EDIT: Reading down the page, it seems that other Android users have a different experience, where only they are degraded? That's odd. In my experience, my presence degrades the entire chat and everyone gets swapped to MMS.
SMS/MMS has technical limitations you're running into. It's the lowest common denominator that's going to work between Apple and non-Apple devices. Google and carriers have shit the bed multiple times over the past decade trying to come up with an equivalent to iMessage.
There's no good reason why Apple and Google couldn't collaborate to design an upgraded and open SMS protocol that everyone can plug into. These two effectively control the entire mobile market.
They only reason they don't is spelled out exactly in this thread. Apple cares more about pressuring people into their walled garden than actually serving customers well and encouraging a vibrant market of products using cross compatible messaging protocols.
that exists, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Apple has already been serving their customers with Messages. A free E2EE messaging system usable across all their devices. Your "Apple walled garden" complaint rings a bit hollow considering there's tons of messaging apps on iOS. Why are you not complaining WhatsApp or Signal doesn't make their infrastructure cross compatible for Apple to use? You know, vibrancy and all.
Messaging platforms (Apple included) don't want to be interoperable. It slows down feature development and partners in development may be at cross purposes. It also means opening expensive infrastructure to use by third parties. The rollout of RCS has been an object example of those issues.
But no, it must be Apple bad. Walled garden! WHARGARBL!
It's the definition of a walled garden. Google's messaging services aren't limited to Pixel devices or even Android in general, whereas Apple has made theirs available only on devices they manufacture.
It is fucking compatible. Messages falls back to the most compatible option between platforms and carriers: SMS/MMS. RCS has been a shit show, even Google has had to run their own parallel infrastructure for it just to avoid the implementation problems of carriers. Google also has proprietary extensions for RCS for E2EE which only works on Google's infrastructure and only between clients running Google Messages.
You're trying to excoriate Apple for not supporting an extremely poorly implemented "standard" (RCS) or investing tons of money fighting with carriers and partners trying to create some new "standard". It's absurd.
If Apple tried to support the RCS clusterfuck that would be a third protocol supported in their Messages app. Even if it was some new standard hammered out with Google and carriers there would still be an SMS/MMS fallback for the literal billions of handsets that won't support whatever new standard.
Adding a full feature set is something to approach with caution since Apple does not go the Google approach of burn it down and start over every few messaging apps. Most of the zero days seem iMessage related.
So I'll repeat, SMS/MMS is the least common denominator that will reliably work on non-Apple devices and across carriers. Adding RCS support to Messages would mean building their own infrastructure like Google has done in order to have the feature work reliably.
Last time I checked it didn't even have E2EE.
They're on Discord.
I think this should at the very least be classified as a new dark pattern - and it sounds as if it could potentially even have antitrust implications:
Apple's strategy is effectively that users of competing products aren't just put at a disadvantage themselves, Apple will disadvantage their whole social circle and rely on social pressure to drive them back from the competitor.
This seems honestly extremely anticompetitive. (Not to mention, has icky similarities to china-style social credit systems)
I think there is a significant US vs. ex-US difference in how people use messaging. I am in the US and very few older adults I know use over-the-top messaging apps, with perhaps the exception of Facebook Messenger. The only people who use WhatsApp are folks who have traveled internationally, have international friends, or international business contacts. Signal is for crypto-nerds. Telegram is for... I'm not sure. Certainly nobody I know.
Interestingly, people I know who are in their 30s are more likely to use FB Messenger, because they're more likely to have been on Facebook since it was introduced.
But people in their 20s seem to have eschewed Facebook. Some of them seem to use Snapchat or Instagram Chat, but without the expectation that everyone is going to be on it.
So, basically, there is no universal chat tool that you can use in the US and basically expect people to be on, except SMS/MMS (and iMessage, which basically takes the place of MMS on iPhones from a users perspective).
And I can confirm, they don't really care :-)
Discord is their go-to chat platform on their gaming PCs, iPads and iPhones.
TBF One of my kids did ask about the bubble colour thing, but they dont actually care.
They love Discord, where as I find it impossible LOL! Which makes perfect sense!
Their Discord chats are irreverent and full of memes, their avatars and nicknames are totally random to me!
Which is as it should be!
iMessage is great and all - but it's very stuffy and old and corporate compared to how I see my kids using Discord!
The same will happen to Discord, too. Personally, I still think ICQ and IRC are the epitome of chat applications.
It seems like yesterday we NEEDED to hack a chat client to remove ads to make it usable... Kind of how we use adblocking on web browsers to make the web usable...
People here (NL) barely use iMessage. They use WhatsApp mainly. I prefer (and do use mainly) Signal. For group chat, Matrix. Though Discord is (unfortunately) very popular. I dig it only for gaming.
* single chat client (not a plethora on many platforms these days)
* ability to set online, offline, away, invisible (basically if you're available or not, whereas Facebook/Instagram/Slack don't really have that same separation and even the ones that do tend to not be as popular)
* Single-purpose platform, no other social media needed to carry it. i.e. Instagram's DM's are tucked away. Discord is technically single-purpose, but it's also at its core a social media platform, you need to join servers/Discords for all the separate things you're into, etc. so it's also not a single-purpose platform).
Out of all of them I like discord the most, but it's not hard to find problems even there. (weird scrolling, nearly useless search). I miss custom clients.
Plus, while I like the integration gifs images and some emojis, I generally find it overused in almost all servers I am on.
It’s super nice because they can set up channels for only some subset of the everyone on the instance, and because I admin it, I can see everything that goes on there if there’s an issue. I don’t expect issues, but the fact that I’m the admin means that a lot of her friends’ parents who are otherwise relatively strict allow their kids to use it.
Setting the boundary of 'you can use Discord and only this channel I've setup for you and your friends' works if you've spent their whole life setting reasonable boundaries that you discuss with them. Just like an adult, reasonable boundaries are more likely to be complied with.
To the specifics, they could create a new account/server, but it's really obvious on the server list (set a unique server icon). Discord doesn't have parental controls (e.g., you can't set a settings PIN so the settings can't be changed), but there are a lot of server controls you can setup to restrict access (like really short invite times, for example).
It's honestly not something I'm worried about. I'm just saying that using the server I set up is the path of least resistance for them.
Asking for a friend, who is into 133t vv@rez.
Thanks for the insights.
Which, with tongue like very slightly in cheek, checks out with a Wall Street Journal article about the Youths.
It's also a slight verification in some situations — if I were to get someone's number from a dating app, or chat with someone from Facebook Marketplace and the message was green, I'd be much more hesitant to message them.
It's a negative signal to me if it's green, as they may be using a Google Voice number or any other fake number system. This isn't to say someone couldn't have a burner iPhone, but it's way more effort than simply having a Google Voice number, and I haven't encountered that.
I use a Google Voice number as my primary number and have for over ten years.
I personally would be less likely to respond from a dating app or marketplace app in particular. Google Voice numbers are less traceable and more easily replaceable, which makes them more viable for scammers.
I mean, your preferences are your own, and if you prefer to only date iPhone users, that's weird, but you're entitled. I am just struggling to understand the Google Voice connection here.
> It's a negative signal to me if it's green, as they may be using a Google Voice number or any other fake number system.
I'm not implying the vast majority of "green-bubble numbers" are Google Voice rather than Android phones, but that there is no verification they are not Google Voice numbers.
I'm not trying to be elitist at all; there's just a verification that happens with an iPhone texting another iPhone of (1) this is a real phone number, and (2) this isn't a cheap burner flip-phone someone just bought. When interacting with strangers from the internet, that verification is important!
This isn't unknowable ... why don't you just check ?
curl -s -X GET "https://lookups.twilio.com/v1/PhoneNumbers/$number?Type=carrier&Type=caller-name" -u $accountsid:$authtoken | /usr/local/bin/jq '.'
... or, if you're non-technical, just use mycarrierlookup.tv or checkcarrier.estonia or whatever ... there are 20 or more such sites extant.This is ultimately a problem because regular SMS has zero authentication, whereas I iMessage is essentially walled off to legit users by the telephone carriers and Apple.
Green could be any type of source. Android, Twilio, google voice, who knows.
But if a random number comes in and it’s green, more often than not it’s spam. If it’s blue, more often then not there’s a real person behind it.
So clearly the teens in my social circle at least are paying attention enough to notice and comment.
Edit: or MMS, if that's enabled
International calls still cost per minute, and IP bandwidth is metered, but I honestly thought metered calls/texts were mostly a thing of the past. Is this a regional thing?
On the other hand, I have unlimited data with no throttling.
Everyone here uses the LINE messenger app, or email. Literally all I have in my iOS Messages app is 2FA codes and Pingdom notifications.
The phone companies got greedy and priced the individual SMS so high ($0.06 local) that nobody uses them except for 2FA codes and notifications.
If sms where still $0.02 each as they were in the early 2000s I would still use them occasionally.
iPhone users here (10%) are not really aware of iMessage because they use WhatsApp.
There are plans with unlimited SMS and domestic calls included, but they are like $50 per month.
Why would i pay that when everyone is on WA/Signal anyways and i can just buy a cheap data sim with unmetered bandwidth?
It's not surprising >90% of people in Germany use WhatsApp (+ other messengers)
I had no idea what this thread was about until your comment. Thanks
Also the notion that if I text a friend a blurb of text that it somehow shows up as a line item on my cell phone bill and is logged by the phone company is simply absurd.
I too detest green texts. But the color has nothing to do with it.
The substitute message for the reaction (known as a "Tapback" in iMessage) does let the recipient tell which message is being reacted to, though it's not very user-friendly. The format is something like:
Liked "[original message text]"
Examples: https://www.pcworld.com/article/395045/hey-iphone-users-stop...The Google Messages app,[1] which is preloaded on many Android phones, now automatically interprets substitute messages for iMessage Tapbacks and displays them as reactions, the same way iMessage users would see them.[2] Hopefully, this feature makes its way to open source texting apps soon.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
[2] https://9to5google.com/2021/11/19/google-messages-imessage-r...
That opportunity also exists for any insider with actual knowledge. None of them coming forward is a pretty good indication it’s bullshit.
And who, exactly, is the seller here? Is it the publishing company? In that case they would seem to be underreporting their income, which is a crime. Trump could have ended the NYT if he had managed to substantiate the charge.
Or is it individual reporters? In that case, the publisher is the largest single victim of this dynamic, since they aren’t getting any cash but carry all the risk. They would have an interest to stop it and obviously a rather good position to do so.
1) Apple pays PR company to write a really compelling pitch for an article (maybe even writing basically the whole thing, or at least providing all the quotes and whatnot)
2) Journalist writes the article because hey, it’s a great story (which will get lots of clicks) being handed to them on a silver platter
Of course, people can avoid this by not using iMessage in favor of e.g. Signal, which runs on both Android and iOS.
But if Signal or a secure, universal SMS protocol could be agreed upon and used by Android and IPhone, that would be okay.
I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -Edward Snowden
> I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
You can install Signal right now for free. You don't require anyone's permission to do this.
There is a setting in Signal to alert you when one of your contacts joins Signal. Only other people who have Signal receive this notification and they can turn it off.
They also don't receive the alert because they were in your contacts. They receive the alert because you were in their contacts.
It preserves the privacy of your contacts (no one learns that you have them as a contact) and people have a choice about whether to receive the notifications (it isn't spam). That's not worse.
> Is there a setting when you join that doesn't blast it to everyone who has you as a contact?
It isn't blasting it whatsoever. Their client is querying whether any of their contacts has Signal. If one does now that didn't before, and their client is configured to notify them when that happens, their client notifies them when that happens.
The client has to be able to determine whether it can use the network to contact a given peer. Removing the ability to provide a notification when that happens is just security through obscurity.
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Do...
Signal, like it or not (I feel both ways) is keyed on phone numbers. When you look for someone, that's what you look for, and unless someone messages you first, you have to look for them.
So anyone who has your phone number and thinks "hmm, is so and so on Signal?" will find out, yes.
What's the downside to them opting in to getting alerts that the answer is now yes? I find them annoying and turn it off, but I can't avoid anyone who has my number messaging me one time on Signal, that's just how the platform works.
It would be more privacy preserving to prevent that user from ever knowing the answer until I send them a message.
The usual areas this is a problem are for example: bad exes, poor former business relations, anyone who is harassing/stalking someone, and so on. I enjoy Signal as an app but it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that there aren't other ways of architecting a messenger system that could preserve anonymity better.
Someone has to send the first message. To have end to end encryption, that someone needs to be able to retrieve the other person's public key in order to be able to send it. This means they can determine whether you have a public key, i.e. whether you have the app.
> The usual areas this is a problem are for example: bad exes, poor former business relations, anyone who is harassing/stalking someone, and so on.
If your bad exes don't have your phone number, they don't learn that you installed Signal. If they do have your phone number, they learn that you installed Signal, but if them learning this one bit of information is an actual problem for you, maybe you should change your phone number.
Whenever people say they don’t care about privacy I ask them those questions, and curiously they never reply.
Can you have my credit card statements? No.
Can you read my SMS messages? Eh, if you want to go to the trouble to intercept them, I don't really care. They're pretty boring, and I know they're not secure so I don't send anything sensitive over SMS.
If you have someone's phone number, you can just about guarantee that you can message them. It might not be encrypted, or have richer features like other messaging services, or it might even be expensive, but it's fairly reliable and doesn't require any third-party apps. Just like how you might shout to someone at a distance to get their attention and convey important information, but you wouldn't shout their credit card number to them.
My experience as an Android user when dealing with an iMessage initiated chat is terrible. Apple's obfuscation of the distinction between its proprietary messaging platform and sms/mms does a disservice to everybody.
iMessage cleverly quotes the whole message you liked, which contextually is required, and doubly grinds the conversation to content mulch
I get the impression that even without RCS, Apple could have done more to keep the experience usable for the iOS users in SMS fallback mode.
In my extended family, we even have both iMessage groups and WhatsApp groups, the iMessage ones specifically when we want to share original quality pics/videos of the kids and family for whoever wants to save them.
Tier 1 Carriers -- Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T -- all MMS content up to about 1 MB.
Tier 2 Carriers allow MMS content of 600 KB.
Tier 3 Carriers allow MMS content of 300 KB.If I choose documents, I do not see where I can go to select photos/videos in the iPhone camera roll. I presume it may not be accessible that way.
Also, I presume WhatsApp does not want to allow people to send photo/video at full size in their network to reduce bandwidth costs.
iMessage (blue) sent messages are similarly a closed protocol and unencumbered by the carrier.
Easy for me to say I guess. There's never been enough iOS ubiquity in my circle for the network effect to take over. There's age, nationality and class factors at play. UK had slightly less iOS dominance than the US and I'm older.
as a counterpoint, iMessage messes up links sometimes, I had to turn it off because it breaks some types of links that I sometimes have to exchange with my coworkers. SMS is plain text, so the link is preserved as-is
Edit: those are links generated using Firebase Dynamic Links service. When sent over Twilio (vanilla SMS) they work but when forwarded from iPhone to iPhone they will break unless you turn off iMessage.
> Yep. My son had a galaxy s20+ at the beginning of his 9th grade year this year. Within 2 weeks he asked if he could get the iPhone since kids were calling him the “green bubble” kid. Once he got his new iPhone 13 Pro Max, they shut up.
And quite a few other parents/relatives sharing similar anecdotes.in high-schools where parents of students casually buy them $1000+ phones... it matters a lot, it seems. Peer Pressure is a bitch, even when you have no 'real' problems, kids can make up problems for themselves.
Of course this doesn't apply to every group of people. As you say, in some circles other non-Apple chat platforms are more popular so this isn't an issue. But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because iMessage isn't popular in your friend circle that it's not popular in general.
I recognized that we could potentially be excluding people who didn't have iPhones, so I brought up the topic in the group. Switching to a regular MMS group was a non-starter -- MMS is slow and unreliable, administering large groups is a complete disaster, and many teens can't receive MMS messages at all because they don't have a data plan (whereas iMessage works over a Wi-Fi connection). So I researched alternatives and suggested we switch over to Slack (this was before Discord got big, so Slack seemed like the best option at the time).
I got flamed hard for this suggestion. People very much did not want to download a new app, make an account, and learn to use it just for one group chat. iMessage was working great for us, so we decided to stick with it and reconsider if an Android user actually wanted to join the group. (One Android users eventually showed up, but the group went with the path of least resistance and just relayed information to him separately rather than switching chat platforms. Of course, this meant he missed out on all the socialization aspects of this group).
Eventually, we hit iMessage's 30-person limit on the number of participants in a group chat, and so we were forced to switch to Slack. This was a complete disaster: Slack was cumbersome, intuitive, and a painful transition, and it completely killed the group chat. It wasn't worth opening up a new, clunky app just to send a meme or joke to some friends, and Slack's extremely unintuitive notification settings [0] meant that nobody saw anyone's messages anyway. It didn't help that this happened in the fall right after some people had moved off to college and a bunch of new freshmen joined the group; and within about two weeks the group ceased to exist.
My takeway from this was that the iMessage lockin was definitely real, not because of any social stigma but because iMessage was, at that time and place, far superior to any other well-known product for our use case. Everybody made a Slack account and switched over to the new group, but nobody used it because it was unintuitive and cumbersome. Nowadays it seems Discord is finally succeeding in this space; I'm in college now and among my peers Discord is by far the preferred means of communication in small and large groups alike. Even many of my professors are on Discord and use it as their primary communication channel outside the classroom (I've had several classes where office hours are held in a Discord voice channel). Its interface is cleaner, easier to use, and more performant/responsive than Slack's, its notification settings have sensible defaults but are easy to customize, and its voice channels are an absolutely incredible feature that puts products like Zoom to shame.
I know Discord certainly has it's fair share of issues when it comes to freedom, privacy, and interoperability -- but ultimately teenagers don't care about any of that -- as you said, we just want to talk to our friends. It's all about who offers the best features for the least friction -- and I'm not talking gimmicks that nobody uses like cryptocurrency integration or talking animated avatars, but rather functional aspects including the product's reliability, usability, practicality, performance, and of course the network effect. A few years ago the winner was iMessage on nearly all fronts, today it's Discord.
[0]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6ROe0mU0AEmpzz?format=jpg&name=...
I’m in an all iPhone household, but come on. It’s his phone. No need to get tetchy about it.
Even the brand new >1000$ Android phones will only get half as many years of support.
There's no good reason to have it this way other than lock-in.
iMessage has existed in more or less its current form for over 10 years now. RCS took too long and basically gave this space to Apple. And Apple keeps adding features, such as bundling photos sent at once, showing where photos you have came from, and other things, not to mention things that STILL aren't on Android (nor whatsapp) like livephotos.
Blame Apple that talking to anyone not on iMessage sucks.
Also, the features you mention are all extremely new to iOS, I'm not sure what you mean by "still".
- Sent from my iPhone
But sure, Apple could (maybe should) use RCS as a fallback instead of SMS.
So it goes both ways. Maybe you should get an android instead? Or you can continue being snobby about Apple and Google being companies that want closed gardens.