Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
We the users of iMessage, don’t want piggybackers to connect to the service, as it opens the doors for Spam.
Since this Beeper app started to appear, there’s been an increasing number of spam messages from bogus users.

There are more important issues to deal with. Leave software to the experts.
 
Last edited:
I generally agree, but I'm not sure how to really think about the following: that Apple should allow third party SMS/RCS apps. Ok, sure. But what about the phone app? Should Apple also allow another phone "app" to operate on iPhone so that if I don't like Apple's version I can use another?

At what point is the thing (phone) the thing itself versus an app? In other words, if we are going to say the app for SMS is just another app, then so too is the phone, no?

An alternative option if Apple wanted iMessage to compete on a level playing field with other data-based messaging networks like WhatsApp (obviously they don't) is to uncouple iMessage from SMS messaging.

I actually don't think they should do this and don't think they should open up SMS to other apps (I think Apple adding RCS to Messages is the best way forward for better interoperability). But unless they do either of these things, Apple and others shouldn't argue that WhatsApp etc represent equivalent alternatives to iMessage.
 
Last edited:
An alternative option if Apple wanted iMessage to compete on a level playing field with other data-based messaging networks like WhatsApp (obviously they don't) is to uncouple iMessage from SMS messaging.

I actually don't think they should do this (I think Apple adding RCS to Messages is the best way forward for better interoperability), but unless other apps are allowed to handle SMS Apple and others shouldn't argue that WhatsApp etc represent equivalent alternatives to iMessage.

I like that the EU is trying to make messaging more like email, where you have an identity (your email address) and you can use any app to message any other app. That seems like a really great user experience, however I think they are struggling with the E2EE aspect of the requirement as that is difficult to get working in a non-centralized way.

I also think that Apps should be allowed to have their own protocol do things that the interoperable one does not, such as collaboration features or Memoji etc...
 
Apple acts like a grade-school bully. In the end, I think Apple’s anticompetitive behavior will end up leading to parts of it being broken up. Remember when Microsoft was split up over browser influence? Companies have been allowed to grow into these giant anticompetitive forces now that destroy all competition, steal IP and even steal from its own developers! Really want Apple to be investigated and things to change.

It would be better for all of us. I love a lot of Apple things, but I hate the ecosystem that acts like a monopoly. And the vertical integration of the entire pipeline looks like a monopoly.

My perfect iPhone would be a Galaxy Ultra operating on an A17 Pro with iOS running.

My perfect computer would be an iPad running MacOS or a Thinkpad running MacOS. I don’t think companies should be forced to sell other companies products but I do think the vast size of Apple is good for nobody except maybe Tim and the top 1% of shareholders.

If Apple was split into six or seven companies, they would all be better. And interoperability would be a feature among all devices. Instead of a walled garden approach. It’s sticky as investors say, but it’s also anticompetitive. Investors will keep investing in these companies with monopolistic practices until someone puts an end to it. Build it all in America and then it at least builds up our economy. But there is just no advantage right now to allowing one company to control so much.

I don't think you understand what "anti-competitive" means.

Email operates on an open standard. If Apple invented a closed email system that only worked with their products, that would be anti-competitive.

iMessage is not an open standard.

SMS is open, and supported by iPhones.

Apple is adding support for RCS so long as they can keep it from being 100% controlled by Google.

There's nothing wrong with how Apple has been controlling access to iMessage. It's an Apple network, paid for by Apple customers.

Why would they give it away for free to competing platforms?
 
Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.

There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.

The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.

But the part you are missing or avoid is iMessage in itself may of gotten to intertwined with the other lock outs so nothing can get a foothold any longer.

Hence those other defaults and lock outs granted iMessage as a system to much power and help unwind it have to open it up.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: I7guy
Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.

There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.

The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.

If I used Facebook Messenger for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used WhatsApp for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used Skype for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

etc. etc.

I do agree that it's time to allow users to pick a new default cellular Messaging app, though. They've done that with other apps... now time for messages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens
It's a blue bubble. Zero reason this should be a Government inquiry.

Apple should release iMessage as an app and require a paid iCloud subscription for those that want to use the service.
That... doesn't make any sense. You're just minimizing the actual situation to "a blue bubble" when there's a lot more to it.

Companies have been forced to open their messaging services in the past. Just like AOL had to accept other clients other than AIM. It's just a new connection, if you want to minimize things
 
If I used Facebook Messenger for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used WhatsApp for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used Skype for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

etc. etc.

I do agree that it's time to allow users to pick a new default cellular Messaging app, though. They've done that with other apps... now time for messages.
You realize that's a problem and bad for consumers, right? Forcing Apple to change that will also force those other companies to open up lest they want the same problems
 
If I used Facebook Messenger for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used WhatsApp for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

If I used Skype for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".

etc. etc.

I do agree that it's time to allow users to pick a new default cellular Messaging app, though. They've done that with other apps... now time for messages.

Lost messages in this context means that when users opted out of iMessage some SMS messages they were attempting to send were being lost because iMessage was still capturing them in some way. iMessage can be hard to disable if you have it enabled on all of your devices and sometimes it can kind of capture a phone number and not let it go.

I didn't mean lost in the sense that your history was lost (at least not I this post)
 
But the part you are missing or avoid is iMessage in itself may of gotten to intertwined with the other lock outs so nothing can get a foothold any longer.

Hence those other defaults and lock outs granted iMessage as a system to much power and help unwind it have to open it up.

So by abusing their opt-in by default and default app positioning iMessage became popular, therefore we need to require iMessage to become an open protocol?

You're still targeting the wrong thing, by making iMessage the standard protocol Apple would become more powerful not less.

The EU in targeting iMessage (though Apple managed to skate on it) was not requiring Apple bring iMessage to android or open the iMessage protocol itself, they wanted Apple's messaging system to support an interoperable protocol with other messaging services. That isn't the same thing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hans1972
If I were Tim Cook, I'd hold a summit and tell the world that either these corrupt, fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-insult politicians back off, or Apple will shutter forever and people can make do with Windows and Samsung for the rest of all humanity. I'd spell it out, bit by bit, so everyone and their uncle could see what is really happening here, and then I'd let the public make their decision. Support this consorted assignation attempt based on corruption and greed, or support Apple.
 
For those who are on the side of Apple and wants to keep iMessage on their iPhones... need to understand that allowing iMessage on Android benefits you (shocker!).

You won't have to be concerned about "oh, they have an Android... I don't care to message them." Look at the data from teenagers and especially in the dating world. It removes that barrier. And I know you might be wondering... well, there's plenty of other messaging platforms to exchange messages with for Android users.

Well if we’re going by that logic then id say keeping them separate is a benefit to Android users. Because anyone who won’t associate themselves with someone simply because of the type of smartphone they have, or the color of their text bubbles, is only worth your time if you’re as shallow and dimwitted as they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens
So by abusing their opt-in by default and default app positioning iMessage became popular, therefore we need to require iMessage to become an open protocol?

You're still targeting the wrong thing, by making iMessage the standard protocol Apple would become more powerful not less.

The EU in targeting iMessage (though Apple managed to skate on it) was not requiring Apple bring iMessage to android or open the iMessage protocol itself, they wanted Apple's messaging system to support an interoperable protocol with other messaging services. That isn't the same thing at all.
Requiring Apple to allow interoperablity protocol would be a fine solution. The net effect is it would open things up.
 
If I were Tim Cook, I'd hold a summit and tell the world that either these corrupt, fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-insult politicians back off, or Apple will shutter forever and people can make do with Windows and Samsung for the rest of all humanity. I'd spell it out, bit by bit, so everyone and their uncle could see what is really happening here, and then I'd let the public make their decision. Support this consorted assignation attempt based on corruption and greed, or support Apple.

It's silly to make this a binary you're either with us or against us issue. I'm generally supportive of the way Apple operates. I'd like them to maintain a mostly closed, vertically integrated ecosystem. This provides a nice alternative to Windows, Android and Linux. But I'm not supportive of their aversion to good interoperability in messaging. This should be treated differently to their other products/services.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.