9th January 2022, 4:33 PM
Well, you wanted a discussion, so let me dissect the some aspects that I disagree with. I agree with almost everything, especially the privacy-related concerns you have, but you really don't explain it well. You also don't consider the average user.
This is part of the same vein as "you need to use this new software, it's so much more secure and barely has any bugs". But iMessage's bugs are probably not as horrid as the alternative FOSS. This is just a general disgust against what you seem to have against proprietary software (especially referencing Stallman...). Not all proprietary software is bad. In this case, the alternative, Signal, is just a much better implementation of iMessage, so I don't disagree with you here, but your argument for this sucks.
What a horribly bad argument. This is the reason why I wanted to reply here. You're arguing for a worse product? What is the point in that? Can I not want a good service on my phone? I can complain that my laptop WiFi router is garbage and not want to set up a desktop. It's convenient to have a phone with a good camera. That being said, I haven't noticed any differences in my camera quality even using GrapheneOS as compared to my mother's iPhone.
Richard Stallman has extremely absurd standards for most of his points. I don't really want to nitpick every single one of these points, but people will scroll through that link, be suddenly shocked, and then realize most of his arguments are pretty crazy, then go back to using the original service. It's like DigDeeper's manifesto against Firefox, when almost all of his arguments are small and petty tidbits he added in there. They completely detract from the large argument.
Yes, Apple phones are not good for security and one who is savvy enough should definitely get an Android phone and immediately go to LineageOS, /e/, or GrapheneOS, but this is difficult for the normal user to follow. You need to download ADB on your computer, then flash the ROM just to use your phone. And using these alternative OSs break some fundamental aspects that people enjoy with smartphones like Snapchat and most smartphone games. The alternative of a Google phone using Google services is not good and much worse, so I think Apple products would actually be better for the average user.
(2nd January 2022, 5:04 PM)Northadox Wrote:(30th April 2020, 5:58 PM)thique Wrote: iMessage,
Same sorta deal. Apple's proprietary instant messaging implementation WHY does it matter if you don't have specific program? This sort of blind brand allegiance puts me off. "Oh, you're not COOL because you don't use so-and-so. You're not COOL if you don't use what's been relentlessly advertised and marketed as a 'premeire' service." Speaking of brand allegiance...
This is part of the same vein as "you need to use this new software, it's so much more secure and barely has any bugs". But iMessage's bugs are probably not as horrid as the alternative FOSS. This is just a general disgust against what you seem to have against proprietary software (especially referencing Stallman...). Not all proprietary software is bad. In this case, the alternative, Signal, is just a much better implementation of iMessage, so I don't disagree with you here, but your argument for this sucks.
(2nd January 2022, 5:04 PM)Northadox Wrote: And why does it matter, anyways? I guess picture quality is nice. But you can always, y'know, get an actual camera for shooting photos. A top of the line market camera will be better than Apple's too.
What a horribly bad argument. This is the reason why I wanted to reply here. You're arguing for a worse product? What is the point in that? Can I not want a good service on my phone? I can complain that my laptop WiFi router is garbage and not want to set up a desktop. It's convenient to have a phone with a good camera. That being said, I haven't noticed any differences in my camera quality even using GrapheneOS as compared to my mother's iPhone.
(2nd January 2022, 5:04 PM)Northadox Wrote: If you want more detail, I invite you to read this link.
Richard Stallman has extremely absurd standards for most of his points. I don't really want to nitpick every single one of these points, but people will scroll through that link, be suddenly shocked, and then realize most of his arguments are pretty crazy, then go back to using the original service. It's like DigDeeper's manifesto against Firefox, when almost all of his arguments are small and petty tidbits he added in there. They completely detract from the large argument.
Yes, Apple phones are not good for security and one who is savvy enough should definitely get an Android phone and immediately go to LineageOS, /e/, or GrapheneOS, but this is difficult for the normal user to follow. You need to download ADB on your computer, then flash the ROM just to use your phone. And using these alternative OSs break some fundamental aspects that people enjoy with smartphones like Snapchat and most smartphone games. The alternative of a Google phone using Google services is not good and much worse, so I think Apple products would actually be better for the average user.
