1) Based on the data you provided that suicide story sounds fake.
2) Why is this issue not yet understood after 5 pages? The issue isn't preventing SMS messages from getting to a phone. It's preventing an iPhone from sending an SMS if the iPhone is being told by the iMessage server that the phone number is a viable iMessage address. To simply call this hubris means you're not understanding the issue.
I can't find the post where I read that. When I google it, I get this page :-( If I find it, I'll link to it.
I totally understand the issue. It's exactly what you said. Apple is not disassociating the number as an iPhone from its server. The hubris is Apple not fixing it after 2 years of people complaining about it. I find us to be an overly litigious society. But occasionally, this is just the kind of kick a company needs to wake up and fix a problem.
...and invasion of privacy by accessing people's phone numbers, especially someone who has given up the right to use a number by disconnecting it yet continuing to use it.
That sounds like something the police would have to obtain a warrant to look into by approaching the phone company who issued the number and has the previous customer's details.
Since when do doctors communicate with patients via SMS?
Imagine a wife's reaction if an STD test result popped up in a notification on her husbands phone, or some kids saw daddy's phone with a cancer diagnosis on the screen.
See I can make up horror stories too.
I'm not sure I got the warrant part. I agree that reusing numbers needs to get fixed by carriers. eg. my wife keeps getting calls from a collection agency on her mobile number for the person to whom Sprint had previously assigned her number.
I don't communicate with doctors on SMS in the US. I used to with email, but my current doctor has a web based system (an awful one), but perhaps necessitated legally. But I certainly did when I was in India.
1) Based on the data you provided that suicide story sounds fake.
2) Why is this issue not yet understood after 5 pages? The issue isn't preventing SMS messages from getting to a phone. It's preventing an iPhone from sending an SMS if the iPhone is being told by the iMessage server that the phone number is a viable iMessage address. To simply call this hubris means you're not understanding the issue.
What are you talking about? It's always there...
iPhone settings > Messages > Send SMS (send as SMS when iMessage is unavailable).
That setting is so 'if' you don't have internet access but still have a cellular phone connection your messages app will then default from the 'blue' imessages for applicable numbers to the 'green' for SMS. In no way does this poll the iMessages server to ask. "Are you sure this person still has an iPhone tied to this number?" How would you even think that setting would ask such a thing and why would you think the server wouldn't know this without having another iPhone query it for that info?
Comments
1) Based on the data you provided that suicide story sounds fake.
2) Why is this issue not yet understood after 5 pages? The issue isn't preventing SMS messages from getting to a phone. It's preventing an iPhone from sending an SMS if the iPhone is being told by the iMessage server that the phone number is a viable iMessage address. To simply call this hubris means you're not understanding the issue.
I can't find the post where I read that. When I google it, I get this page :-( If I find it, I'll link to it.
I totally understand the issue. It's exactly what you said. Apple is not disassociating the number as an iPhone from its server. The hubris is Apple not fixing it after 2 years of people complaining about it. I find us to be an overly litigious society. But occasionally, this is just the kind of kick a company needs to wake up and fix a problem.
...and invasion of privacy by accessing people's phone numbers, especially someone who has given up the right to use a number by disconnecting it yet continuing to use it.
That sounds like something the police would have to obtain a warrant to look into by approaching the phone company who issued the number and has the previous customer's details.
Since when do doctors communicate with patients via SMS?
Imagine a wife's reaction if an STD test result popped up in a notification on her husbands phone, or some kids saw daddy's phone with a cancer diagnosis on the screen.
See I can make up horror stories too.
I'm not sure I got the warrant part. I agree that reusing numbers needs to get fixed by carriers. eg. my wife keeps getting calls from a collection agency on her mobile number for the person to whom Sprint had previously assigned her number.
I don't communicate with doctors on SMS in the US. I used to with email, but my current doctor has a web based system (an awful one), but perhaps necessitated legally. But I certainly did when I was in India.
The whole thing sounds fake.
That setting is so 'if' you don't have internet access but still have a cellular phone connection your messages app will then default from the 'blue' imessages for applicable numbers to the 'green' for SMS. In no way does this poll the iMessages server to ask. "Are you sure this person still has an iPhone tied to this number?" How would you even think that setting would ask such a thing and why would you think the server wouldn't know this without having another iPhone query it for that info?