5 ms·

Take Apple fanboying out of your mind. This is exactly how it happens, you just add someone's phone number to your address book and... and it works? All those

Take Apple fanboying out of your mind. This is exactly how it happens, you just add someone's phone number to your address book and... and it works? All those services rely on the phone numbers to discover if you can message to the other party. You literally see if the addressee can be called/sent message through WhatsApp. Sure, it's not in your Messages app, but that's because Apple doesn't allow you to see any messaging platforms there except theirs?

timeon 3y ago
How it is Apple fanboying? As far as I know, every phone already has SMS by default. On iPhone some messages goes throug by iMessage - but if other side has no iMessage it is sent as SMS. I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages. Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app ... do you understand what iMessage is just another app, the only difference is what it's shipped with every iPhone and that's why it works? Apple has replaced a universal protocol, SMS, with their own app which is not available anywhere except iOS. And you are happy and try to convince everyone what this is totally fine. You are okay for people to buy an iPhone yet you are totally opposed to download a free app. Exactly what Apple wants. >> With iMessage/SMS there is no setup, no sign-in, no approval process or anything. There is a setup - buying an iOS device, there is a sign-in - creating and logging into iCloud or whatever it's called account, there is an approval process - when you create the account you give Apple all what's in the EULA and it's a lot. Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage. It's fine if you don't like their reason, but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does. I mean, in practice the current situation with RCS functions identically to iMessage -- it negotiates whether the person you're trying to message supports a fancier communication system, and if not it falls back to SMS. (The difference is that Apple could support RCS if it wanted to. But since it currently doesn't, there's no practical difference in experience to the users.) What would be objectionable would be if Google (or Apple) switched the default texting app on their OS to only support a communication protocol that the other OS didn't support.
    - gilcot 3y ago
      I may be wrong, but I think RCS protocol is published (so Apple and any other can support it if they want) whereas the protocol for iMessage is not (so no one but Apple can make compatible app under Android)
      - kemayo 3y ago
        Yes, that's why I said it's a difference that Apple could support RCS if they wanted to.
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      > They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage They are answering the question why they (and in their mind - everyone else/sane/both) wouldn't ever use anything other than iMessage. They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. I'm not sure what [most] people even understand how it uses their phone number[0] > but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. Well, they don't. I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Quite unsurprisingly, if both parties already have Signal/Whatsapp/whatever they don't need to download or register on it, too. > I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order. Those people really believed in a (quite clever I must say) totally-not-an-ad rumour what Apple does not give out any info. So while there is no objective reasons to object, those people would, just because it's Google or not Apple. Though I doubt it would happen, the ship sailed along with Google+/Hangouts. [0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage. And one last thing, RCS is still SMS in it's spirit - not as means to deliver text, but as means for cellular providers to print money from the thin air. Do you know how much it costed for the celluar provider to send one SMS between it's own customers on GSM?
      - kemayo 3y ago
        > They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. ...since all the answers focused on it being a convenient progressive enhancement to the SMS experience, I'm pretty sure they do understand this. > I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Yeah, because the selling point is the aforementioned convenient progressive enhancement. You try to text someone, and if you both have iMessage it automatically becomes better. Would it be nice if Apple had some sort of framework so their messaging app let other messaging services integrate into it so that it wasn't only iMessage that benefited from this quiet upgrade? Yes, but I can see how that'd be an excessively complicated app to maintain. > There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order. You're a bit of a goalpost-mover, aren't you? To engage on the law enforcement and privacy aspect despite it being unrelated to the prior point: falling back from one logged and requestable messaging protocol (SMS) to a different slightly less-logged and less-requestable method (iMessage) is fine. Plus, unless Apple has been actually lying in their marketing, iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, with the only backdoor being that law enforcement can get a search warrant for your unencrypted backups. But there's also a way to turn on a fully encrypted backup, once you go through sufficient warnings that customer service won't be able to help you if you forget your password, and if you do that it's legitimately secure from law enforcement. > [0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage. It's because people can have different goals for different products. Signal markets itself as a secure messaging service, with a notable focus in activist communities, and so having to tie you to a super identifiable piece of information is a bit strange. iMessage is just texting-but-better, and automatically steps in when the alternative would have been sending a SMS.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. Haven't they done that repeatedly?
kelnos 3y ago
As a complete Apple non-fanboy (I have an Android phone and run Linux on my Framework laptop; yes I'm one of those people), I don't think your argument holds water. If I send a message through the Android Messages app, I know it will get to its destination (well, modulo occasional SMS unreliability). I don't have to know or care if the recipient has the right app or not. Everyone can receive SMS. I do have a bunch of other messaging apps on my phone, but, for the most part, I've had to actively get people to install those apps in order to use them (or they've explicitly asked me if I have so-and-so messaging platform). For people I tend to chat with often, I'll usually try to get them to install Signal if they don't have it. But otherwise, I don't really have the energy to evangelize anything, so I just use SMS (or, if I'm really lucky, and they also use Android -- rare! -- RCS) with them. I'm frankly just completely sick of this situation. If iMessage & RCS were both built into the Android Messages app, I probably wouldn't use anything else. The only reason I use other platforms at all is because I like E2EE, the ability to send photos and videos that don't have to be downscaled and recompressed into oblivion, and non-terrible group chat management. iMessage and RCS fix all of those things.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > so I just use SMS Get out of this 3rd world country *smug_face* Honestly I do remember when I used the SMS lately - a once this year to contact a person whose contact was relayed to me through 3rd party. As soon as we confirmed what we are those who we are we moved on to Telegram. In the retrospect I should had just added his number to the address book and I would had seen what he is available on Telegram from the start, but I was in quite stressed state at that moment (hence the need to contact him, but that's the other story). But before that? Don't have an idea. But overall people here just outright tell you on what platform they prefer to talk[0] from the start so you know it and your 'I need to ask people to install...' sounds... quite weird. Between all the people and different social media there is always at least WhatsApp or Telegram what everyone have.[2] Another reason people have these apps is what they: a) work; sure SMS do work, but sending a photo? Video? No way b) priceless - sure, you pay for the traffic plan, but you pay for it anyway and it's extremely common now for providers to even give out a 'free' traffic for messengers. SMS still do cost money (at least for the crossprovider messages) and MMS... let's forget what MMS even existed. They are ugly and cost a ton. I'm not even sure young people, like younger than 25 even know what MMS is. c) all messengers provide a way to conveniently send photos, voice messages (UGH!), video messages and place voice and video calls. All the things which are unavailable with SMS. Honestly, after moving to 3G and further SMS doesn't even make sense - they are emulated on all levels and no longer a physical protocol. You can replace it with POEM (plain old email messaging) and it would be better on all occasions[1] So yes, using SMS as anything is just another pointless American thing, along with price tags without tax and gaps under toilet stalls. Everyone else moved on because it's better. But because "it's the way" they "need it"(tm) and hence are quite defensive of anything what can even remotely change the status quo. [0] and Instagram doesn't use the phone numbers, so adding to the phone book wouldn't help with autodiscover? [1] hey, remember sms2email gateways? Email2sms? [2] and amusingly enough I don't think most of people even knows what iMessage is, because even on iPhones they do use other messenger apps.
pests 3y ago
I think it's true that Apple doesn't show your contacts status of other people in the Messages app itself but it does show your contacts alternative way to message if you have it added - looking at a random contact I see a button inside Contacts to launch a chat via FB Messenger there. While not exactly the same it is useful

timeon 3y ago

How it is Apple fanboying? As far as I know, every phone already has SMS by default. On iPhone some messages goes throug by iMessage - but if other side has no iMessage it is sent as SMS. I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages. Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> Everyone with WhatsApp is asking me to download the app ... do you understand what iMessage is just another app, the only difference is what it's shipped with every iPhone and that's why it works? Apple has replaced a universal protocol, SMS, with their own app which is not available anywhere except iOS. And you are happy and try to convince everyone what this is totally fine. You are okay for people to buy an iPhone yet you are totally opposed to download a free app. Exactly what Apple wants. >> With iMessage/SMS there is no setup, no sign-in, no approval process or anything. There is a setup - buying an iOS device, there is a sign-in - creating and logging into iCloud or whatever it's called account, there is an approval process - when you create the account you give Apple all what's in the EULA and it's a lot. Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry.
- kemayo 3y ago
  They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage. It's fine if you don't like their reason, but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does. I mean, in practice the current situation with RCS functions identically to iMessage -- it negotiates whether the person you're trying to message supports a fancier communication system, and if not it falls back to SMS. (The difference is that Apple could support RCS if it wanted to. But since it currently doesn't, there's no practical difference in experience to the users.) What would be objectionable would be if Google (or Apple) switched the default texting app on their OS to only support a communication protocol that the other OS didn't support.
  - gilcot 3y ago
    I may be wrong, but I think RCS protocol is published (so Apple and any other can support it if they want) whereas the protocol for iMessage is not (so no one but Apple can make compatible app under Android)
    - kemayo 3y ago
      Yes, that's why I said it's a difference that Apple could support RCS if they wanted to.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage They are answering the question why they (and in their mind - everyone else/sane/both) wouldn't ever use anything other than iMessage. They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. I'm not sure what [most] people even understand how it uses their phone number[0] > but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird. Well, they don't. I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Quite unsurprisingly, if both parties already have Signal/Whatsapp/whatever they don't need to download or register on it, too. > I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order. Those people really believed in a (quite clever I must say) totally-not-an-ad rumour what Apple does not give out any info. So while there is no objective reasons to object, those people would, just because it's Google or not Apple. Though I doubt it would happen, the ship sailed along with Google+/Hangouts. [0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage. And one last thing, RCS is still SMS in it's spirit - not as means to deliver text, but as means for cellular providers to print money from the thin air. Do you know how much it costed for the celluar provider to send one SMS between it's own customers on GSM?
    - kemayo 3y ago
      > They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. ...since all the answers focused on it being a convenient progressive enhancement to the SMS experience, I'm pretty sure they do understand this. > I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Yeah, because the selling point is the aforementioned convenient progressive enhancement. You try to text someone, and if you both have iMessage it automatically becomes better. Would it be nice if Apple had some sort of framework so their messaging app let other messaging services integrate into it so that it wasn't only iMessage that benefited from this quiet upgrade? Yes, but I can see how that'd be an excessively complicated app to maintain. > There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order. You're a bit of a goalpost-mover, aren't you? To engage on the law enforcement and privacy aspect despite it being unrelated to the prior point: falling back from one logged and requestable messaging protocol (SMS) to a different slightly less-logged and less-requestable method (iMessage) is fine. Plus, unless Apple has been actually lying in their marketing, iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, with the only backdoor being that law enforcement can get a search warrant for your unencrypted backups. But there's also a way to turn on a fully encrypted backup, once you go through sufficient warnings that customer service won't be able to help you if you forget your password, and if you do that it's legitimately secure from law enforcement. > [0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage. It's because people can have different goals for different products. Signal markets itself as a secure messaging service, with a notable focus in activist communities, and so having to tie you to a super identifiable piece of information is a bit strange. iMessage is just texting-but-better, and automatically steps in when the alternative would have been sending a SMS.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry. Haven't they done that repeatedly?

kelnos 3y ago

As a complete Apple non-fanboy (I have an Android phone and run Linux on my Framework laptop; yes I'm one of those people), I don't think your argument holds water. If I send a message through the Android Messages app, I know it will get to its destination (well, modulo occasional SMS unreliability). I don't have to know or care if the recipient has the right app or not. Everyone can receive SMS. I do have a bunch of other messaging apps on my phone, but, for the most part, I've had to actively get people to install those apps in order to use them (or they've explicitly asked me if I have so-and-so messaging platform). For people I tend to chat with often, I'll usually try to get them to install Signal if they don't have it. But otherwise, I don't really have the energy to evangelize anything, so I just use SMS (or, if I'm really lucky, and they also use Android -- rare! -- RCS) with them. I'm frankly just completely sick of this situation. If iMessage & RCS were both built into the Android Messages app, I probably wouldn't use anything else. The only reason I use other platforms at all is because I like E2EE, the ability to send photos and videos that don't have to be downscaled and recompressed into oblivion, and non-terrible group chat management. iMessage and RCS fix all of those things.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> so I just use SMS Get out of this 3rd world country *smug_face* Honestly I do remember when I used the SMS lately - a once this year to contact a person whose contact was relayed to me through 3rd party. As soon as we confirmed what we are those who we are we moved on to Telegram. In the retrospect I should had just added his number to the address book and I would had seen what he is available on Telegram from the start, but I was in quite stressed state at that moment (hence the need to contact him, but that's the other story). But before that? Don't have an idea. But overall people here just outright tell you on what platform they prefer to talk[0] from the start so you know it and your 'I need to ask people to install...' sounds... quite weird. Between all the people and different social media there is always at least WhatsApp or Telegram what everyone have.[2] Another reason people have these apps is what they: a) work; sure SMS do work, but sending a photo? Video? No way b) priceless - sure, you pay for the traffic plan, but you pay for it anyway and it's extremely common now for providers to even give out a 'free' traffic for messengers. SMS still do cost money (at least for the crossprovider messages) and MMS... let's forget what MMS even existed. They are ugly and cost a ton. I'm not even sure young people, like younger than 25 even know what MMS is. c) all messengers provide a way to conveniently send photos, voice messages (UGH!), video messages and place voice and video calls. All the things which are unavailable with SMS. Honestly, after moving to 3G and further SMS doesn't even make sense - they are emulated on all levels and no longer a physical protocol. You can replace it with POEM (plain old email messaging) and it would be better on all occasions[1] So yes, using SMS as anything is just another pointless American thing, along with price tags without tax and gaps under toilet stalls. Everyone else moved on because it's better. But because "it's the way" they "need it"(tm) and hence are quite defensive of anything what can even remotely change the status quo. [0] and Instagram doesn't use the phone numbers, so adding to the phone book wouldn't help with autodiscover? [1] hey, remember sms2email gateways? Email2sms? [2] and amusingly enough I don't think most of people even knows what iMessage is, because even on iPhones they do use other messenger apps.

pests 3y ago

I think it's true that Apple doesn't show your contacts status of other people in the Messages app itself but it does show your contacts alternative way to message if you have it added - looking at a random contact I see a button inside Contacts to launch a chat via FB Messenger there. While not exactly the same it is useful