• @Pratai
    link
    134 months ago

    As they should.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      114 months ago

      Why? As the article states this actually lessens security for everyone (including iPhone users).

      • @Pratai
        link
        7
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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!

          • @Pratai
            link
            24 months ago

            iMessages is part of iOS. How is this not common knowledge?

              • @Pratai
                link
                -14 months ago

                I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  creating an app that essentially copped their proprietary OS

                  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.

                • FZDC
                  link
                  fedilink
                  194 months ago

                  Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

                  Compare to Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:

                  “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that’s all.

                  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.

                  • @Pratai
                    link
                    24 months ago

                    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

                    Can it really? Cool! Thanks! That’s my position then.

                  • @Pratai
                    link
                    04 months ago

                    They don’t want to argue with me so I win!

                    The hallmark of a kid unaware of how the real world works.