There are of course a lot of companies with lock-in out there, but none with such big network effect deeply intertwined with peoples' communication and personal lives (in the US).
And RCS will solve it all. If group chats and high quality media work, people will only complain about the one thing they hate most:
The bubbles will still be green.
But I am from Europe, we don't care around here and I don't like iMessage that much. Compared to Telegram/Whatsapp, it's slow at loading old messages, has sync issues and only gut swipe to reply this year.
2. I hope you are right that RCS will solve everything once Apple implements it, but I don't have confidence it will. The biggest problem is how they handle group chats: If iMessage group chats cannot seamlessly convert into RCS group messages (without duplication or splitting) then it will solve it well enough. This is unlikely to happen unfortunately
Also, where is the "illusion" about "being better at texting"? Apple is literally coloring the bubbles differently to tell you that _iMessage is not the same_. How much more explicit can it get?
If the deployment is anywhere close to how it went in Australia, RCS will be a bumpy road with many people turning it off to get messages delivered. My usual experience for months now is: send a message, get a "can't deliver" notification an hour later, resend by SMS, next message delivers through RCS and switches the conversation, repeat.
You can send a text to any user, regardless of service. I don’t understand your analogy.
I agree.
But.
The solution to that is to get antitrust regulators to step in and use the force of the law to change things.
Not to cheer on a third party using security vulnerabilities to piggyback onto Apple's service and charge a subscription for it.
Ok...third parties should be able to sell ink that works in your HP printer, or coffee pods that work in your Keurig, or tires that work on your Ford.
tell me if this sounds as ridiculous to you as it does me
It sounds not ridiculous at all. The only difference with Beeper is that there is some marginal cost to handling messages, but we all know that's not Apple's real problem with it.
…third parties should be able to sell
To turn it around, which company do you see this not applying ? What services with a strong position do you see justify to abuse it to lock users ?
You make it sound like people only use iMessage because of the network effect/lock-in, and clearly aren't considering that perhaps said network effect exists at least in part because iMessage is just...good.
It’d be a very different world if nothing was allowed to have unique access to anything. It might even be better, but it would be a long way from this current version of capitalism.
It would be a real problem if Nintendo had a monopoly on good games on the US.
Apple has been able to create their ecosystem by exerting control over it. If someone doesn't like it, they can start their own business giving people what people want. Now, that's another way of pushing against any gigantic company or Apple.
Apple might disagree. https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
RCS is a replacement for SMS.
RCS is a totally different messaging protocol.
It’s pretty much to iMessage as iMessage is to SMS.
‘Apple has made it clear that they won't bring iMessage to Android.’
This was your reply:
‘Apple might disagree.’ and you then proceeded to supply a link to 9to5Mac about Apple interfaces iMessage to RCS.
TFA states:
“But at the same time, iMessage isn’t going anywhere. It will continue to be the messaging platform used for all communication between iPhone users. RCS will simply supplant SMS and MMS and exist separately from iMessage when available. SMS and MMS will also continue to be available as a fallback when needed, Apple says.
This is not Apple opening up iMessage to other platforms. Instead, it’s the company adopting RCS separately from iMessage”
The very link you supplied disproves your point.
iMessage is iMessage. RCS is RCS, and SMS is SMS.
Sorry, but iMessage is not RCS.
Base RCS for example does not support E2EE. iMessage does.
You can claim they’re the same as much as you’d like, but their only similarities is that iMessage will send messages to RCS and support the native carrier chosen RCS features.
https://www.engadget.com/what-is-rcs-and-how-is-it-different...
Which I never claimed.
> Sorry, but iMessage is not RCS.
The only person who keeps repeating "iMessage is RCS" is yourself.
> You can claim they’re the same as much as you’d like, but their only similarities is that iMessage will send messages to RCS and support the native carrier chosen RCS features.
Less than 1% of iphone users even know what e2ee is. Less than .01% disable that icloud backup thing that makes iMessage e2ee useless for them and their contacts.
If iOS has a messaging system that is capable of things imessage today is capable of and is interoperable with android then the only people for whom the separation between imessage and RCS matters is pedantic nerds, no offence.
The graph is almost disjoint. Outside tech nerds, android == poor.
They are. This was perfectly normal and expected functionality once upon a time, back in the days when Adium/Pidgin were still useful.
On the iPhone, the Messages app handles SMS.
It also handles iMessage.
They are two completely different protocols, with iMessage's featureset being a superset of SMS's. If you are conversing with someone else with iMessage (either through an iPhone or another Apple device), Messages will automatically use iMessage; otherwise, it will use SMS. (If you prefer to use SMS, you are welcome to disable iMessage on your phone or other Apple device.)
iMessage goes over the IP network, not a side-channel in the cellular system the way SMS does—so you have to have either Wifi coverage or cellular data available; if you don't, as a matter of fact, it falls back to SMS within the same conversation, provided you are conversing with someone else who is identified by a phone number, and not just an Apple ID.
It is simultaneously possible for it to appear entitled, while also recognizing how extremely restrictive, anti consumer and anti competition Apple is. And in this fight of a trillion dollar company vs something a little bigger than a startup, it's fun to root for the small guys who are hitting back at that restrictedness, sometimes even successfully.
It's a sad state of affairs.
Edit: It looks like you can’t use the Galaxy Store on a Pixel. I’m not sure if that’s because Google restricts it or Samsung does.
On some mobile contracts it's pretty close to free these days, but international SMS's are certainly not. - not sure it's a common use-case but it definitely is a common use-case for me.
Ironically, iMessage not being available on Android causes the other messenger apps to be more appealing. Whatsapp/Facebook Messenger. -- because they can be more ubiquitous across friends.
An Android user and an iOS user could both use a third-party app like Signal. But Beeper Mini's main feature is maintaining encryption for chats between Android users and iMessage users, saving the Android users the need to convince iMessage users to switch to a different messaging app. 1. The benefit of E2EE applies to the users on both ends, including iMessage users. 2. With Beeper Mini instead of an E2EE-dedicated multi-platform app like Signal, only one side of the communication pair needs to install something.
Beeper Mini Apple doesn't want to make an iMessage implementation for Android.
What's entitled behavior is big tech thinking it can dictate how and where we use technology and services. Why should we be roped into serving Apple's interests and ignoring own own? Beeper can pursue their own interests while benefiting users, that's hardly a negative.
I'm sure if Ford dictated how and where you drove your car you'd be outraged, but we should kowtow to the likes of Apple?
I just wouldn't buy a Ford.
Then you really wouldn't buy a Ford. Problem solved?
If no one used iMessage, the value of Beeper Mini is zero. The value is smoothing the interaction with people who assume everyone is using an iPhone, and treat it as an annoyance when they don't. So effectively saying "just buy an iPhone to use iMessage" means "just buy an iPhone so you can talk to your iPhone friends".
When there is broad agreement that apps like Tiktok and Instagram are toxic for teenagers, I have no idea why this aspect of Apple's lock-in hasn't received as much attention. It's way more serious than just some users wanting blue bubbles when your applications are common enough that they can cause social isolation and bullying in schools.
----------------------------------------
Apple has made it clear that they won't bring iMessage to Android. People who choose to invest in Android phones know they won't get access to iMessage.
It seems a bit entitled behaviour for someone to feel like Apple should be forced to bring iMessage to Android for any reason besides Apple's own choice, and that they know better than Apple on how to run Apple's business.