Apple banned some of its customers' Macs for using Beeper

[Patrick]

Apple banned some of its customers' Macs for using Beeper
https://9to5google.com/2024/01/26/beeper-imessage-disabled-apple-ban/

To recap what's happened with Beeper thus far, Beeper Mini debuted in
December with a reverse-engineered method of accessing iMessage with or
without an Apple ID from Android phones. Apple shut down the method in part
just days later, and vowed to keep it from working going forward citing
"significant risks to user security and privacy." Beeper managed to get
things working again, but Apple's efforts continued to prevent full
functionality. By the end of December, Beeper had launched a final attempt
to keep the app on Android (and other platforms) alive using registration
codes obtained from Macs as well as jailbroken iPhones.

That last effort was a hurdle for many, but worked without any big problems
for a little while.

But earlier this month, a trend started to emerge among Beeper users where
Apple was banning their purchased Macs from iMessage after setting up a
connection with Beeper. Apple flagged Macs as "spam," preventing the Macs
from sending iMessage through Beeper or even Apple's own Messages app on
the machines. Apple IDs, though, were unaffected, with iMessage still
working on iPhone and iPad.

In an update on Twitter/X, Beeper explains that 30 of the 3,500 customers
using the new iMessage bridge were affected in this way. In the time since,
though, Apple seems to have unbanned the affected Macs, not-so-ironically
just two days after a reporter from The New York Times reached out to the
company on the matter.

[Jörg Lorenz]

WTF cares?

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[Jolly Roger]

Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Nick Charles]

On 1/27/2024 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> WTF cares?
>
> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

Indeed. They are literally green with envy.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-27, Bud Frede <fr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I don't understand the whole thing. If I own an Android phone, I
> presumably like the way Android works. If I don't like that, I'm free
> to buy an Apple device instead.
>
> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free
> since they're "entitled to it."
>
> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for
> if not for green bubbles?
>
> MAGA - Make Android Green, Alright?

+1

You'll notice that the people who complain the loudest about the color
of chat bubbles (here in the Apple news groups and everywhere on the
net) are overwhelmingly Android users, all while pointing the finger and
claiming iPhone users supposedly are the ones who really care. Even in
the Beeper subreddit, you'll see them make this claim - in a forum which
literally wouldn't even exist if Android users weren't desperately
trying to gain access to Apple's iMessage service through fraudulent
means. Then they get all pissed off when Apple locks them out for
violating iCloud/iMessage terms of service, acting like Apple is
completely in the wrong and owes them access. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Sten deJoode]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:

>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>

> I don't understand the whole thing.

It's simple.

1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.

2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.

3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
(which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.

They could use any message server that requires a mainframe server.
But Apple's mainframe servers have about 15% of the world market.

That's why.

> If I own an Android phone, I presumably like the way Android works.

Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
work. Only Apple does that. Sure, Apple's Messages can do sms/mms without
logging into Apple servers. But it won't do anything else without it.

The penalty Apple users pay for the walled garden is the iPhone is
essentially a dumb terminal that can't do much without logging into the
mainframes (yes, even just to do the messaging that iPhone users love).

> If I don't like that, I'm free to
> buy an Apple device instead.

What some Android owners want is a "common" messaging server that allows
them to send MMS for free (without being charged by the carrier).

Mostly this is people in Europe, as most people in the USA pretty
much have unlimited everything (not all people of course, but most).

> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free since
> they're "entitled to it."

No. Nobody on Android would be able to put up with the severe limitations
of an iPhone. What they want (mostly in Europe) is the free MMS that Apple
iPhone owners enjoy at the penalty of being forced to be tracked by Apple.

> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for if
> not for green bubbles?

The "advantage" of iMessage is that it uses a server that essentially all
Apple iPhone owners are forced to log into every day of their lives.

Android, by nature, never requires you to be logged into Google servers
just to get the basic tools (like Messaging) to work with other users.

Any other forced-login messaging app would do that though, so that's only
half the reason why those who want free MMS want to use Apple's servers.

The other half of the reason is that Apple has something like 15% of the
world market, which is appreciable, so Android users benefit from that.

In the end analysis, RCS all by itself negates any need to use an iPhone
for those people who pay for their MMS messages - so RCS will end it.

[Your Name]

On 2024-01-27 20:28:01 +0000, Sten deJoode said:

> Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
> work. Only Apple does that. Sure, Apple's Messages can do sms/mms without
> logging into Apple servers. But it won't do anything else without it.

Oh dear, more complete bollocks fvrom the know-nothing brigade. Another
idiot joins my killfile. :-\

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-27, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>>
>> I don't understand the whole thing.
>
> It's simple.
>
> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>
> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>
> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>
> They could use any message server that requires a mainframe server.
> But Apple's mainframe servers have about 15% of the world market.
>
> That's why.
>
>> If I own an Android phone, I presumably like the way Android works.
>
> Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
> work. Only Apple does that.

> the iPhone is essentially a dumb terminal that can't do much without
> logging into the mainframes (yes, even just to do the messaging that
> iPhone users love).

This is a bullshit claim "Sten" (under many different nyms, because:
troll) has made over and over again here, despite numerous
people telling him (and to be clear, this is yet another "Arlen" nym)
that's definitely not the case. It's also a brain-dead claim in light of
the FACT (and little Arlen hates facts) that all messaging services
require you to log into them in order to use them. Arlen, as always, is
a ridiculous, juvenile, dimwit troll.

>> If I don't like that, I'm free to buy an Apple device instead.
>
> What some Android owners want is a "common" messaging server that
> allows them to send MMS for free (without being charged by the
> carrier).

Nope, this has nothing at all to do with SMS messaging, Arlen.

> Mostly this is people in Europe, as most people in the USA pretty
> much have unlimited everything (not all people of course, but most).
>
>> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
>> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free since
>> they're "entitled to it."
>
> No. Nobody on Android would be able to put up with the severe limitations
> of an iPhone. What they want (mostly in Europe) is the free MMS that Apple
> iPhone owners enjoy at the penalty of being forced to be tracked by Apple.

Nonsense. iPhone users still have to pay for SMS on carriers that don't
offer it for free. And this has nothing to do with SMS in the first
place. You're only talking about it as a red herring to distract from
the reality that Android users want to use iMessage on non-Apple
devices. You're full of shit, as usual.

>> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
>> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for if
>> not for green bubbles?
>
> The "advantage" of iMessage is that it uses a server that essentially all
> Apple iPhone owners are forced to log into every day of their lives.

Nope, as you have been told *repeatedly*, iMessage and iCloud are both
*completely optional*, Arlen. You're a little lying bitch of a troll.

> Android, by nature, never requires you to be logged into Google servers
> just to get the basic tools (like Messaging) to work with other users.

Android users log into messaging services just like Apple users, doofus.

[Jolly Roger]

It's the same idiot with a new nym as usual: Arlen.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-27 15:28, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>>
>> I don't understand the whole thing.
>
> It's simple.
>
> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.

Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.

> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.

"Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.

Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.

> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.

Irrelevant, alas.

Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.

Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
tough potatoes.

<snipped the rest>

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Sten deJoode]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>
> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.

You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.

That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>
> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.

You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).

They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.

> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.

The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>
> Irrelevant, alas.

Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
Most iPhone users are logged into Apple's Internet messaging service.

Essentially if they're an iPhone user, they're logged into the net.
Every instant of every day of their entire lives until they're dead.

That's the beauty of the Apple ecosystem (which treats the iPhone as a dumb
terminal in terms of most of its FaceTime, Messages & iCloud capabilities).

The Apple server is what those Android users who are charged per MMS image
want to take advantage of because it allows their images to reach Apple's
customers for free.

It's no different than how they use WhatsApp where Apple's 15% or so of the
world market allows them to reach those who are not subscribed to WhatsApp.

> Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
> for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.

Android users who are charged per MMS image who want to reach Apple users
who are not on WhatsApp make use of the fact the iPhone is a dumb terminal.

iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android

These Android users want to use Apple servers to get to that dumb terminal
with their MMS messages because doing so avoids their carrier per-MMS fees.

They don't want the iPhone (otherwise they wouldn't be on Android, silly).
They just want to use the Internet server like they already use WhatsApp.

> Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
> is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
> fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
> tough potatoes.

Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
(who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).

This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-28 02:36, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>>
>> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.
>
> You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
> If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.
>
> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

I really don't care about their "wants". If Android can't provide for
these "wants" why should Apple?

>
>>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>>
>> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.
>
> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).

This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?

>
> They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
> their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.
>
>> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
>> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.
>
> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.
These servers are there for Apple customers - and for that matter paid
for by Apple customers through the purchase of Apple products.

>
>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>
>> Irrelevant, alas.
>
> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.

I understand completely: Apple's servers are for Apple customers.
Everyone else stay off the clubhouse grounds.


<Rest of BS Snipped>

[Gabriel Coan]

On 1/27/24 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

This was a legitimate complaint before Apple announced it would support
an RCS fallback, but now it really is just a dead argument.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-27 23:36, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>>
>> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.
>
> You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
> If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.

But they want what iOS has...

...without be willing to PAY for it.

>
> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

And they'll cheat to do it.

>
>>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>>
>> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.
>
> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>
> They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
> their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.

And requires a login to WhatsApp's servers.

>
>> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
>> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.
>
> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

And that should be Apple's problem... ...why?

>
>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>
>> Irrelevant, alas.
>
> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
> Most iPhone users are logged into Apple's Internet messaging service.

Yup. So?

>
> Essentially if they're an iPhone user, they're logged into the net.
> Every instant of every day of their entire lives until they're dead.
>
> That's the beauty of the Apple ecosystem (which treats the iPhone as a dumb
> terminal in terms of most of its FaceTime, Messages & iCloud capabilities).

Nope.

>
> The Apple server is what those Android users who are charged per MMS image
> want to take advantage of because it allows their images to reach Apple's
> customers for free.

Right. Stealing.

>
> It's no different than how they use WhatsApp where Apple's 15% or so of the
> world market allows them to reach those who are not subscribed to WhatsApp.
>
>> Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
>> for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.
>
> Android users who are charged per MMS image who want to reach Apple users
> who are not on WhatsApp make use of the fact the iPhone is a dumb terminal.

There are a lot of apps on my phone that deny that "fact".

>
> iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
>
> These Android users want to use Apple servers to get to that dumb terminal
> with their MMS messages because doing so avoids their carrier per-MMS fees.
>
> They don't want the iPhone (otherwise they wouldn't be on Android, silly).
> They just want to use the Internet server like they already use WhatsApp.
>
>> Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
>> is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
>> fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
>> tough potatoes.
>
> Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
> (who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
> to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).
>
> This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
> Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android

And those carriers will be providing those servers for free, will they?

[Alan Browne]

RCS implemented by Apple will still show itself distinct from Apple's
iMessage/Messages product.

[Sten deJoode]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:44:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
>> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.
>
> I really don't care about their "wants".

That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.

Now you seem to understand - but at first you didn't appear to understand
what they wanted. They just want the server. Not the iPhone itself.

> If Android can't provide for these "wants" why should Apple?

It's not Android. Android does everything for me. But not for them.
Get it?

a. Same phone.
b. Same operating system.
c. Same apps.

It's not Android that doesn't serve their needs.
It's their crappy carrier.

You need to try to understand it's not "Android" or the "iPhone".
They just want the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone to reach its users.

They want the server only. The Apple server. Which goes to Apple customers.

They don't want the iPhone.
And the problem isn't Android.

You don't seem to completely understand that critical distinction.

They want two things that I've said multiple times and you still think that
an Android user would lower himself to the level of an iPhone. He won't.

The problem isn't Android.
It's their crappy carrier's charging model.

Think about the guy in Europe who is charged for each MMS attachment.
1. He doesn't want the iPhone. Stop thinking that. An iPhone is crap.
2. He wants the Apple *server*. (Which is no different than the WA Server).
3. He wants the fact that Apple server *allows MMS over the Internet*.

He can get that from _any_ Internet server that everyone uses.
He gets that already from WhatsApp for example.

But Apple Messages servers have something like 15% of the world market.

That's a lot.
It's probably way more people than WhatsApp has, but I never checked.

>> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
>> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>
> This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
> access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?

I agree with you.

Nobody on Android wants to have anything to do with the iPhone.
Especially as most people in the USA get their MMS images sent for free.

Unfortunately, some people have a crappy carrier (usually in Europe).
That crappy carrier charges them a lot for sending MMS images.
It just does.

That's the problem *they* are trying to solve.
Later when Apple finally catches up with RCS, that should solve it.

>> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
>> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
>> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
>> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.
>
> And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.

I agree with you.

On Android, I don't want to have anything to do with Apple servers.
Even on iOS I don't want to have anything to do with Apple servers.

I was just explaining to you that nobody wants to use the iPhone.
They want the Apple server.

And they don't even want that (as WhatsApp has the same type of servers).
They want the 15% of the Apple world market.

I don't know what the market penetration of WhatsApp is.
But 15% of the world market for that Apple server is a huge amount.

> These servers are there for Apple customers - and for that matter paid
> for by Apple customers through the purchase of Apple products.

I agree with you.

I was just explaining that nobody on Android wants anything to do with the
iPhone. What those people want (who are charged for MMS) is Apple's server.

>>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, alas.
>>
>> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
>
> I understand completely: Apple's servers are for Apple customers.
> Everyone else stay off the clubhouse grounds.

We both agree as long as you understand what the Android users who have a
crappy carrier want is a free server (any server will do) that allows them
to send MMS attachments over the Internet without paying extra for them.

At first you said they wanted the iPhone. They don't.
Most of them wouldn't want to be caught dead anywhere near an iPhone.

What they want is a server that other people use.
And Apple (and WhatsApp) have those servers.

It would be nice to learn what the market is for WhatsApp vs Apple's server
where 15% of the world market is a lot of people (credit goes to Apple).

[Andrew]

Alan wrote on Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:54:22 -0800 :

>> Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
>> (who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
>> to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).
>>
>> This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
>> Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android
>
> And those carriers will be providing those servers for free, will they?

I pay one postpaid carrier service bill with no additional charges, like
most people do in the united states on one of the three main carriers.

That service gives me as many mms attachments as I want, for free, today.
Even without rcs.

[Andrew]

Alan Browne wrote on Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:46:09 -0500 :

>>> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.
>>
>> This was a legitimate complaint before Apple announced it would support
>> an RCS fallback, but now it really is just a dead argument.
>
> RCS implemented by Apple will still show itself distinct from Apple's
> iMessage/Messages product.

As far as I can tell, the average Android user doesn't care about silly
bubble colors nor even do they understand the intricacies of what RCS does.

I would think most Android users (who can change the color of any chat to
any HSV they like) probably don't even know about the limitation on the
iPhone of only two colors (iOS is binary, unlike Android whose chat colors
are infinite).

All they care about if they have a crummy carrier is the ability to send
MMS media without being charged for each and every attachment they send.

If when Apple finally implements RCS "later this year", that solves the
problem, let's hope this green/blue bubble garbage can be forgotten about.

[Alan]

That's still not getting the service for free.

The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.

[Andrew]

Alan wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:11:23 -0800 :

> The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.

You have an uncanny head-shaking ability to not only completely
misunderstand the problem set but then you go on some crazy meaningless
tangent of a sudden realization of yours )that everyone else learned when
they were in elementary school) but which you are suddenly figuring out
just now for the first time for yourself.

And then you make that sudden but meaningless realization of something
nobody in their right mind would dispute, your entire contrary argument?

What kind of strangely unfathomably crazily stupid idiot does that?
Plonk!

[Alan]

> What kind of strangely unfathomably crazily stupid idiot...

...changes his posting nym over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

...and over...

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.24 um 21:35 schrieb Andrew:

Antisocial and brain dead idiot!

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac running a Linux Mint (LMDE) with
Cinnamon Flavour. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 27.01.24 um 17:02 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> On 2024-01-27, Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> WTF cares?
>
> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

In this case the Zuckerberg-crap WhatsApp is nothing for them either.
*SCNR*

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-28 21:40, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:44:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
>>> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.
>>
>> I really don't care about their "wants".
>
> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.

I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
of buying the Apple product.

>
> Now you seem to understand - but at first you didn't appear to understand
> what they wanted. They just want the server. Not the iPhone itself.

Which is actually what I said. I never said they wanted iPhones. I said
they wanted the functionality.

>
>> If Android can't provide for these "wants" why should Apple?
>
> It's not Android. Android does everything for me. But not for them.
> Get it?
>
> a. Same phone.
> b. Same operating system.
> c. Same apps.
>
> It's not Android that doesn't serve their needs.
> It's their crappy carrier.

Well, also Android. It does not have the functionality that Apple
provide on Apple products.

And Apple should not be compelled to provide it to non-Apple product users.

>
> You need to try to understand it's not "Android" or the "iPhone".
> They just want the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone to reach its users.

It's not a "dumb terminal". It's an integrated function of the an app,
an OS, a service and servers. It is particular to Apple products.
Thus, Android users have no inherent right to use it.

>
> They want the server only. The Apple server. Which goes to Apple customers.

Which I've said all along and you're trying to cast as if I hadn't.

>
> They don't want the iPhone.

Never said they did.

> And the problem isn't Android.

The problem is Android does not (can not) support the function. Any
"bolt on" workarounds using Android phones and separate servers to
emulate the service are clearly violating Apple's property.

>
> You don't seem to completely understand that critical distinction.

It doesn't matter how you construe the distinction (as badly as you do),
but simply that the service in discussion is an Apple product meant for
Apple product buyers who are given express right to use that service
whereas Android users are never offered the right to use that service.
So, some 3rd party workaround is violating Apple's property.

>
> They want two things that I've said multiple times and you still think that
> an Android user would lower himself to the level of an iPhone. He won't.

I never said an Android user should do anything he didn't want to do.
OTOH, if he wants access to Apple's servers (their property) the legal
way to do so is to buy Apple's products.

Since that would be such a horrible thing for a virtuous Android user, I
guess they'll just have to forego the advantages of of Apple's iMessage
services.

>
> The problem isn't Android.

Indeed. Since the iMessage service is for Apple product buyers it
doesn't really relate to Android users at all. They simply are denied
using it because they did not buy the requisite Apple product.

> It's their crappy carrier's charging model.

It's certainly not the carrier's problem - they happily, and at no extra
charge (in most cases - data/month caps or some such can apply), handle
Apple iMessage traffic from Apple devices to/from Apple servers.

> Think about the guy in Europe who is charged for each MMS attachment.
> 1. He doesn't want the iPhone. Stop thinking that. An iPhone is crap.

iPhone's are fantastic - and they get Apple's server functions included.
Android devices do not.

> 2. He wants the Apple *server*. (Which is no different than the WA Server).

Apple's servers are freely available to people who buy Apple products
such as best in class iPhones, iPads and Macs.

> 3. He wants the fact that Apple server *allows MMS over the Internet*.

Great, then get the Apple products that allow that.

>
> He can get that from _any_ Internet server that everyone uses.
> He gets that already from WhatsApp for example.
>
> But Apple Messages servers have something like 15% of the world market.
>
> That's a lot.
> It's probably way more people than WhatsApp has, but I never checked.

I don't know myself because I don't care. OTOH, I do get iMessage (and
other Apple integration features) because I bought and paid for Apple
products.

>
>>> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
>>> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>>
>> This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
>> access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?
>
> I agree with you.

Funny. Far up above you certainly did not.

>
> Nobody on Android wants to have anything to do with the iPhone.
> Especially as most people in the USA get their MMS images sent for free.
>
> Unfortunately, some people have a crappy carrier (usually in Europe).
> That crappy carrier charges them a lot for sending MMS images.
> It just does.

I don't care. The point remains, if you're not an Apple product buyer,
you do not legally get access to Apple's servers.
This is why Apple have fended off this "Beeper" attack. Well done too.

>
> That's the problem *they* are trying to solve.
> Later when Apple finally catches up with RCS, that should solve it.

Apply will not "give" the full functionality of Apple product
integration with RCS. It will be a parallel function, not a replacement
or fully integrated function.

>
>>> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
>>> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
>>> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
>>> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.
>>
>> And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.
>
> I agree with you.

<Snipped>. You've already repeated yourself too many times to count w/o
going anywhere ... again.

[Sten deJoode]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.
>
> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
> of buying the Apple product.

They don't want an "Apple product".
Otherwise they wouldn't be using Android.

And, more to the point, Android wouldn't be something like 85% of the TAM.
If they wanted an "Apple product", Apple would have that 85% instead.

Apple is falling fast in the world market specifically because people do
NOT want the iPhone. They want Android phones (3% want Huawei too).

What those few people (mostly in Europe) want is free MMS attachments.
Which for that subset of people, their carrier doesn't provide them.

One way to get that free MMS attachments is to use WhatsApp servers.
Or Apple servers.

They're the same thing.
Thy simply reach different users.

Anyway, when Apple finally catches up with RCS, Beeper won't likely matter.

>> Now you seem to understand - but at first you didn't appear to understand
>> what they wanted. They just want the server. Not the iPhone itself.
>
> Which is actually what I said. I never said they wanted iPhones. I said
> they wanted the functionality.

They don't even want that because WhatsApp 100% replaces the iPhone.
What they want has NOTHING to do with an iPhone.

What they want is an Internet server.
Any server that reaches people will do.

WhatsApp reaches people.
So does the Apple messaging servers.

Anyway, when Apple finally catches up with RCS, Beeper won't likely matter.

>> It's not Android that doesn't serve their needs.
>> It's their crappy carrier.
>
> Well, also Android. It does not have the functionality that Apple
> provide on Apple products.

You're joking, right?
If an Android user will put up with logging into the company server then
that Android user has something like a hundred times what an iPhone has.

Take the example of this app, which does more than iMessage ever could do.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger

Notice that App reaches all Apple and Android users, unlike WhatsApp.
But the user has to be willing to log into their Internet servers first.

> And Apple should not be compelled to provide it to non-Apple product users.

Nobody said Apple should be compelled to make their servers available to
the rest of the world. Apple wrote crappy code that did that for them.

When Beeper took advantage of Apple's crappy code, Apple wised up.
One by one Apple closed the multiple loopholes in Apple's crappy code.

I commend Apple for finally looking at their own code for once.
That's a good thing because its users have a more secure implementation.

>> You need to try to understand it's not "Android" or the "iPhone".
>> They just want the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone to reach its users.
>
> It's not a "dumb terminal". It's an integrated function of the an app,
> an OS, a service and servers. It is particular to Apple products.

The Messages app doesn't work the way you claim if you don't log into the
mainframe so in that respect the iPhone is very much a dumb terminal.

> Thus, Android users have no inherent right to use it.

Nobody said they did. All Beeper did was take advantage of the well known
fact that Apple writes crappy code. Just like that teenager did when he
broke five holes in FaceTime. Just like hackers do when they wrote the
dozens of zero-click holes in Apple's Messaging.

You should be worried more about the hackers writing those many zero-click
iOS holes than the few Android users in Europe who want cheaper MMS images.

>> They want the server only. The Apple server. Which goes to Apple customers.
>
> Which I've said all along and you're trying to cast as if I hadn't.

OK. When you stop saying Android users want the iPhone, then you'll have
understood why the world market is something like 85% Android & not iOS.

There's a reason nobody wants iOS except half the people in the richest
countries in the world who are already 100% on the Internet but most of the
world doesn't want the use model of a dumb terminal that Apple provides.

>> They don't want the iPhone.
>
> Never said they did.

Android is something like 85% of the world market for the same reason that
the iPhone is more than 1/2 of the US market - which is in the rich
countries people can afford to buy into Apple's dumb-terminal concept which
requires access to the Internet but in most of the world, they can't.

>> And the problem isn't Android.
>
> The problem is Android does not (can not) support the function.

No. I get free MMS attachments. Many people in the USA do.
And the function is supported for those who don't.
It just costs them money.

Why can't you understand that simple concept?

That the iPhone is a dumb terminal allows them to use Apple's mainframe
servers to log into and send their MMS attachments for free. That's it.

> Any
> "bolt on" workarounds using Android phones and separate servers to
> emulate the service are clearly violating Apple's property.

All they needed was Apple's mainframe servers on the Internet.
And a web browser.

They don't even need Android phones.
They just need Apple's servers.

They could have done it from a Mac had they wanted to.

>> You don't seem to completely understand that critical distinction.
>
> It doesn't matter how you construe the distinction (as badly as you do),
> but simply that the service in discussion is an Apple product meant for
> Apple product buyers who are given express right to use that service
> whereas Android users are never offered the right to use that service.
> So, some 3rd party workaround is violating Apple's property.

There is no violation that you've pointed out that is of a legal nature.
What they did Apple didn't like, so in _that_ sense, it's a violation.

But it's no different than a hacker writing zero-click Messages holes.
It's Apple's fault for writing the crappy insecure code that allowed it.

>> They want two things that I've said multiple times and you still think that
>> an Android user would lower himself to the level of an iPhone. He won't.
>
> I never said an Android user should do anything he didn't want to do.
> OTOH, if he wants access to Apple's servers (their property) the legal
> way to do so is to buy Apple's products.

Stop it with the "legal way" as you haven't cited a single legal case.
Apple hasn't sued Beeper. It's likely Apple can't (successfully) sue them.

The reason is all Beeper did was use Apple's crappy server implementations.
Which Apple subsequently fixed once they found out that Beeper had done it.

Had Apple tested their mainframe servers, it never would have happened.

> Since that would be such a horrible thing for a virtuous Android user, I
> guess they'll just have to forego the advantages of of Apple's iMessage
> services.

Stop saying it's "Android users" without saying it's only those Android
users who have a crappy carrier who charges them for MMS attachments.

Otherwise, the Android user already has a messaging app superior to iOS's.

>> The problem isn't Android.
>
> Indeed. Since the iMessage service is for Apple product buyers it
> doesn't really relate to Android users at all. They simply are denied
> using it because they did not buy the requisite Apple product.

You keep thinking it's all Android users, and it's just not.
Android already has superior messaging.

The problem is only a few select few get charged for their MMS images.
That issue will likely disappear when Apple finally implements RCS.

>> It's their crappy carrier's charging model.
>
> It's certainly not the carrier's problem - they happily, and at no extra
> charge (in most cases - data/month caps or some such can apply), handle
> Apple iMessage traffic from Apple devices to/from Apple servers.

The problem isn't for the carrier. The problem is for the user.
You and I have better carriers. They don't.

So I have no use for Apple's dumb-terminal concept of the iPhone.
But they do.

That's all I'm trying to explain to you.
I'm not advocating the model.

Even RCS buys me nothing when Apple finally implements it later this year.
Because I already have free MMS attachments in my messaging app.

Without having to be forced to log into the mainframe servers.

>> Think about the guy in Europe who is charged for each MMS attachment.
>> 1. He doesn't want the iPhone. Stop thinking that. An iPhone is crap.
>
> iPhone's are fantastic - and they get Apple's server functions included.
> Android devices do not.

I'm sure you feel the iPhone is fantastic and I'm happy for you.

But there's so much the Apple iPhone implementation of a dumb terminal
can't do that I wouldn't be happy with it, but I'm glad you're happy.

This isn't about us anyway.
It's about the few users who get charged for MMS attachments.

>> 2. He wants the Apple *server*. (Which is no different than the WA Server).
>
> Apple's servers are freely available to people who buy Apple products
> such as best in class iPhones, iPads and Macs.

That's not entirely true since we already agreed that Apple's use model is
to make the iPhone into a dumb terminal which must access the Apple
mainframe servers in order to do most of what you like about Messages.

What Beeper did was tap into the poor implementation of that Apple server.

>> 3. He wants the fact that Apple server *allows MMS over the Internet*.
>
> Great, then get the Apple products that allow that.

You don't get it that only people in the richest countries in the world can
afford the dumb terminal design of the iPhone which requires the use of
Apple's mainframe servers in order to do most of what you like about it.

Admittedly that's more than 1/2 the people in the United States though.
And those are the people that the Beeper customer was trying to reach.

Anyway, when Apple finally implements RCS, this will no longer be an issue.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-30 10:22, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.
>>
>> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
>> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
>> of buying the Apple product.
>
> They don't want an "Apple product".
> Otherwise they wouldn't be using Android.

And he did say that they 'want an "Apple product"', you idiot.

He said:

'What they want is a functionality that Apple provides'

>
> And, more to the point, Android wouldn't be something like 85% of the TAM.
> If they wanted an "Apple product", Apple would have that 85% instead.

See above.

>
> Apple is falling fast in the world market specifically because people do
> NOT want the iPhone. They want Android phones (3% want Huawei too).

Apple is not "falling fast" in the market for high-end smartphones; at
least, you've provided no proof that's so.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-30 13:22, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.
>>
>> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
>> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
>> of buying the Apple product.
>
> They don't want an "Apple product".
> Otherwise they wouldn't be using Android.

Can you read? I've explained to you many times that what the Android
users want is a service that demands you buy the Apple product. You
don't want the Apple product? Fine. Don't pine for the Apple service.

Anyway clear I should have ignored you ... on that note...

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-30 15:15, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-30 10:22, Sten deJoode wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.
>>>
>>> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone.  What they want is a
>>> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
>>> of buying the Apple product.
>>
>> They don't want an "Apple product".
>> Otherwise they wouldn't be using Android.
>
> And he did say that they 'want an "Apple product"', you idiot.
>
> He said:
>
> 'What they want is a functionality that Apple provides'

Thanks for pitching in, but it's clear it's just trolling ... should
never have engaged with it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-30, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the
>>> iPhone.
>>
>> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
>> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the
>> step of buying the Apple product.
>
> They don't want an "Apple product".

Wrong. iMessage is an Apple product, and Android users have gone so far
as to create Beeper and violate the terms of service to gain access to
it.

> What those few people (mostly in Europe) want is free MMS attachments.

Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use iMessage.

> One way to get that free MMS attachments is to use WhatsApp servers.
> Or Apple servers.

Wrong, MMS has nothing to do with WhatsApp or iMessage.

> They're the same thing.

No, they are not. Otherwise Android users would be happily using
WhatsApp instead of trying to use iMessage.

You're not fooling anyone, Arlen.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-30 19:17, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2024-01-30, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:59:45 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the
>>>> iPhone.
>>>
>>> I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
>>> functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the
>>> step of buying the Apple product.
>>
>> They don't want an "Apple product".
>
> Wrong. iMessage is an Apple product, and Android users have gone so far
> as to create Beeper and violate the terms of service to gain access to
> it.
>
>> What those few people (mostly in Europe) want is free MMS attachments.
>
> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use iMessage.
>
>> One way to get that free MMS attachments is to use WhatsApp servers.
>> Or Apple servers.
>
> Wrong, MMS has nothing to do with WhatsApp or iMessage.
>
>> They're the same thing.
>
> No, they are not. Otherwise Android users would be happily using
> WhatsApp instead of trying to use iMessage.
>
> You're not fooling anyone, Arlen.
>

Except himself...

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-01-30 22:17, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use iMessage.

Exactly. Though germane to note that this does not stop iPhones from
doing MMS. For that matter, because of Apple superior integration
across devices, (aka: "the ecosystem") it permits a Mac or other Apple
device's Message app to also do MMS providing that person also has an
iPhone to handle the telecom part.

[Sten deJoode]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:35:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use iMessage.
>
> Exactly. Though germane to note that this does not stop iPhones from
> doing MMS. For that matter, because of Apple superior integration
> across devices, (aka: "the ecosystem") it permits a Mac or other Apple
> device's Message app to also do MMS providing that person also has an
> iPhone to handle the telecom part.

What you said is wrong.
Dead wrong.

Which means you have a very strong opinion. Extremely strong.
Like Trump activists do.

And yet, you're dead wrong in every way.
Worse - you're easily shown to be wrong.

With a single URL.
https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

The point is Android does exactly what you said also.
Even better.

There are many Android messaging apps which do it, in fact.
https://www.xda-developers.com/best-text-messaging-apps-android/

It's not the iPhone that allows it.
It's logging into the mainframe that does.

Once you treat the phone simply as a dumb terminal, all that is possible.

All the good things you like about the iPhone are because you like the
mainframe servers which treat the iPhone as if it's just a dumb terminal.

[Alan]

On 2024-01-31 14:32, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:35:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use iMessage.
>>
>> Exactly. Though germane to note that this does not stop iPhones from
>> doing MMS. For that matter, because of Apple superior integration
>> across devices, (aka: "the ecosystem") it permits a Mac or other Apple
>> device's Message app to also do MMS providing that person also has an
>> iPhone to handle the telecom part.
>
> What you said is wrong.
> Dead wrong.
>
> Which means you have a very strong opinion. Extremely strong.
> Like Trump activists do.

When you make this pivot, it's because you've lost...

...again.

>
> And yet, you're dead wrong in every way.
> Worse - you're easily shown to be wrong.
>
> With a single URL.
> https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/
>
> The point is Android does exactly what you said also.
> Even better.
>
> There are many Android messaging apps which do it, in fact.
> https://www.xda-developers.com/best-text-messaging-apps-android/
>
> It's not the iPhone that allows it.
> It's logging into the mainframe that does.

You need to learn what a "mainframe" is.

>
> Once you treat the phone simply as a dumb terminal, all that is possible.
>
> All the good things you like about the iPhone are because you like the
> mainframe servers which treat the iPhone as if it's just a dumb terminal.

Does WhatsApp having servers mean that it treats the phone as a "dumb
terminal", Arlen?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-31, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:35:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use
>>> iMessage.
>>
>> Exactly. Though germane to note that this does not stop iPhones from
>> doing MMS. For that matter, because of Apple superior integration
>> across devices, (aka: "the ecosystem") it permits a Mac or other
>> Apple device's Message app to also do MMS providing that person also
>> has an iPhone to handle the telecom part.
>
> What you said is wrong. Dead wrong.

Nope, everything he said is true. Very true.

[bullshit off-topic rant about "mainframes" rightfully ignored]

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-31, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-01-31 14:32, Sten deJoode wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:35:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, iMessage doesn't do MMS, yet Android users want to use
>>>> iMessage.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Though germane to note that this does not stop iPhones
>>> from doing MMS. For that matter, because of Apple superior
>>> integration across devices, (aka: "the ecosystem") it permits a Mac
>>> or other Apple device's Message app to also do MMS providing that
>>> person also has an iPhone to handle the telecom part.
>>

>> Once you treat the phone simply as a dumb terminal, all that is
>> possible.
>>
>> All the good things you like about the iPhone are because you like
>> the mainframe servers which treat the iPhone as if it's just a dumb
>> terminal.
>
> Does WhatsApp having servers mean that it treats the phone as a "dumb
> terminal", Arlen?

Yep, in his haste to disparage iPhones, little Arlen here is
inadvertently claiming that all mobile phones that connect to the
internet are dumb terminals. He's doing this in a lame attempt to
disrupt the adult conversation, but it's not having the effect he wants
because the rest of us are actual adults who are interested in honest
discourse.

[Sten deJoode]

On 31 Jan 2024 23:01:22 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> claiming that all mobile phones that connect to the
> internet are dumb terminals.

You stoop to insults. I respond with URLs that prove the point.

You attack the person Jolly Roger because you can't find anything that
doesn't show that the iPhone is being used as a dumb terminal in the case
of what Alan Browne claimed is an Apple-only set of capabilities.

What none of you ever thought about is that those capabilities that Alan
Browne thought were "unique" to Apple, are only because the iPHone isn't
doing the work - the mainframe server that the iPhone logs into is.

Android does the same thing - and even better in almost every way if the
user is willing to use the Android phone similarly as a dumb terminal.
https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

You have no way of disputing that, so you attack the messenger.
It's all you can do.

The reason you attack the messenger, paradoxically enough, is because you
hate that the messenger is correct in how the Apple server is what gives
Alan Browne everything he claimed - but which is not unique to Apple.

Anyone can set up a mainframe server to handle everything Apple does.
Which works not only on Android, but Linux, Windows, Mac, & yes... iOS.

An example is ShareDrop (ala AirDrop) which works even across networks.
https://www.sharedrop.io/

What you don't like is Alan Browne was dead wrong in everything he said.

Neither Alan Browne nor you understand how Apple's walled garden works.
A single URL proves that everything he believes in, is simply wrong.

[Sten deJoode]

On 31 Jan 2024 22:56:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nope, everything he said is true. Very true.

I provided URLs which proved it.
You provide nothing but stammering denials.

You resort to insults because that's all you've got, Jolly Roger.

Not only had I provided URLs which prove what he said was wrong, it's
obvious Alan Browne doesn't realize everything he loves about the walled
garden is because he has to log into what he calls the "country club"
mainframes in order to obtain those walled-garden niceties.

Without the Apple ID, he can't even install software, that's how crippled
the iPhone is.

What Alan Browne loves about the Apple ecosystem is that Apple treats the
iPhone as a dumb terminal, where all the "country club" stuff Alan Browne
loves is running remotely on mainframe servers under Apple's full control.

There's nothing wrong with the dumb-terminal-to-mainframe model by the way.
But there's nothing unique about it either.

Android has it too for messaging if you're willing to log into a server.
https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

And Android has it for file sharing also.
https://github.com/szimek/sharedrop

"The main difference between ShareDrop and AirDrop is that ShareDrop
requires Internet connection to discover other devices, while AirDrop
doesn't need one, as it creates ad-hoc wireless network between them. On
the other hand, ShareDrop allows you to share files between mobile (Android
and iOS) and desktop devices and even between networks."

What's clear is Alan Browne knows none of this.
Like Trump activists, Alan Browne only thinks what Apple feeds him.

The real world eludes Alan Browne because he's unaware that everything he
loves about Apple is because Apple treats the iPhone like a dumb terminal.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-01-31, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 31 Jan 2024 23:01:22 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> claiming that all mobile phones that connect to the internet are dumb
>> terminals.
>
> You stoop to insults.

That's not an insult, Sparky. And that's rich coming from the troll who
*regularly* slings schoolyard insults like "iKook" at anyone and
everyone who dares to use Apple products right here in these newsgroups.
I think we can all see who the real kook is here. 🤣

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2024 22:56:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Nope, everything he said is true. Very true.
>
> I provided URLs which proved it.

Adults can clearly see you snipped the context above in a feeble attempt
to squirm away from the topic which is that iMessage is an Apple product
that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.

[Sten deJoode]

On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> iMessage is an Apple product
> that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.

No. You still can't seem to comprehend that they're on Android.
They're not on an iPhone.
They don't want an iPhone.

If they did want an iPhone, they'd buy an iPhone.
But they don't want an iPhone.

In fact, they don't want anything whatsoever to do with the iPhone.

What some people want to use is the Apple messages mainframe server.
Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.

Because they have a crappy carrier that charges them for MMS attachments.
Just like they want the WhatsApp servers (which most of Europe uses).

What they want are the WhatsApp servers (& the people they reach).
And they want the Apple messaging servers (& the people they reach).

You'll never understand that because you're desperate to find something
(anything) redeeming in the iPhone itself (which is just a dumb terminal).

[Alan]

On 2024-01-31 19:02, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iMessage is an Apple product
>> that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.
>
> No. You still can't seem to comprehend that they're on Android.
> They're not on an iPhone.
> They don't want an iPhone.

They want a SERVICE that Apple provides to customers of Apple PRODUCTS.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iMessage is an Apple product that Android users want to use without
>> owning an Apple device.
>

> What some people want to use is the Apple messages mainframe server.

They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
messaging services, but they desperately want to use Apple's. And the
fact that you think you are somehow being "clever" by calling it a
"mainframe" is laughably weak.

> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.

You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
internet, but over cellular networks.

> Because they have a crappy carrier that charges them for MMS
> attachments.

Nope, they could use any number of alternative messaging apps, but want
to use iMessage instead.

[Sten deJoode]

On 1 Feb 2024 05:25:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
> product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
> messaging services,

It's good you finally figured it out that they don't want to use the iPhone
but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with iPhones.

I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago, and we could have
saved fifty posts where you couldn't get it through your head how it works.

>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>
> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
> internet, but over cellular networks.

When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular network.
But in my case, I'm not charged anything additional by my carrier.

But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work that way
(because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS attachment).

They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet from their phone to the
Apple mainframe server which then sends it off to the Apple dumb terminals.

Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an MMS
attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet servers?

You've been completely wrong this entire thread so I have to ask you to
confirm that you're saying the people who are charged by their carrier per
MMS attachment actually can't circumvent those carrier-imposed MMS charges
by using the Apple servers to send their MMS attachments (as with Beeper).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2024 05:25:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
>> product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
>> messaging services,
>
> It's good you finally figured it out that they don't want to use the
> iPhone

On the contrary, the only person here making that asinine claim is
*you*, Arlen. You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build
your little straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.

> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
> iPhones.

No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you think
iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about your
knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.

> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago

Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.

>>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>>
>> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
>> internet, but over cellular networks.
>
> When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular
> network.

Duh. That's what I said.

> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
> that way (because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS
> attachment).
>
> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet

Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS. And they aren't interested
in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet messaging apps. They want to use
iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in violation of the
terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the goal post, but it is
firmly planted in the ground.

> Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an
> MMS attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet
> servers?

Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.

> You've been completely wrong this entire thread

Projection from a mental weakling.

[Sten deJoode]

On 1 Feb 2024 15:51:15 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build
> your little straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.

The fact that you were wrong the entire time is why you're so angry.

It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using Beeper
were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to everyone else).

>
>> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
>> iPhones.
>
> No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you think
> iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about your
> knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.

The service runs on mainframe servers as Apple designed iPhones using dumb
terminal models where without those servers, the walled garden isn't.

>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>
> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.

What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone,
and then you are so embarrassed about taking fifty posts to finally get
that obvious fact, that you blame me for your lack of understanding.

Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.

>>>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>>>
>>> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
>>> internet, but over cellular networks.
>>
>> When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular
>> network.
>
> Duh. That's what I said.

My point exactly. It took you fifty posts to figure out the obvious.

>
>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>> that way (because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS
>> attachment).
>>
>> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet
>
> Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS.

Here's where you're again wrong. They don't want the iPhone. Most Android
users wouldn't want to be caught dead with the iPhone anywhere near them.

It's too limited. It can't do thousands of things that Android does.

What some people (who have crappy carrier plans) want is to use the Apple
mainframe servers to send MMS attachments over the Internet without being
charged by the carrier for those MMS attachments.

> And they aren't interested
> in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet messaging apps.

Even after fifty posts you still don't get it that the dumb terminal model
the iPhone uses is no different from the same model that WhatsApp uses.

Nobody on Android wants anything to do with the iPhone.
They wouldn't want to be caught dead within fifty feet of an iPhone.

They use WhatsApp servers EXACTLY like they use the Apple message servers.
The Apple ecosystem is, to them, nothing more than the WhatsApp ecosystem.

The only difference are the customers reached, where Apple has a healthy
15% of the world market, which I've always said is a lot of customers.

> They want to use
> iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in violation of the
> terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the goal post, but it is
> firmly planted in the ground.

None of them want iMessage. They want the free MMS. The instant that Apple
figures out how to come up to speed on RCS, they won't need the servers.

It was always the Apple users who were left out of the modern RCS capacity.

>> Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an
>> MMS attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet
>> servers?
>
> Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
> internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.

What you still don't understand, even after fifty posts, is that what those
people want (who are charged for MMS attachments) is to send MMS over the
Internet (which is what Beeper tried to allow those people to do).

When Apple finally figures out how to add RCS to the iPhone, there won't be
any need for those people to use Apple's servers to send them over the net.

The carrier will do fine when that happens (just as the carrier does fine
when those same Android users send MMS messages to other Android users).

It was always the Apple users who were left out of the modern RCS equation.

>> You've been completely wrong this entire thread
>
> Projection from a mental weakling.

Notice you resort to insults because it took you over fifty posts to
finally figure out that nobody on Android wanted to use the iPhone.

Otherwise they'd be on the iPhone. This is basic logic, Jolly Roger.
It's something you'd say "Duh" to if you only understood basic logic.

What some wanted was the capability they already have on Android via RCS
was to send MMS attachments over the Internet to Apple users too.

It's always the Apple user who is behind in technology but soon Apple will
catch up on RCS and then those people can reach Apple users without paying
for the MMS messages (like they already have for reaching Android users).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-02, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2024 15:51:15 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build your little
>> straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.
>
> The fact that you were wrong the entire time

Nope, I never claimed Android users want an iPhone - that was you trying
to fabricate a straw man. And you failed at it.

> you're so angry.

I'm perfectly calm. You, on the other hand, are very obviously triggered
by the fact that Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
without owning Apple products.🙂

> It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using
> Beeper were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to
> everyone else).

Another weak fabrication of yours. Is this really the best you can do,
Arlen? It's pretty pathetic. It's as if you believe everyone here will
just forget that what you say didn't happen. You must think people are
every bit as stupid and gullible as you. Unfortunately you're wrong, and
you have zero credibility. You're just low-level trolling. 😉

>>> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
>>> iPhones.
>>
>> No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you
>> think iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about
>> your knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.
>
> The service runs on mainframe servers

Nope, just servers.

> Apple designed iPhones using dumb terminal

Bullshit. iPhones are much more powerful than dumb terminals. One clear
example is the inclusion of the A-series neural engine which allows
developers to use the Core ML and other frameworks to do on-device
machine learning, where many of Apple's competitors use cloud-based
machine learning processing which makes them more deserving of the term
dumb terminal and also compromise the privacy of their users. You're
desperately making these outright lies as if you think the rest of us
are just as dumb and gullible as you are, but those juvenile antics
won't work here.

>>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>>
>> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
>> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
>> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.
>
> What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
> Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone

The fact that you think this isn't blatantly obvious to everyone here is
telling and says way more about you than anyone else. 😉

> Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
> expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.

They want to use a messaging service that is *exclusive* to Apple
products.

>>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>>> that way

No matter how hard you try, nothing you say changes the fact that this
isn't about SMS/MMS. 🤣

>>> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet
>>
>> Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS.
>
> Here's where you're again wrong. They don't want the iPhone.

Nothing I said above was about iPhones, dip shit.

> What some people (who have crappy carrier plans) want is to use the Apple
> mainframe servers to send MMS attachments over the Internet without being
> charged by the carrier for those MMS attachments.

Get this through your thick head:
- iMessage servers aren't "mainframes".
- iPhones aren't "dumb terminals".
- iMessage has absolutely *nothing* to do with SMS/MMS messaging.
- Android users who want access to iMessage aren't trying to send
SMS/MMS messages.
- Androis users of Beeper and the like don't want to use other messaging
services like WhatsApp or Signal - they want access to iMessage.

>> And they aren't interested in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet
>> messaging apps.
>

> the dumb terminal model the iPhone uses is no different from the same
> model that WhatsApp uses.

And yet Android users are building apps to use iMessage rather than
using WhatsApp - peculiar. 🤣

>> They want to use iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in
>> violation of the terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the
>> goal post, but it is firmly planted in the ground.
>
> None of them want iMessage.

Untrue. It's exactly what they want.

> It was always the Apple users who were left out

Sure, pumpkin - that's why Beeper exists...

>> Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
>> internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.
>
> What you still don't understand, even after fifty posts, is that what those
> people want (who are charged for MMS attachments) is to send MMS over the
> Internet (which is what Beeper tried to allow those people to do).

Nope, Beeper didn't send MMS messages through iMessage server - never
has. You clearly don't know the difference between cellular-based
SMS/MMS and internet-based messaging services. You're out of your
league.

[Sten deJoode]

On 3 Feb 2024 01:07:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
> without owning Apple products.

I'll agree with anything anyone says that makes sense, which, unlike you,
means I am not going to defend either ecosystem to the death like you do.

I agree that some Android users have a lousy carrier who charges them for
each MMS attachment - and those poor Android users are what you claim.

Not me. I don't get charged for MMS attachments. But some people do.
They won't once Apple gets with the program by adopting RCS though.

>
>> It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using
>> Beeper were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to
>> everyone else).
>

> Unfortunately you're wrong, and you have zero credibility.

I'm not afraid to be wrong because I'm not defending either ecosystem to
the death like you do, Jolly Roger. But you haven't shown me to be wrong.

In fact, it took you something like fifty posts to understand what was
clearly what you finally understood, which is why some Android users want
to take advantage of the dumb-terminal aspect the iPhone ecosystem is.

>> The service runs on mainframe servers
>
> Nope, just servers.

One thing I'm doing by calling them "mainframe servers" is underscoring the
fact that Apple designed its ecosystem to treat iPhones as dumb terminals.

Since you couldn't even garner your GED, it's important for me to use words
that you understand because it takes you fifty posts to get what Apple is.

Without that "mainframe" server, you can't even install a simple app.
That's how much Apple has you locked into their dumb-terminal ecosystem.

>
>> Apple designed iPhones using dumb terminal
>
> Bullshit.

Considering how low the IQ is of most of you Apple nutjobs, it's not
surprising you can't comprehend that the entire ecosystem is designed
around the iPhone being a dumb terminal accessing the Apple mainframes.

You can't even install an app without logging into those mainframes.
Name a single common consumer operating system that makes you do that?

HINT: ChromeOS is the same thing as iOS - they're both dumb terminals.

> iPhones are much more powerful than dumb terminals.

OK. Install an app WITHOUT logging into an Apple mainframe server then.

> One clear
> example is the inclusion of the A-series neural engine which allows
> developers to use the Core ML and other frameworks to do on-device
> machine learning, where many of Apple's competitors use cloud-based
> machine learning processing which makes them more deserving of the term
> dumb terminal and also compromise the privacy of their users. You're
> desperately making these outright lies as if you think the rest of us
> are just as dumb and gullible as you are, but those juvenile antics
> won't work here.

Do you always just cut and paste the (rather brilliant) marketing gimmicks
that Apple sells you on, Jolly Roger?

What's that got to do with the fact that you can't even install an app
without logging into the Apple mainframe servers, Jolly Roger?

Name another common consumer operating system which is that dumb, JR.
(Other than ChromeOS which is the same as iOS in its dumb-terminal design.)

>>>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>>>
>>> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
>>> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
>>> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.
>>
>> What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
>> Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone
>
> The fact that you think this isn't blatantly obvious to everyone here is
> telling and says way more about you than anyone else.

Look Jolly Roger. I know a lot more than you do about just about everything
but it's not because I'm smarter than you are - but because I'm not
brainwashed by (rather brilliant) marketing like you are.

That's the difference.

You can't deny that the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone is why it can't
even install an app without being forced to log into Apple's mainframes.

And then, in the next breath, you deny that the iPhone is designed as a
dumb terminal which can't do almost everything you like about the walled
garden without logging into an Apple mainframe server to do that task.

If you opened your eyes, you'd see how brilliant Apple's marketing is.

>> Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
>> expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.
>
> They want to use a messaging service that is *exclusive* to Apple
> products.

Not true, but after fifty posts, you're getting closer to comprehending
reality. They don't care about Apple products. They want to use the server.

And they don't even care much about the Apple server, since the WhatsApp
server is the same thing to them. They want that 15% of the world customers
which is about 1/2 of the United States (which is a big number of people).

But you're getting closer. I commend you for thinking on your own for that.

>>>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>>>> that way
>
> No matter how hard you try, nothing you say changes the fact that this
> isn't about SMS/MMS.

If you don't think it's about those few people who want to reach Apple's
customers through Apple's mainframes so that they can send MMS attachments
for free, then you have to explain to the rest of us what you think it is.

Bear in mind I have both Apple and Android devices, and I am well aware
that the Apple messages app is a piece of shit compared to PulseSMS.

Tell me, Jolly Roger, why would _I_ want to use the piece of shit Apple
messages app when I have a far better app in PulseSMS if what messages does
is what I want? https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

There's NOTHING that Apple's messages does that PulseSMS doesn't already
do, if... and this is big... you're willing to use the mainframe to do it.

That's only _one_ of hundreds of things that are a piece of shit on the
iPhone without the mainframe. Take portable storage as another.

On Android, portable storage is fifty cents a gigabyte up to half a
terabyte (or so) while on iOS you are required to use a mainframe.

Almost everything you like about the Apple ecosystem is because Apple
designed the iPhone to be a dumb terminal that constantly accesses the
Apple mainframes to do even the simplest tasks like install an app.

No other common consumer operating system (other than ChromeOS) treats the
device like Apple does - and nobody wants ChromeOS either, by the way.

The only difference between ChromeOS & iOS is the brilliant marketing.
And the only difference between WhatsApp & messages is the customer base.

You're not smart enough to comprehend those two statements, but most are.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-03, Sten deJoode <Stend...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2024 01:07:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
>> without owning Apple products.
>
> I'll agree

We're done here.

Feel free to have a little Last Word pity party by yourself. I'm out.