On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:18:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
> To gain access to the club, simply purchase Apple devices.

If you believe what you say, which is that the only way an Apple device
will ever communicate easily with the rest of the world is for everyone in
the world to be only on Apple devices, then there's no sense in continuing
this conversation. The walled garden is very real and highly restrictive.

On 12/10/2023 4:02 AM, J�rg Lorenz wrote:

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

Apple's iMessage is clearly not as secure and not as private as you think.

Do you know the kid who recently easily broke into that "secure" &
"private" iMessage you speak of isn't even near college age yet?

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

>> Exactly. And as you indicate, the whole 'bubble colour' (non-)argument
>> is mindblowingly stupid. Who *cares* what colour *'our'* messages are on
>> *'their'* screens!? Have I ever been worried about what kind of colours
>> you use in Thunderbird? I don't think so!
>
> It is apparently a thing with "kids" in USA.

For badgolferman,

Is my summary understanding of the problem set below accurate yet?

I respectfully change my assessment that we previously disagreed upon as it
seems to be both Apple & Android users complaining - but only a subset of
each group.

As I try to understand all these problems, it appears the problem is a mix
of the proprietary messaging iOS uses versus the open messaging of Android.

*First problem: free Android MMS to Android*
Some Android users get charged for MMS so they prefer a method that sends
MMS for free. There are two fundamental solutions to that problem set.
1. Use any messaging app that allows MMS for free (there are many)
2. Use RCS in the messaging (there are a half dozen free Android RCS apps)
3. But the problem with both is the recipient has to use a similar app

*Second problem: free Android MMS to iOS*
For the same subset who are charged by their carrier for MMS...
1. Use RCS (but iOS doesn't support RCS)
2. Use Beeper (but iOS doesn't support Beeper)
3. Use anything else such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Theema, whatever

Given that iOS Messages is the same as WhatsApp (and all the rest), the
problem is nobody on Android is using the iOS Messages app while everyone
on iOS (practically) is using the proprietary closed iOS Messages app.

So it's a conundrum only for the following subsets of Android/iOS users:
a. Android users who are charged for sending MMS, and,
b. iOS users who want to receive those MMS messages.

Is this yet an accurate summary of the problem set?

On 2023-12-11 09:47, Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:18:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>> To gain access to the club, simply purchase Apple devices.
>
> If you believe what you say, which is that the only way an Apple device
> will ever communicate easily with the rest of the world is for everyone
> in the world to be only on Apple devices, then there's no sense in
> continuing this conversation. The walled garden is very real and highly
> restrictive.

<this might post twice>

With an Apple device there are no restrictions on using "outside the
Apple eco-system" apps and means. Apple users who are part of a
non-Apple grouping just use the apps and means that the group uses. Life
goes on without restriction.

But, when "in the eco-system" one gets those things that those not in
the club can't have. Such as the seamless integration between Apple
devices and apps.

This is why Apple's "eco system" is not a walled garden as you're so
desperate to label it.

It is a fenced-in country club that members can enter and leave as they
like or need. The members get everything of both worlds, the
non-members only get their world and can only gaze through the fence and
wish they had the benefits of the club (or rant about the club members
if that is therapeutic to them).

Meanwhile companies like Samsung make their own "clubby" setups such as
integration between phones and watches - but this falls into messy once
one uses a Windows PC, Mac or Linux. Very messy to keep all the parts
singing in harmony.

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

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-10 16:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 14:56, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, in our country (NL) we have a payment system ('Tikkie', nudge)
> > which works with WhatsApp (and other messaging systems), so the
> > integration is there, but generic, instead of IM platform specific.
>
> Yeah, we just need (to agree on a) a system that is EU wide.

The Dutch iDEAL [1] payment system is planned to become the European
(not just EU) acount-to-account payment system. Perhaps that will also
incorporate 'Tikkie' [2] functionality, which is more person-to-person
payment than acount-to-account.

[1] 'iDEAL' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEAL>

[2] 'Tikkie' <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkie> (Dutch)

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 09:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 2023-12-11 15:15, Alan Browne wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-11 03:19, Bernd Froehlich wrote:
> >>> On 10. Dec 2023 at 13:22:31 CET, ""Carlos E. R.""
> >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, you are missing something:
> >>>
> >>> Telegram, Signal, Threema for instance.
> >>>
> >>> No WhatsApp over here and still happily communicating (and exchanging
> >>> pictures) with lots of Androids :-)
> >>
> >> That's not what's being discussed.  What is: is how iPhone Messages
> >> users can send phots/vids to Android users.
> >>
> >> They can.  And do.
> >
> > With WhatsApp, yes, certainly they can. With imessages, no, not here.
>
> Yes - you've made the point a thousand times now.

Well, if you make your (non (read NA-only)) point a thousand times,
you can only expect that the favour will be returned, can't you!?

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
[...]

> With an Apple device there are no restrictions on using "outside the
> Apple eco-system" apps and means. Apple users who are part of a
> non-Apple grouping just use the apps and means that the group uses. Life
> goes on without restriction.
>
> But, when "in the eco-system" one gets those things that those not in
> the club can't have. Such as the seamless integration between Apple
> devices and apps.
>
> This is why Apple's "eco system" is not a walled garden as you're so
> desperate to label it.
>
> It is a fenced-in country club that members can enter and leave as they
> like or need. The members get everything of both worlds, the
> non-members only get their world and can only gaze through the fence and
> wish they had the benefits of the club (or rant about the club members
> if that is therapeutic to them).
>
> Meanwhile companies like Samsung make their own "clubby" setups such as
> integration between phones and watches - but this falls into messy once
> one uses a Windows PC, Mac or Linux. Very messy to keep all the parts
> singing in harmony.

From Samsung's (commercial) newsletters, I get the impression that
there is also quite a lot of intergration, *if* you buy all your stuff,
including all kinds of other stuff, like appliances, TV, home
automation, etc., etc. from *Samsung*. So for your example, that would
be a *Samsung* Windows PC (versus an Apple Mac).

So apples to apples :-) comparison: Buy *all* your stuff from Apple
versus buy *all* your stuff from Samsung.

N.B. I'm not implying that Samsung's integration is as intricate as
Apple's, but it's much better than just a bay of islands as is the case
when everything/most_things come from different manufacturers.

And Samsung makes some stuff which Apple doesn't, so let's call it a
*different* country club, where both Apple users and non-Samsung users
"can only gaze through the fence and wish they had the benefits of the
club (or rant about the club members if that is therapeutic to them)".
:-)

On 11 Dec 2023 10:38:27 -0400 Wally J wrote:

>I'm trying to understand the problem (as I don't have it in the states).
>
> *The main problem appears to be a carrier-imposed fee on 'sending MMS'*
> *The other problem appears to be iOS uses a primitive messaging system.*
> (Substituted "closed" if you have a visceral dislike to "primitive".)
>
>One part of the problem appears to be...
>1. Android users who are charged those fees can send MMS via RCS for free.
>2. But iOS users can't receive them (it appears).
>3. So in that respect, the problem is on the iOS recipient's side.
>
>Another part of the problem appears to be...
>A. Android users who are charged those fees can send MMS via RCS for free.
>B. But Android users can't receive them unless they use an RCS messenger.
>C. So in that respect, the problem is on the Android recipient's side.
>
>Meanwhile... the third part of the problem appears to be...
>a. iOS users can send "things" (e.g., pictures) via their Internet app
>b. Which is no different than Telegram, Signal, Threema or WhatsApp
>c. The only difference being all iPhones have that proprietary messaging
>
>Is this an accurate summary of the problem set yet?
>

The 'problem', which is shared by (some) users of both Android and iOS, is
....

"A user of a modern smartphone cannot be confident of sending a
feature-rich message (having features equivalent to the GSMA's RCS
Universal Profile) irrespective of both sender's and recipient's make of
phone, both sender and receiver using their phone's _default_ messaging
facility."

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
Note that RCS does not currently include End to End Encryption (e2ee).

At the moment only SMS messages can be confidently sent and reliably
received.

MMS has been discontinued in many territories:
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Decline_and_discontinuation

It is rumoured that Apple will enable RCS in their default message app in
2024 (not replacing iMessage) which is to be welcomed IMO. No doubt people
will continue to use proprietary apps and protocols when they want extra
features - eg e2ee.
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 2023-12-11, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-10 18:14, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-12-10, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-10 10:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 09.12.23 22:21, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 21:05, Wally J wrote:
>>>>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a fair statement. iPhone users do not complain.
>>>
>>> Yes, they do, when they want to communicate with Android users and can
>>> not send photos or multimedia
>>
>> No, they can send photos and multimedia.
>
> Not in Europe, not probably in most of the world. Not using imessages.

People in those countries don't use iMessage in the first place.

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

JR

On 2023-12-11, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 09:19, Bernd Froehlich wrote:
>> On 10. Dec 2023 at 13:22:31 CET, ""Carlos E. R."" <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sorry, you are missing something:
>>
>> Telegram, Signal, Threema for instance.
>
> Certainly, but we are talking of their native messaging tool that they
> are so happy about, imessages.
>
> As I said, two reasons: in Europe, and probably most of the world except
> NA, MMS which is used to send photos to non Apple users is expensive or
> has been removed, it is not even available.

Which is no big deal since they are already using alternative messaging
apps.

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

JR

On 2023-12-11, Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 4:02 AM, J�rg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Your technical understanding is very limited. These are two
>> completely different protocols iMsg being far superior in terms of
>> security and especially privacy.
>
> Apple's iMessage is clearly not as secure and not as private as you
> think.

That's not clear, no. Your trolls are weak as ever, Arlen.

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

JR

On 2023-12-11, Patrick <patrick@oleary.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:18:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> To gain access to the club, simply purchase Apple devices.
>
> the only way an Apple device will ever communicate easily with the
> rest of the world is for everyone in the world to be only on Apple
> devices

Dimwit Arlen here wants all of you to know he has never heard of Signal
and other messaging apps.

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

JR

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Exactly. And as you indicate, the whole 'bubble colour' (non-)argument
>>> is mindblowingly stupid. Who *cares* what colour *'our'* messages are on
>>> *'their'* screens!? Have I ever been worried about what kind of colours
>>> you use in Thunderbird? I don't think so!
>>
>> It is apparently a thing with "kids" in USA.
>
> For badgolferman,
>
> Is my summary understanding of the problem set below accurate yet?
>
> I respectfully change my assessment that we previously disagreed upon as it
> seems to be both Apple & Android users complaining - but only a subset of
> each group.
>
> As I try to understand all these problems, it appears the problem is a mix
> of the proprietary messaging iOS uses versus the open messaging of Android.
>
> *First problem: free Android MMS to Android*
> Some Android users get charged for MMS so they prefer a method that sends
> MMS for free. There are two fundamental solutions to that problem set.
> 1. Use any messaging app that allows MMS for free (there are many)
> 2. Use RCS in the messaging (there are a half dozen free Android RCS apps)
> 3. But the problem with both is the recipient has to use a similar app
>
> *Second problem: free Android MMS to iOS*
> For the same subset who are charged by their carrier for MMS...
> 1. Use RCS (but iOS doesn't support RCS)
> 2. Use Beeper (but iOS doesn't support Beeper)
> 3. Use anything else such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Theema, whatever
>
> Given that iOS Messages is the same as WhatsApp (and all the rest), the
> problem is nobody on Android is using the iOS Messages app while everyone
> on iOS (practically) is using the proprietary closed iOS Messages app.
>
> So it's a conundrum only for the following subsets of Android/iOS users:
> a. Android users who are charged for sending MMS, and,
> b. iOS users who want to receive those MMS messages.
>
> Is this yet an accurate summary of the problem set?
>

Since most people in the US don’t pay for MMS I don’t think that’s the
problem. My opinion is Android users break group chats for iOS users since
Android doesn’t support some iOS features.

Now you can say it’s iOS users complaining about this, but it seems it’s
Android users who keep trying to get around it somehow.

Am 11.12.23 um 15:47 schrieb Patrick:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:18:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>> To gain access to the club, simply purchase Apple devices.
>
> If you believe what you say, which is that the only way an Apple device
> will ever communicate easily with the rest of the world is for everyone in
> the world to be only on Apple devices, then there's no sense in continuing
> this conversation. The walled garden is very real and highly restrictive.

You did understand exactly nothing of this thread.

Android and iOS can quite easily communicate over dozens of ways but not
with iMsg. Why do Android-user have such an obsession to be part of the
Apple-world?

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 11.12.23 um 15:52 schrieb Larry Wolff:
> On 12/10/2023 4:02 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Your technical understanding is very limited.
>> These are two completely different protocols iMsg being far superior in
>> terms of security and especially privacy.
>
> Apple's iMessage is clearly not as secure and not as private as you think.

*LOL*!
Which messenger is?

> Do you know the kid who recently easily broke into that "secure" &
> "private" iMessage you speak of isn't even near college age yet?

This age bracket is the most flexible and creative. Certainly not the
oldies above 20 ...

.... and pensioners in nursing homes like this place here.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 11.12.23 um 12:33 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-12-10 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> badgolferman wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> FTR, Android *users* do no such thing. In this case it's an app
>> *developper* which tries "to integrate into iMessage".
>
> Right.

Wrong. Economics are not your strength: There is only a market among
Android-users.

>>> I can send SMS (and if justified) MMS messages to people with iPhones, I

No you can't. MMS exists only in grossly underdevelopped markets like
North America.

>>> neither know or care what application they view them in, or what colour
>>> bubble I get. If in a few months I can also send them RCS messages, all
>>> the better.
>>
>> Exactly. And as you indicate, the whole 'bubble colour' (non-)argument
>> is mindblowingly stupid. Who *cares* what colour *'our'* messages are on
>> *'their'* screens!? Have I ever been worried about what kind of colours
>> you use in Thunderbird? I don't think so!
>
> It is apparently a thing with "kids" in USA.

And Spain and the Netherlands ... *ROTFLSTC*

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2023-12-11 10:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-11 09:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-11 15:15, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-11 03:19, Bernd Froehlich wrote:
>>>>> On 10. Dec 2023 at 13:22:31 CET, ""Carlos E. R.""
>>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, you are missing something:
>>>>>
>>>>> Telegram, Signal, Threema for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> No WhatsApp over here and still happily communicating (and exchanging
>>>>> pictures) with lots of Androids :-)
>>>>
>>>> That's not what's being discussed.  What is: is how iPhone Messages
>>>> users can send phots/vids to Android users.
>>>>
>>>> They can.  And do.
>>>
>>> With WhatsApp, yes, certainly they can. With imessages, no, not here.
>>
>> Yes - you've made the point a thousand times now.
>
> Well, if you make your (non (read NA-only)) point a thousand times,
> you can only expect that the favour will be returned, can't you!?

They didn't have to reply - again. Now you'll say "you too!". But I am
the OP on this thread. That has privileges 😉

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

On 2023-12-11 10:44, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> With an Apple device there are no restrictions on using "outside the
>> Apple eco-system" apps and means. Apple users who are part of a
>> non-Apple grouping just use the apps and means that the group uses. Life
>> goes on without restriction.
>>
>> But, when "in the eco-system" one gets those things that those not in
>> the club can't have. Such as the seamless integration between Apple
>> devices and apps.
>>
>> This is why Apple's "eco system" is not a walled garden as you're so
>> desperate to label it.
>>
>> It is a fenced-in country club that members can enter and leave as they
>> like or need. The members get everything of both worlds, the
>> non-members only get their world and can only gaze through the fence and
>> wish they had the benefits of the club (or rant about the club members
>> if that is therapeutic to them).
>>
>> Meanwhile companies like Samsung make their own "clubby" setups such as
>> integration between phones and watches - but this falls into messy once
>> one uses a Windows PC, Mac or Linux. Very messy to keep all the parts
>> singing in harmony.
>
> From Samsung's (commercial) newsletters, I get the impression that
> there is also quite a lot of intergration, *if* you buy all your stuff,
> including all kinds of other stuff, like appliances, TV, home
> automation, etc., etc. from *Samsung*. So for your example, that would
> be a *Samsung* Windows PC (versus an Apple Mac).

Not a very good comparison, alas. Apple has the Home Kit to extend
one's reach over to all sorts of appliances.

>
> So apples to apples :-) comparison: Buy *all* your stuff from Apple
> versus buy *all* your stuff from Samsung.
>
> N.B. I'm not implying that Samsung's integration is as intricate as
> Apple's, but it's much better than just a bay of islands as is the case
> when everything/most_things come from different manufacturers.

This is where open standards are a good thing for _basic_ integration.

Doesn't mean that when one co. goes the extra distance that they have to
open it up to all and sundry to take advantage of their investment in
more advanced features. Certainly the shareholders would not stand for it.

>
> And Samsung makes some stuff which Apple doesn't, so let's call it a
> *different* country club, where both Apple users and non-Samsung users
> "can only gaze through the fence and wish they had the benefits of the
> club (or rant about the club members if that is therapeutic to them)".
> :-)

I can't think of a thing Samsung makes where I wouldn't consider some
other company's wares over them. Not to say Samsung doesn't make things
I may want. But their disjointed eco-system is certainly not a draw.

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

On 2023-12-11 16:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-10 16:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:56, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> BTW, in our country (NL) we have a payment system ('Tikkie', nudge)
>>> which works with WhatsApp (and other messaging systems), so the
>>> integration is there, but generic, instead of IM platform specific.
>>
>> Yeah, we just need (to agree on a) a system that is EU wide.
>
> The Dutch iDEAL [1] payment system is planned to become the European
> (not just EU) acount-to-account payment system. Perhaps that will also
> incorporate 'Tikkie' [2] functionality, which is more person-to-person
> payment than acount-to-account.

Spain wants to push Bizum instead, which is very popular here.

>
> [1] 'iDEAL' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEAL>
>
> [2] 'Tikkie' <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkie> (Dutch)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-11 17:08, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2023 10:38:27 -0400 Wally J wrote:

....

>
> The 'problem', which is shared by (some) users of both Android and iOS, is
> ...
>
> "A user of a modern smartphone cannot be confident of sending a
> feature-rich message (having features equivalent to the GSMA's RCS
> Universal Profile) irrespective of both sender's and recipient's make of
> phone, both sender and receiver using their phone's _default_ messaging
> facility."
>
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
> Note that RCS does not currently include End to End Encryption (e2ee).

It does if you use the Google Messages App.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-11 11:08, Dave Royal wrote:

> "A user of a modern smartphone cannot be confident of sending a
> feature-rich message (having features equivalent to the GSMA's RCS
> Universal Profile) irrespective of both sender's and recipient's make of
> phone, both sender and receiver using their phone's _default_ messaging
> facility."

Which is a sad argument. There are other means to move large files if
one avenue doesn't work. E-mail, text a link to a repository (Dropbox),
e-mail a link to ... etc.

> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
> Note that RCS does not currently include End to End Encryption (e2ee).
>
> At the moment only SMS messages can be confidently sent and reliably
> received.
>
> MMS has been discontinued in many territories:
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Decline_and_discontinuation

6 countries. Oooooooohhhh the horror.

> It is rumoured that Apple will enable RCS in their default message app in

No rumour. Apple have said they will.

> 2024 (not replacing iMessage) which is to be welcomed IMO. No doubt people
> will continue to use proprietary apps and protocols when they want extra
> features - eg e2ee.

It does E2E already in some instances. But Apple is seeking a
non-3rd-party solution to E2E in RCS.

https://www.techradar.com/phones/iphone/breaking-apple-will-support-rcs-in-2024

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

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 10:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-11 09:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>> On 2023-12-11 15:15, Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-12-11 03:19, Bernd Froehlich wrote:
> >>>>> On 10. Dec 2023 at 13:22:31 CET, ""Carlos E. R.""
> >>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, you are missing something:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Telegram, Signal, Threema for instance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No WhatsApp over here and still happily communicating (and exchanging
> >>>>> pictures) with lots of Androids :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not what's being discussed.  What is: is how iPhone Messages
> >>>> users can send phots/vids to Android users.
> >>>>
> >>>> They can.  And do.
> >>>
> >>> With WhatsApp, yes, certainly they can. With imessages, no, not here.
> >>
> >> Yes - you've made the point a thousand times now.
> >
> > Well, if you make your (non (read NA-only)) point a thousand times,
> > you can only expect that the favour will be returned, can't you!?
>
> They didn't have to reply - again. Now you'll say "you too!". But I am
> the OP on this thread. That has privileges ?

Fair enough! I just canceled my previous response and I will cancel
this one, so if you either, complain to your NSP! :-)

On 2023-12-11 17:48, badgolferman wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

....

>> Is this yet an accurate summary of the problem set?
>>
>
> Since most people in the US don’t pay for MMS I don’t think that’s the
> problem. My opinion is Android users break group chats for iOS users since
> Android doesn’t support some iOS features.
>
> Now you can say it’s iOS users complaining about this, but it seems it’s
> Android users who keep trying to get around it somehow.

Rather some devs are trying to get around it somehow, because iOS users
complain about this.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-11 16:02, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Exactly. And as you indicate, the whole 'bubble colour' (non-)argument
>>> is mindblowingly stupid. Who *cares* what colour *'our'* messages are on
>>> *'their'* screens!? Have I ever been worried about what kind of colours
>>> you use in Thunderbird? I don't think so!
>>
>> It is apparently a thing with "kids" in USA.
>
> For badgolferman,
>
> Is my summary understanding of the problem set below accurate yet?
>
> I respectfully change my assessment that we previously disagreed upon as it
> seems to be both Apple & Android users complaining - but only a subset of
> each group.
>
> As I try to understand all these problems, it appears the problem is a mix
> of the proprietary messaging iOS uses versus the open messaging of Android.
>
> *First problem: free Android MMS to Android*
> Some Android users get charged for MMS so they prefer a method that sends
> MMS for free.

And in some countries or in some providers, MMS has been removed.

> There are two fundamental solutions to that problem set.
> 1. Use any messaging app that allows MMS for free (there are many)
> 2. Use RCS in the messaging (there are a half dozen free Android RCS apps)
> 3. But the problem with both is the recipient has to use a similar app

4. Do not use SMS/MMS, but some other messaging app, like WhatsApp,
Signal, Telegram, Threema....

>
> *Second problem: free Android MMS to iOS*
> For the same subset who are charged by their carrier for MMS...
> 1. Use RCS (but iOS doesn't support RCS)
> 2. Use Beeper (but iOS doesn't support Beeper)
> 3. Use anything else such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Theema, whatever

4. Use SMS.

>
> Given that iOS Messages is the same as WhatsApp (and all the rest), the
> problem is nobody on Android is using the iOS Messages app while everyone
> on iOS (practically) is using the proprietary closed iOS Messages app.

In other countries than NA, people on iPhones are probably using feature
rich WhatsApp or similar instead of iMessages, because the population
using iPhones is minimal, and the problem is solved.

>
> So it's a conundrum only for the following subsets of Android/iOS users:
> a. Android users who are charged for sending MMS, and,
a2. Users in countries where MMS is not supported.
> b. iOS users who want to receive those MMS messages.
>
> Is this yet an accurate summary of the problem set?

I made some corrections.

Then there are the users communicating across countries. In that case,
MMS (if not disabled) is even more expensive. It might even have a cost
for USAians.

There is a reason for using open standards...

Also, the EU is going to push for all those isolated messaging platforms
to intercommunicate "somehow™"

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 10:44, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> With an Apple device there are no restrictions on using "outside the
> >> Apple eco-system" apps and means. Apple users who are part of a
> >> non-Apple grouping just use the apps and means that the group uses. Life
> >> goes on without restriction.
> >>
> >> But, when "in the eco-system" one gets those things that those not in
> >> the club can't have. Such as the seamless integration between Apple
> >> devices and apps.
> >>
> >> This is why Apple's "eco system" is not a walled garden as you're so
> >> desperate to label it.
> >>
> >> It is a fenced-in country club that members can enter and leave as they
> >> like or need. The members get everything of both worlds, the
> >> non-members only get their world and can only gaze through the fence and
> >> wish they had the benefits of the club (or rant about the club members
> >> if that is therapeutic to them).
> >>
> >> Meanwhile companies like Samsung make their own "clubby" setups such as
> >> integration between phones and watches - but this falls into messy once
> >> one uses a Windows PC, Mac or Linux. Very messy to keep all the parts
> >> singing in harmony.
> >
> > From Samsung's (commercial) newsletters, I get the impression that
> > there is also quite a lot of intergration, *if* you buy all your stuff,
> > including all kinds of other stuff, like appliances, TV, home
> > automation, etc., etc. from *Samsung*. So for your example, that would
> > be a *Samsung* Windows PC (versus an Apple Mac).
>
> Not a very good comparison, alas. Apple has the Home Kit to extend
> one's reach over to all sorts of appliances.

Yes, but that's just a bay of islands, not tight integration as the
rest of the Apple eco-system. You can't have it both ways: It's either
part of the Apple eco-system - and hence (most likely) tightly
integrated - or it's not - and hence the *user* is the 'systems
integrator', not Apple.

> > So apples to apples :-) comparison: Buy *all* your stuff from Apple
> > versus buy *all* your stuff from Samsung.
> >
> > N.B. I'm not implying that Samsung's integration is as intricate as
> > Apple's, but it's much better than just a bay of islands as is the case
> > when everything/most_things come from different manufacturers.
>
> This is where open standards are a good thing for _basic_ integration.

Indeed. But in that case the user is the systems integrator and if
stuff doesn't work, tough luck and over to unofficial help sources (such
as these groups).

> Doesn't mean that when one co. goes the extra distance that they have to
> open it up to all and sundry to take advantage of their investment in
> more advanced features. Certainly the shareholders would not stand for it.

I - and most sane people - am not saying they have to open it all up.

What we *are* saying is that when it's about *communication* the
reasonable expectation is that the communication method (iMessage) can
also communicate with other platforms. And no, the current SMS/MMS
kludge does *not* satisfy that need. It's a silly bandaid 'used' (FSVSVO
'used') in the US(/NA?). No-one takes the kludge seriously, so it's
telling that Apple users - who always talk about seamless, smooth, etc.
- even bother to defend such a kludge. Just accept/admit that it's a
kludge and move on.

Of course Apple *can* keep iMessage closed. Likewise we *can* call it
silly, stupid, <whatever>.

> > And Samsung makes some stuff which Apple doesn't, so let's call it a
> > *different* country club, where both Apple users and non-Samsung users
> > "can only gaze through the fence and wish they had the benefits of the
> > club (or rant about the club members if that is therapeutic to them)".
> > :-)
>
> I can't think of a thing Samsung makes where I wouldn't consider some
> other company's wares over them. Not to say Samsung doesn't make things
> I may want.

Well, again you can't have it both ways: You either stick with one
company or you pick and choose. I could make the same (non-)argument: "I
can't think of a thing Apple makes where I wouldn't consider some other
company's wares over them.".

> But their disjointed eco-system is certainly not a draw.

Their eco-system is not "disjointed". They might not offer the
intricate level of integration which Apple offers for their products,
but that doesn't mean their eco-system is "disjointed".