A typical fanboyism argument when one's favorite company screws up. Just mention the other rivals and add zero insight into the original idea being discussed.
> In case of Android what you only need is that your application can read notifications
This "only" is much harder to do than sending a Javascript URL.
The white paper doesn't say anything about additional public keys messages are encrypted for.
It states that:
- The private keys remain on the devices (which is good, but they don't need them to read your messages)
- The messages can't be read by WhatsApp (they don't say anything about their parent company Facebook or governments though).
If you read all the whitepapers and alert messages, you can totally read them in a way that allows Facebook to see, store and analyze the clear-text of every message you're sending, without anybody lying anywhere.
Assuming Facebook is lying isn't a very good technical argument. There are other ways for them to make profit than doing the shady things you are implicitly accusing them of doing without any base.
They spent billions on WhatsApp. I'm open to suggestions - how would they profit on it if all the data that passed through it was opaque to them? Perhaps they are just catering to a recent strong interest by the public in encryption.
One example: WhatsApp is one of the primary messaging services used in Brazil, with something like half the population using it. The vast majority of which don't speak any languages other than Portuguese.
When the courts in Brazil shut down WhatsApp for 48 hours, there was a huge outcry because it is THE primary means of communication for people, especially to talk to family who have gone abroad.
I have a big respect for Jon Skeet, but to dismiss Jeff Dean's work because Skeet is the one who provides copy-and-paste snippets for programmers is wrong on so many levels.
Thanks for the informative post. I know you didn't make it to advertise, but do you mind sharing your product name/info? It might be interesting to people following the discussion who have a similar situation or concern.
I've been using Visual Studio for more than 10 years, it never required a login to work or sent any information to Microsoft without a clear permission.
Having said that, if you really feel that Visual Studio is disrespectful of your privacy, you shouldn't be compromising on that and simply not use the application. I don't understand people who whine about services while they are enjoying them for free.
It's always the same people you never hear complaining about having to create an Apple account to use their developer tools.
You need to login with your MS account if you want to use Azure, Github, and other services... don't comment about stuff you don't know lol "my precious data"
> I don't understand people who whine about services while they are enjoying them for free.
It's not hard to understand. Just because you call something a service doesn't make it valuable to your customers. In fact, it could very easily be a burden on them.
Could you name a single company that doesn't follow where the market is and try to monopolises it later?
Plus, Windows is still the leader in the desktop and laptop market until today. They are facing some tough competition but "not leader in given market" is not true.
What I meant to say is that all companies try to follow where the market is.
Microsoft isn't doing that just because they are losing their leadership in the market (which the OP claimed).
Uh, any company that sells niche or upmarket offerings of commodity products, for one. I.e. Apple, Tesla, a bunch of watch manufacturers.
> Plus, Windows is still the leader in the desktop and laptop market until today. They are facing some tough competition but "not leader in given market" is not true.
Their position in the server world is not nearly so secure, which is quite possibly what this move is meant to address.
> Uh, any company that sells niche or upmarket offerings of commodity products, for one. I.e. Apple
Without thinking much I can come up with a list of instances where Apple did exactly follow where they think the market is. Example include making phones with bigger screens [0], using a stylus with tablets [1], smart watches, small screen tablets [2], the the list goes on and on.
> Their position in the server world is not nearly so secure, which is quite possibly what this move is meant to address.
Microsoft never had the lead in server operating systems. So they're not doing this just because they are no longer the leader. This is a proof that Microsoft is just changing how they handle competition and FOSS under Nadella.
Jumping on what Mafana said, Tesla is known for being one of the most closed off car systems on the planet. There were several HN posts over the last month or two talking about this, but they will require a full inspection to re-activate a car once it's been sold or written off, and it's almost impossible to get parts from them outside of service centers.
You chose literally two of the worst examples out there to try and prove your point.
My point is that these companies have no evident interest in establishing a monopoly in whatever market they've followed. That they maintain a closed system doesn't contradict that.
You missed the idea. He was discussing that even complicated programs (and games) can be converted to use Windows 10 features (i.e. modern desktop) flawlessly without breaking existing code. He wasn't talking about replacing Steam.
[0]: https://twitter.com/SpotifyStatus