Why don’t you like Apple?
Why don’t you like Apple?
Real question. I would like to know what drives you to hate Apple? (In terms of privacy of course because in terms of price it’s another story).
You're viewing a single thread.
Security theater: All you stuff is encrypted but they have the decryption keys
Proprietary App Store: The apps and the store itself are proprietary and I don't trust Apple.
Gaslighting their customers: Images shared with Android users from iPhone are purposely crushed to a unreviewable quality. The idea is to convince people that Android takes terrible photographs.
From recent experience: They read your screen which means the government reads your screen as well. Its okay. if you’re doing nothing illegal, you have nothing to hide! All history books that could tell you otherwise are paywalled anyway!
Regarding iPhone photos, these are usually stored in HEIF/HEIC format, which is a large annoyance if you want to edit, and sometimes show, those pictures. I work at a photolab and whenever we see customers with iPhones we immediately say "There will be issues to develop your pictures"
About "Security theater": you can enable what's called "Advanced Data Protection" so the encryption keys are only stored on-device for most types of data including photos, backups and also notes for example. Mail and calendar is one exception that comes to mind, but you could also always use a different mail and calendar service. This is a fairly recent feature, so you may have missed it. Sure, it's not your fully self-hosted "cloud" on which you can audit every single line of code and whatnot, but it might actually be the best "compromise" of ease-of-use vs. privacy for many people outside the tech bubble we're in in this community.
About "Proprietary App Store": the store itself and many apps on there are proprietary, but there are a lot of open source apps on the App Store as well. The bigger problem is the fact that the App Store is the only (hassle-free) way to install apps to the iPhone and only recently the EU seems to change that with alternative storefronts now emerging, but Apple is limiting the use of them to the EU, so they're essentially doing the bare minimum to comply with EU law.
About "Gaslighting their customers": I'd like to see hard proof on that. I think what you're talking about is the fact that messages sent to Android users using the default "Messages" app are sent as MMS, which is an ancient technology and as such only support tiny, low-quality images. Android doesn't support iMessage and Apple seems to like to keep it that way as it's apparently selling a lot of iPhones this way in the US (and sure, I agree that's a bad thing). It does get better with the just-announced RCS support (a supposedly open protocol which Google added so many proprietary extensions to you can't really call it open anymore) so pictures can be send in full quality to Android users using the Messages app. Also, you could always use a third-party messenger like Signal or WhatsApp and send full-quality pictures just fine.
I'm not saying there aren't any concerns, but some of the information you provided is at least out of date.
Android doesn’t support iMessage
I think it's the inverse: iMessage doesn't support Android.
Those aren't equivalent statements; the first implies that something about Android makes it impossible for Apple to produce an iMessage client for it when that is purely a business decision on Apple's part.
You are correct and the person you're responding to is wrong about just about everything they said. Funny to me they think mms is why those images look so shitty when no android users have ever experienced that without an ios device involved
MMS does have size limits that can hurt image quality, but I have the impression iOS applies limits of its own that are considerably lower. I'm not sure why anybody in 2024 wouldn't have at least a couple modern messaging apps, but it seems a lot of people don't.
Well yes exactly. I have noticed for years that every photo or video an iPhone sends me is worse quality than flip phones used to send/receive. Amazing to me that iPhone users fall for this trick
Like they missed that the whole apple MO is to make them feel superior without evidence
It seems like an odd decision to me, as it would make the iPhone look like it has a substandard camera to someone receiving media from one by MMS.
The idea is to convince people that things only look good on iPhones
It seems unlikely to have that effect when the recipient presumably communicates with people who have other brands of phone, from whom they receive better looking media.
I mean, it certainly has that effect. The in group "knows" your phone sucks and will shame you into getting an iPhone. That's the idea and it's probably worked millions of times.
Android users would use RCS for communicating with each other via the default messaging app on Android.
MMS has a hard size limit depending on the carrier the sender uses, that's independent of the sender using an Android phone or an iPhone. This limit can be as high as "more than 1 MB", but also as low as 300 KB or even less. Compressing an image down to 300 KB will naturally incur a quality penalty.
Rcs is a new thing and not all android phones use it even now
Photos sent from iPhones look like shit today and they did years ago. Rcs is not a factor.
iMessage is an app. Android is an operating system. I think what you meant to say is iMessage doesn't support RCS.
The difference is Apple worked hard to keep it this way for decades, even so far as "patch" a fix that was created to make it possible for their customers to communicate securely with Android users.
And Apple is only going to support RCS because they were forced to, and they'll on comply to the degree that they think they can get away with. Just like they're doing with app stores.
Interest in RCS is recent - newer than iMessage, which launched in 2011. RCS with Google's proprietary extensions is just another proprietary messaging app, and I am not particularly excited about it.
even so far as “patch” a fix that was created to make it possible for their customers to communicate securely with Android users.
There's no shortage of options for doing that. What Apple wants is tight control over all of its walled gardens, which should be no surprise given the company's history. They're very good at making it appear as if decisions made to increase their profits are aligned with the interests of users. It's probably even true that someone would have exploited the technique Beeper Mini was using to send spam if Apple hadn't closed it.
RCS with Google's proprietary extensions
I don't know that that's true. But regardless, I agree and wish they decided on a more open protocol, but that is just not the corporate way. Anything is better than SMS/MMS.
There's no shortage of options for doing that.
Sure. Ask yourself why Apple users don't use them? The answer is SMS fallback. A feature which you can use with any app on Android and literally only with iMessage on iOS.
It's probably even true that someone would have exploited the technique Beeper Mini was using to send spam if Apple hadn't closed it.
Well Apple doesn't seem to give a single fuck about SMS spam, so I'm not sure what your point is. Google at least incorporates spam filtering.
SMS fallback. A feature which you can use with any app on Android
SMS fallback is not a common feature of internet-based messaging apps on Android. Signal used to do it, but does not now. I don't think WhatsApp or Telegram ever did.
Yup, good point!
About "Security theater":
keep in mind that companies can lie on how their stuff works, also I don't think the nature of the store matters, as much as the fact that you're only allowed to get the open source apps from there which will also run on top of a proprietary OS, with proprietary firmware
Gaslighting their customers": I'd like to see hard proof on that
Consider that I have a low standard on what a hard proof should be,.. I consider telling people that : "Privacy, that's iPhone", while literally developing nothing in the open, which is the best and ONLY way to guarantee transparency, instead they went with the "trust me bruh" method, plus they display ads... like.....they have... a.. dedicated.. ad .. platform...
You don't respect my Privacy while you target me with ads
Or being unable to install third-party apps or other browser engines is supposed to be for security reasons. Or being environment friendly through their recycling program when the truth is that they only do that to keep spare parts out of reach of independent repair shops. Pure gaslighting.
They can lie about how the advanced data encryption works…. But then they also tell you that you’re shit outta luck if you forget or screw up your decryption code. If they really had a back door, then I would expect them to take a much less hard line on you’re screwed if you lose the key.
I would be surprised if they had a back door too given how they’ve pushed back on back doors from the NSA and EU
I mean they understand their encryption algorithm, they made it after all, and with the advancements of Quantum computing it could be possible to decrypt someone's data... So what good does providing quantum computing for Imessages do... If they : understand how the algorithm works + they have enough computing power to decrypt it + it's proprietary.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was all a theater, and it's the best backdoor implementation to exist
This feels a lot like the argument of well what if they break TLS? A lot of hypotheticals when I don’t have any reason or proof to believe that they’ve made a back door
No, breaking an encryption is all about knowing how it works, many cryptographers make their algorithm proprietary in hopes that an attacker will have a hard time figuring how it works, however they turn out to be weak, other encryption algorithms are developed in the open so that many people look at it and see the flaws
The key word is : weak The idea is not making a backdoor directly, the idea is making it flawed, it's like securing a bank with steel doors with the exception of one door, that door is made out of wood and only you know where it's located.
About "Proprietary App Store": the store itself and many apps on there are proprietary
Doesn't matter. The point is that devs have to jump through completely arbitrary hoops and pay Apple money just to make their apps available to Apple users. And any money they take they have to give 30% of the income to Apple for the privilege of running it on their hardware.
About "Gaslighting their customers": I'd like to see hard proof on that.
There isn't any. But all you have to do is look at their actions.
I'm not saying iPhones don't have their advantages but you don't understand what the actual problem is. And it comes off as intentional.
Regarding gaslighting: See Apple’s response on the CSAM backdoor shit show. All the critics were wrong, including the various advocacy groups.
Simp.
And in addition they run big adverts on caring about privacy, while in reality they do the same shit as all the other tech companies, but just use their monopoly power to push out surveillance advertisement competitors.
They don’t, actually. They only sell anonymized statistics and don’t allow advertisers to choose who they advertise to. As a result, they can’t charge as much for advertising. So they are actively taking less money to better protect your information in that respect.
Apple runs their own advertisement network these days. Its pointless to argue that they sell less data when they themselves still collect all of it for their own advertisement purposes.
Where is this information from an independent party (not from Crapple)?