951–960 of 1001 posts
Yeah, I am not expecting this to be a protracted game of cat and mouse. Apple will just sue them in the end; that'll put a REAL quick stop to this. I wish things had more interoperability, but Apple is under no obligation to implement it or be okay with it. And honestly, I believe them when they say that this is a security/privacy risk; even if it does serve their anticompetitive tendencies.
As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WhatsApp is that middle ground in some parts of the world. Upon moving to Europe we discovered that WhatsApp is the preferred way to connect with friends, employees, social groups and schools. It was actually the driving factor in me conceding and setting up a FB account.
Why would you need an FB account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shh don't mention Voice. Google obviously forgot that they still had it turned on. If they remember it'll get killed.
Google voice has a paid version via Google Workspace, so I doubt the service will go away. But I wouldn't bet on the free version staying free, or not losing features forever.
> Messages will be sent and received via your email address rather than phone number. [...] Even worse, when iPhone customers added an Android phone number to an existing iMessage secure encrypted group chat, the Messages app would by default switch the entire group chat to using unencrypted, unsecure SMS. These two Messages features combine to create a terrible UX. When someone starts a group chat in Messages and in…
From everything I've read on the matter, I believe that the UX nightmare when you include a non-apple user is an intentional design choice, rather than an engineering problem that hasn't been solved. They want the experience to suffer when somebody outside of the ecosystem is involved so as to create social pressure for the outsider to change. The ironic part of all of this is that while the EU may be forcing Apple i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The SMS protocol has been around for decades and works perfectly fine with iPhones. It's not that simple, you get discriminated against for having a different color bubble and using up people's SMS allocation. We should whine about (communication) interoperability, it's critically important for everyone. Purposefully or negligently creating incompatibilities is anticompetitive and generally toxic.
> you get discriminated against for having a different color bubble and using up people's SMS allocation It's really not about either. It's about UX. SMS and MMS message UX is terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a strange argument... It sounds like you're making the claim that every single chat application should be mandatory legally required to have completely open APIs for any clone that wants to pop up and get access to their network. What chat apps using a centralized server owned by a single company have open APIs that let anyone use them?
I don’t believe every chat application should be required to have completely open APIs. Key factors in my mind: - iMessage isn’t a chat app. It’s the default experience for sending the equivalent of text messages from the Apple ecosystem. They’ve blended the experiences such that it’s not fair to compare it to a traditional chat app - 3rd party chat apps are cross platform. The only reason Beeper exists is because th…
- 3rd party chat apps are cross platform because they're funded by alternative methods, usually by selling your personal information, though sometimes also by sales of other products within the app (like on LINE). Apple funds its chat app through phone sales.
> Messages App is the default chat app for all iPhone customers. Not only is it the default, iOS makes it impossible to change the default chat app. In the US, where the majority of people have iPhones, this means that the easiest way to chat is by tapping on your friend’s name in your contact list and hitting the ‘message’ button. This is not true. On iOS - iOS has APIs for third party messaging and voip apps to int…
Default option is still usual phone call/iMessage in a lot of places - in some you can long press and select another option, but not all. Also, merely opening a separate app doesn't really help. How about instead of having 5 different apps (that the system one sometimes generously allows you to open), you had one app that can seamlessly speak all protocols? You can add multiple e-mail or contacts accounts (even from…
There's nothing that does that though so this seems a bit of an odd statement.
Apple is writing their own death sentence here. Beeper Mini's case will definitely be used against them when their anti-monopoly case inevitably comes about: 1. Forcing a monopoly when they force-migrated their users to iMessage 2. Maintaining said monopoly by keeping third parties out Best thing they could do is put third party clients into a MFI like program and loads of red tape.
2. Requiring an application made by the company to access the servers owned by a company has never in history been called a monopoly before. The precedent that'd set would be pretty laughable. It'd basically make it law that everyone has free access to private servers of any company if they can reverse engineer the protocol. You could say goodbye to anti-cheat systems that block third party clients from online games.