Well I used to have a GoogleDocs account tied to a business email. A YouTube account tied to a social yahoo email. And a Google email account tied to a blog. Google is making this impossible trying to cross lock me in.
Yes you can opt-out easily. You literally turn off the setting on all Apple devices. Or you go to the support portal on the web and do it there. The problem people are having is they fail to opt out properly before changing phones and then don't bother to go to the support portal and then...
The people sending these messages have iMessage turned on. They deliberately established an iCloud account and tied their sending phone to it. How is Apple "fucking with people's text messages"? They are fucking with their own text messages.
No it is more than that. Apple's interest is getting their users to be using an Apple based low end Universal Communication system. So groups of friends of collogues: message, video-call, share files, share information like contact cards.... using a low end universal communication system of which iMessage is a crucial component.
Apple software exists to sell Apple hardware. Lock in isn't really the core of the strategy, the core of the strategy is that most people don't have access to a good UC system socially even if they have one at work.
iMessage is more than a solution to texting. It is a component in a low end universal communication solution. It is not just a solution to texting.
I do agree with your point though in the opposite direction. If SMS had been free obviously then SMS would have been a good solution for the messaging component of UC. Moreover if RIM in 2007/8 had sold BBM to carriers as "SMS 2.0" which they were talking about then we would have had a universal worldwide SMS with all sorts of cool features. But that didn't happen.
iMesage is about seamless integration. The sender doesn't get to decide where the recipient gets their message using iMessage If the sender wants to force delivery to the phone then they should be using something like SMS not iMessage to send the message in the 1st place.
SMS messages aren't sent server side at all now, they are sent from the sender's client (phone). Apple doesn't hand off to the telco gateways. IMHO they should, but they don't.
How exactly does it not work? On the desktop Apple has been earning something 85-92% of the hardware profits for about 7 years now. In the phone space they have well over a majority of the handset profits.
Americans mostly don't pay for texts. Most postpay plans now include unlimited texting. Most prepay plans include unlimited texting. Most people who have texting limits still don't come anywhere near the limit and thus are effectively on unlimited texting.
Relational requires that table row order is completely unimportant i.e. essentially fully commutative No SQL requires that computations on table row order is merely associative
Many many mathematical operations are associative that are not commutative. That can be a huge change in how data is manipulated computationally far far faster. You don't have to be Google or Facebook you just have to have enough data and complexity that CPU is a serious constraint (rather than disk access).
No they aren't. Object databases are not relational they are hierarchical. Associative databases are associative not relational. And many of the "NoSQL" databases the partitioning scheme changes the outcome of queries which is a complete violation of the relational concept that order of rows doesn't effect the return from invoking queries.
Apple's proprietary alternative to text messages allows me to switch a texting conversation to phone or video and by phone I mean PSTN or IP. It also ties into things like messaging during calls. That's a low end Universal Communication system not an alternative to What'sApp. There are no free alternatives. The good alternatives are in the range of $50-400 / user / year.
Where is Apple's revenue stream from iMessage for Android? They don't charge for iMessage and unlike most messaging vendors they:
a) Aren't looking to be acquired by a social networking company b) Aren't looking for VC capital c) Aren't trying to sell games as their primary revenue source
So why would they provide that service to non customers?
What seems potentially more troubling-- and I don't know if it's happened-- is the prospect that this could happen with an abandoned phone number. So imagine I have an iPhone and my phone number is 301-555-1234. I register that phone number to iMessage, so Apple begins routing text messages from iPhone users to iMessage. I then decide that I don't want a cell phone anymore, so I cancel my service and abandon the phone number. Then someone else gets a new cell phone and they are assigned the phone number 301-555-1234, but their phone is not an iPhone. Is there anything to tell Apple to stop routing that person's text messages to my iMessage account?
It isn't two way it is one way.
As sender it isn't your phone number but your unique iCloud ID As recipient if the recipient were to associate a phone number with a different iCloud ID it would be associated with a different contact for senders. So it wouldn't matter. If the senders are just sending by phone number then it is going to work exactly like the SMS system it will go to the phone number.
messages delivered by iMessage are light blue. messages delivered by SMS are green
All over the place when you configure iCloud it asks what you want associated with iCloud and gives you ways of turning stuff off and on. If you blank a phone then from iCloud you have the ability to disassociate it from your account.
___
Anyway the devices are popular for a simple reason they are good quality. Consistently if you look at rankings the iPhone 5S is in the top 3 in every category: battery life, quality of phone, applications, speed... For someone buying a phone you get an almost best of all worlds with no trade offs. Why shouldn't end users want that?
What problem? Apple products are computers. Computers do what you tell them to do, not what you want them to do.
Recipient told Apple's servers to associate their phone number will iMessage. They never told Apple's servers to stop doing that, they don't bother to turn that off. Apple's servers are doing what the end user told them to do.
Sender either changed away from default which is to try iMessage and then fallback to SMS -- or -- Recipient still has a device picking up his iMessages other than his phone
You do know that there are many postgrad programs for network design, theory, administration, and so on right?
No I don't. But if that is the case then a BA Computer Science, MS in Networking would be a good approach. The BS in Networking should be terminal not forward going.
Masters in Information Assurance and Computer Forensics are particularly lucrative right now...I am pursuing one right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I used to have a GoogleDocs account tied to a business email. A YouTube account tied to a social yahoo email. And a Google email account tied to a blog. Google is making this impossible trying to cross lock me in.
Yes you can opt-out easily. You literally turn off the setting on all Apple devices. Or you go to the support portal on the web and do it there. The problem people are having is they fail to opt out properly before changing phones and then don't bother to go to the support portal and then...
The people sending these messages have iMessage turned on. They deliberately established an iCloud account and tied their sending phone to it. How is Apple "fucking with people's text messages"? They are fucking with their own text messages.
No it is more than that. Apple's interest is getting their users to be using an Apple based low end Universal Communication system. So groups of friends of collogues: message, video-call, share files, share information like contact cards.... using a low end universal communication system of which iMessage is a crucial component.
Apple software exists to sell Apple hardware. Lock in isn't really the core of the strategy, the core of the strategy is that most people don't have access to a good UC system socially even if they have one at work.
iMessage is more than a solution to texting. It is a component in a low end universal communication solution. It is not just a solution to texting.
I do agree with your point though in the opposite direction. If SMS had been free obviously then SMS would have been a good solution for the messaging component of UC. Moreover if RIM in 2007/8 had sold BBM to carriers as "SMS 2.0" which they were talking about then we would have had a universal worldwide SMS with all sorts of cool features. But that didn't happen.
iMessages are in Blue
SMS are in Green
I not only know which contacts use iMessage I know which messages went to them which way.
No the sender's phone defaults to SMS when it can't reach iMessage servers. That's different than iMessage routing to SMS when it can't deliver.
iMesage is about seamless integration. The sender doesn't get to decide where the recipient gets their message using iMessage If the sender wants to force delivery to the phone then they should be using something like SMS not iMessage to send the message in the 1st place.
SMS messages aren't sent server side at all now, they are sent from the sender's client (phone). Apple doesn't hand off to the telco gateways. IMHO they should, but they don't.
Actually they do have a portal to manage this: supportprofile.apple.com
Yes, that's how iMessage works it sends to all devices it can reach. If you don't want that behavior don't register your phone number with iMessage.
And frankly the sender should know that. If they want to force it to go to your phone that's easy to do via. SMS.
How exactly does it not work? On the desktop Apple has been earning something 85-92% of the hardware profits for about 7 years now. In the phone space they have well over a majority of the handset profits.
What's the value to Apple in a cross platform standard? How do you see them monaziting that? The purpose of Apple software is to sell Apple hardware.
Americans mostly don't pay for texts. Most postpay plans now include unlimited texting. Most prepay plans include unlimited texting. Most people who have texting limits still don't come anywhere near the limit and thus are effectively on unlimited texting.
Java hasn't exactly gone away.
Anyway there are fundamental design choices.
Relational requires that table row order is completely unimportant i.e. essentially fully commutative
No SQL requires that computations on table row order is merely associative
Many many mathematical operations are associative that are not commutative. That can be a huge change in how data is manipulated computationally far far faster. You don't have to be Google or Facebook you just have to have enough data and complexity that CPU is a serious constraint (rather than disk access).
No they aren't. Object databases are not relational they are hierarchical. Associative databases are associative not relational. And many of the "NoSQL" databases the partitioning scheme changes the outcome of queries which is a complete violation of the relational concept that order of rows doesn't effect the return from invoking queries.
Apple's proprietary alternative to text messages allows me to switch a texting conversation to phone or video and by phone I mean PSTN or IP. It also ties into things like messaging during calls. That's a low end Universal Communication system not an alternative to What'sApp. There are no free alternatives. The good alternatives are in the range of $50-400 / user / year.
Where is Apple's revenue stream from iMessage for Android? They don't charge for iMessage and unlike most messaging vendors they:
a) Aren't looking to be acquired by a social networking company
b) Aren't looking for VC capital
c) Aren't trying to sell games as their primary revenue source
So why would they provide that service to non customers?
It isn't two way it is one way.
As sender it isn't your phone number but your unique iCloud ID
As recipient if the recipient were to associate a phone number with a different iCloud ID it would be associated with a different contact for senders. So it wouldn't matter.
If the senders are just sending by phone number then it is going to work exactly like the SMS system it will go to the phone number.
Of course they do. iMessage is associated with a contact. If the contact has a mobile phone number then iMessage falls back to it.
How can they be unaware? The default setup is
messages delivered by iMessage are light blue.
messages delivered by SMS are green
All over the place when you configure iCloud it asks what you want associated with iCloud and gives you ways of turning stuff off and on. If you blank a phone then from iCloud you have the ability to disassociate it from your account.
___
Anyway the devices are popular for a simple reason they are good quality. Consistently if you look at rankings the iPhone 5S is in the top 3 in every category: battery life, quality of phone, applications, speed... For someone buying a phone you get an almost best of all worlds with no trade offs. Why shouldn't end users want that?
What problem? Apple products are computers. Computers do what you tell them to do, not what you want them to do.
Recipient told Apple's servers to associate their phone number will iMessage. They never told Apple's servers to stop doing that, they don't bother to turn that off. Apple's servers are doing what the end user told them to do.
Sender either changed away from default which is to try iMessage and then fallback to SMS
-- or --
Recipient still has a device picking up his iMessages other than his phone
Yes that's exactly right. The standard / default setup for senders makes this into a non-issue.
That's actually what does happen by default. If iMessage fails to send for any reason and there is an associated phone number an iPhone will use SMS.
No I don't. But if that is the case then a BA Computer Science, MS in Networking would be a good approach. The BS in Networking should be terminal not forward going.
Excellent choice of Masters.