Ok then where is the documentation that explains how iMessage works? I couldn't find it - I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist so if you can point me to it then that would be very helpful.
Well first off the copy under messages indicates it is a service If you’re a texter, you’ll love Messages on iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. Now they all come with iMessage, a service that’s an even better kind of texting. Because it’s free for you and anyone texting over Wi-Fi using an iOS device or Mac with iMessage. And it’s unlimited.* So say as much as you want. (https://www.apple.com/ios/messages)
For people who want details the "Local and Push Notification Programming Guide" (link may not work: https://developer.apple.com/li... ) Is excellent. It walks you through bit by bit on messaging structures and how the push gateway works. There are other books on messaging but this would be a good place to start to figure out the basics and what other resources (ex NSNotification Class library reference) that you might need.
For people who want a less detailed presentation the: Notification Programming Guide for Websites ( https://developer.apple.com/li...)
The problem is that they never explain to the user how it works, their "it just works" concept is the problem.
They have tons of documentation about iCloud works aimed at all levels.
Because they aren't told that it is their phone number that is associated with their iMessage account
Of course they are. The moment they go into the account they see a phone number associated with it, and moreover when they make changes to iCloud and get notification they see the number listed at part of the iCloud contacts along with emails.
and that when they turn that on it tells all their iPhone contacts to send messages to their iMessage account instead of SMS directly to the phone.
Of course they know that! When they turn that on suddenly they are getting messages on iPads, their Mac... That's a core selling point of iCloud that Apple takes over and integrates.
The sender does try iMessage, which is then delivered to the receiver's iMessage account.
Which is marked undelivered for the sender until at least one device picks it up and then it is marked delivered. And if they have read receipts on they also know unread.
Yes, assuming they notice obvious things. If they are completely oblivious to obvious things then Apple's clear notifications don't work. And in this sense like many others they would have trouble using complex equipment like computers.
When were people forced to use it? They could easily switch at any time. My experience was that people who rarely used the web often used IE (2,3), though more used Netscape while people who used the web a lot used Netscape. I.E. 4 was so good that there was a complete shift.
OK that's fair. It was however commonly sold or bundled. That's the point I was making that browsers were a cost item for companies and for individuals they got it with a paid ISP account.
As far as why they should care they can see the status. If the only Apple device the recipient owns is the phone the sender will know that their messages were undelivered. As far as the difference: the difference is a blue blotch vs. a green blotch. A 3 year old can handle "blue isn't getting to him so let's try the green".
I don't know. I remember getting it free a bunch of ways as part of other commercial packages. But I also remember people at a workplace buying a 10 license pack and I certainly remember paying for Netscape Server (again business).
It's weasley to claim that a novice user enabling knows they've given permission to Apple to reroute their messages. For the handful of people that I've dealt with on the issue they had no idea.
Really? How do they think that buying an iPhone suddenly allows their SMS to support things like reply by video chat?
The non-obvious fix is to log into the Apple site and delete the phone from your account, after which it will take up to 24 hours to stop delivering texts via iMessage.
I'm not sure why that's non obvious. If I change my email address I have to log onto the server so that it bounces replies with my new email address otherwise my friends will keep using the old one.
At that point it starts failing them for the senders - and allowing them to resend via SMS.
The senders won't see iMessage as an option after the disassociation. That being said,,ost senders will have automatic fallback to SMS enabled. Moreover, the senders always had the option to resend via. SMS when they saw that the message wasn't delivered even with the intended recipient not having made the change.
However, instead of just always using SMS from the first failure it requires repeated manual resends before it remembers.
No it doesn't. If iMessage doesn't know how to deliver, which is the case after disassociating the number, then the phone's default is to immediately use SMS. That sort of shift is a regular expected repeated behavior for iPhone users that they are (or should be) familiar with.
It could just be a shortsighted design from people who think they're the best, but either way it needs to be fixed in a clear and logical way.
The fix is easy. Carriers start notifying Apple when the phonenumber is ported away from iPhone. Then Apple can do the disassociation by themselves. Other than that, someone has to tell Apple to stop providing the service the user requested and the logical person to do that is the user.
Oh I see you were saying the Netscape was always available as a free download. Well then that's just plain false. Netscape was a commercial piece of software. During the IE 2-3 days people got IE free and paid for Netscape. Microsoft giving away the browser and thus eliminating the market for Net was one of the reasons they were found guilty of antitrust violations.
Mozilla was a product of IE having cut the heart out of Netscape. Netscape couldn't keep up with Microsoft's rate of code improvements because the code quality in Netscape was so bad. So the answer was a complete do over and that was Mozilla. We are talking the years when Netscape lost their market not what they did after.
That is the default for the sender's phone. That is precisely what Apple does do for senders.
The recipients are complaining that their senders send them iMessages which a) Some other device of their's is picking up b) The sender would be able to clearly see that their text message was pending delivery but not picked up by any device and then they would have a choice what to do.
Read this and the previous thread. This has been answered already multiple times. iMessages doesn't take over your text messages. People who want to send you SMS can send you SMS just fine. SMS continues to work perfectly.
iCloud isn't a storage solution. It is a an application synchronization solution. It has 4 separate types of synchronization designed to work deeply with applications. One being Core Data which they talk about all the time. Messaging is one of the things it synchronizes. email, contacts, calendars, reminders, notes, status of my browsers..., passwords, photos, documents and data from arbitrary applications... And one of the things is notifications.
How did you think your friends who had applications on phone and iPad were staying in sync?
And it isn't magic. The setting on iOS says "enable iMessage". You didn't look, you didn't pay attention, you agreed and now you have to do fix something that you were being careless about. That's life.
I understand the difference but read GP's claim. GP's claim was that it was unreasonable for end users to understand the distinction between an account in the cloud and their client on a device. Apple sells their cloud services as part of the device strategy. Google gives away their cloud services and then sells data about you to advertisers. The analogy would be accessing gmail without ads and that Google would charge you for.
In specific. You can't access iMessage. Some parts of iCloud will work on Windows computers but the messaging service is not one of them. Messaging is integrated into the unified notification system on OSX, iOS devices. It isn't meant to be cross platform. The people who turn it are asking for a vertical integrated proprietary experience at the expense of cross platform.
No it doesn't always work. But this controversy is about a fiction. iMessage works pretty well if the sender is paying attention. It ain't bad for free.
Cisco, Avaya, IBM, Microsoft all have better UC systems if you want better.
The only way a sender would be getting a delivered notice is if some other device picks it up. What you probably want is "read" which is a status to indicate that not only has at least one device gotten the message but a human has interacted with it in some way, If the recipient has that configured then the sender would be aware that the message was delivered but not read.
"Universal Communication" is an industry standard term of a communication system designed to access the user anywhere. The better ones are tied to PBXes which iMessage is not. So for example if X is trying to reach Y:
If Y is at his desk at home he gets notified at home via. a server application If Y is at work he gets notified at work If Y's cellphone can be reached he gets notified there If Y is at his mother's house with no cellphone the system calls her number (assuming Y checked in to let it know)
etc...
The main thing is that X doesn't need to worry about how to get in touch with Y. Y let's the system know how he wants to be contacted.
iMessage is part of a low end UC system that Apple is providing free. The good ones come from the PBX vendors like Cisco, Avaya, Shortel...
Well for one thing you are wrong. They ask permission. To configure this you have to either type in an existing iCloud account name and password and to first set it up you have to do quite a bit more.
As for hijacking they aren't hijacking. The sender owns the data until receipt and the sender is explicitly going out via. iMessage. This is about recipients telling senders that they would rather receive iMessage than SMS when they wouldn't. Apple's servers are computers, they do what you ask them to do. If you tell them you would rather get iMessage than SMS how are they supposed to know you were lying?
As for not switching back to SMS... iMessage isn't just an SMS replacement. SMS doesn't allow me to respond to a text message with a VideoChat or send files. iMessage is a low end UC system messaging is just part of that. The purpose of iMessage messaging is to deliver to devices that don't have voice radios and thus cannot receive SMS: computers, iPods, iPads as well as phones.
It should be automatic, or at very most one manual resend
It is better than that. Apple notifies the sender of the status of their message and allows the sender to determine the appropriate action. The sender can clearly see that the message was successfully sent to the iMessage server but not delivered to any device. They are the ones deciding that this wasn't a high priority message and it is OK to wait. The sender can choose to go SMS if they want, there is a manual resend. The fact you didn't know this is evidence of how shoddy this complaint is.
I really don't understand why anyone would defend this behavior since transparently hijacking any type of data without permission is obviously a violation of user trust
It absolutely is. On the other hand providing an online service and doing what users ask them to do is not a violation of user trust it is providing the service users asked for.
I've dealt with this issue for people at work, and it's enough of a pain that for business accounts you just pony up the extra cash for a new iPhone, rather than trying to explain to multiple clients why their text messages are failing.
No offense but I can't understand why they would have someone who doesn't know jack about iMessage being responsible for fixing messaging issues. If they want to have iPhones they should have Apple people supporting them or phone support should be going out of house. That being said if this is a work computer then provisioning is handled via. the MDM and deregistering with iMessage can happen at the MDM level. Frankly work iPhones should be configured to use the company's internal messaging server not Apple's and just being getting a relay from Apple.
It probably would have satisfied the court if they had internet explorer disabled so that it couldn't browse arbitrary websites, Netscape was installed and Netscape configured as the default browser. All of which was easy for the end user to do. The deep technical issues are true but mostly irrelevant to the monopoly loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Well first off the copy under messages indicates it is a service If you’re a texter, you’ll love Messages on iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. Now they all come with iMessage, a service that’s an even better kind of texting. Because it’s free for you and anyone texting over Wi-Fi using an iOS device or Mac with iMessage. And it’s unlimited.* So say as much as you want. (https://www.apple.com/ios/messages)
For people who want details the "Local and Push Notification Programming Guide" (link may not work: https://developer.apple.com/li... )
Is excellent. It walks you through bit by bit on messaging structures and how the push gateway works. There are other books on messaging but this would be a good place to start to figure out the basics and what other resources (ex NSNotification Class library reference) that you might need.
For people who want a less detailed presentation the: Notification Programming Guide for Websites ( https://developer.apple.com/li...)
They have tons of documentation about iCloud works aimed at all levels.
Of course they are. The moment they go into the account they see a phone number associated with it, and moreover when they make changes to iCloud and get notification they see the number listed at part of the iCloud contacts along with emails.
Of course they know that! When they turn that on suddenly they are getting messages on iPads, their Mac... That's a core selling point of iCloud that Apple takes over and integrates.
Which is marked undelivered for the sender until at least one device picks it up and then it is marked delivered. And if they have read receipts on they also know unread.
Yes, assuming they notice obvious things. If they are completely oblivious to obvious things then Apple's clear notifications don't work. And in this sense like many others they would have trouble using complex equipment like computers.
When were people forced to use it? They could easily switch at any time. My experience was that people who rarely used the web often used IE (2,3), though more used Netscape while people who used the web a lot used Netscape. I.E. 4 was so good that there was a complete shift.
OK that's fair. It was however commonly sold or bundled. That's the point I was making that browsers were a cost item for companies and for individuals they got it with a paid ISP account.
As far as why they should care they can see the status. If the only Apple device the recipient owns is the phone the sender will know that their messages were undelivered. As far as the difference: the difference is a blue blotch vs. a green blotch. A 3 year old can handle "blue isn't getting to him so let's try the green".
I don't know. I remember getting it free a bunch of ways as part of other commercial packages. But I also remember people at a workplace buying a 10 license pack and I certainly remember paying for Netscape Server (again business).
Really? How do they think that buying an iPhone suddenly allows their SMS to support things like reply by video chat?
I'm not sure why that's non obvious. If I change my email address I have to log onto the server so that it bounces replies with my new email address otherwise my friends will keep using the old one.
The senders won't see iMessage as an option after the disassociation. That being said, ,ost senders will have automatic fallback to SMS enabled. Moreover, the senders always had the option to resend via. SMS when they saw that the message wasn't delivered even with the intended recipient not having made the change.
No it doesn't. If iMessage doesn't know how to deliver, which is the case after disassociating the number, then the phone's default is to immediately use SMS. That sort of shift is a regular expected repeated behavior for iPhone users that they are (or should be) familiar with.
The fix is easy. Carriers start notifying Apple when the phonenumber is ported away from iPhone. Then Apple can do the disassociation by themselves. Other than that, someone has to tell Apple to stop providing the service the user requested and the logical person to do that is the user.
I meant before the judgement. You have less flexibility for settlement or proposed settlement after you lose.
I do agree the court itself did a kinda lousy job on handling this problem.
Oh I see you were saying the Netscape was always available as a free download. Well then that's just plain false. Netscape was a commercial piece of software. During the IE 2-3 days people got IE free and paid for Netscape. Microsoft giving away the browser and thus eliminating the market for Net was one of the reasons they were found guilty of antitrust violations.
OK now AC so what happened? How was iMessage configured? What accounts are bound to it? Is the device still registered to your account...?
Mozilla was a product of IE having cut the heart out of Netscape. Netscape couldn't keep up with Microsoft's rate of code improvements because the code quality in Netscape was so bad. So the answer was a complete do over and that was Mozilla. We are talking the years when Netscape lost their market not what they did after.
OK thank you I stand correct this is even a dumber complaint then I originally thought.
That is the default for the sender's phone. That is precisely what Apple does do for senders.
The recipients are complaining that their senders send them iMessages which
a) Some other device of their's is picking up
b) The sender would be able to clearly see that their text message was pending delivery but not picked up by any device and then they would have a choice what to do.
Read this and the previous thread. This has been answered already multiple times. iMessages doesn't take over your text messages. People who want to send you SMS can send you SMS just fine. SMS continues to work perfectly.
iCloud isn't a storage solution. It is a an application synchronization solution. It has 4 separate types of synchronization designed to work deeply with applications. One being Core Data which they talk about all the time. Messaging is one of the things it synchronizes. ..., passwords, photos, documents and data from arbitrary applications... And one of the things is notifications.
email, contacts, calendars, reminders, notes, status of my browsers
How did you think your friends who had applications on phone and iPad were staying in sync?
And it isn't magic. The setting on iOS says "enable iMessage". You didn't look, you didn't pay attention, you agreed and now you have to do fix something that you were being careless about. That's life.
I understand that I'm talking about IE. Netscape 1 was unquestionable sold stand alone.
I understand the difference but read GP's claim. GP's claim was that it was unreasonable for end users to understand the distinction between an account in the cloud and their client on a device. Apple sells their cloud services as part of the device strategy. Google gives away their cloud services and then sells data about you to advertisers. The analogy would be accessing gmail without ads and that Google would charge you for.
In specific. You can't access iMessage. Some parts of iCloud will work on Windows computers but the messaging service is not one of them. Messaging is integrated into the unified notification system on OSX, iOS devices. It isn't meant to be cross platform. The people who turn it are asking for a vertical integrated proprietary experience at the expense of cross platform.
Are you sure? I thought IE 1 was part of Microsoft Plus which was a paid package (though cheap) part of the "Internet Jumpstart Kit".
No it doesn't always work. But this controversy is about a fiction. iMessage works pretty well if the sender is paying attention. It ain't bad for free.
Cisco, Avaya, IBM, Microsoft all have better UC systems if you want better.
The only way a sender would be getting a delivered notice is if some other device picks it up. What you probably want is "read" which is a status to indicate that not only has at least one device gotten the message but a human has interacted with it in some way, If the recipient has that configured then the sender would be aware that the message was delivered but not read.
"Universal Communication" is an industry standard term of a communication system designed to access the user anywhere. The better ones are tied to PBXes which iMessage is not. So for example if X is trying to reach Y:
If Y is at his desk at home he gets notified at home via. a server application
If Y is at work he gets notified at work
If Y's cellphone can be reached he gets notified there
If Y is at his mother's house with no cellphone the system calls her number (assuming Y checked in to let it know)
etc...
The main thing is that X doesn't need to worry about how to get in touch with Y. Y let's the system know how he wants to be contacted.
iMessage is part of a low end UC system that Apple is providing free. The good ones come from the PBX vendors like Cisco, Avaya, Shortel...
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT...
Well for one thing you are wrong. They ask permission. To configure this you have to either type in an existing iCloud account name and password and to first set it up you have to do quite a bit more.
As for hijacking they aren't hijacking. The sender owns the data until receipt and the sender is explicitly going out via. iMessage. This is about recipients telling senders that they would rather receive iMessage than SMS when they wouldn't. Apple's servers are computers, they do what you ask them to do. If you tell them you would rather get iMessage than SMS how are they supposed to know you were lying?
As for not switching back to SMS... iMessage isn't just an SMS replacement. SMS doesn't allow me to respond to a text message with a VideoChat or send files. iMessage is a low end UC system messaging is just part of that. The purpose of iMessage messaging is to deliver to devices that don't have voice radios and thus cannot receive SMS: computers, iPods, iPads as well as phones.
It is better than that. Apple notifies the sender of the status of their message and allows the sender to determine the appropriate action. The sender can clearly see that the message was successfully sent to the iMessage server but not delivered to any device. They are the ones deciding that this wasn't a high priority message and it is OK to wait. The sender can choose to go SMS if they want, there is a manual resend. The fact you didn't know this is evidence of how shoddy this complaint is.
It absolutely is. On the other hand providing an online service and doing what users ask them to do is not a violation of user trust it is providing the service users asked for.
No offense but I can't understand why they would have someone who doesn't know jack about iMessage being responsible for fixing messaging issues. If they want to have iPhones they should have Apple people supporting them or phone support should be going out of house. That being said if this is a work computer then provisioning is handled via. the MDM and deregistering with iMessage can happen at the MDM level. Frankly work iPhones should be configured to use the company's internal messaging server not Apple's and just being getting a relay from Apple.
It probably would have satisfied the court if they had internet explorer disabled so that it couldn't browse arbitrary websites, Netscape was installed and Netscape configured as the default browser. All of which was easy for the end user to do. The deep technical issues are true but mostly irrelevant to the monopoly loss.