Google argues iMessage should be regulated by the EU's Digital Markets Act

> Because SMS sucks big time:

Let's look at these:

> limited characters

True, however for quite some time now smart phones have handled this just fine or worst case you would get multiple messages with "1/2" or whatever. With threads this is a non issue.

> cannot send videos, cannot send images

While technically true, MMS fixed that was was a standard that just expanded on SMS.

> cannot do groups.

I have done plenty of SMS groups with android users so that clearly isn't true and is achievable with software.

> it was charged by message

While true, Unlimted texting (at least in the US) was a fairly normal thing before smart phones so I consider that more a carrier problem than a SMS problem and since that predated apps in the first place I don't think its a valid argument.

> the interface really sucked.

I mean considering even iMessage still just uses the same interface. So is the really a SMS problem? RCS and iMessage just add a couple nice to have but far from required features (and in some cases like stickers ANNOYING FEATURES) so if you think the interface sucks for SMS are we really fixing it with RCS or iMessage? It doesn't seem like it.

> They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default.

...since all the answers focused on it being a convenient progressive enhancement to the SMS experience, I'm pretty sure they do understand this.

> I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages".

Yeah, because the selling point is the aforementioned convenient progressive enhancement. You try to text someone, and if you both have iMessage it automatically becomes better. Would it be nice if Apple had some sort of framework so their messaging app let other messaging services integrate into it so that it wasn't only iMessage that benefited from this quiet upgrade? Yes, but I can see how that'd be an excessively complicated app to maintain.

> There was quite a shock for some people what Apple actually gives up info on their customers when the law enforcement comes with an order.

You're a bit of a goalpost-mover, aren't you?

To engage on the law enforcement and privacy aspect despite it being unrelated to the prior point: falling back from one logged and requestable messaging protocol (SMS) to a different slightly less-logged and less-requestable method (iMessage) is fine. Plus, unless Apple has been actually lying in their marketing, iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, with the only backdoor being that law enforcement can get a search warrant for your unencrypted backups. But there's also a way to turn on a fully encrypted backup, once you go through sufficient warnings that customer service won't be able to help you if you forget your password, and if you do that it's legitimately secure from law enforcement.

> [0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage.

It's because people can have different goals for different products. Signal markets itself as a secure messaging service, with a notable focus in activist communities, and so having to tie you to a super identifiable piece of information is a bit strange. iMessage is just texting-but-better, and automatically steps in when the alternative would have been sending a SMS.

> So yes, using SMS as anything is just another pointless American thing,

The thing you're not grasping here is that SMS exists on every phone. WhatsApp does not. Signal does not. Telegram does not.

Communication benefits massively from network effects. In the US, most people do not use third-party messaging apps. Those who do -- and I have Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp on my phone, so I'm in this group -- are in a minority. People who have multiple messaging apps are even more in the minority.

For Americans, third-party messaging services don't offer any significant benefits, either. Most people can't care about encryption. And I can easily send various media -- photos, videos, etc. -- via the default text messaging app on my phone. The cost is transparent to Americans, because phone plans have always been expensive -- and, frankly, they wouldn't get cheaper without free SMS/MMS, which is a point driven home by broadband prices (which are equally expensive in the US in comparison, despite not having this artificial cross-provider SMS cost).

> I'm pretty sure they do understand this.

If we ignore 'and requires iPhone for the other party to receive anything other than text' then yes.

> Yes, but I can see how that'd be an excessively complicated app to maintain

Oh, poor and people stranded Apple can't maintain that! Temporarily embarrassed millionaires again?

> You're a bit of a goalpost-mover, aren't you?

Just progressively degrade to personal insults, why are you even bothering?

It was a direct callout to a classical appledoublethink, when it's okay for Apple to do something yet not okay for not-Apple to do the same.

> falling back from one logged and requestable messaging protocol (SMS) to a different slightly less-logged and less-requestable method (iMessage) is fine

Replace iMessage with any other service and it's the same. And with same guarantees if backups are fully encrypted. But again, this has nothing with the topic of this thread, only for the peculiar way of thinking of some Apple fanboys.

> It's because people can have different goals for different products

> Signal markets itself as a secure messaging service, with a notable focus in activist communities

Yes, but if you don't use Signal for 'activist communities' then what? You don't do things? Or you just use iMessage for participating in those activities?

Agai, why would you use sms with all it's problems, or iMessage that 50% of the people dont use when you have a better alternative that I'd also free?