The article linked to the analysis and on a quick glance, it seems to be done entirely against the Android variant of the app. This makes sense because if the alleged actions are true, they’d never have gotten on to the App Store for iOS Apple users… or at least as of a couple months ago. Who knows what kind of vulnerability is exposed by Apple only doing limited cursory checks for 3rd party App Stores.

I don’t suppose you mean Altered Carbon, where the premise is people don’t die as their entire memory and consciousness could be captured in a tiny tube the size of a modern day fuse; and opens where they’re investigating the suicide of a young woman who jumped to her death but have registered as DNR or something like that?

They didn’t because it’s not their problem. Other platforms’ users have that problem; Apple users have iMessage.

You buy a Windows phone, you buy a blackberry, you buy a flip phone, you’re using carrier messaging, or whatever app you can run on those platforms.

You buy an Android and suddenly you feel entitled to demand Apple to go to bat for you on carrier messaging? That’s a very entitled hot take.

Apple users have iMessage… amongst other third party chat apps that works fine across different platforms. Apple doesn’t have any obligations to go to bat for other platforms on carrier messaging that they already support.

Again, Android problem, not Apple problem.

Apple stated clearly they’re keen on working with GSM Consortium (who owns RCS and has more sway on carriers than Google does) on bringing E2EE to the masses.

If Google’s reputation of finding new and exciting ways to sell targeted ads doesn’t precede them, then they might have a better chance of getting a first party solution like Apple does with iMessage. But alas, Apple is not responsible for Google’s business plan or public image, and that problem is Google’s to solve.

That’s the point. It’s not Apples problem. Apple supports basic carrier messaging. If someone buys an Android, Apple users can message them just as anyone who buys a Windows Phone or BlackBerry.

It’s either an Android problem — getting fragmented service and no E2EE — at which point don’t buy an Android; or a user preference problem — “Inprefer iMessage” — at which point buy an iPhone.

Vendors on both sides have gone up and down the market to cover the spectrum, it’s not even a “can’t afford the premium feature” problem anymore as it were decade ago.

WhatsApp (EU/LatAm), WeChat (China), Kakao Talk (Korea), Line (Japan/Taiwan) are the main ones I’ve encountered. I think Telegram is used more in Russosphere and Signal has a footing in some niche circles as well.

There is no E2EE in RCS, so no amount of EU push would’ve enabled that. Also RCS was not a EU play, it’s a China play. RCS features are dependent on carrier implementation against GSM consortium’s spec.

So no, everything there is basically wrong… but hey, it goes well with the echo chamber vibes so upvotes to you!

People trying to claim capitalism / consumerism is missing the point — no one is getting a magical piece of PCB for free; vendors on both sides have gone up and down market that they’ve basically all covers the spectrum, and people make their own choice as to which platform they’re on.

People trying to assign blame on Apple is missing the point — it’s the android users having sub par fragmented (depending on carrier) service that doesn’t have E2EE by default, whom desperately needs something better.

If people chose Android are finally realizing they don’t have proper service, then they need to petition their platform vendor to put in something better (arguably Google has, but their reputation precedes them in these circles), or vote with their wallet when it comes time for their next device.

Apple has no obligation for users outside of their ecosystem. Apple saw the landscape of carrier messaging being terrible, and they made iMessage to help their customers communicate with one another better, while continue to maintain support for basic carrier communication. They have now updated to offer RCS, the current modern carrier messaging standard, which as demonstrated is still fragmented and outright garbage.

There is a Google proprietary protocol that’s based off of RCS, but as demonstrated by the Android market, even Android devices doesn’t do that — so Apple isn’t likely to (and frankly shouldn’t) do it to give more information to Google (even on the alleged promise of E2EE, it allows Google to know who is communicating with who at what time, and potentially roughly where via cell tower origination).

Apple is not a charity and has no need to open up their proprietary protocol designed to better their clients’ communications to non-clients. Want to make a phone call? Pay your carrier. Want to have electricity? Pay your power provider. Want to use iMessage? “Buy your mom an iPhone”.

Strictly speaking, they’re leveraging free users to increase the number of domains they have under their DNS service. This gives them a larger end-user reach, as it in turn makes ISPs hit their DNS servers more frequently. The increased usage better positions them to lead peering agreement discussions with ISPs. More peering agreements leads to overall cheaper bandwidth for their CDN and faster responses, which they can use as a selling point for their enterprise clients. The benefits are pretty universal, so is actually a good thing for everyone all around… that is unless you’re trying to become a competitor and get your own peering agreement setup, as it’d be quite a bit harder for you to acquire customers at the same scale/pace.

I tend to recommend sticking with more reputable providers, even if it means a couple of dollars extra on a recurring basis. Way too many kiddie hosts popping up, trying to make a quick buck during spring break/summer and then fail to provide adequate services when it actually comes time to provide service.

It may also be a good idea to check LET/WHT before committing into paying longer than month-to-month term with a provider.

Apple community, we don’t care about android; sorry but not sorry. And yes, it is possible, I don’t think anyone is arguing that. The discussion is more what should happen in “the Apple way” where things just work — and that’s something Apple can mandate on app developers… something that might be pretty foreign and alien to the android crowd.

It is probably best to think nothing on Lemmy is private. Any instance with at least one user subscribed to a community will receive updates (messages and votes) on the community. Instance admin can go into the database to see any private message between any user on that instance.

I know 1Password can detect the app ID and use that as a match criteria. The problem is that it is not user intuitive to get the app ID to key into password manager; also doesn’t change the fact that the app most of the time just front end to some website, which already has an entry for the website, and shouldn’t require the user to go out of their way to find App ID to work around the dev’s inability to surfacing basic metadata about their service.

Bitter that you’re not able to use new features much? Reap what you sow.

It is unreasonable to expect platforms to open up everything to be ripped out and swapped for their competitors.

I expect platforms get more and more cautious as to what they release into unfavorable regulatory environments that offer only marginal economical benefits.

Locks can happen by registrar (I.e.: ninjala, cloudflare, namecheap etc.) or registry (I.e.: gen.xyz, identity digital, verisign, etc.).

Typically, registry locks cannot be resolved through your registrar, and the registrant may need to work with the registry to see about resolving the problem. This could be complicated with Whois privacy as you may not be considered the registrant of the domain.

In all cases, most registries do not take domain suspensions lightly, and generally tend to lock only on legal issues. Check your Whois record’s EPP status codes to get hints as to what may be happening.