Hacker News Reader

> So what happens is that I gravitate to other ecosystems.

I use a Mac but an Android phone. Android because I require the ability to install apps from arbitrary sources, including piracy. Mac because modern Windows is so contemptuous towards its users, and desktop Linux falls apart unless you know the intricacies of its internals.

Anyway, transferring files between the two was a pain in the butt that eventually grew so immense I reverse engineered Google's Nearby Share and made this: https://github.com/grishka/NearDrop

Though yes, I'm not North American so iMessage is just a non-issue to me. I don't know anyone who uses it. No one uses SMS for actual messaging between people, everyone's SMS inbox is 99% OTP codes and various other automatic notifications. Literally everyone who I communicate with is reachable through Telegram.

Actually it is more like knowing the intricacies of its distribution specific internals.

> I require the ability to install apps from arbitrary sources, including piracy.

No one "requires" access to theft.

If you want to play semantics, you can't "buy" a digital service

Piracy isn't theft because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything, and English isn't my native language.

> but I’m using my “spare” Pixel phone more often because the software suits me better.

Welcome! Pixel is all you need.

Can you do what people did with Windows in the noughties, install a different OS and get a refund for the OS portion of your purchase (or for the apps portion??), it sounds like you're not using it?

AFAIK macOS is free for people with an Apple device, so this won't work.

MS Windows was also included in the price at the time of the legal action over pre-install refunds. I'm struggling to see a difference in the situations -- perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious?

...Where did you get that from their post?

Unless my eyes are just completely missing it, I didn't see anywhere that they said or implied that they weren't using macOS or iOS on their Apple devices.

They're obviously using an OS, but not the specific features of macOS - ie the bundled apps. So to me it sounds like they could use a different OS, so long as they could still run the apps they use.

People often say they are happy to pay a premium for Apple because of the software. So, for someone who doesn't use the unique features of a particular OS+apps bundle maybe they could use another ... which reminded me of the lawsuits that resulted in Microsoft [partners?] having to refund the OS portion of the sale price for those who chose not to use Windows.

It was a leap, but not a huge one IMO.

I think it's a pretty huge leap from "they're not using Apple's bundled apps" to "so they must not actually like macOS."

I know a lot of people who have MacBooks of various types who use Chrome as their browser (and only access their mail through the Gmail web interface), MS Office, etc, rarely using a single one of the Apple bundled apps (save perhaps the very basic ones, like Preview)...and yet, they would never give them up for a Windows computer, because so much of the OS is very fundamentally different to interact with.

If you don't want to communicate with other Apple owners over iMessage, then there is no issue.

What Beeper set out to do was to solve the opposite problem, people who don't have Apple devices, but want to use iMessage.

And the poster above did have an Apple device, and wanted to use iMessage, but didn't seem to realise that iMessage works on Macs too.

Only via email address. You need an iPhone to receive iMessage via phone number, and in a country where texting is dominant, you're going to be texted via that phone number, even by your iPhone friends.

If you set it up on an iPhone once, is the number then linked somehow? Since fully Apple users do get phone number iMessages pop up on macOS too right? Or is that only locally synchronised by Bluetooth or something?

Yes, you can receive iMessages to the phone number on linked devices when the phone is off. You cannot receive SMS when the phone is off.

>If you don't want to communicate with other Apple owners over iMessage, then there is no issue.

The issue is that I as an Apple user want to be able to use iMessage to communicate with Android users.

Given Android users don’t have iMessage that’s kind of not an issue then.

This _is_ the issue and it's what this whole debate is about.

It isn't a debate. You're demanding access to a walled garden on the grounds that you don't think the wall should be there.

You're entitled to use or not use iMessage per your preference. You are not entitled to use of iMessage on a platform of your choosing. Where do we stop this? Is Apple then required to create iMessage clients for Windows Phone as well? Perhaps a Blackberry client too? Maybe a website?

If you want to share an iMessage account and all the rest of the ecosystem benefits Apple provides, then get an iPhone. That's how you do that. And you can still absolutely talk to Android users once you have an iPhone, because the iPhone provides the essential middle-agent between iMessage and SMS that enables you to do that. Apple has done this forever and has designed Messages to degrade gracefully: you are not barred from texting anyone who doesn't have an iPhone, instead your message is converted to SMS completely seamlessly and sent from your phone even if you actually sent it from a Mac or iPad.

The endless moaning and whining from people not in their ecosystem about iMessage is so, so fucking tired at this point: from the accusations of platform lockout to the bitching about the fact that SMS messages are green instead of blue, on and on. If you guys are SO HARD UP for that iMessage goodness then just pony up for an iPhone, holy shit. Or at the very least, go bitch up Google's tree so they'll develop a decent messaging client that won't be abandonware within 6 months.

Quoting myself from this very thread:

"I own a Mac an iPhone and an iPad but iMessage and FaceTime are entirely useless to me because no one I communicate with on a regular basis uses Apple devices"

and

"The issue is that I as an Apple user want to be able to use iMessage to communicate with Android users."

To sum it up for you as succinctly as I can: I am an Apple customer expressing unhappiness about some aspects of the product and the product strategy.

But that's not within your control. To use iMessage with Android users you'd need to convince them to use an iMessage client. Usually that means buying an Apple device, but with Beeper Mini the burden was reduced to an app install. But you still need Android users to take affirmative action for you to use iMessage with them.

The poster does - he was claiming that since he bought one Mac device capable of iMessage that he should then he allowed to use it also in his android device (where it would be far more useful) since he already paid the apple "tax" or what have you for iMessage access.

What’s the problem here? Seems like you found fine alternatives.

My problem is that I'm paying for something that could be far more useful than it is, and I haven't actually found satisfactory alternatives. For instance, I haven't found an end-to-end encrypted and still user friendly cloud option for my photos.

Apple's problem is that they are selling less to me than they could and risk losing me as a hardware customer as well.

Now, I totally get their strategy. It's a bet that net net they are locking more people in than they are locking out. It's hard to tell whether or not this is paying off for them. Not even Apple can know the counterfactuals.

I’m trying to figure out why it’s a crappy experience elsewhere, but not on Apple devices. I don’t think Apple deliberately contributes to Android hardware development to just make it less usable.

The ball is in the court of Google et al. to make messaging and video chats less frustrating.

That's the thing - android to android with RCS and e2e enabled is pretty comparable to iMessage now. And apple could have just opted into adopting the open standard years ago

> For instance, I haven't found an end-to-end encrypted and still user friendly cloud option for my photos.

iCloud Photos is E2EE if you turn on iCloud’s “Advanced Data Protection”. That migrates the vast majority of your iCloud data into E2EE storage.

I know. That's my whole point. Apple has it but it's of little use to me because of their limited cross-platform sharing.