Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
By your guess ...... just exactly what profit is Apple protecting by not changing iMessage?
The whole premise is just nonsense. I mean, what technology company does bend over backwards to make it easy for you to leave their ecosystem? All the tools I've ever seen for migrating from Windows to Mac or Android to iOS were created by Apple (not Microsoft or Google). And there's always some data in a proprietary format which doesn't make the migration and/or requires extra software to use. If you're going to be critical, at least be consistent with it.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
I love when people try to bring in the profit argument. We live in a capitalist world, every company needs profit or they go out of business. So let's analyze Google's profit model.
I 100% agree with you, but I think you miss or ignore the point: Apple stubbornly clinging to SMS, and refusing to make iMessage cross-platform, has little to nothing to do with the reasons Apple states, essentially "we're doing it for our customers". It's for profit reasons, just as what drives most companies to do what they do.
And Google being a proponent of open source and standards trying to look like the good guy to the open source community (and customers) is exactly the same thing. At least Apple creates jobs and wealth by funding R&D with their stance. Compare that with Google's approach of avoiding licensing fees and paying for R&D (at least, for things other than customer data harvesting and analysis technology).
You;re being a bit harsh on the unwillingness of Google to spend research dollars.
They involve themselves in far more than ad development, but yes it's ads that allow Google to significantly outspend Apple when it comes to research and development;
Google R&D spend in 2022 was $31.56 billion (exceeding the total revenue of 128 Fortune 500 firms) compared to Apple's $21.91 billion.
Apple could spend more if they wanted, and on things that would benefit the greater community at large more. But their interests in advancing technology are not as diverse as Google's, nor does it need to be for Apple to be the most profitable company on the planet. They do pretty good by concentrating on those things they can directly profit from.
Google has its fingers in a lot of things, including those where there's no clear profit motive.
The bigger picture in terms of R&D spend, other than raw numbers, would be: how much R&D has Google eliminated (or helped eliminate) from companies whose business model was creating and licensing technology which Google cloned and owned? Like Java/Sun Microsystems (who yes, was already struggling for other reasons). Or font foundries due to metric compatible clone fonts created by Google. Or purchasing a video codec of questionable origin rather than paying for an MPEG-LA license (VP8). I'm sure I could find plenty more if I really dug into it.
Why? At least in part because MPEG has a fractured licensing scheme, with way too many groups staking claim in the royalties. they're killing themselves by making costs and licensing simply too difficult and unclear, even for Apple. Thank goodness Google developed an alternative, and a widely accepted one that Apple is embracing.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
I love when people try to bring in the profit argument. We live in a capitalist world, every company needs profit or they go out of business. So let's analyze Google's profit model.
I 100% agree with you, but I think you miss or ignore the point: Apple stubbornly clinging to SMS, and refusing to make iMessage cross-platform, has little to nothing to do with the reasons Apple states, essentially "we're doing it for our customers". It's for profit reasons, just as what drives most companies to do what they do.
And Google being a proponent of open source and standards trying to look like the good guy to the open source community (and customers) is exactly the same thing. At least Apple creates jobs and wealth by funding R&D with their stance. Compare that with Google's approach of avoiding licensing fees and paying for R&D (at least, for things other than customer data harvesting and analysis technology).
You;re being a bit harsh on the unwillingness of Google to spend research dollars.
They involve themselves in far more than ad development, but yes it's ads that allow Google to significantly outspend Apple when it comes to research and development;
Google R&D spend in 2022 was $31.56 billion (exceeding the total revenue of 128 Fortune 500 firms) compared to Apple's $21.91 billion.
Apple could spend more if they wanted, and on things that would benefit the greater community at large more. But their interests in advancing technology are not as diverse as Google's, nor does it need to be for Apple to be the most profitable company on the planet. They do pretty good by concentrating on those things they can directly profit from.
Google has its fingers in a lot of things, including those where there's no clear profit motive.
The bigger picture in terms of R&D spend, other than raw numbers, would be: how much R&D has Google eliminated (or helped eliminate) from companies whose business model was creating and licensing technology which Google cloned and owned? Like Java/Sun Microsystems (who yes, was already struggling for other reasons). Or font foundries due to metric compatible clone fonts created by Google. Or purchasing a video codec of questionable origin rather than paying for an MPEG-LA license (VP8). I'm sure I could find plenty more if I really dug into it.
Why? At least in part because MPEG has a fractured licensing scheme, with way too many groups staking claim in the royalties. they're killing themselves by making costs and licensing simply too difficult and unclear, even for Apple. Thank goodness Google developed an alternative, and a widely accepted one that Apple is embracing.
I agree that the MPEG-LA licensing system was convoluted. But the fact remains that, at the time, VP8 (which was developed by On2, not Google) was of questionable origin and Google made a choice to go ahead with it anyway (same as they did with the Java clone) rather than pay for a license or develop their own video codec. These choices to do an end run and avoid licensing or paying for R&D at every step are certainly not things to be lauded, nor are good for the technology industry, no matter how you try to spin it with "well look at how things are now". Yes, everyone has given up on trying to license software (it's a dead industry) because they've found there's no way to defend it from others who simply want to copy it without paying.
Yes, they will, anything that makes Apple Apple, anything that puts them ahead of the pack the EU‘s self appointed mission now is to make sure they don’t get too far ahead and many other governments in the world are following their lead to pile on too.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
By your guess ...... just exactly what profit is Apple protecting by not changing iMessage?
The whole premise is just nonsense. I mean, what technology company does bend over backwards to make it easy for you to leave their ecosystem? All the tools I've ever seen for migrating from Windows to Mac or Android to iOS were created by Apple (not Microsoft or Google). And there's always some data in a proprietary format which doesn't make the migration and/or requires extra software to use. If you're going to be critical, at least be consistent with it.
Apple needs to create software to support their hardware. If they did not, they would not sell any hardware, iMessage was created because the other messaging programs (no surprise) at the time and they still don’t really support the Apple ecosystem and that’s not going to change (Apple isn’t a monopoly), nor will Apple get support from the makers of AAA games, long-term Apple is going to have to roll up it’s sleeves again, and create something to add value to their platform so that they can sell their hardware, that is their path as a vertical computer computer, a OS software and hardware company who doesn’t have a monopoly anywhere, unless you start making up things like the EU (with the term gatekeeper).
Because of Apple’s tight integration with their software and hardware as a vertical computer company, they are able to make things that operate in a fashion that the Wintel or Android world cannot do well which will be demonstrated next year with the Apple Vision Pro, while other companies will be doing nebulous things with software AI, Apple’s take on the future, will be something that combines their core strength, hardware and software integration to provide something that can be used by the public in a very hands-on manner as only they can do, after all that new R1 co-processor didn’t just create itself, although suspect the EU probably will mandate Apple share access (blue prints) to it with everyone.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
By your guess ...... just exactly what profit is Apple protecting by not changing iMessage?
And just exactly how is not offering iMessage to Android users (in 2013 when iMessage only been around for 2 years.) the same as ...... "....refuse to make any protocol changes" ....., in order to protect profits? By defaulting to RCS instead of SMS, Apple is not offering iMessage to Android users. iMessage will still remain iOS/Mac only. Android users already have messaging services that have more features than iMessage and are more widely used across both platforms. Apple have nothing to gain by competing with WhatsApp or WeChat on Android. But Google have everything to gain if iMessage were to default to RCS because using Google Messages (or Samsung Messages by way of an exclusive deal) is the only way to open a Google RCS message on Android. Google is once again, making an attempt to become relevant in the messaging service market.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
I love when people try to bring in the profit argument. We live in a capitalist world, every company needs profit or they go out of business. So let's analyze Google's profit model.
I 100% agree with you, but I think you miss or ignore the point: Apple stubbornly clinging to SMS, and refusing to make iMessage cross-platform, has little to nothing to do with the reasons Apple states, essentially "we're doing it for our customers". It's for profit reasons, just as what drives most companies to do what they do.
I concur. Apple is very good at maintaining its competitive “stickiness,” which is really just a soft form of lock-in. Yeah, you “can” move your stuff to another platform if you “really want to,” but it’s not going to be easy. Therefore, sticking with what you’ve already got is the easiest and bumpless way to go for most current customers. Every company I’ve worked for tried very hard to build stickiness and especially when open standards based alternatives were available.
"As long as Android users have to think about whether or not they are using RCS, which version is in play, and what app to use -- RCS is a failure."
This is not at all the experience of Android users AT ALL, in our modern times! Where did you come up with that belief??!!!
RCS just works. Most Android users didn't even notice it becoming live, it just did, and they might have noticed that more features began manifesting. There was no choice or action needed. Messaging with RCS was simply better.
The only time Android users even have to learn what RCS means, is when they run into difficulties sending things to their Apple loved ones, and things don't work. It's very frustrating, and that's ALL due to Apple's 'belligerence' in the matter. It's stunning to me that such a large, successful company as Apple is, can hold such a petty position about RCS.
Isn't support for SMS falling by the wayside, and deprecation set to accelerate?
Microsoft no longer supports SMS for some sign-in types, including new devices and multi-factor authentication
Facebook/Meta Messenger will no longer support SMS as of September 28, 2023
Signal is removing SMS and MMS support to improve user safety and data protection
Apple can cling to the insecure SMS as a backup and cross-platform messaging standard as long as they want, and for solely competitive reasons, but they're not doing Apple users any favor by doing so.
My guess is that, for purely profit reasons, Apple will refuse to make any iMessage protocol changes until law or regulators mandate it. But change they will, and probably sooner rather than later. Any takers on a friendly wager of within 12-16 months (probably less but I'm being generous)?
By your guess ...... just exactly what profit is Apple protecting by not changing iMessage?
Comments
But regarding the "questionable video codec" hasn't Apple joined in with Google to promote what it's developed into? Why yes, I believe they have. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16850402/apple-joins-open-media-alliance-streaming-online-video-compression-codec
Why? At least in part because MPEG has a fractured licensing scheme, with way too many groups staking claim in the royalties. they're killing themselves by making costs and licensing simply too difficult and unclear, even for Apple. Thank goodness Google developed an alternative, and a widely accepted one that Apple is embracing.
Apple needs to create software to support their hardware. If they did not, they would not sell any hardware, iMessage was created because the other messaging programs (no surprise) at the time and they still don’t really support the Apple ecosystem and that’s not going to change (Apple isn’t a monopoly), nor will Apple get support from the makers of AAA games, long-term Apple is going to have to roll up it’s sleeves again, and create something to add value to their platform so that they can sell their hardware, that is their path as a vertical computer computer, a OS software and hardware company who doesn’t have a monopoly anywhere, unless you start making up things like the EU (with the term gatekeeper).
Because of Apple’s tight integration with their software and hardware as a vertical computer company, they are able to make things that operate in a fashion that the Wintel or Android world cannot do well which will be demonstrated next year with the Apple Vision Pro, while other companies will be doing nebulous things with software AI, Apple’s take on the future, will be something that combines their core strength, hardware and software integration to provide something that can be used by the public in a very hands-on manner as only they can do, after all that new R1 co-processor didn’t just create itself, although suspect the EU probably will mandate Apple share access (blue prints) to it with everyone.
This is not at all the experience of Android users AT ALL, in our modern times! Where did you come up with that belief??!!!
RCS just works. Most Android users didn't even notice it becoming live, it just did, and they might have noticed that more features began manifesting. There was no choice or action needed. Messaging with RCS was simply better.
The only time Android users even have to learn what RCS means, is when they run into difficulties sending things to their Apple loved ones, and things don't work.
It's very frustrating, and that's ALL due to Apple's 'belligerence' in the matter.
It's stunning to me that such a large, successful company as Apple is, can hold such a petty position about RCS.