What the f**k is "Apple Messages"? Why do we make up product names? Why can't a site called "Apple Insider" get the name right of a service used by hundreds of millions of people and built into every single iPhone? It's "iMessage" not "Apple Messages".
Apple Messages is the name of the application used on all Apple devices (except older iOS versions). iMessage is the protocol* Messages uses on iOS devices. Messages is still the name of the executable used under OS X/macOS. You can get all pissy about this but for most people, what they use is the Messages app, which is why people now call it Messages.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
It's worth noting that WhatsApp has a desktop application and a web interface. Outside China, WhatsApp is the defacto standard with Line and Telegram as most people's backup.
Not completely true. I can send anybody a message and if they don't have an iPhone , it'll go through as a text message.
Yes, but as a text message it it isn't classified as 'data' and that means any images, audio, video etc will be stripped unless the user has MMS activated. Also as SMS, costs may apply (multiple costs if the text is long). Emojis will be converted into ordinary text.
It it precisely for this reason (and the fact that WhatsApp literally killed SMS in great parts of the world) that people choose not to use services that can have a cost. In fact, many plans where I live no longer even consider WhatsApp content as part of the subscribers data allotment.
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Great post overall but I'm not sure that I'd throw Apple as a whole into the Waterfall camp. I've worked for a couple of the companies in the "waterfall" list and worked with others from the Agile list in partnering arrangements. Even the most dyed in the wool so-called waterfallers have purposely transformed into agile-like or real agile across major parts of their businesses over the past decade or even longer. But the main points about not dinging Amazon for following a similar macro strategy that Apple is following is right on. The biggest difference is that Amazon started as a services company and then decided to build products to pump up its services push while Apple started out as a product company and then decided to build services to pump up its product push. They each took different paths to the same end point. No harm and no foul and customers are happy with both companies. It's all good.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
It's worth noting that WhatsApp has a desktop application and a web interface. Outside China, WhatsApp is the defacto standard with Line and Telegram as most people's backup.
Not completely true. I can send anybody a message and if they don't have an iPhone , it'll go through as a text message.
Yes, but as a text message it it isn't classified as 'data' and that means any images, audio, video etc will be stripped unless the user has MMS activated. Also as SMS, costs may apply (multiple costs if the text is long). Emojis will be converted into ordinary text.
It it precisely for this reason (and the fact that WhatsApp literally killed SMS in great parts of the world) that people choose not to use services that can have a cost. In fact, many plans where I live no longer even consider WhatsApp content as part of the subscribers data allotment.
It's off topic for this article, but I would like to see HomePod allow for text and calls to answered and made via the device, which cellular calls piggybacking on your iPhone connection. This is an area where Amazon can't do what Apple can do in this space. It would be even more convenient than hands-free calling in the car. The Apple TV could even display caller info or text messages if you didn't want to listen her the service read back comment. Lots of potential with Apple that others can't match.
I would love to see this and it seems like it wouldn't take much. As we can already send SMS and take/place calls from our iPads or Macs, etc, via an iPhone I feel like it would be a tiny jump to enable it from HomePod. I HATE using speaker phones, but put some high quality mics and speakers with some great audio processing and I might change my mind. I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it can be trying to take a call on speaker while, say, feeding my 1 year old. There's just too much noise and the too tiny a speaker to make it an enjoyable experience. And I like your thinking regarding the use of Apple TV in there as well.
Back on topic, I suppose it's a good thing that Amazon is entering the messaging market but it probably won't make much of a difference overall. I suppose it could be handy when something pops into your head that you need to order to send a text to Amazon and have it added to your cart.
I'm not much of an Amazon customer, though, so I likely wouldn't be using it.
What the fuck is "Apple Messages"? Why do we make up product names? Why can't a site called "Apple Insider" get the name right of a service used by hundreds of millions of people and built into every single iPhone? It's "iMessage" not "Apple Messages".
The actual name of the app is called "Messages", not iMessage.
And on release it’ll be available on more platforms than iMessage.
So are a lot of other messaging Apps. Wasn't BlackBerry Messager going to take over the world? Where is it now? What motivation do I have to use Amazon Text messages? Let alone those hooked on Facebook and others?
And on release it’ll be available on more platforms than iMessage.
So what? Why is making Messages platform independent that important? If you want to use it that bad, then buy an Apple product. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
It's off topic for this article, but I would like to see HomePod allow for text and calls to answered and made via the device, which cellular calls piggybacking on your iPhone connection. This is an area where Amazon can't do what Apple can do in this space. It would be even more convenient than hands-free calling in the car. The Apple TV could even display caller info or text messages if you didn't want to listen her the service read back comment. Lots of potential with Apple that others can't match.
I would love to see this and it seems like it wouldn't take much. As we can already send SMS and take/place calls from our iPads or Macs, etc, via an iPhone I feel like it would be a tiny jump to enable it from HomePod. I HATE using speaker phones, but put some high quality mics and speakers with some great audio processing and I might change my mind. I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it can be trying to take a call on speaker while, say, feeding my 1 year old. There's just too much noise and the too tiny a speaker to make it an enjoyable experience. And I like your thinking regarding the use of Apple TV in there as well.
Back on topic, I suppose it's a good thing that Amazon is entering the messaging market but it probably won't make much of a difference overall. I suppose it could be handy when something pops into your head that you need to order to send a text to Amazon and have it added to your cart.
I'm not much of an Amazon customer, though, so I likely wouldn't be using it.
This sounds good between Echos. Those far-field mics and much better audio-in processing allows for clear voice isolation when you're across the room doing something else, liek preparing dinner whilst having a conversation between Echos.
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
What an absurd argument. You're trying to make a waterfall vs agile argument and erroneously trying to suggest failure is unique to waterfall by citing some successful big companies that use agile, while at the same time excluding all the countless failed startups that were also agile. Literally countless. While also downplaying the fact that Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history. And while most of the record profit comes from iPhone, they're unique in that they have had several major products over the decades, while most only have one.
Hint: it's not about the project methodology.
Another thing you got wrong -- the defunct companies you cited don't "do things the way Apple does". Nobody does things the way Apple does. Again, it's not about the project methodology, but about how the company itself thinks, designs, refines, etc... As Cook says, it's their DNA. One manifestation of this is Apple does not throw a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks. Instead they say "No" a thousand times for every "yes", and choose to focus on a few things done well.
Also -- please cite who you're referring to that is suggesting Amazon is "Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement." I can't even think of any companies that have been accused of copyright infringement except Google, charged by Oracle over Java. But completely irrelevant here.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it. The same goes for Facetime. The reason is that the majority of people simply use alternative systems. I'm not convinced if the extra value claim.
If Apple were to open up the service to all platforms, it would help to increase use of the system among its own user and by extension to others but again, the extra value part would be dubious. That said, the more options available, the better.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it. The same goes for Facetime. The reason is that the majority of people simply use alternative systems. I'm not convinced if the extra value claim.
If Apple were to open up the service to all platforms, it would help to increase use of the system among its own user and by extension to others but again, the extra value part would be dubious. That said, the more options available, the better.
You never believe that anyone uses any Apple product...so what's new?
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
What an absurd argument. You're trying to make a waterfall vs agile argument and erroneously trying to suggest failure is unique to waterfall by citing some successful big companies that use agile, while at the same time excluding all the countless failed startups that were also agile. Literally countless. While also downplaying the fact that Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history. And while most of the record profit comes from iPhone, they're unique in that they have had several major products over the decades, while most only have one.
Hint: it's not about the project methodology.
Very few software projects were strictly waterfall even in the days that Waterfall was the thing to do. Plus I don't buy that Apple is in the waterfall category anyway. It does a lot of prototyping in its R&D labs and this was made quite public as part of the Samsung trials.
Last time I checked Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Sony, AT&T, Comcast, etc listed were still in business and still major players in their domains which makes his post extremely stupid as he can't even keep things semi-coherent in one paragraph. He also doesn't understand Agile principles very well either but that's kinda par for the course.
Agile is NOT the lack of a product strategy, RAD is not "try everything and hope something sticks" and agile development is not simply "Code and Fix".
Plus, Sun was not agile. It might have done Scrum a bit but that's not the same as the company executing an agile like business plan...they had multiple opportunities to refactor and demolish both Windows NT and Linux but kept to old business practices and seriously handicapped Solaris X86 until it was too late.
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history.
Today Apple is the most successful, yesterday they were not and most certainly tomorrow they will not be.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it. The same goes for Facetime. The reason is that the majority of people simply use alternative systems. I'm not convinced if the extra value claim.
If Apple were to open up the service to all platforms, it would help to increase use of the system among its own user and by extension to others but again, the extra value part would be dubious. That said, the more options available, the better.
You never believe that anyone uses any Apple product...so what's new?
Seeing as you know that I have more Apple gear in my house than from any other manufacturer, your comment holds zero value.
As for other people I know with Apple gear, none of them use Apple's IM system because they use WhatsApp by default. Another reason is that they reply to messages started by other people on WhatsApp, Telegram etc so those apps quickly gain priority in everyday situations.
They use IM as they prefer it to talking. That's another reason as to why they shun Facetime. If they prefer text alternatives to talking they don't want to see the other person if it can be avoided.
And in China, do you think people use Apple's system for everyday use or WeChat?
Apple's system is fine for those that want to use it (and can do so) but other, multiplatform, services will dominate until Apple goes multiplatform or market share skyrockets and Apple users themselves will also use those alternative systems.
Comments
*protocol might not be the proper word here.
It it precisely for this reason (and the fact that WhatsApp literally killed SMS in great parts of the world) that people choose not to use services that can have a cost. In fact, many plans where I live no longer even consider WhatsApp content as part of the subscribers data allotment.
Me, I'm not part of the Facebook universe, and would like to keep it that way.
Back on topic, I suppose it's a good thing that Amazon is entering the messaging market but it probably won't make much of a difference overall. I suppose it could be handy when something pops into your head that you need to order to send a text to Amazon and have it added to your cart.
I'm not much of an Amazon customer, though, so I likely wouldn't be using it.
Hint: it's not about the project methodology.
Another thing you got wrong -- the defunct companies you cited don't "do things the way Apple does". Nobody does things the way Apple does. Again, it's not about the project methodology, but about how the company itself thinks, designs, refines, etc... As Cook says, it's their DNA. One manifestation of this is Apple does not throw a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks. Instead they say "No" a thousand times for every "yes", and choose to focus on a few things done well.
Also -- please cite who you're referring to that is suggesting Amazon is "Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement." I can't even think of any companies that have been accused of copyright infringement except Google, charged by Oracle over Java. But completely irrelevant here.
Compared to billions iMessage apps installed on millions devices.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it. The same goes for Facetime. The reason is that the majority of people simply use alternative systems. I'm not convinced if the extra value claim.
If Apple were to open up the service to all platforms, it would help to increase use of the system among its own user and by extension to others but again, the extra value part would be dubious. That said, the more options available, the better.
Very few software projects were strictly waterfall even in the days that Waterfall was the thing to do. Plus I don't buy that Apple is in the waterfall category anyway. It does a lot of prototyping in its R&D labs and this was made quite public as part of the Samsung trials.
Last time I checked Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Sony, AT&T, Comcast, etc listed were still in business and still major players in their domains which makes his post extremely stupid as he can't even keep things semi-coherent in one paragraph. He also doesn't understand Agile principles very well either but that's kinda par for the course.
Agile is NOT the lack of a product strategy, RAD is not "try everything and hope something sticks" and agile development is not simply "Code and Fix".
Plus, Sun was not agile. It might have done Scrum a bit but that's not the same as the company executing an agile like business plan...they had multiple opportunities to refactor and demolish both Windows NT and Linux but kept to old business practices and seriously handicapped Solaris X86 until it was too late.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Unless you mean all the other messaging apps of which are far more used and popular than iMessage.
As for other people I know with Apple gear, none of them use Apple's IM system because they use WhatsApp by default. Another reason is that they reply to messages started by other people on WhatsApp, Telegram etc so those apps quickly gain priority in everyday situations.
They use IM as they prefer it to talking. That's another reason as to why they shun Facetime. If they prefer text alternatives to talking they don't want to see the other person if it can be avoided.
And in China, do you think people use Apple's system for everyday use or WeChat?
Apple's system is fine for those that want to use it (and can do so) but other, multiplatform, services will dominate until Apple goes multiplatform or market share skyrockets and Apple users themselves will also use those alternative systems.