTalkin said:

I don't know man.  This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing.   

Typical would imply that it's a regular thing. I recall video on iPod and music subscription services as two cases in the last twenty years. That's pretty much it, though. 

And Apple were right about both: video on iPod sucked, and music subscription is a really, really shitty idea. But that ship has sailed.