• @allywilson
    link
    126 months ago

    Why? As the article states this actually lessens security for everyone (including iPhone users).

    • @Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Imagine that! The founder of the company that was denied access to Apple for creating an app that essentially copped an app that is part of their proprietary OS, says it would have increased their security!

      Well gosh!!! let them in then!

      • @allywilson
        link
        166 months ago

        This is nothing to do with the OS.

        He has a point though, you haven’t refuted that.

          • @allywilson
            link
            336 months ago

            Because you’re confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol.

            • @Pratai@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

              • @allywilson
                link
                32
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                creating an app that essentially copped their proprietary OS

                The OS hasn’t been ‘copped’. They emulated the protocol, and your lack of understanding and confusing the two has led us to having this conversation.

              • FZDC
                link
                fedilink
                206 months ago

                Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here.

                Compare to Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:

                “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that’s all.

                Yeah, if you want to make up your own definitions to the words you use, and then order those around you to stop arguing semantics, then you’re basically not having a conversation at all.

                Your comment was confusing because you don’t seem to understand what is or isn’t part of an operating system, and the mere mention of the operating system was pretty far removed from any relevance to your own point.

                It’s a proprietary service, and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position, but it would be an incoherent position to claim that only OS developers should have that right.

                • @Pratai@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  36 months ago

                  and if you want to argue that companies can run proprietary services in a closed manner, denying access to third party clients, cool, that can be your position

                  Can it really? Cool! Thanks! That’s my position then.