That’s ONLY because you’re possibly attempting (for some reason) to use a Peer-to-Peer encrypted Apple controlled client to communicate with people on, say, WhatsApp. When, what you SHOULD be doing is using WhatsApp’s peer-to-peer encrypted controlled client to talk to WhatsApp users.
What definition outside legal or official ones are there to be used?
They are free to charge for the burgers, people are just free to eat other burgers with the free utensils. Or eat your burger with whatever utensils of choosing of any brand.
Apples Ip law have never been violated. Apple have just been presenting under false pretenses that you license the software on your phone. Perpetual license in EU= purchase= no legal right to limit owners rights.
Well I think we can all be calm if our communication holds the minimum standard of banking institutions. If our money is safe then our communication is safe.
Irrelevant to the question of cross compatibility. Only iMessage can use SMS on iOS.
Only for apple to implement then
Some other terms come to mind, like nanny state regulations, socialistic legislation etc.
Sure, now, all you have to do, is to get companies who have been communicating for years to their customers on the security of their network, to agree across the board to lower their security requirements. I’m sure their customers will LOVE that.
I don’t get what you’re getting at here. SMS works on EVERY phone, smart or not, and the phone certainly doesn’t have to be running “iMessage”. And, not just phones made today, it works for phones made YEARS ago… it’ll likely continue to work on every phone made in the future.
No, THEY are the company fairly disingenuously placing company’s logos on their pages, likely without permission, in a way that makes it APPEAR that they work everywhere.
That’s ONLY because you’re possibly attempting (for some reason) to use a Peer-to-Peer encrypted Apple controlled client to communicate with people on, say, WhatsApp. When, what you SHOULD be doing is using WhatsApp’s peer-to-peer encrypted controlled client to talk to WhatsApp users.
I’d ask why, but folks have been trying to use shoes for hammers well before today. I doubt that will stop anytime soon.
What I should have said is you should be using (whatever app they use)’s peer-to-peer encrypted company controlled client to talk to (whatever app they use)’s users. iPhone users will install the app you want them to if your connection is important to them. I shouldn’t single it out that way, that’s the same for any user regardless of their platform of choice.
The problem there is that, outside of the US, the telecoms are making a killing on .11 to .16 per message and would likely fight any improvements as those would cut into the profits. If you ask me, making SMS/MMS free for all of the citizens of the consumer protecting EU seems like something that would benefit FAR more people (everyone in the EU with a phone) than tweaking the business practices of a minority player in the cellular telephone market.
No, only one person needs to set it up, so I can use one application on my phone/computer to receive or send text/calls to any person without them knowing it. This is seamless interoperability.BUT, I hear that if you set up your own Matrix server and configure your bridges properly,
then, get all of your contacts to set up THEIR own Matrix servers and configure those bridges… you can then use the Matrix client of your choice to chat with them!
Well as far as I know, sms/MMS are almost always free in EU. People generally just pay for data today unless you use a debit SIM card. We can call and use data for free in the 27 member states with the carriers we use at home. No roaming charges and text/MMS must be the same price as to a domestic number.
It does require a Mac though. There is nothing stopping Apple porting Xcode to Windows or Linux. With any luck they'll add iPhone coding to Swift Playgrounds this year.
More included with the price, like the prize in your cereal.
And yet there are still things you cannot do with them because Grandfather Apple says it is bad. Did you not see the afternoon special on not accepting apps from strangers? Kidding aside, if I buy an Android chassis I can root it and flash whatever OS I like on it. If I buy a Mac I can do the exact same thing.
I've never actually seen a negative to this pricing and indeed I only ever wanted Apple to open up iOS for consumers rather than devs. Apple's fees and cut buys you hosting, bug testing, a foolproof distribution channel, free marketing and equal shelfspace. People describe it as a tax but taxes pay for all sorts of useful things from healthcare to education.
If you have any understanding for cryptography, then no evidence exist for security standards to be lower.Sure, now, all you have to do, is to get companies who have been communicating for years to their customers on the security of their network, to agree across the board to lower their security requirements. I’m sure their customers will LOVE that.
I’m more baffled you advocate for sms to continue to be the standard with zero security for everyone today and the future.
They don’t need permission as it’s public domain for non commercial display showing support.
Only one server needs to be set up, and that’s your own if you want to use the app. The other users doesn’t even know that you use matrix. I just need to set up a bridge to the other apps I use in order to centralize the communication in one spot.
If you want to stop using 10 different apps and use one instead it’s a solution for you.
The one small problem that they use separate servers negating the very thing you want to have.
Lucky for us some provide virtualization without getting a Mac as a solution. Providing what people wants but apple refuses to provide since 1679
Well you can download it for free from apple so perhaps a mix
Forgot grandpa apple knows all the dangerous things you should never do.
It’s more, if I want to side load anything today I need to pay apple 99$ a year to use cydia impactor for the privilege to sign apps and side load it on my phone outside the AppStore
Imagine having this on iPhone
Bad regulations are bad regulations. But like death and taxes here they comes.
that’s the free market at work. There is no requirement for apple or any other company that mass produces for consumer devices to design a device specifically for one person.
depends what the regulations and taxes are supposed to do. Hence why we need to work from the same definitions and not make things up and use terms not applicable or do the bare minimum to understand how the market works that you critique.
Still and all, imo, I don’t endorse these regulations and I hope the downstream negative effects are readily apparent as the future will show the death of innovation for the EU.
We don’t live with a free market and nobody wants a free market. We have a regulated market to balance the interest and safety of consumers and a healthy competitive market not dominated by few oligopolistic who can offer bad services and products for years as no competitive options exist.
A competitive market is more important than free market leading to stagnation
and historical trends shows the opposite.
Yes. We do not want an over regulated market. There always has to be laws and regulations. This is overregulation and overreach.We don’t live with a free market and nobody wants a free market. We have a regulated market to balance the interest and safety of consumers and a healthy competitive market not dominated by few oligopolistic who can offer bad services and products for years as no competitive options exist.
The U.S. Only Pretends to Have Free Markets
From plane tickets to cellphone bills, monopoly power costs American consumers billions of dollars a year.www.theatlantic.com
A competitive market is more important than free market leading to stagnation
What historical trends show overregulation is beneficial to all concerned?
Well we disagree on the over regulation. But it’s making the market more competitive. That’s healthy.
I doubt it. I think it's more likely that it will give large companies a larger advantage over smaller companies that can't afford to create their own distribution platforms.
Can you point to any part of the legislation doing this?
