I'll take this as an upfront admission that apple is not only opposed to standards but actively avoidant of them when it is profitable, rather than the deflection it was meant to be.
You seem knowledgeable enough to know that standards are usually contributed to by corporations and that this has many many times not ruined them. The whole web is built on this fact. But unfortunately your zealotry blinds you to what your priorities ought to be, standards for everyone's benefit.
Again, point me to apple's attempts to implement or help create a texting standard. Unless you'd like to instead say that standards are not an extremely important part of human society. Because unless you believe that, their actions are indefensible and that's a separate issue from how fucked up Google is.
You're ignoring the part where Google tried and carriers and apple refused.. That's not some irrelevant detail
Google attempted an open standard, carriers refused. Apple actively refuses to participate or help. Not sure why so many apple simps can't ever acknowledge that standards are important. It's likely if you look around you at any given moment, you'll dozens of vital everyday products that are cheap or possible due to standards. The rest of computing is built heavily on standards. Standards === modern society. Yet apple can do no wrong if they explicitly dodge standards for profit.
Oh great, so then when will apple be releasing their open standard for secure and feature rich texting?
...waits decades....
Oh yeah that's right, doing so would prevent them from pretending that things jUsT wOrKiNg is only something an apple product is capable of because any other product is obviously garbage.
We all know the reason apple often avoids standards is purely for profit. They do it knowing it is bad for their users. So let's not pretend that privacy is all they care about. At least google attempted a standard. And yes Google sucks ass. But I have more respect for a company that believes in standards than one whose business model only works because they strategically avoid them
Why would they not be?
I'm not. I get it now. Someone else reminded me, "nb" already means non black which is a good point. I think clarity in language is good which is the only reason I spoke up but I get it now. Especially given this reply. Makes sense. No hard feelings
That makes sense and is the answer I sought :) thank you kind stranger
Thread winner 😂
That's a weird question. No of course not, not even sure you understand what that means...
Again jargon is designed for the in group. When language is more accessible to all random Internet users... On the random Internet... Seems like a win to me.
I mean, for your logic to hold up at all, it requires ignoring a very real fact. A second hand phone was already purchased. That transaction was done already, and there exists no world in which if you don't buy the second hand phone the seller will think "omg no one will buy this, guess I have to switch from Google forever". Another person will absolutely buy it. But even if not, then it gets wasted, and I think the environmental impact being ignored here is a pretty crass move also. I'm not willing to sacrifice environmental concerns to send a message to Google. Honestly they absolutely know how many phones are running stock android so that number decreasing would "send the message" just the same without a phone potentially ending up in a landfill.
That's cool. I wonder if they're planning an android version