Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
hey, it's a free service, use at your own risk. I don't think you're forced to use iMessage if you have an iphone.
To begin, I think at best you can say Apple placed the iMessaging system as an alternative to the SMS system. Apple isn't offering a service that allows you to cross-send SMS messages to iMessage users, or vice-versa. The iMessage system stands on it's own. The Messages application is a multipurpose program that facilitates using both the iMessage as well as SMS backends. Also, is the SMS system actually classified as a public utility? (I ask because I don't know - but it seems unlikely to me.) And <span style="line-height:1.4em;">from a legal standpoint (no, IANAL) is the concept of negligence even satisfied in this situation?</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Here's the problem as I see it (correct me where I'm wrong) - the situation is being grossly misrepresented or misunderstood. Not receiving SMS</span> communications <span style="line-height:1.4em;">is being conflated with not receiving iMessage communications. The two are used (as intended) for much the same purposes, but are </span> not the same thing at all. In theory, Apple could implement an iMessage stack that used SMS systems as a transport.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">When a communication is sent via the iMessaging system to an iMessage account using a phone number as an identifier, but the phone using that number is not capable of receiving iMessages (whether it's because the phone is turned off, or data service is unavailable, or any other reason), then those messages sent referencing that number get queued waiting for any capable device (read: any iPhone, iPad or Mac with access rights to access that iMessages account and which has been also associated with that identifier number) to contact the servers to retrieve the waiting data. This is actually exactly how the system really should function. Actual SMS text messages sent to that number are still sent and received via the SMS backend, which remains separate from the iMessaging system.</span> The interruption (issue) is with the iMessaging service, not the short messaging (a.k.a. "text") service. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">The argument that Apple</span> (deliberately or unintentionally) <span style="line-height:1.4em;">interfered with the telecoms SMS delivery system isn't actually true, so I don't see how the judge can say this case has merit based on that.</span>
In particular, the interruption is at the communication origin, not the destination, as the Messages application is attempting to send a communication via the iMessaging system rather than the SMS system as the iMessages backend still has that identifier (phone number) associated with the iMessages account. It therefore concludes that utilizing that delivery system is intended (although disabling iMessaging at the origin should still allow a SMS message to be sent regardless). So the argument that Apple (with or without intent) interfered with the recipient's SMS messaging functionality is also inaccurate, so again, it seems to me (as a legal layman) this basis for the action should be without merit as well.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I don't know if it'd really have any legal legs, but maybe someone could make the case that the Messages application was swallowing communications that one had intended to send as SMS, but that would have to be the sender - the person who still was using the iPhone, not the one who is using another device and didn't receive the message (as they're not using the Messages application).</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Maybe I'm wrong on all of this though.</span>
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
Damn man.. you still think this is an imaginary issue?!!
Nope.
If you understood the context of what I was replying to i.e. the "missing" customers whose text messages couldn't get through, then maybe you could comprehend that they don't exist until some sort of contact is made.
It was a pretty stupid example, just like the complaint.
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
But SMS is not always free for the sender or receiver. So who pays for it when this is done? Apple or the iPhone owner that sent it? Or should Apple just bill the sender automactically? That would be another lawsuit. What iMessage should do is to let the sender (of the iMessage) know that it didn't get through (after a cetain waiting period) and the sender can elect whether to send it SMS or make a call or send an eMail.
iMessages is a service Apple provides rhat is stellar, free if charge. Seriously, I know we all rely on our phones but a class action lawsuit over missing text messages???? We have massive Wall Street corruption that we can't deal with and we have a civil suit that proceeds on this issue. Does Judge Lucy Koh have supervision? If she does not than the aystem is broken.
But SMS is not always free for the sender or receiver. So who pays for it when this is done? Apple or the iPhone owner that sent it? Or should Apple just bill the sender automactically? That would be another lawsuit. What iMessage should do is to let the sender (of the iMessage) know that it didn't get through (after a cetain waiting period) and the sender can elect whether to send it SMS or make a call or send an eMail.
That was true not long ago, but now even prepaid plans offer free SMS texting. The only issue I can see if it's sent internationally, but I agree with your idea of the sender being advised that the iMessage didn't go through, and asked how to proceed.
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
It's easy to say that, but it falls under the heading of "how a end user thinks it should work". iMessage and text messages are not the same thing, and don't utilize the same systems. Would it be reasonable to expect your emails to be delivered via SMS/MMS if you deleted your email client? That's precisely the same as expecting what you're suggesting with iMessages.
Define a "failed attempt". iDevices need not be powered on and network connected at all times, so delivery is to the server. The client Messages application queries the iMessage server to see if [phone] number XXX-XXX-XXXX is registered as a valid recipient of iMessages. If the number is there, then the communication is sent to the server to wait for a device associated with that number to be reachable. That's a success, not a failure. The only failure a sender can detect is a missing network connection (i.o.w. the device can't reach the server in the first place).
The server can't definitively know that the phone number is no longer associated with any iDevice, unless it has been deregistered (a phone, for example, could be unreachable for a plethora of reasons), so the server holds the messages - as intended. You can require fetch a timeout for messages, but what's the threshold? And does a failure on the part of the intended recipient to retrieve the message indicate they've terminated their association with the system? What if the recipient goes on vacation and (gasp!) leaves their phones, computers and all other electronics home, to get that full 'disconnected vacation' experience for a week, or a month, or two months - how and when do you time out and then what does the server do with the message? Is the number forcibly (and possibly incorrectly) deregistered? Are messages discarded, or what? Sending SMS messages isn't what iMessage servers do, it's what client phones do.
The other thing is that there is an option so "Send as SMS" when the iMessage backend can't locate the recipient in the registry, but it needs to be toggled on by the [sender] user.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">It's easy to say that, but it falls under the heading of "how a end user thinks it</span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">should</em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">work". iMessage and text messages are not the same thing, and don't utilize the same systems. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Would it be reasonable to expect your emails to be delivered via SMS/MMS if you deleted your email client? That's precisely the same as expecting what you're suggesting with iMessages.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Define a "failed attempt". iDevices need not be powered on and network connected at all times, so delivery is to the server. The client Messages application queries the iMessage server to see if [phone] number XXX-XXX-XXXX is registered as a valid recipient of iMessages. If the number is there, then the communication is sent to the server to wait for a device associated with that number to be reachable. That's a success, not a failure. The only failure a sender can detect is a missing network connection (i.o.w. the device can't reach the server in the first place).</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The server can't definitively know that the phone number is no longer associated with any iDevice, unless it has been deregistered (a phone, for example, could be unreachable for a plethora of reasons), so the server holds the messages - as intended. You can require fetch a timeout for messages, but what's the threshold? And does a failure on the part of the intended recipient to retrieve the message indicate they've terminated their association with the system? What if the recipient goes on vacation and (gasp!) leaves their phones, computers and all other electronics home, to get that full 'disconnected vacation' experience for a week, or a month, or two months - how and when do you time out and then what does the server do with the message? Is the number forcibly (and possibly incorrectly) deregistered? Are messages discarded, or what? Sending SMS messages isn't what iMessage servers do, it's what client phones do.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The other thing is that there is an option so "Send as SMS" when the iMessage backend can't locate the recipient in the registry, but it needs to be toggled on by the [sender] user.</span>
'Failed attempt' means not being able to deliver the message to the end user. Any 'short message' being either SMS, or iMessage is usually meant to be read in no more than a few minutes. The threshold for a failed delivery should be no more than a hour.
It's easy to say that, but it falls under the heading of "how a end user thinks it should work". iMessage and text messages are not the same thing, and don't utilize the same systems. Would it be reasonable to expect your emails to be delivered via SMS/MMS if you deleted your email client? That's precisely the same as expecting what you're suggesting with iMessages.
Emails aren't in the same app as SMS and iMessages. If Apple didn't intend for the users to expect a certain amount of parity between SMS and iMessages and how they behave then they shouldn't have linked them so closely.
I have had an open issue (iMessage not working) with Apple since getting the new iPhone 6 in September of 2014. That is 4 months and 6 days without being able to use iMessage. It is frustrating and they're lack of response or fix is getting unbearable. I have another person at my work with the same issue as well. They have replaced my phone, made me run all types of tests created a new apple id. Still they have not been able to fix the issue. It worked fine on the iPhone 5S.
Comments
Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
hey, it's a free service, use at your own risk. I don't think you're forced to use iMessage if you have an iphone.
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
You should not also be locked in if you do decide to use it.
A big reason why I never use a service unless it's available on multiple platforms, right now that service is Viber.
Or anything Apple is major issue even if it's minor.
That's what happens when people with influence use your product.
Damn man.. you still think this is an imaginary issue?!!
Nope.
If you understood the context of what I was replying to i.e. the "missing" customers whose text messages couldn't get through, then maybe you could comprehend that they don't exist until some sort of contact is made.
It was a pretty stupid example, just like the complaint.
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
But SMS is not always free for the sender or receiver. So who pays for it when this is done? Apple or the iPhone owner that sent it? Or should Apple just bill the sender automactically? That would be another lawsuit. What iMessage should do is to let the sender (of the iMessage) know that it didn't get through (after a cetain waiting period) and the sender can elect whether to send it SMS or make a call or send an eMail.
That was true not long ago, but now even prepaid plans offer free SMS texting. The only issue I can see if it's sent internationally, but I agree with your idea of the sender being advised that the iMessage didn't go through, and asked how to proceed.
The iMessage system should after a, or several failed attempts simply send a message via SMS instead of holding onto it.
It's easy to say that, but it falls under the heading of "how a end user thinks it should work". iMessage and text messages are not the same thing, and don't utilize the same systems. Would it be reasonable to expect your emails to be delivered via SMS/MMS if you deleted your email client? That's precisely the same as expecting what you're suggesting with iMessages.
Define a "failed attempt". iDevices need not be powered on and network connected at all times, so delivery is to the server. The client Messages application queries the iMessage server to see if [phone] number XXX-XXX-XXXX is registered as a valid recipient of iMessages. If the number is there, then the communication is sent to the server to wait for a device associated with that number to be reachable. That's a success, not a failure. The only failure a sender can detect is a missing network connection (i.o.w. the device can't reach the server in the first place).
The server can't definitively know that the phone number is no longer associated with any iDevice, unless it has been deregistered (a phone, for example, could be unreachable for a plethora of reasons), so the server holds the messages - as intended. You can require fetch a timeout for messages, but what's the threshold? And does a failure on the part of the intended recipient to retrieve the message indicate they've terminated their association with the system? What if the recipient goes on vacation and (gasp!) leaves their phones, computers and all other electronics home, to get that full 'disconnected vacation' experience for a week, or a month, or two months - how and when do you time out and then what does the server do with the message? Is the number forcibly (and possibly incorrectly) deregistered? Are messages discarded, or what? Sending SMS messages isn't what iMessage servers do, it's what client phones do.
The other thing is that there is an option so "Send as SMS" when the iMessage backend can't locate the recipient in the registry, but it needs to be toggled on by the [sender] user.
'Failed attempt' means not being able to deliver the message to the end user. Any 'short message' being either SMS, or iMessage is usually meant to be read in no more than a few minutes. The threshold for a failed delivery should be no more than a hour.
It's easy to say that, but it falls under the heading of "how a end user thinks it should work". iMessage and text messages are not the same thing, and don't utilize the same systems. Would it be reasonable to expect your emails to be delivered via SMS/MMS if you deleted your email client? That's precisely the same as expecting what you're suggesting with iMessages.
Emails aren't in the same app as SMS and iMessages. If Apple didn't intend for the users to expect a certain amount of parity between SMS and iMessages and how they behave then they shouldn't have linked them so closely.
All,
I have had an open issue (iMessage not working) with Apple since getting the new iPhone 6 in September of 2014. That is 4 months and 6 days without being able to use iMessage. It is frustrating and they're lack of response or fix is getting unbearable. I have another person at my work with the same issue as well. They have replaced my phone, made me run all types of tests created a new apple id. Still they have not been able to fix the issue. It worked fine on the iPhone 5S.
Any other suggestions?