[besson3c]

To me this is the perfect sort of thing that should be made an open protocol. I know we're going to get a bunch of typical arguments in here about Apple is doing really well and doesn't have to open it up, it won't benefit them, etc. This may be true, but they have done the same sort of thing with a number of other protocols, and the potential impact this would have on the industry and the stuff that could be built incorporating iMessage could be something.

The success and economy that has been built around developers building stuff using Apple technologies in the iOS world has been huge. Why Apple doesn't seem interested in going the next step is a little beyond me. Surely their license could prohibit other phone makers from building iMessage into their phones without a royalty or some kickback, but what about various applications communicating to iOS devices? This would help sell more iOS devices, no?

[ort888]

Facetime too. When they first launched it they said it was going to be a new open standard, but they obviously haven't done a thing to open it up or even mention it again.

[besson3c]

I forgot about that ort888, good catch. I'd be in favor of that too...

I was potentially in favor of iCloud too based on false assumptions of the direction I thought they were going with it, but any more there seems to be less and less evidence that their plans are anything like my assumptions of their plans. Right now it just seems like an expensive replacement for a USB cable and a few clicks.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Facetime too. When they first launched it they said it was going to be a new open standard, but they obviously haven't done a thing to open it up or even mention it again.

Isn't that the standard MO at Apple? Throw some programmers at a task, add just enough functionality so it's useful, throw it over the fence and never look back.

[subego]

How would opening up iMessage help Apple sell more hardware?

[mduell]

I doubt it.

[Salty]

iMessage follows MS's embrace and extend philosophy. It would be counter intuitive to open it up. It's basically premium text messaging with a small incentive to pressure your friends and family to get iPhones. Just like Find My Friends. FaceTime on the other hand would be great. But really Skype already does everything that FaceTime does and more.

All that Apple would gain by opening up FaceTime and iMessage is that they'd be another also ran with Skype etc. By the time that you get somebody without Apple hardware to register for an Apple ID and download an app they might as well be using any number of other services. The whole point of iMessage and FaceTime is the same idea behind Bonjour. Zero Configuration. If you want to work with non-Apple products that require configuration, feel free they already work on iOS.

(Not saying I wouldn't do it if I ran Apple I'm just saying it's not Apple's MO.)

[Spheric Harlot]

Ah but Microsoft owns Skype. Should they ever choose to Lock it down to their own platforms, Apple can still respond by making FaceTime the new and open standard.

[Waragainstsleep]

When did that happen? I thought eBay owned Skype.

Apple's problem opening up iMessage is that iMessage has already pissed off the carriers. Opening it to more platforms makes it more useful, more widespread and less money spent on lucrative texting.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

How would opening up iMessage help Apple sell more hardware?

Anybody interested in not having their messaging tallied and counted against a quota where going over that quota would cost them money could be interested in purchasing an iOS device to receive iMessage notifications.

For instance, I have my monitoring application send me a message when a server goes offline, I don't like the fact that this is metered. A number of web applications offer to SMS you information, but they have to deal with the character limits imposed by SMS and lack of support for embedding images (and I don't know how common email to MMS gateways are). They also have to either speak SMS themselves, or else figure out your email to SMS gateway. iMessage could be the vehicle which drives group chats for iOS devices as far as application development goes, or could be used to aggregate news items, emails, or any number of other creative possibilities.

If applications started to depend on iMessage and an iOS device was your best choice for using iMessage, people might be more inclined to buy that iMessage device. Many of us understand that TXT/SMS message packages are a complete rip off given the amount of profit a carrier makes from a single message. Going iMessage-only would also enable people to purchase cheaper packages from their carrier that support fewer TXT/SMS messages.

[besson3c]

Apple not wanting to piss off the carriers is a theory for not opening up iMessage that does make sense to me.

However, the days of SMS/MMS seem numbered to me, as to me it makes more sense for messaging to occur over the internet via TCP/IP for traffic consolidation and for applications and operating systems to only have to support TCP/IP to access all messaging services. TCP also supports acknowledgement of packets being received whereas UDP or, evidently, SMS doesn't. Carriers and others can monitor messaging traffic via standard TCP/IP monitoring tools.

In short, SMS seems like a stopgap measure, a vestige of the past for when there were only dumbphones and no data plans.

If carriers and/or phone makers do decide to move messaging to TCP/IP, Apple could be in a unique position in having control over this protocol. What could very well happen if Apple doesn't open it up though, is that somebody makes a competing TCP/IP based texting service, perhaps even one that isn't as good, but makes it open, all of the other smartphone makers support it for their own security (in having access to the code for security reasons, not having to depend on and/or pay Apple, etc.), and then Apple is pressured to support this competing protocol so that their devices play nicely with the rest of the world, and they ultimately discontinue iMessage.

Maybe Apple is waiting for the right time to make a power play.

[Eug]

Out of interest's sake, do all of you use iMessage? I don't use it.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Anybody interested in not having their messaging tallied and counted against a quota where going over that quota would cost them money could be interested in purchasing an iOS device to receive iMessage notifications.

For instance, I have my monitoring application send me a message when a server goes offline, I don't like the fact that this is metered. A number of web applications offer to SMS you information, but they have to deal with the character limits imposed by SMS and lack of support for embedding images (and I don't know how common email to MMS gateways are). They also have to either speak SMS themselves, or else figure out your email to SMS gateway. iMessage could be the vehicle which drives group chats for iOS devices as far as application development goes, or could be used to aggregate news items, emails, or any number of other creative possibilities.

If applications started to depend on iMessage and an iOS device was your best choice for using iMessage, people might be more inclined to buy that iMessage device. Many of us understand that TXT/SMS message packages are a complete rip off given the amount of profit a carrier makes from a single message. Going iMessage-only would also enable people to purchase cheaper packages from their carrier that support fewer TXT/SMS messages.

So use email?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Out of interest's sake, do all of you use iMessage? I don't use it.

If you have an iPhone and at least one friend that you text who has an iPhone, you don't have a lot of choice.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple not wanting to piss off the carriers is a theory for not opening up iMessage that does make sense to me.

However, the days of SMS/MMS seem numbered to me, as to me it makes more sense for messaging to occur over the internet via TCP/IP for traffic consolidation and for applications and operating systems to only have to support TCP/IP to access all messaging services.

The thing is, TCP/IP messaging requires a data connection, while SMS requires absolutely zero effort for the carrier, as it just piggybacks on the basic cellular connection protocol.

Which means that, for traveling, you actually need a data connection and all the costs that incurs for traffic, while SMS only "requires" the charges for passing it off to the home mobile provider. It seems to me that this makes SMS easier to deal with, and easier to regulate (EU law has limited the maximum an SMS may cost within Europe for a while now, and further reductions are written into the law to allow carrier planning/income redistribution).

This becomes a moot point once data traffic is similarly regulated, of course. They've only just begun with that.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you have an iPhone and at least one friend that you text who has an iPhone, you don't have a lot of choice.

What do you mean? I have tons of friends with iPhones, but I have iMessages turned off on my iPhone. So, I just get regular SMS texts.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What do you mean? I have tons of friends with iPhones, but I have iMessages turned off on my iPhone. So, I just get regular SMS texts.

Why would you do that? Seems like a waste.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Why would you do that? Seems like a waste.

Not sure how it's a waste. My plan includes 100 SMS, and I never use them all.

Plus when iMessage came out, it was buggy. I'd have two separate threads on my phone to the same people, and sometimes messages would go to the iPad and not to the iPhone (or was it the other way around?).

iMessages so unreliable, people have switched back to SMS

I don't care about texts on the iPad anyway, and I simply shut iMessage off and never looked back.

Maybe it's all fixed now, but I don't really see any real functional benefit to it in my situation. Well, picture messages is nice, but I email those anyway.

[subego]

Do they split SMS and MMS in Canada? They're charged the same here in the US (at least with AT&T), so iMessage doesn't provide a benefit there.

I do use it though. The big benefit to me is speed.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not sure how it's a waste. My plan includes 100 SMS, and I never use them all.

Plus when iMessage came out, it was buggy. I'd have two separate threads on my phone to the same people, and sometimes messages would go to the iPad and not to the iPhone (or was it the other way around?).

iMessages so unreliable, people have switched back to SMS

I don't care about texts on the iPad anyway, and I simply shut iMessage off and never looked back.

Maybe it's all fixed now, but I don't really see any real functional benefit to it in my situation. Well, picture messages is nice, but I email those anyway.

Its pretty stable now. It doesn't have the character limit of SMS and it tells you when someone is typing a reply which has its uses.

The dual threads is because you can use a phone number on an iPhone but need an email address on anything else.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its pretty stable now. It doesn't have the character limit of SMS and it tells you when someone is typing a reply which has its uses.

Thanks for reminding me. This is another reason I don't like iMessage.

The dual threads is because you can use a phone number on an iPhone but need an email address on anything else.

Yes I know. This makes it non-seamless.

Originally Posted by subego 

Do they split SMS and MMS in Canada? They're charged the same here in the US (at least with AT&T), so iMessage doesn't provide a benefit there.

They're charged separately in Canada, at least with my provider.

[imitchellg5]

iMessage is pretty handy for me. I don't have an iPhone, but all of my friends do, and since I'm at a desk all day on a Mac, I can use Messages beta to text them without running down my phone texting.

[Atheist]

When you live in a different country than most of your friends/family, iMessage is very useful. Goodbye international texting charges.

[Eug]

I use email for most stuff.

[Salty]

I wish Apple would allow you to tie your phone # to your Apple ID. I also wish they'd allow you to convert your Apple ID to your @me.com email. It's goofy to tell people to email me at [email protected] but to message me at my gmail account. The whole thing is a bit of a tangled mess right now and I don't think it needs to be that way.

[ort888]

If Apple continues on this crazy tear of dominance they might eventually be forced to open these things up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty 

I wish Apple would allow you to tie your phone # to your Apple ID. I also wish they'd allow you to convert your Apple ID to your @me.com email. It's goofy to tell people to email me at [email protected] but to message me at my gmail account. The whole thing is a bit of a tangled mess right now and I don't think it needs to be that way.

Yeah, and the replying preferences is a mess too, that is whether iMessage replying should be to your email address or phone number. The desktop iMessage Beta doesn't read replies sent to your phone number, only ones to your email address, I believe.

These are solvable problems though, I think.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The thing is, TCP/IP messaging requires a data connection, while SMS requires absolutely zero effort for the carrier, as it just piggybacks on the basic cellular connection protocol.

Which means that, for traveling, you actually need a data connection and all the costs that incurs for traffic, while SMS only "requires" the charges for passing it off to the home mobile provider. It seems to me that this makes SMS easier to deal with, and easier to regulate (EU law has limited the maximum an SMS may cost within Europe for a while now, and further reductions are written into the law to allow carrier planning/income redistribution).

This becomes a moot point once data traffic is similarly regulated, of course. They've only just begun with that.

Interesting, I didn't know that SMS was a part of the cell connection protocol.

I kind of see all of these things as temporary though. It may require many years, but I envision the data network and cell networks eventually becoming the same thing so that calls are made over TCP/IP as Skype does today, and the carriers only have to maintain one network. I also envision a day when data is not carefully metered like it is today so that usage is more like your home broadband connection.

The carriers have set a very ugly precedent putting it in people's minds that text messaging should cost money, there should be limits on how many messages you can send, and that consumers really need to be aware of their bandwidth consumption. I've never understood why the carriers don't enforce their quotas by throttling the speeds of connections that have gone over their limit or something, rather than making the customers deal with learning about their bandwidth usage and incurring this support overhead.

The whole bandwidth concept is a complete mess, because most customers have absolutely no clue how much bandwidth they use and therefore how much they really need. They don't understand that they don't need more bandwidth if they make a lot of phone calls, or that they don't necessarily need more bandwidth if they check their email frequently. The whole idea of limitless bandwidth being available on Wifi and then bringing up prompts asking a user if they want to join a Wifi network every 5 seconds is not only annoying and intrusive, but it is probably confusing as well.

Still, once these networks mature and the technological restraints of opening up the vault in offering consumers cheap and virtually limitless cellular bandwidth, I'm sure we'll see more competition, the return of unlimited data packages, and eventually the end of these restrictive quotas. At this point, it would make sense to merge the cellular and data networks, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've never understood why the carriers don't enforce their quotas by throttling the speeds of connections that have gone over their limit or something, rather than making the customers deal with learning about their bandwidth usage and incurring this support overhead.

I don't know of any carriers here that don't throttle down to GPRS.

[The Godfather]

Just ditch imessage and load whatsapp