sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 8:43 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm not sure if that's sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek, but SMS isn't IM.
> > SMS is way too limited for what a somewhat normal IM system can do.
> > Might as well use FAX! :-)
>
> Not at all sarcastic.
>
> If you are using iMessage on iPhone and you send a message to a friend
> on Android, it will be sent as a SMS message. Similarly, if they reply,
> you'll still get the SMS from them in iMessage.

Yes, I know that. Not only has that been 'discussed' at length in this
group, but it is clearly spelled out in the (quoted) article in the OP.

But I don't understand your (snipped) response in the (snipped)
context:

[Rewind/repeat:]

</quote>

> It just means platforms can't use their user base as a competitive
> advantage by keeping them in silos.

iMessage already has the option to send and receive SMS. No problem there.

</quote>

What does your "No problem there." refer to? Please explain/elaborate.

In message <190120221036274453%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ss8u8h$uvi$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:

>> iMessage is only a pain in the ass of Google. But who cares about that?
>> Certainly not the successful competitor Apple or other highly successful
>> messenger suppliers. Even less the Competition Authorities. Google is
>> simply failing.

> google has released 13 messaging apps so far, all failures.

> apparently google can't come up with something competitive.

>> Let them try with that RCS-fail.

> i guess they want to go for 14. maybe more.

Only Google is interested in RCS at all, and who knows how long that
will last?

No one else cares. The carriers don't care, the users don't care. Most
people have moved on from SMS a long time ago to something that doesn't
suck, and RCS still sucks, only slightly less than SMS.

Who wants RCS?

--
Dinosaurs are attacking! Throw a barrel!

In message <ss9g0v$3u7$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 8:43 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> <snip>

>> I'm not sure if that's sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek, but SMS isn't IM.
>> SMS is way too limited for what a somewhat normal IM system can do.
>> Might as well use FAX! :-)

> Not at all sarcastic.

> If you are using iMessage on iPhone and you send a message to a friend
> on Android, it will be sent as a SMS message. Similarly, if they reply,
> you'll still get the SMS from them in iMessage.

No, this is entirely incorrect. iMessages only exist between Apple
devices, you are confusing the messaging system Apple built, iMessage,
with the application "Messages" which predates the existence of
iMessages.

Messages can send and receive SMS messages, as it has been able to since
the first iPhone. It also can send iMessages. It also can send very
large files, videos, and groups of photos. Ti can send messages without
having a phone number to send to, so you can communicate with people who
don't even have iPhones. It can also send links to shared resources on
your Apple devices, messages with special effects, and probably some
other things I am forgetting.

Maybe someone should start a google doc of all the stupid errors you
make?

--
'They've given us the answers,' he [Carrot] said. 'Perhaps we can
find out what the questions should have been.' --Feet of Clay

Am 19.01.22 um 14:46 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> SIC! There is no obvious misuse of a monopoly. There is none. The
>> messenger market is a highly fragmented market in the US and globally.
>> iPhone and Android users have choices and can use them easily with no
>> hurdles.
>
> Can't hear you! I'm using Windows, what are you using.
>
> Wanted to email you, but Lotus Notes and HPDESK barfed and Compuserve
> and UUCP mail didn't work either. Wanted to try HP OpenMail next, but
> Microsoft put a stop to that.

We are discussing messengers not historic mail clients on desktops and
the like.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 19.01.22 um 17:43 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek, but SMS isn't IM.
> SMS is way too limited for what a somewhat normal IM system can do.
> Might as well use FAX! :-)
>
>> WhatsApp, WeChat, and Signal do not. But these are cross-platform, free,
>> apps that anyone can use. There are also paid, highly secure,
>> cross-platform messaging apps like Coretext.
>>
>> What would be better than a law to require interchange of messages
>> between various apps, would be a law that mandates that all phones
>> support RCS.
>
> One doesn't exclude the other. But those who seem (claim?) to be in
> the know, claim that RCS is not a suitable interchange functionality.
>
> Let's see what they (the EU et al) come up with.

Forecast is easy: Nothing because there is no need for action (yet).

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 19.01.22 um 14:50 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2022 11:51 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Part of these laws/regulations are to require interchange of messages
>>> between different Instant Messaging (IM) platforms. While iMessage
>>> wasn't mentioned in the news item I watched, there's no reason to assume
>>> it will be excluded from this requirement.
>>
>> Not sure if this is the greatest idea. Does a user of a high-security
>> messaging platform like Signal want their messages sent over SMS,
>> WhatsApp, or iMessage?
>
> See Theo's response.
>
> IIRC, Signal was mentioned as one of the platforms and privacy-
> proponents welcome the EU plans, so I'm sure they (the EU) will tackle
> the security aspects accordingly.

Certainly not. I have serious doubts that the EU will help failing
Google in this area. There is simply no need for that.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In comp.mobile.android Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 19.01.22 um 14:46 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> SIC! There is no obvious misuse of a monopoly. There is none. The
> >> messenger market is a highly fragmented market in the US and globally.
> >> iPhone and Android users have choices and can use them easily with no
> >> hurdles.
> >
> > Can't hear you! I'm using Windows, what are you using.
> >
> > Wanted to email you, but Lotus Notes and HPDESK barfed and Compuserve
> > and UUCP mail didn't work either. Wanted to try HP OpenMail next, but
> > Microsoft put a stop to that.
>
> We are discussing messengers not historic mail clients on desktops and
> the like.

Point is email, SMS and the voice telephone network are interoperable. I can
take telephone service from any provider, using any brand of handset, and I
can talk to anyone who also has telephone service, irrespective of their
provider or handset. That means the only decisions I have to make when
selecting my provider and handset are the options that matter to me, for
example who provides the best price and service.

I can't do that with IM. I can't send iMessages from WhatsApp, Signals from
Facebook Messenger, Telegrams from Skype, etc. If I want to message someone
on WhatsApp, I have no choice but to use WhatsApp. That means I am not
making a free choice, because I have to use the WhatsApp client, which only
works on certain phones (no Windows Phone or Linux phone apps, for example),
and so I'm forced to buy a supported phone (an iPhone, if I want to use
iMessage). Even if I wanted to write my own Windows Phone client, I can't.

It also means that a startup IM company is at a massive disadvantage because
they start with nobody to talk to, so even if my IM client is better than
the competition, the competition still win. Whereas customers of a startup
email company can message anyone in the world and so can compete on merit
with other email providers.

That's why the likes of Apple and WhatsApp like their walled gardens,
because their network effect prevents the competition getting a foothold.

Theo

Am 19.01.22 um 22:12 schrieb Theo:
> In comp.mobile.android Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.22 um 14:46 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> SIC! There is no obvious misuse of a monopoly. There is none. The
>>>> messenger market is a highly fragmented market in the US and globally.
>>>> iPhone and Android users have choices and can use them easily with no
>>>> hurdles.
>>>
>>> Can't hear you! I'm using Windows, what are you using.
>>>
>>> Wanted to email you, but Lotus Notes and HPDESK barfed and Compuserve
>>> and UUCP mail didn't work either. Wanted to try HP OpenMail next, but
>>> Microsoft put a stop to that.
>>
>> We are discussing messengers not historic mail clients on desktops and
>> the like.
>
> Point is email, SMS and the voice telephone network are interoperable. I can
> take telephone service from any provider, using any brand of handset, and I
> can talk to anyone who also has telephone service, irrespective of their
> provider or handset. That means the only decisions I have to make when
> selecting my provider and handset are the options that matter to me, for
> example who provides the best price and service.

In the past things were better ..
Thank god we got rid of these one track services and state monopolies.

> I can't do that with IM. I can't send iMessages from WhatsApp, Signals from
> Facebook Messenger, Telegrams from Skype, etc. If I want to message someone
> on WhatsApp, I have no choice but to use WhatsApp. That means I am not
> making a free choice, because I have to use the WhatsApp client, which only
> works on certain phones (no Windows Phone or Linux phone apps, for example),
> and so I'm forced to buy a supported phone (an iPhone, if I want to use
> iMessage). Even if I wanted to write my own Windows Phone client, I can't.
>
> It also means that a startup IM company is at a massive disadvantage because
> they start with nobody to talk to, so even if my IM client is better than
> the competition, the competition still win. Whereas customers of a startup
> email company can message anyone in the world and so can compete on merit
> with other email providers.
>
> That's why the likes of Apple and WhatsApp like their walled gardens,
> because their network effect prevents the competition getting a foothold.

???
Why is WhatsApp so successful or much more recently Signal? Sorry that
is nonsense.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <slrnsugtha.15d9.g.kreme@zephyrus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> In message <ss9g0v$3u7$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > If you are using iMessage on iPhone and you send a message to a friend
> > on Android, it will be sent as a SMS message. Similarly, if they reply,
> > you'll still get the SMS from them in iMessage.
>
> No, this is entirely incorrect. iMessages only exist between Apple
> devices, you are confusing the messaging system Apple built, iMessage,
> with the application "Messages" which predates the existence of
> iMessages.
>
> Messages can send and receive SMS messages, as it has been able to since
> the first iPhone. It also can send iMessages. It also can send very
> large files, videos, and groups of photos. Ti can send messages without
> having a phone number to send to, so you can communicate with people who
> don't even have iPhones. It can also send links to shared resources on
> your Apple devices, messages with special effects, and probably some
> other things I am forgetting.
>
> Maybe someone should start a google doc of all the stupid errors you
> make?

it would need to be a collaborative effort because there are far too
many 'errors' (some are deliberate) for one person to handle all of it.
his 'list' is already more than 50 pages.

On 1/19/2022 1:12 PM, Theo wrote:

<snip>

> That's why the likes of Apple and WhatsApp like their walled gardens,
> because their network effect prevents the competition getting a foothold.

There's an interesting article in Macworld regarding iMessage at
<https://www.macworld.com/article/606152/imessage-google-green-bubbles-sms-rcs.html>.

I think that the author got it right. While iMessage is very successful
in the U.S., due to the high penetration of iPhones, it's not been
successful in Europe or Asia where Android phones have a much greater
market share than in the U.S. where WhatsApp and WeChat have
overwhelming market share.

It may be short-sighted for Apple to refuse to implement RCS and to
refuse to allow iMessage on other platforms. But you can be sure that
they've run the numbers in terms of how many U.S. sales they've gained
with iMessage limited to iPhones.

Am 19.01.22 um 22:44 schrieb sms:
> On 1/19/2022 1:12 PM, Theo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That's why the likes of Apple and WhatsApp like their walled gardens,
>> because their network effect prevents the competition getting a foothold.
>
> There's an interesting article in Macworld regarding iMessage at
> <https://www.macworld.com/article/606152/imessage-google-green-bubbles-sms-rcs.html>.
>
> I think that the author got it right. While iMessage is very successful
> in the U.S., due to the high penetration of iPhones, it's not been
> successful in Europe or Asia where Android phones have a much greater
> market share than in the U.S. where WhatsApp and WeChat have
> overwhelming market share.

That is utter bullshit. The market share of iOS in Switzerland is higher
than in the US and in France it comes very close to the US-share.
Facebook messenger is exactly what WhatsApp is in Europe and has a
similar market share. People simply prefer multi-platform messengers
because friends and relatives have different OSes. The thing with "the
blue bubble" is utter bullshit and completely overdone.

> It may be short-sighted for Apple to refuse to implement RCS and to
> refuse to allow iMessage on other platforms. But you can be sure that
> they've run the numbers in terms of how many U.S. sales they've gained
> with iMessage limited to iPhones.

RCS is a fail. No future. There is nothing to add. Google missed the
messenger-business completely and RCS no solution. RCS is insecure and
end-to-end encryption impossible.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 19.01.22 um 14:50 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/18/2022 11:51 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Part of these laws/regulations are to require interchange of messages
> >>> between different Instant Messaging (IM) platforms. While iMessage
> >>> wasn't mentioned in the news item I watched, there's no reason to assume
> >>> it will be excluded from this requirement.
> >>
> >> Not sure if this is the greatest idea. Does a user of a high-security
> >> messaging platform like Signal want their messages sent over SMS,
> >> WhatsApp, or iMessage?
> >
> > See Theo's response.
> >
> > IIRC, Signal was mentioned as one of the platforms and privacy-
> > proponents welcome the EU plans, so I'm sure they (the EU) will tackle
> > the security aspects accordingly.
>
> Certainly not. I have serious doubts that the EU will help failing
> Google in this area. There is simply no need for that.

Exactly *where* did I - explicitly or implicitly - mention Google?

And, despite your opinion to the contrary, there *is* a blatantly
obvious need for message interchange between different IM platforms.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 19.01.22 um 14:46 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> SIC! There is no obvious misuse of a monopoly. There is none. The
> >> messenger market is a highly fragmented market in the US and globally.
> >> iPhone and Android users have choices and can use them easily with no
> >> hurdles.
> >
> > Can't hear you! I'm using Windows, what are you using.
> >
> > Wanted to email you, but Lotus Notes and HPDESK barfed and Compuserve
> > and UUCP mail didn't work either. Wanted to try HP OpenMail next, but
> > Microsoft put a stop to that.
>
> We are discussing messengers not historic mail clients on desktops and
> the like.

<whoosh!>

It's called an analogy.

See Theo's response, and in future, at least try to read for
comprehension.

On 1/20/2022 10:47 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> And, despite your opinion to the contrary, there *is* a blatantly
> obvious need for message interchange between different IM platforms.

I think that the better solution than trying to mandate message
interchange between various proprietary platforms (iMessage, Signal,
Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) would be for governments
to mandate that all phones support RCS. A universal, non-proprietary,
messaging platform is necessary.

Pre-pandemic, when I was doing more traveling, I has to use SMS in the
U.S., WeChat in China, and WhatsApp in Europe (iMessage is not widely
used in Europe or Asia because Android is much more popular than the
iPhone in most countries). It was annoying. Now in the U.S. I'm also
using iMessage. The big issue with SMS is that it relies on cellular
connectivity, and doesn't work, at least not directly, using data.

It was nice to be on an airplane, using the airline's free Wi-Fi (Jet
Blue) and being able to send and receive iMessages, though I could also
have done SMS via Google Voice. Amusingly, when the flight attendant
mentions the free Wi-Fi in the pre-take-off announcements, they make a
point that using any kind of VOIP over the Wi-Fi is forbidden (probably
due to bandwidth as well as Covid).

In article <sscdbj$r76$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I think that the better solution than trying to mandate message
> interchange between various proprietary platforms (iMessage, Signal,
> Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) would be for governments
> to mandate that all phones support RCS.

governments should not mandate features of any kind, as if they could
all even agree on the details anyway. let the market decide.

> A universal, non-proprietary,
> messaging platform is necessary.

that already exists.

Am 20.01.22 um 19:52 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.22 um 14:46 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> SIC! There is no obvious misuse of a monopoly. There is none. The
>>>> messenger market is a highly fragmented market in the US and globally.
>>>> iPhone and Android users have choices and can use them easily with no
>>>> hurdles.
>>>
>>> Can't hear you! I'm using Windows, what are you using.
>>>
>>> Wanted to email you, but Lotus Notes and HPDESK barfed and Compuserve
>>> and UUCP mail didn't work either. Wanted to try HP OpenMail next, but
>>> Microsoft put a stop to that.
>>
>> We are discussing messengers not historic mail clients on desktops and
>> the like.
>
> <whoosh!>
>
> It's called an analogy.

I really do not care. It is bullshit anyway.
>
> See Theo's response, and in future, at least try to read for
> comprehension.

Try not to troll.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 20.01.22 um 19:47 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> Exactly *where* did I - explicitly or implicitly - mention Google?
>
> And, despite your opinion to the contrary, there *is* a blatantly
> obvious need for message interchange between different IM platforms.

False. Nobody relevant asked for it.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 20.01.22 um 20:32 schrieb sms:
> On 1/20/2022 10:47 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And, despite your opinion to the contrary, there *is* a blatantly
>> obvious need for message interchange between different IM platforms.
>
> I think that the better solution than trying to mandate message
> interchange between various proprietary platforms (iMessage, Signal,
> Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) would be for governments
> to mandate that all phones support RCS. A universal, non-proprietary,
> messaging platform is necessary.

You are advocating "No Privacy to Anybody". Nobody would use it.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 20.01.22 um 21:38 schrieb nospam:
> In article <sscdbj$r76$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that the better solution than trying to mandate message
>> interchange between various proprietary platforms (iMessage, Signal,
>> Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) would be for governments
>> to mandate that all phones support RCS.
>
> governments should not mandate features of any kind, as if they could
> all even agree on the details anyway. let the market decide.

It already did. RCS is dead and nobody on this planet asked for
compatibility of messengers.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum