Hacker News Reader

Comment by moepstar | Hacker News Reader

What if... Apple would've brought iMessage to Android in 2009/2010?

I'd bet they'd have the prevalent communication platform nowadays in WA's place...

Problem is iMessage also relies a lot on SMS, an in a lot of countries this is really, really bad (due to crazy prices, Brazil for example where WhatsApp absolutely dominates, has crazy sky high prices for cellphone communications in general, WhatsApp dominance is because people at first used it as "free SMS" and after they got voice calls, people use it as "free phonecalls")

iMessage only relies on SMS for sending messages to people not using iMessage, and it's rather clear on when it sends messages as SMS instead of iMessage, as the recipient becomes green (before sending) if the message will be sent as SMS.

Just like WA/Signal/Whatever, iMessage requires all recipients to use the service, and it just offers the option to send a message as a SMS message in case the recipient is not on iMessage.

Except all those others are cross platform. So billions of people can’t use iMessage at all.

The default also is to fall back to SMS meaning people would have incurred costs quite easily.

The GP was saying what if iMessage was brought to Android. Now a large number of people would have access to iMessage the same way iOS people do, thus avoiding SMS charges, and becoming blue bubbles with any other iMessage phones.

So you've sort of missed the point I think.

> The default also is to fall back to SMS meaning people would have incurred costs quite easily.

iMessage has an option for disabling SMS fallback.

I guess i've never considered it a problem. I've had unlimited voice/SMS for close to a decade. Instead of paying by the minute/SMS/MB, the trend here is instead to use additional services (music, netflix, etc) to keep the prices up.

Here in Denmark, a $50/month mobile subscription will get you unlimited voice, SMS, and 20-30GB data, along with Netflix, HBO Nordic and a music service. A basic subscription includes unlimited SMS, <10 hours of voice, and 1-5GB data, and is around $15/month.

Usually during summer/christmas i get unlimited data as well for 1-2 months, and from July until new years eve we had unlimited data. It probably has some "fair usage" limit, but i've never hit it. Also, Netflix consumption doesn't count against your data cap, so you could create a wifi hotspot on your phone and stream netflix over 5G all day without using any data at all.

At least in the US, every major cell phone provider's plans include unlimited texting. So that's not really an issue here.

Wether you perceive that as "free, with some exceptions" or as "costly, with some exceptions" depends not only on the Apple/Android ratio in your network but also on your general wealth (unless your particular brand of wealth absence is entirely based on general lack of monetary self-control)

I find the mixing of iMessages and sms' in the same app super confusing. Good on you for knowing which color is which, but most of my friends who are fairly good with computers and internet, don't really understand what is going on.

I think Google tried the same and the Android audience were less forgiving and I think Android is better off because of that.

I would have loved to have SMS and iMessage separate. I use SMS less because of iMessage. When I switched to my Android phone, some people would text me in iMessage and the messages would end up on my iPad, where I had asked for all iMessage notification to be turned off, because I want to receive SMS on my phone.

What's confusing about it? I'm honestly confused by your confusion. When I want to message someone, I use Messages. Whether they have an iPhone or not is irrelevant, because that will be handled in the background.

It's relevant when falling back to SMS would cost you $$$. Not something I have to worry about in the US, but I understand some areas are different (a parent comment mentioned Brazil).

But you know before you even send the message if it will go over iMessage or SMS based on the color.

wodenokoto’s post specifically mentioned not knowing which color is for which service. That’s the confusing part. I can’t recall off the top of my head, either, so I tend to agree.

I find it pretty incredible that anyone who posts on HN and uses an iPhone doesn't know blue vs. green. If you go up to any random iPhone user on the street and mention "green texters" there's a very good chance they will know exactly what you're talking about.

You keep repeating that color does it for you and other people keep repeating that it does not work for them. Suspend your disbelief. This is no Mensa puzzle, people’s brains just work differently.

The color is just one of the indicators. There is text which indicates whether it is iMessage or a Text message as well.

It has the color and also says “text message” or “imessage” over the message. Its pretty clear.

It's even clearer on WhatsApp, because every message is sent over the internet and never via SMS.

Yes & therefore, if someone isn't on WhatsApp, the message doesn't send at all.

> It's relevant when falling back to SMS would cost you $$$.

Then disable the fallback... It's a very obvious and simple setting.

Once someone knows about it or find out about charges, sure. But see how many people get hit with accidental roaming charges even though there's a simple and obvious setting to disable it.

As someone who doesn't currently use an iPhone... isn't Messages the only approved SMS app for iOS? What happens if you attempt to message a non-iMessage user with that setting disabled?

Then it'll send as a text message.

When initiating a new conversation, the number you add to it appears blue if they can receive iMessages, green if not.

If for some reason iMessages can't be delivered to the receiving party at the moment. Text messages are used as a fallback for them. If you disable the fallback mode. It won't be.

The whole thing is kinda intuitive, and works really smooth IMHO.

It clearly says “sent as text”when it’s green. There really is no confusion and takes a second to understand.

In iMessage, before one starts typing, the text field says either “iMessage” or “text message”, so one knows how it’ll be sent without relying on the blue/green color scheme.

I miss hangouts SMS integration. It was super easy toggle SMS/Hangouts as the method of sending and clearly displayed grey if it was going to be SMS.

iMessage does not use SMS at all. It is 100% IP based like WhatsApp.

The Messages app on iOS devices can switch to SMS if the iMessage service is not available. It would certainly be possible for Apple to design an iMessage-only client that will not do that. But they don’t want to.

Apple sells hardware. They are a hardware company, who realized early on that they need to ship great software to go along with their hardware.

They are not interested in new users on devices which don't increase their hardware-sales.

They are also not interested in selling your private information. They. sell. hardware.

You know what's funny here? You seem to be actively defending their decision and putting it in the vein of "well they sell hardware so they are going to do anything they can to get you to use their hardware!!". And that's supposed to make it OK? Fuck that logic.

As other people have mentioned, if iMessage would have opened up to other platforms it would probably be what everyone uses and would be GOOD FOR EVERYONE. But instead, they wall it to their shit. My mom constantly tells me she doesn't get my text messages from android to her 100% apple ecosystem. I can't do anything about it. It doesn't make any sense, but it's on Apple. They probably even leave these "unfixed issues" to get everyone to move to imessage just so they will buy their hardware.

Fuck Apple for their decision on this. Stop defending it. It's a horrible decision.

Do you feel the same way about not being able to play Nintendo games on a Playstation or an Xbox? I mean how dare they try to operate a business.

>Do you feel the same way about not being able to play Nintendo games on a Playstation or an Xbox?

Yeah, because me trying to text an Apple phone from a non-apple phone is the same thing as trying to play a nintendo game on an xbox. Fuck off dude.

I'm sorry, but if you are unable to send a text to an Apple device from a non-Apple device, then you must be broken. If you stated that you cannot send an iMessage from a non-Apple device to an Apple device, then you'd be correct. However, an iMessage is not a text. Any text capable device is able to send a text to any other text capable device. If the app one reads those texts is called WhatsApp, iMessage, or ImTooStupidToKnowTheDifference.app, it doesn't matter.

> My mom constantly tells me she doesn't get my text messages from android to her 100% apple ecosystem.

That is weird and never happened to me. SMS works everywhere. Does she maybe have your number in a blocklist?

> They are also not interested in selling your private information.

Trust me, they are interested. They are a private corporation. They are interested in every potential revenue stream. Today it may not be their strategy because of the potential for it to reduce revenue, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Is this where we spitball hypotheticals even if no inclination to execute them has ever been shown?

“Trust me, they are interested in murdering you and extracting your vital fluids for profit. It may not be their strategy today because it could reduce revenue, but who knows what tomorrow will bring”

I haven't seen more than one or two multinational corporations murdering and extracting vital fluids from their customers. Monetizing personal information, however, seems pretty reasonable to expect based on past history.

> Monetizing personal information, however, seems pretty reasonable to expect based on past history.

Which history would that be when it comes to Apple?

History of corporations. I guess, if you want to make the case that Apple is wholly unique, and the entire history of corporate conduct doesn't apply here, then fine. I just don't have the will to debate that one.

How can both Google and Apple cannot have a single rival platform against Facebook? We do have competitors like Twitter, Telegram, Signal but none of them are from Google or Apple. If we had we could have kept Facebook in check.

Have they given up on network effect of Facebook's platforms? If they can't solve network effect problem then I wonder how much hope there is for apps like Matrix or Signal.

P.s. We do have YouTube from Google but that's an entirely different story.

It's a moderation nightmare. Facebook is a toxic name to many people. If I were Tim Cook I would leave social networks well alone to keep the Apple brand clean, if for no other reason.

I don't think Google+ ever got to the scale where that was an issue.

They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything. They can keep Apple clean of social networks while endorsing and supporting an open protocol or format for fetching/presentation into a thin client (something like ActivityPub/ActivityStreams, to pick an existing implementation that could make sense to adopt/adapt). I don't know, I think that'd be a very "Apple" thing to do with integrations into the rest of their client side ecosystem.

> They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything.

I don't think that is the case. At least many users, possibly even most users, would not understand the difference between Apple hosting a social network themselves and Apple promoting a thin client that views decentralized content. If you have an Apple Decentralized Social Networks app, and a parent sees their child viewing objectionable content through that app, a bulk of their ire is going to be directed at Apple; they will likely not even know the name of the entity actually hosting the content.

The "we're not actually hosting it so we're not responsible" argument, I don't think it's ever really worked. I don't think it would work in this case. See: torrent websites.

I think the benefit to Apple also goes down. They give up control, and for what gain?

The trite answer is a modal going something like "the content you're trying to access A) isn't available on your <AppName-Level subscription> or B) isn't in our walled garden of third party providers". I don't like how it sounds but I'm confident they could sell that.

Heck, integrate it into messenger and treat all content like emoji/stickers you must acquire from a controlled source to circulate.

> They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything.

Legally maybe, but it's nevertheless presented under the Apple brand... which means as soon as the first pedos, QAnon cultists, antivaxxers and other undesirable elements take a look, people will reflect that negatively on Apple.

Apple's brand is basically to be "clean and safe" for users. Engaging in the shitshow that is any modern social network would be one of the fastest way to tank their stock price.

Remember Google Plus? They tried but were ultimately found wanting.

Apple was focused on hardware. Their services play is only recent and my best guess is if they ever considered social, they rightfully saw how toxic it is and decided it wasn't worth the effort/risk of tarnishing their brand. Not that I think they'd have a compelling product. Personally, Apple's web products are average at best. See their stock apps.

Apple even tried a social network of sorts with Ping in iTunes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Ping

Apple scraped that so quickly most never knew it existed. I think this shows a company that knows what it does well and has the discipline to stick to it.

Except they allowed Ping to get released in the first place. If they knew themselves so well, that idea would have been left to die on the vine rather than having X number of employees working on it at whatever expense.

Possibly monopoly fears?

What if they did it in 2021? I'd install that app and try to convince my peers to switch from WhatsApp.

But realistically, some people pay the iphone premium to avoid the shame (?!!) of green text bubbles.

>to avoid the shame (?!!)

Or the cost. I have some limited number of SMS messages on my cell plan and then it's 10 or 20 cents or something like that I think. I don't send many texts so I'm pretty sure I don't normally get hit for fees but someone sending the large number many seem to probably would.

imessage isn't a text message. It would use a very very little bit of data per message.

Green messages on an iPhone are messages that weren't sent via iMessage; they were sent via SMS.

That's because the recipient of your message doesn't have iMessage (which is everyone that doesn't have an iPhone). The OP is suggesting that Apple should have brought iMessage to other platforms (Android in particular).

What if Google agreed to license iMessage from Apple?

Sure, in 2009 I bet Google thought they had a chance, but it's 2020 and it's easier than ever to convince Android users to drop the privacy-eroding bug-ridden trash that is the Google ecosystem than it was ever before.

er, actually, its 2021 now. gotta retrain that muscle memory to reach for the 1 instead of the 0.

They tried, you know.

Apple promoted iMessage as an open standard, Google and Microsoft wanted to go with extensions to MMS.

So here we are, off the road not taken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com