On 2023-11-17, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 00:47, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-11-17, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger wrote on 17 Nov 2023 16:36:59 GMT :
>
>>>>> As of now, there can only be one messenger app
>>
>> Nonsense. There are many messaging apps available for iOS.
>
> All installed simultaneously, all handling SMS/MMS?

The only reason Arlen is mentioning this in the first place is because
he read that Apple won't be supporting RCS in iMessage and stupidly
thought that meant Apple wouldn't be supporting RCS in the default
Messages app.

Say some more.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-11-17, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2023 11:39 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What do those cautionary warnings from Apple tell you about
>> implementation?
>
> Nothing.
>
> Obviously they did extensive market research and decided that offering
> RCS would not negatively affect iPhone sales..

Of course it won't - just like supporting SMS/MMS didn't negatively
affect sales.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-11-18, Patrick <patrick@oleary.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:06:41 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>> Nothing in what you've said shows that you understand that is what
>>> it is. Any Internet server can do that if you're willing to always
>>> be logged in.
>>
>> Again you misconstrue the purpose of the login. While it is for the
>> server purpose as well it is also to assure that one person's
>> devices are authorized to talk to one another even if neither is
>> currently capable of talking to the iCloud servers.
>
> Do you realize Android devices "securely talk to" a Windows PC WITHOUT
> needing the account that you need for Apple

Nope. AirDrop lets you transfer anything you want from an iPhone to a
Mac without any Wifi connection, without any internet connection, and
without any Apple server connection.

You'd know this if you weren't a lazy Apple-hating troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

> There is no indication RCS won't be supported in the default
> Apple Messages app.

I'm going to ignore the rest of this thread now, see you all next year
when we actually find out ...

Alan Browne wrote on Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:22:46 -0500 :

> You're looking for sinister where Apple are just making sure they and
> their product clients have exclusive use of Apple lanes.
>
> Why I state that it most likely means that as SMS/MMS are handled by
> Message(app) on Apple devices currently, so will RCS - that is via the
> phone network and not enjoy the "privilege" of using the iMessage
> messaging system or other iCloud components.
>
> Further (and they said such very plainly) they will not open iMessage to
> 3rd parties (beyond the existing and evolving API's).
>
> So Apple reserve their lane and access the other lanes at will.

Both your arguments make more sense to me now that I've looked back at
every word Apple carefully said, so I will agree for now with you (pending
finding out later next year what Apple releases in the iOS 18 beta).

The only part I object to is you think Apple is doing this out of their
desire to help their customer but Tim Cook has said many times he'd never
do it so I have to believe Apple is doing this only because they have to.

I think you've convinced me though that there will be two channels of
sorts, one with iMessage through Apple servers and the other through the
carrier (which is probably how it always should have been done).

You understood that inherently from the start better than I did. Thanks.

And I agree they said "very plainly" that they won't open up their
ecosystem to text-messaging competition so you're right about that too.

Thanks for helping me better understand.

On 2023-11-17 18:48, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-11-17, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-17 12:10, Andrew wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger wrote on 17 Nov 2023 16:36:59 GMT :
>>>
>>>>> Apple has already said that they won't be integrating it into their
>>>>> home-grown messenger app.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any indication from Apple that RCS messages won't be
>>>> supported in the Apple Messages app.
>>>
>>> Did you read the opening post?
>>> The OP's cite shows Apple said RCS would exist separate from iMessage.
>>
>> All that matters is what Apple have stated, which from what I've seen
>> is: """“This will work alongside iMessage, which will continue to be the
>> best and most secure messaging experience for Apple users.” """
>>
>> This is the usual careful messaging from Apple and I decode it to mean
>> RCS will be integrated into the iMessage _app_
>
> The app is not called "iMessage" - never has been. Apple was referring
> to the iMessage service - not an app.

True - I slipped up there.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-17 19:01, Patrick wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:06:41 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Nothing in what you've said shows that you understand that is what it
>>> is.
>>> Any Internet server can do that if you're willing to always be logged
>>> in.
>>
>> Again you misconstrue the purpose of the login.  While it is for the
>> server purpose as well it is also  to assure that one person's devices
>> are authorized to talk to one another even if neither is currently
>> capable of talking to the iCloud servers.
>
> Do you realize Android devices "securely talk to" a Windows PC WITHOUT
> needing the account that you need for Apple, eg using adb over Wi-Fi.
>
> Why are you putting up with the requirement for an account that is not
> controlled by you but by Apple when you could do it all without that?

The underpinnings of Apple's security model are all contained by a
single vendor for the hardware, software, firmware, servers, with iron
clad encryption all around. This is both a blessing and a necessity as
one can "authorize" access to device A from device B in a variety of
scenarios (lost device password for example).

And the account is controlled by me. I can log out of it on all devices
with a single action on any (or almost any) device. Can also delete my
Apple ID/Account (with a little more effort).

OTOH, if I own a PC under Windows + PC under Linux + phone under Android
+ tablet under Android ... getting all to play together seamlessly - and
maintain the seamlessness over time is neither obvious, easy or guaranteed.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-18 04:58, Andrew wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote on Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:22:46 -0500 :
>
>> You're looking for sinister where Apple are just making sure they and
>> their product clients have exclusive use of Apple lanes.
>>
>> Why I state that it most likely means that as SMS/MMS are handled by
>> Message(app) on Apple devices currently, so will RCS - that is via the
>> phone network and not enjoy the "privilege" of using the iMessage
>> messaging system or other iCloud components.
>>
>> Further (and they said such very plainly) they will not open iMessage to
>> 3rd parties (beyond the existing and evolving API's).
>>
>> So Apple reserve their lane and access the other lanes at will.
>
> Both your arguments make more sense to me now that I've looked back at
> every word Apple carefully said, so I will agree for now with you (pending
> finding out later next year what Apple releases in the iOS 18 beta).
>
> The only part I object to is you think Apple is doing this out of their
> desire to help their customer but Tim Cook has said many times he'd never
> do it so I have to believe Apple is doing this only because they have to.

Where did he say that? (I'm too lazy to search).

But. Even if he did say that, he is a fiercely intelligent individual
and as such can change his mind - and only after making sure Apple's
best interests are covered. (This includes: the company, customers and
shareholders).

> I think you've convinced me though that there will be two channels of
> sorts, one with iMessage through Apple servers and the other through the
> carrier (which is probably how it always should have been done).
>
> You understood that inherently from the start better than I did. Thanks.
>
> And I agree they said "very plainly" that they won't open up their
> ecosystem to text-messaging competition so you're right about that too.
>
> Thanks for helping me better understand.

You're very welcome.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

In comp.mobile.android Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-17 12:01, Theo wrote:
> >
> > The politics here is that the GSMA may not be in favour of E2EE, because
> > governments (and hence telcos) want their interception powers. Google
> > have gone it alone in terms of designing an E2EE extension for RCS
> > (based on Signal).
> >
> > It may be that with Google and Apple both in favour of it, suddenly that
> > will apply enough pressure on the GSMA to ratify the E2EE spec, perhaps as
> > an 'option'. Then Apple and Google both happen to implement the 'optional'
> > E2EE. Or the governments may apply pressure on the GSMA not to do so.
>
> With E2EE it doesn't matter what a body in the middle wants you to do.
> The only thing they can attempt to do is block encrypted traffic. And
> learn (again) that such is not practical in the real world absent a
> dictatorship.

Exactly, and that's a good reason why governments (and potentially telcos in
the GSMA under pressure from governments) don't want E2EE in RCS. That may
make standardising E2EE in RCS a political matter, rather than a technical
one.

Telcos are under strong government regulation, and in many countries the
telcos have strong government connections. That means they may not see E2EE
a benefit the way Apple and Google do. They know that standardising E2EE in
RCS would encourage its proliferation, and maybe they don't want that.

Theo