davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,770
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,202
Reactions
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Why would Google want to pay for securing WhatsApp or Facebook messages, and supply the servers and infrastructure to do so? I'm sure it's expensive enough to give it to Google and Samsung Message users for free. Google doesn't want to do this forever,, and as a member of the GSMA standards group have tried to push E2EE as a part of the RCS standard. What's one reason they're fully supporting and integrating the proposed MessageLayerSecurity standard, while still working with GSMA to integrate E2EE into the RCS standard. MLS brings cross-platform and cross-app E2EE security. and won't require Google maintain servers to do what the carriers would not.davidw said:gatorguy said:
Google cared because they wanted to offer private and secure messaging for the not-Apple community and no one else was willing to take on the effort and expense. Now that Google figured out how to offer it all over the world, and developed the structure and support, the carriers want in too. Nothing prevented it before except for those carriers doing what they could to maintain control over it to the detriment of consumers.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.If Google was the least bit concern about the privacy and security of the not-Apple community messaging services, they would allow all Android messaging services to offer Google RCS with E2EE. But Google don't want Android messaging services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram others to be able offer Google RCS with E2EE because this would mean Android users could use any Android messaging service to open Google RCS E2EE messages that their carrier has adopted. Google only wants Google Messages to have E2EE with RCS and that's the way it is now.
If GSMA continues to drag their heels as they have for years, Google has covered their bases by already supporting MLS in addition to their own flavor of E2EE RCS.
Why wouldn't they (want to pay for the cost of other messaging service to adopt E2EE with RCS). Google is paying most of the cost for the telecoms (that are dragging their feet), to easily adopt RCS, by hosting their RCS messaging on Googles servers. You don't think it's costing Google anything to do this? So even you must admit that Google wants Android users to use Google Messages and this is their main goal. Not their concern about Android users privacy or security. Which they can have by using other messaging services. The more telecom companies that adopts RCS, the more Android phones will come with Google Messages as the default messaging service, if the telecoms wants to offer Google RCS with E2EE with their service.
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Google cannot collect user data from Google Messages RCS. End of story. So yeah, you made that part up.chasm said:
Oh, let me clarify that for you. Google wants to a) collect data from messages, and b) push rich advertising into messages, which of course they would benefit from.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.I didn’t make this up — it’s been referred to in previous articles talking about Google’s version of RCS. Apple would never allow crap like that, so Google was never going to get Apple to adopt their version of RCS.I am actually starting to feel bad for Android users, because if Google gets its way their experience in messaging is about to get a lot crappier.
Can RCS be used for delivering rich media which could include advertising? Yup, but that's not a Google exclusive.You're the one making things up. We went through this once before and you are still so blindly loyal to Google that you don't want to see what is plainly clear for everyone else.Google E2EE with their version of RCS, can only exist if both the sender and receiver are using Google Messages. All Google Messages uses Google servers and this is what allows Google version of RCS to have E2EE. Much like how all iMessage users are all using Apple servers and WhatsApp users are all using WhatsApp servers. If either the sender or receiver are not using Google Messages, the message is no longer E2EE. Even Google Messages will default to SMS, so the receiver can still get the text message. And this will most likely happen in a group chat where if one of the person in the chat is not using Google Messages, the whole chat is no longer E2EE for anyone in it. So to say that Google can not collect users data from Google Messages is making things up. You can't possibly believe that Google can not collect users data from unencrypted messages, that they are hosting on their own servers.This is why when Apple adopts RCS, there will still be no E2EE between iMessage and Google Messager. They exist on two different companies servers and uses different protocol. Google RCS E2EE is not a standard. And neither is Apple iMessage E2EE. However, when Apple adopts RCS, both iMessage users and Google Messages user will be able to text each other using the standard RCS. Much like how they can text each other using SMS now. And both Apple and Google can collect users data. But it's mainly Google collecting users data that is the concern for most. And you can bet that if the telecoms adopts a standard E2EE protocol, Google will not be all too happy, as once that happens as Android users no longer be locked into using Google Messages to receive RCS messages that are E2EE. Once E2EE protocol is a standard, it will be avialable for every messaging service to use. Which is what Apple is waiting for.
-
Apple's flavor of RCS won't support Google's end-to-end encryption extension
gatorguy said:
Google cared because they wanted to offer private and secure messaging for the not-Apple community and no one else was willing to take on the effort and expense. Now that Google figured out how to offer it all over the world, and developed the structure and support, the carriers want in too. Nothing prevented it before except for those carriers doing what they could to maintain control over it to the detriment of consumers.Anilu_777 said:I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google.That is not the reason at all and not even close. The not-Apple community have plenty of choices of messaging services that are secure and private with E2EE. And many of them have more features than Google RCS, are free to use and works with-in the Apple community. Google is not offering anything to the not-Apple community, that are not already available to them, for years now.What Google wants is for Android users to use Google Messages as their goto messaging service. Right now, only Google Messages offer RCS with E2EE using Google version of RCS. Google have not allow any other Android messaging service, except Samsung through a special deal, to have E2EE using Google version of RCS. That the E2EE protocol is not included in Open Source Android because Google version of RCS is not a standard with-in the telecommunication community. RCS is a standard and the telecommunication community have not yet standardized E2EE. The only way for the telecommunication community to offer E2EE with RCS is to use Google servers to host their RCS messages. And only Google Messages is capable of E2EE with RCS. Which would mean that any telecommunication company that wants to offer RCS with E2EE, must use Google Messages as the default client messaging app on all Android phones. Even their own messaging app would not have E2EE and Google Messages will still handle SMS.If Google was the least bit concern about the privacy and security of the not-Apple community messaging services, they would allow all Android messaging services to offer Google RCS with E2EE. But Google don't want Android messaging services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram others to be able offer Google RCS with E2EE because this would mean Android users could use any Android messaging service to open Google RCS E2EE messages that their carrier has adopted. Google only wants Google Messages to have E2EE with RCS and that's the way it is now.Even with as many telecom companies that have adopted Google version of RCS, SMS is still the telecom standard. And even now, with all telecoms that have adopted Google RCS, more messages are sent by SMS that RCS. This because SMS is a true standard that is on every mobile phone. Doctors sending a reminder to patients about an appointment do not have to worry about which messaging service to use, in order for their patients to receive the reminder. Send it SMS and they will receive it with the messaging app that comes preinstalled with every mobile phone connected to a carrier network. Even an iPhone. No need to use any other messaging app. Walgreens don't need to learn how to send text messages with all the popular messaging services, in order to send a simple text message that a prescription is ready to be picked up.SMS is siill a big money maker for the telecoms. SMS is still being vastly used by businesses to reach as many mobile phone owners as possible with advertisiing or simple messages. Most don't need any more what SMS offers. SMS will be the standard for many more years because the telecoms don't want to lose the revenue SMS stills brings in, because to Google wants to offer RCS to everyone, for free.
-
Apple to pay $25 million settlement over illegally favoring immigrant workers
This article only makes sense if one is to use the terminology with regards to immigration status in the US provided by this .......
https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/immigration/nonimmigrantvsimmigrant-status
So all of those that thinks "immigrant" means citizens of another country that are working here in the US on a temp work visa, are wrong.
An "immigrant" as defined by the DoJ are those legally living in the US that are not citizens. Non US citizens that marries a US citizen and living in the US, are considered immigrants and can remain in the US as long as they stayed married. They are not considered here on a temporary basis. Green card holders are "immigrants" that have obtain a green card and have permanent resident status. but not yet obtain citizenship.
>Apple has agreed to settle claims made by the U.S. Department of Justice that the company had illegally favored hiring immigrant workers over citizens or green card holders.<
If that statement is correct then Apple is accused of hiring people that are living in the US legally but have not yet obtain a green card over immigrants that have obtain a green card and those that are US citizens. In other words, over people that are living in the US permanently. Once again, nothing to do with hiring non citizens on a temp visa basis.
>Laws surrounding hiring practices and labor discrimination are complex, and Apple claims to have unintentionally not been following a certain standard. The company is known for hiring a diverse workforce, but the latest violation is due to inadequate attempts to hire permanent citizens.<
That probably should read .... permanent residents. US citizenship is permanent, no matter if born here or naturalized. Green card holders are not citizens. They are considered immigrants with permanent resident status, who has not yet obtained US citizenship. And there are Federal and State laws against employers requiring that only US citizens can apply for the job, where the job do not require one to be a US citizen. So long as they are legally living in the US and allowed to work.
>A program called the permanent labor certification, or PERM program, requires companies to prioritize and hire permanent residents. Only after a certification process with the Department of Labor and US Citizenship and Immigration Services is complete, in which a company proves there aren't enough US workers available, can companies like Apple prioritize hiring immigrants.<
If this statement is correct, then all those that thinks it's about Apple hiring non citizens by way of temp visas, are wrong. The statement, if correct, means that the DoJ is requiring Apple to prioritizing hiring applicants that are living in the US on a permanent basis (either by citizenship or a green card) vs those living in the US with just an immigrant status. Nothing about Apple hiring non US citizens under a temp work visa (nonimmigrant status).
>"We have implemented a robust remediation plan to comply with the requirements of various government agencies as we continue to hire American workers and grow in the U.S.," Apple said.<This is correct as citizens, green card holders and immigrants are considered American workers. Apple in not being accused of hiring nonimmigrants, who are considered non American workers, over immigrants, green card holders and US citizens.Edit: Just read up the PERM Program and that statement is wrong. It should read ........ Apple prioritizing hiring foreign workers, not immigrants.
-
How Steve Jobs saved Apple with the online Apple Store
I got an interesting AAPL investor story regarding my memories of the original Apple Online Store.When I first bought AAPL about when Jobs returned, I was monitoring various AAPL online investor boards. Right off hand I can't remember which one this is about. It was maybe either SilconInvestor or Yahoo Finance community AAPL board. But anyway, there was a poster on one of these that went by the name of "FUBAR" and he devised a simple way of predicting Apple quarter;y earnings by using a rather quirky aspect of the original Apple Online Store.What he discovered, about a year after the Apple Online store opened, was that their numbered invoices were in sequence as though from a single pad of numbered invoice forms. Like what one might expect from a small mom and pop store. So by having several invoices from the beginning of each quarter and at the end of each quarter, he had a good idea of how many sales were made from the online store in the quarter. So he created an Excel spreadsheet to graph out the numbers of sales in each quarter and requested the AAPL investor community to summit any invoice number and the date of the invoice, for any purchases made since the online store opened.With that data on hand, he was able to graph out the number of sales in each of the past quarters. And back then, Apple revealed their online store sales revenue with each quarterly report and Apple Online Store revenue was a major part of their total quarterly revenue. So now "FUBAR" also knew the online store revenue generated in each of the past quarters and he calculated a fairly accurate average of how much each invoice generated in revenue. Along with any growth from quarter to quarter.So at the beginning and end of each quarter, several members would make sure to plan on buying something they need (of have a friend buy something) from the online store to get the needed invoice numbers. So by knowing how many sales were made in the quarter and using the average amount of the sales per invoice from past quarters (along with any growth rate), he accurately predicted whether Apple would miss, meet or beat estimates. Or if Apple was going to blow out the quarterly estimates. This went on for couple of years until Apple opened their brick and mortar store in 2001. When that happened, Apple changed the way invoices were numbered and they could no longer be used it to predict the number of sales each quarter anyways, as more and more sales were made in Apple brick and mortar stores.As a long term investor, it really didn't matter to me about "FUBAR" quarterly earnings predictions, (as accurate as they were), but it was still fun to see how they turn out every quarter. But I could image the day traders among the forum, making quite a bit by trading AAPL based on those predictions.
