108
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
108 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37739 readers
578 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why? As the article states this actually lessens security for everyone (including iPhone users).
Imagine that! The founder of the company that was denied access to Apple for creating an app that essentially copped an app that is part of their proprietary OS, says it would have increased their security!
Well gosh!!!! let them in then!
I don't really understand your argument.
Okay.
This is nothing to do with the OS.
He has a point though, you haven't refuted that.
iMessages is part of iOS. How is this not common knowledge?
Because you're confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol.
I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.
The OS hasn't been 'copped'. They emulated the protocol, and your lack of understanding and confusing the two has led us to having this conversation.
Compare to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:
Yeah, if you want to make up your own definitions to the words you use, and then order those around you to stop arguing semantics, then you're basically not having a conversation at all.
Your comment was confusing because you don't seem to understand what is or isn't part of an operating system, and the mere mention of the operating system was pretty far removed from any relevance to your own point.
It's a proprietary service, and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position, but it would be an incoherent position to claim that only OS developers should have that right.
Can it really? Cool! Thanks! That’s my position then.