On 11 Dec 2023 19:25:56 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>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.

GSMA's RCS Universal Profile does not.
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:29:51 -0500, Alan Browne 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.

Nobody said anything about "large files" - as most MMS is group messages &
individual photos and short videos (which are the larger of those files).

>
>> <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.

Countries that have discontinued MMS include:
India (BSNL; from 1 November 2015),
Philippines (SunCel, SmartCommunications, TNT; from 28 September 2018),
Singapore (Singtel, M1, Starhub; from 16 November 2021),
Kazakhstan (Kcell; from 6 May 2022),
Switzerland (Swisscom, Salt Mobile; from 10 January 2023),
Germany (Vodafone; from 17 January 2023).

>> It is rumoured that Apple will enable RCS in their default message app in
>
> No rumour. Apple have said they will.

Apple will include RCS late in 2024 which is probably a September release.

>> 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

Isn't all the Apple e2e nullified when people back up to the icloud because
apple stores all your encryption keys in the clear when you use the icloud?

> Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.

You should fix the "your" as you copied it but didn't read it first.

On 2023-12-11 14:09, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2023 19:25:56 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-12-11 17:08, Dave Royal wrote:

>>> <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.
>
> GSMA's RCS Universal Profile does not.

Why Apple want to work with GSMA to include it - and I assume Apple will
push for it to be incorporated into the spec before Apple include it.

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

On 12/11/2023 2:17 PM, Larry Wolff wrote:
> Countries that have discontinued MMS include:
> India (BSNL; from 1 November 2015),
> Philippines (SunCel, SmartCommunications, TNT; from 28 September 2018),
> Singapore (Singtel, M1, Starhub; from 16 November 2021),
> Kazakhstan (Kcell; from 6 May 2022),
> Switzerland (Swisscom, Salt Mobile; from 10 January 2023),
> Germany (Vodafone; from 17 January 2023).

The only country that might matter in that short list is Germany.
Anyone know if Germany supports RCS now that it's the world standard?

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

> 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.

Frank ...

The sole reason Apple stuff works together is they're always logged into
the same server (for the rest of their lives - they're logging into Apple).

Think about that.... (given you know Android doesn't need us to do that).

There's nothing Apple can do that Android can't do if everyone logged into
the same server to do it, Frank.

The difference is that Apple will _brick_ your device if you don't log in.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dHQQFfk/locked-02.jpg> Password was always good
<https://i.postimg.cc/vTdfLY2f/locked-03.jpg> Apple wants a gov license!!!
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> Then, iCloud works again
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> Then, Messages works again

Ask me how I know this, Frank.
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fPjQpr3/nag01.jpg> 3 iOS nag items
<https://i.postimg.cc/wxwgN0Fg/nag02.jpg> 2 iOS nag items
<https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> 1 iOS nag item (permanent)

In a year or two, Apple will _brick_ my third device as I will
never log into that Apple server ever again on that device.

Note: You know I test things, Frank - so none of the iKooks is aware of
what Apple does because they'd be too scared NOT to do what Apple tells
them to do (like innocent sheep led by the nose to slaughter).

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

I learned how horrid Apple's "integration" was in this simple lesson...
<https://i.postimg.cc/fRtZFGSt/sharepod01.jpg> iTunes breaks everything

I bought an iPod to use with my songs on my Windows PC, and... then...
I had to _initialize_ the damn thing - using - you guessed it - iTunes...

You know I know software - and therefore I know all about Apple software...
It's terrible.

A. I was utterly horrified at the iTunes bloatware abomination
B. Which I instantly removed in favor of the free SharePod integration
C. Years later, Apple bought SharePod & made it use (guess what) iTunes

Notice the lessons learned:
a. Apple can't write software
b. Apple software _reduces_ functionality
c. Apple did everything they could to hinder functionality

Luckily I saved the original SharePod version which works fine to this day.
--
The instant you choose the Apple product line, you lose functionality.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> 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.

You've (*still*) got it completely backwards: "Android doesn't support
some iOS features" because *Apple* refuses to open up iMessage, so
'Android' *cannot* "support some iOS features" because *Apple* doesn't
allow them to.

> 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.

Again completely backwards: Android users don't do any such thing!
*Apple*'s kludge converts chats with Android users to SMS/MMS, which is
much more limited, much more expensive (outrageously so for MMS) for the
sender or/and the recipient and (for MMS) not even available in a number
of countries.

The Apple kludge is apparently 'accepted' in the US (and perhaps in
NA) 'because' of the high penetration of iPhones (much higher than in
the rest of the world) and the US(/NA?) Android users apparently rolling
over.

As this is a worldwide forum, such sillyness is highly frowned upon
and no amount of Apple worshipping is going to change that.

*This* part of Apple's offering is a kludge. Accept it and move on.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> 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.

Hi badgolferman,

Thanks for trying to clarify as I am struggling to understand the issues
as I have no problems communication with iOS users in any fashion at all.

And I'm in family "group chats" which include both platforms (where the
non-technical women are usually on iOS & the technical men on Android).

Nobody's complaining they can't get my many MMS messages (if you think I
post a lot of images to this ng, you should see my pictures of my kids).

And I get theirs. Easy peasy. No problems here.

So I'm still struggling to summarize the problem set, which Dave Royal
seems to grasp the best, although Frank Slootweg (NL) & Carlos E.R. (Spain)
seem to also understand the MMS issues better than I do.

In addition, Andy Burns (UK) explained that a problem is his recipient's
RCS support, which, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that he can
send MMS using RCS but nobody on iOS (currently) can get those messages.

Even the Android recipients can't get them if the Android user doesn't make
one of the half dozen RCS-enabled messaging apps their one-&-only default.

It seems to me when all the messaging apps support RCS, that part of the
problem should be fixed. Does that seem like a reasonable assessment yet?
--
The only reason Apple stuff works well is everyone is logged into the same
server 100% of the time, so of course they can communicate with each other.

On 2023-12-11 14:03, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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.

Use a Venn diagram analysis and yes, Apple can have their tight
integration over "their" club as well as integrate with non-Apple
integration sets.

Does this make the user the "integrator"? More like the "installer".

>>> 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.

The seamless/smooth bit is amongst one's personal devices most of all,
with other Apple users to a great extent. This is the 'club' part.

Outside the club:

No kludge at all. Messages (the Apple app) does communicate with
SMS/MMS via the cellco system as designed. Then of course all the 3rd
party apps .... which don't talk to each other at all - that's anathema
to the 'owners' of those apps.

So I (like most) have accounts on most of them even if I don't
particularly want them but need them from time to time.

That's pretty kludgy. At least it's at no cost.

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

Call it a fudge brownie for all I care.

>
>>> 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.".

Again: Venn diagram time - the variant. Samsung provide apps for iPhone
to control Samsung stuff. So having the iPhone user can step outside
the club w/o leaving his comfortable lounger. And many, many, many
companies have apps for iPhone to work with their stuff.

>
>> 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".

As you like.

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

Using <news:ul7tpu.peo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

> Again completely backwards: Android users don't do any such thing!
> *Apple*'s kludge converts chats with Android users to SMS/MMS, which is
> much more limited, much more expensive (outrageously so for MMS) for the
> sender or/and the recipient and (for MMS) not even available in a number
> of countries.

Does this mean that when an iphone sends a picture to an android phone,
that the image is sent from the apple messages app as an mms message?

But that same image is not sent from ios as an mms to another iphone?

> The Apple kludge is apparently 'accepted' in the US (and perhaps in
> NA) 'because' of the high penetration of iPhones (much higher than in
> the rest of the world) and the US(/NA?) Android users apparently rolling
> over.

There is not only a high usa penetration of iphones but also free usa mms.

On 2023-12-09 22:50:20 +0000, Your Name said:
> On 2023-12-09 15:19:52 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>>>> would permit this?
>>>
>>> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
>>> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)
>>
>> <https://www.androidpolice.com/beeper-mini-outage-b/>
>>
>> <https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-minis-access-after-launch-of-service-that-brought-imessage-to-android/>
>>
>>
>>> So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?
>>
>> At a rough guess, Apple have initially blocked Beeper's IPs from their
>> firewall?
>
> The Beeper Mini developer is already working on a fix:
>
> Beeper Mini developers say fix is 'coming soon'
> for iMessage Android app
>
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/09/beeper-mini-developers-say-fix-is-coming-soon-for-imessage-android-app>
>
>
>
> But as that articles says ...
>
> "If Beeper Mini is fixed to work once more, it may face a
> similar issue in the not-so-distant future. With Apple
> keen to keep iMessage to only its own ecosystem of
> devices, this may result in a security arms race between
> the trillion-dollar iPhone maker and developers wanting
> iMessage to work with Android."
>
> so it may not work for long before being blocked again. Continually
> being blocked would mean it's not really a viable solution to anything
> at all, whether that's Android user's "blue bubble phobia" or "lack of
> features".

Beeper Mini is working again ...

Beeper Mini for Android lives again,
but for how long is anybody's guess

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/11/beeper-mini-for-android-lives-again-but-for-how-long-is-anybodys-guess>

.... bets on how long it will take Apple to block it again?

On 2023-12-11 20:09, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2023 19:25:56 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> GSMA's RCS Universal Profile does not.

Is anybody providing that in the real world?

Samsung switched to the Google version.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/11/2023 8:48 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Since most people in the US don’t pay for MMS I don’t think that’s the
> problem.
MMS uses data which most people in the U.S. do pay for.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2023-12-11 20:35, Bradley wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 2:17 PM, Larry Wolff wrote:
>> Countries that have discontinued MMS include: India (BSNL; from 1
>> November 2015), Philippines (SunCel, SmartCommunications, TNT; from 28
>> September 2018), Singapore (Singtel, M1, Starhub; from 16 November 2021),
>> Kazakhstan (Kcell; from 6 May 2022),
>> Switzerland (Swisscom, Salt Mobile; from 10 January 2023), Germany
>> (Vodafone; from 17 January 2023).
>
> The only country that might matter in that short list is Germany.

And Switzerland, but they love to drop "ancient" things, like TV over
the air.

> Anyone know if Germany supports RCS now that it's the world standard?

AFAIK, yes, of course.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-11 19:29, Alan Browne wrote:
> 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

I'd guess Apple is seeking a Non-Google solution to E2E in RCS. They are
too late for that. :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-11 17:57, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 19:29, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-11 11:08, Dave Royal wrote:

>>> 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
>
> I'd guess Apple is seeking a Non-Google solution to E2E in RCS. They are
> too late for that. :-D

Why "too late"?

"Apple says it won't be supporting any proprietary extensions that seek
to add encryption on top of RCS and hopes, instead, to work with the GSM
Association to add encryption to the standard." techradar link above.

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

On 2023-12-11 11:56, Wally J wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
>> 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.
>
> Frank ...
>
> The sole reason Apple stuff works together is they're always logged into
> the same server (for the rest of their lives - they're logging into Apple).
>
> Think about that.... (given you know Android doesn't need us to do that).
>
> There's nothing Apple can do that Android can't do if everyone logged into
> the same server to do it, Frank.
>
> The difference is that Apple will _brick_ your device if you don't log in.

Why must you lie?

On 11 Dec 2023 23:51:39 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>On 2023-12-11 20:09, Dave Royal wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2023 19:25:56 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> GSMA's RCS Universal Profile does not.
>
>Is anybody providing that in the real world?
>
>Samsung switched to the Google version.

The GSMA RCS UP* is a set of standards for a set of features. Google's RCS
implementation is not an /alternative/ to the UP, it is (IIUC) in
compliance with the UP and provides features on top, such as e2ee.

*I keep giving it that long name because 'RCS' could refer to that set of
standards, Google's implementation based on those, or somebody else's
service called RCS.
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 12.12.23 09:27, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2023 23:51:39 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Samsung switched to the Google version.
>
> The GSMA RCS UP* is a set of standards for a set of features. Google's RCS
> implementation is not an /alternative/ to the UP, it is (IIUC) in
> compliance with the UP and provides features on top, such as e2ee.

Right. And this encryption is proprietary and is not accepted by Apple.
Meaning that RCS will be introduced but kept outside iMsg.

> *I keep giving it that long name because 'RCS' could refer to that set of
> standards, Google's implementation based on those, or somebody else's
> service called RCS.

Google-RCS will fail inevitably: It has no unique selling proposition
compared to other messengers which exist already for roughly a decade.

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

On 10.12.23 13:24, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> It is relevant for me, who don't live in the USA.

We are discussing markets not you.

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

*LOL*. Are you still using Hangouts, Dear?

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

On 2023-12-12 04:13, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 12.12.23 09:27, Dave Royal wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2023 23:51:39 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> Samsung switched to the Google version.
>>
>> The GSMA RCS UP* is a set of standards for a set of features. Google's RCS
>> implementation is not an /alternative/ to the UP, it is (IIUC) in
>> compliance with the UP and provides features on top, such as e2ee.
>
> Right. And this encryption is proprietary and is not accepted by Apple.
> Meaning that RCS will be introduced but kept outside iMsg.

Apple want to maintain various iMessage features exclusively from RCS -
but RCS will (likely) be implemented within Messages.

Apple wants E2E in RCS. Just not 3rd party (Google) implementations.
They will want it standardized into RCS as a while. Open for all to
gaze into.

>
>> *I keep giving it that long name because 'RCS' could refer to that set of
>> standards, Google's implementation based on those, or somebody else's
>> service called RCS.
>
> Google-RCS will fail inevitably: It has no unique selling proposition
> compared to other messengers which exist already for roughly a decade.

It will have more appeal in North America as many European posters here
are quick to point out.

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

On 2023-12-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 11:56, Wally J wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Frank ...
>>
>> The sole reason Apple stuff works together is they're always logged
>> into the same server (for the rest of their lives - they're logging
>> into Apple).
>>
>> Think about that.... (given you know Android doesn't need us to do
>> that).
>>
>> There's nothing Apple can do that Android can't do if everyone logged
>> into the same server to do it, Frank.
>>
>> The difference is that Apple will _brick_ your device if you don't
>> log in.
>
> Why must you lie?

Arlen ("Wally") *desperately* wants those of us who actually have
devices that haven't been logged into iCloud to be quiet, but the fact
is many people use Apple devices without the *completely* *optional*
iCloud service for years without issue. I have an iPhone SE (1st gen)
semi-permanently mounted to the windshield of my car that hasn't been
logged into iCloud for years, and it functions as a dedicated dash cam
without issue. Here's he truth: Arlen purposely fucked his own device up
and is trying to pass that off as "Apple fucked me". Arlen lies. Arlen
lies constantly. Arlen *hates* Apple users so much that he literally
spends hours and hours every day trolling these news groups in lame
attempts to belittle and disrupt. Unlike most other posting here, Arlen
has no life outside of hate. He's a pathetic loser.

--
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

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

> but the fact
> is many people use Apple devices without the *completely* *optional*
> iCloud service for years without issue.

Hi Jolly Roger,

While Snit & Alan Baker & Joerg are plonked, I read everything you write.
And it's clear you have absolutely no idea of how Apple does things, JR.

What you do not understand, Jolly Roger, is there are _multiple_ times you
must log into an Apple device, as witnessed by the very images I provided.

For example, there's an iCloud login and there's an iMessage login, JR.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud login
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage login

And there's plenty more, Jolly Roger, none of which are you aware of.
<https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> Plenty of other Apple logins

> I have an iPhone SE (1st gen)
> semi-permanently mounted to the windshield of my car that hasn't been
> logged into iCloud for years, and it functions as a dedicated dash cam
> without issue.

What's no longer shocking about you uneducated ignorant iKooks, Jolly
Roger, is you can't figure out that the iCloud login is _not_ the problem.

I too could download all the software I wanted to get from the App Store,
for example, which worked even when Apple bricked the rest of my devices.
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test
Note: You can install apps - you just can't delete & then re-install them.

What you don't understand is the sheer number of logins Apple requires,
and, more importantly, if you don't log into them frequently, then what you
consider wonders of the walled garden immediately stop (e.g., FaceTime).

> He's a pathetic loser.

It's no longer shocking that you iKooks are incapable of responding to the
fact that you _hate_ about Apple products so you attack the bearer of fact.

So be it.

Fact is, you've never once found any fact from me to ever be wrong, even as
you _hate_ almost every fact that I prove to you about Apple products, JR.
--
The problem with iKooks isn't so much how incredibly ignorant they are, but
they refuse to believe any facts about Apple which they themselves hate.

On 2023-12-12 14:38, Wally J wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>
>> but the fact
>> is many people use Apple devices without the *completely* *optional*
>> iCloud service for years without issue.
>
> Hi Jolly Roger,
>
> While Snit & Alan Baker & Joerg are plonked, I read everything you write.
> And it's clear you have absolutely no idea of how Apple does things, JR.
>
> What you do not understand, Jolly Roger, is there are _multiple_ times you
> must log into an Apple device, as witnessed by the very images I provided.
>
> For example, there's an iCloud login and there's an iMessage login, JR.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud login
> <https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage login

And nothing requires you to use either one.

>
> And there's plenty more, Jolly Roger, none of which are you aware of.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> Plenty of other Apple logins

And you aren't required to use them.

On 2023-12-12, Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>
>> but the fact is many people use Apple devices without the
>> *completely* *optional* iCloud service for years without issue.
>
> And it's clear you have absolutely no idea of how Apple does things,
> JR.

Projection. It is *you* who has absolutely no idea how Apple devices
work.

> What you do not understand, Jolly Roger, is there are _multiple_ times
> you must log into an Apple device, as witnessed by the very images I
> provided.

Nope. My iPhone SE hasn't asked or required a login for *years* and
continues to work just fine. You don't know what you are talking about.
You think iCloud is mandatory when it's not. You think Apple requires
you to log in, when they do not. You are a useless, know-nothing troll.

> For example, there's an iCloud login and there's an iMessage login,
> JR.

You caused that by logging into iCloud and iMessage, Arlen. And the fact
that you think the rest of us don't know that is pathetic. Your trolls
are as weak as your interpersonal skills.

> And there's plenty more, Jolly Roger, none of which are you aware of.

More projection from the Apple-hating loser troll. You logged into that
account and now like a complete moron you are complaining that your
logged-in account is asking for your credentials. How fucking dumb are
you? Pretty fucking dumb it appears.

>> I have an iPhone SE (1st gen) semi-permanently mounted to the
>> windshield of my car that hasn't been logged into iCloud for years,
>> and it functions as a dedicated dash cam without issue.
>
> uneducated
> ignorant
> iKooks

Poor, little triggered 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

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

>> And it's clear you have absolutely no idea of how Apple does things,
>> JR.
>
> Projection. It is *you* who has absolutely no idea how Apple devices
> work.

Hi Jolly Roger,

The unsurprising thing is you iKooks have no clue whatsoever that there's a
login into the iMessage server and _another_ login into the iCloud server.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud login
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage login

And plenty more.
<https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> Plenty of other Apple logins

It's no longer shocking you iKooka have no idea how Apple products work.

>> What you do not understand, Jolly Roger, is there are _multiple_ times
>> you must log into an Apple device, as witnessed by the very images I
>> provided.
>
> Nope. My iPhone SE hasn't asked or required a login for *years* and
> continues to work just fine. You don't know what you are talking about.

Ah, but I do. I know full well what happens if you don't log into Apple
servers when they ask you to "Update Apple ID settings" as shown here.
<https://i.postimg.cc/3NVqB4dC/nag03.jpg> 1 Update Apple ID settings

> You think iCloud is mandatory when it's not. You think Apple requires
> you to log in, when they do not. You are a useless, know-nothing troll.

I understand you better than you know yourself, Jolly Roger, so I forgive
you for lashing out at me simply for telling you the truth about Apple.

>> For example, there's an iCloud login and there's an iMessage login,
>> JR.
>
> You caused that by logging into iCloud and iMessage, Arlen. And the fact
> that you think the rest of us don't know that is pathetic. Your trolls
> are as weak as your interpersonal skills.

No. You're wrong Jolly Roger. That was caused by Apple who forces you to
identify yourself with a government ID if you ever stop logging into it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple

>> And there's plenty more, Jolly Roger, none of which are you aware of.
>
> More projection from the Apple-hating loser troll. You logged into that
> account and now like a complete moron you are complaining that your
> logged-in account is asking for your credentials. How fucking dumb are
> you? Pretty fucking dumb it appears.

Again, I forgive you for hating all facts about Apple products, Jolly
Roger. But you hating what Apple does doesn't change what Apple does.

It's clear you have absolutely no idea that you're continually logging into
Apple servers - because if you didn't - Apple will brick your device.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ the device!

What you hate is that almost nothing works on Apple products if you simply
choose to NOT log into Apple's mothership tracking servers every single
moment of the rest of your life, Jolly Roger.

Which is why I feel sorry for you iKooks after all.

You're so _happy_ being oblivious to everything about Apple products
that you hate me (and Apple) when I prove to you what Apple does.