4 ms·
> Please note I’m responding to the claim that there is “absolutely no downside” to making Apple devices more interoperable. I’m not saying whether or not that
by dcow 4y ago
> Please note I’m responding to the claim that there is “absolutely no downside” to making Apple devices more interoperable. I’m not saying whether or not that is a good enough reason not to.
Right, I'm just genuinely confused. How would you meaningfully distinguish between the spam? Why would there be more of it? Wouldn't it just come in blue instead of green? I'm not sure I understand how adding a 2nd avenue for spammers opens new doors when the existing avenue is totally sufficient. Perhaps if you could send messages from an email only account is what you're saying? Personally I would hope there'd be ways to control unsolicited messages in the messaging apps and report spam to the carriers. And honestly I was thinking that as an sms replacement, messages from email-only accounts would be something different carriers would want to gate/control onto the network as they see fit. Or more ideally the protocol itself could require messages to be signed with device attestation keys. Why iMessage doesn't give me better spam management options for existing SMS is the real question.
- MarkSweep 4y agoIn the Messages app on iOS, how the message was sent is clearly marked. At the the top of the conversation window, above the chat bubbles, it will say “Text Message” or “iMessage”. This line will also appear between chat bubbles whenever the current thread changes how messages are being sent. But I think I see the miscommunication. I’m assuming that iMessage gains interoperability and thus there are more people who could potentially send spam. But I think you are arguing that SMS would be replaced with the more advanced, interoperable protocol. In that case, I understand your arguments why there would be the same amount or less spam.