Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free SMS On IPhone 3G Via AOL IM Client

Posted by kdawson on from the dodging-the-gouge dept.

Glenn Fleishman writes "Jeff Carlson has discovered that you can bypass the 20 cent per message or $5 to $20 per month fees for SMS (text messaging) with the iPhone 3G and AT&T by using AOL's downloadable instant message client for iPhone 2.0, which is free. Just like the full-blown AOL IM system, you can add buddies that are the phone numbers of cell phones you want to send SMS to, and you establish a two-way conduit. The recipient still pays for SMS (if they have a fee) on their end, but if it's another iPhone user, you could coordinate with them via SMS to use instant messaging instead."

53 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Oh lord by negRo_slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone figures out to chat instead of text and it makes front page...

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Oh lord by BPPG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This really isn't a big deal. The big deal will be Apple's reaction to it. Will they like it, since people might be encouraged to use AOL on iPhones as an alternative to SMS? Or will they kill the AOL client and make iPhone users pay for SMS?

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    2. Re:Oh lord by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It needs to make the front page of the fucking Times so that people will realize what a joke the pricing on texting is.

    3. Re:Oh lord by muuh-gnu · · Score: 4, Funny

      But its "on the iPhone!!!!". Just wait till they start patenting those things as novelties because you can do them "on the iPhone!!!". It worked for a slew of obvious so called "on the internet" inventions.

    4. Re:Oh lord by gorrepati · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, Give Jeff Carlson a Nobel and while at it throw in a Pulitzer for Glenn Flieshman for authorship. Seriously, where the fuck are the editors? How does stuff like this make it to the front page

      --
      You will never have experience until after you needed it.
    5. Re:Oh lord by DKP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not apple but ATT's reaction why would apple care

    6. Re:Oh lord by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was my first thought, then I realized SMS is a quaint and antiquated tech. Which I do use nearly everyday, but our fairly modest plan has sufficed and I've never had to pay for overages... So, from my point of view, it's not as if this is going to jeopardize any tremendous revenue stream as most txt is covered by the plan anyways. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do away with SMS all together and get ya sending via the interweb (emails, IM, etc) so you're more inclined use more data. After all e-mails and IM's facilitate the sending of files, uploading of pics (if only for your avatar), and on and on I can go. AT&T just wants you to consume ever more, and a flat rate system like SMS just isn't going to cut it... Not when it comes to padding the bottom line. Just my .02USD

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:Oh lord by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as it's about the bloody iphone, it makes the front page. Who the fuck are these idiots who vote up every crap story in the firehose as long as it's about fucking Apple? This can't be interesting, not even to the die-hard Apple fanatic, and it's certainly not something specific to the iPhone. It's weak advertising for a feature you may find in any other phone.

      Enough with the iphone stories, already. I fucking hate the device now, and only because of the incessant spamming.

    8. Re:Oh lord by Clete2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I figured this out on my LG CU500. Except that the AIM client still goes through SMS. Guess who went over their SMS limit by $30 that month?

    9. Re:Oh lord by Ultra64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of whining about stories that other people might be interested in reading, is there some reason you can't just skip to the next story on the page?
      Or go to your preferences and disable stories about Apple.

    10. Re:Oh lord by Tokerat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, you know what else I hate because I see stories about it everyday on Slashdot? Linux!

      I mean, Jesus H Christ, enough already!

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    11. Re:Oh lord by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My answer to all of your questions: kdawson. Well, okay, there have been others, but he's the current one. The reign of terror is dynastic.

    12. Re:Oh lord by radimvice · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just my .02USD

      Actually, your 'two cents' post would cost you .60USD at standard SMS rates...

    13. Re:Oh lord by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. And not just Slashdot - I was walking in London yesterday to see "news" about 3G ... on the Iphone! - plastered over all the news billboards. Is there really nothing more happening in the world then a years-old feature being added to one particular phone?

      God, I guess when they finally add basic UI requirements like copy/paste, it'll be first story on the Nine O' Clock News.

      I wish Apple would stop spamming me via email too, come to that.

    14. Re:Oh lord by nbert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a flat rate system like SMS just isn't going to cut it

      Exactly the reason why they offer flat rate services. The more people have data-plans, the less it makes sense to charge for individual SMS'. In the end they will charge 5 bucks for unlimited SMS if you want it or not, because otherwise they would lose that source of revenue while data plans get cheaper and cheaper.

      Btw: For the same reason the telcos of many countries refuse to sell you DSL without a telephone line. Voip could fill the void completely and it would be even possible to implement a free system on a global scale, but it would hurt those providing access to voip services and for that reason they won't let you use it exclusively (or at least let you pay for what they don't earn the traditional way). And if you are paying for it anyways there is less incentive to switch to free alternatives.

      I love flat rates in general, but sometimes they are just designed to keep the status quo. In the end everything gets cheaper in regards to what we pay per minute, but the bill at the end of the month still is as high as 8 years ago.

      Just look at how many households still have a fax machine and you will realize how much pricing is preventing a real step forward.

      --
      I don't read replies by ACs.
    15. Re:Oh lord by linuxpng · · Score: 2, Funny

      incoming flaimbait....when they added apple.slashdot.org

      oh and when commander taco figured out he could play the sims on a powerbook.

    16. Re:Oh lord by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah but did you ever try it on the iphone, on the internet, while you're highhhhh man?

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    17. Re:Oh lord by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could always do what Sprint does, and charge for IM messages at the text messaging rate (with the carrier IM client - I'll note that I run a third-party client on my phone.)

    18. Re:Oh lord by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The big deal will be Apple's reaction to it. Will they like it, since people might be encouraged to use AOL on iPhones as an alternative to SMS? Or will they kill the AOL client and make iPhone users pay for SMS?

      Apple's reaction? You mean AT&T? Why would Apple care since they already approved the app in the first place?

      Fortunately, seeing as how there is also a VoIP app approved by Apple which allows calls via wifi, it doesn't look like refusing apps which bypass AT&T's services was part of their agreement, although I'm sure AT&T would like it to be.

      In short, yes Apple will like people using the AOL IM client because it's a benefit to those who purchase their product. AT&T may not like it, but who cares?

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    19. Re:Oh lord by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty sure the carrier IM client actually USES SMS on the backend. The client on my Windows Mobile phone (Moto Q9c) loves to hard-wedge my phone until I need a master reset to recover. Last time I did it, I was still "logged in" to AIM even though I didn't have the IM client reinstalled (and opted not to again). I kept getting SMS messages that looked basically like headers directing to AIM messages, until I logged in on my PC and told it to disconnect all other locations.

      Not a big deal, since I have the unlimited text plan, but it does make the messages flaky, slow, and even less reliable than IM.

  2. Jeff Carlson by ari_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jeff Carlson is a freakin' genius! This is amazing! Oh wait, no, that other thing: mundane.

  3. Ummm... by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but if it's another iPhone user, you could coordinate with them via SMS to use instant messaging instead.

    Or you could just....email them? They will have push email, and I assume if they have an iphone they have an email address, so why not just use that instead of creating these elaborate schemes....

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, instead of email, I hear these crazy little contraptions let you talk to one another just by talking. It's quite shock to some, but I think you can dial a "phone" number and say something like, "Put AIM on your phone so you don't have to use SMS for texting." when the other person picks up.

    2. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've worked with the iPhone SDK and 3rd-party apps cannot push to the UI unless they are selected and running.

      So yes, email FTW. Because it's pushed to the UI. Unlike 3rd-party app messages.

      Next.

    3. Re:Ummm... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At WWDC, it was mentioned that there would be something called Universal Push Notification. Some explanation here. It seems you will be able to push either badges (that will attach to your app's icon), custom alert sounds, or overlay text messages (I assume like MSN chat does), which will overlay any currently running app.

      Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to this on their developer web site, which miserably has no search functionality. Yes, that's right, I am also developing for the iPhone. What have I developed? Why, the iVibe. Exactly what it does is left to your imagination. No, it is not yet on the Apple store. Coming soon, for better or for worse.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Ummm... by Helios1182 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I saw a person on some other website complaining about the lack of voice chat on the AIM client. The lack of voice chat... on a phone...

    5. Re:Ummm... by dn15 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I saw a person on some other website complaining about the lack of voice chat on the AIM client. The lack of voice chat... on a phone...

      It does sound odd at first, but it makes sense. Consider that your talk time is metered and you are billed extra if you use too much -- but data is supposedly unlimited. AIM voice chat, or Skype, would minimize the number of paid minutes you have to use. Not that AT&T would like it, but there's good reason to want it as a bill-paying customer.

    6. Re:Ummm... by Helios1182 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you are using Skype the person you are calling also has to be on Skype, or you are going to end up paying to make/receive calls (to a phone number) through Skype anyway.

  4. Good to know by Talsan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I never knew that AIM could send SMS messages to mobiles. Does anyone know if this works for any other country codes? --It doesn't seem to work for Norway (+47) numbers.

  5. Why hasn't a provider made SMS free yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems like in this semi-competitive market, one of the providers would've made the unusual move of switching to free SMS. I realize it's pure profit for them, but it seems like they could make up the difference with the influx of new customers, and potentially less voice bandwidth usage.

  6. I do it with the Blackberry, etc. by gcnaddict · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using JiveTalk with the Blackberry (not advertising this) to avoid text messaging fees for a while now. JiveTalk is 30 bucks for a user license, but it's gotten good reviews from BGR, etc. so I thought it might not be a bad deal.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  7. Let me correctly rephrase the first sentence by Toll_Free · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Jeff Carlson has discovered"

    Should actually have read:

    "Jeff Carlson has READ THE HELP FILE / INSTRUCTIONS / MANUAL"

    I mean, c'mon. It's common sense that AOL can send SMS. One idiot figures out a program and it makes the front news.

    "How to disable Clippie the Paperclip". Details at 11

    --Toll_Free

    1. Re:Let me correctly rephrase the first sentence by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I mean, c'mon. It's common sense that AOL can send SMS. One idiot figures out a program and it makes the front news."

      I, for one, had no idea that AIM could do that. Anyway, why would it be common sense? There are all sorts of totally incompatible protocols and formats that accomplish essentially the same task, and while it's cool that AOL apparently decided to code an intuitive workaround in this instance that isn't the general state of things. Of course, I use AIM very little 9and SMS even less), because I prefer to just call people, so perhaps I'm just out of the loop on this one.

      That said, I agree that this is hardly worthy of the front page; it isn't even as funny as installing Skype on PDA with a wireless data plan and skipping, possibly I remember using AIM on a Nokia about 8 years ago with no trouble outside of only typing ~3 words per minute.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  8. Paying when you receive? by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Paying when you send a message, understandable. Paying when you receive a message, makes no fucking sense. If you call someone long distance, do they normally pay long distance fees? Of course not. You don't really have an option not to receive someone's message, and if you get spammed then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. It's asinine.

    This whole AIM over iPhone thing just goes to show how trivial it is to send/receive SMS anyway, and it really might as well be free in the scheme of things.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:Paying when you receive? by liquidsin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i can choose not to answer the phone call, and thus incur no charge. this is especially useful if i don't recognize the number on caller id. i cannot, however, choose not to receive a text msg. even if the phone is turned off, i'll get the msg when i power it back up. see now?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  9. Yeah, but... by imstanny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if someone sends you a SMS, and you don't have a subscription? You'll end up paying for the received SMS texts, charged at a premium, b/c you don't have a subscription.

  10. mundu by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative
    Though not an app, mundu has allowed us to do this for quite some time, and you are not stuck with AOL.

    I must say that I am glad I am not a kid. The amount they charge for IM, which appears to be aimed at younger people, and often paid by parents, is almost criminal. Of course, there is the choice not to use it. I suppose there is also the choice to never have a friend. It kind of remind me of when you could no longer talk on the phone as long as you wanted for a quarter(for those of us that did not have whistle, that is).

    Hopefully one advantage of smart phones will be the wider use of IM, which should force cell companies to just include texting with the data plan.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. You're missing the point by c0d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the point is that telco's are gouging people for text traffic, which has a very small impact on their infrastructure. If you compare the network traffic for text vs. picture vs. video, they are ripping people off. I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone. Say 1 million cell phones are sent one $0.25 message that's 1/4 million dollars for each message sent with very little impact on their infrastructure. What am I going to do? Spend an hour asking them to refund a quarter?

    1. Re:You're missing the point by Christopher+Rogers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Text messages from T-Mobile are free as well (in the US).

    2. Re:You're missing the point by c0d3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point is that text traffic only takes less than 1k total traffic and can cost $.25. Voice traffic can be $.25 a minute which is ~64k per second. Picture costs about the same as text but its about ~1Mb of traffic. Video is significantly more traffic than voice, yet is often charged at the same as voice. Why is texting so expensive? Its obvious.. a revenue model.. hence the point of the discussion is "To avoid getting screwed". Anyone against this is a bigot or shareholder for the telco's.

    3. Re:You're missing the point by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't tell the gas station how much to charge me for pop, chips, etc. They charge what the market will bear. I don't tell Hollister what to charge me for shorts/shirts, they charge what the market will bear. How is this any different? If you don't like what they charge for text messaging, DON'T USE IT (or switch providers).

    4. Re:You're missing the point by c0d3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't like what they charge for text messaging, so I'll choose to use a free alternative, and tell my friends how they can save some money.

    5. Re:You're missing the point by rohan972 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't tell the gas station how much to charge me for pop, chips, etc. They charge what the market will bear. I don't tell Hollister what to charge me for shorts/shirts, they charge what the market will bear. How is this any different? If you don't like what they charge for text messaging, DON'T USE IT (or switch providers).

      I agree. They could even start using a text chat client instead of SMS. I know, perhaps they could even post that idea to popular websites to get people doing it.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    6. Re:You're missing the point by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately there are still a lot of legit uses for SMS. Many IT departments use SMS for contacting on-call staff. When I'm on call (one week out of every six) I have the option of getting paged via SMS's to my cell phone or carrying around a Skytel pager. A lot of folks I know prefer the SMS route since it means one less gadget they have to carry around.

      Bank of America has recently rolled out a new security feature for their on-line banking that relies on SMS that they call SafePass. You register your mobile phone number with your account and when you want to log into your account they send you an SMS with a random 6-digit code. You then have to enter that along with your PIN to log in. It provides additional security since phishers can't easily get that random code off of your mobile phone, and each code expires after 15 minutes. It wouldn't surprise me if you start seeing more on-line systems using something like this to enhance security. It's basically a poor-mans RSA SecurID since most people have mobile phones these days.

    7. Re:You're missing the point by B1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering the cost of SMS, keep in mind there's much more to SMS than just transporting the bytes of text. One of the things you're overlooking is the store/forward nature of SMS (for reliable delivery), as well as the per-message transactional overhead.

      With a voice call, most of the work is in setting up the connection to the person you're calling. Once that connection is established, essentially you're streaming 8K per second of data (64 kilobits / sec). None of that data gets stored anywhere for later retransmission -- the network really needs to do nothing beyond act as a pipe.

      With SMS, your message gets stored in a queue so that it can be sent to your recipient if they're not available. This message queue needs to be able to handle many thousands of transactions per second -- if done incorrectly, this can cause a significant bottleneck. You might not notice if 160 bytes worth of voice data get scrambled, but a missed SMS message might cause you significant problems. If your phone is turned off, you miss your calls -- maybe you'll get a voicemail. With SMS, you'll get your message when you turn the phone back on.

      The per-message transactional overhead can be quite substantial. The carrier has to generate billing events for sending / receiving messages. They may need to query or debit a prepaid system. They may have per-subscriber whitelist / blacklist rules which need to be applied to every message. All of these systems cost money to purchase and maintain. These also apply to voice calls, but in that case, those costs are covered either by your flat-rate local service charge, or by your per-minute long distance charges.

      One other thing is that delivering SMS messages does actually cause quite an engineering problem for cell providers. SMS messages are typically delivered via the overhead control channel, which is the same channel used to do call setup/teardown, handoffs between cell sites, and other tasks. The overhead control channel is typically limited in capacity, and many carriers have engineered enough capacity for regular call activity. SMS has exploded in growth over the past few years, to the point that it is exhausting this overhead control channel for some carriers. Carriers have to spend considerable effort to reengineer their networks, so that they are able to keep up with both SMS traffic as well as regular call handling traffic.

      The bottom line is that SMS is not a data transport -- SMS is a communication medium, an alternative to a voice call or email. People often send an SMS when a voice call would be inappropriate -- for example, in church, in class, at dinner, etc. The value of SMS isn't in the transport of the bits/bytes, but in conveying a message without having to talk, and without needing to be next to a computer. As for comparing it to a data transport, nobody sends files via SMS. It would be far too slow and expensive.

      I agree that 10 cents / message is a little steep, but then, I've paid for a bundle to control costs. Most carriers offer unlimited SMS plans for reasonable prices, or smaller bundles at lower rates. Even though carriers are making money hand over fist for SMS, usage continues to grow exponentially. Even if you consider it a ripoff, there are millions of active SMS users who don't. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. :)

    8. Re:You're missing the point by B1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think if you went to the average person who uses text messaging heavily, they would say they're paying for the ability to send text messages to their friends when they can't make a phone call. They don't really care how it works or how the network is (mis)engineered. -- they just care that it does. If they're happy paying $.10 per message (or $10.00 / month for unlimited), then they'll subscribe to SMS and the telco will be happy to take their money.

      As for being badly engineered, nobody expected SMS volume to grow like it has. SMS was originally expected to be a way to send programming updates to handsets via "spare" bandwidth on the network. While it was also possible to send regular text messages via SMS, it really didn't get much attention until just a few years ago. Once people discovered SMS, the usage took off beyond the wildest dreams of the carriers (both in terms of profit and also impact). It's difficult to keep engineering for 30 - 50% per year growth in volume without spending a lot of money in hardware / network upgrades.

      As for a better protocol that may one day deprecate SMS -- I guarantee that carriers are looking for one that scales better, without impacting battery life (you probably can't keep the phone continuously connected to an IM server via the data network, or you'll drain the battery in an hour). That's a solvable problem though, once the carriers and handset manufacturers can all agree on the solution. I expect the end result it will look something like a cross between SMS and IM.

      Don't expect that to happen quickly, as people will need new handsets for that to work -- and most people don't upgrade phones that often. Even when it does, as long as the carriers control the network or the devices that communicate with it, they'll find a way to bill for you using it, in a way that maximizes their profit.

      The bottom line is this -- carriers are looking for ways to bill you as much as possible without you complaining or dropping service. Services and add-on features are the means by which they justify this billing. They're not holding a gun to your head though -- if you don't want the service, have them remove it from your account, or don't use it. But with SMS, lots of people use it happily, and some quite heavily. They wouldn't be doing so if they truly felt it was a ripoff.

    9. Re:You're missing the point by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Informative

      I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone.

      You guys have to pay to receive text messages? Wow, no wonder so many US-based slashdot readers seem to hate sms so much... Over here in the UK, receiving them is free (unless you sign up for some sort of charged service, e.g. daily horoscope, sports news, etc) and most plans have some number per month included in the price (e.g. on my plan I can send up to 500 per month at no extra cost).

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  12. Re: SMS email gateway by dfsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    The SMS gateways are very useful from the command line:

    echo "Where am I?"|mail -s "Please tell me" 14085551212@txt.att.net

    But by and large, the browser on my phone is too slow for me to bother to look up the address and log in to email. So, the phone company gets another 10c for my laziness....

  13. Holy Cow... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This means that people that have been doing crap like this for the last 5+ years must be geniuses...

    Everyone I know has been going to live.com (formerly MSN) and using the WAP browser version of Messenger for years. And now that someone figured this out on the iPhone they are brilliant? WTF...

    Is this stuff really that 'cool' to the SlashDot readers, or has Apple just replaced all the Slashdot crowd with their drones while we weren't looking?

    (SlashDot readers, GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR BASEMENT MORE OFTEN, NOW!)

    Holy insanity...

  14. Re:Well now its gone. by rizzle · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not going anywhere as far as I know. I'm one of the developers of AIM for iPhone, and frankly we're glad that it's been discovered and slashdotted :)

    Sending IMs to a mobile number is a feature of the AIM service, and there's no reason that we shouldn't have it for the iPhone. In fact, our data API (which is open sourced here) doesn't distinguish between mobile numbers and buddies.

  15. Re:Well now its gone. by nuggetman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firstly... has the AIM team just thrown in the towel on AIM for Mac?

    Second... I've found the iPhone client to be horribly glitchy when you close the app without signing off. If messages are sent to me while it's closed, I just get blank messages upon reopening the client.

    --
    ...and that's all there is to it.
  16. Re:Well now its gone. by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would AIM put work into a Mac client when iChat uses the AIM protocol?

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  17. Re:Well now its gone. by rizzle · · Score: 3, Informative

    Firstly... has the AIM team just thrown in the towel on AIM for Mac?

    In addition to iChat (which uses AIM), we have a new desktop suite for Mac, which includes a new AIM mac client: AOL Desktop for Mac. The Mac team at AOL's blog is here

    Second... I've found the iPhone client to be horribly glitchy when you close the app without signing off. If messages are sent to me while it's closed, I just get blank messages upon reopening the client.

    Yeah, we noticed that on the first day of release, too. There seems to be a difference between the developer OS build and the OS build that was sent out to consumers on Thurs/Fri. We're definitely looking into it. Do you get it every time you re-open the client? or sometimes you get it as blank and sometimes not?