So? US laws doesn't forbid Twitter from breaching freedom of speech on its web site. What is your point? That freedom of speech can't be a broader principle than its legal definition in one country?
iOS users spend more money than cheap-ass Android users. That's why it is still so relevant.
It depends. If you are a developer wanting to make as much money as possible from a crappy game with in-app purchases such as a colored item for your virtual character, sure. If you want to charge $2 for a ZIP file extractor, again, I agree. If you want to make money from a fart application, iOS should be your main focus.
But that's not the type of application I care about. Your bank application, social networks, messaging applications, useful free tools, open source applications, email, calendar, browsers, music, photos, are all free and the developers couldn't care less if you buy that crappy game or not, because they are not earning money through app sales.
So think about it. If you are going to develop a good, useful, free application, which platform are you going to target? One with 86% market share? One with 12%? Maybe both? I am sure a lot will choose both. But if Apple stays at this level or continue to fall, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of developers are going to drop that platform, just like there is more stuff (and more stuff first) on Windows than on OS X, despite the fact that Windows users are probably "cheap-ass".
I have yet to find a single iOS paid application that I would like to get on Android but don't have access to. In the mean time, Android has got WiFi hotspot first, good GPS navigation first (Google Maps started it all) and custom keyboards first. Stuff I care about (I actually bought my first smartphone right after these two features were made available).
Android still has some issues to face, but its "cheap-ass" user base isn't one.
I don't live in the US so I couldn't care less about its constitution. Freedom of speech is not only a law (in many countries). It's also a principle. Twitter is free not to stand by that principle. They just better never say they defend and promote it.
Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear.
Some of them have both the critical mass and are not based on stupid phone numbers. Hangouts, Skype, probably others.
Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.
Except if you have a very limited number of contacts, most people are likely in that situation. That's why it's our job (tech enthusiasts) to promote the less crappy of them and boycott the crappy ones as much as we can. Ideally, there would be an open standard that would kill them all. XMPP is as close as it gets, but still not perfect for all situations. Then you have those which are cross-platform, free and not based on phone numbers. Last are the crappy ones, either based on phone numbers or closed to a single vendor platform (such iMessage/Facetime) which we should avoid at all costs.
Hell, I've been trying my damnedest to move away from Facebook Messenger cause I despise Facebook. But there are enough people who are on it, that it becomes very difficult.
I hear you. I also do what I can to avoid it. I don't install it on my phone. I used the mobile web page but they shut it down (desktop version still works, even on phones, but is far from optimal).
Now I'm using Franz on the Desktop, and connecting to services that at least have the decency to provide a web UI, even if it's not optimal (eg: WhatsApp).
I just tried Franz, never heard of it before. Good for you if you like it, but to me it looks like a web browser, I already have one. Deleted.
So Hangouts does use end-to-end encryption for audio, except when making a PSTN phone call, of course. Not sure about text however. Hangouts is already cross-platform. No need for rebranding.
But why are messaging protocols that exist only on desktop or on mobile even considered in this list? Why would someone WANT to artificially limit his messaging possibilities to only a fraction of the population?
The biggest problem with this scorecard is it mixes desktop and mobile apps together without really indicating which type of app they are.
Why is that a problem? Why would I want to use a protocol why isn't available on both desktops AND mobiles? Being artificially limited to only one platform sounds like a PITA.
They also call the underlying technology "Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL)", while performing the exact opposite (it is a Linux Subsystem for Windows). I guess it is what you must expect from a company placing all 64-bit files in System32 and 32-bit files in SysWOW64. And where x64 is greater than x86. x86-64 was too long so they removed a few characters.
Slashdot Mirror
So? US laws doesn't forbid Twitter from breaching freedom of speech on its web site. What is your point? That freedom of speech can't be a broader principle than its legal definition in one country?
iOS users spend more money than cheap-ass Android users. That's why it is still so relevant.
It depends. If you are a developer wanting to make as much money as possible from a crappy game with in-app purchases such as a colored item for your virtual character, sure. If you want to charge $2 for a ZIP file extractor, again, I agree. If you want to make money from a fart application, iOS should be your main focus.
But that's not the type of application I care about.
Your bank application, social networks, messaging applications, useful free tools, open source applications, email, calendar, browsers, music, photos, are all free and the developers couldn't care less if you buy that crappy game or not, because they are not earning money through app sales.
So think about it. If you are going to develop a good, useful, free application, which platform are you going to target? One with 86% market share? One with 12%? Maybe both? I am sure a lot will choose both. But if Apple stays at this level or continue to fall, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of developers are going to drop that platform, just like there is more stuff (and more stuff first) on Windows than on OS X, despite the fact that Windows users are probably "cheap-ass".
I have yet to find a single iOS paid application that I would like to get on Android but don't have access to.
In the mean time, Android has got WiFi hotspot first, good GPS navigation first (Google Maps started it all) and custom keyboards first. Stuff I care about (I actually bought my first smartphone right after these two features were made available).
Android still has some issues to face, but its "cheap-ass" user base isn't one.
I don't live in the US so I couldn't care less about its constitution.
Freedom of speech is not only a law (in many countries). It's also a principle. Twitter is free not to stand by that principle. They just better never say they defend and promote it.
So twitter is against freedom of speech?
Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear.
Some of them have both the critical mass and are not based on stupid phone numbers. Hangouts, Skype, probably others.
Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.
Except if you have a very limited number of contacts, most people are likely in that situation.
That's why it's our job (tech enthusiasts) to promote the less crappy of them and boycott the crappy ones as much as we can. Ideally, there would be an open standard that would kill them all. XMPP is as close as it gets, but still not perfect for all situations. Then you have those which are cross-platform, free and not based on phone numbers.
Last are the crappy ones, either based on phone numbers or closed to a single vendor platform (such iMessage/Facetime) which we should avoid at all costs.
Hell, I've been trying my damnedest to move away from Facebook Messenger cause I despise Facebook. But there are enough people who are on it, that it becomes very difficult.
I hear you. I also do what I can to avoid it. I don't install it on my phone. I used the mobile web page but they shut it down (desktop version still works, even on phones, but is far from optimal).
Now I'm using Franz on the Desktop, and connecting to services that at least have the decency to provide a web UI, even if it's not optimal (eg: WhatsApp).
I just tried Franz, never heard of it before. Good for you if you like it, but to me it looks like a web browser, I already have one. Deleted.
for all 2 people out there with a hackingtosh this is also an option...
It's not a tragedy, there are alternatives working right now without this limitation.
So they all suck.
I also already have email addresses. There is no benefit to protocols based on phone numbers.
Agreed. Why are people stupid enough to design protocols based on phone numbers in the 3rd millennium?
Facetime doesn't work on computers, or at least 95% of them which aren't Macs.
Hangouts works just fine on computers. No need for Duo.
Does it require a cell phone to be turned on, with battery and signal?
If so, it doesn't pass the test and shouldn't even be considered.
There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution. Something as easy to use as Facetime, but covering all important platforms.
There is hangouts. There is Skype (although MS is removing platforms pretty fast). Facetime is the worst possible option (only on one platform).
So Hangouts does use end-to-end encryption for audio, except when making a PSTN phone call, of course. Not sure about text however.
Hangouts is already cross-platform. No need for rebranding.
But why are messaging protocols that exist only on desktop or on mobile even considered in this list? Why would someone WANT to artificially limit his messaging possibilities to only a fraction of the population?
The biggest problem with this scorecard is it mixes desktop and mobile apps together without really indicating which type of app they are.
Why is that a problem? Why would I want to use a protocol why isn't available on both desktops AND mobiles? Being artificially limited to only one platform sounds like a PITA.
which drains the battery even faster and requires a second battery (for the bluetooth receiver). All this for no benefit.
many Android phones are doing just fine with both IP67 certification (underwater) and a 3.5mm jack.
That why the US have the lowest gun murder rate of the developed world. Oh wait...
coincidence?
You can also build your own PC and not buy any OS. Does it still count as Windows hardware if it doesn't come with Windows?
They also call the underlying technology "Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL)", while performing the exact opposite (it is a Linux Subsystem for Windows).
I guess it is what you must expect from a company placing all 64-bit files in System32 and 32-bit files in SysWOW64. And where x64 is greater than x86. x86-64 was too long so they removed a few characters.
yeah, if you can get that smartphone to read that floppy disk with the virus on it and executing that .COM file.
it's not a POSIX interface, it runs native Linux (not BSD, not OS X, not other POSIX OS) AMD64 binaries
Exactly, but with the stupid "Bash On Ubuntu On Windows" name.