Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

android.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#901

Post by gambiting »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #793
CharlesW wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with moving groups over to iMessage is that you'll always leave some Android users out. I'm on several text chains with a mix of iOS and Android users. It works fine.

But that uses MMS which many networks here (Europe) don't support anymore, or they charge a hefty fee (even though big SMS bundles are still a thing here). Especially for international use. I didn't realise it was still used in the US though. MMS definitely doesn't work on my phone, though I'm not sure if this is a provisioning/settings thing or that the provider has abandoned it. I never really looked into it as I'v…

I send international MMSes from my phone(android) to my mum's iphone, from UK to Poland, and it seems to work fine. Hasn't bankrupted me yet either(I just checked and it's apparently 30 pence per text).

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#902

Post by GekkePrutser »

cmelbye wrote: post #512
jabbany wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to debate what exact policy is the best, but it's not productive to just dismiss all regulation as bad because some are inconvenient. FWIW, the only reason cookie banners are annoying is because the sites intentionally made it that way to bully you into allowing 3rd party cookies. EU regulations allow a site to not have banners if 3rd party tracking is opt-in. They could easily do it via a separate settings…

The problem is that it's insane to leave all of this for the website to implement correctly. It's a UX nightmare and it opens the door for a company to game the system, secretly ignore my privacy setting, etc. The EU solution is, of course, to turn a technical problem into a legal problem. Sue the company if their "Allow" button is too big or it doesn't work as advertised. It should be a consistent browser-based pref…

Yes, they should have just elevated the Do Not Track flag to legal status. If the flag is on, tracking cookies forbidden. Easy. It would have solved the cookie banner problem entirely. Some browsers have already removed it but I'm sure they would have put it back of the EU actually made this feature useful.

I don't know why they didn't use it in the law. Probably advertiser lobby because it's much easier to coerce the user into agreeing when they control the process (dark patterns)

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#903

Post by _abox »

rootusrootus wrote: post #186
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is the EU doesn't give a fuck and is going to force them.

I find it interesting how many HN'ers now think bureaucratic control of technology is a Good Thing(tm).

It's a different world view I think. In Europe with our more socialist history, we view government regulations mainly as a protection of civil rights. Whereas in the US it seems to be viewed more as a kerbing of freedom.

It's not as black and white of course but this seems to be a recurring theme.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#904

Post by viridian »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #574
tcfhgj wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course fully encrypted

As of 2021-08 that doesn't appear to be the case > It however turned out that although the content of the message is encrypted, there is still a lot of user identifiable data that is not encrypted and can be seen by potential attackers.[0] [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266628172...

The amount of required metadata to maintain federation is very small. Some matrix instances operate in this minimalist or near minimalist domain, but in my experience, getting folks to share their custom forks of matrix requires some social schmoozing.

For better or worse, much of the fediverse is made up of small enclaves of hyper-paranoid tech weirdos who have often reinvented the wheel over and over, each in their own little group, which is a big problem for the casual person who wants to toss a server on a home server for friends and family.

And I say this as one of these hyper-paranoid tech weirdos. The network's growth is immensely stifled by the fact that people aren't keen on sharing, or building user friendly tools for the normies.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#905

Post by partiallypro »

latexr wrote: post #454
partiallypro wrote: post #317

Surprised the awful videos from platform to platform aren't highlighted more in the comments here. It's cleary Apple nerfing the video to make it look bad. The site's top video goes over it. It's awful.

> It's cleary Apple nerfing the video to make it look bad. The site itself contradicts that claim. From the FAQ (emphasis added): > When people with iPhones and Android phones text each other, Apple relies on SMS and MMS, outdated systems that cannot support large media files . That means photos and videos are often compressed and come through blurry. The severity varies by location and carrier based on compression a…

Yes, Apple falls back to an outdated system (on purpose) which nerfs videos. That is not contradictory at all.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#906

Post by partiallypro »

latexr wrote: post #669
thomasahle wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple relies on SMS and MMS This is the whole point. Apple chooses to fall back to an outdated system instead of one that supports higher quality media files. And that's just one of the ways they provide a worse quality experience for everyone involved in a cross platform group chat. There is really no reason for them to do that, except to force people onto Apple if they want to be part of group conversations with…

> This is the whole point. It’s the point of the website but is not the point the person I replied to made. I replied to what I quoted, not the article.

Nothing you said contradicted my point. Apple forces SMS which nerfs videos, they choose that on purpose to inconvenience Android users. Android to Android works perfectly because they aren't using SMS, they are using RCS.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#907

Post by dzikimarian »

altairprime wrote: post #888
dzikimarian wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally emails leaked, that say iMessage is closed, because Apple wants monopoly in this area. Yet in every thread recently someone spreads FUD how without uncle's Apple protection, bad world will hurt you, when reality shows that's nonexistent problem on other platforms.

I’m celebrating the antispam properties of device attestation, not asking anyone to trust Apple. I’m quite upset that Google RCS doesn’t include device attestation. It would have helped us get rid of text spam in carrier messaging, and made a convincing case for adoption by telcos. Imagine being able to block text spam by the equipment sending it. Imagine being able to block phone spam by the equipment calling you. I…

You wrote:

> Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform, rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is: Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam.

That statement is false. Primary reason is, that Apple wanted to lock customers in their ecosystem. You can read about it here: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...

Also attestation doesn't stop spam (see other responses in this thread) and is harmful mechanism that will lead to more walled gardens.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#908

Post by d-lowl »

imbnwa wrote: post #714
username190 wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Apple were censoring messaging apps I would agree with your seemingly negative sentiment, however, as someone who has pushed out apps to the Apple and Mac app stores, I can say they absolutely do not do that. Perhaps not in your country, but they've certainly done it before - censoring Telegram in both Russia[0] and Iran[1], for example. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/technology/telegram-apple... [1] htt…

Are you really suggesting governments requiring those apps be banned from distribution in their jurisdictions shares the context of the post you're replying to?

Yes. As for some other mobile OSs I'm not required to comply with whatever is on their official store, and can just install an app from a different source.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#909

Post by account42 »

altairprime wrote: post #712
shireboy wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gist of the article has been a soapbox of mine for years. We wouldn't stand for "you can only send Gmail email to other Gmail users" (Fidonet people know), and shouldn't settle for similar with messaging. That said, this spam angle is an aspect I hadn't fully considered.

Google closed down their Jabber gateway because they couldn’t stop the endless flood of spam into their userbase. If they had instead required device identifier attestations to accompany all Jabber messages, they could have left that API open for everyone to use, and simply banned device identifiers used for spamming. I wish they’d done so, instead of just giving up and closing their doors to Jabber.

This idea that we need to rely on big Google to protect us is insane. Just make it so that messages from unknown contacts are not as annoying or even hidden entirely unless you go explicitly looking for them.

You don't need to stop federation. You don't need device attestation. These don't benefit the user. They are only there to give the platforms more control.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#910

Post by nucleardog »

int_19h wrote: post #762
nucleardog wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many reasons many IT folks actually prefer an iPhone over Android. The two biggest ones are privacy and security. I've been downvoted to hell for it before, but I'll add mine to this list because I don't _think_ it's all that uncommon either: I don't want another PC to administer and support. I've had a lot of Android phones over the years (started with the ADP1!). Taking my last one as an example--it sto…

The big difference between a toaster and your phone is that the phone gets updates. Which, aside from fixing things, also do stuff like change UI. On Android, when Google comes up with some new inane idea for the launcher, I can at least install a different one. On iOS, when Apple does the same, I don't really have a choice other than to go along with it.

> On iOS, when Apple does the same, I don't really have a choice other than to go along with it.

Part of my original comment:

> I don't have to think about how I want the phone to work because it just works the Apple way and if I don't like it I can just get a different phone.

That's a feature to me. I don't spend any brainspace when I'm using my phone on thinking about things that annoy me or things that could be better. Launcher sucks? Does it suck bad enough to make me switch platforms? No? Then it's not worth worrying about any further and so I won't.

When I used Android, knowing I _could_ fix those annoyances meant I _did_ fix those annoyances. That's just not something important for me to be spending my time on, but I know I will if put in that situation.

Post reply on HN