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."

18 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

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

      Just my .02USD

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

    6. 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.
  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 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...

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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 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/
  7. 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.

  8. 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.