The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company˘s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:52:02 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple >> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company┬
strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half >> of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
Since when has it been illegal to lock competition out of your devices?
The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone
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...
The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware
and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company’s devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke anonymously because the investigation was active.
Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/05/u-s-moves-closer-to-filing-sweeping-antitrust-case-against-apple/
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne" <bourne@rorke.za>
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".
On Jan 5, 2024 at 6:52:02 PM EST, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into
Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the
company’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone
What "dominance of the iPhone"? Having 30% of the global phone market
is not "dominance". Having 56% of the U.S. market is not "dominance".
Having popular products does not mean you are a monopoly. Anti-trust
laws exist to protect consumers, not competitors. No iPhone users are complaining about Apple. Only "green (bubbles) with envy" Android
users are whining.
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.
This is like "investigating" Rolls Royce cars because they are so nice
that once you drive one you never want to drive anything else. Thus,
people are "locked in".
It could very well be true, but no one is "illegally locked in". In
free markets (which is what the U.S. has), no one is forced to buy
anything. People buy whatever they like and can afford.
Can't afford a Rolls Royce? Too bad, buy something else. Can't afford
an iPhone? Too bad, buy something else. Rolls Royce should not be
forced let other car makers use their designs, engines, dashboards and whatever. Neither should Apple be forced to move their designs, chips, software and UI to Android.
Its called "competition" for a reason. If my product is perceived as
"better than yours", that is YOUR problem. Not mine.
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne" <bourne@rorke.za>
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".
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
Am 06.01.24 um 17:45 schrieb Tyrone:
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
Bullshit. Neo-darwinistic bullshit that killed many American industries.
Are you seriously asking this? The EU answered this question years ago
very clearly. To artificially raise hurdles to access devices and
services is anticompetitive behaviour and as a consequence illegal.
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long as
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
the customers are happy, it will continue to exist. We live in a Ferengi society.
The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware
and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company’s devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke anonymously because the investigation was active.
Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/05/u-s-moves-closer-to-filing-sweeping-antitrust-case-against-apple/
Are you seriously asking this? The EU answered this question years ago
very clearly. To artificially raise hurdles to access devices and
services is anticompetitive behaviour and as a consequence illegal.
Nothing Apple does prevents competition in the smartphone space - indeed Android phones outnumber iPhones. A lot.
If Apple wants to offer premium features and services to their clients,
that is their right and they don't have to share these features with competitors.
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".
Bullshit. Neo-darwinistic bullshit that killed many American industries.
Offering better isn't being monopolistic. Indeed monopolies tend to not innovate. Apple is the opposite.
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".
Or it can be considered a gateway that helps (immensely) protect
customers against malware.
It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long asSounds 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".
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.
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.
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.
On 1/6/24 4:16 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:Yeah but only by do-gooder bed-wetting liberals with no understanding of
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
how a successful capitalistic economy works ;-)
What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
The Blue Bubble...
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?
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?
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:04:51 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long asSounds 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".
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.
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.
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.
What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
Too much to summarize here. See the Apple site.
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.
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.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 09:21:42 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote<Snip>
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
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.
Using <news:PIzmN.37644$Vrtf.30965@fx39.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
That's why I'm asking why would anyone on Android even care about
iMessage.
I don't think they do. It's only Google that cares. But nobody on
Android.
Android users will care when they get a more integral experience when
texting with Apple users (and v-v). And this perhaps most esp. in
group chats with a mix of users.
This will be the benefit of RCS when Apple implement it. But they are
having some lack of meeting of the minds where Google is concerned on
the E2E encryption part.
I expect that Google will change their stance wrt that.
I already have an "integral experience" on Android. I have one-on-one
chats. I have one-to-many chats. I guess you call them "group chats"
but to me it's just a bunch of people that I message back and forth with.
What you're calling a "group" is completely up to me who is in it.
And who is not.
If I want to change who is in that group, I add or remove phone numbers.
I don't have to worry what device they're on as it's transparent to me.
If colors are that much of a huge issue, I can also set them to ANY color. (Not that I care about colors but Apple people seem to care about them.)
How can you get any more "integral" than that?
Using <news:guymN.27997$Sf59.3182@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
It's not a 1-to-1 replacement. RCS will certainly improve the
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? >>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 07.01.24 00:51, Colour Sergeant Bourne wrote:
On 1/6/24 4:16 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:Yeah but only by do-gooder bed-wetting liberals with no understanding of
On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
<bourne@rorke.za>
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".
how a successful capitalistic economy works ;-)
And you think you know it? Look at the per capita GDP and the life
expectancy of Japan and Western European countries. Not really positive
for your "darwinistic capitalist economy".
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).
Using <news:unftb0$1e1fh$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name wrote:
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).
Thank you for that necessary distinction which makes the Apple messaging slightly different from WeChat or WhatsApp in two ways, one of which it is pre-installed on all iPhones and the other is it can do normal SMS/MMS too.
In a way Apple's messaging is the best of both worlds in that it can communicate with anyone who logs into Apple proprietary servers but it can also communicate with anyone who does not log into the proprietary servers.
The disadvantage is the Apple services requires an additional account to
talk to other Apple users that the Android messaging does not need.
You do not need an Apple account to send or receive normal SMS
messages. Like every other mobile phone on the planet, you only need a telecoms company SIM account.
"If you don't sign in to iMessage, then you are limited
to only sending SMS messages via your cellular service
provider, and cannot send iMessages to other Apple
devices. You will only be sending SMS messages to Apple
and non-Apple devices alike."
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251577402>
You only need the Apple account if you want to send / recieve the
fancier iMessage format.
Of course, when you set-up your iPhone, you automatically set-up a free
Apple ID as well, so you already have the Apple services account anyway.
There is more capitalism in China than there is in America.
On this Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:01:46 -0500, Anonymous wrote:
There is more capitalism in China than there is in America.
Foxconn Technology Group's Zhengzhou is the world's largest iPhone factory.
If you want to create & log into an Apple account, then Apple messaging becomes the same as WeChat & WhatsApp <s>
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 appi
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 83:37:53 |
| Calls: | 6,696 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,229 |
| Messages: | 5,347,955 |