5 ms·

It's called a "phone". It works with the "phone network", AT&T communicates with Verizon. They each fund themselves and are interoperable.

nicce 3y ago
For "phone" features, there are own standards and all the "phones" support them. They are public and everyone cooperates. iMessage is like Discord. It is messaging service tied to specific backend, and also devices in this case. What if I reverse-engineer Discord, make a commercial application which uses their non-public backend (not with webview) and never tell anything for Discord? Should the "phone" argument hold in this case? Discord is not the best example, because it 'allows' third-party level clients on some level, but above should not be the case.
- rezonant 3y ago
  > iMessage is like Discord. It is messaging service tied to specific backend, and also devices in this case. It's different, because the only texting app on the iPhone automatically prefers iMessage. Did you make a group with 2 iPhone friends and now you're adding a non-iPhone? Congratulations you now have two group chats. No way to merge it, and you have to manually tell everyone not to use the first one. But they will anyway, and the conversation splits.
  - nicce 3y ago
    The problem you are describing is more like a social problem, and applies to many other aspects as well. Usually people know the consequences of their actions. If they don't use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or any other "currently" popular social platform, there is always risk that you isolate yourself from the part of group which prefers the former. Is that one person important enough that other group members ditch the other groups? Here comes the reason why Meta, Discord or any other social platform with enough user base is highly valuable. Social pressure keeps users on their platforms. Apple is doing the same with iMessage in hopes of pushing device sales. But it is still messaging service. It does not forbid you using regular cellural standards. The question is that are the set defaults same as known decision? Not for everyone, but I don't think that conversation splitting is good enough argument here to reason why making business in this case would be good decision.
    - rezonant 3y ago
      > The problem you are describing is more like a social problem, and applies to many other aspects as well. Yes! But it's a social problem created by an intentional product choice that makes their own users have a worse experience in service of retaining their walled garden at the expense of your customers relationships on a service that they are embracing and extending for their own ends... And they could fix it too. There is zero reason to leave that original iMessage chat around from a technical perspective. They can even put a big scary banner at the end of the iMessage history saying Hey this is not encrypted anymore! watch out! > Usually people know the consequences of their actions. If they don't use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or any other "currently" popular social platform, there is always risk that you isolate yourself from the part of group which prefers the former. Yes, choosing not to use the three Meta apps you listed is your own damn fault. You're isolated because of your own poor choices. Just give up and feed the beast instead of, you know, trusting the phone/OS manufacturer you purchased your premium phone from and the carrier that you pay for your phone service. > But it is still messaging service. It does not forbid you using regular cellural standards. This is the part that's not actually true, because you cannot make an MMS group with only iMessage participants. You cannot opt out of iMessage on 1x1 conversations either. Using or not using iMessage isn't actually a choice, it's an automatic "upgrade" I'm not even sure it's possible to disable iMessage entirely. EDIT: This exists actually EDIT 2: "Messages app automatically chooses the type of group message to send based on settings, network connection, and carrier plan." https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724
  - cowsandmilk 3y ago
    In the scenario you describe, you can’t add a third iPhone user either. You can only add people when there are already at least 3 participants.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  The phone network in the US was basically the same 50 years ago.[1] It took a major antitrust fight to bring about "cooperation". So strange, folk strenuously defending obviously anticompetitive conduct. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
  - nicce 3y ago
    I would say that this is not proper comparison. It would be proper if iMessage would be the only messaging service phone users can use and installation and usage of the others are restricted. But anyway, my whole comment is about making commercial messenger with the expense of other product (aka. backend services of Apple) without permission, cooperation or anything else. There aren't official public APIs for iMessage other than for Business use.

nicce 3y ago

For "phone" features, there are own standards and all the "phones" support them. They are public and everyone cooperates. iMessage is like Discord. It is messaging service tied to specific backend, and also devices in this case. What if I reverse-engineer Discord, make a commercial application which uses their non-public backend (not with webview) and never tell anything for Discord? Should the "phone" argument hold in this case? Discord is not the best example, because it 'allows' third-party level clients on some level, but above should not be the case.

rezonant 3y ago
> iMessage is like Discord. It is messaging service tied to specific backend, and also devices in this case. It's different, because the only texting app on the iPhone automatically prefers iMessage. Did you make a group with 2 iPhone friends and now you're adding a non-iPhone? Congratulations you now have two group chats. No way to merge it, and you have to manually tell everyone not to use the first one. But they will anyway, and the conversation splits.
- nicce 3y ago
  The problem you are describing is more like a social problem, and applies to many other aspects as well. Usually people know the consequences of their actions. If they don't use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or any other "currently" popular social platform, there is always risk that you isolate yourself from the part of group which prefers the former. Is that one person important enough that other group members ditch the other groups? Here comes the reason why Meta, Discord or any other social platform with enough user base is highly valuable. Social pressure keeps users on their platforms. Apple is doing the same with iMessage in hopes of pushing device sales. But it is still messaging service. It does not forbid you using regular cellural standards. The question is that are the set defaults same as known decision? Not for everyone, but I don't think that conversation splitting is good enough argument here to reason why making business in this case would be good decision.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    > The problem you are describing is more like a social problem, and applies to many other aspects as well. Yes! But it's a social problem created by an intentional product choice that makes their own users have a worse experience in service of retaining their walled garden at the expense of your customers relationships on a service that they are embracing and extending for their own ends... And they could fix it too. There is zero reason to leave that original iMessage chat around from a technical perspective. They can even put a big scary banner at the end of the iMessage history saying Hey this is not encrypted anymore! watch out! > Usually people know the consequences of their actions. If they don't use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or any other "currently" popular social platform, there is always risk that you isolate yourself from the part of group which prefers the former. Yes, choosing not to use the three Meta apps you listed is your own damn fault. You're isolated because of your own poor choices. Just give up and feed the beast instead of, you know, trusting the phone/OS manufacturer you purchased your premium phone from and the carrier that you pay for your phone service. > But it is still messaging service. It does not forbid you using regular cellural standards. This is the part that's not actually true, because you cannot make an MMS group with only iMessage participants. You cannot opt out of iMessage on 1x1 conversations either. Using or not using iMessage isn't actually a choice, it's an automatic "upgrade" I'm not even sure it's possible to disable iMessage entirely. EDIT: This exists actually EDIT 2: "Messages app automatically chooses the type of group message to send based on settings, network connection, and carrier plan." https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724
- cowsandmilk 3y ago
  In the scenario you describe, you can’t add a third iPhone user either. You can only add people when there are already at least 3 participants.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
The phone network in the US was basically the same 50 years ago.[1] It took a major antitrust fight to bring about "cooperation". So strange, folk strenuously defending obviously anticompetitive conduct. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
- nicce 3y ago
  I would say that this is not proper comparison. It would be proper if iMessage would be the only messaging service phone users can use and installation and usage of the others are restricted. But anyway, my whole comment is about making commercial messenger with the expense of other product (aka. backend services of Apple) without permission, cooperation or anything else. There aren't official public APIs for iMessage other than for Business use.