Beeper Mini: Latest Android app to emulate iMessage protocol

[Alan Browne]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html

Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.

Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.

I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
To be seen.

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

[Andy Burns]

Alan Browne wrote:

> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> To be seen.

Why would I want to pay £2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,
when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?

[Your Name]

On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitb...@blackhole.com>

> wrote:
>>
>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>
>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>
>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>

>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>> To be seen.
>

> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
> would permit this?
>
> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over it?

It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
bubble is in a messaging app anyway. :-\

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:

> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally "green with
> envy".

Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P

Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>
> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>
> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>
> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> To be seen.

Why The Fuck are *Android-users* so keen to enter the Apple world in the
first place?! Inferiority complex?

*Ridiculous*!

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

[Jörg Lorenz]

You misunderstand what will happen: The *bubbles* stay green with RCS
and it will not solve the inferiority complex of Android users.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 02:57, Tyrone wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> wrote:
>
>>

>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>
>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>
>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>
>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>> To be seen.
>

> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
> would permit this?
>
> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over it?

Very good question.
This kindergarten-issue is solely an US-American problem.

[Jörg Lorenz]

But seems to be an issue of national security in the US. *ROTFLSTC*

[Wally J]

Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote

>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>

> Nope. It is Android users wanting to use iMessage. No iPhone users are
> wanting to be Android users.

There's no privacy possible on iOS, partially due to having to log into
the Apple iMessages server, which Android users don't have to ever do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg>

If you don't log into Apple's mothership tracking servers every single day
of the rest of your life, then Apple will literally brick your iOS device.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg>

*No privacy is possible on an iOS device.*

[Hank Rogers]

So that’s why you bought an iPhone, jughead?

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>> To be seen.
>

> Why would I want to pay Ł2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,

> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?

Hi Andy,

The value of this beeper app eludes me...

While this thread is a troll, and while "blue bubbles" is a ridiculous
thing for anyone to care about, I skimmed the original article & this site
<https://www.beeper.com/>

Interestingly, the app itself 'says' that it's free with no ads.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.beeper.ima>
But it does say that it has "in app purchases".

My phone isn't set up to make purchases, so I figured I'd test it out
to see how far it will go without creating a log in to a Google Account.
<https://i.postimg.cc/GmnXTgxp/beeperapp.jpg>

Not far...
<https://help.beeper.com/en_US/beeper-mini/beeper-mini-how-to-fix-google-sign-in-error-during-login-site>

Since you can't use it without logging into a Google Account (apparently),
it's pretty worthless - but I couldn't test it any further because of that.

But I'm looking for what the "value equation" is, as I don't get it yet.

Who cares about the color of bubbles?
There aren't even bubbles on Android to care about the color of.

And I communicate with iPhone users all the time.
What's this about "iPhone-only chats" that anyone could care about?

The app is marketed with the following splash screens:'
a. Finally get blue bubbles on Android
b. Join iPhone-only group chats
c. Full size photos and videos, plus replies and reactions
d. Secured with end-to-end encryption
e. Continue with Google

I'm struggling to see who would care about any of that
(given you already have all of that already, don't you)?

[Andy Burns]

Wally J wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote

>
>> Why would I want to pay Ł2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden
>

> The value of this beeper app eludes me...

> Interestingly, the app itself 'says' that it's free with no ads.

> But it does say that it has "in app purchases".

Articles I read elsewhere (TheVerge, ArsTechnica etc) all said 7 day
free trial, then $2/month.

> I communicate with iPhone users all the time.

I can send SMS "free" out of my SIM bundle, I could send MMS but I
rarely do because of the cost (approx ¢63 each).

> The app is marketed with the following splash screens:'
> a. Finally get blue bubbles on Android
> b. Join iPhone-only group chats
> c. Full size photos and videos, plus replies and reactions
> d. Secured with end-to-end encryption
> e. Continue with Google
>
> I'm struggling to see who would care about any of that
> (given you already have all of that already, don't you)?

ignore the colour of bubbles, I can't participate in group chats without
every message being a MMS, hopefully RCS will allow photos/videos to
iPhones next year, if Apple are sniffy about E2EE we may not get that to
iPhones.

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> The value of this beeper app eludes me...
>> Interestingly, the app itself 'says' that it's free with no ads.
>> But it does say that it has "in app purchases".
>
> Articles I read elsewhere (TheVerge, ArsTechnica etc) all said 7 day
> free trial, then $2/month.

I'm with you that whatever its value, it's not worth $24/year for sure.
Anyway, Apple already closed the hole that beeper was using (apparently).
<https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/08/beeper-mini-imessage-for-android-shutdown/>

It used to shock me how incredibly insecure Apple's code is, what with ten
times the number of exploits than Android and many times the zero day bugs.

But now it's just another day another exploit in terms of Apple's output.

>> I communicate with iPhone users all the time.
>
> I can send SMS "free" out of my SIM bundle, I could send MMS but I
> rarely do because of the cost (approx ¢63 each).

Yeah. You told me MMS costs you money if you don't use RCS to do it (I
think because RCS can send that MMS over the Wi-Fi or data connection).

>> I'm struggling to see who would care about any of that
>> (given you already have all of that already, don't you)?
>
> ignore the colour of bubbles, I can't participate in group chats without
> every message being a MMS, hopefully RCS will allow photos/videos to
> iPhones next year, if Apple are sniffy about E2EE we may not get that to
> iPhones.

It's too bad you have to deal with that MMS charging stuff. Bummer.

If Beeper integrates the iPhone with the rest of the world, you can rest
assured Apple is going to stop all integration every chance they get.

*Apple Puts a Stop to Beeper Mini's iMessage for Android Feature*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/08/beeper-mini-imessage-for-android-shutdown/>
"Beeper Mini quit working earlier today, with users receiving "failed
to lookup on server: lookup request timed out" error messages."

The fact it worked at all shows incredible incompetence of Apple coders.
<https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works>

It's always been obvious to me how horribly crappy Apple's code is (e.g.,
the FaceTime bugs were immense and they were found by a mere child also).

Apparently, Apple coders are so fantastically inept that they had to resort
to reading the blogs just to figure out their bugs in the iMessage servers.
<https://jjtech.dev/reverse-engineering/imessage-explained/>

[badgolferman]

Wally J <walte...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
> Who cares about the color of bubbles?
> There aren't even bubbles on Android to care about the color of.
>
> And I communicate with iPhone users all the time.
> What's this about "iPhone-only chats" that anyone could care about?
>
> The app is marketed with the following splash screens:'
> a. Finally get blue bubbles on Android
> b. Join iPhone-only group chats
> c. Full size photos and videos, plus replies and reactions
> d. Secured with end-to-end encryption
> e. Continue with Google
>
> I'm struggling to see who would care about any of that
> (given you already have all of that already, don't you)?
>
>

I participate in several group chats which include iOS and Android users.
If there is a single Android user then the entire chat turns green.
Personally I don’t like the white letters on green background because it’s
harder to read than white letters on blue background. But even more
importantly, if a person is added or deleted from the group chat then an
entire new chat/conversation has to be created. If everyone was using
iMessage then the same conversation can be edited easily without creating a
new one.

In iOS there are reactions you can use by long pressing a message. These do
not transfer over to the chat properly if it is green. There are also
automated animated reactions such as Happy Birthday which pops up balloons
and confetti in iMessage conversations which does not work in green chats.

These type of limitations are what iOS users don’t like when an Android
user enters a group chat. If everyone used something like WhatsApp then
this would be a moot point, but here in America we haven’t adopted third
party messaging apps like the rest of the world. I have relatives overseas
with iPhones who have turned off the iMessage function on their phone
because they don’t use it.

I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the iMessage
world and why Apple is resisting. Ultimately it would work best for
everyone if the systems were compatible, but Apple would then lose the one
advantage they have which maintains their loyal user base.

[Alan Browne]

What walled garden? Apple devices roam wherever they like. No walls.

OTOH, they have a superb eco-system between Apple devices that excludes
non Apple systems. iMessage service is one of them.

[Alan Browne]

It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.

[Alan Browne]

Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.

I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.

But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
account. Pity - hard to break such bonds.

> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.

No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want. A walled
garden means self contained and limiting.

Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.

[Alan Browne]

It would be nice to have the functionality of iMessage on Android and
that's what this attempted.

IAC, much (if not all) of this will be moot when Apple aligns with RCS
next year - although some iMessage features will remain exclusive to the
Apple eco-sphere.

> *Ridiculous*!

Yes, you are.

[Alan Browne]

It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
functionality of iMessage.

Do keep up.

[Frank Slootweg]

Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2023 at 1:00:18?AM EST, ""Carlos E. R."" <robin_...@es.invalid>

> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:

> >> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04?AM EST, "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:

> >>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02?PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitb...@blackhole.com>

> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> >>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> >>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> >>>>> To be seen.
> >>>>
> >>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
> >>>> would permit this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over it?
> >>>
> >>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
> >>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway. :-\
> >>
> >> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
> >> "green with envy".
> >
> > Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
> > nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
> >
> > Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
> > to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>

> Nope. It is Android users wanting to use iMessage. No iPhone users are
> wanting to be Android users.

And vice versa, but that's not the point Carlos is making.

The point is that except for the US - and maybe NA - nobody cares
about iMessage, because everyone - yes, *including* iPhone users - is
using an IM platform which *is* cross-OS-platform. As Carlos said, for
most that's WhatsApp.

So we hate to break it to you, but the world does not revolve around
Apple, nor the US (nor Android, nor ... ad infinitum).

[Brian Gregory]

On 09/12/2023 10:24, Wally J wrote:
> It used to shock me how incredibly insecure Apple's code is, what with ten
> times the number of exploits than Android and many times the zero day bugs.

I'm not an Apple fan but I don't think that's true.

Based on the information available up to 2021, Android had a total of
574 vulnerabilities discovered in that year, which was a reduction from
the 859 in 2020. However, 79% of these were characterized by low attack
complexity. On the other hand, iOS had fewer vulnerabilities but tended
to have more serious ones, including zero-days

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/2021-mobile-security-android-more-vulnerabilities-ios-more-zero-days/>

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:

> >> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04?AM EST, "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:

> >>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02?PM EST, "Alan Browne"

> >>>> <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> >>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> >>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of
> >>>>> service.
> >>>>> To be seen.
> >>>>
> >>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think
> >>>> Apple
> >>>> would permit this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over
> >>>> it?
> >>>
> >>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
> >>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
> >>
> >> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
> >> "green with
> >> envy".
> >
> > Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
> > nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>
> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.

WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
are quite specific about WhatsApp *not* sharing user data with Facebook.

But of course some people revel on FUD, urban legends, etc., so this
kind of misinformation will never cease.

People actually *using* WhatsApp, know better.

> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.
>
> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
> account. Pity - hard to break such bonds.

In Europe and probably also elsewhere where WhatsApp is popular, it's
probably mostly the other way around. Many people already used WhatsApp
before it was bought by Facebook and many people use WhatsApp without
having a Facebook account.

FWIW, I've a WhatsApp 'account', but no Facebook account. [This space
is intentionally left blank for the 'shadow Facdebook account' urban
legend.]

> > Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
> > to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>
> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want. A walled
> garden means self contained and limiting.

I think Carlos is referring to Apple (and others) needing to open up
to interoperate with other (than iMessage) IM platforms to conform to
upcoming EU regulation.

> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.

Good on you!

[Andy Burns]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents

> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.

You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
legal arrangements?

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 08:28, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 09/12/2023 10:24, Wally J wrote:
>> It used to shock me how incredibly insecure Apple's code is, what with
>> ten
>> times the number of exploits than Android and many times the zero day
>> bugs.
>
> I'm not an Apple fan but I don't think that's true.

Of course it's not, Wally (Arlen, other sock puppet names) spreads its
nonsense far and wide and pounces on anything to spin fresh BS.

> Based on the information available up to 2021, Android had a total of
> 574 vulnerabilities discovered in that year, which was a reduction from
> the 859 in 2020. However, 79% of these were characterized by low attack
> complexity. On the other hand, iOS had fewer vulnerabilities but tended
> to have more serious ones, including zero-days

Wallern is a stranger to facts - don't waste your time on it.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 14:19, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 01:41, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 09.12.23 05:43, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>>> To be seen.
>>>
>>> Why would I want to pay £2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,
>>> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?
>>
>> You misunderstand what will happen: The *bubbles* stay green with RCS
>> and it will not solve the inferiority complex of Android users.
>
> It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
> functionality of iMessage.

That comes on top. ;-)

[Frank Slootweg]

Well, those legal arrangements are documented on their website
(<https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/>) and if they want to change them,
they'll have to inform their users. (IIRC, quite some time ago they were
planning to change some privacy related aspect, but backed down when it
came known in the press.)

Also note that the legal situation in the 'European Region' (which
includes the UK) is much more strict than elsewhere.

Bottom line is that there is a lot of FUD, urban legends, etc. about
WhatsApp's alleged lack of privacy, but no facts, proof, etc..

We (SWMBO and I) can only speak from experience. Two WhatsApp accounts
for nearly eight years without any ill effect whatsoever. Our
acquaintances (family, friends, etc.) have similar experience.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
the same functionality.

There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:

1. The blue bubbles. :-D
2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
provider Apple.

You have no clue.

[Frank Slootweg]

Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02?PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> wrote:
>
> > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
> >
> > Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> > Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
> >
> > Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
> >

> > I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> > number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> > To be seen.
>

> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
> would permit this?

Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.

So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?

[1] 'Beeper Mini: Chat With iPhones'
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.beeper.ima>

[2] For some reason I couldn't find it in the Play Store app, but that
sometimes happens with somewhat ambiguous 'names'.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Like always you are brain dead idiot and fanboy:

There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:

1. The blue bubbles. 😂

2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
provider Apple.

You have no clue.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.

Do you feel better now?

[Andy Burns]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Tyrone wrote:
>
>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>> would permit this?
>
> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

<https://www.androidpolice.com/beeper-mini-outage-b/>

<https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-minis-access-after-launch-of-service-that-brought-imessage-to-android/>

> So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?

At a rough guess, Apple have initially blocked Beeper's IPs from their
firewall?

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>
> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>
> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>
> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> To be seen.

The app requires a *$1.99 monthly* subscription. Beeper Mini cofounder
Eric Migicovsky told Business Insider the fee is to show that it's a
trustworthy service and keeps it free of ads.

An idiot's business model. Grasping android users? Never ever!

[Frank Slootweg]

Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> > downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
>
> Do you feel better now?

Not really! I've a totally useless (for me) app on my phone, polluting
my Apps screen (well, the last page of it)! :-)

I think I'll keep it till the dust has settled down. (As I mentioned,
I couldn't care less about this app or iMessage in general. It's a
non-issue in the real world.)

[Carlos E. R.]

Yes, that is the point.

Maybe that's a point behind Apple decision to open up to RCS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.

>
> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.

Not going to happen.

Years ago there was lots of noise about WhatsApp not being secure.
People tried other apps. Me myself have Signal an Telegram also
installed. I mananged to exchange a few messages on T, none on S. I know
some people ditched W. In the end, everybody is using W, except some
security concerned people in their islands.

>
> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
> account.  Pity - hard to break such bonds.

Not at all. I don't have FB on the phone, many people don't have
accounts there. You got it wrong.

W is used by preference because everybody uses it.

>
>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>
> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
> garden means self contained and limiting.
>
> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.

You got the point wrong :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-09 15:37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
>>> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.
>>
>> You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
>> legal arrangements?
>
> Well, those legal arrangements are documented on their website
> (<https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/>) and if they want to change them,
> they'll have to inform their users. (IIRC, quite some time ago they were
> planning to change some privacy related aspect, but backed down when it
> came known in the press.)

And those changes could be against the EU regulations, and we let them know.

> Also note that the legal situation in the 'European Region' (which
> includes the UK) is much more strict than elsewhere.
>
> Bottom line is that there is a lot of FUD, urban legends, etc. about
> WhatsApp's alleged lack of privacy, but no facts, proof, etc..
>
> We (SWMBO and I) can only speak from experience. Two WhatsApp accounts
> for nearly eight years without any ill effect whatsoever. Our
> acquaintances (family, friends, etc.) have similar experience.

Yes, same here.

I don't even get commercials, which would be the only manner to monetize.

Sometimes there is talk to charge for this or that, but no more than
rumours.

Well, with the exception of the free backup on the Google Drive cloud.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-09 14:41, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04?AM EST, "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:

...

>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone
>>>>>> REALLY think Apple would permit this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>> "green with
>>>> envy".
>>>
>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>
>> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.
>
> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
> are quite specific about WhatsApp *not* sharing user data with Facebook.
>
> But of course some people revel on FUD, urban legends, etc., so this
> kind of misinformation will never cease.
>
> People actually *using* WhatsApp, know better.
>
>> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.
>>
>> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
>> account. Pity - hard to break such bonds.
>
> In Europe and probably also elsewhere where WhatsApp is popular, it's
> probably mostly the other way around. Many people already used WhatsApp
> before it was bought by Facebook and many people use WhatsApp without
> having a Facebook account.

That's true, we started before Meta bought W.

> FWIW, I've a WhatsApp 'account', but no Facebook account. [This space
> is intentionally left blank for the 'shadow Facdebook account' urban
> legend.]
>
>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>
>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want. A walled
>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>
> I think Carlos is referring to Apple (and others) needing to open up
> to interoperate with other (than iMessage) IM platforms to conform to
> upcoming EU regulation.

That too.

But I simply meant that those on iMessage here can only talk with the
21% of users that have an iPhone, the rest are on Android. We don't have
any envy as you claim :-)

Opening up to RCS gives them more people to talk to. Apple can chose:
lose to Meta or lose to Google :-D

>
>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>
> Good on you!

Of course :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

I know of some people (I'm thinking of an immigrant lady) who had an
iPhone for prestige, same as others would buy an expensive car. But she
used WhatsApp. The phone got stolen on her job, which is when I saw her
using a tablet as phone for a while. I don't know what she is using now,
I have not seen her since Covid. Well, I may have, but I did not ask :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

I guess those features could be kept by opening to RCS, which could
support them.

>
> These type of limitations are what iOS users don’t like when an Android
> user enters a group chat. If everyone used something like WhatsApp then
> this would be a moot point, but here in America we haven’t adopted third
> party messaging apps like the rest of the world. I have relatives overseas
> with iPhones who have turned off the iMessage function on their phone
> because they don’t use it.
>
> I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the iMessage
> world and why Apple is resisting. Ultimately it would work best for
> everyone if the systems were compatible, but Apple would then lose the one
> advantage they have which maintains their loyal user base.

Yep.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>
>> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
>
> Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
> much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
> like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
> the same functionality.

iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
not practically feasible between Android devices from different
manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
dependencies).

So while messaging with, eg, Signal, can be a full and valuable
experience, it is "islanded" within Signal's feature set.

> There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
>
> 1. The blue bubbles. :-D

Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
blue... mysterious).

> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> provider Apple.

Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.

So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.

> You are really expert at this.

True.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 10:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 01:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>
>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>
>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>>> To be seen.
>>>
>>> Why The Fuck are *Android-users* so keen to enter the Apple world in the
>>> first place?! Inferiority complex?
>>
>> It would be nice to have the functionality of iMessage on Android and
>> that's what this attempted.
>>
>> IAC, much (if not all) of this will be moot when Apple aligns with RCS
>> next year - although some iMessage features will remain exclusive to the
>> Apple eco-sphere.
>>
>>> *Ridiculous*!
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>

> Like always you are spot on right!

I know. As to other parts of your reply, see my other reply to you of a
minute or so ago.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 10:15, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
>> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
>
> Do you feel better now?

It bothers you that Mr. Slootweg is 100x smarter than you are, huh?

[Alan Browne]

No need.

I believe Apple can "interrogate" any device that registers with it (or
attempts to) and quickly determine if it is an Apple device.

So while the young chap (16 years old) who developed the core of Beeper
Mini was clever in figuring out how to get non-Apple devices to
"register" on Apple's servers, Apple took their time, figured out what
he was doing and added an extra layer of verification.

I'm surprised Apple didn't have such before. It's not a security
concern so much as a "who gets access to the candy" concern by virtue of
spending money on Apple devices.

[Alan Browne]

It also came with a free period so people could decide if it was of
value to them. $2/month is cheap ... if you get that much value from
it. If you don't, nobody is forcing you.

[Alan Browne]

It may be a non-issue in -your- world, but in the real world there are
Android users who would want this sort of ability.

[Alan Browne]

In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to. But you have to trust that that
is what is happening.

>
>>
>> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> Years ago there was lots of noise about WhatsApp not being secure.
> People tried other apps. Me myself have Signal an Telegram also
> installed. I mananged to exchange a few messages on T, none on S. I know
> some people ditched W. In the end, everybody is using W, except some
> security concerned people in their islands.

Historical inertia (eg: who gets there first and signs up the most users
wins - why the world at large is still so Windows oriented).

>>
>> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
>> account.  Pity - hard to break such bonds.
>
> Not at all. I don't have FB on the phone, many people don't have
> accounts there. You got it wrong.
>
> W is used by preference because everybody uses it.

And FB brought a large portion of them there - likely more than half
(see my other reply to Mr. Slootweg).

>
>>
>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be
>>> able to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>
>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>>
>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>
> You got the point wrong :-D

Not at all. Apple's system is not a walled garden. More like an
exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
of the club you want.

[Wally J]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> The point is that except for the US - and maybe NA - nobody cares
> about iMessage, because everyone - yes, *including* iPhone users - is
> using an IM platform which *is* cross-OS-platform. As Carlos said, for
> most that's WhatsApp.

At least default Android messaging apps don't need you to log into an
Internet server just to send short messages to people around the world.

While it's clear this "tyrone" is one of the iKooks and hence this thread
was an attempt to troll the Android users, not only are both Frank & Carlos
correct that most non-USA users have a cellular charging system such that
they use WhatsApp (or WeChat) for most of their short messaging needs...

But even in the USA, what iKooks don't realize is the iMessage servers are
not different in that way from any other Internet based messaging service.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.

BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the same reasons).

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.

--
BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the very same reasons).

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents

>> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.
>
> You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
> legal arrangements?

Hi Andy,

I doubt any of the iKooks even realize they are logging into iMessage
servers every day of their lives, just as WhatApp users do the same.

What's fundamentally different?

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.

BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the same reasons).

I see nothing fundamentally different between the two in terms of privacy.
Do you?

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> But I simply meant that those on iMessage here can only talk with the
> 21% of users that have an iPhone, the rest are on Android. We don't have
> any envy as you claim :-)

There is no fundamental difference between how iOS messages go through
Apple's iMessages servers than how WhatsApp messages go thru Meta's.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
> >>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
> >>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
> >>
> >> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
> >
> > Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
> > much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
> > like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
> > the same functionality.
>
> iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
> the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
> not practically feasible between Android devices from different
> manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
> as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
> dependencies).
>
> So while messaging with, eg, Signal, can be a full and valuable
> experience, it is "islanded" within Signal's feature set.

Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
platforms.

Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.

So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.

And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?

> > There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
> >
> > 1. The blue bubbles. :-D
>
> Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
> since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
> blue... mysterious).
>
> > 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> > provider Apple.
>
> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.

WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
"and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
that means threading (like is done in NetNews).

> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>
> > You are really expert at this.
>
> True.

I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
cannot do something.

Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
about it.

[Wally J]

Brian Gregory <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote

> I'm not an Apple fan but I don't think that's true.
>
> Based on the information available up to 2021, Android had a total of
> 574 vulnerabilities discovered in that year, which was a reduction from
> the 859 in 2020. However, 79% of these were characterized by low attack
> complexity. On the other hand, iOS had fewer vulnerabilities but tended
> to have more serious ones, including zero-days
>
> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/2021-mobile-security-android-more-vulnerabilities-ios-more-zero-days/>

For the past three years, iOS has been adding multiple zero-day holes per
month (none of which, by their very definition, has Apple ever found).

Apple had to be told (by Project Zero for example) that huge portions of
the iOS code couldn't possibly _ever_ have been tested.

We covered this in gory detail, by the way, with all the references, so
it's interesting that the iKooks are completely unaware of the horrid QA at
Apple which even Craig Federighi's internal letters show is his own words.

All of this we've covered.
You're just ignorant of the facts.

For example...

The fact that iOS has ten times the active exploits is due to the way that
iOS is released (as a primitive monolith although it got better in iOS 16).

Proof here.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

You being completely ignorant of these facts (all of which we've discussed
on this very newsgroup) doesn't make these facts go away, Brian.

They're still facts whether or not you're completely ignorant of them.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 10:38, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> >>> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
> >>
> >> Do you feel better now?
> >
> > Not really! I've a totally useless (for me) app on my phone, polluting
> > my Apps screen (well, the last page of it)! :-)
> >
> > I think I'll keep it till the dust has settled down. (As I mentioned,
> > I couldn't care less about this app or iMessage in general. It's a
> > non-issue in the real world.)
>
> It may be a non-issue in -your- world, but in the real world there are
> Android users who would want this sort of ability.

As I've indicated before- and others have also mentioned - in this
case "the real world" is somewhat sarcastic wording for "anywhere
*except* the US (and possibly NA)".

For 'the real world', this whole issue is as silly as having vendor
specific *and* exclusive, e-mail, web, NetNews, telephony, surface mail,
you name it.

Yes, it's a pity that there isn't one formal (de jure) IM standard
(yet). But the de facto one is surely better than clinging to a vendor
exclusive implementation which cannot communicate with the vast majority
of the rest of the world.

It's fine to stay in your iMessage bubble, as long as you realize that
it *is* a bubble.

[Wally J]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote

> These type of limitations are what iOS users don't like

Hi badgolferman,

...To that very point...

I communicate with Apple users all the time & I see no problems on my side.

It's only the Apple users who are vehemently complaining.
Not Android users.

> I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the iMessage
> world and why Apple is resisting.

I don't think that's a correct statement.

It's not the Android users complaining.
It's the Apple users who complain.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Why would I want to pay £2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,
>> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?
>
> What walled garden? Apple devices roam wherever they like. No walls.
>
> OTOH, they have a superb eco-system between Apple devices that excludes
> non Apple systems. iMessage service is one of them.

Alan Browne is wrong. Dead wrong. He doesn't know how iOS works.
He's never tried _not logging into the walled garden_ for example.

I have.

It is rather telling that this Apple iKook has absolutely no idea he's
logging into _many_ different Apple servers every day of his entire life.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple

Where if you don't log in constantly, Apple _bricks_ the walled garden!
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dHQQFfk/locked-02.jpg> Password was always good

For example, here's the prompt when you don't log in daily to iMessages.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage walled garden

And, as another example, here's the prompt if you don't log into iCloud.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud walled garden

Worse... if you _refuse_ to log into the walled garden, Apple bricks the
device in terms of making everything inside the walled garden lock up.
<https://i.postimg.cc/vTdfLY2f/locked-03.jpg> Apple wants a gov license!!!

And the only way to unbrick your own device, is to lose all your privacy
because Apple requires you to present a government ID in person to get your
own iPad back from them if you don't log into Apple servers every day of
your life for the rest of your life.

Ask me how I know this...
--
(Hint: Those are my screenshots from last month).

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

>> An idiot's business model. Grasping android users? Never ever!
>
> It also came with a free period so people could decide if it was of
> value to them. $2/month is cheap ... if you get that much value from
> it. If you don't, nobody is forcing you.

I tried it last night before Apple broke it (and I reported on that too).
<https://i.postimg.cc/GmnXTgxp/beeperapp.jpg>

It doesn't work the way you think it does...

[Wally J]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
> example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
> platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
> Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
>
> So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.

It's no longer shocking how ignorant iKooks like Alan Browne are.

For example, PulseSMS does it all also.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.
>
> In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to.
> But you have to trust that that is what is happening.

The iKooks don't realize that they're both exactly the same process.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

> iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
> the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
> not practically feasible between Android devices from different
> manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
> as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
> dependencies).

The iKooks are completely unaware iCloud & iMessages are different logins!
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> This is the iCloud login
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> This is the iMessage login

[Wally J]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>> would permit this?
>

> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

Frank,
I provided the references last night.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

> It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
> functionality of iMessage.

[Alan Browne]

Where iMessage (the service and/or the app) provides extensions related
to various Apple devices, 3rd party extensions and so on.

>>> There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
>>>
>>> 1. The blue bubbles. :-D
>>
>> Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
>> since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
>> blue... mysterious).
>>
>>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
>>> provider Apple.
>>
>> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
>> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
>> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
>> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
>
> WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> that means threading (like is done in NetNews).
>
>> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>>
>>> You are really expert at this.
>>
>> True.
>
> I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> cannot do something.

Oh - of course I know they do all sorts of useful things. Indeed I was
on a Facetime meeting yesterday and missed some functionality of MS
Teams. (or Zoom for that matter).

Where it all falls apart for such is how one would do deep integration
as Apple does when one has a Windows machine at work, a Linux machine at
home, and Android in their pocket... you can integrate, there is nothing
technical barring it ... but doing such across the span of many devices,
OS's, manufacturers (all pining to lock in customers to their products)
is not likely to be "seamless" or easy to maintain.

> Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> about it.

Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
that.

[Wally J]

John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> wrote

>> But I'm looking for what the "value equation" is, as I don't get it
>> yet.
>
> I have to break it to you, but there are lots and lots of people who care
> mostly about what other people think of them, and measure that by
> superficialities like fashion, or blue bubbles.

I don't disagree, but why is it always the Apple users who are complaining
about the color of bubbles and not the Android users?

For example, I communicate with iPhone owners all the time, and I have no
problems communicating with them. I don't care what color my chats are.

In fact, I can set the color of my SMS/MMS chats to any number of colors.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

It's surprising the Apple owners can't do something that simple to do.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

> Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
> missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
> Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
> lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
> that.

The Android owners aren't the ones complaining, Alan Browne.

We can set the colors of each and every chat to whatever colors we want to.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

We simply don't care what color our "bubbles" show up as.
Only Apple owners care about that.

Which is why you complain so much how bad it is for you on iOS, Alan.

[Carlos E. R.]

The goal of Meta is profit, obviously. If they sniff messages, that
would be noticed when trying to monetize it somehow.

>>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be
>>>> able to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>>
>>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
>>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>>>
>>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>>
>> You got the point wrong :-D
>
> Not at all.  Apple's system is not a walled garden.  More like an
> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
> of the club you want.

The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users
have to get out or their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of
which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-09 19:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:

...

>>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
>>> provider Apple.
>>
>> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
>> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
>> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
>> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
>
> WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> that means threading (like is done in NetNews).

I think I saw a reply to poster thing in WA.

>
>> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>>
>>> You are really expert at this.
>>
>> True.
>
> I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> cannot do something.
>
> Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> about it.

Right :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

[...]

> > Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
> > platforms.
> >
> > Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
> > example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
> > platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
> > Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
> >
> > So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.
> >
> > And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
> > supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
> > on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?
>
> Where iMessage (the service and/or the app) provides extensions related
> to various Apple devices, 3rd party extensions and so on.

Can you eloborate on that? What kind of extensions? What kind of extra
functionality do they offer, which is not or not likely to be available
on other IM platforms?

[...]

> > I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> > implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> > cannot do something.
>
> Oh - of course I know they do all sorts of useful things. Indeed I was
> on a Facetime meeting yesterday and missed some functionality of MS
> Teams. (or Zoom for that matter).
>
> Where it all falls apart for such is how one would do deep integration
> as Apple does when one has a Windows machine at work, a Linux machine at
> home, and Android in their pocket... you can integrate, there is nothing
> technical barring it ... but doing such across the span of many devices,
> OS's, manufacturers (all pining to lock in customers to their products)
> is not likely to be "seamless" or easy to maintain.

Yes, I fully understand that and why you appreciate the "deep
integration", "seamless", etc.. But hopefully you realize that also
comes at a price / with limits, as this iMessage versus other IM
platforms example shows. Yes, you can step outside the "ecosystem", but
while you're in the ecosystem, there are limits, which people outside
the ecosystem do not have. Bbut they do have other costs/limits. Nothing
is perfect, nothing is 'better' ('Frank's law' at work) and all that
jazz.

> > Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> > things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> > that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> > about it.
>
> Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
> missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
> Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
> lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
> that.

I've a loved one who keeps me on the straight and narrow and vice
versa. That helps both me and hir! But (s)he *does* use WhatsApp,
after all, we both live in 'the real world'! :-)

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

>> Not at all.  Apple's system is not a walled garden.  More like an
>> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
>> of the club you want.
>
> The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users

> have to get out of their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of

> which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.

Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).

But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 19:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> >>> provider Apple.
> >>
> >> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
> >> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
> >> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
> >> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
> >
> > WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> > "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> > that means threading (like is done in NetNews).
>
> I think I saw a reply to poster thing in WA.

Yes, you can address a particular user in a group with "@<user>", but
it is not threaded, i.e. your message is just at the bottom of the
screen, not somewhere in the middle where <user>'s message is.

[...]

[Carlos E. R.]

That is not so.

Android users have to communicate with iPhone users using third party
tools, like WhatsApp, thats not popular in the USA, or ancient protocols
like SMS, which lack features. Or use MMS, which in many countries it is
expensive, or is being phased out.

So yes, we do have problems and we do complain.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

iPhone users don't have to leave the club at all. The world outside the
club is accessible from inside the club. It's the inside of the club
that is not accessible from the outside.
This is also why it is not a "walled garden" - by the way.

[Carlos E. R.]

A message in the middle would be missed.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 14:56, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> [...]
>>> Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
>>> example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
>>> platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
>>> Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
>>>
>>> So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.
>>>
>>> And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
>>> supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
>>> on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?
>>
>> Where iMessage (the service and/or the app) provides extensions related
>> to various Apple devices, 3rd party extensions and so on.
>
> Can you eloborate on that? What kind of extensions? What kind of extra
> functionality do they offer, which is not or not likely to be available
> on other IM platforms?

Payments, use the camera from messages, location, Dropbox integration,
etc. "Check-in" to auto-message someone when you've arrived at a planned
destination, graphical messages (time-oriented playback of how you gen'd
the message), maps ... etc. too many to list.

>
> [...]
>
>>> I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
>>> implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
>>> cannot do something.
>>
>> Oh - of course I know they do all sorts of useful things. Indeed I was
>> on a Facetime meeting yesterday and missed some functionality of MS
>> Teams. (or Zoom for that matter).
>>
>> Where it all falls apart for such is how one would do deep integration
>> as Apple does when one has a Windows machine at work, a Linux machine at
>> home, and Android in their pocket... you can integrate, there is nothing
>> technical barring it ... but doing such across the span of many devices,
>> OS's, manufacturers (all pining to lock in customers to their products)
>> is not likely to be "seamless" or easy to maintain.
>
> Yes, I fully understand that and why you appreciate the "deep
> integration", "seamless", etc.. But hopefully you realize that also
> comes at a price / with limits, as this iMessage versus other IM
> platforms example shows. Yes, you can step outside the "ecosystem", but
> while you're in the ecosystem, there are limits, which people outside
> the ecosystem do not have. Bbut they do have other costs/limits. Nothing
> is perfect, nothing is 'better' ('Frank's law' at work) and all that
> jazz.

That "price/limits" doesn't (hasn't affected me at all...). People
outside the eco-system can certainly get data to me via various means
and v-v.

>
>>> Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
>>> things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
>>> that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
>>> about it.
>>
>> Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
>> missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
>> Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
>> lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
>> that.
>
> I've a loved one who keeps me on the straight and narrow and vice
> versa. That helps both me and hir! But (s)he *does* use WhatsApp,
> after all, we both live in 'the real world'! :-)

[Alan]

On 2023-12-09 11:13, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote
>

>>> Why would I want to pay Ł2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,

>>> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?
>>
>> What walled garden? Apple devices roam wherever they like. No walls.
>>
>> OTOH, they have a superb eco-system between Apple devices that excludes
>> non Apple systems. iMessage service is one of them.
>
> Alan Browne is wrong. Dead wrong. He doesn't know how iOS works.
> He's never tried _not logging into the walled garden_ for example.
>
> I have.
>
> It is rather telling that this Apple iKook has absolutely no idea he's
> logging into _many_ different Apple servers every day of his entire life.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple

Showing an image of your AppleID being locked doesn't provide any
evidence that it was locked because you didn't log in.

>
> Where if you don't log in constantly, Apple _bricks_ the walled garden!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/4dHQQFfk/locked-02.jpg> Password was always good

Supra

>
> For example, here's the prompt when you don't log in daily to iMessages.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage walled garden

To use any messaging app, you need an ID. Otherwise, how can the
app/service direct messages to you?

>
> And, as another example, here's the prompt if you don't log into iCloud.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud walled garden

So don't log in. It's not a requirement.

>
> Worse... if you _refuse_ to log into the walled garden, Apple bricks the
> device in terms of making everything inside the walled garden lock up.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/vTdfLY2f/locked-03.jpg> Apple wants a gov license!!!

Your images don't support your assertion.

>
> And the only way to unbrick your own device, is to lose all your privacy
> because Apple requires you to present a government ID in person to get your
> own iPad back from them if you don't log into Apple servers every day of
> your life for the rest of your life.
>
> Ask me how I know this...

Based on previous history, I assume you're not telling the entire story.

[Alan Browne]

MMS has no additional cost here but may contribute to the user's monthly
bandwidth plan limit.

[Alan Browne]

On iPhone if someone "replies" to an older message, then the original
message is replayed in grey/smaller font, and the reply goes below it.
Little "hook" graphic linking them

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 16:51, Alan wrote:

>
> Based on previous history, I assume you're not telling the entire story.

It also (being a troll) added the Mac group to the thread. Pls prune
those when you reply if you must feed it.

[Your Name]

On 2023-12-09 15:19:52 +0000, Andy Burns said:

> Frank Slootweg wrote:

>
>> Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>>> would permit this?
>>

>> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
>> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)
>

> <https://www.androidpolice.com/beeper-mini-outage-b/>
>
> <https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-minis-access-after-launch-of-service-that-brought-imessage-to-android/>
>
>
>> So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?
>
> At a rough guess, Apple have initially blocked Beeper's IPs from their
> firewall?

The Beeper Mini developer is already working on a fix:

Beeper Mini developers say fix is 'coming soon'
for iMessage Android app

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/09/beeper-mini-developers-say-fix-is-coming-soon-for-imessage-android-app>



But as that articles says ...

"If Beeper Mini is fixed to work once more, it may face a
similar issue in the not-so-distant future. With Apple
keen to keep iMessage to only its own ecosystem of
devices, this may result in a security arms race between
the trillion-dollar iPhone maker and developers wanting
iMessage to work with Android."

so it may not work for long before being blocked again. Continually
being blocked would mean it's not really a viable solution to anything
at all, whether that's Android user's "blue bubble phobia" or "lack of
features".

[Carlos E. R.]

Yes, WhatsApp does some something similar. You have to
tap-and-slide-right on the old message; it generates a tiny partial copy
of the old message linked to an edit box to type the new reply. If
recipient taps on the old link, the application automatically shows that
message in context. Can be a message, video, photo, map, document...
whatever.

I have heard of whatsapp supporting payments, but not ready yet; anytime
soon. Automatic message on arrival, no, but I have heard of the feature
on some app, I don't remember which. Maps, yes, we can send a location
with a tiny map that opens on tap. Or, we can send a map with the real
time location for a predefined number of hours. Send a document. Oh, new
one I just see: send a survey. No idea about this one.

I guess any feature can be replicated, it is just a question to design
it (just tell the engineers to do it), and assign the resources to it
(machines and money, I'd guess). And of course, estimate if it is going
to be worth it, revenue vs cost.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

>> Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
>> most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
>> anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).
>>
>> But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
>> iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.
>
> That is not so.
>
> Android users have to communicate with iPhone users using third party
> tools, like WhatsApp, thats not popular in the USA, or ancient protocols
> like SMS, which lack features. Or use MMS, which in many countries it is
> expensive, or is being phased out.
>
> So yes, we do have problems and we do complain.

Hi Carlos,

I think I understood you but I don't think you understood me yet.
Maybe I am wrong though - so here's my always sensible logical path...

Look at it logically.
You complain about messaging, right? I don't. Right?
What's the difference?

*We're both on Android, right?*

I have absolutely zero issues communicating with iOS users.
You do.

*So the problem isn't Android.*

The problem (as I understand it) is you have to pay for MMS and I don't.

*But that has _nothing_ to do with Android.*

Nobody on Android is complaining because of Android.
You are complaining about the way you're billed for MMS.

That's different.
--
*Why are only some people having trouble with carrier messaging?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/6gFYKyubHy4>

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

>>> But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
>>> iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.
>>
>> That is not so.
>>
>> Android users have to communicate with iPhone users using third party
>> tools, like WhatsApp, thats not popular in the USA, or ancient protocols
>> like SMS, which lack features. Or use MMS, which in many countries it is
>> expensive, or is being phased out.
>
> MMS has no additional cost here but may contribute to the user's monthly
> bandwidth plan limit.

I have no problems using carrier messaging even as many of my own family
members are on iOS. Yet others need messaging to be improved. Why?

What's the fundamental problem?

1. I am aware that due to the fee structure in many places in Europe,
WhatsApp & RCS is useful to circumvent imposed carrier costs.

But that, in and of itself, has _nothing_ per se to do with Android.

2. I am also aware that iOS users see colored bubbles, which, for some
rather strange reason, seems to bother them - but they're iOS users.

What's the problem on Android that needs to be solved in messaging?

There are two ways to look at that question, which are fundamental:
A. What's the problem when Android users interact with Android users?
B. What's the problem when Android users interact with iOS users?

If there's a problem, why don't I experience it interacting with both?

[Larry Wolff]

On this Sat, 9 Dec 2023 16:25:00 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> This is also why it is not a "walled garden" - by the way.

You are possibly the only person in the world who would say such a thing.
That alone should make you think why you think what nobody else would.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 00:21:45 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> I guess any feature can be replicated, it is just a question to design
> it (just tell the engineers to do it), and assign the resources to it
> (machines and money, I'd guess). And of course, estimate if it is going
> to be worth it, revenue vs cost.

Apple designs the walled garden on purpose, so it's not that simple.
Apple designs it to exclude people from outside the Apple community.

[Andrew]

Your Name wrote on Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:50:20 +1300 :

> so it may not work for long before being blocked again.

The last thing Apple wants is iOS to communicate effectively with Android.

[Your Name]

Apple doesn't really give a damn about Android.

The last thing *any* company wants is for some scum to be making money
off of them by stealing, not to mention breaking the terms and
conditions of any services that person has signed up for. If the fool
continues to fix Beeper Mini, Apple will no doubt bring out the lawyers
to sue them out of existence.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Based on previous history, I assume you're not telling the entire story.

I have Alan Baker & Snit blocked, so I didn't see this until Alan Browne's
post, which shows how deathly afraid these iKooks are of the basic facts.

They deny all facts about Apple simply because they don't like the facts.
No other reason.

They just don't like the facts.

I had never logged out.
And yet, Apple _constantly requires_ you to log into the walled garden.

That's just a fact.
It's a fact the iKooks hate.

But it's still a fact even as the iKooks hate all facts about Apple.

The simple assessment of that fact is that nothing in the walled garden
works for long if you don't constantly, repetitively & incessantly log into
the Apple walled-garden mothership tracking servers. That's just a fact.

These are facts which occurred when I upgraded to iOS 16.7.2 on my iPad.
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fPjQpr3/nag01.jpg> 3 iOS nag items
<https://i.postimg.cc/wxwgN0Fg/nag02.jpg> 2 iOS nag items
<https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> 1 iOS nag item (permanent)

Bear in mind, I never logged out.

No other operating system is built with that mothership tracking required.
Yet, the iKooks are oblivious of the very fact that they're logging in!

So what do the iKooks do?
a. Do they test the statements by NOT logging into Apple servers?
b. Do they even _understand_ how to test the factual statemenets above?
c. Or, do all iKooks brazenly deny every fact about Apple they don't like

FACTS (bearing in mind I never logged out!):

<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple

<https://i.postimg.cc/4dHQQFfk/locked-02.jpg> Password was always good

<https://i.postimg.cc/vTdfLY2f/locked-03.jpg> Apple wants a gov license!!!

<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> Then, iCloud works again
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> Then, Messages works again
--
There's a reason it's called the walled garden.

[Alan]

On 2023-12-09 20:59, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote
>
>>> Based on previous history, I assume you're not telling the entire story.
>
> I have Alan Baker & Snit blocked, so I didn't see this until Alan Browne's
> post, which shows how deathly afraid these iKooks are of the basic facts.
>
> They deny all facts about Apple simply because they don't like the facts.
> No other reason.
>
> They just don't like the facts.
>
> I had never logged out.
> And yet, Apple _constantly requires_ you to log into the walled garden.
>
> That's just a fact.

That's just an ASSERTION.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 21:05, Wally J wrote:
> Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
> most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
> anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).

Bullshit. In the US more than 50% of the installed base are iPhones.
Hence the discussion here which in most other regions of the world are
absolutely irrelevant.

> But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
> iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.

Even more bullshit. Apple devices have their own software and systems.
Android not. That is the reason why Google tries to spread such an
inferior chat tool like RCS. The American market is the driving force
idiot. And stop try to spread FUD and lies.

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

[Jörg Lorenz]

I think this is a fair statement. iPhone users do not complain.

[Jörg Lorenz]

In advanced markets MMS does not exist anymore.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Fair statement.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 09.12.23 20:27, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote
>

>> It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
>> functionality of iMessage.
>
> *iMessage === WhatsApp*
> (works the same)

Your technical understanding is very limited.
These are two completely different protocols iMsg being far superior in
terms of security and especially privacy.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-10 05:24, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

...

> What's the problem on Android that needs to be solved in messaging?
>
> There are two ways to look at that question, which are fundamental:
> A. What's the problem when Android users interact with Android users?
> B. What's the problem when Android users interact with iOS users?

For me, no photos or any multimedia content, just plain text, unless
they use WhatsApp.

>
> If there's a problem, why don't I experience it interacting with both?

You have free MMS. I don't.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

Yes, they do, when they want to communicate with Android users and can
not send photos or multimedia, unless they ditch iMessages and switch to
WhatsApp.

It is the same issue in both directions.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-10 10:37, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 21:05, Wally J wrote:
>> Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
>> most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
>> anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).
>
> Bullshit. In the US more than 50% of the installed base are iPhones.
> Hence the discussion here which in most other regions of the world are
> absolutely irrelevant.

It is relevant for me, who don't live in the USA.

>
>> But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
>> iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.
>
> Even more bullshit. Apple devices have their own software and systems.
> Android not. That is the reason why Google tries to spread such an
> inferior chat tool like RCS. The American market is the driving force
> idiot. And stop try to spread FUD and lies.

Bullshit. :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-12-09 23:42, Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 00:21:45 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> I guess any feature can be replicated, it is just a question to design
>> it (just tell the engineers to do it), and assign the resources to it
>> (machines and money, I'd guess). And of course, estimate if it is
>> going to be worth it, revenue vs cost.
>
> Apple designs the walled garden on purpose, so it's not that simple.

It's not a walled garden at all.

> Apple designs it to exclude people from outside the Apple community.

Exactly. It's more of a country club - not a walled garden. Like in "a
real world" country club, club members get the full value of the outside
world plus the perqs inside the country club fence that are denied to
non members.

To gain access to the club, simply purchase Apple devices.

[Alan Browne]

iOS already communicates effectively with Android:

-phone (cell network)
-e-mail
-SMS
-MMS
-AirTag detection (malicious intent prevention).

and next year
-RCS

[Alan Browne]

You mean in overpriced telecoms markets like Europe. MMS is still very
relevant when out of WiFi range and using the cellco for basic chat with
images and video and not using a 3rd party app.

[Alan Browne]

Eh? I send/receive photos and videos to/from people with Android phones
all the time - using basic message service (cell phone). Of course such
is covered in data plans here as part of overall "data" so there are no
ridiculous charges as one may see in Europe and elsewhere.

[badgolferman]

Wally J wrote:

>> I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the
>>iMessage world and why Apple is resisting.
>
>I don't think that's a correct statement.
>
> It's not the Android users complaining.
> It's the Apple users who complain.


Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't hear iOS users wanting Apple to open up iMessage so Android
users can be integrated into their conversations. I hear Android users
creating all sort of apps and workarounds to integrate into iMessage.
Isn't that what this thread and several others we've had are all about?