Xed

Madbum said:

jblongz said:

II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment.  Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app.  It does seem unfair.

Sweeney and his company is owned by the Chinese communists.

The Chinese communists argument has been stated 3x already and two of them were by you. We get it.

darkvader said:

This IS Apple's fault.

When iMessage was introduced, Apple promised to open source it as a standard.

Apple failed to ever do so.  Had they done what they promised, RCS would never have existed.

No, they didn't.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt—which I probably shouldn't as I've seen your other posts—you might be confusing iMessage with FaceTime. At the 2010 WWDC Steve Jobs did say that FaceTime would be open. That never happened, and it can't since it uses protocols owned by the patent troll VirnetX, a court case from the Eastern District of Texas.

www.www.www.com said:

roundaboutnow said:

www.www.www.com said:

roundaboutnow said:

www.www.www.com said:

RCS is now the standard for all Android phones, so it's wrong to say that Android users can't share high-res images by default.

Sure, RCS isn't perfect and is still mid-adoption, but you say it's not the solution to fixing cross-platform messaging without offering any other options. What would you rather see happen to improve how iOS and Android communicate? It's easy to criticize, but you don't seem to have a better solution to offer.

One thing in the article could be made more clear. FTA:
Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.

I don't want to speak for the author, but from the above, it appears that the author did not mean to say Android users can't share high-res images by default at all, but rather it is the combination of multiple features that represents the "same benefit" that other platforms have that Android users don't have.

Also, it's not the author's responsibility to offer a better solution. Reporting the facts are, which I believe has been done in this article.

If the author is going to state, as a fact, that RCS isn't the answer, then he should tell us what the answer is. Otherwise it's just his opinion.

Pointing out why something doesn't work does not require saying what does work. End of story.

He never points out why RCS wouldn't work.

His argument is that Apple shouldn't adopt RCS because Google has made their own extensions to the Universal Profile, other apps have similar features (???),  and because it's not on every Android phone yet or integrated into every Google service.

None of those are actually reasons why Apple shouldn't adopt RCS, especially since Google has offered to help Apple get feature parity between Google's extensions and a possible Apple implementation.

I'd say that a current lack of end-to-end (E2E) encryption is one reason why Apple should include RCS into their Messages app. You might want to respond saying that it already exists—which is does if you look at specific RCS profiles and without looking at group chat features or whether someone has that disabled. I think that E2E encryption is a necessary attribute for modern messaging, not simply an option feature.

Would there be benefits to  Apple's customer base if RCS was adopted instead of just SMS? Of course, as most of us do interact with people with green bubbles. but there are definitely downfalls, as well as many difficult pitfalls for Apple for trying to shoehorn many competing and half-baked standards into a single something that just works.

Have you asked yourself why Google wants Apple to support this? At the very least they want Apple to support it so that it becomes popular. Do you think it's fair for Google to pressure another company into paying a lot of money writing and testing code so that another can benefit off their branding? Why not first make RCS good, safe, and popular amongst Android users. If that happens, then I think Apple will have no choice but to adopt it, but not the other way around. If you build it, they will come.

DAalseth said:

Xed said:

This individual isn't mentally sounds and needs a conservatorship.

Reminds me of Howard Hughes in the last few years. Mad as a hatter, but able to afford enough attorneys and toadies to cover over his behaviour and to allow him to not get the mental help he desperately needs. I suspect that West will end up the same way Hughes did. 

I agree with Trevor Noah on this. We can laugh, but at the core this is someone with mental health issues getting a platform instead of the help they need, which is unfortunate.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thedailyshow/video/7156940792953654570

The problem with catering to mentally ill individuals with wealth is there are rarely any people in their lives that aren't simply out for their money. Besides West and Hughes, another prominent example is Sarah Winchester. That house is very close to Apple's HQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House

On the other side of the spectrum, but still the same catalyst, is when predatory people with power and wealth are being protected by others for personal gain. R. Kelly comes to mind. This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58556274

JP234 said:

The storage upgrade would only be worth it if it could be used for downloads (which it doesn't), versus just adding more apps. 128GB would support thousands of apps. Who needs that many?

I've never understood the capacity difference in the Apple TV once they went with this one factor. I've gone with the lowest capacity and have never come close to maxing it out.