On 2024-01-06 21:38, Oliver wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:04:51 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
> wrote
>>>>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>>>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made
>>>>> by Epic
>>>>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>>>>
>>>> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users
>>>> and developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak
>>>> the device) may well be considered "wrong".
>>>>
>>> It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long as
>>> the customers are happy, it will continue to exist. We live in a
>>> Ferengi society.
>>
>> You can stay outside of the country club and do all you like.  Or join
>> the country club and have all you like + whatever the country club
>> offers.
>
> Not only can you join the Apple country club if you want all its perks, but
> if the competition doesn't like those perks, Apple will work with your
> competing country clubs to enable them to also have those same perks.

No. If you want to join the Apple eco-system you buy Apple products.

Otherwise, outside the club gates you can still do all the wondeful
things that Android, Windows, Linux et al can do. Just not the premium
features offered by Apple.

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

On 2024-01-06 21:47, Patrick wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2024 17:45:12 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> And even filing such a case does not mean Apple is a "monopoly". Hint:
>>> Apple is not a "monopoly".  You can't have a "monopoly" on your own
>>> products.  Monopolies exist in markets, not individual products.
>>
>> The Android users pushing for this don't care about facts like that.
>> They just want to be able to use Apple's products (at the very least the
>> iMessage service) no matter what and make up these bogus claims to
>> justify the means.
>
> What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?

Too much to summarize here. See the Apple site.

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

On 2024-01-06 21:51, david wrote:
> Using <news:unctia$qapf$2@dont-email.me>, sms wrote:
>
>> Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would be
>> better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and used
>> WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.
>
> With RCS implementation finally coming to Apple devices later this year,
> why would anyone on Android even want Apple to open up iMessage to Google?

It's not a 1-to-1 replacement. RCS will certainly improve the messaging
experience between Apple and Android users, but Android users will not
get the full spectrum of iMessage integration.

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

Patrick wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:28:26 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>>What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS
>>>doesn't?
>>
>>The Blue Bubble...
>
>I know you're joking about that but it was a serious question. What
>do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?

They want to be one of the gang in group conversations. Unless you
have iMessage your SMS message "breaks" the group conversation.
Whether RCS will integrate seamlessly and provide all the same effects
iMessage does remains to be seen. Of course Apple has to protect its
product so I'm sure they will omit some benefits.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 14:43:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>>>What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS
>>>>doesn't?
>>>
>>>The Blue Bubble...
>>
>>I know you're joking about that but it was a serious question. What
>>do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
>
> They want to be one of the gang in group conversations. Unless you
> have iMessage your SMS message "breaks" the group conversation.
> Whether RCS will integrate seamlessly and provide all the same effects
> iMessage does remains to be seen. Of course Apple has to protect its
> product so I'm sure they will omit some benefits.

Thank you for explaining. If I understood you that on the iPhone, the
groups are broken up, that's not something I've ever seen on Android.

If I have a group, it stays a group. I have no idea if people are on an
iPhone or Android unless I happen to know it (and some are, of course).

So why don't I have any problem (even without RCS) with my groups NOT
breaking up? Or is that a flaw in the group chats of the iPhone only?

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 09:22:32 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>> What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
>
> Too much to summarize here. See the Apple site.

In another post, it was noted the flaws are only in the group chats of the
iPhone alone - as Android has no problems keeping group chats together.

Using <news:guymN.27997$Sf59.3182@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:

>>> Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would be
>>> better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and used
>>> WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.
>>
>> With RCS implementation finally coming to Apple devices later this year,
>> why would anyone on Android even want Apple to open up iMessage to Google?
>
> It's not a 1-to-1 replacement. RCS will certainly improve the messaging
> experience between Apple and Android users, but Android users will not
> get the full spectrum of iMessage integration.

The only thing some Android users want out of RCS is the ability to use
their Internet connection to send MMS messages (mostly those in Europe).

If you already have free MMS messaging (which many in the USA do have),
then using the iMessaging servers has no advantage for USA Android users.

That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about iMessage.
I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on Android.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 09:21:42 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote

>> Not only can you join the Apple country club if you want all its perks, but
>> if the competition doesn't like those perks, Apple will work with your
>> competing country clubs to enable them to also have those same perks.
>
> No. If you want to join the Apple eco-system you buy Apple products.
>
> Otherwise, outside the club gates you can still do all the wondeful
> things that Android, Windows, Linux et al can do. Just not the premium
> features offered by Apple.

Apple helped add those features to all platforms you mentioned so that
Google, Microsoft & Mozilla could make the open source ShareDrop app even
better than AirDrop (as it works with no new software on every platform).

Read what it says about the open source sharedrop Apple helped them make.
https://github.com/szimek/sharedrop

ShareDrop is a web application inspired by Apple AirDrop service. It allows
you to transfer files directly between devices, without having to upload
them to any server first. It uses WebRTC for secure peer-to-peer file
transfer and Firebase for presence management and WebRTC signaling.

ShareDrop allows you to send files to other devices in the same local
network (i.e. devices with the same public IP address) without any
configuration - simply open https://www.sharedrop.io on all devices and
they will see each other. It also allows you to send files between networks
- just click the + button in the top right corner of the page to create a
room with a unique URL and share this URL with other people you want to
send a file to. Once they open this page in a browser on their devices,
you'll see each other's avatars.

The main difference between ShareDrop and AirDrop is that ShareDrop
requires Internet connection to discover other devices, while AirDrop
doesn't need one, as it creates ad-hoc wireless network between them. On
the other hand, ShareDrop allows you to share files between mobile (Android
and iOS) and desktop devices and even between networks.

On 2024-01-07 09:55, Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 14:43:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>>>> What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS
>>>>> doesn't?
>>>>
>>>> The Blue Bubble...
>>>
>>> I know you're joking about that but it was a serious question. What
>>> do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
>>
>> They want to be one of the gang in group conversations.  Unless you
>> have iMessage your SMS message "breaks" the group conversation.
>> Whether RCS will integrate seamlessly and provide all the same effects
>> iMessage does remains to be seen.  Of course Apple has to protect its
>> product so I'm sure they will omit some benefits.
>
> Thank you for explaining. If I understood you that on the iPhone, the
> groups are broken up, that's not something I've ever seen on Android.
>
> If I have a group, it stays a group. I have no idea if people are on an
> iPhone or Android unless I happen to know it (and some are, of course).
>
> So why don't I have any problem (even without RCS) with my groups NOT
> breaking up? Or is that a flaw in the group chats of the iPhone only?

From what I hear, the "breaks" occur when there is a change in group
"members". As long as the group "membership" remains unchanged it's no
issue.

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

On 2024-01-07 09:56, Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 09:22:32 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>

[AAA]:
>>> What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?

>> Too much to summarize here.  See the Apple site.
>
> In another post, it was noted the flaws are only in the group chats of the
> iPhone alone - as Android has no problems keeping group chats together.

I have no issues with my Apple only groups. They stay intact and
functional for years, change or no change to the membership of the group.

That was not your question above [AAA].

And please be careful snipping so that you don't mis-atribute.

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

On 2024-01-07 10:01, david wrote:
> Using <news:guymN.27997$Sf59.3182@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>>> Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would
>>>> be better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and
>>>> used WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.
>>>
>>> With RCS implementation finally coming to Apple devices later this year,
>>> why would anyone on Android even want Apple to open up iMessage to
>>> Google?
>>
>> It's not a 1-to-1 replacement.  RCS will certainly improve the
>> messaging experience between Apple and Android users, but Android
>> users will not get the full spectrum of iMessage integration.
>
> The only thing some Android users want out of RCS is the ability to use
> their Internet connection to send MMS messages (mostly those in Europe).
>
> If you already have free MMS messaging (which many in the USA do have),
> then using the iMessaging servers has no advantage for USA Android users.
>
> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about iMessage.
> I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on Android.

Android users will care when they get a more integral experience when
texting with Apple users (and v-v). And this perhaps most esp. in group
chats with a mix of users.
This will be the benefit of RCS when Apple implement it. But they are
having some lack of meeting of the minds where Google is concerned on
the E2E encryption part.
I expect that Google will change their stance wrt that.

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

On 2024-01-07 10:22, Oliver wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 09:21:42 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
> wrote
>>> Not only can you join the Apple country club if you want all its
>>> perks, but
>>> if the competition doesn't like those perks, Apple will work with your
>>> competing country clubs to enable them to also have those same perks.
>>
>> No.  If you want to join the Apple eco-system you buy Apple products.
>>
>> Otherwise, outside the club gates you can still do all the wondeful
>> things that Android, Windows, Linux et al can do.  Just not the
>> premium features offered by Apple.
>
> Apple helped add those features to all platforms you mentioned so that
> Google, Microsoft & Mozilla could make the open source ShareDrop app even
> better than AirDrop (as it works with no new software on every platform).
>
> Read what it says about the open source sharedrop Apple helped them make.
> https://github.com/szimek/sharedrop
>
> ShareDrop is a web application inspired by Apple AirDrop service. It allows
<Snip>

Very nice. I don't personally or professionally have a use case for
that at present.

And that still is not the entire Apple eco-system experience.

Further, the onus is on Android and other users to keep their devices up
to date. Will keep the chat boards busy I guess. (With Apple devices
just keep your devices reasonably up to date and the eco-system elements
follow.

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

Using <news:PIzmN.37644$Vrtf.30965@fx39.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:

>>
>> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about iMessage.
>> I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on Android.
>
> Android users will care when they get a more integral experience when
> texting with Apple users (and v-v). And this perhaps most esp. in group
> chats with a mix of users.
> This will be the benefit of RCS when Apple implement it. But they are
> having some lack of meeting of the minds where Google is concerned on
> the E2E encryption part.
> I expect that Google will change their stance wrt that.

I already have an "integral experience" on Android. I have one-on-one
chats. I have one-to-many chats. I guess you call them "group chats"
but to me it's just a bunch of people that I message back and forth with.

What you're calling a "group" is completely up to me who is in it.
And who is not.

If I want to change who is in that group, I add or remove phone numbers.
I don't have to worry what device they're on as it's transparent to me.

If colors are that much of a huge issue, I can also set them to ANY color.
(Not that I care about colors but Apple people seem to care about them.)

How can you get any more "integral" than that?

Patrick <patrick@oleary.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 14:43:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>>>> What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS
>>>>> doesn't?
>>>>
>>>> The Blue Bubble...
>>>
>>> I know you're joking about that but it was a serious question. What
>>> do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
>>
>> They want to be one of the gang in group conversations. Unless you
>> have iMessage your SMS message "breaks" the group conversation.
>> Whether RCS will integrate seamlessly and provide all the same effects
>> iMessage does remains to be seen. Of course Apple has to protect its
>> product so I'm sure they will omit some benefits.
>
> Thank you for explaining. If I understood you that on the iPhone, the
> groups are broken up, that's not something I've ever seen on Android.
>
> If I have a group, it stays a group. I have no idea if people are on an
> iPhone or Android unless I happen to know it (and some are, of course).
>
> So why don't I have any problem (even without RCS) with my groups NOT
> breaking up? Or is that a flaw in the group chats of the iPhone only?
>

The group chat stays together, it just “breaks” some of the reactions and
makes them be text rather than what it would look like in iMessage. Also
you can’t add and remove members without making a new group chat.

On 2024-01-07 11:05, david wrote:
> Using <news:PIzmN.37644$Vrtf.30965@fx39.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about
>>> iMessage.
>>> I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on
>>> Android.
>>
>> Android users will care when they get a more integral experience when
>> texting with Apple users (and v-v).  And this perhaps most esp. in
>> group chats with a mix of users.
>> This will be the benefit of RCS when Apple implement it.  But they are
>> having some lack of meeting of the minds where Google is concerned on
>> the E2E encryption part.
>> I expect that Google will change their stance wrt that.
>
> I already have an "integral experience" on Android. I have one-on-one
> chats. I have one-to-many chats. I guess you call them "group chats"
> but to me it's just a bunch of people that I message back and forth with.
>
> What you're calling a "group" is completely up to me who is in it.
> And who is not.
>
> If I want to change who is in that group, I add or remove phone numbers.
> I don't have to worry what device they're on as it's transparent to me.
>
> If colors are that much of a huge issue, I can also set them to ANY color.
> (Not that I care about colors but Apple people seem to care about them.)
>
> How can you get any more "integral" than that?

I'd explain but it's sort of like signing the beauty[1] of Beethoven's
adagio in the 9th symphony to a deaf person.[2]

[1] ... well up to the part where it gets stupid about 12 minutes in,
anyway.

[2] ... some irony here.

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

On 2024-01-07 15:01:08 +0000, david said:
> Using <news:guymN.27997$Sf59.3182@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would be
>>>> better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and used
>>>> WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.
>>>
>>> With RCS implementation finally coming to Apple devices later this year,
>>> why would anyone on Android even want Apple to open up iMessage to Google?
>>
>> It's not a 1-to-1 replacement. RCS will certainly improve the
>> messaging experience between Apple and Android users, but Android users
>> will not get the full spectrum of iMessage integration.
>
> The only thing some Android users want out of RCS is the ability to use
> their Internet connection to send MMS messages (mostly those in Europe).
>
> If you already have free MMS messaging (which many in the USA do have),
> then using the iMessaging servers has no advantage for USA Android users.
>
> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about iMessage.
> I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on Android.

It's all pretty irrelevant. People have their own preferences for which
apps they like or dislike, so in the real world most people end up
having to use multiple messaging apps anyway - FriendA use WeChat,
FridneB uses WhatsApp, FriendC uses normal SMS, etc.

Using <news:unf2dp$170lt$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name wrote:

>> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about iMessage.
>> I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on Android.
>
> It's all pretty irrelevant. People have their own preferences for which
> apps they like or dislike, so in the real world most people end up
> having to use multiple messaging apps anyway - FriendA use WeChat,
> FridneB uses WhatsApp, FriendC uses normal SMS, etc.

I agree it's irrelevant. Few to none on Android (other than those who want
to use RCS to get free MMS packets) seem to be complaining about it.

And once Apple catches up on RCS, they'll get their free MMS packets then.

The key differentiator in that list you provided is that the ones I
recognize (WeChat & WhatsApp) are no different than Apple's Messages
in that they all require everyone to be on the same account services.

In that important sense of requiring everyone being on that central
account, the Apple Messages is no different than WhatsApp and WeChat.

Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its messages.

I don't know about the rest you mentioned though. Are they too like the
WeChat, WhatsApp and Apple messaging system that they require both people
to be on the same type of logged-into account any time they use the app?

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:30:29 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>> So why don't I have any problem (even without RCS) with my groups NOT
>> breaking up? Or is that a flaw in the group chats of the iPhone only?
>>
>
> The group chat stays together, it just "breaks" some of the reactions and
> makes them be text rather than what it would look like in iMessage. Also
> you can't add and remove members without making a new group chat.

Thank you for explaining the group chat stays together but what "breaks"
are reactions that are images on the iPhone but text on the Android phone.

I haven't even noticed that but I do get a lot of "someone loved this
image", which I assume that's what you mean, since it shows up as text?

As for adding/removing members, on Android you control who you text to so I
don't see that as a problem. If you want to add, remove or block someone
who is in what you call a group chat, you can. Each "chat" has recipients.

How is it different on the iPhone?

Patrick wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:30:29 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>So why don't I have any problem (even without RCS) with my groups
>>>NOT breaking up? Or is that a flaw in the group chats of the
>>>iPhone only?
>>
>>The group chat stays together, it just "breaks" some of the
>>reactions and makes them be text rather than what it would look
>>like in iMessage. Also you can't add and remove members without
>>making a new group chat.
>
>Thank you for explaining the group chat stays together but what
>"breaks" are reactions that are images on the iPhone but text on the
>Android phone.
>
>I haven't even noticed that but I do get a lot of "someone loved this
>image", which I assume that's what you mean, since it shows up as
>text?
>
>As for adding/removing members, on Android you control who you text
>to so I don't see that as a problem. If you want to add, remove or
>block someone who is in what you call a group chat, you can. Each
>"chat" has recipients.
>
>How is it different on the iPhone?

Unless all the group participants are using iMessage, you cannot add or
remove participants without a whole new thread getting created. I
think there are some other group conversation shortcomings as well.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

david wrote:

>Using <news:unf2dp$170lt$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name wrote:
>
>>>That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about
>>>iMessage. I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares.
>>>But nobody on Android.
>>
>>It's all pretty irrelevant. People have their own preferences for
>>which apps they like or dislike, so in the real world most people
>>end up having to use multiple messaging apps anyway - FriendA use
>>WeChat, FridneB uses WhatsApp, FriendC uses normal SMS, etc.
>
>I agree it's irrelevant. Few to none on Android (other than those who
>want to use RCS to get free MMS packets) seem to be complaining about
>it.
>
>And once Apple catches up on RCS, they'll get their free MMS packets
>then.
>
>The key differentiator in that list you provided is that the ones I
>recognize (WeChat & WhatsApp) are no different than Apple's Messages
>in that they all require everyone to be on the same account services.
>
>In that important sense of requiring everyone being on that central
>account, the Apple Messages is no different than WhatsApp and WeChat.
>
>Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its
>messages.
>
>I don't know about the rest you mentioned though. Are they too like
>the WeChat, WhatsApp and Apple messaging system that they require
>both people to be on the same type of logged-into account any time
>they use the app?

Those are closed messaging systems. To my knowledge Android uses the
SMS protocol which is open and also accessible to iMessage. WhatsApp,
Messenger, WeChat, etc. do not work with SMS protocol.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 02:22:33 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>As for adding/removing members, on Android you control who you text
>>to so I don't see that as a problem. If you want to add, remove or
>>block someone who is in what you call a group chat, you can. Each
>>"chat" has recipients.
>>
>>How is it different on the iPhone?
>
> Unless all the group participants are using iMessage, you cannot add or
> remove participants without a whole new thread getting created. I
> think there are some other group conversation shortcomings as well.
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you for making it clear you can add, remove or block members of what
you call a group (to me it's just a list of recipients in a conversation)
which I presume to mean that you can on the fly omit or add members to the
conversation without changing anything else in that conversation?

Is that what you're saying? how the messaging app works on the iPhone?

For example, let's say I have people in my family that are in what you call
a group chat (to me it's just a list of recipients). Let's say for one
message and for that one only, I want to ADD a friend to that one message.

Are you saying on the iPhone I can do that adding of one person for one
message alone and the rest of the "conversation" (which you call a "group
chat" I think) remains intact both before and after I do that?

When that person replies, what happens? Does everyone get it or just me?

If so, I presume it would work similarly if I remove one person from that
conversation. I can remove them for only one message & the recipients don't
change for any other message?

Is that what you're saying happens on the iPhone?

Using <news:xn0ogjzn5z5acr4009@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman wrote:

>>In that important sense of requiring everyone being on that central
>>account, the Apple Messages is no different than WhatsApp and WeChat.
>>
>>Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its
>>messages.
>>
>>I don't know about the rest you mentioned though. Are they too like
>>the WeChat, WhatsApp and Apple messaging system that they require
>>both people to be on the same type of logged-into account any time
>>they use the app?
>
> Those are closed messaging systems. To my knowledge Android uses the
> SMS protocol which is open and also accessible to iMessage. WhatsApp,
> Messenger, WeChat, etc. do not work with SMS protocol.

I think we're saying the same thing, which is Apple's messaging is no
different in any way than any other closed messaging system such as WeChat
and WhatsApp (I wasn't sure about the other ones which were mentioned).

Since Apple's messaging is just like WeChat & WhatsApp in being a closed
messaging system, that's quite DIFFERENT from Android messaging.

Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its messages.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 10:53:57 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote

> Very nice. I don't personally or professionally have a use case for
> that at present.

The reason I brought it up was that I agree with those who say Apple does
everythign in its power to allow the other country clubs to integrate.

The ShareDrop example is possible because of WebRTC which Apple supported!
https://webrtc.org/

With WebRTC, you can add real-time communication capabilities to your
application that works on top of an open standard. It supports video,
voice, and generic data to be sent between peers, allowing developers to
build powerful voice and video communication solutions. The technology is
available on all modern browsers as well as on native clients for all major
platforms. The technologies behind WebRTC are implemented as an open web
standard and available as regular JavaScript APIs in all major browsers.
For native clients, like Android and iOS applications, a library is
available that provides the same functionality. The WebRTC project is
open-source and supported by Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla, amongst
others.

> And that still is not the entire Apple eco-system experience.

I was agreeing with your country club analogy where Apple even helped the
other country clubs do (as in the case of WebRTC) what Apple always did.

The three main advantages of ShareDrop over AirDrop are no account is ever
needed & therefore all devices are supported & no non-native software is
needed to use it & you can share both within your LAN & across networks.

The disadvantage is ShareDrop needs an initial handshake over the Internet.
> Further, the onus is on Android and other users to keep their devices up
> to date. Will keep the chat boards busy I guess. (With Apple devices
> just keep your devices reasonably up to date and the eco-system elements
> follow.

You probably haven't had an Android device for many years as that's a myth
much like the Trump-won-the-election myth that people want to believe.

Just like Trump didn't win when it counts, where he's cherry picking "how"
he wishes that he had won (using a non-official count for example), Apple
isn't any more secure than Android nor are their devices updated more often
or longer anymore.

It used to be that way - but that myth has long been disproved by the huge
change in Android since about Android 10 where the monthly bug & security
update is over the net to every Android 10 and above connected to the net.
https://www.androidpolice.com/project-mainline-android-14/

The only way you won't get the monthly updates is if you never connect to
the Internet since the monthly updates are built into Android since 2019.

On 2024-01-08 02:25:36 +0000, badgolferman said:
> david wrote:
>> Using <news:unf2dp$170lt$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about
>>>> iMessage. I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares.
>>>> But nobody on Android.
>>>
>>> It's all pretty irrelevant. People have their own preferences for
>>> which apps they like or dislike, so in the real world most people
>>> end up having to use multiple messaging apps anyway - FriendA use
>>> WeChat, FridneB uses WhatsApp, FriendC uses normal SMS, etc.
>>
>> I agree it's irrelevant. Few to none on Android (other than those who
>> want to use RCS to get free MMS packets) seem to be complaining about
>> it.
>>
>> And once Apple catches up on RCS, they'll get their free MMS packets
>> then.
>>
>> The key differentiator in that list you provided is that the ones I
>> recognize (WeChat & WhatsApp) are no different than Apple's Messages
>> in that they all require everyone to be on the same account services.
>>
>> In that important sense of requiring everyone being on that central
>> account, the Apple Messages is no different than WhatsApp and WeChat.
>>
>> Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its
>> messages.
>>
>> I don't know about the rest you mentioned though. Are they too like
>> the WeChat, WhatsApp and Apple messaging system that they require
>> both people to be on the same type of logged-into account any time
>> they use the app?
>
> Those are closed messaging systems. To my knowledge Android uses the
> SMS protocol which is open and also accessible to iMessage. WhatsApp,
> Messenger, WeChat, etc. do not work with SMS protocol.

That was my point - to send messages to all their friends, most people
have to use a few different apps. So the fact that a particaulr app
does or doesn't do something is irrelevant. Either people will still
use it because they like it, or theuy'll move to a different app.

On 2024-01-08 03:25:10 +0000, david said:
> Using <news:xn0ogjzn5z5acr4009@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>>> In that important sense of requiring everyone being on that central
>>> account, the Apple Messages is no different than WhatsApp and WeChat.
>>>
>>> Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> I don't know about the rest you mentioned though. Are they too like
>>> the WeChat, WhatsApp and Apple messaging system that they require
>>> both people to be on the same type of logged-into account any time
>>> they use the app?
>>
>> Those are closed messaging systems. To my knowledge Android uses the
>> SMS protocol which is open and also accessible to iMessage. WhatsApp,
>> Messenger, WeChat, etc. do not work with SMS protocol.
>
> I think we're saying the same thing, which is Apple's messaging is no
> different in any way than any other closed messaging system such as WeChat
> and WhatsApp (I wasn't sure about the other ones which were mentioned).
>
> Since Apple's messaging is just like WeChat & WhatsApp in being a closed
> messaging system, that's quite DIFFERENT from Android messaging.
>
> Android doesn't require an additional account just to send its messages.

"iMessage" encmopasses two different things.

The iMessage service is indeed like WeChat, WhatsAp, etc. in that you
have to have an Apple account and be logged in.

The iMessage app, can and does send and receive normal SMS messages
without needing to be logged into anything (other than using your phone
provider's SIM account of course, just like every other mobile phone on
the planet).