←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.029s | source
Show context
lordofgibbons ◴[] No.42939855[source]
I really hope this fails.

Apple will use it's dominant position to create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard.

Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.

replies(26): >>42939966 #>>42940020 #>>42940243 #>>42940281 #>>42940379 #>>42940471 #>>42940515 #>>42940596 #>>42941069 #>>42941479 #>>42941630 #>>42941758 #>>42942136 #>>42942213 #>>42942456 #>>42942901 #>>42942937 #>>42943397 #>>42943414 #>>42943895 #>>42944072 #>>42944475 #>>42944937 #>>42944944 #>>42947436 #>>42948271 #
canucker2016 ◴[] No.42940281[source]
Blame the telcos for the relative poor quality of text message multimedia (via MMS).

The telcos specify the size limits of MMS messages. iMessage has much higher limits in most cases, so iPhone has to use reduce the quality of the pics/videos to reach the lower size limits for sending to non-iMessage recipients.

For the telcos, why would they upgrade their size limits for MMS - it's just a cost centre for them. They probably make more by selling more iPhones as well.

replies(5): >>42940385 #>>42940390 #>>42940561 #>>42940605 #>>42943359 #
NoPicklez ◴[] No.42940561[source]
I'm an Apple guy and I have to disagree, it's not the Telco's.

Android implemented RCS and Apple dragged their feet in implementing the standardised platform such that high quality messaging was seamless and agnostic between brands

The iPhone needed to reduce the quality of pics/videos to non-iMessage recipients because Apple didn't support any other form of non-iMessage messaging.

replies(3): >>42940594 #>>42941216 #>>42942066 #
zie ◴[] No.42940594{3}[source]
RCS is not really an open standard though. If you want encrypted RCS with android phones, you can't unless Google lets you. At least that was true last I checked. I'm guessing it hasn't changed.
replies(3): >>42940702 #>>42940764 #>>42940769 #
dimator ◴[] No.42940702{4}[source]
Are you saying if Apple asked Google to sit down and come up with an encrypted RCS working group and get proper interop done, it would be _Google_ that would decline?
replies(2): >>42940942 #>>42942660 #
1. zie ◴[] No.42940942{5}[source]
Why would Google say yes?
replies(1): >>42941572 #
2. chrismarlow9 ◴[] No.42941572[source]
To have easy compatibility with other devices. Why wouldn't they say yes?
replies(1): >>42950994 #
3. zie ◴[] No.42950994[source]
That's not something they care about, as if they did, they would have already opened it.