12 ms·

Both companies are in the wrong: Google for its half-assed and broken messaging solutions and its current claims that RCS will suffice, and Apple for promoting

by not2b 5y ago

Both companies are in the wrong: Google for its half-assed and broken messaging solutions and its current claims that RCS will suffice, and Apple for promoting lock-in by only supporting iMessage and SMS and nothing else and being quite clear that they consider this a competitive advantage. There needs to be an interoperable, highly functional solution that doesn't depend on wireless carriers.

SquirrelOnFire 5y ago
Like Signal?
- XorNot 5y ago
  I mean yes, but Signal needs to grow up and decide if it's going to find a way to play ball with business, or stick to it's ideological purity and weird cryptocurrency experiments (I use Signal solely for all my messaging now).
  - flubflub 5y ago
    What do you mean by play ball with business?
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Supposedly Signal received ~$600k in donations in 2018 while spending ~4M in infrastructure costs[0], so OP is suggestion they do regular revenue generation via in-app features and whatnot instead of cryptocurrency stuff. 0: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/#:~:text=Messaging-,Signal%20Revenue,-Signal%20does%20not https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/#:~:te...
- fsflover 5y ago
  Like Matrix. Signal can't even be installed without Apple or Google.
  - Sunspark 5y ago
    It can be, only for Android.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      Isn't this unofficial?
      - lorenzhs 5y ago
        https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ and it appears to work without Google Play Services (though push notifications drain more battery iirc because they can't use the google push notification service)
        fsflover 5y ago
        Signal themselves do not recommend it for some reason: > Danger zone > Most users should not do this under normal circumstances. What is the danger here? Where is the F-Droid application?
nashashmi 5y ago
Spot on. iMessage took over because iPhone users could no longer send group SMS. Apple killed group SMS. Google never did this. Only tried to change Sms and enhance it.
- webkike 5y ago
  What are you talking about? It’s possible to send group SMS messages on iPhone.
  - nashashmi 5y ago
    Can you do this if all of the recipients have iPhone? Or do they automatically get switched to Imessage?
    - CubsFan1060 5y ago
      Yes, of course. Every iPhone can switch of iMessage if desired.
      - nashashmi 5y ago
        Yes but they cannot do it per group. Or per message.
    - hraedon 5y ago
      It depends on whether or not those iPhone users have turned off iMessage out of some misguided sense of protocol purity. If some but not all have it turned off, their experience will be similar to an android user in a chat with iMessage users (ie, terrible). If everyone has it turned off, it is just the normal group SMS experience (also terrible). SMS group chat isn't gone, you just very rarely see it because there is almost no reason for an Apple user to disable iMessage.
      - nashashmi 5y ago
        I guess I am talking to apple fanboys here. Effectively all group messages with iPhone users get switched to iMessage. Unless they have opted out. Which nobody does.
qeternity 5y ago
Why does Apple need to do anything at all? It's not like there aren't a gazillion iMessage alternatives, so you can't argue monopoly. There is no lock-in, there is just lock-out. The lock-in that is being described is literally the result of building a good product that people don't want to get rid of (for whatever reason, including social pressure). But there is nothing actually locking people in to iMessage from a technological perspective. Apple built a superior service, and the price of using that service is an iPhone. Does it suck for Google and Android users? Yes. Is that the whole point? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.
- decafninja 5y ago
  Completely agree. I'm an iPhone user, but rarely use iMessage. Most of my instant messaging actually happens on some combination of Google Chat! (or whatever they call it these days), KakaoTalk (I'm Korean) and WhatsApp. Plenty of other alternatives out there too. I think I have just one friend who I use iMessage with regularly.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Apple stands between me and my carrier’s sms service, and then layers it’s own service on top of that. There is no API messaging app developers can use to do the same thing. It’s clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your service with a basic infrastructure service. It doesn’t matter to me if a company achieves a monopoly - what matters to me is them seeking one in a way that harms users. Google is guilty of this, apple is guilty of this, hell - since there’s money to be made and no good enforcement of this - most large companies are guilty of this.
  - gwright 5y ago
    > It’s clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your service with a basic infrastructure service Not very clear at all, IMHO. Would you prefer that iMessage conversations didn't "interlink" with SMS recipients? Is that a better outcome? This is yet another example of the power of the "network affect" and the difficulty of crafting a reasonable regulatory framework. I'm just pushing back at your assertion about "monopolistic behavior" but not at the general difficulty of regulating these sorts of ecosystems.
dmitriid 5y ago
> Apple for promoting lock-in by only supporting iMessage and SMS In Europe I see people using anything but iMessage, so...
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  Because in Europe Apple doesn't have a dominant market position. In the US in many places (like teenage users) they do have a dominant market position, and they abuse by actively trying to worsen the user experience of buyers of their products who dare to include an Android phone user in their friend groups.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > they abuse by actively trying to worsen the user experience of buyers of their products who dare to include an Android That's quite a logic leap and a logic twist. The whole green vs. blue started way before Android even had any messaging story (and it still doesn't). It is literally "users on iMessage vs users sending SMS". Funny how it's "they worsen user experience Android boohoo" in the US, but the exact same thing in Europe is "yeah, it's fine, they don't have a dominant position".
wvenable 5y ago
> There needs to be an interoperable, highly functional solution that doesn't depend on wireless carriers. Carriers have a lot of control over Android and they simply didn't want to be cut out. Google could have just copied iMessage from the start if it wasn't for carriers not wanting to be cut out of messaging.
ubermonkey 5y ago
Why should Apple need to "support" anything else? You can download WhatsApp or Signal or Facebook Messenger or whatever else you might want, and have those work fine. iMessage works really well, and Apple enjoys some network effects here, but you say "they consider this a competitive advantage" like that's a bad thing. They made a better mousetrap here. Bully for them!
- caf 5y ago
  You can download WhatsApp or Signal or Facebook Messenger or whatever else you might want, and have those work fine. Signal on Android is a far better experience than Signal on iOS, because the former allows you to choose it as your default SMS app and the latter does not.
  - acdha 5y ago
    So your complaint is that iOS only lets Signal handle its own messages, not SMS messages? I can see that being useful but “far better” seems like a stretch these days where the biggest gaps are Facebook/WhatsApp.
    - caf 5y ago
      Well yeah, because it means that I just message a contact in my default messaging app, and if they use Signal it goes over Signal, and if they don't it falls back to SMS (just like the experience of the system messenger and iMessage on Apple devices). But you're right - what we really need is a way for each messaging app you install to be able to inform the system which contacts it can reach, a simple way to set a priority order (eg. just a draggable list where you can put iMessage above Signal above WhatsApp above SMS), and a single messaging frontend which can render all the ongoing conversations in each installed messenger. (I believe AppleTV attempts something like this for video streaming services?)
r00fus 5y ago
What do you mean by "Apple only supporting iMessage"? If I want WhatsApp I use that app, it sends notifications, it can even ring my device for a call. Same with FB/Signal/Telegram/etc. The view that Apple is forced to support other protocols or networks "just because" is pure idealism. The history of technology and business is a "maze of twisty little passages, all alike" for longer than we admit. Interoperability relies on government/intergovernmental mandating of standards - if you leave it to industry you get patent encumbered formats (see H.265).
thathndude 5y ago
But apple does support many other messaging platforms. For example, i use WhatsApp and signal. So perhaps their default messaging app doesn’t support everything, but that’s partially because they’re making iMessage a strong offering.

by not2b 5y ago

SquirrelOnFire 5y ago

Like Signal?

XorNot 5y ago
I mean yes, but Signal needs to grow up and decide if it's going to find a way to play ball with business, or stick to it's ideological purity and weird cryptocurrency experiments (I use Signal solely for all my messaging now).
- flubflub 5y ago
  What do you mean by play ball with business?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Supposedly Signal received ~$600k in donations in 2018 while spending ~4M in infrastructure costs[0], so OP is suggestion they do regular revenue generation via in-app features and whatnot instead of cryptocurrency stuff. 0: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/#:~:text=Messaging-,Signal%20Revenue,-Signal%20does%20not https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/#:~:te...
fsflover 5y ago
Like Matrix. Signal can't even be installed without Apple or Google.
- Sunspark 5y ago
  It can be, only for Android.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Isn't this unofficial?
    - lorenzhs 5y ago
      https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ and it appears to work without Google Play Services (though push notifications drain more battery iirc because they can't use the google push notification service)
      - fsflover 5y ago
        Signal themselves do not recommend it for some reason: > Danger zone > Most users should not do this under normal circumstances. What is the danger here? Where is the F-Droid application?

nashashmi 5y ago

Spot on. iMessage took over because iPhone users could no longer send group SMS. Apple killed group SMS. Google never did this. Only tried to change Sms and enhance it.

webkike 5y ago
What are you talking about? It’s possible to send group SMS messages on iPhone.
- nashashmi 5y ago
  Can you do this if all of the recipients have iPhone? Or do they automatically get switched to Imessage?
  - CubsFan1060 5y ago
    Yes, of course. Every iPhone can switch of iMessage if desired.
    - nashashmi 5y ago
      Yes but they cannot do it per group. Or per message.
  - hraedon 5y ago
    It depends on whether or not those iPhone users have turned off iMessage out of some misguided sense of protocol purity. If some but not all have it turned off, their experience will be similar to an android user in a chat with iMessage users (ie, terrible). If everyone has it turned off, it is just the normal group SMS experience (also terrible). SMS group chat isn't gone, you just very rarely see it because there is almost no reason for an Apple user to disable iMessage.
    - nashashmi 5y ago
      I guess I am talking to apple fanboys here. Effectively all group messages with iPhone users get switched to iMessage. Unless they have opted out. Which nobody does.

qeternity 5y ago

Why does Apple need to do anything at all? It's not like there aren't a gazillion iMessage alternatives, so you can't argue monopoly. There is no lock-in, there is just lock-out. The lock-in that is being described is literally the result of building a good product that people don't want to get rid of (for whatever reason, including social pressure). But there is nothing actually locking people in to iMessage from a technological perspective. Apple built a superior service, and the price of using that service is an iPhone. Does it suck for Google and Android users? Yes. Is that the whole point? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

decafninja 5y ago
Completely agree. I'm an iPhone user, but rarely use iMessage. Most of my instant messaging actually happens on some combination of Google Chat! (or whatever they call it these days), KakaoTalk (I'm Korean) and WhatsApp. Plenty of other alternatives out there too. I think I have just one friend who I use iMessage with regularly.
kennywinker 5y ago
Apple stands between me and my carrier’s sms service, and then layers it’s own service on top of that. There is no API messaging app developers can use to do the same thing. It’s clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your service with a basic infrastructure service. It doesn’t matter to me if a company achieves a monopoly - what matters to me is them seeking one in a way that harms users. Google is guilty of this, apple is guilty of this, hell - since there’s money to be made and no good enforcement of this - most large companies are guilty of this.
- gwright 5y ago
  > It’s clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your service with a basic infrastructure service Not very clear at all, IMHO. Would you prefer that iMessage conversations didn't "interlink" with SMS recipients? Is that a better outcome? This is yet another example of the power of the "network affect" and the difficulty of crafting a reasonable regulatory framework. I'm just pushing back at your assertion about "monopolistic behavior" but not at the general difficulty of regulating these sorts of ecosystems.

dmitriid 5y ago

> Apple for promoting lock-in by only supporting iMessage and SMS In Europe I see people using anything but iMessage, so...

MagnumOpus 5y ago
Because in Europe Apple doesn't have a dominant market position. In the US in many places (like teenage users) they do have a dominant market position, and they abuse by actively trying to worsen the user experience of buyers of their products who dare to include an Android phone user in their friend groups.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > they abuse by actively trying to worsen the user experience of buyers of their products who dare to include an Android That's quite a logic leap and a logic twist. The whole green vs. blue started way before Android even had any messaging story (and it still doesn't). It is literally "users on iMessage vs users sending SMS". Funny how it's "they worsen user experience Android boohoo" in the US, but the exact same thing in Europe is "yeah, it's fine, they don't have a dominant position".

wvenable 5y ago

> There needs to be an interoperable, highly functional solution that doesn't depend on wireless carriers. Carriers have a lot of control over Android and they simply didn't want to be cut out. Google could have just copied iMessage from the start if it wasn't for carriers not wanting to be cut out of messaging.

ubermonkey 5y ago

Why should Apple need to "support" anything else? You can download WhatsApp or Signal or Facebook Messenger or whatever else you might want, and have those work fine. iMessage works really well, and Apple enjoys some network effects here, but you say "they consider this a competitive advantage" like that's a bad thing. They made a better mousetrap here. Bully for them!

caf 5y ago
You can download WhatsApp or Signal or Facebook Messenger or whatever else you might want, and have those work fine. Signal on Android is a far better experience than Signal on iOS, because the former allows you to choose it as your default SMS app and the latter does not.
- acdha 5y ago
  So your complaint is that iOS only lets Signal handle its own messages, not SMS messages? I can see that being useful but “far better” seems like a stretch these days where the biggest gaps are Facebook/WhatsApp.
  - caf 5y ago
    Well yeah, because it means that I just message a contact in my default messaging app, and if they use Signal it goes over Signal, and if they don't it falls back to SMS (just like the experience of the system messenger and iMessage on Apple devices). But you're right - what we really need is a way for each messaging app you install to be able to inform the system which contacts it can reach, a simple way to set a priority order (eg. just a draggable list where you can put iMessage above Signal above WhatsApp above SMS), and a single messaging frontend which can render all the ongoing conversations in each installed messenger. (I believe AppleTV attempts something like this for video streaming services?)

r00fus 5y ago

What do you mean by "Apple only supporting iMessage"? If I want WhatsApp I use that app, it sends notifications, it can even ring my device for a call. Same with FB/Signal/Telegram/etc. The view that Apple is forced to support other protocols or networks "just because" is pure idealism. The history of technology and business is a "maze of twisty little passages, all alike" for longer than we admit. Interoperability relies on government/intergovernmental mandating of standards - if you leave it to industry you get patent encumbered formats (see H.265).

thathndude 5y ago

But apple does support many other messaging platforms. For example, i use WhatsApp and signal. So perhaps their default messaging app doesn’t support everything, but that’s partially because they’re making iMessage a strong offering.