Google Might Finally Help Kill SMS/MMS

[Mr. Heckles]

Wait what? SMS/MMS is still a thing? All my bubbles are blue

I have family and friends with android. I don’t care they have android, but they refuse to use anything else to message. I have Telegram and Signal, and they just SMS/MMS

I can’t stand iMessage. It’s blocked on my employer’s WiFi network. So when someone sent me a message through iMessage, it was blocked until I left the office. I turned it off on my iPhone 6S+ and all other Apple devices and haven’t looked back.

So you can’t stand iMessage because YOUR work blocked it? I don’t see the logic here at all. iMessage is way more secured than SMS/MMS.

 

[deepakvrao]

I have family and friends with android. I don’t care they have android, but they refuse to use anything else to message. I have Telegram and Signal, and they just SMS/MMS

So you can’t stand iMessage because YOUR work blocked it? I don’t see the logic here at all. iMessage is way more secured than SMS/MMS.

I maybe old and naive, but what exactly is so wrong with SMS? I'm seriously asking.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I maybe old and naive, but what exactly is so wrong with SMS? I'm seriously asking.

Anyone can read them and anyone can intercept them. They are not encrypted or protected at all.

 

[Breaking Good]

I am sure you can simply de register online and also just simply turn iMessage off.
(I activated an iPhone for a couple hours and iMessage was on, shut it off and still get text from iPhone and android users. )

If there is a way to completely opt out of iMessage please point me to the instructions on how to do so. Apple support told me their was no way to do so.

It has been my experience that if you de-register from iMessage and someone texts you from a text thread where you showed up as a blue bubble, iMessase will assume you are still registered with iMessage and route the message to you that way.

 

[Michael Goff]

I maybe old and naive, but what exactly is so wrong with SMS? I'm seriously asking.

Compressed images and lower character limit count per message.
[doublepost=1524354971][/doublepost]

I have family and friends with android. I don’t care they have android, but they refuse to use anything else to message. I have Telegram and Signal, and they just SMS/MMS

So you can’t stand iMessage because YOUR work blocked it? I don’t see the logic here at all. iMessage is way more secured than SMS/MMS.

I don’t see what’s hard to understand. They dislike iMessage because they can’t use it.

 

[rafark]

Palm WebOS was the only one to do it right off the bat. Synergy - all messaging apps and systems were integrated into one central messaging API and interface, with synced contacts. So it didn't matter if a contact SMSed, AIMed (it was a while ago), Facebook Messaged, GChatted, Skyped, or whatever - it all showed up in the messages interface in the OS under that contact. All in one, super easy, very intuitive. Any messaging app could plug-in to that system easily.

Polymorphism.

 

[Breaking Good]

I have family and friends with android. I don’t care they have android, but they refuse to use anything else to message. I have Telegram and Signal, and they just SMS/MMS

So you can’t stand iMessage because YOUR work blocked it? I don’t see the logic here at all. iMessage is way more secured than SMS/MMS.

I did not realize my dislike of iMessage would cause such a stir. Please allow me to attempt to clarify.

My displeasure of iMessage does not stem from the fact that my employer blocks it. My displeasure stems from the fact that, to my best immediate knowledge, there is no way to permanently deactivate iMessage from your Apple ID/iCloud account.

Some additional information may be helpful. Enterprise accounts with AT&T and Verizon have pooled data. So I have 2 GB of data each month on my account. If I don't use all of my data, the unused portion is used to cover someone else's data overage.

To conserve my employer's data, I connect my employer issued iPhone 6S+ to the WiFi network when I am at work. For security reasons, the network blocks third party messaging applications like iMessage.

I don't know for certain why they do this, but I believe it is because these messaging applications have the ability to transmit files. The files could potentially contain malicious software and would circumvent the content filters set up to block them.

Now if you log into your Apple ID/iCloud account with a new iOS device or your restore an iOS device to factory settings, iOS will automatically activate iMessage and register your Apple ID/iCloud e-mail address into iMessage. This activation will then sync with any of your iCloud contacts using iMessage and any texts they send will default to iMessage.

Getting this all untangled takes some time.

 

[Klyster]

Carriers are a joke.
I have 130+gb of cellular data yet I can't send an emoji via SMS unless I want to incur a further cost as it's considered a MMS, which my data should cover but it segregated.

So I use WhatsApp.

The carriers are making SMS obsolete.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

Carriers are a joke.
I have 130+gb of cellular data yet I can't send an emoji via SMS unless I want to incur a further cost as it's considered a MMS, which my data should cover but it segregated.

So I use WhatsApp.

The carriers are making SMS obsolete.

I would try WhatsApp, but I don’t want the same issue I had with Instagram. I made an Instagram for my hobby and didn’t want anyone to know it was me (especially work). Well, since Facebook was on my iPhone, it automatically connected my Instagram to it, and I had friend requests on my Instagram from Facebook friends. I never actually connected the 2 also in the app itself. The only way around to prevent this is to only have one app at a time. I don’t have Facebook on my iPhone anymore, so this won’t happen again (I made a new Instagram account and so far so good.)

 

[SteveJUAE]

Carriers are a joke.
I have 130+gb of cellular data yet I can't send an emoji via SMS unless I want to incur a further cost as it's considered a MMS, which my data should cover but it segregated.

So I use WhatsApp.

The carriers are making SMS obsolete.

MMS as far as I know like SMS has always been a separate charge for most as it does not require a data plan and why it was relatively unpopular for many.

Its also part of the reason Imessenger/IPhone owners in countries with low adoption or people that have contacts using different platforms are pushed to use WhatsApp etc to avoid spamming unwanted charges on to their friends and is my main dislike of Imessenger

Going back before Blackberry messaging and Imessenger/WhatsApp etc etc many carriers encouraged sms by bundling 1000's of free sms in monthly deals. UK/Europe were way more avid users on sms especially as landlines did not have at the time free local calls like the US.

US was still charging to have sms enabled (and the sim) let alone free txt's last time I had an AT&T phone

Blackberry messaging was also hugely popular as it was seen as another step away from some carrier charges until other apps or Iservices came along

Like the article notes carriers are already on the loosing end with sms/mms, Apple IMessenger is already considered a restrictive by many.

A true cross platform with rich media and advanced features may be a lofty goal but is a sensible solution for all. Carriers already know if they try to overly charge etc for such services users will simply find other ways

Now if your worried about someone intercepting your message on asking your partner "what's for dinner ?" I'm sure there will be still be plenty of apps for those special messages

 

[vladi]

Palm WebOS was the only one to do it right off the bat. Synergy - all messaging apps and systems were integrated into one central messaging API and interface, with synced contacts. So it didn't matter if a contact SMSed, AIMed (it was a while ago), Facebook Messaged, GChatted, Skyped, or whatever - it all showed up in the messages interface in the OS under that contact. All in one, super easy, very intuitive. Any messaging app could plug-in to that system easily.

This is the only way to go when it comes to redundant IM platforms. You provide the front end and they all plug into backend. Problem is none of these IM apps would do something like that today because "it would not provide authentic user experience". In other words you can thank to app fragmentation of both Apple and Google that made this happened.

 

[convergent]

This doesn't solve the biggest problem of all... Apple being a butt hole when it comes to interoperability. This paragraph from the article is the issue...

If you are texting somebody who doesn’t have Chat enabled or is not an Android user, your messages will revert back to SMS — much in the same way that an iMessage does. Nobody outside of Apple knows when (or if) the iPhone will support Chat.

There are already many ways to do better than SMS, but Apple supports none of them as a fall back if someone isn't an Apple device. AT&T has enhanced messaging, but Apple doesn't support it. We will see if they step up and support it as a fallback alternative to SMS, or if they are afraid of competition and keep to SMS.

 

[widgeteer]

This doesn't solve the biggest problem of all... Apple being a butt hole when it comes to interoperability. This paragraph from the article is the issue...



There are already many ways to do better than SMS, but Apple supports none of them as a fall back if someone isn't an Apple device. AT&T has enhanced messaging, but Apple doesn't support it. We will see if they step up and support it as a fallback alternative to SMS, or if they are afraid of competition and keep to SMS.

I've seen this complaint before and I don't entirely understand it. Because there is competition in the markerplace, why should Apple give up an advantage? If you want to argue they should consider what's best for consumers I think their argument would be owning an iPhone is best for consumers.

 

[convergent]

I've seen this complaint before and I don't entirely understand it. Because there is competition in the markerplace, why should Apple give up an advantage? If you want to argue they should consider what's best for consumers I think their argument would be owning an iPhone is best for consumers.

I'm arguing that Apple is a very closed ecosystem, which is why I left it. I would also argue that its anti-competitive if they don't support common standards of interoperability because they are fearful of the competition. They can do whatever they want in iMessage, Apple device to Apple device, but if they don't embrace a new open standard for how they interact with non-Apple devices, then that is anti-competitive. If all the carriers embrace a follow on to SMS/MMS, then all device makes should support it as their fall back. That isn't preventing Apple from having whatever magical crap they want in iMessage.

 

[adnbek]

I can’t stand iMessage. It’s blocked on my employer’s WiFi network. So when someone sent me a message through iMessage, it was blocked until I left the office. I turned it off on my iPhone 6S+ and all other Apple devices and haven’t looked back.

That’s your employer’s fault. Nothing to do with iMessage itself.
[doublepost=1524538390][/doublepost]

OK Now I have to admit this was pretty funny.

I should explain that my hatred toward Apple regarding iMessage is that there is no way to universally opt out of iMessage for your Apple/iCloud ID. If you set up a new device or do a factory reset on a device, it will automatically activate iMessage and associate your phone number and Apple ID with iMessage.

That will quickly populate to any of your contacts using iMessage and any text/SMS message sent from any of your contacts using iMessage will default to iMessage. However, if iMessage is turned off on your iPhone, you will never receive the message.

In the messages settings you can pick and choose what addresses are associated with iMessage and what aren’t. Under “send and receive” you can remove the checkmark next to your phone number or Apple ID and iMessage will be turned off for that particular address. So for instance, you can turn it off for your number but leave it on for your Apple ID or vice versa.

 

[widgeteer]

I'm arguing that Apple is a very closed ecosystem, which is why I left it. I would also argue that its anti-competitive if they don't support common standards of interoperability because they are fearful of the competition. They can do whatever they want in iMessage, Apple device to Apple device, but if they don't embrace a new open standard for how they interact with non-Apple devices, then that is anti-competitive. If all the carriers embrace a follow on to SMS/MMS, then all device makes should support it as their fall back. That isn't preventing Apple from having whatever magical crap they want in iMessage.

No offense, but what you're describing isn't anti-competitive. Apple has no Monopoly on the market. No compelling legislative force to make people buy their phones. If they perceive that allowing a texting platform on their own devices equal to the experience of iMessage is bad for business, there's nothing wrong with blocking. The markerplace will tell them if this works or not.

 

[JaySoul]

The Android Central Podcast did a great bit on this whole topic.

There may be hope yet!

 

[tbayrgs]

No offense, but what you're describing isn't anti-competitive. Apple has no Monopoly on the market. No compelling legislative force to make people buy their phones. If they perceive that allowing a texting platform on their own devices equal to the experience of iMessage is bad for business, there's nothing wrong with blocking. The markerplace will tell them if this works or not.

Exactly. Apple’s implementation of their messaging platform is a perfect example of competition. If it wasn’t for the competitive advantage Messages gives Apple and reason prime reason so many people give for choosing/staying with iOS , we wouldn’t likely be seeing this very plan to implement an improved messaging alternative to compete with it.

 

[willmtaylor]

Second time I read a post about talking to Hubby, and now I've got to ask..... Who's hubby? It sounds like a teddy bear... No offence to Hubby

Hubby = husband.
[doublepost=1524569771][/doublepost]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/...ages-chat-rcs-anil-sabharwal-imessage-texting

Read the article. Both the solution and how they got there sound amazing.

How ironic would it be if Google had the last laugh on messaging?

Google texting service with no end-to-end encryption which depends on carriers’ good graces? Sorry, but DOA no matter how you slice it.

 

[pika2000]

Palm WebOS was the only one to do it right off the bat. Synergy - all messaging apps and systems were integrated into one central messaging API and interface, with synced contacts. So it didn't matter if a contact SMSed, AIMed (it was a while ago), Facebook Messaged, GChatted, Skyped, or whatever - it all showed up in the messages interface in the OS under that contact. All in one, super easy, very intuitive. Any messaging app could plug-in to that system easily.

Yup. WebOS is way too early for its time. It is actually what iPhones could've been if Apple went with Rubinstein's OS instead of Forstal's iPhone OS. Microsoft tried a similar thing during the early days of Windows Phone, but they gave up on it as well.

 

[widgeteer]

Exactly. Apple’s implementation of their messaging platform is a perfect example of competition. If it wasn’t for the competitive advantage Messages gives Apple and reason prime reason so many people give for choosing/staying with iOS , we wouldn’t likely be seeing this very plan to implement an improved messaging alternative to compete with it.

1000 times THIS. Convergent seems to be arguing Apple is both a walled garden that somehow controls everyone else's garden at the same time. It's not anti-competitive when it only affects your own platform.
[doublepost=1524580009][/doublepost]

Yup. WebOS is way too early for its time. It is actually what iPhones could've been if Apple went with Rubinstein's OS instead of Forstal's iPhone OS. Microsoft tried a similar thing during the early days of Windows Phone, but they gave up on it as well.

Palm's problem was they screwed up the hardware so soooo badly. Tiny screen with a useless, gummy keyboard. The device(s) were just straight up unpleasant to use despite having such a great OS.

 

[Michael Goff]

Hubby = husband.
[doublepost=1524569771][/doublepost]
Google texting service with no end-to-end encryption which depends on carriers’ good graces? Sorry, but DOA no matter how you slice it.

Just like SMS was DOA twenty years ago, right? Oh, right, 8 trillion SMS messages are sent every year...

 

[willmtaylor]

Hubby = husband.
[doublepost=1524569771][/doublepost]
Google texting service with no end-to-end encryption which depends on carriers’ good graces? Sorry, but DOA no matter how you slice it.

Allow me to clarify, DOA for me.

However, you cannot deny that supplanting SMS will be a more daunting endeavor.

 

[widgeteer]

Guys? End to end encryption doesn't mean jack to most of the public. This is a purely tech blog concern.

(I'm not suggesting we wouldn't be better off with encryption, just that the idea that the public will reject something based on it is ludicrous.)

 

[willmtaylor]

Guys? End to end encryption doesn't mean jack to most of the public. This is a purely tech blog concern.

(I'm not suggesting we wouldn't be better off with encryption, just that the idea that the public will reject something based on it is ludicrous.)

For me, it’s like Apple still offering HDD’s in their 2018 computers.

It’s 2018 already. With all of the leaks and hacks and privacy issues, why not make it encrypted? (Oh yeah, that’s right. It’s Google. It’s in their best interest NOT to.)