Apple's hijacking of links, addresses, etc, is possibly their top abuse of power.
The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android.
The other possible top abuse is the way they block you in your group messages if you switch from iPhone to Android.
file a bug / feedback that this is not in line with Apple's privacy first stance
As ever, check first, then complain.
There used to be an issue with amazon with this where you’d try to buy an ebook and be bounced into the app, but you can’t buy ebooks in the app because amazon don’t want to pay Apple 30% of the cost. I just had to delete the amazon app to buy the book. Luckily their website works just as well.
What were the other examples?
The first one, the one that you might expect to apply to all files of the same kind, but which actually applies only to the specific file you are doing this for, is under “Open With” in the context menu that comes up when you right click the file (two finger touch by default on MacBook laptops). When you choose Open With > Other and check the “Always Open With” checkbox, you are only creating an association for the file in question, not for the file format in general.
This to me is confusing.
In order to create the association for the file type and not just a specific file, you need to instead select the “Get Info” entry in the context menu for the file. Then, under “Open with” in the window that comes up, this is where you select the application that will apply to all files of same kind.
Did you try the latter method?
The way Finder sets the default view is equally unintuitive
1) Select any file.
2) Change the app in the "Open with" dropdown.
3) If you want it to apply to all files click the "Change all" button.
For example, I can imagine if there were instead two radio buttons in "Open With": "Always for this file", "Always for this extension". All in one place.
As a result it behaved like that:
- When you opened a file, it opened in the program that created it.
- When there were no such program, you could still open it in another program that claimed to understand these files. I don't remember how it was implemented, I think there was a dialog asking if one would like to use another program with some choice (probably the first one that fit).
This was rather handy with formats like "Encapsulated Postscript" in desktop publishing: this format supported both vector and raster images, but one normally used different applications to manipulate them.
This stayed for some time after the move to Mac OS X, but now I believe these things are gone or not used at all.
This is orthogonal to all that, though. It's about the UX to associate an app with a file type, regardless of how that file type is determined.
GNU/Linux doesn't automatically choose which program to use for anything (you can't ./file.png like you can in Windows). In my experience file managers tend to use file extensions to choose which application to use, and that application might then use libmagic and ignore the file extension. (e.g. giving a PNG file the .JPG extension will make the file manager think it's a JPEG, and therefore open it with an image viewer, but the image viewer program will use headers to recognise it as a PNG)
Yes Apple, I really do need to boot up a full blown, 7GB+ sized IDE to edit some markdown. Apparently TextEdit wasn't good enough.
Yeah, I know. If you want good UX, best to switch to living in the 1990s.
Set it up accordingly, you won't go back.
Acme under OSX shines.
Fucking love the concept, but it'd take a lot of work to get the immersiveness of modern systems. e.g. completion/suggestions, linting, etc. none of it is built for plan9.
Ironic because plan9 is amazingly trackball friendly.
https://github.com/jmigpin/editor
It diverges somehow from Acme, but it has autocomplete and a similar interface. I love it :)
https://github.com/moretension/duti
(or `brew install duti`)
I'm not sure how it works, maybe there's some metadata in the HTML. You can see the same thing in action with the Jira app on Cataline now - any Jira link you click will load up and render in the native app.
That said, it's definitely a problem when you're redirecting these links to things you don't actually support any more, without any way to opt out.
Maybe since at one point you did tell it you want to use news to handle it, it keeps going back to it? Although that means most likely the News app was not updated to remove support for that link. Or maybe iOS deep links work differently? (I only use Android)
You can install an alternative like chrome or google search (chrome but better UX IMO) And when you do, anything that opens a page that isn't an embedded webkitview prompts me to pick a browser. It even suggests chrome which I don't have installed (I guess I installed it once and it remembers the protocol registration)
Were you to use the default mail application, for example, its links would always open in Safari.
It is bad for your messaging to be made by the same company as your phone. Some really problematic conflicts of interest.
Sure it is! You can't continue a group conversation from WhatsApp -- or any other messenger, really -- on another messenger service without manually recreating the group. There is literally nothing which makes iMessage unique in this regard.
Apple consciously doesn't make the APIs for iMessage available.
WhatsApp doesn't provide an API so I could use it on my existing laptop over WiFi for free (the WhatsApp web requires it to be setup on a phone first).
WhatsApp works reliably on a staggeringly broad list of devices. You can get a supported phone for, like, $20 and stick a $5-per-month prepaid SIM in it (many of these plans in low-income countries specifically come with WhatsApp allowances) and be connected.
This is like arguing that free Wi-Fi isn't "free" because some people only use ethernet. If you don't already own a compatible device, you aren't their customer anyway.
But the phone doesn't have to be bought from Facebook, whereas with iMessage you have to pay Apple for a phone.
>maintain a phone line to use WhatsApp.
I wonder what the reason for this is. Maybe to reduce spam? Data collection?
maintaining a phone line doesn't cost hundreds of dollars a year
Except for the vendor lock-in, which makes this a problem to begin with. Other services work on a majority of devices.
Which is a legitimate complaint especially since Apple had said they would be opening it up (or was that FaceTime...I'm not sure).
But that's a wholly different complaint from the fact that Apple, like nearly every other messaging service, does not allow you to export groups to other services.
Sure there is. If you try to "text" someone (as in SMS) and the Messages app (which is the ONLY way you can send SMS on iOS) detects your number as registered to iMessage, it will send an iMessage by default.
So even though your number didn't change, and everyone is still using the "Messages" app to talk to you, it inexplicably doesn't work anymore for group chats, and your regular private message colors have mysteriously turned green.
There are plenty of SMS-API-provider-backed "texting apps" on iOS. There are also softphone apps that provide SMS service.
I think you specifically mean "the only way you can send SMS messages from the DID number that your carrier maps to your phone's MMC IMEI registration.
Not sure what advantages an imessage vs sms groupchat even give me in this era of unlimited texting. Pretty hearts?
Some cellular carriers still charge per MMS message, so group chats (which use MMS) can get expensive. MMS group messages also have some undesirable properties -- in particular, adding or removing users from a group is unreliable, because each device is responsible for generating a list of recipients itself.
Plus, iMessage uses end-to-end encryption. MMS does not.
* more than 10 participants * can set a topic for the group * can add and remove participants * end to end encryption * typing indicators (i think? Can’t remember if these work in groups)
The solution is to deregister your phone number for iMessage; if you don't do this, it will happen automatically after a week or so.
Just dealt with this with a sibling who switched to android. How is this legal? It’s quite ridiculous.
I wish everyone in the US just used WhatsApp or another third party app like it seems they do in every other country. Instead, not having an iPhone makes you a pariah because of the green messages.
Why would this be illegal?
Consider this scenario: you have an iMessage group chat of 3 people, and one of the three people has a plan like PayGo[1] and an extremely limited monthly SMS quota. What happens when one of the other two participants suddenly counts against that quota?
There are options, of course, but for consumers as a whole those options are hostile and inelegant - are you gonna pop up a warning saying that messaging these people might now cost you money?
I guess you could make an argument for turning iMessage off by default, but that also seems like a net negative for consumers as you're back to giving phone companies the opportunity to charge exorbitant rates for things like MMS. Then you'd just push everyone to yet another third-party messenger that could be acquired, aggressively monetized, or shut down at any time.
It's buried in there somewhere.
It’s fine to have a settings page that lets you manage pop ups, but a pop up should always be extremely limited in scope.
At the extreme, ‘connect to this wifi network’ and ‘reset to factory settings’ are obviously at different scales of importance and should have significantly different UI. Similarly open this app, and changing a setting are on different scales. Basically, it’s fine if the pop up takes you to some other UI element to make the change, but pop ups should have consistent importance.
Edit: I'll add that this would be particularly annoying if I were actually trying to watch a video because the YouTube app is so outdated that it prompts you to download an update with no option to just watch the video, and pressing the update button brings you to the Play Store app... which requires a Google sign in. So what should have been a simple link to a video instead funnels the user through two apps where they are asked to sign in with a Google account (or create one if they haven't) and download an update... all without even offering to open the link in their browser. That's pretty embarrassing UX.
I am running Android 10 so it's possible it looks different on Android 6.
[0] which I needed to share the link to my laptop, as Google Photos only gives you a "copy link" option for a shared album, not actually sharing it. I am SO fed up with this shit, programs fighting to keep me "in the ecosystem" while sacrificing UX and just blocking you from completing a task.