Hacker News Reader

Comment by kemayo | Hacker News Reader

They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage. It's fine if you don't like their reason, but claiming that they don't understand their own answer is a bit weird.

> 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.

View on HN

> They're answering the question about why people would use iMessage

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?

> They literally can't understand what iMessage is literally just another app, with the only difference is what it's default.

...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.

> I'm pretty sure they do understand this.

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?

> If we ignore 'and requires iPhone for the other party to receive anything other than text' then yes.

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.

I may be wrong, but I think RCS protocol is published (so Apple and any other can support it if they want) whereas the protocol for iMessage is not (so no one but Apple can make compatible app under Android)

Yes, that's why I said it's a difference that Apple could support RCS if they wanted to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com