4 ms·

Well in Europe Android is dominating the market (but with a very fragmented experience depending on Android version). The result is that as an iPhone users I f

Well in Europe Android is dominating the market (but with a very fragmented experience depending on Android version). The result is that as an iPhone users I feel sometimes feel left out because different friends circles on Android turn to different secured messaging services (WhatsApp, FB messenger, Telegram, Signal, etc...). I firmly refuse to give my personal ID to all theses companies just to keep in touch so I often default to sms/mail (or I get left out of group chat). iMessage is not perfect but they did get the sms fallback right and with upcoming RCS support maybe it'll be easier to bypass theses competing closed and incompatible walled gardens. So from my point of view, the whole "blue bubble" tyranny look like a joke. Apple kept conformance with SMS/MMS standards from the beginning and added a secure layer on top. I wish others services just did the same.

lostlogin 3y ago
> iMessage is not perfect but they did get the sms fallback right Did they though? It’s unreliable. Other than this point, I very much share your position.
vintermann 3y ago
I can understand not trusting FB, but you have to give out the ID you want people to be able to find you by. What you give to Signal is probably less than what's in the phone directory. > I wish others services just did the same. Signal did, then someone convinced them that the risk of accidentally sending an SMS which you thought were an encrypted message, was bad enough to break messaging integration on Android. I wonder if whoever convinced them of that maybe didn't want it to be so convenient to use.
- whyoh 3y ago
  Signal is strongly focused on secure communication, so it never made any sense for it to support SMS/MMS. I think bundling different protocols in the same app is a bad idea in general. Besides the security and functionality problems, it just creates confusion. The whole iMessage/bubble-color mess wouldn't exist if Apple made it clear to their users that the iMessage protocol is different from SMS and incompatible with most phones.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    Well imessage does the exact same thing. It doesn't seem to confuse the users. More basic protocols as a fallback mechanism can be a good idea, if you understand the risks (and of course, if you allow the recipient to use the better protocol!) Signal always warned me very clearly if it was forced to send a message via SMS, and even pushed me to invite the recipient to Signal. It made sense to support it still, because it's the second most basic service in the Android world (after calls), and now that Signal doesn't offer it, it can't be the default service any longer. Signal's task as I see it isn't just to protect your communication, but encourage widespread use of strong encryption so that you don't stand out for using it. For that, there are tradeoffs. I think being able to handle the forced insecure communication for the user, clearly marked as such, was a great tradeoff for the sake of wider adoption.
    - whyoh 3y ago
      >Well imessage does the exact same thing. It doesn't seem to confuse the users. What % of iPhone users do you think understand the difference between SMS, MMS and iMessage protocols? I bet most don't. But if iMessage had its own separate app, they would know it's an Apple-only protocol. And that would make them less likely to exclude non-iPhone users and more likely to use cross-platform alternatives. It's not like all iPhone are jerks, they're being mislead on how "texting" in the default iPhone app really works. That's what I meant by confusion.
whyoh 3y ago
>Apple kept conformance with SMS/MMS standards from the beginning and added a secure layer on top. iMessage is not a "secure layer on top", it's a totally separate proprietary protocol and it requires an Apple account to work. It just happens to run in the same app as SMS/MMS messages, which has its pros and cons.
- curt15 3y ago
  This. A "secure layer on top" would be something more like HTTPS over HTTP.
- spectre3d 3y ago
  >it requires an Apple account to work Not true. “The “magic” is that you don’t have to sign up for an account, or create a new username or account identifier. You just send a message from your phone number to another phone number, and if both numbers are registered for iMessage, the message goes over iMessage instead of SMS, even if you don’t have an Apple ID. Beeper had that working last week. Now, Beeper users need to have an Apple ID, and sign into that Apple ID within Beeper. (Beeper should actively encourage users to create and use an app-specific Apple ID password[1] for Beeper.)”[2] [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102654 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102654 [2] https://daringfireball.net/2023/12/beeper_mini_is_back https://daringfireball.net/2023/12/beeper_mini_is_back
Zak 3y ago
> as an iPhone users I feel sometimes feel left out because... I firmly refuse to give my personal ID to all theses companies just to keep in touch You're not left out because of what kind of phone you use. You're left out because you refuse to use messaging apps that are available for your phone.
- joshmanders 3y ago
  And yet here we are, in a thread about a service abusing Apple's servers to make something available to the opposite crowd who feels left out because they refuse to use messaging apps that are available for their phones.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Look I think Beeper Mini and the whole thing is silly, but no, Android users are not refusing to use the apps available for their phones. iMessage is not available for Android.

lostlogin 3y ago

> iMessage is not perfect but they did get the sms fallback right Did they though? It’s unreliable. Other than this point, I very much share your position.

vintermann 3y ago

I can understand not trusting FB, but you have to give out the ID you want people to be able to find you by. What you give to Signal is probably less than what's in the phone directory. > I wish others services just did the same. Signal did, then someone convinced them that the risk of accidentally sending an SMS which you thought were an encrypted message, was bad enough to break messaging integration on Android. I wonder if whoever convinced them of that maybe didn't want it to be so convenient to use.

whyoh 3y ago
Signal is strongly focused on secure communication, so it never made any sense for it to support SMS/MMS. I think bundling different protocols in the same app is a bad idea in general. Besides the security and functionality problems, it just creates confusion. The whole iMessage/bubble-color mess wouldn't exist if Apple made it clear to their users that the iMessage protocol is different from SMS and incompatible with most phones.
- vintermann 3y ago
  Well imessage does the exact same thing. It doesn't seem to confuse the users. More basic protocols as a fallback mechanism can be a good idea, if you understand the risks (and of course, if you allow the recipient to use the better protocol!) Signal always warned me very clearly if it was forced to send a message via SMS, and even pushed me to invite the recipient to Signal. It made sense to support it still, because it's the second most basic service in the Android world (after calls), and now that Signal doesn't offer it, it can't be the default service any longer. Signal's task as I see it isn't just to protect your communication, but encourage widespread use of strong encryption so that you don't stand out for using it. For that, there are tradeoffs. I think being able to handle the forced insecure communication for the user, clearly marked as such, was a great tradeoff for the sake of wider adoption.
  - whyoh 3y ago
    >Well imessage does the exact same thing. It doesn't seem to confuse the users. What % of iPhone users do you think understand the difference between SMS, MMS and iMessage protocols? I bet most don't. But if iMessage had its own separate app, they would know it's an Apple-only protocol. And that would make them less likely to exclude non-iPhone users and more likely to use cross-platform alternatives. It's not like all iPhone are jerks, they're being mislead on how "texting" in the default iPhone app really works. That's what I meant by confusion.

whyoh 3y ago

>Apple kept conformance with SMS/MMS standards from the beginning and added a secure layer on top. iMessage is not a "secure layer on top", it's a totally separate proprietary protocol and it requires an Apple account to work. It just happens to run in the same app as SMS/MMS messages, which has its pros and cons.

curt15 3y ago
This. A "secure layer on top" would be something more like HTTPS over HTTP.
spectre3d 3y ago
>it requires an Apple account to work Not true. “The “magic” is that you don’t have to sign up for an account, or create a new username or account identifier. You just send a message from your phone number to another phone number, and if both numbers are registered for iMessage, the message goes over iMessage instead of SMS, even if you don’t have an Apple ID. Beeper had that working last week. Now, Beeper users need to have an Apple ID, and sign into that Apple ID within Beeper. (Beeper should actively encourage users to create and use an app-specific Apple ID password[1] for Beeper.)”[2] [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102654 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102654 [2] https://daringfireball.net/2023/12/beeper_mini_is_back https://daringfireball.net/2023/12/beeper_mini_is_back

Zak 3y ago

> as an iPhone users I feel sometimes feel left out because... I firmly refuse to give my personal ID to all theses companies just to keep in touch You're not left out because of what kind of phone you use. You're left out because you refuse to use messaging apps that are available for your phone.

joshmanders 3y ago
And yet here we are, in a thread about a service abusing Apple's servers to make something available to the opposite crowd who feels left out because they refuse to use messaging apps that are available for their phones.
- Volundr 3y ago
  Look I think Beeper Mini and the whole thing is silly, but no, Android users are not refusing to use the apps available for their phones. iMessage is not available for Android.