It's amazing the hypocrisies of those that troll. You can't have it both ways. I don't even care... but to attack posters and then cry it about it when the someone pushes back is juvenile.
Actually... It is YOU who 'can't have it both ways' with your personal attacks on other's integrity and "juvenile" use of profanity, and the more you post/flail about in protest, the more you just prove my point.
Note: "DaHarder cries about being attacked when he his FUD was pointed out" - Hmm? Talking about needing to 'learn how to write like an adult" LOL
Short Message Service (SMS) is a text messaging service component of phone, web, or mobile communication systems, using standardized communications protocols that allow the exchange of short text messages between fixed line or mobile phone devices.
from wikipedia. SMS is not exclusively for phones it is a general protocol that many devices can use.
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
How do you think those large organizations send you SMS alerts to your phone. They don't type in one character at a time on their phone. They send it from a computer program over the internet to the provider that is in control of your phone number. After it make numerous hops across the internet it gets sent over the air to your phone. I don't think we are concerned about its legacy origins. Simply put it is a protocol and can utilize the Internet as part of its routing so the IP or lack of IP packets argument is not holding water. IMO.
No one besides you cares how or what protocol it uses.
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
Quote:
You even said a while back you are too cheap for a text plan so use iMessage which is now possible to use on a Mac.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
Quote:
If someone receives a text message on their phone regardless of their phone or carrier from my WiFi iPad using GV or any other text app, I don't think they would care that it was not sent via the control channel on my carrier or over IP.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
Quote:
All that matters is if you can send and reply to it like you would any other text message.
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
How do you think those large organizations send you SMS alerts to your phone. They don't type in one character at a time on their phone. They send it from a computer program over the internet to the provider that is in control of your phone number. After it make numerous hops across the internet it gets sent over the air to your phone. I don't think we are concerned about its legacy origins. Simply put it is a protocol and can utilize the Internet as part of its routing so the IP or lack of IP packets argument is not holding water. IMO.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated. All Google is doing is maintaining servers that are intermediaries between the networks. Your carrier is still needed for SMS but Google can forward an SMS as a text message.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
if a featured phone that only has sms and voice can receive sms from google voice, I would consider it sms.
SMS is still only 160 characters. Servers/phone break it up for you automatically.
Lets not talk about iMessages as it requires data on both ends. Its no better than a chat program. Its irrelevant.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
For years I have been able to send an SMS to a phone from iChat using my AIM account. I know that Apple and AIM are working together behind the scenes to deliver that SMS to the phone so I consider it an SMS. How many ones and zeros it uses is not important to me. For all intents and purposes it is an SMS.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated. All Google is doing is maintaining servers that are intermediaries between the networks. Your carrier is still needed for SMS but Google can forward an SMS as a text message.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
no one brought up iMessages but you. its a failed arguement. iMessage is not SMS
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
Personal attacks is not mature.
It just works. Isnt that an apple mantra? That is like caring about specs vs user experience.
For year I have been able to send an SMS to a phone from iChat using my AIM account. I know that Apple and AIM are working together behind the scenes to deliver that SMS to the phone so I consider it an SMS. How many ones and zeros it uses is not important to me. For all intents and purposes it is an SMS.
AOL clearly has SMSC servers but do you really think that message that leaves your AIM app is going over the control channel of your cellular phone? I sure hope not. Remember this was designed when data on phones wasn't around or common so it was a way to send small packets of text to other phones. They simply are not the same and look nothing alike when you break apart the data. It's about the protocols being used, not the number of 1's and 0's.
I feel like I'm telling people that HSPA isn't the same as WiFi but being told they are because they are both wireless. There are very distinct differences even if you use many devices as a gateway to create a Personal Hotspot but that don't mean that WiFi is HPSA and vice verse. Technology simply don't work that way.
AOL clearly has SMSC servers but do you really think that message that leaves your AIM app is going over the control channel of your cellular phone? I sure hope not. Remember this was designed when data on phones wasn't around or common so it was a way to send small packets of text to other phones. They simply are not the same and look nothing alike when you break apart the data.
I feel like I'm telling people that HSPA isn't the same as WiFi but being told they are because they are both wireless. There are very distinct differences even if you use many devices as a gateway to create a Personal Hotspot but that don't mean that WiFi is HPSA and vice verse. Technology simply don't work that way.
Ok have it your way. I want to send some 'unnamed thing' that looks exactly like an SMS from my computer to a cell phone... and I can.
Ok have it your way. I want to send some 'unnamed thing' that looks exactly like an SMS from my computer to a cell phone... and I can.
Then that describes iMessages to a tee, it even melds in with SMS part of the app on the iPhone, yet I was just told that you can't call iMessages SMS even though that person previously defined SMS in a way that included iMessages.
But you can send messages between phones so surely they must be¡
I believe that is your argument you are trying to argue against which is a fail.
Printed emails via usps and iMessage.
That fact that you can send and receive sms from google voice to a dumb phone that does not require data service clearly shows that google voice does a translation to make it compliant to send that message using sms protocol
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
Unless you actually are Newt Gingrich (and I am not convinced you are not), I am guessing if you two ever met you would be either best friends for life or kill each other within an hour.
Hate Apple? I have been using nothing but Apple computers since 1982. You made an idiotic comment and instead of just letting it go and accepting the fact that most reasonable people accept the fact that you can send and receive texts from an iPad over WiFi you start some insane argument to defend your position. I have been on these forums for years and have observed time and time again you belittling and disparaging other people for no other reason than they dare disagree with Apple or you. Take a Xanax and relax a little. It really is not that serious.
I believe that is your argument you are trying to argue against which is a fail.
Printed emails via usps and iMessage.
That fact that you can send and receive sms from google voice to a dumb phone that does not require data service clearly shows that google voice does a translation to make it compliant to send that message using sms protoco!
Unless you actually are Newt Gingrich (and I am not convinced you are not), I am guessing if you two ever met you would be either best friends for life or kill each other within an hour.
Hate Apple? I have been using nothing but Apple computers since 1982. You made an idiotic comment and instead of just letting it go and accepting the fact that most reasonable people accept the fact that you can send and receive texts from an iPad over WiFi you start some insane argument to defend your position. I have been on these forums for years and have observed time and time again you belittling and disparaging other people for no other reason than they dare disagree with Apple or you. Take a Xanax and relax a little. It really is not that serious.
1) I see where you're belittling but where did I belittle you.
2) Now you say texts instead of SMS. If by now you don't see how all SMS are texts but not all texts are SMS then there is nothing I can say to make you understand this 30 year old tech.
You've stated many many things. Mainly argumentative things that you have stated. I never argued google voice did not do any translation. Argument was google voice message considered sms which it is. You argue it isnt sms.
You've stated many many things. Mainly argumentative things that you have stated. I never argued google voice did not do any translation. Argument was google voice message considered sms which it is. You argue it isnt sms.
I stated many thinks backed up by facts. You stated many opinions that refused to do a modicum of research to see that everything I stated was true. I clearly stated that Google Voice relates to SMS but to say that they entire path is SMS even when you receive it as an email is axiomatically false. There is no way that can be true from a technological point of view.
Then that describes iMessages to a tee, it even melds in with SMS part of the app on the iPhone, yet I was just told that you can't call iMessages SMS even though that person previously defined SMS in a way that included iMessages.
Let's define the terms as the cellphone being a dumb phone with txt plan. The computer should be any computer, say one running Fedora core, no iMessage involved. I know it works because I have built that exact SMS server in my studio and researched the pricing structure for SMS bulk plans for which there are several third party vendors. I chose not to use their bulk plans because they start at 500 messages a month but instead pay on a per use case.
The SMS message goes to the vendor over the Internet not through my cell phone. I use this for one of my real estate friends for their rentals. Not my core business but I set it up for them since I know a bit about UNIX programming. The vendor sends me a message over the Internet which is coming from a cell phone sent to a special six character code. I process the request and send a reply to the vendor who passes it back to the the originating phone user.
Comments
It's amazing the hypocrisies of those that troll. You can't have it both ways. I don't even care... but to attack posters and then cry it about it when the someone pushes back is juvenile.
Actually... It is YOU who 'can't have it both ways' with your personal attacks on other's integrity and "juvenile" use of profanity, and the more you post/flail about in protest, the more you just prove my point.
Note: "DaHarder cries about being attacked when he his FUD was pointed out" - Hmm? Talking about needing to 'learn how to write like an adult" LOL
So... Troll On Troll (as you likely will anyway).
Anyway... Bring On That iPad 3!
Short Message Service (SMS) is a text messaging service component of phone, web, or mobile communication systems, using standardized communications protocols that allow the exchange of short text messages between fixed line or mobile phone devices.
from wikipedia. SMS is not exclusively for phones it is a general protocol that many devices can use.
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
How do you think those large organizations send you SMS alerts to your phone. They don't type in one character at a time on their phone. They send it from a computer program over the internet to the provider that is in control of your phone number. After it make numerous hops across the internet it gets sent over the air to your phone. I don't think we are concerned about its legacy origins. Simply put it is a protocol and can utilize the Internet as part of its routing so the IP or lack of IP packets argument is not holding water. IMO.
Don't add all the extra qualifiers now.
So now being accurate is somehow wrong?
No one besides you cares how or what protocol it uses.
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
You even said a while back you are too cheap for a text plan so use iMessage which is now possible to use on a Mac.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
If someone receives a text message on their phone regardless of their phone or carrier from my WiFi iPad using GV or any other text app, I don't think they would care that it was not sent via the control channel on my carrier or over IP.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
All that matters is if you can send and reply to it like you would any other text message.
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
How do you think those large organizations send you SMS alerts to your phone. They don't type in one character at a time on their phone. They send it from a computer program over the internet to the provider that is in control of your phone number. After it make numerous hops across the internet it gets sent over the air to your phone. I don't think we are concerned about its legacy origins. Simply put it is a protocol and can utilize the Internet as part of its routing so the IP or lack of IP packets argument is not holding water. IMO.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated. All Google is doing is maintaining servers that are intermediaries between the networks. Your carrier is still needed for SMS but Google can forward an SMS as a text message.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
SMS was designed for text-based communications over cell networks. There is a reason SMS was originally 160 characters. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination. Anything outside of that is being switched. Eventually SMS will die off as IP networks take over with the voice channel for phones being over IP as well. We're seeing it now with Apple's iMessages. iMessages aren't SMS simply because they are going between phones just as emails aren't SMS simply because they are text between phones.
if a featured phone that only has sms and voice can receive sms from google voice, I would consider it sms.
SMS is still only 160 characters. Servers/phone break it up for you automatically.
Lets not talk about iMessages as it requires data on both ends. Its no better than a chat program. Its irrelevant.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
For years I have been able to send an SMS to a phone from iChat using my AIM account. I know that Apple and AIM are working together behind the scenes to deliver that SMS to the phone so I consider it an SMS. How many ones and zeros it uses is not important to me. For all intents and purposes it is an SMS.
It also gets pushed via IP to other SMS servers, even within the same MNO. Those packets are encapsulated. All Google is doing is maintaining servers that are intermediaries between the networks. Your carrier is still needed for SMS but Google can forward an SMS as a text message.
Q: Do you think that iMessages is SMS because it can be sent and received on your phone?
no one brought up iMessages but you. its a failed arguement. iMessage is not SMS
So now being accurate is somehow wrong?
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
Personal attacks is not mature.
It just works. Isnt that an apple mantra? That is like caring about specs vs user experience.
For year I have been able to send an SMS to a phone from iChat using my AIM account. I know that Apple and AIM are working together behind the scenes to deliver that SMS to the phone so I consider it an SMS. How many ones and zeros it uses is not important to me. For all intents and purposes it is an SMS.
AOL clearly has SMSC servers but do you really think that message that leaves your AIM app is going over the control channel of your cellular phone? I sure hope not. Remember this was designed when data on phones wasn't around or common so it was a way to send small packets of text to other phones. They simply are not the same and look nothing alike when you break apart the data. It's about the protocols being used, not the number of 1's and 0's.
I feel like I'm telling people that HSPA isn't the same as WiFi but being told they are because they are both wireless. There are very distinct differences even if you use many devices as a gateway to create a Personal Hotspot but that don't mean that WiFi is HPSA and vice verse. Technology simply don't work that way.
no one brought up iMessages but you. its a failed arguement. iMessage is not SMS
But you can send messages between phones so surely they must be¡
AOL clearly has SMSC servers but do you really think that message that leaves your AIM app is going over the control channel of your cellular phone? I sure hope not. Remember this was designed when data on phones wasn't around or common so it was a way to send small packets of text to other phones. They simply are not the same and look nothing alike when you break apart the data.
I feel like I'm telling people that HSPA isn't the same as WiFi but being told they are because they are both wireless. There are very distinct differences even if you use many devices as a gateway to create a Personal Hotspot but that don't mean that WiFi is HPSA and vice verse. Technology simply don't work that way.
Ok have it your way. I want to send some 'unnamed thing' that looks exactly like an SMS from my computer to a cell phone... and I can.
Ok have it your way. I want to send some 'unnamed thing' that looks exactly like an SMS from my computer to a cell phone... and I can.
Then that describes iMessages to a tee, it even melds in with SMS part of the app on the iPhone, yet I was just told that you can't call iMessages SMS even though that person previously defined SMS in a way that included iMessages.
But you can send messages between phones so surely they must be¡
I believe that is your argument you are trying to argue against which is a fail.
Printed emails via usps and iMessage.
That fact that you can send and receive sms from google voice to a dumb phone that does not require data service clearly shows that google voice does a translation to make it compliant to send that message using sms protocol
So now being accurate is somehow wrong?
I do care, because I care about accuracy. I don't care for liars, trolls or those spreading FUD because they have some ill-placed hate for a company yet frequent a forum that is about said company.
It's ideological reasons but go ahead and slander. My question to you is why can't not like the way carriers gauge customers for SMS -and- know how the fuck it works.
If you care about how things work you will care. If you are on a tech-based forum I'd expect that overwhelming majority would care how things work. Of course there will always be people like you and DaHarder that have no interest in how things work just so long as they you can spin it into Apple is doomed!
If you don't care how things work then you shouldn't be telling others how they work. If you do change your mind and actually care about having a mature conversation about technology let us know.
Unless you actually are Newt Gingrich (and I am not convinced you are not), I am guessing if you two ever met you would be either best friends for life or kill each other within an hour.
Hate Apple? I have been using nothing but Apple computers since 1982. You made an idiotic comment and instead of just letting it go and accepting the fact that most reasonable people accept the fact that you can send and receive texts from an iPad over WiFi you start some insane argument to defend your position. I have been on these forums for years and have observed time and time again you belittling and disparaging other people for no other reason than they dare disagree with Apple or you. Take a Xanax and relax a little. It really is not that serious.
I believe that is your argument you are trying to argue against which is a fail.
Printed emails via usps and iMessage.
That fact that you can send and receive sms from google voice to a dumb phone that does not require data service clearly shows that google voice does a translation to make it compliant to send that message using sms protoco!
Which is what I stated. Finally you agree!
Unless you actually are Newt Gingrich (and I am not convinced you are not), I am guessing if you two ever met you would be either best friends for life or kill each other within an hour.
Hate Apple? I have been using nothing but Apple computers since 1982. You made an idiotic comment and instead of just letting it go and accepting the fact that most reasonable people accept the fact that you can send and receive texts from an iPad over WiFi you start some insane argument to defend your position. I have been on these forums for years and have observed time and time again you belittling and disparaging other people for no other reason than they dare disagree with Apple or you. Take a Xanax and relax a little. It really is not that serious.
1) I see where you're belittling but where did I belittle you.
2) Now you say texts instead of SMS. If by now you don't see how all SMS are texts but not all texts are SMS then there is nothing I can say to make you understand this 30 year old tech.
Which is what I stated. Finally you agree!
You've stated many many things. Mainly argumentative things that you have stated. I never argued google voice did not do any translation. Argument was google voice message considered sms which it is. You argue it isnt sms.
You've stated many many things. Mainly argumentative things that you have stated. I never argued google voice did not do any translation. Argument was google voice message considered sms which it is. You argue it isnt sms.
I stated many thinks backed up by facts. You stated many opinions that refused to do a modicum of research to see that everything I stated was true. I clearly stated that Google Voice relates to SMS but to say that they entire path is SMS even when you receive it as an email is axiomatically false. There is no way that can be true from a technological point of view.
Then that describes iMessages to a tee, it even melds in with SMS part of the app on the iPhone, yet I was just told that you can't call iMessages SMS even though that person previously defined SMS in a way that included iMessages.
Let's define the terms as the cellphone being a dumb phone with txt plan. The computer should be any computer, say one running Fedora core, no iMessage involved. I know it works because I have built that exact SMS server in my studio and researched the pricing structure for SMS bulk plans for which there are several third party vendors. I chose not to use their bulk plans because they start at 500 messages a month but instead pay on a per use case.
The SMS message goes to the vendor over the Internet not through my cell phone. I use this for one of my real estate friends for their rentals. Not my core business but I set it up for them since I know a bit about UNIX programming. The vendor sends me a message over the Internet which is coming from a cell phone sent to a special six character code. I process the request and send a reply to the vendor who passes it back to the the originating phone user.
No iMessage.