https://github.com/beeper/imessage/blob/2c45fc5619cbc33f2441...
Since there are many projects apparently using this name, for anybody else like me wanting to search it up, it's the proof of work one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
Why is this something we should want? And what gives Samsung and/or Google any sort of high ground position against Apple?
Everywhere else you'll have people on Whatsapp, Signal, Telegram and FB Messenger. I don't have a single friend in the UK or Europe that uses SMS or iPhone messages.
The default message app is basically just a spam bucket for automated texts and 2FA codes.
You can make of that what you will based on your world view. In my opinion, it is absolutely a slight negative to overcome. Tall +10 points. Fun cool car +5 points. Android -3 points.
The truth is, once the newness wears off, even when you're tall, the android will be used against you eventually by most women.
I’m 2 years older than you, and it is frankly astounding and depressing that in your description of how women “view you”, it’s all superficial and materialistic factors.
Maybe if you dated women who care more about your personality and less about what brand phone you use, you’d have more fulfilling relationships?
The whole point of having reactions as a separate thing from messages is that they don't distract from the conversation. Sending "X Liked: 'Y'" to every Android user for every iMessage user who likes something makes the iPeople look like a bunch of buffoons who don't know how to read the room and want everybody to know that they have an iPhone, when actually they're just trying to communicate.
Apple is savvy enough to have avoided that situation if they wanted to, so you gotta conclude that it's part of the plan.
For instance, tapbacks (from Android users even) come through as foo liked bar on Google Voice. You gotta conclude that it's part of the plan.
Superficial/materialistic people existed before smart phones existed. Then, just as now, the key is to avoid dating people who care more about what you have than who you are.
To be honest, you sound a lot like the retired old white boys who move to Thailand, use their relative wealth to attract a young woman, and then spend the next 30 years complaining to anyone who will listen how "Thai women are only interested in your wallet".
Edit: to clarify a point I think maybe you misunderstood in my original comment:
When I said it's astounding and depressing, I was referring to the idea that someone essentially my own age hasn't yet learnt/accepted that there are people in the world who will like you for you, regardless of what you have, be it money, a car, or a particular brand of phone.
You're saying materialistic women always existed. Sure. And I'm arguing the women raised under social media are even more materialistic about visible things than women 20-30 years ago. If you don't think that a girls entire lifelong social circle being able to see glimpses into her and her bfs financial expenditures (cars, restaurant quality, vacations, clothes) and their quality and frequency of purchase makes women more image conscious, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think women care more about indicators of casual spending ability than they ever did, and the wrong color texting dot is an easy constant reminder of "this guy is a bit cheap" to them.
I do just fine playing the cheap guy. Thank God I'm tall and ok looking. I drive a 2001 Silverado 4x4 Single Cab short bed on dates, and a Chevy volt day to day. They love the truck. They don't love the android. My Google pixel 4xl cost about half of what an iPhone did. My truck now costs $7k maybe since it's nice still. A new bmw costs $45-60k. So it's not just pure money.
I think in their mind using an android is like driving an old BORING car. It's not the cheapness or age, it's mostly the boring. They're probably wondering why I don't want to just fit in and have something nicer since it only costs $500 extra vs an android (even if that's not true always).
And I'm trying to tell you that it's because you're a late-30s man dating twenty-something year old girls you can "impress" with a car.
You're self-selecting for the type of personality you're "not complaining" about.
And yeah I've done the dating app thing and have friends in their 20s. One even whipped out her iPhone and promptly asked if I used Signal.
There have been studies that showed that women appreciation of men change when getting clues about the men wealth. That small, going bald 45y old guy will be considered unattractive without any clue. Mentionning he is a reputable dentist living in a fancy area he becomes charming or even cute. The younger and more athletic guy who was topping the chart will go down severly we it is mentionned he work as a car mechanic.
And it is the same with men with other factors. Men will have a hard time engaging with women that can present too smart and will often "target" women that act in a way that make you think their intellectual capabilities are lower.
And both men and women play with those when interacting with strangers of the opposite gender.
It is only with time spent with people that we overcome some of these basic signals and preconceptions about people, reason why we very often end up having long relationship with people we don't meet randomly in a dancefloor, dating app but rather colleagues/ex-colleagues, business partners, friends of relatives with which we interact a number of times before actually start dating.
Very true. Who can forget that groundbreaking study[1] conducted by Kanye West nearly two decades ago?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Digger_(Kanye_West_song...
Hello from GrapheneOS, where I can run any Linux tool I like via nix-on-droid and where google services have to ask for my permission before they so much as sneeze.
Apple would never tolerate such a thing in iOS.
Google is evil in their own way, but not in this way.
GrapheneOS is very cool, but it’s a significant tradeoff for people (having the sufficient knowhow, also I prefer the iphone’s better hardware capabilities).
So by default, an iphone will be the most secure and privacy-friendly solution for the vast majority of the population, not violating their users’ data at every stop (as is done by google/huawei on the other side).
Regardless, I have seen the majority of iPhone users use apps such as Instagram, so I don't think privacy plays a big part in their decision when buying a device.
Also, don't equate Google and Huawei together, one collects data to sell you ads, whereas the other is a state sponsored spy organisation.
I do think it's good that at least some of us are more worried about protecting users from vendors instead of about who the vendors are allegedly protecting users from.
Playtime is over, beeper was always gonna get squashed and apple played it incredibly well without turning it into more of a legal fight than they needed to.
There are zero (0) services that are going to tolerate a third-party commercial service spoofing device credentials to get into a service that is very obviously not offered in the form they are offering. Discord will ban you for using Revanced too, even more aggressively than apple.
Just imagine being some YC startup and some other service thinks they can use your email servers for spam and sues when you close an accidentally open relay lmao. It’s a facially absurd case when you remove it from the “apple bad” fervor surrounding every single apple article. Nobody is going to tolerate commercial third party operators using their infra for revenue operations.
“Well they should have to too and —“ let me stop you there - no. Do you want open spam relays? That’s how you get open spam relays. Even with beeper it’s always been about the wave of spam that is going to be unleashed for the other legitimate users of the service. Spam as a service on other people’s infra is bad actually.
It is, again, exactly that simple. It would be an absurd case if it were anyone besides apple but the unthinking hatred of android users is just that intense. All you can see is the carrot, and you really don’t care about the consequences or the precedent, this is an absurdly bad idea/argument. But that’s how android users react on every apple topic. It gets old. Open spam relays are not a good thing even if it means you stick it to apple.
Imagine saying google has to run an open smtp relay just because they’re a gatekeeper. If somehow you managed to spoof googles server into thinking you were a google relay and started selling access to this as a commercial product they’d ban your ass too, in a literal heartbeat, but because of the constant unthinking bleating of the android fanboys it’s somehow an issue that needs to be discussed. No, you can’t do that and it it wouldn’t be a good thing if you could. Why is that even a question? Literally I am asking, why is that a legitimate thing anyone would ever argue other than blinding levels of fanboydom?
It’s so noxious, it’s every damn apple thread. The value of green bubbles as a social filter has become very apparent to me after a number of these apple threads. I didn’t think that way before but I do now, there is another reason y’all ain’t getting invited to those chats.
(Oops, naughty naughty, only green bubbles get to make sly little digs about the other sort.)
But also, it's rather ironic that you brought up email, given that this is a widely successful open protocol where random third parties connect to the server (thereby consuming resources by their email provider, the horror!) to deliver an email to the user. I'm really glad that fundamental protocols like these were developed before this kind of thinking became widespread; at least now we get to enjoy having somewhat open Internet for a little while longer.
Companies generally are against this, but if a company picked up beeper code to profit off of "imessage support on android"... The yardstick would be closer to open standards.
If you're against walled gardens you also have to be against all the obstacles Google and Samsung have planted. Why shouldn't Apple users make free use of Google maps without paying Google (in privacy)? Why can't every person access the advertising data collected by these companies?
If the answer is "companies invest a lot of money to make these products possible" why is iMessage different?
Okay, let's be against those too.
Apple doesn’t charge for iMessage. It is a service offered strictly to users of Apple devices.
The Apple model where you buy expensive hardware and get exclusive software in the package?
The Microsoft model where you buy software and are still treated like a freeloading advertisement consumer?
Or the Google/Facebook model where you're not paying anything and the companies try to digest your entire life for the support of marketing departments?
How about the Signal model, where you get a free messaging app with published source code that runs on multiple platforms without trying to lock you into any of them, and its modest operating expenses are paid from donations to a nonprofit?
Or the Linux model, where a minority of users with the resources or technical capacity to make improvements are given the opportunity to do so, resulting in free software that anyone else can use too, and anyone could fork if the existing maintainers became abusive?
Or the Substack model, where you pay money for a service with no ads on it?
Huge dominant conglomerates being abusive is not unexpected. But why do we need huge dominant conglomerates? Let them cease to be.
https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush
They modified it with their own touch.
not to the priesthood of course
As a corollary, the Unreal engine source is on GitHub, but that doesn't make it open source.
It's strictly disingenuous to call SSPL open source (I personally believe it's disingenuous to call AGPL open source but I digress)