• malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would be nice if companies can spin up their own (lemmy|mastodon|…) instances and push out releases there. No more “blue check marks” to verify authenticity or relying on the platform to be stable. If it comes from @public.apple.com, then it’s guaranteed to be authentic.

    • Thales@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s good enough for the BBC and the German government, then it’s good enough for large corporations.

      Plus, there was just a post earlier today where someone was showing X/Twitter was asking for $1000 a month to verify their business account. Why would Apple ever pay that?

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        because to them $1000/mo is the equivalent of paying a subscription with your pocket lint

          • affiliate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            i agree that apple probably doesnt want to throw $1k/mo into the trash, but if you were to take a detailed look at all of the money apple spends each month, you would likely find a lot of waste that is harder to justify than having a verified presence on twitter. not saying i agree with them hypothetically spending $1k/mo on twitter, but if you’re running a multinational corporation that pulls in almost $400 billion a year, you most likely wouldn’t care too much about where 0.000003% of your annual revenue is going.

    • DrQuint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also they can additionally see subdomain accounts as a verification service.

      The point of Twitter was they didn’t have to do it themselves tho. Company websites weren’t a thing back in the past bur became one for the same reason they later got Twitter. The suggestion of self hosting is, in a way, somewhat of a step back. But they SHOULD be doing it.

    • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      … what? Why would a company release software on a microblogging platform?

      What I think you’re getting at is the use of asymmetric cryptography. But Apple can use that while still releasing thru normal means like the App Store, their website, etc

      • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fuck are you talking about???

        They’re not talking about releasing software, they’re talking about customer support.

  • greendakota99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a clickbait headline. The full information is: “Apple is planning to eliminate social media support advisor roles across Twitter, YouTube, and the Apple Support Community website…”

    The headline is expecting people to click to read what Twitter and YouTube did to piss off big daddy Apple however they are also eliminating their own community website.

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the fact that they have an iMessage endpoint dedicated to support should be enough, on top of the on-site and in-person options.

    If you’ve got a device to ask for support on YouTube or Twixxer, you’ve got a device that can at the very least open up a chat on their site. If not connect directly within iMessage.