davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 163
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,335
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,053
Reactions
-
Google continues to awkwardly push for iPhone RCS integration in new 'Meet iPager' video
I did not put that in. That was part of the article and I just copy and paste the part of the article that pertains to what we were discussing.gatorguy said:
Why did you stop? You were doing so good.davidw said:gatorguy said:
E2EE is E2EE. Knowing someone sent a message does not reveal the contents, unless you're claiming Google lies about the E2EE and can somehow "get their hands on that message" which was the concern of the OP. Otherwise I'm 100% correct, and no more research required.davidw said:
No, you are the one that need to do more research.gatorguy said:
They're E2EE so Google won't have their hands on them. Do your research, more facts and less hand-wringing.jimh2 said:If Apple implements please give us a way to revert to SMS when the Android losers are in a group text. I don’t want my texts flowing through Google hands.
In order to for mobile carriers to offer E2EE with RCS messaging, they have to use Google version of RCS and they HAVE to be using Jibe Mobile services. And guess who bought out Jibe Mobile about 10 years ago? Google. So don't misinform people here that Google don't have their hands on E2EE with RCS.
If Apple employs RCS as Google suggests as an additional messaging standard it will be just as secure as it is using Apple' proprietary Messages, and more secure than the fallback SMS that Apple now uses.
Don't try to mislead readers into thinking Google RCS is somehow less secure and private than Messages without evidence of it being a fact. Google can't get their hands on your messages any more than Apple can.
Well technically Apple does have more potential access to your actual messages than Google does with Google RCS messages on their platform doesn't it, if you include platform-specific cloud backups? That would be something interesting for you to look into. Your research is generally pretty good and I would love reading what you find, and I doubt I'm the only one.Even if Apple wanted to read your texts, it doesn’t have a key to unscramble those messages. (There’s a caveat in the next section about backup copies.)
But the dreaded green bubbles are Apple’s warning. If you’re in a group chat with three people using Apple’s chat app and one person on an Android phone, no one’s texts are end-to-end encrypted.<
You mentioned a caveat without expanding on it. What is it, and does that same caveat apply to backups on current Google Android phones, or even those from the past four years or so?
As for no one's chats being encrypted using Apple Messages if an Android user is part of the conversation, they could be if Apple adopted Google RCS for cross-platform messaging, and the same color warning could apply when they are not if for whatever reason some participant is using the old less-secure and less-private fallback SMS. Might you agree?
But in case you read the part in the link I provided and don't understand the "caveat" of an Apple backup into the cloud, I'm going to have to explain that to you too, so that you're not gloating over some advantage that you think Google have over Apple, concerting backups of E2EE messages.
Google automatically keeps E2EE messages encrypted with E2EE when they are backed up to the Google cloud. They have been doing this for a while. Apple on the other hand only just began to keep E2EE iMessages E2EE in iCloud, toward the end of last year. But the "caveat' with Apple is that it is an option and one has to choose that option. It is not done automatically as it is with backups of Google E2EE messages. So in the end, so long as Apple iMessage users choose to keep their E2EE messages E2EE in their iCloud backup, there is no real difference between E2EE messages backups with Google or Apple.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-is-bringing-end-to-end-encryption-to-icloud-backups-heres-what-it-means/>Apple has unveiled plans to let users choose to encrypt their iCloud backups in a move that will thwart hackers – and also put limits on law enforcement requests for user data.
The new feature, known as Advanced Data Protection for iCloud, will allow users to encrypt data on Apple's servers and thus prevent Apple itself from accessing a user's content. The new content types that support end-to-end encryption (E2EE) include iCloud backups, Notes, and Photos. <
But this is a moot point with our discussion about E2EE no longer being E2EE in a group chat, when any one of the persons in the chat is not on the same server that is hosting the E2EE. Whether on Apple iMessage or Google RCS. Once the whole chat messages loses E2EE, it no longer matter that the backups of those messages are E2EE. Apple and Google could already see those messages once E2EE was lost.
BTW- It is not as easy as you think for Apple to maintain E2EE with Google RCS as you think. In order to maintain E2EE, the E2EE message has to remain on the same server. Once it has to travel between two different companies server, it will lose E2EE. This is why RCS only have E2EE if the carriers are hosting their RCS messaging on Jibe servers. If a mobile carrier uses their own server to host their RCS messaging, then E2EE is only possible with others customers with the same mobile carrier. It would not be possible of them to offer E2EE with other mobile carrier customers that are also using their own servers or hosting their RCS messaging on Jibe Mobile servers. If Google can't make RCS E2EE between two carriers using their own servers, then what makes you think Apple can easily make iMessage on Apple servers E2EE with Google RCS on Jibe Mobile servers. And no way is Apple going to host iMessage on Jibe Mobile server.
-
Google continues to awkwardly push for iPhone RCS integration in new 'Meet iPager' video
No you are not 100% correct. The OP you responded to was not referring to Google being able to read an E2EE messages. Which you are 100% correct in that they can't.gatorguy said:
E2EE is E2EE. Knowing someone sent a message does not reveal the contents, unless you're claiming Google lies about the E2EE and can somehow "get their hands on that message" which was the concern of the OP. Otherwise I'm 100% correct, and no more research required.davidw said:
No, you are the one that need to do more research.gatorguy said:
They're E2EE so Google won't have their hands on them. Do your research, more facts and less hand-wringing.jimh2 said:If Apple implements please give us a way to revert to SMS when the Android losers are in a group text. I don’t want my texts flowing through Google hands.
In order to for mobile carriers to offer E2EE with RCS messaging, they have to use Google version of RCS and they HAVE to be using Jibe Mobile services. And guess who bought out Jibe Mobile about 10 years ago? Google. So don't misinform people here that Google don't have their hands on E2EE with RCS.
If Apple employs RCS as Google suggests as an additional messaging standard it will be just as secure as it is using Apple' proprietary Messages, and more secure than the fallback SMS that Apple now uses.
Don't try to mislead readers into thinking Google RCS is somehow less secure and private than Messages without evidence of it being a fact. Google can't get their hands on your messages any more than Apple can.
Well technically Apple does have more potential access to your actual messages than Google does with Google RCS messages on their platform doesn't it, if you include platform-specific cloud backups? That would be something interesting for you to look into. Your research is generally pretty good and I would love reading what you find, and I doubt I'm the only one.
E2EE can only happen when the sender(s) and receiver(s) are on the same server. With iMessage, E2EE is possible because the sender(s) and receiver(s) are using Apple servers. in a group chat, if any person in the chat is on Android (and using SMS), the whole chat loses E2EE. The green bubble on the iPhone informs the iMessage users that the chat is no longer E2EE for anyone in the chat.
The same is true for Google RCS chat. RCS is only E2EE if all the people in the chat are on the Jibe Mobile servers (which is now own by Google). So in a group RCS chat, if any person in the chat is not on the Jibe Mobile servers, the whole group messaging loses E2EE and the all the messaging are now in Google hands.
This was what the OP that you were responding to was referring to. Just like how if an Android user enter into a chat originated with iMessage, all the messaging loses E2EE and are in Apple hands because they are on Apple servers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/22/encryption-imessage-whatsapp-google/
>The biggest encryption caveat is for the built-in texting apps on iPhones and most Android phones in the United States. Those are Apple’s Messages app, also known as iMessage, and the Messages by Google app.If you use Apple’s app, texts that you send and receive are only end-to-end encrypted if everyone else in the chat is using that app.
If the text you see is in blue, the contents of messages are end-to-end encrypted for everyone in the chat.
Even if Apple wanted to read your texts, it doesn’t have a key to unscramble those messages. (There’s a caveat in the next section about backup copies.)
But the dreaded green bubbles are Apple’s warning. If you’re in a group chat with three people using Apple’s chat app and one person on an Android phone, no one’s texts are end-to-end encrypted.<
-
Spotify speaks out against Apple's 30% commission fee -- again
ds10 said:Spotify pays us $0.003 cents per stream when someone listens to one of our songs. 3 tenths of a cent. They make a fortune by paying such a small amount to the creators of the music. So yeah, I guess they're losing so much money to Apple's fees and that's a crime. If Apple charged less, would Spotify pass the savings on to the artists they exploit? ߤ㰟䣰藍ߤ㰟䣦lt;br>For a musician that have songs available for streaming on a streaming service, you don't seem to know how you are paid and who is paying you for your streamed songs.All the big music streaming services (Apple, Spotify, Amazon and Google) pays about the same percentage of their paid subscription revenue to the music industry. It comes to about 70% (60% for the artists royalties and 10%for the songwriters). From there, it is the music industry (labels and unions) that "pays" you. None of the big streaming services pays the artists directly, on a per stream basis. The music industry takes the 60% of subscription revenue they receive from the streamers each month and pays all the artists based on what percent of all their streamed songs were, out of all the streamed songs for that service, each month.If an artist songs was .001% of all the songs streamed from a service for that month, the artist will receive .001% of the revenue that service paid the music industry that month. So 1000 streamed songs might be .001% of the total streamed songs one month and might only .00005% the next month because Taylor Swift came out with a new album that captured 10% on all the streams that month. If the subscription revenue did not increase significantly for the month, the payout to all the other artists takes a hit, while Swift gets 10% of the total revenue received. And then you have the fact that 1000 streamed songs on one service might be .001% of the streams and with another service, 1000 stream songs might be .0015% of their total streams. It is only after receiving what ever percent of the revenue they earned for the month, that an artist can come up with how much they earned per streamed songs They were never directly "paid" on a per stream basis, by any of the big music streaming service.Now this is for paid subscription revenue. With ad supported stream songs, the pay out is much, much less as revenues from ads are far less than revenue from paid subscription. So for services like Spotify, Google and Amazon, who offer a free ad supported streaming service, their payout "per stream" are seen as less than that of Apple Music, (who don't have a free ad supported service), when those steams are entered into their mix.
-
Spotify speaks out against Apple's 30% commission fee -- again
foad said:
I totally agree. I wonder how the economics will materially change if they don’t have to pay Apple’s fees. The vast majority of their user base isn’t subscribed through the App Store and podcasts aren’t an actual success.genovelle said:
They created the loss-leader streaming model and then sold their souls to China and the record labels. Now they are complaining.foad said:Spotify chose a loss-leading industry and is scapegoating iOS. They pay less to artists, overspent on podcasting, and are using the government to coverup their poor decisions.Right now, Spotify is not paying Apple anything. Some time this year, they stopped allowing iOS Spotify customers to use their iOS app to pay for their subscriptions. And even years before this, Spotify was charging iOS Spotify customers that wanted to use their iTunes account to pay for their subscriptions, the 30% commission. So it cost $13.00 (when the subscription was $10) if iOS customers wanted pay with iTunes. In reality, Apple commission hasn't cost Spotify a dime for nearly 10 years now. And when they were charging $13 for subscriptions paid through their iOS app, (to pay for Apple 30% commission), they were charging the same $13 even if they might only have to pay a 15% commission to Apple for customers that's been subscribers for over a year. I don't ever recall Spotify charging $11.50 for customers whom they only have to pay a 15% commission.And yet that crybaby CEO of Spotify been crying about having to pay Apple 30% commission for over 10 years and going.
-
Buy an iPhone 13 mini now because it's going away tomorrow
I guess there are not enough mobile phone users, that carries a mobile phone, primarily to have a phone with them.My brother didn't upgrade his iPhone 7 until the 12 mini. He's not using his iPhone for any social network, to surf the web, play games, stream video or need to take fancy photos with a fancy camera. He owns a mobile phone to have a mobile phone, so the screen don't need to be any larger and the CPU any more powerful, than what's needed to make/receive phone calls and occasional text messaging. About the only complaint he has with his 12 mini is that it's about 1/2 inch taller (than his old 7) and this was enough to prevent him from buttoning his shirt pocket and was more prone to falling out of his pocket when bending over too far. This is where he likes to carry his iPhone (when he's wearing one of his shirts with pockets).He's been retired for quite a while now and spend most of his time at home, where he does most of his online stuff with an iPad or PC. He has upgraded his iPad and PC more often than his iPhones. When he's not at home, he has no real need to use his iPhone for anything else than a phone. When having lunch or dinner with friends, he has no need to text anyone about it on a social network and then send them an HD quality photo of the food when it arrives. His only other real needs for his iPhone are as an iPod and for Apple/Google maps. He always buy the iPhone with the max storage because he likes to avoid the iCloud and have his iTunes songs (and photos) on the device. (in fact one of his main reason for upgrading from his 7 to the 12 mini was for more storage.) He mainly connects his iPhone to his car stereo, to listen to his music while driving.It looks like he will be keeping his 12 mini until it can no longer be activated with a carrier or if Apple makes another iPhone "mini". He gave his old iPhone 7 to my wife as she also only need a mobile phone, to be a mobile phone. She had an iPhone 6s before and it looks like I might have to buy her a used 12 or 13 mini when her 7 can no longer be activated by any carriers. Like what happened to her iPhone 6s. If anything, i think Apple should keep a small form factor iPhone, even if it's in their cheaper SE line.
