5 ms·

From what I've been told as an Android user repeatedly over the years, anything-but-iMessage is a (often-times insurmountable) burden on many iphone users who o

From what I've been told as an Android user repeatedly over the years, anything-but-iMessage is a (often-times insurmountable) burden on many iphone users who only want to use one app for all the things, and for whatever reasons that one app must be iMessage. As ridiculous as it may sound, my kids have actually been left out of social groups in the past because iMessage doesn't (or didn't?) work very well with Android phones. So presumedly, if Apple doesn't implement it then there's a large group of people with no access to this feature since they are unable or unwilling to use a different app. It would make sense to me that is part of the motivation for the advocacy.

crazygringo 2y ago
> and for whatever reasons that one app must be iMessage iMessage isn't an app. It's just the Messages app, and the reason it's that app is because it's the SMS app. There's zero effort to using Messages. It just works, and it just works to communicate with everyone because it will always fall back to SMS. Every single other app, the receiver has to have installed first. > As ridiculous as it may sound, my kids have actually been left out of social groups in the past because iMessage doesn't (or didn't?) work very well with Android phones It's unfortunate but not ridiculous. SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of different ways, nothing to do with iMessage.
- radlad 2y ago
  > SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of different ways, nothing to do with iMessage. RCS solves these issues.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    That's true. RCS has only been present on iPhones in the past few months. Are people even remotely aware? Have they noticed a difference? I wonder if it might takes years for people to regain trust with carrier-provided messages with group texts...
    - radlad 2y ago
      Available since September 2024 on iOS, I believe. Indeed, it seems Apple intentionally launched RCS support quietly, after refusing to implement it for many years (Android has had widespread support since at least 2019, possibly earlier on some manufacturers' phones, like Samsung.)
  - lxgr 2y ago
    It solves some issues, but it still needlessly ties instant messaging to a given mobile operator and a SIM card, which causes all kinds of problems when traveling internationally and using different SIM cards etc. It's a completely US-centric solution to an US-exclusive problem.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      But everything you're describing applies to your phone number in general, including voice calls. You sound like you're against phone numbers entirely...?!
      - lxgr 2y ago
        Yes, I very much am. They're horrible personal identifiers as they're at least tied to a given country; you lose them if you don't have a service contract; you can't really own them in a way you can own TLDs etc. There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. Using them as a means of contact discovery I can live with, making it the primary and only identifier is a big mistake, in my opinion.
        Sophira 2y ago
        Okay. So now the question is, who maintains this database of people who can be contacted using a phone number-less system? And what do you use as the unique identifier?
        lxgr 2y ago
        Email addresses have worked pretty well, and have the big advantage of allowing "self-custody" via using your own TLD, but don't require it. I don't have any issues with also allowing phone numbers as identifiers and most people preferring these, but I don't want to be forced to do so myself.
        radlad 2y ago
        > There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. I understand that the reason Signal, for example, does this is to cut down on spam on the network. You can't use traditional spam filters, since that would negate the privacy aspects of Signal. So instead you have to increase the cost to spam (i.e. by requiring a valid phone number, which can also be banned from the network.)
- lxgr 2y ago
  > It's unfortunate but not ridiculous. It really is. It would be less ridiculous if the people refusing to install some third-party messaging app would be generally opposed to third-party apps, yet somehow downloading Instagram or TikTok and signing up for an account doesn't seem to be a problem whatsoever for most.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    I'm not opposed to third-party apps. I am opposed to fragmenting my messaging, and having to remember which app to use for each person/group I want to communicate with. I'm not going to download WhatsApp just for that one person or one group that wants to communicate through it. No thanks. (If my entire country has chosen WhatsApp instead of SMS+iMessage, then sure no problem.)
    - lxgr 2y ago
      But you realize that from their perspective, you are doing the exact same thing (i.e. asking them to use something other than their preferred messenger to contact you), right?
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        No, see my last sentence. I don't have any preferred app. I just only want to use one. I'll happily use whichever one the people in my country have collectively decided upon.
        lxgr 2y ago
        Sounds like a plan (as long as you don't have any international contacts).
        crazygringo 2y ago
        Yeah... I migrated phones at one point, didn't realize I had to re-sign in to WhatsApp even though it was installed, and wound up missing over a year's worth of messages and meet-up opportunities from friends I'd made abroad. :( It's a real pain point...
lxgr 2y ago
> anything-but-iMessage is a (often-times insurmountable) burden on many iphone users who only want to use one app for all the things [...] my kids have actually been left out of social groups in the past [...] This bizarre attitude is exactly why my phone number is not registered on iMessage on my iPhone. It works great as a meta-filter for people that filter their social contacts based on phone brands. > iMessage doesn't (or didn't?) work very well with Android phones It doesn't work with Android phones at all, and iPhones fall back to using clunky legacy protocols such as SMS and RCS.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  RCS is a legacy protocol? Doesn't Google Messages use RCS for everything?
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Google is extensively pushing it because they bought one of the few companies capable of implementing it, and are now selling that as a service to phone operators. The protocol itself is a hot mess based on existing telco standards from the early 2000s that makes XMPP including every single extension look like the minimal platonic ideal of an IM protocol.

crazygringo 2y ago

> and for whatever reasons that one app must be iMessage iMessage isn't an app. It's just the Messages app, and the reason it's that app is because it's the SMS app. There's zero effort to using Messages. It just works, and it just works to communicate with everyone because it will always fall back to SMS. Every single other app, the receiver has to have installed first. > As ridiculous as it may sound, my kids have actually been left out of social groups in the past because iMessage doesn't (or didn't?) work very well with Android phones It's unfortunate but not ridiculous. SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of different ways, nothing to do with iMessage.

radlad 2y ago
> SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of different ways, nothing to do with iMessage. RCS solves these issues.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's true. RCS has only been present on iPhones in the past few months. Are people even remotely aware? Have they noticed a difference? I wonder if it might takes years for people to regain trust with carrier-provided messages with group texts...
  - radlad 2y ago
    Available since September 2024 on iOS, I believe. Indeed, it seems Apple intentionally launched RCS support quietly, after refusing to implement it for many years (Android has had widespread support since at least 2019, possibly earlier on some manufacturers' phones, like Samsung.)
- lxgr 2y ago
  It solves some issues, but it still needlessly ties instant messaging to a given mobile operator and a SIM card, which causes all kinds of problems when traveling internationally and using different SIM cards etc. It's a completely US-centric solution to an US-exclusive problem.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    But everything you're describing applies to your phone number in general, including voice calls. You sound like you're against phone numbers entirely...?!
    - lxgr 2y ago
      Yes, I very much am. They're horrible personal identifiers as they're at least tied to a given country; you lose them if you don't have a service contract; you can't really own them in a way you can own TLDs etc. There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. Using them as a means of contact discovery I can live with, making it the primary and only identifier is a big mistake, in my opinion.
      - Sophira 2y ago
        Okay. So now the question is, who maintains this database of people who can be contacted using a phone number-less system? And what do you use as the unique identifier?
        lxgr 2y ago
        Email addresses have worked pretty well, and have the big advantage of allowing "self-custody" via using your own TLD, but don't require it. I don't have any issues with also allowing phone numbers as identifiers and most people preferring these, but I don't want to be forced to do so myself.
      - radlad 2y ago
        > There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. I understand that the reason Signal, for example, does this is to cut down on spam on the network. You can't use traditional spam filters, since that would negate the privacy aspects of Signal. So instead you have to increase the cost to spam (i.e. by requiring a valid phone number, which can also be banned from the network.)
lxgr 2y ago
> It's unfortunate but not ridiculous. It really is. It would be less ridiculous if the people refusing to install some third-party messaging app would be generally opposed to third-party apps, yet somehow downloading Instagram or TikTok and signing up for an account doesn't seem to be a problem whatsoever for most.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I'm not opposed to third-party apps. I am opposed to fragmenting my messaging, and having to remember which app to use for each person/group I want to communicate with. I'm not going to download WhatsApp just for that one person or one group that wants to communicate through it. No thanks. (If my entire country has chosen WhatsApp instead of SMS+iMessage, then sure no problem.)
  - lxgr 2y ago
    But you realize that from their perspective, you are doing the exact same thing (i.e. asking them to use something other than their preferred messenger to contact you), right?
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      No, see my last sentence. I don't have any preferred app. I just only want to use one. I'll happily use whichever one the people in my country have collectively decided upon.
      - lxgr 2y ago
        Sounds like a plan (as long as you don't have any international contacts).
        crazygringo 2y ago
        Yeah... I migrated phones at one point, didn't realize I had to re-sign in to WhatsApp even though it was installed, and wound up missing over a year's worth of messages and meet-up opportunities from friends I'd made abroad. :( It's a real pain point...

lxgr 2y ago

> anything-but-iMessage is a (often-times insurmountable) burden on many iphone users who only want to use one app for all the things [...] my kids have actually been left out of social groups in the past [...] This bizarre attitude is exactly why my phone number is not registered on iMessage on my iPhone. It works great as a meta-filter for people that filter their social contacts based on phone brands. > iMessage doesn't (or didn't?) work very well with Android phones It doesn't work with Android phones at all, and iPhones fall back to using clunky legacy protocols such as SMS and RCS.

Aloisius 2y ago
RCS is a legacy protocol? Doesn't Google Messages use RCS for everything?
- lxgr 2y ago
  Google is extensively pushing it because they bought one of the few companies capable of implementing it, and are now selling that as a service to phone operators. The protocol itself is a hot mess based on existing telco standards from the early 2000s that makes XMPP including every single extension look like the minimal platonic ideal of an IM protocol.