[HN Gopher] "It's time for Apple to fix texting"
___________________________________________________________________
"It's time for Apple to fix texting"
Author : Fabricio20
Score : 178 points
Date : 2022-08-09 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.android.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.android.com)
| alexklarjr wrote:
| When it is time for Google to fix android?
| nneonneo wrote:
| Right now Apple is facing quite a lot of regulation in various
| places to open up their platform: open up app loading, open up
| repairs, etc. It's hard not to imagine this being yet another
| salvo in forcing Apple to open up their messaging platform (and
| it aligns with recent regulatory efforts).
|
| Except, unlike app stores and repairs, the standard being pushed
| here, RCS, is not a good solution by comparison. It's locked to
| carriers, who have different and inconsistent implementations,
| rather than being tied to an identity like iMessage.
|
| It'll be a shame if Apple is forced to adopt an inferior standard
| here...
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Apple will probably be forced to open up their iMessage
| implementation once the Digital Markets Act will be adopted,
| forcing large messenger companies to make their messaging
| services interoperable.
|
| If they're smart, they work together with Google and other
| large messenger providers to form some sort of secure standard.
| If they keep being stubborn, they'll be forced to either stop
| selling iMessage in Europe or accept consequences to their
| technology much worse than cooperation. I'm no fan of breaking
| E2EE for interoperation, but since none of the big market
| players seem interested in working together, I think this will
| be unavoidable. It's a shame, really, that it had to come to
| regulation to get the market to work in the users' favour.
|
| This probably won't matter to users outside the EU but big
| changes are coming over here.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| This is about RCS vs. SMS. Apple and Google support SMS as a
| cross-platform standard. They should support RCS, which is
| superior.
| rhacker wrote:
| Apple connect to our messaging platform voice, i mean messages i
| mean allo i mean duo i mean hangouts i mean...
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Funny thing is the EU doesn't give a fuck and is going to force
| them.
| malermeister wrote:
| Yeah this is gonna happen soon anyways. Not because of some
| Google website, but because of the Digital Markets Act.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I find it interesting how many HN'ers now think bureaucratic
| control of technology is a Good Thing(tm).
| jabbany wrote:
| I find it interesting how many HN'ers now don't think
| consumer protection is a good thing.
|
| (Actually, in hindsight it isn't that surprising. Tech
| companies only make the money they do because of the lack
| of consumer protections... so definitely in most HN'ers
| interest to keep the status quo.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| European legislators are why I now have a cookie banner
| on every website I visit. It is hard to be enthusiastic
| for more of that. I could support basic antitrust actions
| that actually promote competition, but when it gets into
| actually writing technical requirements, the outcome
| seems less than ideal.
| [deleted]
| hbn wrote:
| Google acting like RCS is the hot new standard is pretty
| disingenuous. In theory it's a standard, but in reality most
| carriers haven't been interested and haven't implemented it so
| the vast majority of RCS messages are routed through Google.
|
| I can't really blame Apple for not being interested in adopting
| a "standard" that's mostly Google pretending to be a standard.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| Unfortunately they did implement WebP support in WebKit...
| debesyla wrote:
| Just wondering, why "Unfortunately"?
| pwpw wrote:
| This is such a weirdly US specific issue. It's hard to understand
| why people in this country refuse to adopt a data-based messaging
| service such as Signal or WhatsApp like the rest of the world
| has. Why are US citizens so set on having a terrible experience
| when messaging half of the population? How did other countries
| decide that using platform agnostic messaging services are
| better? I believe the UK has a similar split in Android/iOS
| users, yet they largely use WhatsApp.
|
| In a way, it feels perfectly inline with America. We use Imperial
| when everyone else uses Metric. We use Fahrenheit when everyone
| else uses Celsius. But in this case, it's not as if our
| government led us down this path. The problem was entirely
| created by our market of users.
|
| Ultimately, poor communication stifles society and innovation.
| It's in all of our best interests to improve the current
| situation. Sure, better alternatives such as Signal exist, but we
| will have to move mountains to convert everyone onto a new
| service. For now, I think it's best if we all apply pressure to
| Apple to adopt RCS. It's significantly better than where we are
| now, and that's a good thing.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Ah yes, whatsapp, that bastion of privacy, and not at all a
| messaging service that exists primarily for Meta to mine.
| hgsgm wrote:
| xnx wrote:
| I'm all for standards, but this is mainly sour grapes by Google.
| If they hadn't shot themselves in the foot dozens of times with
| messaging they could've dominated using the head start they had
| with Google Talk. Google should put all messages from iPhone
| users in comic sans.
| hbn wrote:
| They had a surefire strategy starting in 2013 when they added
| SMS integration to Hangouts and made it a default-installed app
| on all Androids. It was tied to your Google account so most
| people (and basically all Android users) already had an
| account. It was pre-installed, meaning you didn't need to pitch
| people to install another app, which is usually a big ask.
| Instead you say "hey open this app you already have installed,
| we can chat here and it's better, and you can text all your
| other contacts who don't have it too." It had video calling
| too, basically all you needed.
|
| But then Allo and Duo came along. Remember Allo? Me neither! It
| was Hangouts' death sentence anyway! And now Duo is being
| rebranded/merged into Meet for some reason.
|
| Get out of the Google ecosystem wherever you can. They're only
| getting worse.
| xmonkee wrote:
| I still remember the glory that was Google Talk back in
| 2005-ish. And you could connect to it from other xmpp
| networks. It's insane to me that the current google chat app
| (a neglected box within gmail) is WAYYY worse than it was
| almost 20 years ago.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| This is sour grapes for users. Google doesn't own the RCS
| standard, fwiw. I still use SMS/MMS and it is really, really
| nice when another user is using RCS because modern messaging
| features actually work. I can send long voice memos/song ideas
| to others, high resolution photos, see if a message was read
| etc. RCS is a huge upgrade, and really has nothing to do with
| Google.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I mean, there are many people who would prefer an iPhone if you
| could only run Android on it -- including, apparently, the
| European Commission.
|
| But Apple doesn't make commodity hardware.
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| I have never experienced blurry photos or videos as this alleges.
| I hate read receipts and typing bubbles anyway. I do agree that
| Apples group chats are highly annoying. Personally, I think it is
| Androids text platform that is bloated and inferior.
| bagacrap wrote:
| you've definitely experienced blurry media if someone texted
| you from the other kind of phone (note that your own media will
| still show up crisp in the conversion window even though the
| other end gets a mega compressed version)
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Ah, another "grassroots" initiative to adopt a "standard" (RCS)
| from Google! No thanks, I don't want this RCS crap on my phone.
| radiojasper wrote:
| I still don't get why people use SMS/MMS anyway? I've been using
| WhatsApp for ages now and so does everybody else in my country -
| and every country I've been in, apart from China and Japan. My
| friend who's from the US once said "I've paid for those text
| messages, so I'm going to use them!" But if I send him a text
| from Europe to the US, I pay 1 damn euro per delivered text.
| WhatsApp is free! Is there any viable reason why Apple users use
| SMS so much?
| cgrealy wrote:
| > Is there any viable reason why Apple users use SMS so much?
|
| They don't. At least not in my experience. I have an iPhone,
| but there's about a 50/50 split ios/android in my friends and
| family.
|
| Group chats are almost entirely WhatsApp, and single messages
| are a blend of WhatsApp, iMessage and SMS.
|
| I probably use SMS/MMS once a week
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There are many people in the US who have no international
| contacts, and so they grew up using only the default messaging
| app. And they are not sufficiently incentivized to install
| another app like WhatsApp.
|
| Between NYC/SF, I do not know a single person that does not use
| both iMessage and WhatsApp. But typically it is people who are
| not children of immigrants and whose social circles have no one
| outside the country that tend to not have WhatsApp.
| themagician wrote:
| Apple users don't use SMS--they use iMessage. It's seamless and
| automatic. All your contacts are automatically there as long as
| you have a phone number or email address which is an AppleID.
| It's so seamless most people don't even realize they are using
| it.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| It comes preinstalled, works, is free. Why would I look for a
| different messaging app? What does WhatsApp do that the
| preinstalled, free, messaging app doesn't?
| radiojasper wrote:
| Deliver your messages encrypted, not mess up video quality
| when sending to/from Android users, sends messages over WiFi
| just to name a few.
| cgrealy wrote:
| Group messages to anyone regardless of platform.
|
| SMS is crap for group chats, and imessage doesn't work if
| someone in the group isn't using ios.
|
| Now, you absolutely might not care about those things, but
| millions of people definitely do.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| SMS is the only federated messaging system guaranteed available
| on all cell phones. That makes it more useful than any walled
| garden.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Almost nobody I know uses WhatsApp. On the other hand, a
| significant number of people I meet do have iMessage. There's
| no incentive for me to install WhatsApp. Even my friends
| internationally all have iPhones. I don't install third-party
| apps unless there is a _very good_ reason. SMS is an inferior
| but acceptable fallback for edge cases.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| Your bubble is not representative of the whole world though.
| >80% of mobile devices are not iPhones.
| (https://www.statista.com/statistics/272307/market-share-
| fore...)
|
| 80% is not an edge case.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| It's also time for Google to fix texting. Google Voice still
| doesn't support RCS despite people asking for it for many years.
| It would be great if someone just copied this web page and filled
| in Google and Google Voice everywhere it talks about Apple and
| iMessage, but I get the feeling that Google doesn't even care how
| embarrassing it is.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's more embarrassing than that: For most of the time I used
| Google Voice, it couldn't even forward _MMS_. I used Google
| Voice as my primary number for years, and I had to tell people
| that I couldn 't receive group texts or pictures, which always
| got me weird puzzled looks.
|
| And of course, now they've removed SMS forwarding entirely, and
| basically completely made the service useless/redundant. I'm
| glad I ported my main number out years ago.
| altairprime wrote:
| Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue
| to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform,
| rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is:
|
| Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam, supported by
| a fully-authenticated hardware and software stack that does not
| allow user modification. This permits Apple to simply "console
| ban" any Apple device that spams on iMessage. This makes it
| prohibitively expensive to send spam over iMessage. They have
| been doing so since iMessage was launched.
|
| Android offers no such attestation that I'm aware of. Windows, on
| Pluton, _could_ offer this attestation securely -- and that is a
| key deliverable of Pluton.
|
| It's easy, then, to predict what Apple's first non-Apple platform
| will be: Microsoft Windows 12, only if secure-booted, with
| Pluton-signed attestation that the kernel is unmodified. And it's
| easy to predict how Apple will implement anti-spam: by applying
| "console" bans to specific Pluton chips by their serial number.
|
| If Android wants to join the party, then Android phone builders
| need to implement secure boot with hardware-signed attestation of
| non-rooted-ness, in the style of Apple T2 + macOS or Microsoft
| Pluton + Secure Boot. Until then, Apple iMessage will remain
| single platform.
|
| (I recognize that this is extremely unpalatable to device
| hackers, but the same freedom to modify an OS kernel that hackers
| desire is also the freedom to spam all users, as we have seen
| repeatedly with all messaging software platforms operated without
| hardware-backed attestation for the past thirty years --
| including email, Jabber, and HN itself.)
|
| (No, I do not work at Apple.)
| kelnos wrote:
| I'd rather live in a world with spam than a world where
| corporations get to decide what I run on my devices, and
| cripple a bunch of critical applications if I decide I want to,
| y'know, actually do whatever I want with the hardware I own.
|
| I'm not unsympathetic to Apple's difficulties and goals here
| (assuming this spam problem is actually the reason, though I'm
| skeptical that there aren't also self-serving reasons that
| would be sufficient for Apple), but I'm so tired of society's
| slide toward "security at any cost, and to hell with freedom"
| since the 9/11 attacks over 20 years ago.
|
| (It's possible and likely that slide has been going on much
| longer, but I was a teenager in the 90s and not really aware of
| such things. But I think it's undeniable that the aftermath of
| 9/11 was a big turning point for the surveillance state and for
| average citizens being so scared of everything that they'd be
| willing to give up essential freedoms just to quell that
| fright.)
| gumby wrote:
| > I'd rather live in a world with spam than a world where
| corporations get to decide what I run on my devices, and
| cripple a bunch of critical applications if I decide I want
| to, y'know, actually do whatever I want with the hardware I
| own.
|
| It's really oppressive that Apple doesn't let you install
| WhatsApp, Secret, Telegram, FB Messenger or any other
| communications app beyond their own.
|
| While it's all sweetness and light that Google got into bed
| with the phone carriers to develop this new "standard" tied
| to a phone number subscription that brings along all the
| retrograde privacy nightmares of Big Telecom since the bell
| system broke up.
|
| The points you want to raise are crucial, but this is far
| from the hill to die on.
| kelnos wrote:
| Defaults matter. I too have WhatsApp, Signal, Google Chat
| and a few others on my phone, but the fragmentation is
| annoying to deal with, and getting social groups (or even
| individuals) to move to a single consolidating messaging
| platform turns out to be much more difficult than I
| expected.
|
| If the default chat app is featureful and universally
| supported, people tend not to stray toward non-default
| alternatives unless they offer meaningful benefits. Sure,
| this ship has in many ways already sailed, since those
| alternative apps have a lot of mindshare and network
| effects.
|
| But if Apple added RCS to its default messaging app (or if
| Google were permitted to add iMessage support to its
| default messaging app), I would ditch everything else and
| just message everyone (including groups) using the default
| Android Messages app, relying on it to select the best non-
| SMS/non-MMS contact method for everyone, regardless of
| platform.
|
| Sure, it would take a little more work to move messaging
| _groups_ over, but the cool thing is that I could just do
| it myself, and not wait for my friends to download yet
| another messaging app. This is the problem I ran into when
| I wanted to get friends off of WhatsApp; I had to convince
| people to install something else, and not everyone felt
| like doing it. But everyone already has the default
| messaging app installed, so that problem just goes away.
|
| > _While it's all sweetness and light that Google got into
| bed with the phone carriers to develop this new "standard"
| tied to a phone number subscription that brings along all
| the retrograde privacy nightmares of Big Telecom since the
| bell system broke up._
|
| Just wanted to call this out as FUD. RCS existed as a
| standard long before Google was involved (nearly a
| decade?). I too don't love that it's tied to a phone
| number, but options for doing this well are limited, and
| building a second, parallel identity system has its own
| issues. RCS at least can be federated, and it'd be
| _possible_ to allow phone users to choose their own
| provider. And in practice, phone number portability means
| you aren 't stuck with the crappy choice of ditching your
| "identity", or sticking with a phone provider you hate.
|
| Not sure how iMessage or WhatsApp or Google Chat or Signal
| is any better, though, as they're all controlled by a
| single company that requires you to use their identity
| system.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > "standard" tied to a phone number subscription that
| brings along all the retrograde privacy nightmares of Big
| Telecom since the bell system broke up.
|
| Is there a way to make an account with Apple that isn't
| tied to a mobile phone number? If so, I've never been able
| to find it.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I hear you believe me.
|
| But in the past five years, I have received so much call spam
| that I just don't answer my phone anymore. Imagine that, the
| primary use of a phone and it's all cocked up.
|
| Imagine what happens to imessages if they leave it open.
|
| Blame the cretins that spam people.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sounds like iMessage spam is already a problem (if another
| poster in this thread is to be believed).
|
| Since I'm on Android, I'm stuck using SMS a lot, since most
| people I know have iPhones. I do get some SMS spam, but not
| a ton, and most of it is auto-flagged and I never see it.
|
| > _Blame the cretins that spam people._
|
| SMS and voice call spam is actually a solved problem, but
| carriers have been dragging their feet implementing the
| solutions (and have lobbied the US government to give them
| more time). Killing spam does not require our devices to be
| locked down. Carriers deserve some blame here too.
|
| But I don't really care about blame, I care about outcomes.
| Blaming spammers isn't going to fix anything. Forcing
| carriers to implement the required technical measures to
| stamp out spam... that could actually work.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I'd rather live in a world with spam than a world where
| corporations get to decide what I run on my devices, and
| cripple a bunch of critical applications if I decide I want
| to, y'know, actually do whatever I want with the hardware I
| own.
|
| Egads, no. The abuse heaped on me by Apple pales in
| comparison to the spam phone calls and emails I get. If I
| start getting spam via iMessage, I'll be an extremely unhappy
| camper. It already happens with text messages and that's bad
| enough.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sounds like other people in this thread already get a lot
| of iMessage spam, so I guess you've just been lucky? And it
| shows that this attestation junk doesn't actually curb the
| spam problem, so it's just an analogue of security theater.
|
| Anyhow, sure, if you want to give away your freedom to
| actually _own_ your devices, just so you don 't get spam...
| I guess that's your choice. I just don't want to be locked
| into a system where that's the _only_ choice.
|
| Regardless, iPhones also receive SMSes. If it's impossible
| to spam over iMessage, they'll just use SMS. If it becomes
| impossible to spam over SMS, then presumably Apple can
| implement similar measures for iMessage that don't require
| us all to have hermetically-sealed, locked-down devices.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Sounds like other people in this thread already get a
| lot of iMessage spam
|
| Same folks who didn't realize that all messages show up
| in the same color, the blue bubbles only happen when you
| _send_. They 're getting SMS spam.
|
| > I just don't want to be locked into a system where
| that's the only choice.
|
| Who's locked in? I can and have switched back and forth
| between iPhone and Android devices. My contacts are
| sync'd between them, calendar, mail, all of it just works
| either way. Only reason I'm back on iPhone right now is
| because the churn (and by extension, TCO) is
| significantly lower. If the calculus changes on that,
| I'll jump ship again, no big deal.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| This is a lawyer excuse. I've had Signal for years and the
| number of spam messages I've received over it is none. It's not
| a real problem.
|
| SMS on the other hand... but iPhones receive SMS too, don't
| they?
| dt2m wrote:
| This is a great point which I haven't heard before in this age-
| old debate.
|
| But until Apple's dominance starts to wane, there's no chance
| in hell they will provide iMessage for other platforms unless
| forced by regulation.
|
| If push comes to shove, they can implement heuristics which run
| texts from non-Apple devices through a harder spam filter. Spam
| isn't non-existent on the iMessage network, and there already
| seems to be a rudimentary spam filter in place.
| altairprime wrote:
| Apple could easily charge $1/mo or $10/year for iMessage on
| secured devices, with automatic refund and prorated
| cancellation if no secured device is signed in within a given
| billing period; and then discount $1/mo if one or more Apple
| devices are signed in and active during a given billing
| period. They'd make a billion dollars a month off of
| _secured_ Android users, without exposing themselves to any
| new spam whatsoever, and showing Android users that Apple
| users have a better experience. Win-win for platform
| marketing and cloud services revenue.
|
| iMessage spam isn't non-existent because sometimes someone
| tries to spam, gets a few messages out, and then their device
| gets console-banned. The iMessage "unsend" feature doesn't
| yet exist in any released iOS or macOS, so it can't be used
| to hide the spam after the fact.
| kelnos wrote:
| Hell, they could charge a token amount for _un_ -secured
| devices, which I imagine could make things prohibitively
| expensive for spammers.
|
| I would (grudgingly, because the whole thing is just
| stupid) pay 3 bucks a month or so to be able to message
| iPhone users from Android without dealing with unreliable
| message delivery and ordering, and photos and videos
| pixelated to hell. I have a ton of barely-recognizable
| videos of my niece and nephews from my sister because she
| always forgets that sending me video over MMS is a boatload
| of fail.
| jacooper wrote:
| Well Apple is going to be forced anyway, the EU's Digital
| Markets Act will be enforced soon.
|
| And fines are up to 20% of global _revenue_.
| Seanambers wrote:
| As an iPhone user I do not like EU dictating how Apple
| software should work at all. The same with chargers as
| well.
|
| Sure we can all have a discussion about how it should work
| - but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _but having bureaucrats decide is the worst idea ever_
|
| I agree wholeheartedly, but what's the alternative? The
| so-called "free market" (not that such a thing actually
| exists) clearly has not solved this problem for us.
| dt2m wrote:
| As much as I agree with this in principle, there is
| absolutely no denying that Apple is abusing their power
| when it comes to consumer lock-in.
|
| I find it very hard to argue against regulation which is
| only meant to make devices more interoperable. USB-C for
| charging is mature enough at this point that it seems
| reasonable to declare it THE charging port.
|
| An interesting - partially ironic - observation here, is
| that Apple actually designed the reversible USB-C
| connector and submitted it to the USB-IF - a team of
| bureaucrats. Bureaucrats, who of course previously were
| responsible for blunders such as micro-USB-B 3.0, and
| more recently, the ambiguous shitshow that is the current
| state of the USB spec.
|
| I wholeheartedly believe that Apple is such a design-
| driven company that they would actually engage with
| regulators again (gasp, even the EU), if they were to
| come up with a better connector design down the road.
| Everybody wins.
| ghaff wrote:
| Is iMessage a "Number-independent interpersonal
| communication services (e.g., messengers)"?
|
| It's a messenger but it's based on phone numbers AFAIK--
| unlike something like WhatsApp.
| rdsnsca wrote:
| It is, I use it from my Mac Mini without owing an iPhone.
| frumper wrote:
| You can sign up and use an email for iMessage through
| wifi
| ghaff wrote:
| Ah. I've only used it as a default SMS alternative on
| Apple devices including iPhone.
| wilde wrote:
| This doesn't work though. I receive enough iMessage spam
| specifically through Apple ids that I wish I could disable the
| ability to message me unless you use a phone number.
| Tagbert wrote:
| I believe that is SMS spam originating from outside of
| iMessage
| frumper wrote:
| I definitely get iMessage spam
| rootusrootus wrote:
| If you're 100% sure it's iMessage and not SMS, report it
| to Apple. They can ban that account.
| wilde wrote:
| With blue bubbles?
| phinnaeus wrote:
| Remember, the color of the bubbles only changes for
| messages YOU send, not messages you receive. Received
| messages are always black on grey.
| chrisoverzero wrote:
| > Received messages are always black on grey.
|
| What on Earth are you talking about?
| y2bd wrote:
| You only see the colors on messages you send. OP is
| implying that you wouldn't know what "color" the
| conversation is unless you're actively replying to the
| spammer.
| ryandrake wrote:
| You can still tell whether it is an iMessage or text
| message without replying and observing the color. Long-
| press on the incoming message. If the menu shows: Reply,
| Copy, Translate, More... then it is an iMessage. If the
| menu shows: Copy, Translate, More... then it is a text.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Attestation is service that can only be provided by the builder
| of the phone. Most commercially available Android phones
| provide this, and banks and DRM rely on it.
| https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation
| and
| https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview
| altairprime wrote:
| That API is not useful for anti-spam purposes, as individual
| devices cannot be banned for spamming by their serial number.
| Quoting that page:
|
| > _The API is not designed to fulfill the following use
| cases:_
|
| > _Contain signals for app-specific use-cases, such as device
| identifiers_
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| That can be built trivially using this API. The app stores
| an identifier, which it knows has not been tampered with
| because of attestation. Giving apps access to a unique
| device identifier shared across apps is a privacy leak but
| can be obtained with the proper scary permission.
| altairprime wrote:
| > Giving apps access to a unique device identifier shared
| across apps is a privacy leak
|
| Correct: 'Non-heuristic antispam' and 'Private device
| identifiers' are incompatible requirements, unless you
| introduce another _expensive_ obstacle to overcome.
| Spamming depends on cheap /free sock puppet accounts. The
| cost per account is inversely proportional to the value
| it holds to spammers. That cost can be in Apple's
| iMessage terms: $100+ per serial number, all devices must
| include burned-in serial number attestation in their
| server communications. Or that cost can be in
| bureaucracy: $10 per notarized "account signup request
| with verified citizenship", but now all communications
| can be associated with the notary's logs of your
| citizenship ID number.
|
| There is no way to stop spam without incurring one or
| another cost to each user. Apple's method doesn't care
| who you are, so long as you possess Apple hardware. The
| Pluton method wouldn't either. What other methods exist
| that are unconcerned with the exact identity of the
| _user_ , but still make spamming unprofitable?
| Daunk wrote:
| I haven't called a "normal" phone call or used SMS/MMS in many
| many years. Everyone I know (or care about rather) uses Telegram,
| and it's been great for us all.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Telegram? Never heard of it.
|
| Messaging currently requires you and the people you are
| communicating with to agree on a platform. If all you use is
| Telegraph, then you are not communicating with those who don't.
| bagacrap wrote:
| that's terrific, but if telegram were the universal standard
| used for 95%+ of messaging then Google wouldn't bother with
| this effort.
| balls187 wrote:
| Does Twilio support RCS?
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| pretty rich coming from Google who has been bungling its own
| messaging ecosystem for years
| drcongo wrote:
| This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. The
| company that has had 47 different messaging apps and changes them
| weekly trying to lecture the company that nailed it first time.
| Grow up Google.
| ypeterholmes wrote:
| But isn't the request for a cross platform standard? Sure Apple
| got their own internal standard right, but the experience
| across platforms still matters.
| icehawk wrote:
| Yeah it does and Google removing XMPP federation from Google
| talk should means
|
| "What happens when they no longer stand to benefit the most?"
|
| should probably come up.
| drcongo wrote:
| Doesn't matter to me, I have an iPhone. But regardless of
| personal experience, Google has tried and failed endlessly to
| make a not-shit messaging app for Android, and has now
| seemingly given up and adopted a terrible protocol, and is
| crowing about it like they're the saviour of messaging.
| They're not, they've just given up trying.
| garciasn wrote:
| Exactly. They've positioned this as creating problems for
| iOS users; however, all of these items are frustrating for
| Android users, not the other way around.
|
| They're preaching to the wrong choir.
| jdalgetty wrote:
| This
| blooalien wrote:
| > "Google has tried and failed endlessly to make a not-shit
| messaging app for Android" ...
|
| Sadly, some would say that they've tried and _succeeded
| multiple times_ to make a "not-shit messaging app for
| Android" and then promptly _murdered each success_ just as
| it became popular.
|
| > ... "and has now seemingly given up and adopted a
| terrible protocol, and is crowing about it like they're the
| saviour of messaging."
|
| Yeah, this seems to be pretty much the "standard model" for
| _most_ "tech giants" these days. :(
|
| > ... "They're not, they've just given up trying."
|
| On _so many_ levels _beyond_ just messaging. :(
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Yeah, so many in this thread are acting ignorant to what is
| actually going on. Which is surprising considering the
| audience.
|
| RCS is a new standard, Google doesn't own it people.
| seydor wrote:
| How did they nail it if it doesnt work well with 80% of phones?
| etchalon wrote:
| Absolutely.
|
| Google can't act indignant that Apple isn't following their
| lead after they tried, and failed, repeatedly, to follow
| Apple's.
|
| Google wanted a proprietary messaging service like iMessage for
| Android. They failed. They failed so many times they gave up
| and became champions of RCS, a standard the carriers were
| limping towards supporting.
|
| Google pretending they're now champions of open standards and
| Apple is the big-bad meanie is ridiculous.
| milleramp wrote:
| Loved "It's time for Apple to fix texting"
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Really hopeful this is the push needed to get RCS mainstream. I
| use RCS on Android a bunch, and when the other user has it
| working it is amazing!!!
| moizici wrote:
| Why would Apple fix something that do not affect Apple users ?
| summerlight wrote:
| Simple; regulators will come after if Apple refuses to do so.
| DMA is just one response.
| Veuxdo wrote:
| Per the article, they do affect iPhone users.
| bena wrote:
| The article is an ad from Google. They have a vested
| interest.
|
| While I'm sure there are grains of truth in the article, I'm
| also sure they're presented in such a way to lead you to a
| conclusion.
|
| Google wants to either get access to the iMessage ecosystem
| or relegate it to the fringe. Because they can exert pressure
| on RCS, they cannot exert pressure on iMessage.
| thiht wrote:
| It doesn't. Messages fallback to SMS when I talk to my
| parents or friends who don't have an iPhone and... it works.
| I can send text, photos, etc. and it works. Some accusations
| are ridiculous, like how white on green is somehow illegible
| compared to white on blue? Come on.
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Per experience, they do not. At least, they do not affect me
| in the slightest. Never had any of these alleged problems.
| smaryjerry wrote:
| The lack of ability to leave a group text chat is the most
| annoying thing ever. Spammers send these group texts and
| there's no way to leave.
| bhandziuk wrote:
| It affects them in that everytime an iPhone users text me a
| video I have to ask them to post it somewhere else so I can
| view it. The videos are so small and blurry I can never see
| what's happening in them. I[hone users are have unsent
| messages to android users without cell service which
| happens all the time and is confusing why some texts send
| and some don't and it's a function of the type of phone the
| receiving party has (?!)
| alexandreb wrote:
| You get a notification if your iPhone can't send the SMS,
| and a clear indication that it didn't send.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| It does affect Apple users, very much so.
| jonathan_oberg wrote:
| more like, it's time to kill texting.
|
| how many times can we attempt to patch new features on top of a
| protocol that was never intended for those purposes and is
| fundamentally insecure.
| vonwoodson wrote:
| android(dot)com says Apple product bad! Shocking!
| vzaliva wrote:
| Apple messaging is super annoying. I use Android phone but also
| have an iPad. Whenever I chat with someone on iPhone, is suddenly
| decides to route all messages via iMessage instead of SMS and I
| do not see them on my phone. You have to disable iMessage in iPad
| to avoid this.
| isatty wrote:
| I don't see how this is a problem. If you want to use an
| inferior method then it should be opt out (like you are doing)
| instead of the other way around.
| vzaliva wrote:
| The opt-out is global. I could not keep using iMessage on
| iPad and SMS on Android as long as Apple account is
| associated with the same mobile phone number.
|
| Also, changing the mode of communication withot asking or
| informing users sounds like a bad idea. I send you SMS from
| my phone. You see it in your iMessage and type a reply and it
| goes back to my iPad.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| I hope the EU continues on it's legislative path to force Apple
| into playing nice.
| jes wrote:
| I wish Apple would give me a way to filter and delete junk SMS
| texts based on message body content.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't love RCS[0], but Apple implementing it (including the
| E2EE extensions) would strike a huge blow to messaging
| fragmentation immediately, at least in the US.
|
| Hell, Apple doesn't have to ditch iMessage; they just have to
| support RCS for messaging with Android users, or group messaging
| with mixed Android/iOS devices.
|
| I would also (grudgingly) accept an opening of the iMessage
| protocol so Google could implement it in the Android Messages
| app. Not ideal by any measure, and I figure Apple would never do
| this (and I suspect Google would hypocritically not want to do
| this anyway), but it would at least improve things.
|
| The thing that's sad overall is that the current state of affairs
| is just a result of an anti-consumer corporate pissing match. The
| only losers here are the users, both on iOS and Android. And
| meanwhile both Apple and Google get to tout the benefits of their
| preferred solution as if they're both the good guys, fighting for
| their users. When in reality they're merely fighting for their
| own market dominance.
|
| [0] Tying messaging to your carrier is just a continuation of the
| crappy SMS "portability" experience. Sure, most RCS backend
| implementations are currently provided by Google, but one thing
| I'd like to see would be the ability to select your RCS provider.
| Maybe others would crop up if this were an option, and if RCS
| were actually popular.
| Asdrubalini wrote:
| Side note: I wonder why they didn't put Telegram in the "Other
| messaging apps." section, instead of only Whatsapp and Signal.
| systemz wrote:
| Looks like Google started to think about EU's DSA / DMA
| compliance and created this article to have proof to EU
| commission "look, we tried but they refused!"
| seydor wrote:
| This is not very smart, as apple doesn't do such things unless
| coerced by law. Instead , android should drop/cripple iphone
| support until they adopt RCS
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Another fun one to point out: Google doesn't just want expanded
| RCS support because they have a monopoly on all the non-iMessage
| client devices, but they also run one of the largest providers of
| the data services for carriers to support RCS as well:
| https://jibe.google.com/jibe-platform/
|
| Yet another angle on the Google vertical monopoly, and another
| reason Apple should stay very far away from RCS to protect user
| privacy.
| [deleted]
| otterley wrote:
| Apple, pointing to all the happy children in the iMessage pool:
| "nah, we good, thanks"
| jes wrote:
| I wish Apple would give me a way to filter junk SMS texts via a
| regexp or something, without needing a third-party app.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Settings - Messages - Filter Unknown Senders
| vzaliva wrote:
| One way looking at it is that carrier job is only to provide data
| service. They should not be in the business of messaging. Users
| (and market) will chose to use whatever messaging service they
| want.
|
| This even applies to voice. I rather do Signal voice call than
| carrier voice call with most of my friends. Better quality,
| encryption, etc.
| lostgame wrote:
| I can't take this site seriously. It says it's 'not about' the
| green and blue bubbles.
|
| It _is_ , and it's largely that Apple has a vested interest in
| making their ecosystem look so much better in general.
|
| If I'm texting my friends with an Android and group chat, etc;
| isn't working properly - I will automatically assume something
| about Android is broken, because it works perfectly to my other
| friends who use iPhones.
|
| Apple will never - ever - 'fix' this, because it's not 'broken',
| it's a design meant to create the illusion that iOS is the better
| ecosystem.
|
| iMessage is one of Apple's most valuable psychological tricks to
| keep people within the ecosystem, or convert others to join in.
|
| This is a waste of a call to action.
|
| It will be about as effective as praying to Rain Gods for rain.
| :P
|
| Apple has a massive vested interest in not fixing this 'problem'.
|
| There's also a ton of cross platform messaging apps that already
| have no issues when used with each other - including popular open
| source ones like Signal.
|
| The websites' creator has their heart in the right place, but
| their mind is confused. This is all intentional on Apple's part.
| It's genius and they know it. They will never willingly stop a
| plan that is working so very well.
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| > Apple has a vested interest in not fixing this 'problem'.
|
| Perhaps, you are right. Their vested interest is in making more
| $ for AAPL shareholders. The sands may shift. There are
| incoming regulatory pressures and what not.
|
| However, it is still fair game to point out what is broken
| though. The Internet (such as it is) is full of opinions. It is
| not a waste. It is a perspective.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > This is a waste of a call to action.
|
| Agreed. I can't imagine what the decision makers at Google
| thought this webpage would do? Will it suddenly make Apple
| implement RCS - I think not...
|
| The only thing that might make Apple make open messaging in the
| near future is the threat of the EU mandating it via the
| Digital Services Act. And those platform rules apply equally to
| any app with more than 45 million people - so iMessage,
| Whatsapp, Messenger, Instagram, Tiktok, Twitter, etc.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > iMessage is one of Apple's most valuable psychological tricks
| to keep people within the ecosystem, or convert others to join
| in.
|
| Perhaps a kernel of truth there, but the real success of
| iMessage is how it gives you all the features of a modern
| instant messaging platform without any hassle. Built in to the
| phone, same app as SMS with automatic fallback, available on
| MacOS, not limited to a phone#, etc.
|
| Yeah, I can go download one of a number of other IM apps. A
| small fraction of people I interact with will be reachable on
| any given app, but a majority are reachable with iMessage. The
| network effect is very real.
| Veuxdo wrote:
| You've explained the subtext of the article. Which means the
| article did need to be written.
| lostgame wrote:
| lol, in no way. The article has a call to action to try to
| get Apple to change course.
|
| The author suggesting that indicates a total lack of
| comprehension to Apple's plan and purpose/intention.
|
| Calling for people to ask Apple to change this is like
| politely asking Opioid manufacturers to stop killing people.
| It's profit. It has nothing to do with what's best for the
| consumer.
|
| My main point of the comment was not to explain the subtext
| of the article. It was to explain that the article just
| didn't need to be written, and won't change anything.
| malermeister wrote:
| The audience isn't really Apple. It's regulators.
| victorbstan wrote:
| Adroid.com not biased
| boesboes wrote:
| Who uses sms anymore these days?
|
| I tried to go back to a non-smart phone, but it was impossible
| due to not having whatsapp. That might be a 'local' thing though,
| not sure.
|
| Anyway, they should just release imessage for android; that would
| piss off meta too, which is a win in my book ;)
| thefz wrote:
| Agree. SMS is relegated to 2FA and before today I did not even
| know that Apple had a special SMS application for its users.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Plenty of people in Europe with our pre-pay SIM cards, having
| like 5 000 free SMS per month, minimum.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| I have infinite free SMS per month and I uses less than 1 a
| month. In Europe everyone uses WhatsApp.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Except I know people that never touched WhatsApp, so no not
| everyone.
|
| Also all my contacts on Balkan countries rather go with
| Viber, so, nope not everyone.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > In Europe everyone uses WhatsApp.
|
| That's a bit of an overstatement and really depend on who
| you ask. I'd say that no-one uses WhatsApp. I know exactly
| two people who uses WhatsApp, but that also not
| representative of their actual marketshare.
| s17n wrote:
| Everyone in the US (if there is at least one android user in
| the chat)
| trebbble wrote:
| US here. On the old end of "millennial", if that matters.
|
| More than 95% of my personal communication with other humans
| I know (remote communication, that is, not in-person,
| obviously) is in WhatsApp. The rest is phone and SMS and
| that's all older family.
|
| SMS, like email, is mainly for machines to talk to me.
| caseyohara wrote:
| > More than 95% of my personal communication ... is in
| WhatsApp
|
| This is wild to me. I'm squarely in the middle of the
| millennial generation and I've never used WhatsApp and I've
| never known anyone that uses it. Nearly all of my personal
| communication is through Messages on my iPhone/iPad/Mac.
| Evidlo wrote:
| That sounds horrible to be so locked-in.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| Locked in to WhatsApp as opposed to iMessage? At least it
| works on all platforms
| trebbble wrote:
| We're not, so it isn't.
| s17n wrote:
| Yes, "everyone" was an exaggeration. But whatsapp usage in
| the US is pretty small. iMessage/sms and fb messenger are
| the only apps with enough market share to matter.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| I have dozens of group chats with iPhone, Android, and even
| PC users. We never encounter any of the limitations of SMS,
| for the same reason we can drive across the country and don't
| have to constantly scan for new radio channels. It's just not
| a technology that we use.
|
| SMS is the old,
| WhatsApp/Telegram/Messenger/Signal/Discord/etc is the new.
| timdavila wrote:
| So I have to replace the native messaging app that's
| decentralized, well proven, reliable, and pre-installed on
| every phone that can communicate with anyone in the world
| for 5 different centralized apps from the app store that
| may or may not exist next year and also try to move my
| entire network over?
|
| No thanks, I'll stick to SMS.
| ZacharyPitts wrote:
| SMS that is not usable from all my other non-phone
| computers!
|
| For this reason alone, I greatly prefer
| iMessage/discord/slack/whateverIsNext so I can use it on
| my phone and my computers.
| timdavila wrote:
| I use iMessage. It's great, and doesn't get in the way.
| And as I said it's included on my phone. It also allows
| me to communicate with anyone and I don't have to think
| about if the person I'm contacting has it installed or
| not, it gracefully degrades to SMS when needed. That's a
| great messaging app!
| wejick wrote:
| I dont remember when the last time sending message via SMS. You
| will not be able to find message app on my android launcher
| because I hide it, and many people in my circle never really
| open it other than to read spam message from operator.
|
| So yeah most of the time whatsapp and telegram 100% of my
| circle. SMS is a thing from the past, I guess the gen z here
| don't even understand what's SMS.
|
| (someone from SEA region)
| mongol wrote:
| It's the only texting solution you can be sure to know works if
| you just have a phone number. So in these situations, it is the
| best choice.
| Vomzor wrote:
| mrweasel wrote:
| > Who uses sms anymore these days?
|
| Most people? But yeah, it's a local thing. Denmark have had
| free SMS for something like 20 years, at least as an optional
| add-on to your subscription. So there where never a reason to
| move to something else. If you frequently used SMS you just
| paid the small free for a large number of SMS message, or even
| unlimited. Current subscriptions pretty much all have free SMS.
|
| When smartphones arrived, most just use the built in messing
| app. On the iPhone that means that you use iMessage, but it's
| not something you think about. If you took the average Danish
| iMessage user and asked them, they'd just say it's SMS.
|
| I don't know that I would want Apple to just dominate the
| messaging market, but iMessage on Android would kill of many of
| the existing platforms pretty quickly.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| I use and prefer that others use SMS for messaging me. I do
| have other communication apps, but by far and away SMS is my
| daily driver.
| PaulsWallet wrote:
| I absolutely use SMS. I use Android and don't have Facebook or
| Whatsapp so if you want to text me you are gonna use SMS.
| [deleted]
| sunsetandlabrea wrote:
| This is pretty disingenuous I think. Other than Android who is
| using RCS?
|
| Why can't I message between WhatsApp and an RCS client. Or any
| other chat technology, how about Google Chat to RCS, or Slack to
| RCS, or anything else.
|
| Their examples for 'the modern standard adopted by most of the
| mobile world': Motorola, OnePlus, Google Pixel, Samsung,
| Snapdragon are all providers of Android phones, so clearly they
| would use the default Android messaging service.
|
| I have a few folk (mostly family) who uses Apple messaging,
| everyone else seems to be on WhatsApp.
| bagacrap wrote:
| A lot of Android handset manufacturers do not in fact leave the
| default X in place for most X.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's no different than half a dozen web "standards" Google
| invented like Web Serial, WebUSB, Web MIDI, etc. Google
| implemented it on their monopoly platform, and then declared it
| a "standard" and started getting their staff to start trying to
| shame everyone else for not adopting it as such.
| kramerger wrote:
| > Other than Android who is using RCS?
|
| Don't forget Android has over 80% world-wide market share.
| sunsetandlabrea wrote:
| This is like saying Windows is the standard operating system.
|
| My point still stands they are saying adopt our technology,
| but being disingenuous by calling it a standard.
|
| Besides that how many people are using WhatsApp instead on
| both iPhone and Android.
| kramerger wrote:
| No, it is not. The RCS standards are managed by the GSMA.
|
| It is supported by many companies, one of which is Google.
| sunsetandlabrea wrote:
| So where is it used except Android? With any market share
| that makes it significant beyond android?
| tuckerman wrote:
| According to the sources I was able to find, iOS and
| Android collectively make up more than 99% of the smart
| phone market. There isn't any significant market share
| outside of Android because there is no significant market
| outside of Android.
| tonfa wrote:
| That's a weird reply when a market has mostly two
| players. By definition there won't be any other
| significant market share.
| [deleted]
| ivoras wrote:
| This is a US thing, right?
|
| Haven't received an SMS from a real person (in other words, all
| SMSes I get are 2FA etc) for, at least 5 years, maybe 10.
|
| Even people who use iPhones don't send SMSes, MMSes or anything
| as obsolete (including RCS). Everyone just seems to use WhatsApp
| and Telegram (or if they don't know any better, Viber). Locale:
| Central Europe.
|
| So, why would anyone stick to the obsolete stuff? Are there
| regions of the US which have cell phone signals but no Internet
| access?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Network effect. SMS works everywhere, all phones support it
| out-of-the-box. WhatsApp is opt-in. Almost nobody I communicate
| with regularly has a WhatsApp account.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| For some reason whatsapp/telegram/etc haven't taken off nearly
| as well in the US as they have in the rest of the world.
|
| NYT had an article about this recently-
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/technology/sms-whatsapp.h...
| bagacrap wrote:
| basically it's the lowest common denominator. There are so many
| chat apps out there (signal, sms, fb, ig are popular in my
| circles) and the default app is the only one everyone has
| installed.
|
| For people close to me, I insist on the use of signal, but I
| don't have that kind of social capital with every single
| acquaintance.
| RussianCow wrote:
| The US market standardized on mobile plans with unlimited
| texting a long, long time ago, so I think this caused people to
| mostly stick to SMS/MMS for communication since it was the path
| of least resistance. I don't know what the situation in Europe
| is like now, but in the past I remember it being difficult to
| find plans without very small SMS caps when traveling. That
| could be why Europeans naturally gravitated towards other
| messaging platforms.
| angio wrote:
| Unlimited SMS plans have been a thing in western europe for
| the past 15 years, at least. People switched to whatsapp
| because you can send pictures, not only text.
| oneplane wrote:
| This is indeed a US thing (culturally). Most countries seem to
| have chat culture revolve around Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal,
| WeChat or LINE.
|
| On top of that, most people don't really care and read whatever
| comes in regardless of the format.
|
| MMS was a failed concept, and so is RCS. Not because the
| technology is fundamentally bad, it's the implementation that
| is fundamentally flawed by keeping telcos in the loop. The only
| reason SMS didn't die is purely by accident: it was included as
| some sort of auxiliary technical channel, not really intended
| as a means of chatting with other people. Heck, it was almost
| not even included in the GSM standard and mostly thought of as
| a useless waste of protocol specification. This made it
| unattractive to market or monetise at first, and later on with
| the whole ringtone/bitmap mess around the 00's it only enjoyed
| a short bubble of commercial exploitation.
|
| The cost, and the limited format then caused the likes of BBM
| and even MSN for mobile to be used as true chat replacements,
| except in the USA. That was around the same time as the flop
| that was MMS. Then WhatsApp (and others) came along and by then
| the whole telco legacy mindset finally caught up and it was way
| too late. Then Apple came around and a decade later finally RCS
| was invented at some sad endeavour to get back in the loop as a
| telco.
|
| Similar things were tried to 'replace' email etc. in the AOL
| days, which also turned into a big flop.
| LegitShady wrote:
| It works for every phone and doesn't require me to have an app
| installed. It doesn't change on which contact I have ("oh she
| uses WhatsApp, he uses some other app, this group chat is on
| facebook messenger, etc".
|
| It's just one tech that works on all phones. I don't even mind
| if its missing five million emojis or things like that.
| patja wrote:
| does WhatsApp still require you to hand over all your contacts
| to them when you sign up?
|
| None of my contacts gave consent for me to share their private
| information.
| throwayawya11 wrote:
| Maybe Google should enable push notification support again for
| Mail.app Gmail users too.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Or even just make Gmail's IMAP support properly spec compliant
| instead of requiring third party clients to hack around its
| nonstandard behaviors.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| AFAIK, Gmail's IMAP uses OAUTH2 authentication through SASL
| (RFC7628). Legacy email clients don't implement that RFC, but
| it's far from a hack.
| AnonHP wrote:
| Could you expand on the non-standard behaviors? Long ago I
| noticed that using tags in Gmail causes a mess because they
| seem to appear as folders on an IMAP client. I'd like to know
| what other issues exist with respect to its IMAP
| implementation.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > Texts from iPhones can't always be sent to Android over Wi-Fi,
| leaving your messages unsent and convos hanging if you don't have
| cell service.
|
| Yes they can? I have no cellular service at home but I have wifi,
| and my iPhone connects to "T-Mobile Wi-Fi" via my home internet.
|
| SMS messages are sent and received just fine.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Assuming you have an operator that supports wifi calling and a
| phone that both supports it and is "whitelisted" (basically
| USA, Europe does not do such silly things)
| tpush wrote:
| > [...] (basically USA, Europe does not do such silly things)
|
| What? Europe has Wi-Fi Calling, too [0].
|
| [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204040
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| _woosh_ - read the comment again, it clearly implied the US
| has a prominent idea of whitelisting "compatible" handsets
| (ie; those bought from the network because unlocked is a
| hilariously quaint idea) whereas in Europe, unlocked
| handsets are generally the default, since people don't like
| it and regulations prevent it for the most part anyway, in
| those cases it's just incompatible/old/awful
| implementations, rather than operators denying said
| features.
| [deleted]
| willio58 wrote:
| From what I'm seeing RCS just isn't a true solution. Apple and
| Google should come together to create a standard outside of the
| carriers.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Absolutely agree. Carriers have no rightful place in the
| discussion, they're dumb data pipes and shouldn't be able to
| nickel and dime customers on messaging quotas and features, as
| RCS is designed to allow.
| mongol wrote:
| Not so sure about that. We still call these devices "phones",
| with the expectation that any phone in the world can call any
| phone number in the world. With no other information than a
| phone number, you need to involve the carriers to deliver a
| message texted to an arbitrary phone number. That is why
| Apple need to fallback to SMS. They have no other means to
| deliver the message.
|
| If Apple and Google teams up without carriers, they still
| don't have access to the full, true phone number database
| that carriers maintain.
| enaaem wrote:
| Do we really need a single standard? I and many others use
| multiple messaging services and it's fine. Each has their pros
| and cons. I can also contact people in multiple ways if one
| service fails.
| obnauticus wrote:
| I would agree more if the RCS standard wasn't also hot garbage...
|
| I would encourage anyone who is curious to read more about it.
| It's taken so long to gain traction that it has also become
| somewhat legacy. Also, it still requires a carrier sponsored
| phone plan? How is this "modern" in comparison to say every other
| carrier agnostic messaging app in existence?
|
| Also this:
| https://twitter.com/RonAmadeo/status/1480679515298934786
| resfirestar wrote:
| >There are zero benefits to phone identity over email
|
| I can think of one: most people's email identity is subject to
| termination under Google's ToS. Same thing with identity tied
| to Facebook or other social networks. In the US, your ability
| to take your phone number to a different carrier is protected
| by federal regulations.
| a2tech wrote:
| No one really wants to understand it, they just want to
| complain that Apple doesn't support it
| arbirk wrote:
| Very interesting. I wonder what protocol and format the EU
| commission will point to in enforcing the Digital Markets Act
| Hippocrates wrote:
| Agree. It sounds similar to the argument for USB-C charging,
| also a hot mess of a standard. But RCS is definitely more
| offensive.
| lostgame wrote:
| I miss XMPP :(
| Zash wrote:
| It's XMPP that misses you ;)
| thiht wrote:
| XMPP sucked, you guys have to stop bringing it out over and
| over again. Not having a common experience between clients
| because of that stupid << X >> sucked. There's an impossible
| to solve mismatch between XEPs supported by the clients and
| the servers.
|
| XMPP is dead for reason, stop trying to bring it back
| MattJ100 wrote:
| Because of the "stupid X", modern XMPP supports far more
| than it used to, and isn't stuck in the past like email and
| SMS.
|
| There is a mismatch between iMessage (Apple) and RCS
| (Google's flavour of the month). To the point where there
| is almost no sensible interoperability between the two.
|
| All XMPP does is provide answers to "If I want to implement
| feature X, how should that look on the wire".
|
| Just as the XMPP Standards Foundation annually publishes
| the recommended baseline feature sets for XMPP clients, it
| wouldn't be hard for Apple and Google to follow that or
| (more likely) agree on their own baseline for
| interoperability between the two ecosystems.
|
| As I always say when this comes up: the wire protocol is of
| least concern - it's not the reason these businesses don't
| prioritize interoperability. No protocol engineering can
| magically fix that.
| thiht wrote:
| > Because of the "stupid X", modern XMPP supports far
| more than it used to, and isn't stuck in the past like
| email and SMS.
|
| Yeah, it's dead. Maybe XMPP supports shiny stuff. But no
| client or server support them, and if they do it's like
| they don't understand the spec the same way.
|
| A protocol should not be extensible, it should be full
| featured and regularly updated to include new needs. It
| should also propose a reference implementation and an
| official client so that there's a clear baseline.
|
| Matrix is doing it way better than XMPP ever did.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Google cannot legally ship, as part of Android, a carrier-
| agnostic messaging app like iMessage.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Could you elaborate? I've never heard this before.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I've heard that since Android is the OS that 3rd parties
| use it could violate antitrust to include a Google branded
| chat-app. Apple does not distribute iOS so they can do
| whatever they want.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| It's illegal tying[0]. Google used to force Chrome and
| Google Search as part of Google Play Store requirements.
| And were fined a few years ago by the EU[1]. Pretty much
| most of this reasoning could be applied to a messaging app
| too.
|
| [0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-
| guidance/gui...
|
| [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/I
| P_18_...
| equalsione wrote:
| It really is god-awful. RCS is a technology that benefits
| mobile operators, not users.
|
| Also, Google really aren't in a position to lecture anyone on
| this topic, given their N+1 approach to messaging services.
| jkingsman wrote:
| Speak for yourself; I LOVE texting my fellow-Android-owners
| with RCS. My photos don't get squashed a la MMS, sending
| multimedia Just Works, and typing/receipt indicators are
| lovely. Maybe the mobile operators are getting far bigger
| wins, but as an average person texting my friends, it's
| great.
| [deleted]
| angryasian wrote:
| Its definitely a compromise, but Google is ultimately at the
| mercy of the carriers. We can sit back behind our keyboards
| and criticize but it is a way to get something going. I don't
| think carriers have any incentive to improve this area, and
| probably nothing would happen
| obnauticus wrote:
| I understand that there are huge interoperability and
| legacy requirements on the phone network. But for the sake
| of solving the biggest problem of Android to iPhone
| communication I think we can and should demand something
| which is actually modern (ie platform and carrier
| agnostic).
|
| The problem with RCS is that the solution has been stuck in
| GSM consortium hell for over a decade.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Google is ultimately at the mercy of the carriers
|
| Yet again I recall the deal with the devil Apple did with
| AT&T, giving them a year or two of exclusive rights to sell
| the iPhone in return for having exactly zero control over
| the device. That was an excellent trade. Before 2007,
| carriers were intrusively involved with all aspects of a
| mobile phone.
| danaris wrote:
| > Google is ultimately at the mercy of the carriers
|
| I mean...are they?
|
| If Google were serious about pushing a new standard, and
| were willing to actually push it _on the carriers_ , they
| have plenty of money, reach, and clout to make their point
| heard loud and clear. That would be triply true if it
| weren't a "new standard" that was yet another transparent
| attempt to gather more data from users.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| It is actually light years better than SMS/RCS and has a huge
| value to end users. I can see if a message was read, I can send
| legit voice memos without size limits, I can send large high
| resolution photos.
|
| It may not be perfect but it is better than what Apple is doing
| now.
| kazinator wrote:
| Gapingly missing is any mention of what iPhones use when sending
| messages to each other. And why doesn't that mechanism require
| support from a large number of carriers? Or if it does, why don't
| Android phones support it?
| cruano wrote:
| > android.com
|
| I'm sure they are not biased at all
| listless wrote:
| That video reminds me of the "I'm a Mac" ads in that it does a
| great job of making Apple look dated and out of touch. I love
| good marketing.
| blinkingled wrote:
| > iPhones make texts with Android phones difficult to read, by
| using white text on a bright green background.
|
| Wow. I can't really come up with anything creative to blame
| Google for this one. Whatever you want to say about Google's
| messaging mess and RCS - Apple seems to go out of their way to
| make it inconvenient to text with Android users.
|
| Also it doesn't sound like Google's asking Apple to give up
| iMessage - just that they use RCS instead of SMS/MMS to talk to
| Android users. Not a unreasonable ask given RCS is still a
| standard and an non-trivial improvement over SMS.
|
| Edit: Color aside, the read receipts, MMS quality, Wifi send etc
| all seem worth fixing with RCS.
| wincy wrote:
| What? I don't even notice the difference in color except that I
| know not to use the tapback stuff when I'm texting an Android
| user. Does the green on white actually bother anyone? This
| seems like grasping at straws to me.
| dymk wrote:
| I've never heard this issue ever raised by anyone in real
| life.
|
| I've only seen it brought up in internet tiffs about how
| Apple is using green message bubbles to "shame" non-Apple
| users. Which is similarly straw-graspy.
| kelnos wrote:
| Given how cruel and capricious children tend to be, it
| would not surprise me in the least that iPhone-using US
| teenagers ostracize peers with Android devices because of
| the green bubbles.
| XorNot wrote:
| While it doesn't surprise me, if it wasn't one thing it
| would probably be another.
|
| Conversely if you're a parent with a distraught teenager
| being teased about this, I imagine that's cold comfort.
| radiojasper wrote:
| https://color.a11y.com/ContrastPair/?bgcolor=3cd882&fgcolor=.
| ..
|
| The colours do not pass the A11Y standards, which means
| people with poor eyesight can't read the messages properly.
|
| This did made me curious to see if the blue background passes
| - and it doesn't either. https://color.a11y.com/ContrastPair/
| ?bgcolor=047aff&fgcolor=...
|
| At least the blue background passes WCAG AA with larger sized
| text, while the green doesn't pass at all.
| dymk wrote:
| Wrong color, iMessage uses #64C567 for the green
| background, which has a higher contrast than the pair you
| supplied (1.85 versus 2.15)
| mikewhy wrote:
| I'm confused by all the mention of "what colour apple
| uses" in messages, message bubbles are a mask over a
| gradient
| radiojasper wrote:
| Still doesn't pass? Also thanks for pointing out the
| error!
| kelnos wrote:
| The funny thing is that simply changing the text color to
| black causes the green-on-black to pass all those metrics,
| with the blue-on-black passing everything but WCAG AAA with
| the normal font (but still passes on the larger font).
|
| (Same result using #64C567 for the green bubbles, which a
| sibling pointed out is the correct value.)
| r00fus wrote:
| Tapback works, too - it just appears to the non-iMessage
| receiver as an another SMS message with the text equivalent
| of the tapback emoticon.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I would not discount visibility issues for anyone with a
| visual impairment. But at the same time there are a lot of
| issues listed on the page, with the color contrast only being
| one of them. You may consider the other usability issues more
| significant, but either way as a whole it seems to be a
| problem.
| Angostura wrote:
| This is the most trivial complaint I've ever read. I'm in my
| 50s and I have zero problems reading green bubbles - it just
| means that it hasn't been sent via iMessage - if I send to an
| iPhone and sending falls back to SMS it looks just the same. I
| can't believe people get that upset about green v blue.
| dcormier wrote:
| That's very ableist of you.
|
| About 1 in 12 males are colorblind. I'm in this group.
|
| I find white text on a bright green background very difficult
| to read.
| joes_hk wrote:
| So making the bubble blue instead of green without changing
| the protocol would be already ok for you? How do you cope
| with this right now, do you and your social group use
| alternatives to iMessage like signal or telegram?
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's the text you send, not incoming, so you don't need to
| read it much. There's also various accessibility features
| to help with color across the os.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not only that, but these are complaints coming from non-
| iPhone users, by definition, which means it is totally up
| to Android what color their messages are displayed in.
| cgrealy wrote:
| Which is why there are accessibility settings for exactly
| that.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| sure, but why keep an inaccessible default?
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Because it doesn't affect everyone and aesthetics are not
| equal to accessibility?
|
| I do agree that the green bubbles aren't great looking
| but thats what they chose for iOS even prior to iMessage
| existing.
| gjs278 wrote:
| hgsgm wrote:
| brokencode wrote:
| If you read the article, you'd know that there are actually
| multiple functional issues due to Apple insisting on SMS/MMS.
| neilv wrote:
| > _I 'm in my 50s and I have zero problems reading green
| bubbles_
|
| Besides the other issues... as soon as I heard that
| adolescents and teens (i.e., hyper-self-conscious, wanting
| group acceptance, figuring out social status) would be
| appearing differently in chats with schoolmates, based on
| whether they used Apple or non-Apple... that sure is a way to
| sell them Apples.
| Liquix wrote:
| Google conclusively found there was a statistically most
| pleasing shade of blue in their _41 Shades of Blue_
| experiment. This type of testing can be and is being
| leveraged for profit. It 's not too difficult to imagine
| Apple tuning iMessage vs. SMS colors to be perfectly
| calming/nauseating respectively.
| r_klancer wrote:
| Let's be clear. Green vs blue is a bit of a red herring.
|
| The real issue is that Apple has to have _some_ fallback
| protocol for texting with non-iMessage devices, but refusing
| to upgrade the fallback protocol beyond SMS /MMS makes the
| texting experience worse for everyone, as described in the
| article.
|
| (To avoid additional red herrings. No one is thinking here
| about opening up iMessage itself to non-Apple clients, just
| upgrading the fallback option. Also, I can't speak for
| everyone, but among the non-terminally-online Gen Xer and
| late-Millennial Americans I know, "texting" means using the
| built-in app on your phone. Switching to another app is a
| _relationship step_. Many of them are blithely unaware that
| they can 't "just" text a photo or video to me or other
| Android users, nor that I can't just sign out of a group chat
| when I feel like it.)
| [deleted]
| nemothekid wrote:
| iMessage was released on iOS 5 with the release of the iPhone
| 4S. Before then, all messages had a green background. Somehow
| sticking with the default of more than 10+ years is intentional
| maleficence by Apple?
| 015a wrote:
| In a product development org, refusing to prioritize
| something is identical to deprioritizing it.
|
| @Time0 -> Priority1=X, Priority2=Y
|
| @Time1 -> Priority1=X, Priority2=Z, Priority3=Y
|
| Across this timeframe, Y's priority was lowered from P2 to
| P3, because the org intentionally decided to make Z a higher
| priority.
|
| One could argue that improving this experience was never in
| their priority list; but as long as product leaders in the
| org knew about it; its the same thing. Letting something
| linger in the backlog, and intentionally deciding to never
| add it to the backlog in the first place, are identical.
|
| I don't know about "maleficence", but intentional: Yes.
| Cognizant inaction conveys intentionality.
| blinkingled wrote:
| No but not updating the default for 10 years in a way that
| mostly affects only Android users seems like borderline
| malfeasance to me.
| dymk wrote:
| It's not a "default", it's an indicator of how the message
| was sent.
| blinkingled wrote:
| So every sent message looks white on bright green or just
| the ones sent over SMS/MMS (I.e. to Android users)?
| dymk wrote:
| Messages sent via SMS/MMS are green, messages sent via
| iMessage are blue.
|
| If you send a message via SMS/MMS to an iPhone user, it's
| green.
|
| There is no detection if the user on the other end is an
| Android user.
| tantalor wrote:
| So it's a default.
| [deleted]
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Blue is the default, because iOS always tries iMessage
| first in preference to SMS.
| gjs278 wrote:
| nomel wrote:
| The green used on the website is significantly brighter than on
| an iPhone. In fact, on the iPhone, I would say the green gives
| _better_ contrast than the white text on a blue background.
|
| For direct messages, the colored bubbles are only used on
| messages _you_ send. Messages received are always white text on
| black background (dark mode) or black text on grey background
| (light mode).
|
| edit: From a screenshot of the messages app, on my phone.
| #317332: My phone green (iOS 15.6) #75d993: Website
| green (Safari 15.6) #58bf5d: Website video green
| #184bd4: My phone Blue #5b8fec: Website blue
| #2862be: Website video blue
|
| They're all significantly different. Did they not bother to
| make sure the colors are accurate, or is this some hit piece?
| guelo wrote:
| It's objectively much worse contrast.
|
| https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-CB781_1017ST_2_.
| ..
|
| My contrast tool says the blue contrast is 3.4:1 while the
| green is 1.9:1
| nomel wrote:
| Those colors don't match what's on my iPhone. Where did you
| get them?
|
| Try these:
|
| My iPhone green: #317332
|
| My iPhone blue: #184bd4
|
| from screenshot of messages app, iOS 15.6.
| dfabulich wrote:
| I just took screenshots of an Android green text bubble and
| the https://www.android.com/get-the-message/ site, and used
| Photoshop's eyedropper tool to compare colors. They're the
| exact same shade of green, #48dd8f.
|
| But it's not just you! The green on Google's site looks
| visually brighter because the entire bubble is on a blue
| background. On iPhone, the green is normally on a white
| background.
|
| Now, try setting your iPhone to Dark Mode in Settings, and
| you'll find that the green bubbles are still #48dd8f green
| and the text is still #ffffff pure white; it's harder to read
| on a black background, IMO.
| nomel wrote:
| No, not for me. I'm seeing much darker on my phone:
|
| On the page: #75d993
|
| In the video: #58bf5d
|
| From my iPhone (iOS 15.6): #317332
| Phrodo_00 wrote:
| The green (and also the blue, but less so) used by iMessage
| doesn't even meet the minimum contrast set by apple
| accesibility guidelines [1]
|
| [1] https://medium.com/@krvoller/how-iphone-violates-apples-
| acce...
| kingTug wrote:
| The puke-green text bubbles from android and calm-blue bubbles
| from iMessage always struck me as very intentional.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Before iMessage was released all text messages sent from
| iPhones were SMS/MMS. They were all green. If an iPhone
| recipient is unavailable via iMessage a text will fall back
| to SMS. So green bubbles _are_ intentional, they indicate a
| text was sent via SMS.
| etchalon wrote:
| The Green is historical, not a specific decision by Apple to
| hinder reading texts.
|
| Before iOS 5, and the release of iMessage, all messages on iOS
| were green.
|
| That Google is painting this as something else speaks to how
| disingenuous this whole conversation has gotten, in all
| corners.
| zoover2020 wrote:
| But it turns automatically green when you text a non iPhone
| device.
|
| You have no idea how much of a hot topic this is I modern
| bullying
| riversflow wrote:
| This is ridiculous. As someone who suffered greatly from
| bullying throughout their education, the only way to deal
| with bullying is punishing bullies.
|
| Bullies will always find _something_ to bully others for,
| thats why they are bullies and not just expressing a
| preference.
|
| I'm fairly convinced the bullying problem is a result of a
| society who treat kids as their parent's property instead
| of communal property. Parents enable bullying.
| etchalon wrote:
| It turns green when the message is sent over SMS, not when
| you text a "non-Apple device".
|
| You can send SMS messages to Apple devices, from an Apple
| device, if you're not signed into iMessage, or they're not,
| or if your data connectivity is limited, or theirs is.
| pharmakom wrote:
| If apple made them all the same color I think bullying
| would change by around 0%
| 015a wrote:
| So, you're asserting that the color choice of the bubbles ten
| years ago was unintentional? That whatever developer coded it
| had no instruction, Jony Ive & Steve Jobs were silent, and
| they used a random number generator to pick the hex code?
|
| And additionally, you're asserting that its impossible to
| change or improve? That its just such an intractable problem
| which we inherited, and changing it would be such a herculean
| effort that its not worth moving the needle on?
|
| I've never seen the codebase for the iOS messages app. I
| believe, even acknowledging that, its probably an absolute
| mess of legacy code, and I have a ton of sympathy for the
| developers working on it. I also believe, even acknowledging
| that, that changing one color is something an intern could do
| (and because its a big tech product org, there'd be fifty
| user studies and three orgs of product managers involved and
| Tim Cook would get a say in it, but those are manufactured
| problems. Also, let's be clear; if Jobs were still alive & in
| control, even all those manufactured roadblocks would be torn
| down, if it were a change he cared to prioritize, because
| that's the kind of leader he was).
|
| Inaction is Intentional. Inaction is Intentional. Inaction is
| Intentional.
| etchalon wrote:
| I'm asserting that a decision was made that SMS messages
| were green.
|
| Then a decision was made that iMessage messages would be
| blue.
|
| I'm asserting this was not done with animosity. It was a
| decision by Apple's UX team to make it easy to visually
| identify the difference between the message mechanics and
| capabilities of the end-user.
|
| It is remarkably simple, effective and easily understood.
|
| If Apple chose to make it so there was no visual
| distinction between the message sending mechanisms, that
| would be a worse, and more confusing, user experience.
|
| If Apple changed the colors, whatever the new colors they
| chose to use would just be the new focus of the debate. It
| would become "Orange Bubbles vs Blue Bubbles" or "Purple
| Bubbles vs Blue Bubbles". People would argue that Apple
| chose the new color based on some secondary negative
| characteristic of the new color, just as they do today with
| green.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| Apple commits many UI offenses, but the alleged illegibility of
| SMS messages is BS.
|
| Not to mention that Apple's messaging is hideously broken in
| more ways than Android integration. iMessage will simply delete
| your phone number from its "can be reached at" list, which
| breaks years-long threads with a single (iPhone-using) friend
| into inexplicable new threads.
|
| Ever go overseas? Try putting a local SIM into your USA phone
| somewhere else, and watch your phone "forget" all of your
| contacts. Seriously: WTF? Suddenly all of your contacts are
| unrecognized by number. It's idiotic.
| firloop wrote:
| Feels like sort of a non issue, even the bottom of the page
| pushes people to apps like Whatsapp/Signal. If Google wants
| better iPhone messaging - can't it just ship its solution in the
| App Store? Not really sure why Apple must update iMessage for
| Google to get what it wants.
|
| I personally love iMessage and use it and Signal primarily - I
| don't like the idea of Google dictating its feature set,
| especially considering its horrible messaging track record.
| bagacrap wrote:
| No, Google isn't trying to ship another messaging app. It's
| trying to improve the interoperability of Android and iPhone
| when using phone number texting. Your experience in iMessage
| when texting with an Android user would be improved.
| aquanext wrote:
| I use an iPhone and have never experienced any of these issues
| with blurriness. Do they have specific examples? As others have
| said, I think I'm good with the way things are right now.
| tbihl wrote:
| Once upon a time, I couldn't see myself moving to an iPhone
| because of the limited options for ad blocking. Now that ad
| blocking on Brave iPhone presumably works, Apple's messaging
| behavior is the last thing that keeps me away. On the occasions
| when I get stuck in a group chat outside Signal and someone has
| an iPhone, it always seems to break the chats. Otherwise the
| iPhone mini seems like it would be a great option.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| The solution isn't RCS either, shoehorning yet another nonsense
| over a system designed to transmit operational messaging is
| absurd, just use proper rich media systems like the 10s of im
| platforms, or the reinvented wheels like matrix etc, it's in a
| similar vein to trying to add voice calls to IRC.
| Li7h wrote:
| They couldn't even find a hi-res logo for WhatsApp on the bottom.
| [1]
|
| [1]
| https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Jv09_Bj8cea5-_S6DdpoA_MolG...
| __derek__ wrote:
| First, Apple shaming Microsoft. Then, Microsoft shaming Google.
| Now, Google shaming Apple.
|
| > missing read receipts and typing indicators
|
| Life is better without both of these.
|
| > no texting over Wi-Fi
|
| This claim was odd. I visited Europe a few months ago and
| definitely sent/received SMS over wifi using my iPhone.
|
| > When people with iPhones and Android phones text each other,
| Apple relies on SMS and MMS, outdated systems which do not always
| support texting over wi-fi. That means if you don't have a
| cellular network connection, _depending on your carrier and
| situation_ , you _may not be able_ to send and receive texts.
|
| Oh, so the claim was deliberately misleading. That's not a good
| way to build trust.
| egwynn wrote:
| > definitely sent/received SMS over wifi using my iPhone
|
| Are you certain? From what I understand about how SMS works, I
| don't see how that's possible. Apple's own docs also appear to
| suggest that SMS-over-WiFi won't work:
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207006
| frizlab wrote:
| Most operators do cellular over wifi now (because 4G/5G sucks
| indoor). Not all of them though.
| egwynn wrote:
| I'm curious about how this works, can you link me someplace
| where I can read more about it? I tried searching for
| "cellular over wifi" but wasn't about to find anything
| promising.
|
| EDIT: I searched harder and found "VoWiFi". It looks like
| this can support SMS and is supported by iOS. TIL.
| __derek__ wrote:
| Bingo. My carrier offers it as Wifi Calling. It worked
| surprisingly well.
| sneak wrote:
| This is spam for the Android operating system, nothing more.
|
| Google claiming that RCS includes end-to-end encryption here is
| misleading.
|
| Encryption got explicitly axed from the RCS spec because carriers
| don't like it.
|
| The end-to-end crypto they're talking about is a custom Google
| thing and not part of RCS.
|
| Friends don't let friends use unencrypted everyday
| communications.
|
| Reject RCS and reject Google platform marketing.
|
| PS: Note also that iMessage has a crypto backdoor maintained by
| Apple for the FBI; Google should not be encouraging iMessage to
| become more useful/popular, as this reduces privacy and makes
| people less safe.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-09 23:00 UTC)