Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rikscha

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2010
805
447
London
I completely agree with you. As I hypothesized above, macOS and iOS work differently with iMessages. macOS uses iCloud, while iOS uses iCloud OR phone number. Therefore, it makes sense to combine all threads on macOS, but on iOS keep the separate as you may want to have one thread with your iCloud and one thread with your phone number in exactly the scenario you outlined above.

I disagree. Only because you come up with one scenario where this makes sense, doesn't mean you have a case.

You explain why initially many years ago it was set-up this way but this doesn't hold today. Secret/private messaging between different devices? That's really stretching an argument. Although true that this might hold for some people, I highly doubt that a majority of
People me included find this in any way useful.
The typical case I'd argue is that one person has his Mac iPhone and perhaps an iPad but those are not necessarily devices you share where particular secrecy is required.

While again your scenario describes the current state, I'm arguing for a different approach. Link all your numbers and emails to one Apple ID which becomes your unique account identifier where all your conversations go to regardless of someone sending a message to a phone number or email. You define across all your devices what you would like to share when you send messages, either email or your number.

I'm not doubting your scenarios I just doubt that it would apply to a majority of people. The average Joe would benefit from simplicity and I can tell you my 70 year old mother finds it very confusing.
 

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
While again your scenario describes the current state, I'm arguing for a different approach. Link all your numbers and emails to one Apple ID which becomes your unique account identifier where all your conversations go to regardless of someone sending a message to a phone number or email. You define across all your devices what you would like to share when you send messages, either email or your number.

You are still failing to see my hypothesis. iMessages for macOS does not require a phone number. iMessages for iPhone does indeed require a phone number. Therefore combining strands on an iPhone may lead to people having strands combined that do not want them combined. I know for a fact that I do not want them combined on my iPhone, but couldn't care less on my Mac.

If I start a conversation on my phone with my email address, because I want to for whatever reason, I don't want to being combined with the conversation with my phone number. I want the replies with my email address to go to my email address strand and I want the replies with my phone number to go to my phone number strand.

Because Apple has the phone number requirement for iMessage on iPhone, there will be no way to combine strands into one that everyone is happy with.

Additionally, if you can make one argument for a scenario, only one, that does indeed mean there is a case. Two arguments have now been made, the one by GreyOS, which I agreed with and now the one above. Just because you might not agree with my argument, doesn't mean I don't have a valid case or hypothesis.

As to the average Joe user, you can go into iMessage settings on both macOS and iOS and set a default "Message starter", then this issue will never be a problem for those complaining above. I still do not believe this is a bug because iMessages have different requirement per device.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EM2013

GreyOS

macrumors 68040
Apr 12, 2012
3,358
1,694
Yes to be clear it's not about keeping 'secret' message threads. That was just one example. It's more as the above says. One persons devices may be set up to send/receive for multiple different addresses, with not all of their devices having the exact same send/receive addresses. Just because YOU lump all of their addresses into one contact, it doesn't mean they consider their addresses one indivisible set of addresses. Therefore your desire to lump them together into one thread may not match their actual device set up. And that's where issues come in
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mlrollin91

jakeenzo

macrumors regular
Sep 18, 2014
122
133
Being a Software Tester by profession, I'd say this is more likely to be 'per design' albeit annoying, rather than a bug. Truth is we will never know until Apple confirm it. May very well be a bug but it could just be that it works as designed until changed.

Bugs are usually something that occurs due to failed implementation of certain functionality. Unless Apple stated explicitly that iOS should consolidate messages as a feature then I don't think we can class this as a bug.
 

Branch

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 19, 2015
71
8
You are still failing to see my hypothesis. iMessages for macOS does not require a phone number. iMessages for iPhone does indeed require a phone number.
explain iMessage on iPod touch-- why wouldn't it work like the mac by your theory (which it does not)
 

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
explain iMessage on iPod touch-- why wouldn't it work like the mac by your theory (which it does not)
I think thats pretty obvious. iOS is treated as a whole and macOS is treated as a whole. iPads work the same way as iPhones. They aren't going to code that change in for only specific iOS devices.
 

Branch

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 19, 2015
71
8
I think thats pretty obvious. iOS is treated as a whole and macOS is treated as a whole. iPads work the same way as iPhones. They aren't going to code that change in for only specific iOS devices.
so I actually just heard back from the devs after submitting the bug on bugreport.apple.com.

they confirmed it IS in fact a known issue that they are still trying to figure out how to resolve. so it is a bug.
 

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
so I actually just heard back from the devs after submitting the bug on bugreport.apple.com.

they confirmed it IS in fact a known issue that they are still trying to figure out how to resolve. so it is a bug.
Can you please show report, because I highly doubt they are going to confirm that there has been a bug for 3 years that easily. It was pulling teeth to get them to admit the safari keyboard bug.
 

Feenician

macrumors 603
Jun 13, 2016
5,313
5,100
so I actually just heard back from the devs after submitting the bug on bugreport.apple.com.

they confirmed it IS in fact a known issue that they are still trying to figure out how to resolve. so it is a bug.

And that developers name? Albert Einstein. And then everybody stood up and cheered.
 

Branch

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 19, 2015
71
8
Can you please show report, because I highly doubt they are going to confirm that there has been a bug for 3 years that easily. It was pulling teeth to get them to admit the safari keyboard bug.
And that developers name? Albert Einstein. And then everybody stood up and cheered.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 5.43.06 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 5.43.06 PM.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 136

Feenician

macrumors 603
Jun 13, 2016
5,313
5,100

I like how you underlined “the issue” and took that as validation. It got closed as a duplicate because someone made the same (almost certainly incorrect) complaint. Get back to us when they close the other case with the resolution for that. I’m gonna bet #NOTABUG #WONTFIX
 

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
How the heck does that prove its a bug? They are going to investigate and then determine if its intentional or a bug. Good grief, talk about you jumping to conclusions.

"they confirmed it IS in fact a known issue" :rolleyes:

I don't think you have much experience with bug reports. They say the same thing for everything.
 

GreyOS

macrumors 68040
Apr 12, 2012
3,358
1,694
Liberal understanding of issue could simply mean they know people are having trouble with it - like OP.
 

Branch

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 19, 2015
71
8
here's my take on it:

they said "it has not been determined how or when the issue will be resolved".

that implies that this is an issue, and they are planning on resolving the issue, they just have not yet decided specifically how or when the best way to resolve it.

and they did not close my report. it remains a duplicate to an existing report, but mine remains open report nonetheless.

whether or not you agree with my analysis above, is your choice. however...

I have just written them point blank asking: "is how it works now (different threads) on iOS a bug, or intentional?"

we shall see how they respond.
 
Last edited:

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
here's my take on it:

they said "it has not been determined how or when the issue will be resolved".

that implies that this is an issue, and they are planning on resolving the issue, they just have not yet decided specifically how or when the best way to resolve it.

and they did not close my report. it remains a duplicate to an existing report, but mine remains open report nonetheless.

whether or not you agree with my analysis above, is your choice. however...

I have just written them point blank asking: "is how it works now (different threads) on iOS a bug, or intentional?"

we shall see how they respond.
They literally say that for every single report. Thats just the acceptance stage, then it goes to engineers for testing and replication.
 

Mlrollin91

macrumors G5
Nov 20, 2008
14,172
10,181
well, we will see how they respond to my question.
I'm pretty sure they won't respond to your question. They will either close the bug report or say a fix is coming. Out of the hundreds of reports I have submitted in the last 7 years, not one question has been personally addressed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.