I don't want a different platform that functions similarly to SMS/MMS that I have to convince people to use, I want a replacement platform that transparently functions the same way but better. That solution is RCS, even with its flaws and lack of support from Apple.
Google certainly has a bunch of extensions in IMAP.
I'm not sure about the messages themselves, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google has extra metadata and supports features that only work within the world of GMail and gracefully degrade in other clients—but, unlike IMAP, I haven't worked with that directly, so I'm not confident either way.
(Concrete example: GMail has additional integration with Google Calendar just like Outlook has integration with Outlook's calendar, but I'm not sure how that manifests at the protocol level.)
> I want a replacement platform that transparently functions the same way but better.
We have that. It is called iMessage. It replaces SMS, has all the added features, and transparently "just works." You just need to upgrade your phone to one that has it.
Google should be asking Apple to release iMessage for Android, not this silly "green bubble" campaign.
> I don't want a different platform that functions similarly to SMS/MMS that I have to convince people to use, I want a replacement platform that transparently functions the same way but better. That solution is RCS…
Sorry to break it to you, but at least some people consider RCS to be DOA in that respect.
"Text messaging used to be a cash cow for carriers, but with the advent of unlimited texting and the commoditization of carrier messaging, there's no clear revenue motivation for carriers to release RCS. The result is that the RCS rollout has amounted to nothing but false promises and delays. The carriers nixed a joint venture called the 'Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative'¹ in April, pretty much killing any hopes that RCS will ever hit SMS-like ubiquity."²
For the record, the vast majority of Androids lifecycle, Google has also not supported RCS. This is a recent uptake, after they shut down their 8th failed messaging platform.
The "RCS" that Google implements does not follow the standards that have been around decades.
The interopability and push for RCS is a marketing exercise.
In the US, I fully expect the whole "green bubble" thing to escalate into something tragic for some high school students. I didn't think much of it until I saw the bullying and dropping of people because they wanted "their blue back". If you don't get your teenager an iPhone in the US then your kid is going to face some added difficulties.
Kids will always find a reason to bully others. Conspicuous consumption is not a solution to teaching kids about respect. Corporate marketers are eager to exploit insecurity by presenting their product as the solution to your problems, or even create a problem to create demand for their “solution.”
>If you don't get your teenager an iPhone in the US then your kid is going to face some added difficulties.
If you don't get your teenager Nikes/Birkenstocks then your kid is going to face some added difficulties. Kids will bully kids for not having iPhones regardless; blue texts wont change that.
> If you don't get your teenager an iPhone in the US then your kid is going to face some added difficulties.
FWIW, I personally don't think this ranks as something today's kids worry about. My sample size is just two, but both are on a bunch of text chains with peers. All chains are a mix of Android and iOS users, and they tell me that nobody cares.
Shout-out to Conversations (conversations.im) for their amazing Android XMPP client. Server-side (Prosody) I still experienced plenty of headaches with multi-user chat and push notifications. And the Apple alternative, Monal (monal.im), while functional, is not on par--I've had trouble with the macOS client, and an iPhone friend lost push notifications for a few months for no identifiable reason. But Conversations is amazing, making all the other hassles of self-hosting group chat tolerable.
Somebody make an SMS answering machine that just replies to texts with "Hello, this is an automated reply! I don't use SMS for text messages; please download WhatsApp in order to message me."
70M WhatsApp users signed up for Telegram and 32M for Signal when Meta tried to ram new TOS allowing Facebook access to WhatsApp user data, and that’s why they backed down.
That scummy company forfeited the benefit of doubt a long time ago.
> That's why it's finally time to push for your iOS-based friends and family to abandon their blue bubble group chats and move to a third-party chat platform.
That's what most people do outside of the US. In Mexico for example everyone is on Whatsapp. Even iPhone users don't use Messages.
It's pretty amazing users in the US still rely on SMS to communicate between iOS and Android.
It's absolutely frustrating how Apple is refusing to even come to the table on this. RCS is an unmitigated piece of shit, but Apple won't even propose an alternative.
And yes, the burden is on Apple here. They have the lock-in.
Why would they? In the US at least, there is pressure at a social level to have an iPhone. My friend group clowns me on a regular basis for having an android and my green bubbles. What other business has that kind of pressure on anyone, especially teens and young adults?
Sounds like a shit friend group tbqh. I have never had it be a point of contention with anyone I know. Anyone who actually cared about this green bubble, which I'm just finding out is a thing in this thread, would make a swift exit from my life. It's beyond stupid and petty, bordering on absurd and childish.
> Anyone who actually cared about this green bubble, which I'm just finding out is a thing in this thread, would make a swift exit from my life
except: it's not irrational as you might expect. seriously!
green bubble means that your single android friend has just downgraded your fun, interactive group (or solo) chat (with tapbacks, effects, group features, rich content integration, and cross device syncing) into some weird, featureless set of messages
the only solution you have, as an android user, is to convince your friends to use a cross platform chat. I personally try to get people to use Signal.
the simple reality is that the default messaging story on android is a hot mess, and apple has done a vastly superior job at the feature set and integration. and, having an android user "drag us down" naturally leads to denegration
Rest assured you still seem ridiculous to me. You choose to use an exclusionary and proprietary messaging protocol, and then ostracize people who prefer not to spend an absurd amount of money on a phone. Your gripes are absurd and self inflicted.
Why? It's completely rational to be annoyed that one person is dragging everyone's experience down - even it's not really that person's fault.
> You choose to use an exclusionary and proprietary messaging protocol
First of all, it's not really a choice. You text your friend with the built in messaging app and it immediately just "works". There is no setup. Is this anti-trusty? IANAL.
And, per my previous post: "the only solution you have, as an android user, is to convince your friends to use a cross platform chat. I personally try to get people to use Signal."
> ostracize people who prefer not to spend an absurd amount of money on a phone.
iPhones start at around $430, which is about what a mid tier Android phone costs. And, that base iPhone includes top tier hardware that can hold its own against some of the most expensive Android phones.
You can buy an iPhone and expect it to receive OS patches for 5 years - and 8 year old phones are still receiving security patches from Apple. Nothing running Android comes close, except for maybe Google's own phones.
That comes out to about $20 a month on their two year payment plan, which includes damage repair - considering how long iphones last and receive support compared to android devices, it's a good value.
If spending money on a device is a concern, Apple actually offers some extremely good value.
> Your gripes are absurd
As I said before, the gripes are reasonable, especially to people who text heavily. Is this Apple's fault? Sure, but it's understandable why some iPhone users get annoyed when an Android user downgrades the quality of service - even if it's not entirely fair.
By the way, you seem to think I'm pro-lock-in or pro-apple. Which really couldn't be further from the truth. By the way, I have run into a lot of android users take some sort of pride in not using the "trendy fruit company" devices - which is also foolish. So I really think people need to step back from trying to feel superior and instead focus on how to ensure everyone has secure and private E2EE messaging
That seems extreme for what amounts to playful banter, but it doesn't matter either way. My point was that Apple has a huge advantage in that people look down on the competition, so why would they even consider working to close the gap?
I'm sure Apple is more than happy with the situation, which is quite shameful to be honest. They seem to want to project an image of being a progressive idealistic company but at the same time they enable this kind of tribalistic bullying.
I agree, they should just implement the standard, for the multimedia and group chat features. I expect 100% they will keep the green bubbles though - I don’t blame them; knowing at a glance which messages my telco can and can’t read is a useful thing.
Yes. As does iMessage. To my knowledge neither proprietary backend is open, but I would love to be proven wrong :)
From a cursory search the best reference I could find was google’s whitepaper[1]:
> In order to store and exchange user public keys like identity keys and prekeys, we need to have a central key server. Unlike the RCS messaging servers, the key server is currently only hosted by Google
Same in Italy, here Android has 80% market share IIRC, so almost everyone use whatsapp or telegram or both, even iPhone users. SMS are still paid but basically dead.
That's what I'm thinking about. They don't want to text people so they move to a Meta-owned service. I feel like we should all use Signal at that point.
Signal is still a walled garden. Officially you're not even allowed to use a third party client on it. Better to have something both open source and open network (and even decentralized) like Matrix.
It's also got a phone number matchmaking service for those who want it I believe, but for me it's a plus that it doesn't use the phone number as ID so you don't automatically have to share your number with everyone you chat with.
Indeed, he was the most opposed to third-party clients and federation. I do also hope they will change their stance on these points, it would make Signal a lot more attractive to me.
> Better to have something both open source and open network like Matrix
I love Matrix, but non-technical people don't care about these points (I do, though). Matrix needs to have a better official client than Element at its current state before I think it's even worth looking at becoming mainstream.
(I run a Matrix homeserver for myself with literally all of my chat communications going through it)
Edit: my comment sounds super defeatist, I want to clarify that my hope is that Matrix can become something I can recommend to anyone
Yeah, I really like the new layout of Element on iOS. On desktop I use gomuks and love the crap out of it.
You know, I probably should get more involved with sharing my feedback or contributing to the codebase where I can so the devs have another data point.
Hmm, I actually liked group chats and 1:1 chats being in different tabs even on mobile (though I use the web view much more often). It makes it much easier to find people chats which I find much more important in general. Indeed they sometimes end up in the wrong place but I use the tagmanager to fix it. It would be nice if you could keep an option to switch this back on.
One of the features that does cause confusion for me though is Spaces. Some of my bridges (the whatsapp one in particular) took it upon themselves to put their messages in a separate space, which always has me hunting around for messages, I prefer having all my chats in the same place regardless of what bridge it came from. That was my #1 reason to use Matrix: To have everything in one place. I keep deleting the Whatsapp space but the bridge puts it back. It's a nice idea but only if I can set it up the way I want to.
Anyway I will see where you go with this, at least Matrix is a fully open ecosystem where I can always use the client I wish. Still looking for a nice high-density IRC-like desktop client too (the Xchat mode is nice but my main issue is with the chat list that is not compact enough, and it doesn't fix that). But anyway I'll find something. I know it's difficult to please everyone and it is probably a good idea to target the mainstream like you're doing.
I think Matrix is pretty great, I run all my comms through it too, with bridges (using the big Ansible playbook which is indeed not for everyone).
It's not ideal (I'd love a more high-density view for the channel list in particular, the "xchat" view only makes the chats more high-density). But I'm certainly an outlier, most mainstream users would be happy with it as it is.
The one thing that could be improved IMO is the encryption process which is clumsy. Many times I log in a new client and it keeps prompting me to add it even though I've already entered the backup key. The process of granting one client through another has never worked for me.
I completely agree. Even though it reduces security/privacy, the fact that Signal doesn't make the user think about having to deal with managing keys I think is a very user-friendly feature. iMessage does this as well for its encryption.
> The process of granting one client through another has never worked for me
I pretty much only use my security key when logging into a new client, because I have also found that process can be unreliable.
Android doesn't even have built-in SIP support any more. Asking Google for a fun, geeky, open protocol to be baked into their OS is a bit of stretch at this point.
Yes and no. Hosted servers for normal people, tacked onto another charge they already pay, thereby making it way easier to get people to pay? Great idea. Getting locked into one carrier indefintely, like with ISP-hosted email? Less great.
It's frustrating juggling 5-6 different apps to do basically the same thing. It's effectively impossible for separate social circles to all agree on the same app, and the lack of interoperability means you're stuck. The preferred apps don't even align by the types of people that use it -- that is, I don't have a 'family' app, 'friends' app, and 'personal business' app because they all overlap.
You can sideload on an iphone for a mere $8.33 a month purchase of a developer profile. This myth needs to end.
Yes, there's some friction- you do have to compile the project first- but seriously clone-compile-install can be done in two shell commands. You can even run a coveted JIT compiler and install non-safari browser.[0]
> You can sideload on an iphone for a mere $8.33 a month
What a take. Pay us every month to be able to own your device. We’ll take it back if you stop paying. At not even a small payment, that’s over twice what I pay for my, admittedly very cheap, contract.
You do own the device. You can jailbreak and install whatever you want.
The payment grants you software access to system calls that are blocked by apps installed from the AppStore and has nothing to do with the underlying hardware.
You're technically correct, and I have actually installed things like AltStore on my iPad in the past.
However, I suspect those things exist moreso because Apple would find it too onerous to destroy them. In fact, the JIT compiler thing requires having an active debugger connection from another machine. But they could and would change if they were pressured to: say, by Epic Games deciding to release a Fortnite IPA for sideloading via AltStore. They would absolutely either end free dev certs or ban people who provision other people's code.
"No sideloading" is policy, not capability. If Apple feels like their policy is being violated, they will shrink capability to match.
I have several messaging clients installed, by virtue of working and having friends all over the world. Since I use many of them regularly in many places, it has allowed me to come to a few conclusions based on my experience.
First, anything that requires a telco to be actively involved in service delivery beyond being a dumb IPv4/6 pipe is going to be terrible. Inserting those dysfunctional companies as man-in-the-middle on a global scale ensures mediocrity. RCS is a bad idea on that basis alone.
Second, iMessage is really good. It is consistently the best messaging app I've used in multiple dimensions. I use many other messaging apps on a daily basis and this gap is hard to ignore. WhatsApp is pretty strong in the greater ecosystem of messaging apps, but it isn't up to the standard of iMessage. There are other common apps used around the world are quite a bit worse. Too many messaging apps focus on trite features while underinvesting in a strong architectural core, and it shows.
Third, if you are going to have a big tech company orchestrating all of this, you can do a lot worse than Apple. Something being cross-platform or globally popular doesn't absolve it of being run by ethical organizations. Many popular messaging apps are expressly forbidden in some contexts, so they simply can't be used. I've never come across such a case for iMessage (or Signal), though I'm sure it probably exists somewhere.
There is a case for a strong cross-platform messaging app, but RCS isn't it. And whatever it is, it needs to be at least as good as iMessage or iMessage people won't use it. Average users just want something that is feature-rich, high-quality, and without a creepy company behind it. Most alternatives to iMessage struggle to clear this hurdle, so they feel like a downgrade to iMessage users. I don't think it is a tall order to produce something to the standard of iMessage but maybe I underestimate the difficulty because it doesn't seem to happen.
I have never used iMessage (I use Android phones). What is the 'really good' part of it? I am used to WhatsApp and it seems pretty perfect to me. Just enough features as a messaging app, but not too much.
1. When sharing multiple photos a carousel of photos is created instead of a boring boxy grid of photos.
2. You can paste stickers of your Memoji (Apple’s Bitmoji) onto text bubbles. All my friends have discovered that feature through me and they love it!
3. You can send balloons or confetti for “happy birthday” messages.
4. The latest and greatest hardware features always have tight, polished iMessage integration (on-device Siri driven replies, Dynamic Island UI bounciness etc)
5. The UI has a few nice touches like loopy loops for threaded conversations, fun animation when a message is deleted, super tight integration with Siri
Those are features of the client - which I would mostly want to switch off, I loathe the Fisher-Price/Anime love child interface style this indicates. The question is what, other than platform standardisation, make this better than any of the alternative messaging protocols? Under the hood, that is. What does it have over e.g. XMPP+OMEMO, Matrix, Signal, Telegram, etc. Had e.g. XMPP+OMEMO been the standard on Android in the way that iMessage is on Apple-things, which one would have been "better"? I think they would have been more or less comparable with XMPP having the advantage of being standardised.
If this is all there is I don't see what makes iMessage _really good_ like the top comment emphasized. Comparing iMessage with FB Messenger (my main messenger) on the points you described:
1. Seems a bit subjective, I tend to dislike carousels
2. I guess I haven't used memoji to fairly compare this, but when it comes to stickers I liked FB messenger's offering more
3. Messenger does this as well, with balloons instead of confetti iirc
4. Dynamic Islands requires iPhone 14 right? Seems like less of an iMessage feature and more of an iPhone 14 feature. As for Siri integration, I don't use Google Assistant much but I believe it can also reply on whatsapp/messenger, you just have to specify "WhatsApp" or "Messenger" in the command
5. When it comes to animations and other small UI quirks, a lot of it is subjective. I prefer Messenger's UI over iMessage, but probably because I'm used to it
1. Given that you agree this is subjective, it follows pretty indisputably that this feature qualifies as “really good”. Perhaps your pov on disliking carousels is a negligible outlier in the population of people who consider iMessage “really good” :)
2. 3. Sure.
But nobody using iPhone to take group pictures is going to share it on FB messenger instead of WhatsApp or iMessage. I mean, the only reason we _don’t_ share on WhatsApp is the loss of quality and tight integration into iOS. There’s a million better Photo Album apps on iPhone. Everybody’s is definitely using the built in app more than anything else. Similarly, everybodys _prefers_ to use the “really good” feature of iMessage of being built into iOS.
One would say Messenger is at feature parity with iMessage. But those people tend to be people who say stickers on messenger are similar to Memoji on iMessage. Talk to one the user experience designers and they’ll pick out a 100 differences.
4. Yup sure does. But that’s the point. Did I say Dynamic Island? Oh, sorry, I meant the new LIDAR sensor on iPhone 12 Pro which takes better portrait mode photos at night. Oh, sorry, did I say LiDAR sensor on iPhone 12 Pro; I meant the new ultra wide lens on the iPhone 11 which takes better photos with the bokeh effect. Oh sorry did I say iPhone 11 Pro? I meant..
ultimately, as soon as a new hardware feature comes out the first messaging app that supports it is iMessage. So sharing software artifacts of that hardware (photos, Animoji, Memoji whatever) is always going to be “lossless” when done using iMessage. The real feature is: preserving iPhone users’ ability to share iPhone features with other iPhone users.
But when the experience is so close and subjective, surely it's not worth greatly degrading the experience of your Android friends over? Why not just use a messenger that everybody can use
Sure. That’s exactly what everybody who have an Android friend do. They use WhatsApp, or messenger or whatever else. And yes, it’s _an_ Android friend; singular; always that one guy.
Doesn’t take away from the delightful features on iMessage though :-)
The people complaining about iMessage vs. Android green bubbles are going to go the way of Betamax vs VHS. Or blu-ray vs HDDVD. We’re all going to die and our children’s children will fight over something new vs some other thing new.
I think SMS fallback is the only killer feature missing in Whatsapp. I'd be glad to ditch my dedicated SMS app for something else (I have Whatsapp anyway already). I used Signal for few years as SMS replacement plus IM on top of it (though used IM only with family since nobody use it), but got rid off that horrible app (and same with extended family where I promoted it) and there is nothing else which I could use for SMS and IM at same time. It would be killer feature, since I must have some SMS app in phone anyway, so why not have IM app which can handle also SMS, but Signal won't touch my phone again.
>There is a case for a strong cross-platform messaging app, but RCS isn't it. And whatever it is, it needs to be at least as good as iMessage or iMessage people won't use it.
I think the case should be more for basic interoperability like the EU is doing. That's why iMessage is such a default on Apple's devices, basic interoperability with SMS. There would be a lot less people on iMessage if it was a separate app than SMS. Plenty of people would rather have a single app with good enough features, but can message everyone under the sun (SMS is not good enough). Similar to Pidgin and Trillian which had less features than using AIM or MSN Messenger directly back in the day.
Does anyone really use SMS for communication with friends and family? With unlimited data plans being cheap and widespread there's no longer reason to use SMS. Personally I only use it for 2FA for some services which require it.
Except that iMessage doesn't actually interoperate with SMS: Apple just puts the two messaging types in the Messages app, so that it's transparent to the user and the message always gets there.
(It's possible that this is what you meant, and if so, I apologize; but I feel in cases like this, when we're talking about technical solutions, it's important to be precise in our language so we can avoid misunderstandings!)
That is what I mean. In the same way Pidgin put MSN Messenger and AIM, ICQ, and IRC in a single software. Like you say, Apple does the same with iMessage and SMS messing services in the Messages app.
You write a lot about how much better iM is. In what way? What makes it better than WhatsApp (besides WA being Meta)? WA is the gold standard for messaging apps and Signal is playing catch up, qualitywise, over here (Germany).
Aside from the features and implementation, WhatsApp is forbidden for some purposes in many countries with reason. Germany is such a country IIRC. For a subset of users an acceptable alternative is required, and some of those alternatives are markedly inferior e.g. Signal. If WhatsApp cannot be used for important things then it is not a realistic universal solution. (That isn't to say that iMessage is the solution, just that WhatsApp definitely is not.)
From a user perspective, just about everything about the UI/UX and integration with the rest of your environment in WhatsApp is inferior to iMessage. The integration aspect is understandable; it is easy for Apple to tightly integrate iMessage into the rest of their environment because they own it. Nonetheless, this integration is slick and a lot of subtle automagic happens as a result. I appreciate that bit.
The UI/UX gaps are less understandable, since that is a choice. WhatsApp is better than many other messaging apps but in my experience the UI/UX is noticeably inferior to iMessage in some ways. I think some of this just attempts to optimize engagement metrics or similar, because Facebook, sacrificing good design.
That aside, WhatsApp has distasteful behaviors that are just Facebook-isms that don't need to exist in a messaging app. I don't appreciate its aggressive attempts to scrape my life, for example. Every Facebook property has this characteristic.
Telegram, at least from a UX perspective, is better than whatsapp in every way.
I use both a lot and whenever I switch back to whatsapp I accidentally try to do telegram swipes because they are so much better and intuitive. When I switch to tg from wa this never happens because wa has trash UX.
Upstream you wrote that iMessage is better than … in multiple dimensions. I've never used iMessage and am chronically curious. I understand from your comments and those of others that the UI is one such dimension, even if opinions vary (don't they always). Could you elaborate on what makes iMessage better other than the user interface?
Meta is a malicious entity, deliberately seeking to vacuum up as much of our private data as it can possibly get access to and use it for its own purposes, which are demonstrably hostile to human dignity and at best indifferent to human life.
106 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadI'm not sure about the messages themselves, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google has extra metadata and supports features that only work within the world of GMail and gracefully degrade in other clients—but, unlike IMAP, I haven't worked with that directly, so I'm not confident either way.
(Concrete example: GMail has additional integration with Google Calendar just like Outlook has integration with Outlook's calendar, but I'm not sure how that manifests at the protocol level.)
https://amp.dev/about/email/
Our goal should be to turn cell carriers into dumb data pipes. They have demonstrated repeatedly that trusting them with more is a bad idea.
We have that. It is called iMessage. It replaces SMS, has all the added features, and transparently "just works." You just need to upgrade your phone to one that has it.
Google should be asking Apple to release iMessage for Android, not this silly "green bubble" campaign.
I believe people have already been asking this for years, to no avail
Sorry to break it to you, but at least some people consider RCS to be DOA in that respect.
"Text messaging used to be a cash cow for carriers, but with the advent of unlimited texting and the commoditization of carrier messaging, there's no clear revenue motivation for carriers to release RCS. The result is that the RCS rollout has amounted to nothing but false promises and delays. The carriers nixed a joint venture called the 'Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative'¹ in April, pretty much killing any hopes that RCS will ever hit SMS-like ubiquity."²
¹ "Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile kill their cross-carrier RCS messaging plans" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/verizon-att-and-t-mo...
² https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/google-enables-end-t...
The "RCS" that Google implements does not follow the standards that have been around decades.
The interopability and push for RCS is a marketing exercise.
If you don't get your teenager Nikes/Birkenstocks then your kid is going to face some added difficulties. Kids will bully kids for not having iPhones regardless; blue texts wont change that.
FWIW, I personally don't think this ranks as something today's kids worry about. My sample size is just two, but both are on a bunch of text chains with peers. All chains are a mix of Android and iOS users, and they tell me that nobody cares.
My MVNO on telstra (RCS enabled) apparently doesn't, and coincidentally doesn't do VOLTE either (which telstra does do)
That scummy company forfeited the benefit of doubt a long time ago.
That's what most people do outside of the US. In Mexico for example everyone is on Whatsapp. Even iPhone users don't use Messages.
It's pretty amazing users in the US still rely on SMS to communicate between iOS and Android.
And yes, the burden is on Apple here. They have the lock-in.
except: it's not irrational as you might expect. seriously!
green bubble means that your single android friend has just downgraded your fun, interactive group (or solo) chat (with tapbacks, effects, group features, rich content integration, and cross device syncing) into some weird, featureless set of messages
the only solution you have, as an android user, is to convince your friends to use a cross platform chat. I personally try to get people to use Signal.
the simple reality is that the default messaging story on android is a hot mess, and apple has done a vastly superior job at the feature set and integration. and, having an android user "drag us down" naturally leads to denegration
Why? It's completely rational to be annoyed that one person is dragging everyone's experience down - even it's not really that person's fault.
> You choose to use an exclusionary and proprietary messaging protocol
First of all, it's not really a choice. You text your friend with the built in messaging app and it immediately just "works". There is no setup. Is this anti-trusty? IANAL.
And, per my previous post: "the only solution you have, as an android user, is to convince your friends to use a cross platform chat. I personally try to get people to use Signal."
> ostracize people who prefer not to spend an absurd amount of money on a phone.
iPhones start at around $430, which is about what a mid tier Android phone costs. And, that base iPhone includes top tier hardware that can hold its own against some of the most expensive Android phones.
You can buy an iPhone and expect it to receive OS patches for 5 years - and 8 year old phones are still receiving security patches from Apple. Nothing running Android comes close, except for maybe Google's own phones.
That comes out to about $20 a month on their two year payment plan, which includes damage repair - considering how long iphones last and receive support compared to android devices, it's a good value.
If spending money on a device is a concern, Apple actually offers some extremely good value.
> Your gripes are absurd
As I said before, the gripes are reasonable, especially to people who text heavily. Is this Apple's fault? Sure, but it's understandable why some iPhone users get annoyed when an Android user downgrades the quality of service - even if it's not entirely fair.
By the way, you seem to think I'm pro-lock-in or pro-apple. Which really couldn't be further from the truth. By the way, I have run into a lot of android users take some sort of pride in not using the "trendy fruit company" devices - which is also foolish. So I really think people need to step back from trying to feel superior and instead focus on how to ensure everyone has secure and private E2EE messaging
From a cursory search the best reference I could find was google’s whitepaper[1]:
> In order to store and exchange user public keys like identity keys and prekeys, we need to have a central key server. Unlike the RCS messaging servers, the key server is currently only hosted by Google
[1]: https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf [2]: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third...
https://jibe.google.com
Maybe Android could pick up Matrix support out of the box?
It's also got a phone number matchmaking service for those who want it I believe, but for me it's a plus that it doesn't use the phone number as ID so you don't automatically have to share your number with everyone you chat with.
I love Matrix, but non-technical people don't care about these points (I do, though). Matrix needs to have a better official client than Element at its current state before I think it's even worth looking at becoming mainstream.
(I run a Matrix homeserver for myself with literally all of my chat communications going through it)
Edit: my comment sounds super defeatist, I want to clarify that my hope is that Matrix can become something I can recommend to anyone
You know, I probably should get more involved with sharing my feedback or contributing to the codebase where I can so the devs have another data point.
One of the features that does cause confusion for me though is Spaces. Some of my bridges (the whatsapp one in particular) took it upon themselves to put their messages in a separate space, which always has me hunting around for messages, I prefer having all my chats in the same place regardless of what bridge it came from. That was my #1 reason to use Matrix: To have everything in one place. I keep deleting the Whatsapp space but the bridge puts it back. It's a nice idea but only if I can set it up the way I want to.
Anyway I will see where you go with this, at least Matrix is a fully open ecosystem where I can always use the client I wish. Still looking for a nice high-density IRC-like desktop client too (the Xchat mode is nice but my main issue is with the chat list that is not compact enough, and it doesn't fix that). But anyway I'll find something. I know it's difficult to please everyone and it is probably a good idea to target the mainstream like you're doing.
It's not ideal (I'd love a more high-density view for the channel list in particular, the "xchat" view only makes the chats more high-density). But I'm certainly an outlier, most mainstream users would be happy with it as it is.
The one thing that could be improved IMO is the encryption process which is clumsy. Many times I log in a new client and it keeps prompting me to add it even though I've already entered the backup key. The process of granting one client through another has never worked for me.
I completely agree. Even though it reduces security/privacy, the fact that Signal doesn't make the user think about having to deal with managing keys I think is a very user-friendly feature. iMessage does this as well for its encryption.
> The process of granting one client through another has never worked for me
I pretty much only use my security key when logging into a new client, because I have also found that process can be unreliable.
But not all ISP are evil, here we have a lot of city operated ISP with free minimal service.
Umm how do you expect that would work? One man's friend is another man's family :)
I agree the fragmentation is super annoying though. I use matrix with protocol bridges now to bring almost everything in one app.
Also Apple: "If you want to text Grandma, buy an iPhone"
My read into that: "People who run unreviewed code on their smartphones are so dangerous that we need to socially ostracize them from their parents"
Yes, there's some friction- you do have to compile the project first- but seriously clone-compile-install can be done in two shell commands. You can even run a coveted JIT compiler and install non-safari browser.[0]
[0] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...
What a take. Pay us every month to be able to own your device. We’ll take it back if you stop paying. At not even a small payment, that’s over twice what I pay for my, admittedly very cheap, contract.
The payment grants you software access to system calls that are blocked by apps installed from the AppStore and has nothing to do with the underlying hardware.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/03/27/how-to-create-free-apple-deve...
However, I suspect those things exist moreso because Apple would find it too onerous to destroy them. In fact, the JIT compiler thing requires having an active debugger connection from another machine. But they could and would change if they were pressured to: say, by Epic Games deciding to release a Fortnite IPA for sideloading via AltStore. They would absolutely either end free dev certs or ban people who provision other people's code.
"No sideloading" is policy, not capability. If Apple feels like their policy is being violated, they will shrink capability to match.
First, anything that requires a telco to be actively involved in service delivery beyond being a dumb IPv4/6 pipe is going to be terrible. Inserting those dysfunctional companies as man-in-the-middle on a global scale ensures mediocrity. RCS is a bad idea on that basis alone.
Second, iMessage is really good. It is consistently the best messaging app I've used in multiple dimensions. I use many other messaging apps on a daily basis and this gap is hard to ignore. WhatsApp is pretty strong in the greater ecosystem of messaging apps, but it isn't up to the standard of iMessage. There are other common apps used around the world are quite a bit worse. Too many messaging apps focus on trite features while underinvesting in a strong architectural core, and it shows.
Third, if you are going to have a big tech company orchestrating all of this, you can do a lot worse than Apple. Something being cross-platform or globally popular doesn't absolve it of being run by ethical organizations. Many popular messaging apps are expressly forbidden in some contexts, so they simply can't be used. I've never come across such a case for iMessage (or Signal), though I'm sure it probably exists somewhere.
There is a case for a strong cross-platform messaging app, but RCS isn't it. And whatever it is, it needs to be at least as good as iMessage or iMessage people won't use it. Average users just want something that is feature-rich, high-quality, and without a creepy company behind it. Most alternatives to iMessage struggle to clear this hurdle, so they feel like a downgrade to iMessage users. I don't think it is a tall order to produce something to the standard of iMessage but maybe I underestimate the difficulty because it doesn't seem to happen.
1. When sharing multiple photos a carousel of photos is created instead of a boring boxy grid of photos.
2. You can paste stickers of your Memoji (Apple’s Bitmoji) onto text bubbles. All my friends have discovered that feature through me and they love it!
3. You can send balloons or confetti for “happy birthday” messages.
4. The latest and greatest hardware features always have tight, polished iMessage integration (on-device Siri driven replies, Dynamic Island UI bounciness etc)
5. The UI has a few nice touches like loopy loops for threaded conversations, fun animation when a message is deleted, super tight integration with Siri
1. Seems a bit subjective, I tend to dislike carousels
2. I guess I haven't used memoji to fairly compare this, but when it comes to stickers I liked FB messenger's offering more
3. Messenger does this as well, with balloons instead of confetti iirc
4. Dynamic Islands requires iPhone 14 right? Seems like less of an iMessage feature and more of an iPhone 14 feature. As for Siri integration, I don't use Google Assistant much but I believe it can also reply on whatsapp/messenger, you just have to specify "WhatsApp" or "Messenger" in the command
5. When it comes to animations and other small UI quirks, a lot of it is subjective. I prefer Messenger's UI over iMessage, but probably because I'm used to it
2. 3. Sure. But nobody using iPhone to take group pictures is going to share it on FB messenger instead of WhatsApp or iMessage. I mean, the only reason we _don’t_ share on WhatsApp is the loss of quality and tight integration into iOS. There’s a million better Photo Album apps on iPhone. Everybody’s is definitely using the built in app more than anything else. Similarly, everybodys _prefers_ to use the “really good” feature of iMessage of being built into iOS.
One would say Messenger is at feature parity with iMessage. But those people tend to be people who say stickers on messenger are similar to Memoji on iMessage. Talk to one the user experience designers and they’ll pick out a 100 differences.
4. Yup sure does. But that’s the point. Did I say Dynamic Island? Oh, sorry, I meant the new LIDAR sensor on iPhone 12 Pro which takes better portrait mode photos at night. Oh, sorry, did I say LiDAR sensor on iPhone 12 Pro; I meant the new ultra wide lens on the iPhone 11 which takes better photos with the bokeh effect. Oh sorry did I say iPhone 11 Pro? I meant.. ultimately, as soon as a new hardware feature comes out the first messaging app that supports it is iMessage. So sharing software artifacts of that hardware (photos, Animoji, Memoji whatever) is always going to be “lossless” when done using iMessage. The real feature is: preserving iPhone users’ ability to share iPhone features with other iPhone users.
5. Sure
Doesn’t take away from the delightful features on iMessage though :-)
The people complaining about iMessage vs. Android green bubbles are going to go the way of Betamax vs VHS. Or blu-ray vs HDDVD. We’re all going to die and our children’s children will fight over something new vs some other thing new.
I think the case should be more for basic interoperability like the EU is doing. That's why iMessage is such a default on Apple's devices, basic interoperability with SMS. There would be a lot less people on iMessage if it was a separate app than SMS. Plenty of people would rather have a single app with good enough features, but can message everyone under the sun (SMS is not good enough). Similar to Pidgin and Trillian which had less features than using AIM or MSN Messenger directly back in the day.
(It's possible that this is what you meant, and if so, I apologize; but I feel in cases like this, when we're talking about technical solutions, it's important to be precise in our language so we can avoid misunderstandings!)
From a user perspective, just about everything about the UI/UX and integration with the rest of your environment in WhatsApp is inferior to iMessage. The integration aspect is understandable; it is easy for Apple to tightly integrate iMessage into the rest of their environment because they own it. Nonetheless, this integration is slick and a lot of subtle automagic happens as a result. I appreciate that bit.
The UI/UX gaps are less understandable, since that is a choice. WhatsApp is better than many other messaging apps but in my experience the UI/UX is noticeably inferior to iMessage in some ways. I think some of this just attempts to optimize engagement metrics or similar, because Facebook, sacrificing good design.
That aside, WhatsApp has distasteful behaviors that are just Facebook-isms that don't need to exist in a messaging app. I don't appreciate its aggressive attempts to scrape my life, for example. Every Facebook property has this characteristic.
I use both a lot and whenever I switch back to whatsapp I accidentally try to do telegram swipes because they are so much better and intuitive. When I switch to tg from wa this never happens because wa has trash UX.
I mean....does it need more than this?
Meta is a malicious entity, deliberately seeking to vacuum up as much of our private data as it can possibly get access to and use it for its own purposes, which are demonstrably hostile to human dignity and at best indifferent to human life.
Maybe but the issue here is not RCS but the refusal of Apple to sit at the table and discuss alternatives.
Meanwhile over in Europe, we're trying to get people away from WhatsApp and on to things like Signal. Nobody gives two hoots about iMessage :D