Generally speaking defense contractors do not make more money during wars, because we start asking them to make low-margin realistic stuff, whereas in peace time we get bored and start paying them to design imaginary superweapons.
But we also usually don't blow up our own planes I suppose.
Since cloudflare are busy editing this blog post to say something completely different from what it originally said, I feel that this archive link is relevant
Hah. The coward even deleted the telltale "not just X; Y" LLM dead-giveaway line from the blog, after someone vomit emoji quoted it in the mastodon thread.
(Parent has already replied by editing their original comment, but I'll tack on a bit more info, from my perspective.)
The reason this has to be emphasized is that all new code runs the risk of regressions, and in a production environment, you hate regressions. Therefore, not only do you not want new features, but you also don't want irrelevant bug fixes. Bug fixes, even security fixes, are not magically free of independent regressions. Therefore a valid incentive exists to minimize backports to production environments. And such a balancing act depends on the careful investigation of the impact of known bugs, one by one.
From the fine blog post:
> For those that are always worried “what if a bugfix causes problems”, they should remember that a fix for a known bug is better than the potential of a fix causing a future problem as future problems, when found, will be fixed then.
A whole lot of users can disagree with this. For good, practical reasons. The expected damage of a known bug may be estimated, while an unknown regression brought in by the fix for the known bug may cause way worse damage.
Not sure why I decided to comment specifically on what you posted given the fact that there are various levels of misinformation going on in this thread, but I guess yours is the most blunt.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
If you are worried about your Google account being banned for using ReVanced (not that I saw any evidence for anything like that so far but I agree that there could be a scenario like this some time in the future), for years now I've been using a separate Google account only for YouTube. This account essentially only contains my YouTube viewing history and nothing more. I have yet to see any disadvantage in this separation
This is indeed extremely annoying and I never understood why so many apps are configured to only be available in specific countries. Like what at all do they stand to gain doing this?
Google will then go on to complain about users installing APKs from shady sources but this practice pushes users to do so. I'm sure a decent amount of users ended up with malware on their phones just because they wanted to install an app that wasn't available in their listed country.
> We are committed to developing this standard in a way that ensures it will not be abused to segment users based on client hardware. For example, we may consider supporting software keys for all users regardless of hardware capabilities. This would ensure that DBSC will not let servers differentiate between users based on hardware features or device state (i.e. if a device is Play Protect certified or not).
Personally I do not believe this for a second. Yes I do believe that this is what they will do now. But in a few years, if DBSC becomes mainstream? I fully believe Google will start abusing this to strengthen their control. It's the same with the Chrome browser that they eventually used to push MV3 and tried to push WEI.
Honestly? I feel that this could be their way of pushing WEI again through the back door, and I am concerned that unlike WEI, this seems to barely get any buzz or pushback from the community.
> On the other hand, I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is to push people to use stand-alone apps like WhatsApp and FB Messenger
I find it amusing that in 2024 people in the US still talk about WhatsApp as a future step. Where I'm from already 10+ years ago every single person you know would have a WhatsApp account.
With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really only the US is behind here.
It's really not. It's a step up from SMS, but the real future is true end-to-end encrypted communications. Signal is the next step up, and then hopefully we'll eventually get really secure messaging where the core OS doesn't help leak out your information.
> It's really not. It's a step up from SMS, but the real future is true end-to-end encrypted communications.
I thought this was a board filled with futurists? Can we really imagine no future scenario where the RCS spec gets E2EE?
At least Apple seems to think it's worth trying. And I think they'll succeed.
This kind of annoying defeatism is why SMS took so long to upgrade to RCS in the first place. "Eh it sucks right now and there's no use working together to make it better, lets just lock everyone into our own app and move on." If this mentality never changed we would not be enjoying RCS's benefits at all.
And to be clear, over 1 billion monthly active users are benefiting from RCS features _right now_ (and a good chunk of them are enjoying Google's proprietary E2EE). Look at a line chart of RCS adoption and tell me again it's not the future.
> I thought this was a board filled with futurists? Can we really imagine no future scenario where the RCS spec gets E2EE?
The quality of posts on this site notably declines when Apple needs to be defended. You get posts lacking intellectual curiosity abundant, seemingly not putting in the work to think critically about policy implications, what's best for the industry, or even how technologies work. You'd be forgiven for thinking you were on Reddit on these threads, as the typical respondent fails to read the other threads, fails to learn from each other, fails to be deep and thoughtful about their position, their arguments and the positions and arguments of their fellow chatters.
You see the same misconceptions and the same falsehoods long debunked on every previous thread discussing these matters regurgitated with confidence. And it's another struggle to try to educate on these issues.
Thanks for approaching this with curiosity and a desire to improve these standards, it's so unfortunate so many who would claim themselves technologists would embrace the status quo and ignore what's possible in the future.
Google implemented E2E four years ago. While they could have got started (and announced that they had gotten started) on the path to standardization of standard E2E on day one, it takes a lot of time for this stuff to be developed. It goes a lot faster though when Apple and Google work together, because the usual stakeholders (GSMA) are forced to move faster.
What Google's approach proves is that it is perfectly possible to layer E2E encryption on top of RCS in a way that does not require a carrier to add their own support, which is something I am sure Apple is interested in. For details on that here is Google's white paper: https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf
The reason it took so longe is because carriers are still involved with RCS, and carriers suck.
Every successful messaging protocol aside from SMS does so by routing around the carrier and sending messages over data. iMessage, WhatsApp, telegram, signal etc.
Yeah, although I do like RCS, for instance my network dragged their heals in updating to latest specs and was always broken and patchy at best, until they just gave up and handed all their RCS infrastructure over to Google to run directly. Networks are surprisingly bad at implimenting tech.
Why is E2EE the argument people keep jumping to with RCS? The bigger problem is the reliance on carriers, that's far worse. Far fewer people are talking about that issue (thankfully there are some in the comments below, I've never seen anyone on Reddit mention it)
Signal the protocol can be and is implemented by third parties. Signal the platform, is different. Keep in mind Signal's only centralised part is thin server that acts as a relay. Matrix is a thin client protocol that relies on server to enforce soundness rules.
IDK what's your point.
A encryption protocol isn't enough to replace SMS.
Linearized Matrix is, and uses the Signal Protocol, though MLS probably would be a more future proof solution
RCS is trash. No E2E by default should make mentioning it on a site like HN an instant dismissal. Secondly it's effectively owned by Google (or as good as) and it relies on the carriers (the same people who brought us SMS). Why people want to run headfirst into the arms of carrier+Google is beyond me, especially for a "standard" that is anything but and will undoubtedly wither on the vine. Carriers will not make any improvements (see SMS/MMS) and Google will probably lose interest when they turn their attention to their 10014124120412412th attempt at a chat app.
First, the pricing model. Similar to SMS, RCS is a service provided by carrier. Many carriers include unlimited text messages in their phone plans, but not all carriers do that. And that's only for domestic messaging. When it comes to international communication, would carriers handle RCS like an instant messaging app or charge users per text message like SMS? That could be a huge number on the bill.
Second, the structure and server. Currently, most carriers have given up on making their own RCS infrastructure and let Google's Jibe run it. If iOS joins RCS, and RCS is implemented globally in the future, how would messages be transferred between different carriers, different cloud platforms, and different operating systems?
This "Zuckerware" is powerful enough to defeat judges, governments. It works just like Signal, same end-to-end encryption implementation.
Network effects make the perfect solutions dead on arrival. It's pointless to complain. I'll just count my blessings instead: never in the history of humanity have so many people used something this secure to communicate with each other.
Most people with a phone have a phone number and can thus use SMS (literally the opposite of a "perfect solution," mind). I can't think of a bigger network effect than literally every person that owns a cellphone.
Maybe other countries should catch up to the US and make texting free.
> I'll just count my blessings instead: never in the history of humanity have so many people used something this secure to communicate with each other.
Alternatively, never in the history of humanity has so much of our core, private communications been captured by a single for-profit entity. An entity with a rich, recent history of serious moral failings (Cambridge Analytica, internal teen suicide studies, etc.)
Meta can and will molest WhatsApp to suit their needs. Be real careful with that auto-update. Call me Chicken Little but I would never have made a comment like this 10 years ago. Facebook's behavior is a matter of history now.
Yeah, a decent litmus test is if you sign into a service from a new device and without much effort all your chats/messages/history or whatever is there, the security is weak.
I got off WhatsApp years ago so I am not sure what's changed but back then if you signed on from any random browser, it was able to sync everything instantly and you'd see all your messages. This was after they claimed that it was E2E encrypted. What was explained to me at the time was that you share your encryption key with Facebook and hence the syncing.
Chat backups are end-to-end encrypted now. You're right that it wasn't encrypted for a long time though.
I'm not claiming it's the ideal solution. I'm claiming it's much better than lots of other things that came before. There's no point in having a perfect solution if the people I know don't use it. Everyone I know uses WhatsApp. It's a fact that life could be much worse than it is. They could be using SMS.
RCS does not support any end to end encryption. Yes you can send end to end encrypted messages over it, same as over SMS, but it's not part of the protocol. I don't hope RCS is the future, I don't want my ISP or any intermediate party to read my text messages, thank you.
Traveling with family it’s been nice to use the WhatsApp but it’s ui is and the onboarding was so bad - took about 10 tries to get it working … I’m amazed how many people use it… but pretty hard to compete with 0 cost service…
Oh I definitely agree with you that I hope WhatsApp is the past. I sure do hope for something open, not sure if RCS is the solution here though.
In any case, iMessage share the exact same issues and also adds the issue of locking you to a single platform, so at least WhatsApp solves one issue that iMessage has.
> let's trade international protocols for Zuckerware. What could go wrong?
To be clear, you want to use "international protocols" that aren't even E2EE by default over WhatsApp, which is built on the Signal protocol with the help of Signal engineers?
To be clear, I am fine delaying my personal use of E2EE for several years as the GSMA and Apple work together on adding it to the spec.
If you are a political dissident or in a vulnerable position, I don't know your situation and my advice may not apply.
In the meantime, my texts have been unencrypted since I've owned my first phone. If continuing the status quo for 2-4 more years means that Meta does not become even more entrenched and powerful, so be it.
My emphasis on "international protocols" was to highlight how big an advantage that is when we're seeing countries including the US building up their own Great Firewalls and tightening export controls. If WhatsApp came from China we might be talking about banning that instead of (or in addition to) TikTok right now. Regardless of the merits, that's just the direction countries are moving in now.
It's a bit harder to just ban SMS. You can try, but it's a hell of a lot harder and there's going to be more holes to drive vulnerabilities through.
Carriers are basically infinitely evil all the time. I'd much rather be at the mercy of a Silicon Valley company than an "open standard" that leaves anything up to the telecoms.
I never thought I'd defend ISPs... (especially since an ISP destroyed my credit "on accident" 10 years ago) but there is no comparison to Facebook.
ISP's list of evil acts: failing to update infrastructure, failing to protect against intrusions, general technical and customer service ineptitude, absolute fealty to state requests for information (both official and sometimes unofficial), hijacking web requests to inject ads, and adding surprise undisclosed fees on a seemingly-random basis.
Facebook's: Where to even start.
Burying internal research directly linking Instagram to teen suicides (including a majority of teens surveyed saying they wish Instagram didn't exist even though they use it 5+_hours a day).
Running nonconsensual psyop experiments on unsuspecting users and measuring their emotional responses like unpaid guinnea pigs (in fact, because of Facebook's revenue model, it was like users were paying Facebook for the privelege!)
It's like comparing a molotov cocktail to a dirty bomb. Yes, both are evil and bad, but we can tell there's a difference there, right?
---
To go beyond list wars, it's also just a matter of scale. You can be a mini-Hitler but if you're in an empty room you're not going to do that much damage. If you're at the Superbowl, though...
The largest US ISP is Comcast at about 30,000,000 subscribers.
Facebook has 2,900,000,000 monthly active users.
The sheer scale is also the problem. Scale gives them unfathomable power and access. It should make every non-Meta shareholder uncomfortable IMO. If there were only one mega-monopoly-ISP for the whole of the US, I'd feel similarly uncomfortable. But that isn't the case, in fact more ISPs seem to be starting up recently.
Put another way: An evil act from an ISP would hurt X number of people. An evil act from Facebook would hurt X^5 people. And I believe Facebook's acts are in general more evil than an ISPs.
You left out the fact that ISP’s are effectively a monopoly in most regions of the US, which is a problem even if it happens to be a different company holding the monopoly per region.
Exactly my point. Everyone knows that "Facebook sells your data" but what's actually demonstrable is Facebook uses your data internally for ad targeting purposes, which I'm fine with. Verizon, AT&T, et al are at just as problematic a scale (if not more!) and they are literally out there exchanging CSVs for cash.
Supporting open standards and getting mad about Cambridge Analytica in the same breath is incoherent. The critique here, and the response that Facebook and other tech companies actually undertook to placate the outrage, was that the platform APIs were too generous, and users should not have been allowed to delegate their accounts’ privileges to third parties not vetted by the platforms.
What I find amusing is that all of those WhatsApp users don't know or don't care that they are uploading their entire list of contacts (with phone numbers) to Meta/Facebook and syncing it every day.
That "end-to-end encrypted" advertising has done its job, and most people don't want to be bothered with thinking too much anyway.
WhatsApp is a gold mine of real-world social graph data for Facebook/Meta. If you think for a moment how much you can infer by merging that data with other information you get from people using other FB apps and sites, it's incredible.
> I find it amusing that in 2024 people in the US still talk about WhatsApp as a future step.
One person said that. Almost nobody I know has any interest in WhatsApp. The infatuation with putting all of your messaging into Facebook's hands is a European thing. What I don't understand at all is why Europeans think Facebook is superior to Apple.
> With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really only the US is behind here.
I have a hard time believing that having multiple chat apps is any kind of solution to the problem. The nice thing about iMessage in the US is that it covers about 90% of everyone I talk to. Right out of the box, no asking what ecosystem someone else is using, it just works. And if I'm talking to someone who does not have iMessage ... it still just works, albeit with fewer features.
I heartily disagree that Europe or the rest of the world has a better system. Best would be if every phone from every manufacturer supported a modern protocol equivalent to iMessage or Google's proprietary RCS. Until then, iMessage in the US is the closest things to universal modern messaging.
I've been using the Internet since the 80s, I've seen every possible incarnation of instant messaging. I have no illusions of Apple inventing messaging.
And it's pretty rude of you to resort to namecalling just because you disagree.
WhatsApp took off in a big way in Europe before it was acquired by Meta.
Android is more popular in Europe than in the US. WhatsApp provided an early way of easy cross platform communication that was superior to SMS/MMS and didn't involve having to share new usernames or anything like that, it just relied on your existing mobile number.
You can add India to the list. WhatsApp is so popular here that people talk of recharging WhatsApp when they actually mean paying their mobile internet bill.
> it still just works, albeit with fewer features.
If it doesn't have features I rely on then I don't see how can I treat it as "it still just works".
> iMessage in the US is the closest things to universal modern messaging.
The key part here is "in the US". What if you want to message someone who is outside the US? To be honest I am not sure about carrier prices in the US, but I am sure the person on the other side of the conversation would get extremely high bills for international MMS messages. Personally I don't see how the words "universal solution" can apply to something that works well in only a single country in the entire world.
I don’t know if iMessage makes for an antitrust claim. But you are absolutely right: it covers the majority of my friends and family, and for folks that use Android everything still works well enough.
Why would I ever want 6 messaging apps instead of using the default?
Are people defending WhatsApp, or just saying its widely used? In the places I go, you use it for everything from contacting friends to messaging businesses to schedule appointments. It's unavoidable.
Sure, I understand the point, but I just don't think it's any kind of better solution. It's different, and has pros and cons. I don't want to install multiple apps just to have cross-platform compatibility. And I have that already with Apple's solution -- sure, iMessage itself is not compatible with Android, but I can still message people on Android phones without pre-arranging a platform to communicate on. Messaging works regardless, no matter who I'm talking to, it just works a little bit better if they happen to be on an iPhone.
To me that's the ideal solution, or at least the basis for one. Would I like everyone to have iMessage capabilities (or equivalent, like Google's proprietary RCS)? You bet. Let's try for that reality. Get Google to release their upgrades to RCS so everyone can use it, make that a standard, make every phone OS support it.
Could also say it was 'solved' 30 years ago with ICQ (OK, I know it was centralized and insecure, but from a strictly user-experience perspective I honestly liked it better than anything that came since) or maybe 35 years ago with IRC.
In most countries one of these is the one everybody uses, and it works on every phone. In the US, the country is split, mostly by economic class, between people on iMessage and “the rest”.
I’m not saying “whatsapp is effectively a monopoly in $country” is great, but it’s better than the US situation. You can buy a $50 phone and use the ubiquitous messaging app.
>I’m not saying “whatsapp is effectively a monopoly in $country” is great, but it’s better than the US situation.
Ah, so it's better to have a monopoly than not have a monopoly?
Also, what are your thoughts on the "US situation" given that the US is suing Apple for having a monopoly (literally the headline of the article)? Sounds like the rest of the world.
Can I ask why the rest of the world, particularly the EU, which is supposedly so "pro-consumer", isn't breaking up these monopolies held by billion dollar corporations in their countries?
There are differences between monopoly and centralization, and usually the government steps in to resolve such distinctions as a party that is (theoretically) serving the people instead of profis. That's what SMS was supposed to do and why they invested billions on landlines to support it.
But government most like molasses and sms is decades behind, so tech surpassed such standards. It's not a preferred result but an inevitable one.
>Can I ask why the rest of the world, particularly the EU, which is supposedly so "pro-consumer", isn't breaking up these monopolies held by billion dollar corporations in their countries
Is this rhetorical or have you not in fact heard about the DMA more or less doing the same thing the US is doing here, but years prior?
The big obvious problem here is that an EU country can't just order a US company to disband. And the result of anti-trust to begin with isn't to destroy companies, they want to level the playing field and open the door for more companies to compete properly.
1. The monopolies literally make no money - WhatsApp is run at cost and doesn't turn a profit.
2. You are not gonna have universal phone-number based messaging that is E2EE without a monopoly. Even RCS has monopolistic gateways. Decentralized/federated systems suck and don't easily work with phone numbers.
3. If you keep breaking up chat applications as soon as they reach a certain size, you're not helping consumers in any way. People use WhatsApp because it's good, reliable, and E2EE. Breaking it up provides literally no value to consumers.
I live in NZ, there's no standard here. It's damned annoying. I've heard that Facebook Messenger is the most popular, but I only know one person who uses it and I don't have an account myself.
In the US there is only iMessage and regular SMS. SMS is interoperable with iMessage. People are just making a much bigger deal about the green bubbles than they should.
>People are just making a much bigger deal about the green bubbles than they should.
If you didn't grow up Gen Z you don't really understand. It's just another of the endless ways you can get bullied indirectly for being "poor" or "nerdy".
Peer pressure is a real phenomenon, and there is a point here when that peer pressure is manufactured by the company itself to get people to buy their stuff.
It's a solved problem as in it's one single problem that is solved. I agree that WhatsApp is a really bad solution overall, just compared to iMessage it does solve the cross-platform issue.
I would also by far prefer a more open solution, but between relying on Apple for your country's messaging to relying on Facebook, at least by relying on Facebook you have one less issue.
Except for all the US people that keep in touch with Europeans! Source: me (a European) that has a GF in the US. They all get converted to WhatsApp :')
It's not really a "big" pain these days, but it was definitely a problem more annoying than it should have been for much longer than it needed to be. The main problem as you can guess, is that US transfers are either fast and relatively expensive, or free/cheap and takes a few days.
Ofc in this case Musk "solves" this problem as Venmo is one of the most popular solutions, as a spinoff of Paypal. just what we needed, to turn our financial transfers into social media.
Zelle is a much better solution nearly identical to what a bank to bank transfer is, but it's not quite as prevalent.
> With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really only the US is behind here.
I don't think this is accurate. In ANZ at least it's fairly uncommon, and I'd imagine there are a number of other similar countries. I would be surprised if the number isn't 100m+ first world users who don't fall into that bucket, not including the US.
I can't speak for everything else, but LINE was not well known for privacy.
Everything people complain about WRT Meta was being done with impunity; their privacy policy basically said that they could read your messages and tailor ads based on them.
I really don't understand why people are crowing about using platforms like LINE and WhatsApp and sneering at Americans; they are not better.
