This is exactly how it happens, you just add someone's phone number to your address book and... and it works? All those services rely on the phone numbers to discover if you can message to the other party. You literally see if the addressee can be called/sent message through WhatsApp.
Sure, it's not in your Messages app, but that's because Apple doesn't allow you to see any messaging platforms there except theirs?
... do you understand what iMessage is just another app, the only difference is what it's shipped with every iPhone and that's why it works?
Apple has replaced a universal protocol, SMS, with their own app which is not available anywhere except iOS. And you are happy and try to convince everyone what this is totally fine. You are okay for people to buy an iPhone yet you are totally opposed to download a free app. Exactly what Apple wants.
>> With iMessage/SMS there is no setup, no sign-in, no approval process or anything.
There is a setup - buying an iOS device, there is a sign-in - creating and logging into iCloud or whatever it's called account, there is an approval process - when you create the account you give Apple all what's in the EULA and it's a lot.
Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry.
> Oh, and if Google would replace, ahem, enhance SMS with their own proprietary app you would be the first to cry.
I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does. I mean, in practice the current situation with RCS functions identically to iMessage -- it negotiates whether the person you're trying to message supports a fancier communication system, and if not it falls back to SMS. (The difference is that Apple could support RCS if it wanted to. But since it currently doesn't, there's no practical difference in experience to the users.)
What would be objectionable would be if Google (or Apple) switched the default texting app on their OS to only support a communication protocol that the other OS didn't support.
They are answering the question why they (and in their mind - everyone else/sane/both) wouldn't ever use anything other than iMessage. They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default. I'm not sure what [most] people even understand how it uses their phone number[0]
> but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird.
Well, they don't. I would point out to "I do not need to ask them to download/register on iMessages". Quite unsurprisingly, if both parties already have Signal/Whatsapp/whatever they don't need to download or register on it, too.
> I don't see any reason to object if it follows the same fallback pattern that iMessage does
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. Those people really believed in a (quite clever I must say) totally-not-an-ad rumour what Apple does not give out any info. So while there is no objective reasons to object, those people would, just because it's Google or not Apple.
Though I doubt it would happen, the ship sailed along with Google+/Hangouts.
[0] showerthought: there is an intersecting Venn diagram of people who doesn't use Signal 'because phone number' yet use iMessage.
And one last thing, RCS is still SMS in it's spirit - not as means to deliver text, but as means for cellular providers to print money from the thin air. Do you know how much it costed for the celluar provider to send one SMS between it's own customers on GSM?
...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.
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?
They can also receive images! SMS does support sending those, after all.
> Just progressively degrade to personal insults, why are you even bothering?
Pointing out argumentative flaws isn't really a personal insult. I'm still talking to you because your communication style reminds me of my mother-in-law who recently passed away, so it's a whole nostalgia thing really. :D
> when it's okay for Apple to do something yet not okay for not-Apple to do the same.
Yeah, but it was a weird swerve into an unrelated issue, given that nobody in the thread had been engaging in that doublethink. I certainly wasn't -- my whole position here has been that so long as there's a fallback it's fine for both Apple and Google to be having this progressive-enhancement setup, after all.
> 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?
I'd imagine that if you're such a person you'd either stick to in-person communications, be suitably vague in less-secure communications, or use one of the various secure messaging services out there which don't require a phone number. Also, "Signal requiring a phone number means I'm identifiable on it, so I might as well use iMessage anyway since it's convenient and not any less secure overall" is a coherent stance for someone to take, depending on how they weight their risks.
Haven't they done that repeatedly?
If I send a message through the Android Messages app, I know it will get to its destination (well, modulo occasional SMS unreliability). I don't have to know or care if the recipient has the right app or not. Everyone can receive SMS.
I do have a bunch of other messaging apps on my phone, but, for the most part, I've had to actively get people to install those apps in order to use them (or they've explicitly asked me if I have so-and-so messaging platform).
For people I tend to chat with often, I'll usually try to get them to install Signal if they don't have it. But otherwise, I don't really have the energy to evangelize anything, so I just use SMS (or, if I'm really lucky, and they also use Android -- rare! -- RCS) with them.
I'm frankly just completely sick of this situation. If iMessage & RCS were both built into the Android Messages app, I probably wouldn't use anything else. The only reason I use other platforms at all is because I like E2EE, the ability to send photos and videos that don't have to be downscaled and recompressed into oblivion, and non-terrible group chat management. iMessage and RCS fix all of those things.
Get out of this 3rd world country *smug_face*
Honestly I do remember when I used the SMS lately - a once this year to contact a person whose contact was relayed to me through 3rd party. As soon as we confirmed what we are those who we are we moved on to Telegram. In the retrospect I should had just added his number to the address book and I would had seen what he is available on Telegram from the start, but I was in quite stressed state at that moment (hence the need to contact him, but that's the other story). But before that? Don't have an idea.
But overall people here just outright tell you on what platform they prefer to talk[0] from the start so you know it and your 'I need to ask people to install...' sounds... quite weird. Between all the people and different social media there is always at least WhatsApp or Telegram what everyone have.[2]
Another reason people have these apps is what they:
a) work; sure SMS do work, but sending a photo? Video? No way
b) priceless - sure, you pay for the traffic plan, but you pay for it anyway and it's extremely common now for providers to even give out a 'free' traffic for messengers. SMS still do cost money (at least for the crossprovider messages) and MMS... let's forget what MMS even existed. They are ugly and cost a ton. I'm not even sure young people, like younger than 25 even know what MMS is.
c) all messengers provide a way to conveniently send photos, voice messages (UGH!), video messages and place voice and video calls. All the things which are unavailable with SMS.
Honestly, after moving to 3G and further SMS doesn't even make sense - they are emulated on all levels and no longer a physical protocol. You can replace it with POEM (plain old email messaging) and it would be better on all occasions[1]
So yes, using SMS as anything is just another pointless American thing, along with price tags without tax and gaps under toilet stalls. Everyone else moved on because it's better. But because "it's the way" they "need it"(tm) and hence are quite defensive of anything what can even remotely change the status quo.
[0] and Instagram doesn't use the phone numbers, so adding to the phone book wouldn't help with autodiscover?
[1] hey, remember sms2email gateways? Email2sms?
[2] and amusingly enough I don't think most of people even knows what iMessage is, because even on iPhones they do use other messenger apps.
I mean, Telegram and WhatsApp are all available in the US. I don't quite get your sense of smug superiority about which specific flavor of multinational corporation sponsored messaging app you use.
Did you read the thread? People up there literally question why they need to bother with anything else than SMS and iMessage. More so, they in GTFOMyLawn mode about using anything else than iMessage.
> which specific flavor of multinational corporation sponsored messaging app
There is one difference between Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp and iMessage. Do I need to spell it out?
> sense of smug
That was about using SMS, not iMessage and had a lot of implied /s.
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).
While not exactly the same it is useful