zlacker

>>Bogdan+(OP)
> To send push notifications on Android, it is necessary to use a mechanism that requires storing device IDs. [..]

> [..] Apple’s ecosystem allows for push notifications to be sent without requiring us to store any user-identifiable information. This ensures that ICEBlock remains completely anonymous and secure.

So in one case the developer stores the mapping, and in the other case Apple stores the mapping. And that's a good thing?

It takes 1 subpoena to get access to that data from a large company.

>>bitpus+bp
Yeah, I never understood the argument. You're just trusting Apple vs. trusting the dev, either way you are trusting an entity that may or may not act in your best interest, and both entities are subject to subpoena. They could also just use firebase cloud messaging and treat it just like APNS.

There's nothing magical about Apple's services that makes them immune to government requests for data, despite Apple's privacy marketing.

>>theweb+Wr
I’m not disagreeing, but the magical difference to me seems that Apple _users themselves_ decided ahead of time to trust Apple, whereas _the developer_ would make the decision to trust a third party? (My more jaded view is that such arguments are merely rationalizations, and that in 90% of these cases it’s mostly about which stack the people building an app have previous experience with… even though they explicitly claim the decision was made on technical grounds. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

>>ludwig+ZA
I think your jaded view is likely correct, at least in this case but I can see the other argument. After all, even myself I choose to use iPhone over Android purely because I align more with their practices/policies around data vs. Google, which I guess means I also have decided ahead of time to trust Apple over another entity. But I also have no illusions when it comes to law enforcement access, outside of Apple's Advanced Data Protection, which Android/Google currently offers no alternative to.