this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
395 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
60091 readers
2554 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean they do, but that doesn't mean a message platform can't platform lock itself.
The ISP isn't discriminating.. that's net neutrality.
I think you might be a bit confused.
It just feels like users being restricted to not having any incoming or outgoing communication across operating systems is discriminating. The reason Beeper's previous and current solutions stopped working is because they started blocking it. If Apple had successfully built a protocol that couldn't be accessed by Android devices then that would be one thing, but they failed to do that and now they're discriminating against otherwise valid connections.
It's a competitive advantage. Nothing wrong with that from a business perspective.
Why should Apple build something to work with Android? That would allow people in Apple's hand to swap. No business reason to do it. Why waste server time servicing a competing platform's user's messages?
Then again, there isn't really a reason why iMessage is a big benefit with RCS, Whatsapp, Messenger, SMS, Signal, etc. exist.
According to the given logic, logic if I reverse engineer Facebook Messenger, I should be able to have my app that talks to FB Messenger users. I would have it until, they block me out. They have a terms of service that likely disallows this usage. They have a right to enforce that.
At the end of the day I could care less about iMessage but can defend Apple's right to be a walled garden if they want, even if I disagree, etc.
Because controlling what people send between each other on devices they purchased and own is not something that the regular human beings at apple have any authority to do, least not for profit. Something very few people seem to understand these days is that in a functioning democracy it pays to have good Business Ethics, or else your company is doomed to eventually buckle and fall apart.
You can send regular texts. But your messages will be a different color like the non-apple out group loser you are.
Ah, cool then, I just assumed iMessage was iphone messaging tech. Who gives a fuck about colored bubbles?
A shocking number of people. It's an annoying marketing tactic by apple to make their users feel special, and also make sure they can see who amount their contacts is using android or something else. Just another little nugget of Apple elitism. Android is for the poors.
iMessage is Apple's proprietary messaging protocol. Apple Messages is the default (and unchangeable) default SMS app on an iPhone. It uses iMessage rather than SMS when chatting with another Apple Messages user. If you use the app to message someone that isn't using the same app, it falls back to SMS. It's seamless from the iPhone user's side except for the bubble color.
Who cares about the bubble color? People who want to send and receive higher quality pictures and video than SMS/MMS allows and can't or won't convince iphone users to use something other than their default messaging application. The color signifies the capabilities of the chat. Non SMS based or SMS fallback apps (Whatsapp, signal, etc) aren't nearly as big in the US as in other countries. The US also has a much higher percentage of iPhone users than other places. Yes, clique-y children care about the color for clique-y reasons but the capabilities the bubble color indicates are the origin of it. "Oh this guy's on Android, he can only send shitty pictures", "he's on Android - don't put him in the group chat because it breaks it", implying it's Android's fault rather than Apple's exclusionary setup. Again, because it's seamless to them, they don't think they should lift a finger to use anything other than the default messaging app.
Of course companies have that authority - it’s something that can even protect us which we often support. When we mark messages as spam they eventually tag senders as spammers who can get blocked from delivering messages at the provider, device and vendor level. What about emergency warnings - should we be able to opt out of those too?
I agree that we need capitalism with oversight to encourage ethical behaviour but you’re missing a key point to illustrate a pretty biased perspective.
.. you can still send MMS. It works fine. They're not controlling what you can send. Soon they'll support RCS too to have parity with Android. That's a goodwill gesture in my eyes.
Capitalism doesn't pay for ethics, it pays for profits and press. It's paying for RCS support.
iMessage will have no benefit after that: the color of a bubble shouldn't mean anything.
Yeah another user filled me in that iMessage didn't mean what I thought it did.
But going a bit off topic, if you want to run an unethical business in the USA then what you should do is cut back the staff until it's barely viable, then sell everything and close the locations, and finally file bankruptcy after giving yourself a bonus. Why? Because an Unethical Business of any nature has no future. There is no long term. Countless large banks and nationwide businesses have collapsed before, there is no "too big to fail."
Getting around iPhone's restrictions is referred to a "jailbreaking" because the "walled garden" denies the freedom of the users. It would be better if Apple users are taught to value their software freedoms and break out themselves. Government intervention is a risk that I hope Apple doesn't force them to take by failing to ethically moderate themselves.