Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple To Face Lawsuit For iMessage Glitch

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the false-barriers dept.

Communications 238

An anonymous reader writes "We've all heard about iPhone users switching over to Android-powered phones and no longer being able to receive text messages from friends and family still using iPhones. Well, a woman with exactly this issue has filed a lawsuit against Apple, complaining that '[p]eople who replace their Apple devices with non-Apple wireless phones and tablets are "penalized and unable to obtain the full benefits of their wireless-service contracts."' To be specific, '[t]he suit is based on contractual interference and unfair competition laws.' She is seeking class action status and undetermined damages."

cancel ×

238 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anti-competitive (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 3 months ago | (#47023729)

This is the kind of anti-competitive behavior that gets companies in trouble and causes regulatory crackdowns. Phone companies that make it hard to switch carriers. domain registrars that make it hard to switch registrars, and banks which make it hard to switch banks have all gotten in trouble for this.

Re:Anti-competitive (0)

kanweg (771128) | about 3 months ago | (#47023763)

Well, sending iMessages is a free alternative to SMS messages. This helped to drive prices of texting down after many years of excessive pricing for that. She enjoyed both of these benefits. Thanks.

Bert

Re:Anti-competitive (0)

darkain (749283) | about 3 months ago | (#47023773)

Internet Explorer was made free, it helped drive down the cost of web browser software, of which everyone benefited. Microsoft got slammed with an anti-trust suit for it.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 3 months ago | (#47023847)

Uh, its browser competition was already free - how far down could it push their price?

Re: Anti-competitive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023981)

Wrong. Its competition cost money.

Re: Anti-competitive (2, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024033)

No it wasn't. Netscape Communicator was a commercial package that cost. The charged for both the browser and the server.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

rvw (755107) | about 3 months ago | (#47024089)

No it wasn't. Netscape Communicator was a commercial package that cost. The charged for both the browser and the server.

I don't recall ever paying for Netscape.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024097)

What year did you get on the web? Maybe your employer was paying for it and you didn't realize. I'm not sure what to tell you.

Re: Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024169)

ISP paid for it and distributed Netscape.

Re: Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024223)

I don't recall ever paying for Netscape.

Here from a news report of them dropping prices [cnet.com] :

Now that Netscape Communications (NSCP) no longer charges for its flagship browser, it has decided to cut prices on its retail products and compensate retailers for any losses incurred.

That was in 1998.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

theCzechGuy (1888010) | about 3 months ago | (#47023905)

Can you name a single browser whose price went down as a result of IE being free? Not to mention it isn't free, it comes bundled with an expensive OS. Furthermore, by your logic it must have been Netscape that drove the cost of IE down, not the other way around.

Re: Anti-competitive (4, Informative)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 3 months ago | (#47023959)

Netscape Navigator cost $49. Look at this article from 1996: http://www.fastcompany.com/277... [fastcompany.com] . Back when Netscape had as dominant a marketshare as IE later had. Note how the author seemed to just assume that a browser than didn't cost any money couldn't be any good.

Nowadays, Netscape Navigator has been forked a couple times and the surviving branch is called Firefox, and at $0 its price went down significantly.

The original IE did not come bundled with the OS, it was a free add-on. There was a version for Windows and a version for Mac at this point.

Fast forward to 1998: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001... [cnet.com] . January 1998, you will note. Windows 98, which was the first Windows that bundled IE in it, wouldn't be released until May 1998. So it would be difficult to argue that bundling had anything to do with it.

Later, Opera would follow suit, going from a price of $39 to also offering an ad-supported version in 2000: http://archive.today/201205291... [archive.today] . It only went ad-free 5 years later. At this time, people were getting sick of IE6, since it once was a decent browser (seriously!) but it had been stagnant far too long. However Firefox was starting to rise and it was taking all the people Opera could have gotten.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024055)

Most of your comment is right.

The original IE did not come bundled with the OS, it was a free add-on. There was a version for Windows and a version for Mac at this point.

IE 1 wasn't free it was bundled with Microsoft Plus! which was a bunch of pay add-ons.
IE 2 came with OSes for free. At the time people saw it as a much worse starter browser used for people who rarely if ever used the web. Remember the internet was more diverse back then, it was quite easy to want to be on the internet but not on the web or to have web access via. an ISP but mainly use the ISP's other services.

Re:Anti-competitive (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024031)

Microsoft got slammed not for making it free but for claiming it was so integrated into the operating system that it could not be removed.

Re:Anti-competitive (3, Informative)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 3 months ago | (#47024433)

And it WAS tightly integrated, Windows back then was a mess that made cooked spaghetti look tiny.

A Specific Example:

The Help system required Internet Explorer, to render documentation.
Internet Explorer required the TCP/IP stack, to go to non-local pages.
TCP/IP required the Help system, to explain what a DNS server, Default Gateway, etc. was.

Windows, pre-Vista was riddled with circular dependencies like that, where every piece depended on others in a loop.

Microsoft has been redesigning Windows since then in Layers, and no (new) module is allowed to have a dependency in a higher or equal layer.

So NOW, yes, they can flip IE on and off like a switch; but back then, it was an insane design change to make under the given time pressure.

And do you know how many Copies of XP 'n' (the one without IE) were sold?

Less than 2,000. Mostly by mistake, by people who didn't know what they were buying.

Noone actually wanted it, they just wanted to screw the big American corporation.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 3 months ago | (#47024437)

Oops, small mistake (4 am here...) XP 'n' was the one without Windows Media Player, not without Internet Explorer.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024513)

It probably would have satisfied the court if they had internet explorer disabled so that it couldn't browse arbitrary websites, Netscape was installed and Netscape configured as the default browser. All of which was easy for the end user to do. The deep technical issues are true but mostly irrelevant to the monopoly loss.

Re:Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023885)

Are there still developed world telcos that bother to meter texts ?

16€/month, unlimited voice/text + 3Gb fair use

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 months ago | (#47023943)

It's usually an option in the UK, not across the board on all contracts. Mine gives me 100 minutes and 500 text for £22.50 and I have 1GB of data on top of that which costs another £10. I can almost certainly get it cheaper, but it would take effort and mean switching provider. I probably should do it at some point.

Re: Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023971)

Incoming calls/texts are free in UK, provided you're not roaming when charges may kick in

Re:Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023975)

You are paying far more than you need to, how hard is it to pick up the phone and tell that to your phone company? You can probably get the same for half the price, for a one off conversation.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 months ago | (#47024535)

Extremely hard, actually; it gives me an anxiety attack (things my mobile phone is never used for: making phone calls). My phone at work is on DND on the time for a reason.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 3 months ago | (#47024471)

I pay £6/month for roughly that deal (250m, unlimited texts, 500MB.)

Phone up pretending to switch and they'll half your price.

Re: Anti-competitive (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 months ago | (#47024533)

I'll actually just switch if I do get round to doing it. I'm not interesting in playing their games. If they have a better tariff they should have moved me to it in the first place.

Re:Anti-competitive (3, Insightful)

Paul King (2953311) | about 3 months ago | (#47024019)

This helped to drive prices of texting down...

Any evidence to show any causal link? Or just plucked out the air?

Since if you had to use texts you'd still be paying and if you could use iMessage you'd always not be paying. So reducing price would still leave those using iMessage not paying you, and those still needing to use text just paying you less. I can see nothing to suggest iMessage would have had any impact on the price.

Re:Anti-competitive (4, Informative)

Splab (574204) | about 3 months ago | (#47024215)

Arh 'murcian, cause what we do is what everyone else are doing.

Text prices outside the US was definitely not driven anywhere by Apple, they have been plummeting for ages - having multiple carriers did that, not some shiney toy.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 3 months ago | (#47024435)

What the hell are you talking about? Text message prices became cheap (or should I say unlimited at no extra charge) on the mainstream carriers a long time before imessage came out.

Text initially was practically free until it became popular and fashionable for carriers to charge money for it because people were using less of their voice minutes as a result (they did this by enticing the less affluent and younger customers into cheap plans with very few voice minutes that had high per text rates, much in the same as how less affluent customers go for phone subsidies thinking they're getting a good deal.) After voice calls reached a point where you could get a crapload of minutes for basically nothing, it followed that text prices went down again, and iphone hadn't even been out yet. Nowadays its hard to find a carrier that doesn't give you both unlimited.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 3 months ago | (#47024715)

Nowadays its hard to find a carrier that doesn't give you both unlimited.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but Canada would like to debate you on that last one.

Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023799)

You had to figure a lawsuit even a class action suit was bound to happen, with non-iPhone users citing anti-competitive claims.

Apple's been doing various things within their policies, or behind closed doors that is now just coming to surface, and when the mainstream press gets a hold of it, this will not be the only suit filed against them in the coming months, more then likely a year or two, with the idiot main press waiting till every other small press outlet has been reporting it for the last 5-8 years.

Which is actually funny because BBC radio seems to make these practices public far faster then the US press.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

mhol6140 (2353216) | about 3 months ago | (#47023801)

The Messages sent on iMessage give a delivered signal when they reach the target phone. Anyone not noticing a delivered message should try calling her.

Re: Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023921)

The problem is that it makes it look like the imessage was delivered even though it wasn't.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 3 months ago | (#47024605)

The Messages sent on iMessage give a delivered signal when they reach the target phone.

That's the way it's supposed to work, yes. But if for example you send a message from your phone, then go another device and look at the thread, there's a non-zero chance that your original phone will now mark it as delivered, even though the actual recipient hasn't received it.

Re:Anti-competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023937)

This is the kind of anti-competitive behavior that gets companies in trouble and causes regulatory crackdowns. Phone companies that make it hard to switch carriers. domain registrars that make it hard to switch registrars, and banks which make it hard to switch banks have all gotten in trouble for this.
And yet for 30 years they have given microsoft a pass.

Re:Anti-competitive (1, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024027)

Apple doesn't make it hard. She just didn't follow instructions prior to selling her device and she hasn't followed instructions after selling her device to fix it. The hard part is pure fiction.

Just Works (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#47024421)

Apple doesn't make it hard. She just didn't follow instructions prior to selling her device and she hasn't followed instructions after selling her device to fix it. The hard part is pure fiction.

I find it constantly disappointing the repeated lie of "just works". The truth is this is only partially true even within Appleverse, there is no good reason why complicated workarounds are necessary. The fact that fruit lovers like yourself are prepared to defend, an anticompetitive move.

Personally I think this kind of bullshit is driving customers (like the one in the lawsuit) to android. You can only be abusive while your on top, and Apple peaked last year with market share; its devices are behind the competitors...they are the little overpriced phones, and they need to buy a headphone company to remain cool.

Re:Just Works (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024503)

I find it constantly disappointing the repeated lie of "just works".

Apple offers a UC system that is easier to install and configure than other UC systems. That's what "just works" means. It doesn't mean that if you turn a UC system on, don't bother to turn it off that it will magically know you don't want it anymore which is what the Android people suppose it should do. This would be like an article being critical of gmail for not disabling email when you sell your computer.

Personally I think this kind of bullshit is driving customers (like the one in the lawsuit) to android.

There is data on conversions. It has been pretty consistent that the flow is almost entirely in the other direction.

Apple peaked last year with market share

Actually not it hasn't. Among phones $500 and up its marketshare continues to grow and they are gaining in the $400-500 category. They have no share in $400 on down because they don't make devices at the price points where the growth is.

As for "remaining cool".... that seems like the standard "I hate Apple" babble you tend to promote like your speculation about their drops in computer sales from last year.

Re:Just Works (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 3 months ago | (#47024745)

Apple offers a UC system that is easier to install and configure than other UC systems. That's what "just works" means. It doesn't mean that if you turn a UC system on, don't bother to turn it off that it will magically know you don't want it anymore which is what the Android people suppose it should do. This would be like an article being critical of gmail for not disabling email when you sell your computer.

How is that the same? Gmail isn't affecting the working status of your other email accounts. iMessage likes to "take over" your text messages. If Apple wants to fuck with the SMS system offered by another company (your service provider), they need to make DAMN sure they don't break it in the process.

Re:Just Works (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 3 months ago | (#47024613)

The fact that fruit lovers like yourself are prepared to defend, an anticompetitive move.

It's a bug, not a malicious act. It's one of the many bugs found in Messages.

Re:Anti-competitive (2)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 3 months ago | (#47024157)

This is the kind of anti-competitive behavior that gets companies in trouble and causes regulatory crackdowns. Phone companies that make it hard to switch carriers. domain registrars that make it hard to switch registrars, and banks which make it hard to switch banks have all gotten in trouble for this.

Welcome to American Hustle.. Like most sore winners we strut and take too much for granted - particularly our own citizens. Too bad we lost sight of our core values in the process of our financial dominance and success. American values flourish on a level playing field, in an inclusive meritocracy, but now we're back to royal assholes playing king of the hill. Perhaps dominance is more Sisyphus' crushing refrain. Human nature rears its ugly head in any golden age. Lets start with the obvious : Let's stop tolerating unfair, greedy, scum-baggy, slimy business behavior like its an acceptable cost of playing free market capitalism. Its bullshit, we don't tolerate it from people, why do we let big business off the hook? Corporations don't compete, they dominate and destroy innovation, once they reap its rewards. Screw 'em. Just because your pension can't keep up with inflation, that's no excuse to rationalize accepting their dividends. The Golden Rule is more important than the Gold when you have no prospects for success in a neo-facsist cluster fuck of failure and denial. A free market offers options, choices, and healthy competition. . .

Re:Anti-competitive (2)

craigminah (1885846) | about 3 months ago | (#47024239)

At what point does something convenient and free like iMessages become a mandatory expectation across all devices known to man? Why not say Microsoft MUST make it's Office suite run on my PS4 or on my iPad...sue sue sue until they do it because it's their fault. [/sarcasm] Seriously, everyone needs to stop suing for everything.

Re:Anti-competitive (4, Insightful)

An dochasac (591582) | about 3 months ago | (#47024525)

This is the kind of anti-competitive behavior that gets companies in trouble and causes regulatory crackdowns. Phone companies that make it hard to switch carriers. domain registrars that make it hard to switch registrars, and banks which make it hard to switch banks have all gotten in trouble for this.

Not really. "Into trouble" usually means a write-off fine and a sullied name for the length of Joe sixpack's attention span (a few weeks or months depending on whether the news oligopolies relationship with their corporate Goliath sponsors.)

Also, you forgot some, Employers that make it difficult for employees to switch careers and health-care companies who leverage pre-existing conditions to prevent customers from seeking competing alternatives. Political parties who shoehorn 300 million people into two points of view. The fact that Americans have come to accept monopolies in most aspects of their lives means they can't even see them or the problems they cause anymore. Apple isn't seen as a monopoly or even as an anti-competive corporate Goliath. Apple is seen as a "personal choice" or religion.

Re:Anti-competitive (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 3 months ago | (#47024589)

This is the kind of anti-competitive behavior that gets companies in trouble

You think it was intentional? That'd be pretty dumb. Really dumb. Messages is far from perfect, and this is surely just one more problem.

Just this morning I used Messages on the Mac to send a simple text (to an iPhone user). A few minutes later I hear my phone receive a message, but not the computer. I ignored it at first, but then I looked at the phone. It was a reply to my earlier text. I continued the chat using the computer, sending several messages. About ten minutes later her original reply *finally* appeared on the computer. Now out of order, of course.

This was a bit unusual, but it happens often enough to demonstrate that Apple has a lot of work to do on Messages.

I also use Line on both the phone and the computer, and that *never* happens. And Line has about 400M accounts, so it's not like Apple has the excuse of too much volume.

mapple lawsuit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023735)

DAMMIT! I was posting to the register and it landed here!

-sent from my slant iPhone

good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023741)

Not an Apple hater, but I went through all of the correct steps to disconnect iMessage when switching to Android and had the exact same issues. Text messages wouldn't come through from iPhone users, at all, period. This is completely within Apple's control even if they aren't claiming it- the SMS protocol should always be used as a backup when iMessage transmission doesn't successfully complete. Otherwise, it's purely noncompetitive and is a maneuver to keep you on Apple's platform.

Re:good (3, Informative)

ernest.cunningham (972490) | about 3 months ago | (#47023843)

What a ridiculous statement. In some markets, SMS messages cost for each and every one a non insignificant amount. An iPhone user is notified if the iMessage is not delivered. You can also choose in the message settings on your iPhone to automatically send via sms if iMessage delivery failed. Some people wouldn't want that to happen so it is a user choice. Apple shouldn't be held responsible because some people are incompetent to read that their iMessage was not delivered.

Re:good (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 3 months ago | (#47023947)

You can also choose in the message settings on your iPhone to automatically send via sms if iMessage delivery failed.

Yeah, that's what I don't understand. So, she's suing because she can't figure out the iOS settings menu?

Re:good (0, Troll)

Paul King (2953311) | about 3 months ago | (#47023973)

Yeah I've looked all through my Galaxy S4 and can't find this iOS settings menu you speak of. Not that'd it'd help, since it's about the people sending me the texts...

Re:good (3, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024061)

It was on the iPhone you got rid of. Now you have to go to support.apple.com and let Apple know you no longer want your old phone / number associated with your iCloud account. That takes about 30 seconds.

The people sending you texts though have the right to whatever behavior they want.

Re:good (1)

Paul King (2953311) | about 3 months ago | (#47024095)

Isn't that exactly what people have been saying they've done and still get problems, such as this from a few days ago: http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

Or

http://apple.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

Re:good (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024135)

I think Business Insider wrote a shocking BS piece of journalism. For one thing they didn't explain what iMessage is and how it works. For example it is not an alternative to SMS but rather a free low end Universal Communication system. In terms of disassociating it from a phone number both findmyphone and support.apple.com have ways to do that easily.

The fact that the Business Insider article was this poorly researched and thought through shows that they are sucky journalists. A good article would have more than a paraphrase from a support technician but rather on the record comments from Apple. Especially when they are already all over the internet. And on the developer site in excruciating detail.

So in some sense this is what Business Insider is saying, and I'm saying the on the record sources are far better. Business Insider did a terrible job with this article.

Re:good (1)

Paul King (2953311) | about 3 months ago | (#47024155)

Perhaps it is poor journalism, perhaps apple can easily do this. It doesn't really matter much, the point is that there are apparently people out their suffering from this problem and despite talking to apple support can't fix it in 30 seconds as you suggest.

Now personally I don't have the mentality of, something doesn't work exactly how I want it to, therefore I'm going to sue, so on that basis alone I really hope this doesn't fly.

That however doesn't mean there isn't a genuine problem out there, which to many non-technically literate people out there who won't be able to solve this. Many won't know the difference between iMessage and SMS, many won't know about menu options they need to set before getting rid of the phone (assuming they had it to do so, it wasn't stolen, lost, broken etc.). Many will find their friends sending them texts and them not receiving them, they won't immediately (if ever) realise the root cause and may will think it's a problem with their new handset, rather than related to their old.

So should their be a lawsuit on this, No, should Apple be being more proactive about a general fix which people don't have to think about, Yes - indeed the people I know who are into Apple products always tell me how easy it all is, this sounds far from that ideal.

Re:good (2, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024243)

If they are on an iPhone:

SMS is green
iMessage is light Blue

iMessage users they can switch to a video call with facetime or use facetime audio all from within the messaging application. No, no, no... we aren't playing this game that users weren't told many many times what the difference is. My technically illiterate father understands that SMS (green) goes out a reliable voice radio available most anywhere while iMessage goes out a different radio that he only gets on major highways and population centers. Over and over and over again Apple made the difference explicit to these users. They requested Appel do something and are now complaining that Apple is doing what they requested. That's like saying people getting off a plane to Florida are suffering because the airline took them to Florida, and how were they supposed to know to look at their ticket.

And of course they are able to solve this. First off many of them have iPads or Macs so they are likely still getting the messages. So they know where they are going, they can literally see them going there. And if they don't have other devices, they have friends who do and went through this. But even if the iPhone was their only device, and they don't ask anyone all they have to do is think for 10 seconds. "Hmm... my friends are sending me messages and they are still going to my device. But when I look at my friend's screens it shows the messages they meant to send me are going out iMessage. Which means Apple still thinks my device is active. Wow better tell Apple it isn't...." Come on. We expect this level of competency in every other area of life. In 2014 we expect people to understand the concept of computer accounts and the distinction between the web and their local computer.

Many will find their friends sending them texts and them not receiving them, they won't immediately (if ever) realise the root cause and may will think it's a problem with their new handset, rather than related to their old.

Dude you are on /. This isn't a problem with either handset. I can associate n-numbers with a handset or m-handsets with a number. It has nothing to do with handsets. If handset X has number Y and I can associate number Z from another handset with it and not associate Y. Frankly were it not for Apple's security feature to prevent you from hijacking phone numbers I could associate numbers I don't even own with my iMessage account.

should Apple be being more proactive about a general fix which people don't have to think about, Yes

I'm still unclear how the system is broken. If I lose my Apple handset I still want my iMessages to get to my computer or iPad. The default is exactly the behavior I want. I want Apple to work to try and get messages to me as aggressively as possible. That's the setup we are talking about. If I didn't want that I'd choose a different configuration.

Certainly a page on Apple's website explaining this would be useful. But really the only people who know that number X switched from an iPhone to an Android are the carriers. If there is going to a fix the obvious fix is they let Apple know and Apple sends an email to the end user with instructions. But still everyone is going to say how people don't read emails from companies....

Re:good (4, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47024701)

Certainly a page on Apple's website explaining this would be useful.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ts... [apple.com]

http://www.samsung.com/us/supp... [samsung.com]

http://www.htc.com/www/support... [htc.com]

but still everyone is going to say how people don't read emails from companies....

In the last ignorant rant about this posted just a day or so before this story, it was pointed out that their provider DID in fact send them an email that told them what they had to do when they switched phones.

At some point, the user has to actually pay attention to what they are doing and put some personal effort into it.

Re:good (3, Interesting)

imunfair (877689) | about 3 months ago | (#47024485)

I've dealt with this issue for people at work, and it's enough of a pain that for business accounts you just pony up the extra cash for a new iPhone, rather than trying to explain to multiple clients why their text messages are failing.

I'm glad someone is suing Apple for it, because it's a terrible design to hijack SMS messages without explicit user permission - especially if you don't immediately switch back over to using normal SMS after a failed iMessage delivery. It should be automatic, or at very most one manual resend - but they require multiple failures to be manually resent before switching back.

I really don't understand why anyone would defend this behavior since transparently hijacking any type of data without permission is obviously a violation of user trust, and possibly a privacy issue as well.

Re:good (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024557)

Well for one thing you are wrong. They ask permission. To configure this you have to either type in an existing iCloud account name and password and to first set it up you have to do quite a bit more.

As for hijacking they aren't hijacking. The sender owns the data until receipt and the sender is explicitly going out via. iMessage. This is about recipients telling senders that they would rather receive iMessage than SMS when they wouldn't. Apple's servers are computers, they do what you ask them to do. If you tell them you would rather get iMessage than SMS how are they supposed to know you were lying?

As for not switching back to SMS... iMessage isn't just an SMS replacement. SMS doesn't allow me to respond to a text message with a VideoChat or send files. iMessage is a low end UC system messaging is just part of that. The purpose of iMessage messaging is to deliver to devices that don't have voice radios and thus cannot receive SMS: computers, iPods, iPads as well as phones.

It should be automatic, or at very most one manual resend

It is better than that. Apple notifies the sender of the status of their message and allows the sender to determine the appropriate action. The sender can clearly see that the message was successfully sent to the iMessage server but not delivered to any device. They are the ones deciding that this wasn't a high priority message and it is OK to wait. The sender can choose to go SMS if they want, there is a manual resend. The fact you didn't know this is evidence of how shoddy this complaint is.

I really don't understand why anyone would defend this behavior since transparently hijacking any type of data without permission is obviously a violation of user trust

It absolutely is. On the other hand providing an online service and doing what users ask them to do is not a violation of user trust it is providing the service users asked for.

I've dealt with this issue for people at work, and it's enough of a pain that for business accounts you just pony up the extra cash for a new iPhone, rather than trying to explain to multiple clients why their text messages are failing.

No offense but I can't understand why they would have someone who doesn't know jack about iMessage being responsible for fixing messaging issues. If they want to have iPhones they should have Apple people supporting them or phone support should be going out of house. That being said if this is a work computer then provisioning is handled via. the MDM and deregistering with iMessage can happen at the MDM level. Frankly work iPhones should be configured to use the company's internal messaging server not Apple's and just being getting a relay from Apple.

Re:good (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 3 months ago | (#47024631)

Now you have to go to support.apple.com and let Apple know you no longer want your old phone / number associated with your iCloud account. That takes about 30 seconds.

Sure, but in the mean time senders shouldn't be getting "delivered" notices. But they are. That's the problem. I'm an Apple fan, but Messages has issues. Lots of them.

Re:good (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 3 months ago | (#47024083)

Ok, correction.

So, she's suing because she's too clueless to figure out how to deactivate iMessage support on her number?

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS... [apple.com]

http://www.samsung.com/us/supp... [samsung.com]

Both Apple and Samsung have clear solutions to this if anyone cares to ask. How is that worthy of a lawsuit?

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024187)

The fact that people have to do extra steps can be considered an anti-competitive behaviour, unless Apple can very clearly explain why it absolutely _needs_ user interaction (or at least, why a solution that "just works" would be a significant effort). If it can't the court may well conclude that causing issues for competitors is the _purpose_.
For this you need to note in particular that neither the receiver nor the sender did any steps to activate or request this feature and that Apple provides a way to disable the fallback to SMS for those who do not want to risk the costs - which justifies the argument that those who did not enable it expect their messages to be sent as SMS if they are not reliably delivered otherwise.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023999)

Its the OTHER persons iPhone that tries to send via their imess not her phone.

Re:good (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 3 months ago | (#47024477)

Yeah, that's what I don't understand. So, she's suing because she can't figure out the iOS settings menu?

She sold her phone, so she hasn't got an iOS settings menu anymore. It's not obvious what things you have to do before you sell a phone. Maybe there should be an app for it - "Selling my phone" which reminds you of all the things you need to do before you sell it, does them for you if possible, and finally wipes the phone so the buyer can use it with their own account.

Next thing would be to go to some Apple support site. Which should be easy, but may be difficult for some. Especially if you use the old and new phone for communication and not much for internet access. She could go to an Apple Store; they will fix the problem. If she forgot her Apple ID, it may be a problem (on the other hand, any of her friends who tried to contact her should have that information).

Finally, there is the possibility that there is an easy method that works - for 99.9% of the people. And some bug keeps it from working for 0.1%.

Re:good (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47024597)

The way I understand it is that an iMessage can still be delivered to another device. I.e. if the user has an iPad or their computer set up. So when you send a message expecting it to end up on someone's phone they don't get it because they still have their computer setup, but if they never check their computer because they typically only look on their phone, .... how is iMessage supposed to know the message was not delivered?

By all accounts it's a common enough problem that other vendors offer guidance on their website on the specific issue. That sounds like something a little more serious than "silly user error". It sounds more like Apple may have designed something that intentionally makes abandoning the system difficult.

But we'll give them a pass in this case because they give the user an opt-out box. Because we always give companies a pass when they provide opt-out options right?

Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023753)

I'm suing because I have a Nokia and feel left out.

Re:Nokia (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 months ago | (#47023783)

I am sure Microsoft will find a way to fuck up Nokia phones.

Re:Nokia (1)

featurelesscube (1107925) | about 3 months ago | (#47024283)

They already have. It's called Lumia. I miss Nokia. They used to make fantastic phones.

The Apple Experience (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 months ago | (#47023819)

I think this is insanely cool!

The former iPhone user is an idiot. (2, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about 3 months ago | (#47023887)

The people sending you messages are not sending you SMS, they are sending you iMessages. They are sending to your contact phone number, and they have iMessage turned on to save them $$$ when sending texts to other people registered with iMessage.

Because you used to have an iPhone, and had also turned iMessage on, your phone number is in their database, and so when it's deciding what data channel to use, it looks up the phone number it's about to send to, and if it's listed in the iMessage database, it sends an iMessage to the associated AppleID instead of sending an SMS via the cellular network. This way it doesn't cost them SMS $$$ to send the message.

When you pulled the SIM from your iPhone, you stupidly failed to turn off iMessage in your settings, and then sync those settings back to the iCloud. As this knowledge base article indicates, it can therefore take up to 45 days before it starts using SMS again: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS... [apple.com]

Alternately, you can go to http://appleid.apple.com/ [apple.com] and log in with your Apple ID, and manage your account, and disable iMessage that way (typically by removing your mobile phone number, and if you don't have an land line, putting the number in for your (non-mobile) contact number instead.

Note: Once the message has been sent, either via iMessage, or SMS, from the originating phone, it's sent; you don't get a second shit. It's not like those messages are "stored up" in a system that's capable of sending SMS messages, since the decision was made on the senders iPhone, not on the back end server.

Basically, it boils down to the former iPhone user being an idiot about disengaging from the additional iPhone associated services that they opt'ed into.

But never fear, up to 45 days afterward, the switch will happen automatically, as iMessage feeds back into the configuration database that the messages sent to the number have been undeliverable via iMessage. Or, you know, they could log onto http://appleid.apple.com/ [apple.com] now and fix it themselves, which can take up to 24 hours to take effect, because some idiot thought NoSQL was a good idea.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 months ago | (#47023909)

Why don't you reply to this post [slashdot.org] because that person seems to have tried to unsubscribe from iMessage.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 3 months ago | (#47024051)

Why don't you reply to this post [slashdot.org] because that person seems to have tried to unsubscribe from iMessage.

Not really my job to give them a personally clue, above and beyond the above posting, especially since they are posting AC, and I therefore can't contact them to help them directly work around whatever it is they are functionally failing to do. As an AC, there's really no way to have a conversation person to person about it.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024079)

That person is an AC and claims from ACs about stuff with no explanation at all aren't worth responding to.

The fact is iMessage isn't magic. The way it works is rather clear. There are obvious visual signals for the sender about what's happening. There are no magic settings in it. Associating and disassociating devices can at a minimum be done via:
a) The device
b) findmyphone
c) support.apple.com
d) or via. Apple's phone support

This whole controversy is BS.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023965)

I have an iphone. I never turned on any setting related to imessages. I still received imessages from other iphone users and would be pretty annoyed if the communication failed because of switching to a new phone. Not only that, they is no indication that messages aren't being delivered. Poor setup on Apples part and clearly designed to hook people in.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (4, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about 3 months ago | (#47024047)

I have an iphone. I never turned on any setting related to imessages. I still received imessages from other iphone users and would be pretty annoyed if the communication failed because of switching to a new phone.

It's turned on by default if you set up iCloud services, which people generally do to sync their address book, apps, and other content via "the cloud". That in turn is tuned on by default if you have push notifications turned on at all (which requires an Apple ID, and is how iMessage notifications happen, generally quicker than SMS notifications over the cellular providers networks (and the carrier bridge, if the sender and recipient aren't subscribed with the same carrier in the same geographic region).

Not only that, they is no indication that messages aren't being delivered.

There's a visual indicator on the sender's phone of a green vs. a blue "talk bubble" background color to indicate something sent via iMessage vs. SMS. Yeah, this isn't terrifically called out.

The notification will occur after the 45 days have elapsed (actually, it depends on when they run the batch job; it's generally 28 days +/- 14 days). But yeah, the notification is internal to the system.

I'll note for the record that SMS message delivery is also not acknowledged, so SMS messages, like iMessage messages, are pretty much like UDP datagrams, no matter how you slice things.

Poor setup on Apples part and clearly designed to hook people in.

I think it was more a cultural blind spot; in order to anticipate this being a problem, they'd have to consider the idea that someone might want to use a phone other than an iPhone, which is kind of unthinkable if you are an engineer whose livelihood is tied to building iPhone services... "Why in heck would anyone want to use software other than the software I wrote, which is the niftiest software evar?".

They have a settings mechanism on the iPhone that would take care of this, but if you dropped your iPhone in a toilet and killed it, you wouldn't be able to use that if instead of buying a replacement iPhone, ho used something else.

There's the online mechanism via appleid.apple.com, as previously noted, but I think that's a workaround. For number portability to another phone, which generally comes with a carrier contract and a new SIM (or a CDMA ID), they'd get the notification through the phone number portability act due to the carrier contract (this is half the source of the 45 days for the automatic cutover), but slamming the SIM around between phones that are iPhones and non-iPhones, there's really no network notifications that take place back to Apple that the change has occurred.

One possible workaround, and I will bet it's the one that gets put in place, should this suit be considered to have merit, rather than being a user error (it's definitely a user error, and Apple isn't really responsible for third party equipment not having the notification back to the Apple ID to dissociate it) would be to note failure to contact on the iMessage sends more promptly, and, worst case secondary settlement, probably retransmit them via SMS gateway.

This last is unlikely to happen, since it'd need to forge the source address as the original senders phone #, rather than the gateway, which would require additional agreements with all the carriers. I'm going to guess that the carriers won't be very cooperative in this, since they made about $10B last year in SMS charges worldwide, which is why Facebook was willing to pay $19B for "WhatsApp". Why cooperate with someone who is trying to disrupt your business model and reduce your profits, after all?

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024369)

I'll note for the record that SMS message delivery is also not acknowledged, so SMS messages, like iMessage messages, are pretty much like UDP datagrams, no matter how you slice things.

Most carriers implement delivery confirmation for SMS and most non-Apple phones support it (back from the 1990's).

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

marka63 (1237718) | about 3 months ago | (#47024559)

Even if both parties have iPhones there are times when you want to force SMS messages and iMessage doesn't have a simple interface to do that. You have to go into settings and turn off iMessage if you want to force a SMS.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47024621)

I'll note for the record that SMS message delivery is also not acknowledged, so SMS messages, like iMessage messages, are pretty much like UDP datagrams, no matter how you slice things.

One thing that SMS has going for it is the end-point is universal, and message delivery to the carrier IS acknowledged. Once the message is given to the carrier it will eventually get to a device if its turned on within a time-frame. The key here is that the target device is universal. My Galaxy S is in the toilet? Well when I unwrap my iPhone and put the SIM in I'll get my missing SMSes. Don't have time to wait, well if I pop my SIM into my 4G internet dongle I'll get the SMS on my PC.

Actually the problem is the opposite, when instant sending doesn't work or you're on the fringe of coverage you can frequently end up with multiple copies of the same SMS.

When taken to the extreme silly things do happen. I once got a new SIM card and I clearly had a recycled number. Not only was I getting calls to the number I hadn't given out yet but when I first turned activated the SIM and the "new" number I ended up getting a batch of about 10 SMSes which were previously unreceived.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

blagooly (897225) | about 3 months ago | (#47024699)

A "cultural blind spot"? Innocent mistake? No.

Does not play, interact with others. Proprietary, exclusionary design is the baseline, the goal. Designed in malfunction. Proof from long ago is in iTunes. A horrendous mess of extreme levels of overweight complexity to overcome basic USB storage functionality, corral and control user's behavior. Making it simply work would have required no effort at all. The current events are at least a direct consequence of this Apple closed culture mindset.

History being a predictor, I conclude it is intentional. Proving it will be another matter.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024093)

Their are indications of sent, delivered and read for the sender. They are color coded as to whether it went out iMessage or SMS. So yes there are indications.

As for not turning on setting related to iMessage you remember: http://www.apple.com/icloud/se... [apple.com]
Pretty much the very first thing you did.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024259)

Not only that, they is no indication that messages aren't being delivered.

BULLSHIT.

Maybe you haven't seen it, because your messages are being delivered, but iMessage very clearly states (in red) to the sender when a message is not delivered.

The former iPhone user is an idiot. (4, Informative)

Jason Whitehurst (3642727) | about 3 months ago | (#47024015)

As an IT Architect, who daily works with and for those with varying degrees of technical skills, I would disagree that the user is "an idiot". The steps you mention will certainly address the issue no doubt. What is in question is if the layperson should be aware of these steps and be capable of undertaking them "if" they forget to disable iMessage. What a class action lawsuit will do is force Apple to put in checks that look at the IMEI of the phone each time an iMessage is sent and the ack isn't received by the server from the phone in x amount of time. There is a different error message for an IMEI either offline or registered to a new user than one where the phone is simply unavailable. I can think of 5 different ways Apple can identify the device changed to a non Apple device. They haven't fixed this issue on purpose. Creating an issue like this undoubtedly ensures a percentage of users return their Android phones and get another Apple device to fix the texting issue thereby ensuring Apple revenue. You can bet Apple will weigh the cost of the suit versus the customer retention revenue and either pay out and leave it the way it is or fix the problem. There's no doubt it is a problem because it's not automated and the courts will rule in favor of the user because the process is not automated.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 3 months ago | (#47024117)

As an IT Architect, who daily works with and for those with varying degrees of technical skills, I would disagree that the user is "an idiot". The steps you mention will certainly address the issue no doubt. What is in question is if the layperson should be aware of these steps and be capable of undertaking them "if" they forget to disable iMessage. What a class action lawsuit will do is force Apple to put in checks that look at the IMEI of the phone each time an iMessage is sent and the ack isn't received by the server from the phone in x amount of time. There is a different error message for an IMEI either offline or registered to a new user than one where the phone is simply unavailable. I can think of 5 different ways Apple can identify the device changed to a non Apple device. They haven't fixed this issue on purpose.

Messages sent via iMessage are not sent that way on the carrier back end, they are sent on the phone, via the data connection, and the IMEI or ESN/MEID is not generally sent, as it would have to be pulled out and sent in-band as part of the message in a framed header for the message on the iPhone. This would require both a software update on the iPhone, and a software update on the back end iMessage service.

Given that the iMessage service predates the current generation of iPhones, and therefore the older iPhones will not be receiving a software update, as they are incapable of running the newest version of iOS, this is not a possibility for those phones, and not a possibility to automatically deal with the issue (not to mention that the Apple ID registration on the back end would have to record both the IMEI or ESN/MEID, and for GSM, the IMSI and ICCID.

If you just switched your number over to another carrier, you are pretty much screwed without the carrier information as well, especially if the rest of the information stays the same, since the sending phone has no way in heck of knowing that that the target #'s SIM has been inserted into another phone with a different IMEI, and it's not like the Android phone is going to contact the Apple back end, and tell them about it.

There just aren't the notifications necessary from the non-iMessage enabled phone: it's a manual process at that point.

As I stated in the response to the other poster above, the carriers have basically zero incentive to cooperate by providing additional notifications in a post-switch scenario, since iMessage, like WhatsApp, undercuts their primary revenue model.

I suspect that we will be seeing the same thing with WhatsApp users who similarly undercut the carrier business model, in a way that's almost identical to the way iMessage does, but is not limited to iPhones.

Re:The former iPhone user is an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024677)

lolololol "IT Architect".

Android users not receiving your text messages? (0, Flamebait)

Swampash (1131503) | about 3 months ago | (#47023939)

Solution: stop interacting with poor people

Re:Android users not receiving your text messages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47023989)

I know a fair bit about computer security. That has resulted in two things:

1. I earn a lot of money for helping organizations with their security needs
2. I use Android rather than iOS

Your arrogance is misplaced.

Re:Android users not receiving your text messages? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 3 months ago | (#47024003)

Poor people? or people that gain some sense not wanting to be locked in to apple nickle and dime bullshit?

She'll lose (1, Troll)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024023)

Let's see the evidence that Apple has

1) She at the time she bought her iPhone specifically setup an iCloud account and asked Apple to tie the messaging on a specific phone number to Apple's servers / her iCloud account.
2) She never notified Apple that she wanted them to stop doing that for her phone number.
3) She never went to the support site and disassociated the device she is no longer using from her account.

So in other words she told a computer to do something until she told it to stop, and never told it to stop. In what possible world will a court rule that "unfair competition?" This is a total BS lawsuit. Quite literally she could log onto support.apple.com and fix the problem in under 30 seconds.

Re:She'll lose (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 months ago | (#47024119)

But from the users POV the apple device and all its infrastructure is gone. They got a new phone. Why should they have to switch off stuff on the old phone?

Re:She'll lose (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024179)

Their iCloud account isn't gone. It is still active and fully functional. That's like saying gmail is gone from the user's POV when they sell their computer. Apple's infrastructure for managing devices (i.e. websites like support.apple.com) aren't gone. The only role the phone plays in all this is they told Apple to associate a physical device with a phone number with their iCloud account and never bothered to tell them to not do that. Why shouldn't they have to switch stuff off? How are Apple's servers supposed to know they got rid of their phone if they don't tell them? Magic? If the carriers notified handset manufacturers when there was a provisioning change on their devices then OK Apple could be held responsible but until then I'm not sure what people expect here.

It is a computer. It does what you tell it to do. The settings are clear. Apple's messaging on this has been unequivocal that the services exists to establish connections between multiple devices for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] The people complaining have consistently said stuff that indicates they don't actually understand even the most basic concepts about Apple's low-end free Universal Communication system.

Finally there are all sorts of indications for the sender about what's going on. The senders are in fact notified. So the idea this is quietly failing for them is not just poorly researched but fiction.

Re:She'll lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024359)

A company sends mail to a customer's PO box.
The customer pays for her maid to pick up her mail from her PO box.
The customer changes her maid, but the new maid doesn't pick up mail from PO boxes.
The customer no longer gets mail sent to that PO box.

Should the customer sue the local postal service because she no longer gets her mail?

Re:She'll lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024211)

You forgot that Apple also knows:
4) She (probably) never explicitly agreed to use iMessage
5) Neither she nor the others disabled SMS fallback, so they definitely want SMS to be used if necessary
6) The phone that was use to enable iMessages (and whose number was linked to iMessage) has not fetched them in days/weeks/months and thus obviously is not receiving any of them

Particularly 6) is fairly damning. And a usability issue even for iPhone users that are just for some time in a place with no internet connection but normal phone service (yes, that can happen).

Re:She'll lose (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47024257)

She (probably) never explicitly agreed to use iMessage

Of course she did. This isn't a magic configuration. When she started her phone it asked her if she wanted iCloud with integrated messaging and she proceeded to fill out forms to get it.

Neither she nor the others disabled SMS fallback, so they definitely want SMS to be used if necessary

SMS fallback is for the sender having a failure not for recipients. The sender's iPhone can't tell whether the recipient's data radio has good connection or not.

The phone that was use to enable iMessages (and whose number was linked to iMessage) has not fetched them in days/weeks/months and thus obviously is not receiving any of them

That is Apple's behavior. After 45 days it severs the link.

Particularly 6) is fairly damning. And a usability issue even for iPhone users that are just for some time in a place with no internet connection but normal phone service (yes, that can happen).

I know it can happen. It happens to me. The sender sees that their messages aren't getting delivered and goes out SMS or voice if it is important or let's it wait if it isn't.

Never... (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 3 months ago | (#47024025)

Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.

A lot of people are posting that Apple had some sort of malicious intent (lock people in) when really it's more likely they just didn't think it through properly. The whole thing can easily be solved just by making a simple, easy to find webpage to turn iMessage off. Even customers who aren't switching may find it useful (abroad with your iPhone with data turned off because it's ridiculously expensive, but left the iPad at home and forgot to turn it off so your iPad is happily getting your messages but your phone not, would be an example where it would be useful).

Re:Never... (1)

oic0 (1864384) | about 3 months ago | (#47024475)

Unless money is involved.

This is a real problem and not an Android problem. (2)

zoid.com (311775) | about 3 months ago | (#47024087)

This is a very real problem. My wife had her iphone 4s stolen and activated my daughter's old iphone 4s on her verizon line. About a week later she tells me that many of her friends are saying that she isn't responding to txt messages and she says she isn't getting them. This goes on for weeks. It turns out that she didn't turn on icloud on the new (old) iphone so all of the imessages were going to never never land. It's not obvious at all what is happening.

Re:This is a real problem and not an Android probl (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about 3 months ago | (#47024221)

It turns out that she didn't turn on icloud on the new (old) iphone so all of the imessages were going to never never land. It's not obvious at all what is happening.

The first thing I would do after activating an iPhone on a plan to replace another one is sign into my iCloud account to sync all my contacts back. Not to mention remove the old iPhone from my iCloud account so my iCloud email, Safari bookmarks (and possibly saved passwords) are no longer in the thief's hands.

Never underestimate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024115)

Never underestimate the predatory nature of lawyers and the stupidity of juries and judges.

PEBKAC (2, Insightful)

SJ (13711) | about 3 months ago | (#47024149)

In other news, a friend of mine recently switched to Google Chat. Why hasn't he responded to all my Skype messages? Is he not getting them?

It's better to apologize then to ask permission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024193)

I suspect negligence over malice.

What about their Mail.app vs exchange groups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47024231)

Can I sue over that or its inconsistency in showing html mail or that gmail accounts need dropped and re-added often to get new mail?

Simple fix (1)

Orphis (1356561) | about 3 months ago | (#47024237)

Isn't iMessage always associated with an email address too?
Wouldn't it be easy to send an email to people when they haven't received a message after a day?
There could be a link in the email telling people how to remove their phone number from the service and receive subsequent messages directly as SMS if they switched phone.

FFS (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | about 3 months ago | (#47024265)

For fucks sake, it's not like Apple have a hard thing to do here... if ( recipientLastUsed() > days(1) ) { removeFromiMessage(); } icloud/imessage "logs in" right, not hard..

Re:FFS (2)

clifyt (11768) | about 3 months ago | (#47024733)

Right now, it is this but 45 days.

When I travel, I generally take a burner phone with me so I don't get overseas charges and otherwise. I still take my iPhone, but leave it on Wifi only. And a lot of times, Wifi is still hard to come by. I can get to internet cafes where I can log in to someone else's computer, but I can't get to my own computers. And when I do get wifi? I get all my messages, sometimes a week later.

The point? For a lot of us 1 day is way too short. Maybe 45 days is too long. What is the appropriate time?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>