The fact that Google would find it to be convenient for the line to be blurry doesn't mean that anybody looking at it in good faith sees the line as blurry.
But it's unfair to assume bad faith like that.
Perhaps they merely need access to the encrypted messages in order to provide a better user experience, by serving more relevant and better personalised adverts?
It's one thing to treat funneling data "to the cloud" with suspicion out of principle, but personally I think it's counterproductive to go a step further and just assume everything is always being maximally abused. The fact that it could be is an issue, but that doesn't mean it is.
Both Google and Apple control enormous number of devices, the data on them (or data collected by them), their software, and their users. They make money by selling you tiny bit of access to that, directly or indirectly. End of story. Should I remind you how much being special to privacy restrictions costs Facebook?
Google is something like 75% ad revenue, <5% hardware.
Apple is something like 75% hardware, <5% ad revenue.
Generates billions for Apple and is growing rapidly, since they implemented increasingly aggressive "privacy features" to block their competitors.
Likewise, Google has a consumer electronics business, but they’re not a consumer electronics company.
I thought I was being clear when I said that. My comment was referring to the general perception among masses.
Google's reputation is further tainted by a certain sneakiness. Like being caught using private data for AI training - despite people opting out of it. All because of cleverly worded legal language that allowed other Google subsidiaries unfettered access.[1]
[1]: Google Can Train Search AI With Web Content After AI Opt-Out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-ca...
HN people just like to live in their own bubble thinking no other opinion is valid other than their own.