▲ 108 ▼ Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access after launch of service that brought iMessage to Android (techcrunch.com) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@beehaw.org 36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) iMessages is part of iOS. How is this not common knowledge? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 33 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because you're confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FZDC@beehaw.org 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 33 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because you're confusing the difference between an OS, an application and a protocol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FZDC@beehaw.org 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I didn’t say it WAS the OS, I said it is part of it. Stop arguing semantics. We’re done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FZDC@beehaw.org 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] allywilson@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FZDC@beehaw.org 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent