Apple banned some of its customers' Macs for using Beeper
https://9to5google.com/2024/01/26/beeper-imessage-disabled-apple-ban/

To recap what's happened with Beeper thus far, Beeper Mini debuted in
December with a reverse-engineered method of accessing iMessage with or
without an Apple ID from Android phones. Apple shut down the method in part
just days later, and vowed to keep it from working going forward citing
"significant risks to user security and privacy." Beeper managed to get
things working again, but Apple's efforts continued to prevent full
functionality. By the end of December, Beeper had launched a final attempt
to keep the app on Android (and other platforms) alive using registration
codes obtained from Macs as well as jailbroken iPhones.

That last effort was a hurdle for many, but worked without any big problems
for a little while.

But earlier this month, a trend started to emerge among Beeper users where
Apple was banning their purchased Macs from iMessage after setting up a
connection with Beeper. Apple flagged Macs as "spam," preventing the Macs
from sending iMessage through Beeper or even Apple's own Messages app on
the machines. Apple IDs, though, were unaffected, with iMessage still
working on iPhone and iPad.

In an update on Twitter/X, Beeper explains that 30 of the 3,500 customers
using the new iMessage bridge were affected in this way. In the time since,
though, Apple seems to have unbanned the affected Macs, not-so-ironically
just two days after a reporter from The New York Times reached out to the
company on the matter.

On 27.01.24 09:00, Patrick wrote:
> Apple banned some of its customers' Macs for using Beeper
> https://9to5google.com/2024/01/26/beeper-imessage-disabled-apple-ban/
>
> To recap what's happened with Beeper thus far, Beeper Mini debuted in
> December with a reverse-engineered method of accessing iMessage with or
> without an Apple ID from Android phones. Apple shut down the method in part
> just days later, and vowed to keep it from working going forward citing
> "significant risks to user security and privacy." Beeper managed to get
> things working again, but Apple's efforts continued to prevent full
> functionality. By the end of December, Beeper had launched a final attempt
> to keep the app on Android (and other platforms) alive using registration
> codes obtained from Macs as well as jailbroken iPhones.
>
> That last effort was a hurdle for many, but worked without any big problems
> for a little while.
>
> But earlier this month, a trend started to emerge among Beeper users where
> Apple was banning their purchased Macs from iMessage after setting up a
> connection with Beeper. Apple flagged Macs as "spam," preventing the Macs
> from sending iMessage through Beeper or even Apple's own Messages app on
> the machines. Apple IDs, though, were unaffected, with iMessage still
> working on iPhone and iPad.
>
> In an update on Twitter/X, Beeper explains that 30 of the 3,500 customers
> using the new iMessage bridge were affected in this way. In the time since,
> though, Apple seems to have unbanned the affected Macs, not-so-ironically
> just two days after a reporter from The New York Times reached out to the
> company on the matter.

WTF cares?

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-01-27, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27.01.24 09:00, Patrick wrote:
>> Apple banned some of its customers' Macs for using Beeper
>> https://9to5google.com/2024/01/26/beeper-imessage-disabled-apple-ban/
>>
>> To recap what's happened with Beeper thus far, Beeper Mini debuted in
>> December with a reverse-engineered method of accessing iMessage with
>> or without an Apple ID from Android phones. Apple shut down the
>> method in part just days later, and vowed to keep it from working
>> going forward citing "significant risks to user security and
>> privacy." Beeper managed to get things working again, but Apple's
>> efforts continued to prevent full functionality. By the end of
>> December, Beeper had launched a final attempt to keep the app on
>> Android (and other platforms) alive using registration codes obtained
>> from Macs as well as jailbroken iPhones.
>>
>> That last effort was a hurdle for many, but worked without any big
>> problems for a little while.
>>
>> But earlier this month, a trend started to emerge among Beeper users
>> where Apple was banning their purchased Macs from iMessage after
>> setting up a connection with Beeper. Apple flagged Macs as "spam,"
>> preventing the Macs from sending iMessage through Beeper or even
>> Apple's own Messages app on the machines. Apple IDs, though, were
>> unaffected, with iMessage still working on iPhone and iPad.
>>
>> In an update on Twitter/X, Beeper explains that 30 of the 3,500
>> customers using the new iMessage bridge were affected in this way. In
>> the time since, though, Apple seems to have unbanned the affected
>> Macs, not-so-ironically just two days after a reporter from The New
>> York Times reached out to the company on the matter.
>
> WTF cares?

Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

--
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 1/27/2024 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> WTF cares?
>
> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

Indeed. They are literally green with envy.

Nick Charles <the.thin@man> writes:

> On 1/27/2024 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> WTF cares?
>> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color
>> green.
>
> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.

I don't understand the whole thing. If I own an Android phone, I
presumably like the way Android works. If I don't like that, I'm free to
buy an Apple device instead.

I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free since
they're "entitled to it."

The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for if
not for green bubbles?

MAGA - Make Android Green, Alright?

On 2024-01-27, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Nick Charles <the.thin@man> writes:
>> On 1/27/2024 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>>> WTF cares?
>>>
>>> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color
>>> green.
>>
>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>
> I don't understand the whole thing. If I own an Android phone, I
> presumably like the way Android works. If I don't like that, I'm free
> to buy an Apple device instead.
>
> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free
> since they're "entitled to it."
>
> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for
> if not for green bubbles?
>
> MAGA - Make Android Green, Alright?

+1

You'll notice that the people who complain the loudest about the color
of chat bubbles (here in the Apple news groups and everywhere on the
net) are overwhelmingly Android users, all while pointing the finger and
claiming iPhone users supposedly are the ones who really care. Even in
the Beeper subreddit, you'll see them make this claim - in a forum which
literally wouldn't even exist if Android users weren't desperately
trying to gain access to Apple's iMessage service through fraudulent
means. Then they get all pissed off when Apple locks them out for
violating iCloud/iMessage terms of service, acting like Apple is
completely in the wrong and owes them access. It's utterly ridiculous.

--
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 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:

>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>
> I don't understand the whole thing.

It's simple.

1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.

2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.

3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
(which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.

They could use any message server that requires a mainframe server.
But Apple's mainframe servers have about 15% of the world market.

That's why.

> If I own an Android phone, I presumably like the way Android works.

Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
work. Only Apple does that. Sure, Apple's Messages can do sms/mms without
logging into Apple servers. But it won't do anything else without it.

The penalty Apple users pay for the walled garden is the iPhone is
essentially a dumb terminal that can't do much without logging into the
mainframes (yes, even just to do the messaging that iPhone users love).

> If I don't like that, I'm free to
> buy an Apple device instead.

What some Android owners want is a "common" messaging server that allows
them to send MMS for free (without being charged by the carrier).

Mostly this is people in Europe, as most people in the USA pretty
much have unlimited everything (not all people of course, but most).

> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free since
> they're "entitled to it."

No. Nobody on Android would be able to put up with the severe limitations
of an iPhone. What they want (mostly in Europe) is the free MMS that Apple
iPhone owners enjoy at the penalty of being forced to be tracked by Apple.

> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for if
> not for green bubbles?

The "advantage" of iMessage is that it uses a server that essentially all
Apple iPhone owners are forced to log into every day of their lives.

Android, by nature, never requires you to be logged into Google servers
just to get the basic tools (like Messaging) to work with other users.

Any other forced-login messaging app would do that though, so that's only
half the reason why those who want free MMS want to use Apple's servers.

The other half of the reason is that Apple has something like 15% of the
world market, which is appreciable, so Android users benefit from that.

In the end analysis, RCS all by itself negates any need to use an iPhone
for those people who pay for their MMS messages - so RCS will end it.

On 2024-01-27 20:28:01 +0000, Sten deJoode said:

> Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
> work. Only Apple does that. Sure, Apple's Messages can do sms/mms without
> logging into Apple servers. But it won't do anything else without it.

Oh dear, more complete bollocks fvrom the know-nothing brigade. Another
idiot joins my killfile. :-\

On 2024-01-27, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>>
>> I don't understand the whole thing.
>
> It's simple.
>
> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>
> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>
> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>
> They could use any message server that requires a mainframe server.
> But Apple's mainframe servers have about 15% of the world market.
>
> That's why.
>
>> If I own an Android phone, I presumably like the way Android works.
>
> Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
> work. Only Apple does that.

> the iPhone is essentially a dumb terminal that can't do much without
> logging into the mainframes (yes, even just to do the messaging that
> iPhone users love).

This is a bullshit claim "Sten" (under many different nyms, because:
troll) has made over and over again here, despite numerous
people telling him (and to be clear, this is yet another "Arlen" nym)
that's definitely not the case. It's also a brain-dead claim in light of
the FACT (and little Arlen hates facts) that all messaging services
require you to log into them in order to use them. Arlen, as always, is
a ridiculous, juvenile, dimwit troll.

>> If I don't like that, I'm free to buy an Apple device instead.
>
> What some Android owners want is a "common" messaging server that
> allows them to send MMS for free (without being charged by the
> carrier).

Nope, this has nothing at all to do with SMS messaging, Arlen.

> Mostly this is people in Europe, as most people in the USA pretty
> much have unlimited everything (not all people of course, but most).
>
>> I kind of think that the people who are complaining are really hinting
>> that what they'd like is for Apple to give them an iPhone for free since
>> they're "entitled to it."
>
> No. Nobody on Android would be able to put up with the severe limitations
> of an iPhone. What they want (mostly in Europe) is the free MMS that Apple
> iPhone owners enjoy at the penalty of being forced to be tracked by Apple.

Nonsense. iPhone users still have to pay for SMS on carriers that don't
offer it for free. And this has nothing to do with SMS in the first
place. You're only talking about it as a red herring to distract from
the reality that Android users want to use iMessage on non-Apple
devices. You're full of shit, as usual.

>> The government should supply us with iMessage. Mom, Apple pie, and
>> iMessage. A turducken in every pot. What are my tax dollars going for if
>> not for green bubbles?
>
> The "advantage" of iMessage is that it uses a server that essentially all
> Apple iPhone owners are forced to log into every day of their lives.

Nope, as you have been told *repeatedly*, iMessage and iCloud are both
*completely optional*, Arlen. You're a little lying bitch of a troll.

> Android, by nature, never requires you to be logged into Google servers
> just to get the basic tools (like Messaging) to work with other users.

Android users log into messaging services just like Apple users, doofus.

--
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 2024-01-27, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2024-01-27 20:28:01 +0000, Sten deJoode said:
>
>> Android never forces you to log into any servers just to get the phone to
>> work. Only Apple does that. Sure, Apple's Messages can do sms/mms without
>> logging into Apple servers. But it won't do anything else without it.
>
> Oh dear, more complete bollocks fvrom the know-nothing brigade. Another
> idiot joins my killfile. :-\

It's the same idiot with a new nym as usual: Arlen.

--
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 2024-01-27 15:28, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:43:36 -0500, Bud Frede wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. They are literally green with envy.
>>
>> I don't understand the whole thing.
>
> It's simple.
>
> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.

Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.

> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.

"Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.

Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.

> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.

Irrelevant, alas.

Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.

Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
tough potatoes.

<snipped the rest>

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

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>
> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.

You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.

That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>
> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.

You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).

They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.

> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.

The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>
> Irrelevant, alas.

Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
Most iPhone users are logged into Apple's Internet messaging service.

Essentially if they're an iPhone user, they're logged into the net.
Every instant of every day of their entire lives until they're dead.

That's the beauty of the Apple ecosystem (which treats the iPhone as a dumb
terminal in terms of most of its FaceTime, Messages & iCloud capabilities).

The Apple server is what those Android users who are charged per MMS image
want to take advantage of because it allows their images to reach Apple's
customers for free.

It's no different than how they use WhatsApp where Apple's 15% or so of the
world market allows them to reach those who are not subscribed to WhatsApp.
> Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
> for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.

Android users who are charged per MMS image who want to reach Apple users
who are not on WhatsApp make use of the fact the iPhone is a dumb terminal.

iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android

These Android users want to use Apple servers to get to that dumb terminal
with their MMS messages because doing so avoids their carrier per-MMS fees.

They don't want the iPhone (otherwise they wouldn't be on Android, silly).
They just want to use the Internet server like they already use WhatsApp.

> Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
> is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
> fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
> tough potatoes.

Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
(who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).

This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android

On 2024-01-28 02:36, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>>
>> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.
>
> You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
> If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.
>
> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

I really don't care about their "wants". If Android can't provide for
these "wants" why should Apple?
>
>>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>>
>> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.
>
> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).

This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?

>
> They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
> their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.
>
>> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
>> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.
>
> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.
These servers are there for Apple customers - and for that matter paid
for by Apple customers through the purchase of Apple products.

>
>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>
>> Irrelevant, alas.
>
> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.

I understand completely: Apple's servers are for Apple customers.
Everyone else stay off the clubhouse grounds.

<Rest of BS Snipped>

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

On 1/27/24 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

This was a legitimate complaint before Apple announced it would support
an RCS fallback, but now it really is just a dead argument.

On 2024-01-27 23:36, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:59:39 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> 1. The few Android users who are forced to pay for MMS want to use
>>> Apple's messaging servers because Apple goes through the Internet.
>>
>> Easy solution: buy Apple products. That's how Apple pay for those servers.
>
> You have to understand something very basic that you don't seem to realize.
> If they're on Android, they don't want to be on iOS.

But they want what iOS has...

....without be willing to PAY for it.

>
> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.

And they'll cheat to do it.

>
>>> 2. The reason has nothing to do with Apple's messaging servers.
>>> Apple's servers are the penalty for being able to send free MMS.
>>
>> "Free"? People have to pay for their cellco / internet services.
>
> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>
> They usually use WhatsApp which is exactly the same as Apple Messages for
> their purpose of making MMS images free of the carrier's per-image charges.

And requires a login to WhatsApp's servers.

>
>> Apple's servers are definitely not a "penalty" - they are added value
>> for Apple clients when they buy Apple products.
>
> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.

And that should be Apple's problem... ...why?

>
>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>
>> Irrelevant, alas.
>
> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
> Most iPhone users are logged into Apple's Internet messaging service.

Yup. So?

>
> Essentially if they're an iPhone user, they're logged into the net.
> Every instant of every day of their entire lives until they're dead.
>
> That's the beauty of the Apple ecosystem (which treats the iPhone as a dumb
> terminal in terms of most of its FaceTime, Messages & iCloud capabilities).

Nope.

>
> The Apple server is what those Android users who are charged per MMS image
> want to take advantage of because it allows their images to reach Apple's
> customers for free.

Right. Stealing.

>
> It's no different than how they use WhatsApp where Apple's 15% or so of the
> world market allows them to reach those who are not subscribed to WhatsApp.
>
>> Apple sell products and with those products provide backbone services
>> for their customers. Messages (iMessage) is part of that offering.
>
> Android users who are charged per MMS image who want to reach Apple users
> who are not on WhatsApp make use of the fact the iPhone is a dumb terminal.

There are a lot of apps on my phone that deny that "fact".

>
> iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
>
> These Android users want to use Apple servers to get to that dumb terminal
> with their MMS messages because doing so avoids their carrier per-MMS fees.
>
> They don't want the iPhone (otherwise they wouldn't be on Android, silly).
> They just want to use the Internet server like they already use WhatsApp.
>
>> Another company creating ways to circumvent the intent of these services
>> is, at base, stealing and Apple have all rights to block it (in effect
>> fix their lax implementation) and if Android users don't like it well,
>> tough potatoes.
>
> Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
> (who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
> to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).
>
> This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
> Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android

And those carriers will be providing those servers for free, will they?

On 2024-01-28 12:16, Gabriel Coan wrote:
> On 1/27/24 11:02 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.
>
> This was a legitimate complaint before Apple announced it would support
> an RCS fallback, but now it really is just a dead argument.

RCS implemented by Apple will still show itself distinct from Apple's
iMessage/Messages product.

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

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:44:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
>> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.
>
> I really don't care about their "wants".

That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.

Now you seem to understand - but at first you didn't appear to understand
what they wanted. They just want the server. Not the iPhone itself.

> If Android can't provide for these "wants" why should Apple?

It's not Android. Android does everything for me. But not for them.
Get it?

a. Same phone.
b. Same operating system.
c. Same apps.

It's not Android that doesn't serve their needs.
It's their crappy carrier.

You need to try to understand it's not "Android" or the "iPhone".
They just want the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone to reach its users.

They want the server only. The Apple server. Which goes to Apple customers.

They don't want the iPhone.
And the problem isn't Android.

You don't seem to completely understand that critical distinction.

They want two things that I've said multiple times and you still think that
an Android user would lower himself to the level of an iPhone. He won't.

The problem isn't Android.
It's their crappy carrier's charging model.

Think about the guy in Europe who is charged for each MMS attachment.
1. He doesn't want the iPhone. Stop thinking that. An iPhone is crap.
2. He wants the Apple *server*. (Which is no different than the WA Server).
3. He wants the fact that Apple server *allows MMS over the Internet*.

He can get that from _any_ Internet server that everyone uses.
He gets that already from WhatsApp for example.

But Apple Messages servers have something like 15% of the world market.

That's a lot.
It's probably way more people than WhatsApp has, but I never checked.

>> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
>> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>
> This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
> access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?

I agree with you.

Nobody on Android wants to have anything to do with the iPhone.
Especially as most people in the USA get their MMS images sent for free.

Unfortunately, some people have a crappy carrier (usually in Europe).
That crappy carrier charges them a lot for sending MMS images.
It just does.

That's the problem *they* are trying to solve.
Later when Apple finally catches up with RCS, that should solve it.

>> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
>> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
>> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
>> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.
>
> And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.

I agree with you.

On Android, I don't want to have anything to do with Apple servers.
Even on iOS I don't want to have anything to do with Apple servers.

I was just explaining to you that nobody wants to use the iPhone.
They want the Apple server.

And they don't even want that (as WhatsApp has the same type of servers).
They want the 15% of the Apple world market.

I don't know what the market penetration of WhatsApp is.
But 15% of the world market for that Apple server is a huge amount.

> These servers are there for Apple customers - and for that matter paid
> for by Apple customers through the purchase of Apple products.

I agree with you.

I was just explaining that nobody on Android wants anything to do with the
iPhone. What those people want (who are charged for MMS) is Apple's server.

>>>> 3. The reason is Apple has something like 15% of the world market
>>>> (which is more than WhatsApp has, for example), so they want
>>>> to use the messaging servers that have the most penetration.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, alas.
>>
>> Actually that's the whole point, which you don't seem to understand.
>
> I understand completely: Apple's servers are for Apple customers.
> Everyone else stay off the clubhouse grounds.

We both agree as long as you understand what the Android users who have a
crappy carrier want is a free server (any server will do) that allows them
to send MMS attachments over the Internet without paying extra for them.

At first you said they wanted the iPhone. They don't.
Most of them wouldn't want to be caught dead anywhere near an iPhone.

What they want is a server that other people use.
And Apple (and WhatsApp) have those servers.

It would be nice to learn what the market is for WhatsApp vs Apple's server
where 15% of the world market is a lot of people (credit goes to Apple).

Alan wrote on Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:54:22 -0800 :

>> Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
>> (who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
>> to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).
>>
>> This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
>> Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android
>
> And those carriers will be providing those servers for free, will they?

I pay one postpaid carrier service bill with no additional charges, like
most people do in the united states on one of the three main carriers.

That service gives me as many mms attachments as I want, for free, today.
Even without rcs.

Alan Browne wrote on Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:46:09 -0500 :

>>> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.
>>
>> This was a legitimate complaint before Apple announced it would support
>> an RCS fallback, but now it really is just a dead argument.
>
> RCS implemented by Apple will still show itself distinct from Apple's
> iMessage/Messages product.

As far as I can tell, the average Android user doesn't care about silly
bubble colors nor even do they understand the intricacies of what RCS does.

I would think most Android users (who can change the color of any chat to
any HSV they like) probably don't even know about the limitation on the
iPhone of only two colors (iOS is binary, unlike Android whose chat colors
are infinite).

All they care about if they have a crummy carrier is the ability to send
MMS media without being charged for each and every attachment they send.

If when Apple finally implements RCS "later this year", that solves the
problem, let's hope this green/blue bubble garbage can be forgotten about.

On 2024-01-28 18:43, Andrew wrote:
> Alan wrote on Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:54:22 -0800 :
>
>>> Once RCS comes out, there will be probably be no need for Android users
>>> (who are charged per MMS attachments who want to reach non-WhatsApp users)
>>> to want to reach iPhone users (who use an iPhone as a dumb terminal).
>>>
>>> This: iPhone <---> Apple Internet Servers <---> Android
>>> Gets replaced by this: iPhone <---> Carrier RCS Servers <---> Android
>>
>> And those carriers will be providing those servers for free, will they?
>
> I pay one postpaid carrier service bill with no additional charges, like
> most people do in the united states on one of the three main carriers.
>
> That service gives me as many mms attachments as I want, for free, today.
> Even without rcs.

That's still not getting the service for free.

The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.

Alan wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:11:23 -0800 :

> The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.

You have an uncanny head-shaking ability to not only completely
misunderstand the problem set but then you go on some crazy meaningless
tangent of a sudden realization of yours )that everyone else learned when
they were in elementary school) but which you are suddenly figuring out
just now for the first time for yourself.

And then you make that sudden but meaningless realization of something
nobody in their right mind would dispute, your entire contrary argument?

What kind of strangely unfathomably crazily stupid idiot does that?
Plonk!

On 2024-01-29 12:35, Andrew wrote:
> Alan wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:11:23 -0800 :
>
>> The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.
>
> You have an uncanny head-shaking ability to not only completely
> misunderstand the problem set but then you go on some crazy meaningless
> tangent of a sudden realization of yours )that everyone else learned when
> they were in elementary school) but which you are suddenly figuring out
> just now for the first time for yourself.
>
> And then you make that sudden but meaningless realization of something
> nobody in their right mind would dispute, your entire contrary argument?
>
> What kind of strangely unfathomably crazily stupid idiot...

....changes his posting nym over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

....and over...

Am 29.01.24 um 21:35 schrieb Andrew:
> Alan wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:11:23 -0800 :
>
>> The cost is just bundled in with your other charges.
>
> You have an uncanny head-shaking ability to not only completely
> misunderstand the problem set but then you go on some crazy meaningless
> tangent of a sudden realization of yours )that everyone else learned when
> they were in elementary school) but which you are suddenly figuring out
> just now for the first time for yourself.
>
> And then you make that sudden but meaningless realization of something
> nobody in their right mind would dispute, your entire contrary argument?
>
> What kind of strangely unfathomably crazily stupid idiot does that?
> Plonk!

Antisocial and brain dead idiot!

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac running a Linux Mint (LMDE) with
Cinnamon Flavour. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu

Am 27.01.24 um 17:02 schrieb Jolly Roger:
> On 2024-01-27, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> WTF cares?
>
> Butt hurt Android users who harbor a deep hatred for the color green.

In this case the Zuckerberg-crap WhatsApp is nothing for them either.
*SCNR*

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac running a Linux Mint (LMDE) with
Cinnamon Flavour. Simply better.
www.betterbird.eu

On 2024-01-28 21:40, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:44:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> That goes without saying that nobody on Android wants to using an iPhone.
>>> What they want is to send media (like photos) over MMS, sans extra fees.
>>
>> I really don't care about their "wants".
>
> That's fine but you were wrong when you claimed they wanted the iPhone.

I never claimed they wanted an iPhone. What they want is a
functionality that Apple provides to Apple product buyers w/o the step
of buying the Apple product.
>
> Now you seem to understand - but at first you didn't appear to understand
> what they wanted. They just want the server. Not the iPhone itself.

Which is actually what I said. I never said they wanted iPhones. I said
they wanted the functionality.
>
>> If Android can't provide for these "wants" why should Apple?
>
> It's not Android. Android does everything for me. But not for them.
> Get it?
>
> a. Same phone.
> b. Same operating system.
> c. Same apps.
>
> It's not Android that doesn't serve their needs.
> It's their crappy carrier.

Well, also Android. It does not have the functionality that Apple
provide on Apple products.

And Apple should not be compelled to provide it to non-Apple product users.
>
> You need to try to understand it's not "Android" or the "iPhone".
> They just want the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone to reach its users.

It's not a "dumb terminal". It's an integrated function of the an app,
an OS, a service and servers. It is particular to Apple products.
Thus, Android users have no inherent right to use it.

>
> They want the server only. The Apple server. Which goes to Apple customers.

Which I've said all along and you're trying to cast as if I hadn't.

>
> They don't want the iPhone.

Never said they did.

> And the problem isn't Android.

The problem is Android does not (can not) support the function. Any
"bolt on" workarounds using Android phones and separate servers to
emulate the service are clearly violating Apple's property.

>
> You don't seem to completely understand that critical distinction.

It doesn't matter how you construe the distinction (as badly as you do),
but simply that the service in discussion is an Apple product meant for
Apple product buyers who are given express right to use that service
whereas Android users are never offered the right to use that service.
So, some 3rd party workaround is violating Apple's property.
>
> They want two things that I've said multiple times and you still think that
> an Android user would lower himself to the level of an iPhone. He won't.

I never said an Android user should do anything he didn't want to do.
OTOH, if he wants access to Apple's servers (their property) the legal
way to do so is to buy Apple's products.

Since that would be such a horrible thing for a virtuous Android user, I
guess they'll just have to forego the advantages of of Apple's iMessage
services.

>
> The problem isn't Android.

Indeed. Since the iMessage service is for Apple product buyers it
doesn't really relate to Android users at all. They simply are denied
using it because they did not buy the requisite Apple product.

> It's their crappy carrier's charging model.

It's certainly not the carrier's problem - they happily, and at no extra
charge (in most cases - data/month caps or some such can apply), handle
Apple iMessage traffic from Apple devices to/from Apple servers.

> Think about the guy in Europe who is charged for each MMS attachment.
> 1. He doesn't want the iPhone. Stop thinking that. An iPhone is crap.

iPhone's are fantastic - and they get Apple's server functions included.
Android devices do not.

> 2. He wants the Apple *server*. (Which is no different than the WA Server).

Apple's servers are freely available to people who buy Apple products
such as best in class iPhones, iPads and Macs.

> 3. He wants the fact that Apple server *allows MMS over the Internet*.

Great, then get the Apple products that allow that.

>
> He can get that from _any_ Internet server that everyone uses.
> He gets that already from WhatsApp for example.
>
> But Apple Messages servers have something like 15% of the world market.
>
> That's a lot.
> It's probably way more people than WhatsApp has, but I never checked.

I don't know myself because I don't care. OTOH, I do get iMessage (and
other Apple integration features) because I bought and paid for Apple
products.

>
>>> You don't understand the carrier pricing model for those who are charged
>>> per MMS image but they're not charged per SMS message (mostly in Europe).
>>
>> This is not Apple's problem, however, so why should Android users have
>> access to Apple's servers which are there to serve Apple customers?
>
> I agree with you.

Funny. Far up above you certainly did not.

>
> Nobody on Android wants to have anything to do with the iPhone.
> Especially as most people in the USA get their MMS images sent for free.
>
> Unfortunately, some people have a crappy carrier (usually in Europe).
> That crappy carrier charges them a lot for sending MMS images.
> It just does.

I don't care. The point remains, if you're not an Apple product buyer,
you do not legally get access to Apple's servers.
This is why Apple have fended off this "Beeper" attack. Well done too.

>
> That's the problem *they* are trying to solve.
> Later when Apple finally catches up with RCS, that should solve it.

Apply will not "give" the full functionality of Apple product
integration with RCS. It will be a parallel function, not a replacement
or fully integrated function.

>
>>> The advantage of Apple Messages over WhatsApp for Android users in Europe
>>> who pay extra for MMS images is the number of people logging into Apple's
>>> servers for Messages reaches something like 15% of the world population -
>>> which is different people than the number who log into WhatsApp servers.
>>
>> And why should Apple make their servers available to them at no cost.
>
> I agree with you.

<Snipped>. You've already repeated yourself too many times to count w/o
going anywhere ... again.

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