European Commission sober! iMessage is not to be designated a "core platform service".

[Alan Browne]

<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

[Frank Slootweg]

<<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)

Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

Don't know about (Facebook) Messenger (I don't know anybody who uses
Messenger [1]), but the non-requirement for iMessage and the requirement
for WhatsApp are obvious. As has been said many, many times, iMessage is
used very little in the EU, *because* WhatsApp is the major platform
with 90+% penetration rates in most European countries.

<https://www.doofinder.com/en/statistics/who-uses-whatsapp-the-most>

[1] Somewhat funny: The Messenger page (<https://www.messenger.com>)
doesn't even have a button/link for the Android app (but at the bottom
it has a trademark notice for "Google Play"), but of course there is a
Messenger app for Android.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg

<<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)

Apple claim 101M iCloud users in Europe. How many of those use iMessage
is another issue - but it is certainly not 0 as recent messages I've
exchanged with a few people in France, Germany and Italy attest.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

<<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)

Apple claim 101M iCloud users in Europe. How many of those use iMessage
is another issue - but it is certainly not 0

No, of course it's not zero, but it's very small compared to the
number of WhatsApp users. For example in our country, The Netherlands,
the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the *total* population, including
anything from babies to very old people.

Post by Alan Browne
as recent messages I've
exchanged with a few people in France, Germany and Italy attest.

Of course those people will try to accomodate poor deprived USAsians.
They wouldn't want you (or themselves) need to fall back to SMS, would
they now!? :-)

But seriously, people use what they think is best in any given
situation. I for example am paying in USD when in the US, as, for some
strange reason, trying to pay in EUR is frowned upon.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Post by Frank Slootweg
For example in our country, The Netherlands,
the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the*total* population, including
anything from babies to very old people.

A claim of a stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll.
No proof of the claim.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Jörg Lorenz

Post by Frank Slootweg
For example in our country, The Netherlands,
the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the*total* population, including
anything from babies to very old people.

A claim of a stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll.
No proof of the claim.

Well, this "stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll" has posted proof
several times, but, as usual, a certain Swiss denier always has his
fingers in his ears and his hands before his eyes, because he can't face
facts, especially not when it concerns WhatsApp.

But because you ask so nicely, see

From: Frank Slootweg <***@ddress.is.invalid>
Subject: Re: New whatsapp contacts go in general contacs list, not in whatsapp's.
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Message-ID: <***@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:23:49 -0000

which was a response to ... <drum roll> ...
And please note the "<nightmare alert!>".

[badgolferman]

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.

It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.
You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.

LOL.

[badgolferman]

I'm on the fence on whether Jörg's rants are funny or sad.

If George's rants are funny then he's just a clown. If George's rants
are sad then he's just an idiot. I'm not sure which is worse...

Personally I see him as a self-important elitist who is desperately
trying to establish himself as an authority on everything.

[Arno Welzel]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

Post by Carlos E.R.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

See for yourself:

<https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share>
<https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share>

Edge has a share of about 5% and Bing is just above 3% while Google
still dominates the market.

iMessage may be important in countries with a high market share of iOS
in general. But since the market share of iPhones is just about 30% in
Europe, most people rather use other messengers which are available on
Android as well.

You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.

And you have the "in depth understanding involved legal and economic
considerations of the new law"? Enlighten us! Any links for further reading?

[Alan Browne]

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

Post by Carlos E.R.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.

[Arno Welzel]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

Post by Carlos E.R.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.

Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

Post by Carlos E.R.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.

Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".

My government did the same thing with telephone companies. They ordered
the big companies to accept interconnections from the smaller companies.
This had the funny side effect that my aunt, in small company A could
not phone her life old friend on company B, because both companies had
not an interconnection agreement and were not mandated to agree and
connect by force. They both could phone any one on the main companies,
but not one another.

Passed a few years, one company grew, and then the government added that
phone company to the list of dominant players, and ordered them to
accept connections from any other company.

Now my aunt could call her friend again :-)

And this was done following some EU directives that forced to open our
telephone market to competition.


It is how these things are done. iMessage is not a dominant player in
the European Union, just a fact. They are a minor player.


iMessage can, however, demand from WhatsApp to interconnect. The
reverse, no. Notice the wording: demand. WhatsApp is obligated to accept.

It is how politicians see these things.

IMHO, a bit silly. iMessage should be mandated to accept connections, IMHO.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Alan Browne
<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

Post by Carlos E.R.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.

Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".

IOW you don't know why, precisely, they made this decision.

[Arno Welzel]

[...]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel
Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.

Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".

IOW you don't know why, precisely, they made this decision.

Correct. But I don't see any other reason. Why else should one decide if
a service is a "core platform" if not because market share?

[sms]

<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).

Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

[Jolly Roger]

iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
over Android devices.

That's ridiculous.

Nope, it's true.

If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.

You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

[Andrew]

Post by Jolly Roger

That's ridiculous.

Nope, it's true.

I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.

I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

Post by Jolly Roger

If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.

You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.

What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
over Android devices."

If a major reason for choosing a platform is the default messenger app,
which is a dime a dozen and easily replaced with far better messenger apps,
then that's an absurd way to choose a computer (which a "smart" phone is).

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Jolly Roger

That's ridiculous.

Nope, it's true.

I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

Post by Jolly Roger

If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.

You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.
What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
over Android devices."

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the straw man you constructed.

Post by Andrew
If a major reason for choosing a platform is the default messenger app,
which is a dime a dozen and easily replaced with far better messenger apps,
then that's an absurd way to choose a computer (which a "smart" phone is).

[Alan]

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Andrew
I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

It is not absurd.
I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.
This a very U.S.-centric issue since in other countries most people use
a cross-platform messaging app. There would be little upside for Apple
to open up iMessage to other platforms.

So many people seem to think "absurd" means:

"something I don't want for myself".

[Arno Welzel]

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Andrew
I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

It is not absurd.
I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.

Well - AirMessage is not trivial to install. You need a running mac (at
least in a VM) and a gateway program:

<https://airmessage.org/install/>

Also the app for Android was last updated end of 2022:

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.tagavari.airmessage>

No update in more than a year? Is this thing still supported at all?
Looks more like a proof of concept to me.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Andrew
I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

It is not absurd.
I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.

Well - AirMessage is not trivial to install. You need a running mac (at
<https://airmessage.org/install/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.tagavari.airmessage>
No update in more than a year? Is this thing still supported at all?
Looks more like a proof of concept to me.

It's a nothing burger. So unsuccessful that Apple have not even had to
pay attention to killing it as they did with Beeper Mini.

[sms]

On 2/25/2024 11:37 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:

<snip>

Post by Arno Welzel
Well - AirMessage is not trivial to install. You need a running mac (at

Actually it was quite easy to install, and I am not a Mac person by any
means. But yes, it did require that I acquire a Mac of some sort. I
could have done a Hackintosh but instead I bought a used Mac Mini for
$100. It's in my wiring closet. It's set to power-on automatically in
case of a power interruption. No mouse, keyboard, or monitor are
necessary once it's set up.

Post by Arno Welzel
<https://airmessage.org/install/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.tagavari.airmessage>
No update in more than a year? Is this thing still supported at all?
Looks more like a proof of concept to me.

It works fine. No updates have been needed. Not every app needs constant
updating to work.

I have a few contacts who insist on using iMessage and this was the
easiest way to accommodate them.

[badgolferman]

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

There’s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)

But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

[badgolferman]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

[Andrew]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Frank Slootweg
But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading what each
platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big deal apparently)
where in general Apple advertises safety and style and not functionality.

People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
Whether or not those selling points have any merit.

Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
So how do you measure safety?

I know how advertisers do it.
Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most part.

Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3 of them
the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.

Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

[badgolferman]

Post by Andrew

Post by badgolferman

Post by Frank Slootweg
But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading
what each platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big
deal apparently) where in general Apple advertises safety and style
and not functionality.
People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
Whether or not those selling points have any merit.
Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
So how do you measure safety?
I know how advertisers do it.
Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most part.
Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3
of them the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.
Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

Where did I mention safety? I was referring to what some people
consider the privacy of their personal information. It is believed
that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
information. How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
expectation of privacy.

[Andrew]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Andrew
Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

Where did I mention safety?

Huh? It doesn't matter. Safety. Privacy. Anonymity. Malware. You name it.

Post by badgolferman
I was referring to what some people
consider the privacy of their personal information.

So was I.
I lumped that into safety.

We're both talking about the same thing.

Post by badgolferman
It is believed
that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
information.

It is believed. That depends on the believer.
The less they know, the more they rely on advertising.
Why?

Since almost nobody is an expert in iOS "privacy", and since even fewer are
experts in both iOS and Android "privacy", where do you think they get
their data from?

And if you tell me they "look it up", then you do not understand what
privacy means - because it's a lot more than the ten things I spoke about.

But let's say it is just ten things that make you private on a phone.
Everything I said applies.

Let's say the iPhone is more private in 8 out of 10 of those ways, and yet
Android is far more private in 2 out of those 10 ways (and at the same
times being well over 10 times more capable in terms of doing stuff).

Let's say you don't need ten times the capabilities, so now the Apple huge
tradeoff on loss of functionality in favor of "privacy" no longer matters.

Even then, how do you weigh those 8 things where Apple is more private,
against those 2 things where Apple is far less private than Android is?

Post by badgolferman
How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

The problem is that "privacy" is many more things than just ten, and Apple
has some of it and Android has some of it also - where the only thing you
can say is it's easier for a non-technical person to stay a bit more
private on iOS in some ways (say 8 out of 10) where it's a LOT more
"private" on Android if you're technical - since it's impossible on iOS for
some ways to stay private that are trivial on Android (say 2 out of 10).

The easiest way to summarize all that is to generalize for you the results.

For the least technical users you can pick:
1. For the least technical users, iOS is "more private" (but not private).
2. For the least technical user, the huge loss of iOS functionality is ok.

However, for the more technical users you can pick:
1. For the more technical users, iOS is NOT "more private" (it's less!).
2. For the more technical user, the Android functionality advantage rules.

Post by badgolferman
My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
expectation of privacy.

It's a lost battle on iOS as you can't do all that much that Apple didn't
already do for you. But on Android, there are plenty of ways to stay more
private which Google did NOT do for you.

Your privacy is directly proportional to how technically competent you are.
a. If you're not technically competent, then iOS is a good choice
b. If you're technically competent, then iOS is a BAD choice
For two reasons which apply directly to the technically competent user.
A. iOS is less functional (as a result of Apple's marketing strategy)
B. iOS is less private (as a result of those 2 out of 10 problems)

[badgolferman]

Post by Andrew

Post by badgolferman

Post by Andrew
Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

Where did I mention safety?

Huh? It doesn't matter. Safety. Privacy. Anonymity. Malware. You name it.

Post by badgolferman
I was referring to what some people
consider the privacy of their personal information.

So was I.
I lumped that into safety.
We're both talking about the same thing.

Post by badgolferman
It is believed
that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
information.

It is believed. That depends on the believer.
The less they know, the more they rely on advertising.
Why?
Since almost nobody is an expert in iOS "privacy", and since even fewer are
experts in both iOS and Android "privacy", where do you think they get
their data from?
And if you tell me they "look it up", then you do not understand what
privacy means - because it's a lot more than the ten things I spoke about.
But let's say it is just ten things that make you private on a phone.
Everything I said applies.
Let's say the iPhone is more private in 8 out of 10 of those ways, and yet
Android is far more private in 2 out of those 10 ways (and at the same
times being well over 10 times more capable in terms of doing stuff).
Let's say you don't need ten times the capabilities, so now the Apple huge
tradeoff on loss of functionality in favor of "privacy" no longer matters.
Even then, how do you weigh those 8 things where Apple is more private,
against those 2 things where Apple is far less private than Android is?

Post by badgolferman
How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

The problem is that "privacy" is many more things than just ten, and Apple
has some of it and Android has some of it also - where the only thing you
can say is it's easier for a non-technical person to stay a bit more
private on iOS in some ways (say 8 out of 10) where it's a LOT more
"private" on Android if you're technical - since it's impossible on iOS for
some ways to stay private that are trivial on Android (say 2 out of 10).
The easiest way to summarize all that is to generalize for you the results.
1. For the least technical users, iOS is "more private" (but not private).
2. For the least technical user, the huge loss of iOS functionality is ok.
1. For the more technical users, iOS is NOT "more private" (it's less!).
2. For the more technical user, the Android functionality advantage rules.

Post by badgolferman
My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
expectation of privacy.

It's a lost battle on iOS as you can't do all that much that Apple didn't
already do for you. But on Android, there are plenty of ways to stay more
private which Google did NOT do for you.
Your privacy is directly proportional to how technically competent you are.
a. If you're not technically competent, then iOS is a good choice
b. If you're technically competent, then iOS is a BAD choice
For two reasons which apply directly to the technically competent user.
A. iOS is less functional (as a result of Apple's marketing strategy)
B. iOS is less private (as a result of those 2 out of 10 problems)

Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

[Andrew]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.

I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.

Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.

If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.

Post by badgolferman
Does Apple do that?

Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.

I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.
Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.
If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.

Post by badgolferman
Does Apple do that?

Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

You're a liar or just stupid.

Post by Andrew
Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

Why don't you show your support.

[Andrew]

Post by Alan

Post by Andrew
Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

Why don't you show your support.

Idiot.

The user badgolferman was smart enough to have looked it up before even
thinking of denying it - but you appear to be too stupid to look it up.

https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apple-privacy-tracking-lawsuit/
Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its practice of
collecting and sending analytics data from iPhone users,
regardless of whether or not the user gave consent.

Since you are an idiot, I realize you won't click on the link before
denying everything contained in it so I will not be reading nor responding
to more of your idiocy.

The user badgolferman was a lot smarter than you are as he apparently
looked it up since it's extremely well published information world wide.

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan

Post by Andrew
Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

Why don't you show your support.

Idiot.

I know you are but what am I?

(Yes, child: that is the level of discourse you have chosen, so I choose
to respond in kind)>

Post by Andrew
The user badgolferman was smart enough to have looked it up before even
thinking of denying it - but you appear to be too stupid to look it up.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apple-privacy-tracking-lawsuit/
Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its practice of
collecting and sending analytics data from iPhone users,
regardless of whether or not the user gave consent.

You appear too stupid to understand that allegations are not proof.

Post by Andrew
Since you are an idiot, I realize you won't click on the link before
denying everything contained in it so I will not be reading nor responding
to more of your idiocy.
The user badgolferman was a lot smarter than you are as he apparently
looked it up since it's extremely well published information world wide.

"What ultimately comes of these lawsuits remains to be seen."

Apparently, your reading comprehension level wasn't sufficient to
understand that very simple sentence.

[Frank Slootweg]

badgolferman <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.

If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday. I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.

They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

[Oliver]

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.

"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

Apple harvests lots of personal information, often in ways that you might
not expect if you foolishly buy into the company's empty promise that 'what
happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone.' The harsh reality is that
Apple incessantly uses your personal (and very private) identifying
information for advertising, developing new products, and much more.


"Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's Not"
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

For all of Apple's empty talk about how private your iPhone is, the company
increasingly vacuums up a lot of data about you even when you turn off
tracking, which is a stark and very direct contradiction of Apple's own
description of how they advertised their privacy protection to work.

"'The level of detail is shocking for a company like Apple,' Mysk told
Gizmodo... Apple harvests information about every single thing you did in
real time, including what you tapped on, which apps you search for, what
ads you saw, and how long you looked at a given app and how you found it."

[Alan Browne]

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

Post by Alan Browne
But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!

Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

And all of the functionality can be enabled/disabled in your account.
And if anything changes - changes, additions, deletions, etc. - you get
e-mail and notifications. I've disabled anything which even smells of
'personalization', hence my postive, privacy-safe experience.

As usual, it's people who are *not* using the products/services of
company Y (Can't say 'X", can I? :-)), who spout all kinds of FUD, urban
legends, etc. on how bad company Y is.

You have been / are on the receiving end of this as they spout similar
crap about Apple, so it would be nice if you showed the same
objectivity, which you expect of others.

[Cue AJL! :-)]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!

Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.

Mine are nice and soft. Just enough air to be soft, but not too much
to become dangerous. But then I've a brain and am not afraid to use it.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

Nothing to do with Apple.

Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.

That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

Nothing to do with Apple.

Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

     No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

    Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

Nothing to do with Apple.

   Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the
degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
   That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

It's not Apple bias.  It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product.  That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.

The user is the product, but following the rules, which are published
and are binding, same as Apple.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

Nothing to do with Apple.

Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.

Nice try, but no cigar. *You* mentioned Apple's practices *first* and
slurred "other co's". Then *you* brought up Google as an example of
these "other co's". I countered your slur with facts on what Google is
doing.

So any deflection is on you.

As to the "the user is the product", that's true for most if not all
free services and - as I explained - in the Google case, the user has
several controls on what the 'product' does and does not conprise.

But don't let that stop your unsubstantiated contentless rants.

AFAIC. EOD.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Oliver

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

Nothing to do with Apple.

Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.

Nice try, but no cigar. *You* mentioned Apple's practices *first* and
slurred "other co's". Then *you* brought up Google as an example of
these "other co's". I countered your slur with facts on what Google is
doing.

Completely de-coupled, actually, and deliberately so.

Post by Frank Slootweg
So any deflection is on you.
As to the "the user is the product", that's true for most if not all
free services and - as I explained - in the Google case, the user has
several controls on what the 'product' does and does not conprise.
But don't let that stop your unsubstantiated contentless rants.
AFAIC. EOD.

Yes, I was coming to that too.

[Peter]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

His point was valid that the way you made up excuses for Apple's behavior
was to defiantly say that other companies do it too - which obviously means
you equated Apple's privacy transgressions exactly equally with Google's.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

Post by Alan Browne
I use a fake birthday on all
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Same here.

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
brings them exactly nothing.

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

[...]

They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
brings them exactly nothing.

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!

Same here. Waste of computer time on their part.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

Post by Frank Slootweg
The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data

Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).

The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

Same for these three.

*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.

But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
I use a fake birthday on all
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Same here.

Not what you said earlier.

I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
brings them exactly nothing.

You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
realize only has potential to harm you.

Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!

If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.

Guess I was lucky then when our EUR 50K claim - the largest parts for
the medical bills - went through without a hitch!

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.

You took one thing to be something that it isn't. The ad targeted at
her was due to IP address and had nothing to do with fingerprinting.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
business.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data

Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).

The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

Same for these three.
*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

See above. Profit trumps.

Post by Frank Slootweg

More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.
But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
I use a fake birthday on all
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Same here.

Not what you said earlier.

I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Post by Frank Slootweg
On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).

Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
brings them exactly nothing.

You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
realize only has potential to harm you.

Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

Sorry, but this is specifically what data aggregators and brokers do.
Unseen by you and always pervasive.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!

If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.

Guess I was lucky then when our EUR 50K claim - the largest parts for
the medical bills - went through without a hitch!

Never claimed it would cause a denial. But depending on the
circumstances, you can be sure such data is examined.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.

You took one thing to be something that it isn't. The ad targeted at
her was due to IP address and had nothing to do with fingerprinting.

Duh! That's what I'm saying. They *should* - at least - have used
browser fingerprinting, but they didn't.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
business.

More FUD. Where's your proof, facts, etc.? Yes, Google, Apple, the
lot, get frequent hefty fines, but not for selling data from people's
account which they specifically turned off. When doing business,
companies have to prove that they need certain data - i.e. in this
example someone's birthday - in order to be able to do business. If they
can't prove that, that's by default a violation.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data

Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).

The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

Same for these three.
*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

See above. Profit trumps.

Nope. There are limits to what they can do. Besides the hefty fines,
the lawsuits, the reputation damage, etc. they can be banned from doing
any business at all. Google, Apple, et al have been repeatedly beaten
into submission. It works. (BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
Financial Times).)

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.
But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.

Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne
I use a fake birthday on all
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Same here.

Not what you said earlier.

I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).

Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...

Yes, they do. Your *point* being? (Clue-by-four: I don't use Amazon.
Guess why.)

[...]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

[...]

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-21 05:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:
(BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine

Post by Frank Slootweg
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
Financial Times).)

Nope. Apple are expected to be fined in March.

And of course Apple will fight it.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.

You took one thing to be something that it isn't. The ad targeted at
her was due to IP address and had nothing to do with fingerprinting.

Duh! That's what I'm saying. They *should* - at least - have used
browser fingerprinting, but they didn't.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
business.

More FUD. Where's your proof, facts, etc.? Yes, Google, Apple, the
lot, get frequent hefty fines, but not for selling data from people's
account which they specifically turned off. When doing business,
companies have to prove that they need certain data - i.e. in this
example someone's birthday - in order to be able to do business. If they
can't prove that, that's by default a violation.

They don't have to prove a thing. The prosecution has to prove
malfeasance. Google only needs to defend to the best they can. They do
not open their Kimono.

Yes, they *do* have to *prove* they're not violating the what is (not)
not needed rule. So in the example, they have to prove that the
customer's birthday is needed in order to be able to perform the
transaction. As the birthday is not needed in most cases, it's a by
default violation, unless they can prove otherwise.

It's not a normal court case. The organization judges the alleged
violation. If they find it's a violation, they can take action, which
can of often does include a fine. *Then* the accused party can object
and try to dispute the case/fine. Same with the country-local
equivalents, they judge, they decide, they issue a fine.

Moral: Don't pretend to know how the EU/country-local legislation on
use of personal data works.

[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data

Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).

The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

Same for these three.
*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

See above. Profit trumps.

Nope. There are limits to what they can do. Besides the hefty fines,
the lawsuits, the reputation damage, etc. they can be banned from doing
any business at all. Google, Apple, et al have been repeatedly beaten
into submission. It works. (BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
Financial Times).)

See below[AAA]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg

More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.
But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.

Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

[AAA.1]
Point is: you do not know. You believe you know. But you have zero
idea of what is happening with your information that Google have
collected on you and re-sold to others. You have no idea what these
others are doing with it.

The point you keep ignoring that in order to be able to do anything
with "your information", 'they' first have to *have* such information.

*My* *point* is that 'they' have very, very limited information,
because I provide only minimal information and 'they' can 'trace' only
very minimal information, because I'm not providing more to anyone.

[AAA.2]
You believe you are wrapped in the protections of EU law, but you have
no idea how data above you is collected, stored, processed and used
outside of the legal confine of the EU ... but is still useful to some
co. somewhere at some time.

See [AAA.1]. No data in, no data out.

[Rewind/repeat:]

Post by Frank Slootweg
Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

Dangers like data breaches, phishing, fraud attempts, ransomware
attacks, etc., etc..

[...]

I'm done. I hope so are you. There's just no point.

[Frank Slootweg]

[Disclaimer: Yes, I said EOD, but it took a while for this mind-boggler
to sink in.]
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
- fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
here a few days later...

You're not serious, are you!?

Here you are lecturing someone, who is using a tightly controlled
Google Account, on the alleged severe privacy risks of such use, while
you are shopping at *Amazon*!

So Amazon having, using and selling your personal information is
perfectly fine in your book, but if (you say) Google does so, it's the
end of the world as we know it!?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

And you say you use *Google* *Maps*! Bad boy, bad boy, bad bad boy!

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg
[Disclaimer: Yes, I said EOD, but it took a while for this mind-boggler
to sink in.]
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
- fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
here a few days later...

You're not serious, are you!?
Here you are lecturing someone, who is using a tightly controlled
Google Account, on the alleged severe privacy risks of such use, while

Tightly controlled in your opinion. Sort of like canoeing on a calm
river w/o knowing what is below.

Post by Frank Slootweg
you are shopping at *Amazon*!

Who doesn't? And Amazon know less about me than Google other than the
trivial amount of purchases I do at Amazon. (about $500 / year - maybe).

Post by Frank Slootweg
So Amazon having, using and selling your personal information is
perfectly fine in your book, but if (you say) Google does so, it's the
end of the world as we know it!?
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
And you say you use *Google* *Maps*! Bad boy, bad boy, bad bad boy!

I use all sorts of maps. For short trips Apple is better (for me) for
longer trips, Google is better - and certainly has better content w/r to
merchants, hotels, restaurants, etc.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
[Disclaimer: Yes, I said EOD, but it took a while for this mind-boggler
to sink in.]
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
- fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
here a few days later...

You're not serious, are you!?
Here you are lecturing someone, who is using a tightly controlled
Google Account, on the alleged severe privacy risks of such use, while

Tightly controlled in your opinion. Sort of like canoeing on a calm
river w/o knowing what is below.

Yadda yadda yadda! Don't you get tired of your FUD, urban legends,
innuendo, etc.? You migh (not) want to try some proof, facts, etc. some
time.

Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not
take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
you are shopping at *Amazon*!

Who doesn't? And Amazon know less about me than Google other than the
trivial amount of purchases I do at Amazon. (about $500 / year - maybe).

I don't. Your purchases can tell a lot about you and because (you say)
Amazon uses and sells your data, you're doomed, or at least so you keep
telling me/us.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
So Amazon having, using and selling your personal information is
perfectly fine in your book, but if (you say) Google does so, it's the
end of the world as we know it!?
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
And you say you use *Google* *Maps*! Bad boy, bad boy, bad bad boy!

I use all sorts of maps. For short trips Apple is better (for me) for
longer trips, Google is better - and certainly has better content w/r to
merchants, hotels, restaurants, etc.

Yes, I've read how you use Google Maps. So now Google also has all
that location data on you, where you've been, when, for how long, etc.,
etc.. Did I already mention you're doomed?

[Alan Browne]

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not
take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.

What Amazon knows about me is a pale shadow of what Google knows about you.

Face it. You have 0 clue what Google collect about you.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not
take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.

What Amazon knows about me is a pale shadow of what Google knows about you.

So you keep saying, but you have exactly zilch to back up your
*opinion*, *both* ways.

Post by Alan Browne
Face it. You have 0 clue what Google collect about you.

Because someone on Usenet says so, without providing any proof or
facts? <barf!>

The old "ridicule it and it will go away retort" is tired and weak.
Esp. as Google have had 2+ decades to accumulate data on you (and still do).

And (pro tip) their use of what they know about you is not restricted to
ads. That is only part of it.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not
take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.

What Amazon knows about me is a pale shadow of what Google knows about you.

So you keep saying, but you have exactly zilch to back up your
*opinion*, *both* ways.

Post by Alan Browne
Face it. You have 0 clue what Google collect about you.

Because someone on Usenet says so, without providing any proof or
facts? <barf!>

The old "ridicule it and it will go away retort" is tired and weak.
Esp. as Google have had 2+ decades to accumulate data on you (and still do).
And (pro tip) their use of what they know about you is not restricted to
ads. That is only part of it.

Direct line to NSA and GCH being included in that list.

[Wolf Greenblatt]

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique Apple ID
as was recently described in this information technology privacy report.

Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.

"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code to
generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese tech
company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of device
information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in violation of Apple's
policies, which do not allow developers to 'derive data from a device for
the purpose of uniquely identifying it,'" the researchers wrote.

The researchers also said that Apple isn't required to follow the policy in
many cases, making it possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of
data it collects. They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes
of "obtaining information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific
purpose of making a credit determination."

Representatives from Apple declined to comment. Alibaba representatives
didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Based on a comparison of 1,685 apps published before and after ATT went
into effect, the number of tracking libraries they used remained roughly
the same. The most widely used libraries-including Apple's SKAdNetwork,
Google Firebase Analytics, and Google Crashlytics-didn't change. Almost a
quarter of the studied apps claimed that they didn't collect any user data,
but the majority of them-80 percent-contained at least one tracker library.

On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect user
data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted 2.5
tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose having
access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better with about a 47
percent failure rate."

[Alan]

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique Apple ID
as was recently described in this information technology privacy report.

You apparently don't understand...

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

...that Apple is not:

"companies, particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work
around the protections and stockpile even more data."

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.

Weird that you left that out of the paragraph you quoted above this
paragraph...

...isn't it?

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code to
generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese tech
company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of device
information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in violation of Apple's
policies, which do not allow developers to 'derive data from a device for
the purpose of uniquely identifying it,'" the researchers wrote.

"nine iOS apps".

How many of them were Apple's?

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
The researchers also said that Apple isn't required to follow the policy in
many cases, making it possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of
data it collects. They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes
of "obtaining information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific
purpose of making a credit determination."
Representatives from Apple declined to comment. Alibaba representatives
didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Based on a comparison of 1,685 apps published before and after ATT went
into effect, the number of tracking libraries they used remained roughly
the same. The most widely used libraries-including Apple's SKAdNetwork,
Google Firebase Analytics, and Google Crashlytics-didn't change. Almost a
quarter of the studied apps claimed that they didn't collect any user data,
but the majority of them-80 percent-contained at least one tracker library.
On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect user
data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted 2.5
tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose having
access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better with about a 47
percent failure rate."

'6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

Overall, we find that Apple’s new policies largely live up to its
promises on making tracking more difficult.'

<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>

Small wonder you failed to include this.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Alan

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique
Apple ID as was recently described in this information technology
privacy report.

You apparently don't understand...

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says

"companies, particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work
around the protections and stockpile even more data."

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.

Weird that you left that out of the paragraph you quoted above this
paragraph...
...isn't it?

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code
to generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese
tech company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of
device information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in
violation of Apple's policies, which do not allow developers to
'derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying
it,'" the researchers wrote.

"nine iOS apps".
How many of them were Apple's?

I'll hazard a guess: Zero.

Post by Alan

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
blah blah blah

'6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
Overall, we find that Apple’s new policies largely live up to its
promises on making tracking more difficult.'
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>
Small wonder you failed to include this.

Weak troll's gonna troll.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

You're correct

Yes. And what I was referring to had nothing to do with Apple.

Lame try. Do grow up.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Alan Browne

[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

   Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
   If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
   As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban
legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

You share or shared something with them. Like, once you used her
computer to buy something at Amazon. You did something that, within the
terms and conditions, allowed them to link both machines or users.

Doesn't happen to me. I use a separate FF profile for searching at
Amazon, and yet another one for purchasing.

...

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

They'd have to be caught first.

Of course, but the FUD crowd implies it's done all the time. If so,
they *will* get caught.

Post by Frank Slootweg
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
business model.

So what *is* the worry/harm/<whatever>. "Bad things can and will
happen to you! News at eleven."?

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.

Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
innuendo.

They have a huge amount of behavioural data - unless you've been careful to
switch off ALL tracking - which is significantly more valuable than your
birthday.

Yes, I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
of my Windows laptop, etc..

[david]

Post by Frank Slootweg
I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
of my Windows laptop, etc..

I wonder if the most Apple users are using Google Maps on their iPhones?

[Alan Browne]

Post by david

Post by Frank Slootweg
I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
of my Windows laptop, etc..

I wonder if the most Apple users are using Google Maps on their iPhones?

Locally I use Apple; on long road trips I've mostly used Google Maps
(better planning). But Apple Maps has improved in this regard, so next
long trip I'll try sticking to Apple.

That said, finding a particular kind of store is usually better done
with Google Maps no matter where I am.

[Chris]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

They'd have to be caught first.

Of course, but the FUD crowd implies it's done all the time. If so,
they *will* get caught.

Post by Frank Slootweg
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
business model.

So what *is* the worry/harm/<whatever>. "Bad things can and will
happen to you! News at eleven."?

Because it is "personal data" that you have rights to have control over.
How much control depends on jurisdiction.

The harm is that it can used to pre-profile you based on a bias or trend
rather than as you as an individual. I suspect you, like me, are a white
european so we will never/rarely suffer negative consequences because we
the average or default group.

People from minority backgrounds on the other hand have to constantly fight
to be treated as an individual rather than a group label: "black",
"disabled", "muslim", etc.

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.

Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
innuendo.

They may not sell your data directly, but they do make a lot of money from
it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and

[Chris]

Post by Chris

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by badgolferman
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

They'd have to be caught first.

Of course, but the FUD crowd implies it's done all the time. If so,
they *will* get caught.

Post by Frank Slootweg
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
business model.

So what *is* the worry/harm/<whatever>. "Bad things can and will
happen to you! News at eleven."?

Because it is "personal data" that you have rights to have control over.
How much control depends on jurisdiction.

As I meantioned, the jurisdiction is the EU and local law if that can
and does diverge from EU legislation.

Not everyone here is in the EU. Including me unfortunately.

Post by Chris
The harm is that it can used to pre-profile you based on a bias or trend
rather than as you as an individual. I suspect you, like me, are a white
european so we will never/rarely suffer negative consequences because we
the average or default group.
People from minority backgrounds on the other hand have to constantly fight
to be treated as an individual rather than a group label: "black",
"disabled", "muslim", etc.

True, but I don't see what that has to do with Google. Only gender is
in your Google profile. (You can set it to 'Rather not say', but that's
hardly relevant with a clear first name like mine.)

You can identify a lot of information about someone just by observing them.

Post by Chris

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Frank Slootweg
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.

Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
innuendo.

They may not sell your data directly, but they do make a lot of money from
it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and

Thanks. I'll have a closer look, but a quick scan shows a US
(California) - i.e. non-EU - setting and users not using the
data-limiting controls which are available to them.

Agree that most of the issues are relevant to the US. GDPR has been great
for data protection.

[Mickey D]

They have a huge amount of behavioural data - unless you've been careful to
switch off ALL tracking - which is significantly more valuable than your
birthday.

You are certainly correct that Apple has a huge amount of behavioural data
on you, specifically because everything you do is associated with a unique
Apple ID, not only on a single device, but often on all your Apple devices.

What Apple Knows About You by Default
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/
Apple has always gathered a lot of data about you.

"When you start using Apple's products, it collects information about you.
This can include data needed to sign up to its services or buy products,
such as your name, email address, the Apple ID that you create, and your
payment details."

Apple says contextual ads within its apps are shown based on your device
information (such as keyboard language and mobile carrier), your location
data if you have shared it with the apps, the searches you make in the App
Store, or the "type of story" you read in News and Stocks apps.

The company's documentation also says that App Store "browsing activity" is
also used to help determine ads that can be shown to you. "App Store
browsing activity includes the content and apps you tap and view while
browsing the App Store. This information is aggregated across users so that
it does not identify you," the company's documents say.

This data has the potential to be extensive. "Everything is monitored and
sent to Apple almost in real time," says Tommy Mysk, an app developer and
security researcher who runs the software company Mysk with fellow
developer Talal Haj Bakry. In November, the Mysk researchers demonstrated
how taps on the screen were logged when using the App Store. Their
follow-up research demonstrated that analytics data could be used to
identify people.

"The App Store is special because there's no other option," Mysk says.
"There is no other choice. If you don't like the privacy statement of Apple
Music, fine. You can use Spotify-there are alternatives. To the App Store,
there is nothing."

Apple's privacy policy also says it can collect data on how you use your
devices. This can include the apps you use, searches within Apple's apps,
such as the App Store, and analytics and other personal data. Other
information Apple can collect about you can include your location
information, health information, and fitness information.

Apple has always collected reams of data about its customers but Apple's
increasing push into services & advertising opens the door for even more
potential data collection.

The data Apple collects about you is outlined in its privacy policy, which
runs to about 4,000 words. Apple also has multiple privacy guides for its
individual products and apps, which more specifically outline how they
collect and use data. There are around 80 of these privacy outlines,
ranging from Apple's advertising and research programs to Apple Books and
sports. The guides are linked within apps and are online. While some
information is repeated, in total they hit around 70,000 words which is
around a novel's worth of legalese.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

[Larry Wolff]

Post by Frank Slootweg
For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

[badgolferman]

Post by Larry Wolff

Post by Frank Slootweg
For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

They probably did obey the law.

[Larry Wolff]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Larry Wolff
Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

They probably did obey the law.

Agree that Apple almost certainly obeyed the law.

The law probably says if they ask for it nicely and Apple gives it to them,
then it's legal. They don't need a subpoena to get it from Apple that way.

They only need a subpoena if Apple doesn't give it to them when they ask.

[Alan]

Post by Larry Wolff

Post by badgolferman

Post by Larry Wolff
Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

They probably did obey the law.

Agree that Apple almost certainly obeyed the law.
The law probably says if they ask for it nicely and Apple gives it to them,
then it's legal. They don't need a subpoena to get it from Apple that way.
They only need a subpoena if Apple doesn't give it to them when they ask.

It's really nice when you can just make shit up...


...Arlen

[badgolferman]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by badgolferman

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Yeah, right…

You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don’t have the ability to
intercept and decode “encrypted data”?

[Frank Slootweg]

[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by badgolferman
For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Yeah, right?
You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
intercept and decode ?encrypted data??

They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..

They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.

BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.

('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)

[David B.]

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by badgolferman
For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Yeah, right?
You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
intercept and decode ?encrypted data??

They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..
They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.
BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.
('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

[soyon]

David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31

Post by David B.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.

I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially that
Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the instant
you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always log into
Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using the same Apple ID.

What a wealth of intensely personal information that must be for Apple.
Meanwhile, Android works perfectly fine without ever logging into Google.

[badgolferman]

Post by soyon
David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31

Post by David B.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.
I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially
that Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the
instant you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always
log into Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using
the same Apple ID.

Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and
that you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low
standing even further.
You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can
do with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging platforms,
surf the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into Apple's system.
And of course to the extent that 10's of thousands of apps provide
their own servers, etc., those are also accessible w/o logging into
Apple's servers.
The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
services for communications and integration of services (as oft
listed in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes using
using various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so seamless and
convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted
communications system run by a company that sells products and
services - not people's information - like Android producer Google.
So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and
again, it doesn't change the reality of things.

Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?

[Alan]

Post by badgolferman

Post by soyon
David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31

Post by David B.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.
I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially
that Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the
instant you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always
log into Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using
the same Apple ID.

Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and
that you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low
standing even further.
You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can
do with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging platforms,
surf the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into Apple's system.
And of course to the extent that 10's of thousands of apps provide
their own servers, etc., those are also accessible w/o logging into
Apple's servers.
The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
services for communications and integration of services (as oft
listed in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes using
using various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so seamless and
convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted
communications system run by a company that sells products and
services - not people's information - like Android producer Google.
So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and
again, it doesn't change the reality of things.

Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?

Yup.

30 seconds of personal research could have answered that for you.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Alan

Post by badgolferman

Post by soyon
David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31

Post by David B.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.
I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially
that Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the
instant you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always
log into Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using
the same Apple ID.

Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and
that you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low
standing even further.
You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can
do with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging
platforms, surf the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into
Apple's system. And of course to the extent that 10's of thousands
of apps provide their own servers, etc., those are also accessible
w/o logging into Apple's servers.
The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
services for communications and integration of services (as oft
listed in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes
using using various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so
seamless and convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted
communications system run by a company that sells products and
services - not people's information - like Android producer Google.
So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and
again, it doesn't change the reality of things.

Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?

Yup.
30 seconds of personal research could have answered that for you.

He was told by Arlen that wasn't possible! And like a good little
trollboi he swallowed it up and regurgitated it in the form of a
question as if he thought it was some witty "gotcha". Gullible rube is
the phrase of the day! 😉

[Patrick]

You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can do
with Android.

Good.

Because I want to change the default messenger app on iOS like Android
does?

Oh wait? You can't?

Then I want to automatically record my phone calls on iOS like Android
does.

Oh wait? You can't?

Well then, I want to be able to change my ringtones to be different for
every application and for each message depending on the sender like Android
does.

Oh wait? You can't?

Well then, at least I can dial directly using a WhatsApp dialer like
Android?

No? You still can't do even something that simple on iOS?

At least can I have my dialer and my WhatsApp use different contacts?
No?

What the heck.

You seem to have a very limited view of what "everything" means for
communications since to you, "everything" is only "iMessages".

Well at least you can communicate with your default messaging app on any
platform you want (including Windows and Linux too!) right?

No?

What the heck.
You can't do any communications on iOS that Android has no problem doing.

[Alan]

Post by David B.

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by badgolferman
For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

Yeah, right?
You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
intercept and decode ?encrypted data??

They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..
They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.
BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.
('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Fuck off, David.

[Charlie]

E2E encryption means exactly that.

Except when E2E doesn't mean anything at all, which is when everyone is not
fully inside the Apple walled garden (which requires an iCloud account).

Apple's own words are below from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

"With standard data protection, iCloud content that you share with other
people is not end-to-end encrypted!

Advanced Data Protection is designed to maintain end-to-end encryption for
shared content as long as all participants have Advanced Data Protection
enabled. This level of protection is supported in most iCloud sharing
features, including iCloud Shared Photo Library, iCloud Drive shared
folders, and shared Notes."

[Gelato]

iMessage has been end-to-end for a long
time and messaging is the context of the present topic.

That "long time" was only a short time ago.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption

"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well,
Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."

[Alan Browne]

Post by Gelato

iMessage has been end-to-end for a long
time and messaging is the context of the present topic.

That "long time" was only a short time ago.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well,
Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."

Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.

[Gelato]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Gelato
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well,
Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."

Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.

The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is the
encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on iCloud.

End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption key.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Gelato

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Gelato
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted
by default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end
encrypted as well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to
backups stored on iCloud."

Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.

The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is
the encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on
iCloud.

Nope. Wrong again. IF you use the OPTIONAL iCloud Backups feature - as
opposed to backing up to your own computer, and you don't enabled
Advanced Data Protection, your backup contains a copy of your iMessage
encryption key. Nuance is hard, y'all! 🤣

Post by Gelato
End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption key.

Don't back up to iCloud, or enable Advanced Data Protection. "Problem"
solved, like magic!

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Gelato

iMessage has been end-to-end for a long time and messaging is the
context of the present topic.

That "long time" was only a short time ago.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as
well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on
iCloud."

Tell me you aren't this dumb. iCloud Backups are not messages.

iMessage has indeed been end-to-end encrypted for a long, long time.

Backups are also end-to-end encrypted when you enable Advanced Data
Protection which was introduced with iOS 16.2, iPadOS 16.2 and macOS
13.1.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by sms
<snip>

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by badgolferman
I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

No.
It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.
Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like
iMessage) can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like
WhatsApp). Not the other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

Companies do not decide if a platform is core or not. Apple has no say
in this. It is the EU who decides who is core, for the purpose of
mandating to open their platform to competitors inside the EU.

[Arno Welzel]

sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:

[...]

Post by sms
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then
getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no
other choice.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Arno Welzel
[...]

Post by sms
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then
getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no
other choice.

What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?

[Arno Welzel]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel
[...]

Post by sms
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then
getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no
other choice.

What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?

How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features
of iMessage without using iMessage?

[Arno Welzel]

Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:

[...]

These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.

Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only
on iOS. Good luck trying to convince dozens of other people to install
your favourite messenger instead to keep in touch with you.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Arno Welzel
[...]

These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.

Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only

False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.

Post by Arno Welzel
on iOS. Good luck trying to convince dozens of other people to install
your favourite messenger instead to keep in touch with you.

Another way to see it is that with an iPhone you have both the country
club experience of iOS (aka: the Apple Eco-System) as well as the public
parks of the various messaging systems that are also available on Android.

People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products
you have. (the Eco-System).

[Arno Welzel]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel
[...]

These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.

Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only

False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.

Yes - but the it is just SMS/MMS then and not "iMessage". In particular
you also can't join group conversions.

Of course if using plain old SMS/MMS to exchange messages with single
person is enough, than there is no reason to get a smartphone at all
just for this. Plain old mobile phones provide SMS as well.

[...]

Post by Alan Browne
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products
you have. (the Eco-System).

I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use
and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me
compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom
launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for
example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on
the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.

[Chris]

Post by Arno Welzel

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Arno Welzel
[...]

These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.

Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only

False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.

Yes - but the it is just SMS/MMS then and not "iMessage". In particular
you also can't join group conversions.
Of course if using plain old SMS/MMS to exchange messages with single
person is enough, than there is no reason to get a smartphone at all
just for this. Plain old mobile phones provide SMS as well.
[...]

Post by Alan Browne
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products
you have. (the Eco-System).

I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use
and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me
compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom
launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for
example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on
the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.

All apps accept a swipe from left to right as "back".