13 ms·

Apple's hijacking of links, addresses, etc, is possibly their top abuse of power. The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages

Apple's hijacking of links, addresses, etc, is possibly their top abuse of power. The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android.

ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago
>The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android. The solution is to deregister your phone number for iMessage; if you don't do this, it will happen automatically after a week or so. https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/ https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  This just drops you from your group messages.
twobat 7y ago
It's just a project manager that's not worth half the salary.
azinman2 7y ago
Can you expand please on the blocking group messages?
- jachee 7y ago
  iMessage isn't MMS. Android does group messages with the latter.
  - zwily 7y ago
    iMessage does MMS for group chat with non-iMessage clients.
    - jachee 7y ago
      Yes, but what the poster above describes as "locking you out of group messages" sounds like a member of an all-iMessage group switching to android, and the group message continuing on in iMessages-only, rather than being restarted as MMS to include the Android.
- damnyou 7y ago
  If you are in an iMessage group chat and you switch to Android, you need to create a new group chat to continue talking to your friends.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    Um… yes? iMessage is a feature of iOS and macOS. It isn't available on Android devices, and its group chats don't exist outside those platforms. But I don't see how this constitutes Apple "blocking" anything.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      It's not a position you're put into with WhatsApp or any other app. It is bad for your messaging to be made by the same company as your phone. Some really problematic conflicts of interest.
      - duskwuff 7y ago
        > It's not a position you're put into with WhatsApp or any other app. Sure it is! You can't continue a group conversation from WhatsApp -- or any other messenger, really -- on another messenger service without manually recreating the group. There is literally nothing which makes iMessage unique in this regard.
        MiroF 7y ago
        Well WhatsApp is free and iMessage has a multiple hundred dollar price tag attached. Apple consciously doesn't make the APIs for iMessage available.
        jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
        By that logic WhatsApp isn't free. I have to spend hundreds of dollars upfront to buy a phone, and worse, hundreds of dollars each year to maintain a phone line to use WhatsApp. WhatsApp doesn't provide an API so I could use it on my existing laptop over WiFi for free (the WhatsApp web requires it to be setup on a phone first).
blotter_paper 7y ago
I totally agree that this is weird play, and I don't like OS vendors doing it. I'll add that while I personally prefer Android to iOS, Google implements similar behavior; clicking on a YouTube link launches the app by default, without asking the user. It's super annoying -- a web browser should never launch another app without at least consulting the user, but really, it probably shouldn't happen at all without the user downloading an extension first.
- MiroF 7y ago
  At least Google Assistant allows me to navigate with a non-Google Maps app
  - wlesieutre 7y ago
    Siri does too now, but you can’t set a non-Apple default. Have to specify “give me directions using google maps” each time. https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/09/19/google-maps-waze-siri/ https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/09/19/google-maps-waze-siri/
  - cma 7y ago
    On the other hand Google assistant seemingly can’t even text through google voice.
- DocG 7y ago
  It asks first time - do you want to open it and should it remember your choice. Later you can set default in android settings or remove the yt app default setting. It's buried in there somewhere.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    It really wouldn't let me open a Google Photos shared album in Firefox Android[0], always going to the Photos app. I am certain it never asked me before. [0] which I needed to share the link to my laptop, as Google Photos only gives you a "copy link" option for a shared album, not actually sharing it. I am SO fed up with this shit, programs fighting to keep me "in the ecosystem" while sacrificing UX and just blocking you from completing a task.
asdff 7y ago
MacOS doesn't even hijack what you want it to hijack. I have to set every .sh I make to open in text edit manually, and I still sometimes get prompts to search the app store for an app to deal with these spooky .sh files even with textedit listed as default on the right click menu.
- Hackbraten 7y ago
  I’ve used the `duti` CLI for a while to set defaults per file type; never had any issues since. https://github.com/moretension/duti https://github.com/moretension/duti (or `brew install duti`)
- codetrotter 7y ago
  Note that macOS has two different kinds of default application associations. The first one, the one that you might expect to apply to all files of the same kind, but which actually applies only to the specific file you are doing this for, is under “Open With” in the context menu that comes up when you right click the file (two finger touch by default on MacBook laptops). When you choose Open With > Other and check the “Always Open With” checkbox, you are only creating an association for the file in question, not for the file format in general. This to me is confusing. In order to create the association for the file type and not just a specific file, you need to instead select the “Get Info” entry in the context menu for the file. Then, under “Open with” in the window that comes up, this is where you select the application that will apply to all files of same kind. Did you try the latter method?
  - whiskeykilo 7y ago
    As someone who grew up on Windows when I initially started working on a Mac daily this drove me absolutely nuts. It could be worded much better. The way Finder sets the default view is equally unintuitive
    - vbezhenar 7y ago
      Being able to associate a particular file with application instead of all files of the given type might be handy feature.
lgats 7y ago
Impeach Apple /s
ljm 7y ago
I'm not convinced it's an abuse of power; it's a feature any developer can take advantage of. Your apps get their own protocol, so you can deep-link into one using a URI. But you can also register them to open certain contents natively. I'm not sure how it works, maybe there's some metadata in the HTML. You can see the same thing in action with the Jira app on Cataline now - any Jira link you click will load up and render in the native app. That said, it's definitely a problem when you're redirecting these links to things you don't actually support any more, without any way to opt out.
- Nightshaxx 7y ago
  In Android, an App's manifest designates which deep links it can handle. Then when the user clicks on a link, it gives the user the option of which app to use when there are multiple apps that can handle it. Maybe since at one point you did tell it you want to use news to handle it, it keeps going back to it? Although that means most likely the News app was not updated to remove support for that link. Or maybe iOS deep links work differently? (I only use Android)
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    AFAIU on iOS there are two types of deep linking. 1) Universal Links, which allow owners of domains to launch an app instead of Safari. For example, you might own the domain myawesomeapp.com, and therefore can redirect urls to e.g. myawesomeapp.com/do_things to launch your app. 2) Protocol links, these are completely locked down by iOS and there is no way to subvert them. For example, mailto links always open the mail app.
    - wpearse 7y ago
      You can also register your own protocol IIRC, eg “myawesomeapp://do_things”
      - dcow 7y ago
        And they’re first come first serve hence the shift to universal links which have terrible UX. There’s really not a good secure solution on iOS.
saagarjha 7y ago
I'm not even sure their engineers understand how annoying it is. They've implemented links in such a horrible way, and it's gotten worse with time (for example, there is a feature where if you open a link and have the right associated app installed, it will open the link in the app. There used to be a way to force the link to open in Safari in case you didn't want to open the app; it'd show up in the top right. The feature is gone now and it's hidden in a very strange place that is unintuitive to find and difficult to perform–you need to long press on the link and open it from there, but this invariably happens after you've opened the link, it opens the app, and you go back to Safari to now open it there.)
- jonplackett 7y ago
  This is so annoying. I hate being bounced around like this. There used to be an issue with amazon with this where you’d try to buy an ebook and be bounced into the app, but you can’t buy ebooks in the app because amazon don’t want to pay Apple 30% of the cost. I just had to delete the amazon app to buy the book. Luckily their website works just as well.
  - mundiff 7y ago
    this was literally an example that was given of poor user experience during a UX class I took.
    - jonplackett 7y ago
      Haha! That’s funny. What were the other examples?
- prawn 7y ago
  I've noticed this starting to happen also. Click a YouTube video and it wants to open in the YouTube app which gives me only two options: Update or Quit. Or opens Instagram which then forgets the profile/image I was actually trying to view.
- asiachick 7y ago
  this sounds like a privacy issue and should be filed as a bug. if I can't open a link in a private tab in Safari (or ideally the browser of my choice) then I can not protect my privacy. The launched app will get to record my activity or via the non private browser tab the site will track me. file a bug / feedback that this is not in line with Apple's privacy first stance
Nicholas_C 7y ago
> The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android. Just dealt with this with a sibling who switched to android. How is this legal? It’s quite ridiculous. I wish everyone in the US just used WhatsApp or another third party app like it seems they do in every other country. Instead, not having an iPhone makes you a pariah because of the green messages.
- culturestate 7y ago
  > How is this legal? It’s quite ridiculous. Why would this be illegal? Consider this scenario: you have an iMessage group chat of 3 people, and one of the three people has a plan like PayGo[1] and an extremely limited monthly SMS quota. What happens when one of the other two participants suddenly counts against that quota? There are options, of course, but for consumers as a whole those options are hostile and inelegant - are you gonna pop up a warning saying that messaging these people might now cost you money? I guess you could make an argument for turning iMessage off by default, but that also seems like a net negative for consumers as you're back to giving phone companies the opportunity to charge exorbitant rates for things like MMS. Then you'd just push everyone to yet another third-party messenger that could be acquired, aggressively monetized, or shut down at any time. 1. https://www.ultramobile.com/paygo/ https://www.ultramobile.com/paygo/

Apple's hijacking of links, addresses, etc, is possibly their top abuse of power. The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android.

ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago

>The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android. The solution is to deregister your phone number for iMessage; if you don't do this, it will happen automatically after a week or so. https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/ https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/

erikpukinskis 7y ago
This just drops you from your group messages.

twobat 7y ago

It's just a project manager that's not worth half the salary.

azinman2 7y ago

Can you expand please on the blocking group messages?

jachee 7y ago
iMessage isn't MMS. Android does group messages with the latter.
- zwily 7y ago
  iMessage does MMS for group chat with non-iMessage clients.
  - jachee 7y ago
    Yes, but what the poster above describes as "locking you out of group messages" sounds like a member of an all-iMessage group switching to android, and the group message continuing on in iMessages-only, rather than being restarted as MMS to include the Android.
damnyou 7y ago
If you are in an iMessage group chat and you switch to Android, you need to create a new group chat to continue talking to your friends.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  Um… yes? iMessage is a feature of iOS and macOS. It isn't available on Android devices, and its group chats don't exist outside those platforms. But I don't see how this constitutes Apple "blocking" anything.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    It's not a position you're put into with WhatsApp or any other app. It is bad for your messaging to be made by the same company as your phone. Some really problematic conflicts of interest.
    - duskwuff 7y ago
      > It's not a position you're put into with WhatsApp or any other app. Sure it is! You can't continue a group conversation from WhatsApp -- or any other messenger, really -- on another messenger service without manually recreating the group. There is literally nothing which makes iMessage unique in this regard.
      - MiroF 7y ago
        Well WhatsApp is free and iMessage has a multiple hundred dollar price tag attached. Apple consciously doesn't make the APIs for iMessage available.
        jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
        By that logic WhatsApp isn't free. I have to spend hundreds of dollars upfront to buy a phone, and worse, hundreds of dollars each year to maintain a phone line to use WhatsApp. WhatsApp doesn't provide an API so I could use it on my existing laptop over WiFi for free (the WhatsApp web requires it to be setup on a phone first).

blotter_paper 7y ago

I totally agree that this is weird play, and I don't like OS vendors doing it. I'll add that while I personally prefer Android to iOS, Google implements similar behavior; clicking on a YouTube link launches the app by default, without asking the user. It's super annoying -- a web browser should never launch another app without at least consulting the user, but really, it probably shouldn't happen at all without the user downloading an extension first.

MiroF 7y ago
At least Google Assistant allows me to navigate with a non-Google Maps app
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  Siri does too now, but you can’t set a non-Apple default. Have to specify “give me directions using google maps” each time. https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/09/19/google-maps-waze-siri/ https://ww.9to5mac.com/2019/09/19/google-maps-waze-siri/
- cma 7y ago
  On the other hand Google assistant seemingly can’t even text through google voice.
DocG 7y ago
It asks first time - do you want to open it and should it remember your choice. Later you can set default in android settings or remove the yt app default setting. It's buried in there somewhere.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  It really wouldn't let me open a Google Photos shared album in Firefox Android[0], always going to the Photos app. I am certain it never asked me before. [0] which I needed to share the link to my laptop, as Google Photos only gives you a "copy link" option for a shared album, not actually sharing it. I am SO fed up with this shit, programs fighting to keep me "in the ecosystem" while sacrificing UX and just blocking you from completing a task.

asdff 7y ago

MacOS doesn't even hijack what you want it to hijack. I have to set every .sh I make to open in text edit manually, and I still sometimes get prompts to search the app store for an app to deal with these spooky .sh files even with textedit listed as default on the right click menu.

Hackbraten 7y ago
I’ve used the `duti` CLI for a while to set defaults per file type; never had any issues since. https://github.com/moretension/duti https://github.com/moretension/duti (or `brew install duti`)
codetrotter 7y ago
Note that macOS has two different kinds of default application associations. The first one, the one that you might expect to apply to all files of the same kind, but which actually applies only to the specific file you are doing this for, is under “Open With” in the context menu that comes up when you right click the file (two finger touch by default on MacBook laptops). When you choose Open With > Other and check the “Always Open With” checkbox, you are only creating an association for the file in question, not for the file format in general. This to me is confusing. In order to create the association for the file type and not just a specific file, you need to instead select the “Get Info” entry in the context menu for the file. Then, under “Open with” in the window that comes up, this is where you select the application that will apply to all files of same kind. Did you try the latter method?
- whiskeykilo 7y ago
  As someone who grew up on Windows when I initially started working on a Mac daily this drove me absolutely nuts. It could be worded much better. The way Finder sets the default view is equally unintuitive
  - vbezhenar 7y ago
    Being able to associate a particular file with application instead of all files of the given type might be handy feature.

lgats 7y ago

Impeach Apple /s

ljm 7y ago

I'm not convinced it's an abuse of power; it's a feature any developer can take advantage of. Your apps get their own protocol, so you can deep-link into one using a URI. But you can also register them to open certain contents natively. I'm not sure how it works, maybe there's some metadata in the HTML. You can see the same thing in action with the Jira app on Cataline now - any Jira link you click will load up and render in the native app. That said, it's definitely a problem when you're redirecting these links to things you don't actually support any more, without any way to opt out.

Nightshaxx 7y ago
In Android, an App's manifest designates which deep links it can handle. Then when the user clicks on a link, it gives the user the option of which app to use when there are multiple apps that can handle it. Maybe since at one point you did tell it you want to use news to handle it, it keeps going back to it? Although that means most likely the News app was not updated to remove support for that link. Or maybe iOS deep links work differently? (I only use Android)
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  AFAIU on iOS there are two types of deep linking. 1) Universal Links, which allow owners of domains to launch an app instead of Safari. For example, you might own the domain myawesomeapp.com, and therefore can redirect urls to e.g. myawesomeapp.com/do_things to launch your app. 2) Protocol links, these are completely locked down by iOS and there is no way to subvert them. For example, mailto links always open the mail app.
  - wpearse 7y ago
    You can also register your own protocol IIRC, eg “myawesomeapp://do_things”
    - dcow 7y ago
      And they’re first come first serve hence the shift to universal links which have terrible UX. There’s really not a good secure solution on iOS.

saagarjha 7y ago

I'm not even sure their engineers understand how annoying it is. They've implemented links in such a horrible way, and it's gotten worse with time (for example, there is a feature where if you open a link and have the right associated app installed, it will open the link in the app. There used to be a way to force the link to open in Safari in case you didn't want to open the app; it'd show up in the top right. The feature is gone now and it's hidden in a very strange place that is unintuitive to find and difficult to perform–you need to long press on the link and open it from there, but this invariably happens after you've opened the link, it opens the app, and you go back to Safari to now open it there.)

jonplackett 7y ago
This is so annoying. I hate being bounced around like this. There used to be an issue with amazon with this where you’d try to buy an ebook and be bounced into the app, but you can’t buy ebooks in the app because amazon don’t want to pay Apple 30% of the cost. I just had to delete the amazon app to buy the book. Luckily their website works just as well.
- mundiff 7y ago
  this was literally an example that was given of poor user experience during a UX class I took.
  - jonplackett 7y ago
    Haha! That’s funny. What were the other examples?
prawn 7y ago
I've noticed this starting to happen also. Click a YouTube video and it wants to open in the YouTube app which gives me only two options: Update or Quit. Or opens Instagram which then forgets the profile/image I was actually trying to view.
asiachick 7y ago
this sounds like a privacy issue and should be filed as a bug. if I can't open a link in a private tab in Safari (or ideally the browser of my choice) then I can not protect my privacy. The launched app will get to record my activity or via the non private browser tab the site will track me. file a bug / feedback that this is not in line with Apple's privacy first stance

Nicholas_C 7y ago

> The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android. Just dealt with this with a sibling who switched to android. How is this legal? It’s quite ridiculous. I wish everyone in the US just used WhatsApp or another third party app like it seems they do in every other country. Instead, not having an iPhone makes you a pariah because of the green messages.

culturestate 7y ago
> How is this legal? It’s quite ridiculous. Why would this be illegal? Consider this scenario: you have an iMessage group chat of 3 people, and one of the three people has a plan like PayGo[1] and an extremely limited monthly SMS quota. What happens when one of the other two participants suddenly counts against that quota? There are options, of course, but for consumers as a whole those options are hostile and inelegant - are you gonna pop up a warning saying that messaging these people might now cost you money? I guess you could make an argument for turning iMessage off by default, but that also seems like a net negative for consumers as you're back to giving phone companies the opportunity to charge exorbitant rates for things like MMS. Then you'd just push everyone to yet another third-party messenger that could be acquired, aggressively monetized, or shut down at any time. 1. https://www.ultramobile.com/paygo/ https://www.ultramobile.com/paygo/