471–480 of 665 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem hard, people like your father can be allow-listed, he's not signing-up out of the blue. (I'm wondering if this "works" because the early adopters were hackintosh types who were already on imessage and not abusers. When the H3rb8l V18gr8 crowd shows up, that is the end.)
The what crowd?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the alternative is just continuing to sms people from your android because at least you know the messages are definitely going through, green bubble or not
You still face such problems as being left out of group chats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is conflating problems. This thread is about asking the government to step in to allow 3rd party devices into iMessage, which is decidedly outside of SMS, but gov won't step in because iMessage isn't a monopoly on messaging nor SMS. It's a monopoly on... it's own protocol/service? Android users always get a message an iPhone user sends so to claim gov intervention monopoly on the basis that the end user can't ch…
> iMessage isn't a monopoly on messaging nor SMS People tend to misinterpret what it means to be a monopoly for antitrust law. The obvious example here is United States v. Microsoft Corp., where the inability to remove Internet Explorer was at issue. Being unable to set an alternative messaging app with equivalent functionality (such as Signal) on a mobile phone is at least as cumbersome to the user as being unable t…
For discussion, using MSFT vs US as the central point, it seems as if US was arguing that Windows and IE were "one and the same" or at least inseparable as concepts while the US gov said no way.
Applying that central argument to this situation doesn't feel the same in that, if US gov tried to apply the same argument it would lose in this case.
When I think "phone device", I think phone calls and SMS are inseparable ideas to the device itself. That they are functions that belong to the phone. Probably stems from my days of owning a Nokia or Razor.
But maybe that is an out dated concept and my thinking needs to change because any program should be able to control the phone's SMS and calling function via API.
I'm unsure is all I can really say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> have no chance of winning I think Apple will almost certainly win on a purely technical game of cat and mouse. I think you need to adjust your definition of winning. Blocking 5% of messages is a 'win' for Apple. I won't use a messaging service with a 95% success rate. I won't migrate from iMessage to Beeper. I will submit, Apple would have liked a more decisive victory.
My definition of a win for Apple would be to have the problem go away and the attention dissipate. That's how it went for Nothing's attempt for instance, where it was instantly ridiculed and everyone forgot about it. Right now, they blocked a part of Beeper mini, and nobody expecting a rock solid service would join Beeper Mini so Apple's won't be losing any of their core customers. But the news cycle keeps going on,…
They won't be losing _any_ of their customers. For the most part[^], nobody using Beeper Mini has paid Apple for anything... otherwise they wouldn't need to use Beeper Mini.
[^] Yes I'm sure there's at least a few people with an iPhone and a Windows PC or something that see this as "iMessage on Windows".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a user, I am very well served by remote attestation when it is used to stop cheaters in videogames or spammers in messaging platforms.
This assumes that all Beeper Mini users are spam, and that's a weird take. More charitably, perhaps you are saying spam will increase over previous levels. From what I understand, Apple does not have any spam prevention technologies in Messages at all, neither for incoming iMessages, nor for SMS messages-- so the only thing keeping your iMessage conversations free of them is the obscurity of the protocol. Perhaps the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does everyone care so much? Happy to explain. First thought, why do you care so much? > Nor do I want it. Why? What about exclusivity makes the world better? Why shouldn't I be able to communicate well with someone using an Apple device? Why should someone using an Apple device not want someone to communicate well with them? Sure there are other systems. But switching costs are so high. Especially with iMessage…
They're using "buying an Apple device" as a spam filter, rather than using democratic means to put good regulations that are anti-spam.
Or CASL in Canada?
Or the "Spam Act" in Australia?
Or the PECR in the UK?
Yeah, what we need is more regulation. That's been solving the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a chess move. Apple blocks a small percentage of users instead of all of them, which casts uncertainty on using Beeper Mini at all. It also allows them to A/B test various methods of blocking or honeypotting Beeper Mini logins without giving away any big secrets. From Beeper's perspective, they now have to figure out why only those logins were blocked and if they need to patch something or not. Apple could…
Ugh, it is beyond depressing to imagine Apple bigwigs sitting around discussing ways to make absolutely certain teens keep getting ostracized until they buy their overpriced product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still face such problems as being left out of group chats.
Is this really a problem? I seriously doubt many people are going to leave someone out because they use an Android phone. I certainly won't because I like communicating with people and people are far more important than technology.
What kind of spam are people (presumably in the US) getting outside of iMessage? I’m in the EU, I get very little SMS spam (mostly for telecom’s clumsy attempts to find more ways to monetize me).
I also have Viber, Telegram, and FB messenger, and the spam is virtually zero on Viber (less than an “offer” a month, and it’s from the likes of Coca Cola, not herbal viagra) and literally zero on the others.
Is spam significantly worse elsewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My father has an iPhone 8 which did not receive the latest iOS update. I can iMessage him just fine. There are millions of people out there running old iPhones like that. If Apple just decided to cut them all off iMessage they would do far more damage to their brand than Beeper could possibly manage.
That doesn't seem hard, people like your father can be allow-listed, he's not signing-up out of the blue. (I'm wondering if this "works" because the early adopters were hackintosh types who were already on imessage and not abusers. When the H3rb8l V18gr8 crowd shows up, that is the end.)
I get Apple's "this is our toy, you won't be making $2/month/user on us".
But "keeping the spammers out" it's a bit.. weird..?
Can someone please describe the WHAT is the technical advantage of Android users to spam over iPhone/Mac users to spam.