RCS is always going to suck as its a SMS/MMS replacement. It's based on phone number. No way to send a RCS from a Internet-connected PC or WiFi-only tablet without piggy-backing on your phone. It's also going to suck because carriers are going to own it, and will be able to bill by the message just like they sometimes do with SMS.
You can't subscribe to whatsapp withtout a phone number that can receive an SMS. You can't login to whatsapp on two phones at the same time. You can't use whatsapp from your PC without having it installed on your phone first. And I think your phone must even be on and with an Internet connection so that your PC can send a whatsapp message.
Facebook messenger doesn't have any of these limitations.
Even without data collection (which they can already perform separately), there is a good reason. By having 2 (or 3, I didn't know instragram was a messaging platform) different services, they leave the door open to the competition. By merging Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp networks, they get the largest user base by a wide margin and could therefore "win" the messaging war.
No point in keeping them separate. Would be a good thing if the resulting protocol stop being reliant on a mobile phone number and a mobile phone to operate.
The credit card companies got laws passed making it illegal for merchants to pass credit card fees on to customers.
Where is there such a stupid law? Certainly not where I live. It's the contract between the credit cards companies and the merchants forbidding that. Not the law.
Credit card regulation protect consumers and merchants.
no it doesn't. SIM lock only blocks you from using the device on another carrier... until you unlock it for $5. Even without unlocking it, you can still use the device with another SIM card on the same carrier, or without a SIM card.
You'd have a point if the fine was arbitrary. But they are being fined because they violated the law. The law says that you can't do anti-competitive things and put high fees. Are you suggesting the law should not be applied?
Try buying an unlocked phone on a monthly payment plan. I've never seen one for sale.
Any phone in Canada is sold like that.
No seller is willing to accept the risk that you'll skip out on the payments.
All carriers in Canada are willing to accept the risk. Otherwise, they would make us pay outright for phones.
The lock is what makes the risk acceptable to carriers who still sell phones on a payment plan.
No it doesn't. I can skip on payments and sell the phone online to people who will break the lock. And even if they couldn't, they could still use it on the same carrier with another plan.
Now, if a carrier insisted on SIM-locking or refused to unlock a phone that was entirely paid off
It was like that in Canada until they passed the law to forbid SIM-locking. Nothing of value has been lost since then.
But phones given to you as part of your plan aren't exactly bought.
It doesn't matter. Just because you pay it monthly doesn't morally allow them to SIM-lock it. Why can't you switch carrier and pay of your debt at this one? It's not as if this locking was what insured the loaner that it will get its due.
Belgium (and Canada) has this right. SIM-locking is banned. It has no utility. The world would be better without SIM-locking.
My Facebook friends are people I know. Friends, family, coworkers. I have not selected them based on their IT knowledge and most of them are not on Slashdot. Some of them still forward some fake news from time to time. Typical cases include:
-You must post this or your Facebook account will be closed -Child has disappeared, please help find him* -You have a chance to win a BMW, please share this post! -Political spins
*might have been true at some point, but the child was usually found 8 years ago.
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
My phone is always on, so why not?
You are right, why make it good when you can make it suck? My toaster is also always connected to the grid, so why not relay whatsapp messages through it? What could possibly goes wrong?
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
But Facebook does so many other things wrong... and since my phone is always on, I don't care about this "disadvantage".
Facebook is just one of many that does that right. There are dozens of chat services NOT requiring you to have a phone and especially not powered on and with signal (cell data or wifi) to use. Why use one of the only one that suck that much?
Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific. Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
But pretty much everyone has a phone number. Certainly I do.
Not everyone has a phone number which can receive SMS to activate whatsapp. Some people share phone numbers. In the end, it's one of the worse ID they could find. What's wrong with email and password?
Most businesses will give you a phone number, and once they do, it's easier to contact them by WhatsApp than by regular phone/SMS.
I disagree. Most businesses can NOT be contacted through whatsapp (or SMS). More businesses can still be contacted by fax than by whatsapp. You must be living under a rock.
BTW, when I fly internationally and no longer have phone service, WhatsApp on my phone still works perfectly (as long as I have data from wifi, of course). It lets me use the phone as a regular phone anywhere in the world, for zero cost and no ads.
No it doesn't. You can't call any real phone number, only whatsapp people. It's very limited. But there are dozens of apps/protocols which again, allow you to do the same (Internet audio calls), with less limitations and very bad design decisions than whatsapp. I can't find a single good reason to use it, really. Plus it's owned by Facebook.
it was a lot limited, only because of the delays of shipping meaning the actual number of movies you were able to watch in a month was very low and still they didn't have all shows and movies
It's not only a mobile app. It's also a web app that I should be able to use on my PC. Somehow, they designed it so that you can't use it on the PC without a phone.
it's very dumb you mean. They've never though of giving the option to login with a username or password? What if I don't want/have a cell phone, or if it is discharged?
Slashdot Mirror
it's not native as you need another device (usually a phone) with a phone number capable of receiving an SMS to use.
RCS is always going to suck as its a SMS/MMS replacement. It's based on phone number. No way to send a RCS from a Internet-connected PC or WiFi-only tablet without piggy-backing on your phone.
It's also going to suck because carriers are going to own it, and will be able to bill by the message just like they sometimes do with SMS.
You should never trust whatsapp or Facebook for encryption anyways.
so they would delete user accounts without a phone number? Or block access? Seems unlikely stupid, but this is Facebook so we never know.
You can't subscribe to whatsapp withtout a phone number that can receive an SMS. You can't login to whatsapp on two phones at the same time.
You can't use whatsapp from your PC without having it installed on your phone first. And I think your phone must even be on and with an Internet connection so that your PC can send a whatsapp message.
Facebook messenger doesn't have any of these limitations.
Even without data collection (which they can already perform separately), there is a good reason. By having 2 (or 3, I didn't know instragram was a messaging platform) different services, they leave the door open to the competition.
By merging Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp networks, they get the largest user base by a wide margin and could therefore "win" the messaging war.
No point in keeping them separate. Would be a good thing if the resulting protocol stop being reliant on a mobile phone number and a mobile phone to operate.
The credit card companies got laws passed making it illegal for merchants to pass credit card fees on to customers.
Where is there such a stupid law? Certainly not where I live.
It's the contract between the credit cards companies and the merchants forbidding that. Not the law.
Credit card regulation protect consumers and merchants.
no it doesn't. SIM lock only blocks you from using the device on another carrier... until you unlock it for $5. Even without unlocking it, you can still use the device with another SIM card on the same carrier, or without a SIM card.
You'd have a point if the fine was arbitrary. But they are being fined because they violated the law. The law says that you can't do anti-competitive things and put high fees. Are you suggesting the law should not be applied?
It doesn't as you can use the phone without a plan, unlock it, or use it with a cheaper plan with the same carrier.
The only thing that ensures you will pay back your device is that it will hurt your credit rating if you don't. Nothing to do with SIM lock.
The credit card market is an oligopoly and therefore must be regulated. The EU is right to force Mastercard into lowering its fees.
Try buying an unlocked phone on a monthly payment plan. I've never seen one for sale.
Any phone in Canada is sold like that.
No seller is willing to accept the risk that you'll skip out on the payments.
All carriers in Canada are willing to accept the risk. Otherwise, they would make us pay outright for phones.
The lock is what makes the risk acceptable to carriers who still sell phones on a payment plan.
No it doesn't. I can skip on payments and sell the phone online to people who will break the lock. And even if they couldn't, they could still use it on the same carrier with another plan.
Now, if a carrier insisted on SIM-locking or refused to unlock a phone that was entirely paid off
It was like that in Canada until they passed the law to forbid SIM-locking. Nothing of value has been lost since then.
Because you agreed to the contract that included paying x for 24 months?
How does SIM-locking a device ensure a carrier will get its money back?
But phones given to you as part of your plan aren't exactly bought.
It doesn't matter.
Just because you pay it monthly doesn't morally allow them to SIM-lock it. Why can't you switch carrier and pay of your debt at this one? It's not as if this locking was what insured the loaner that it will get its due.
Belgium (and Canada) has this right. SIM-locking is banned. It has no utility. The world would be better without SIM-locking.
My Facebook friends are people I know. Friends, family, coworkers. I have not selected them based on their IT knowledge and most of them are not on Slashdot.
Some of them still forward some fake news from time to time. Typical cases include:
-You must post this or your Facebook account will be closed
-Child has disappeared, please help find him*
-You have a chance to win a BMW, please share this post!
-Political spins
*might have been true at some point, but the child was usually found 8 years ago.
Would you trust most of your Facebook friends?
but my understanding was that most people in DC doesn't reside in DC
Paris makes it free even for foreigners
or you know, I'll just not use whatsapp. It's not as it if had any feature not present in other chat clients.
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
My phone is always on, so why not?
You are right, why make it good when you can make it suck?
My toaster is also always connected to the grid, so why not relay whatsapp messages through it? What could possibly goes wrong?
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
But Facebook does so many other things wrong... and since my phone is always on, I don't care about this "disadvantage".
Facebook is just one of many that does that right. There are dozens of chat services NOT requiring you to have a phone and especially not powered on and with signal (cell data or wifi) to use. Why use one of the only one that suck that much?
Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific.
Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
But pretty much everyone has a phone number. Certainly I do.
Not everyone has a phone number which can receive SMS to activate whatsapp. Some people share phone numbers. In the end, it's one of the worse ID they could find. What's wrong with email and password?
Most businesses will give you a phone number, and once they do, it's easier to contact them by WhatsApp than by regular phone/SMS.
I disagree. Most businesses can NOT be contacted through whatsapp (or SMS). More businesses can still be contacted by fax than by whatsapp. You must be living under a rock.
BTW, when I fly internationally and no longer have phone service, WhatsApp on my phone still works perfectly (as long as I have data from wifi, of course). It lets me use the phone as a regular phone anywhere in the world, for zero cost and no ads.
No it doesn't. You can't call any real phone number, only whatsapp people. It's very limited.
But there are dozens of apps/protocols which again, allow you to do the same (Internet audio calls), with less limitations and very bad design decisions than whatsapp. I can't find a single good reason to use it, really. Plus it's owned by Facebook.
it was a lot limited, only because of the delays of shipping meaning the actual number of movies you were able to watch in a month was very low
and still they didn't have all shows and movies
It's not only a mobile app. It's also a web app that I should be able to use on my PC. Somehow, they designed it so that you can't use it on the PC without a phone.
it's very dumb you mean. They've never though of giving the option to login with a username or password? What if I don't want/have a cell phone, or if it is discharged?
- WA web - it is really nice to pull up WA on my computer and use it there.
I just tried to use it and it ask me to to scan a bar code on my phone. Who's the idiot who designed that?
And worse of all, it doesn't even work on two phones at the same time. Last time I checked at least.
Who are the idiots who wrote that application?