Apple Releases iMessage Deregistration Utility
samzenpus posted 3 days ago | from the try-it-now dept.
134
tlhIngan writes When moving from an iPhone to something else, if you were an avid user of iMessage, you may find your messages missing, especially from iOS-using friends. Indeed, it has been such a problem that there are even lawsuits about it. While Apple has maintained that users can always switch off iMessage, that only works if you still have your iOS device. Unless one also has other iOS devices or a Mac, they may not even realize their friends have been sending messages that are queued up on Apple's services via iMessage. Well, that problem has been resolved with Apple creating a deregistration utility to remove your phone number from the iMessage servers so friends will no longer send you texts via iMessage that you can no longer receive. It's a two-step process involving proof of number ownership (via regular SMS) before deregistration takes place.
it's only at half-mast (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353495)
Roses are red,
grass is greener.
When I read Slashdot,
I play with my weiner.
Re:it's only at half-mast (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353709)
You should try youporn or redtube instead.
Call me (0)
Overzeetop (214511) | 3 days ago | (#48353521)
Call me when they allow cross-system forwarding like another phone number or Hangouts.
Re:Call me (3, Funny)
tooslickvan (1061814) | 3 days ago | (#48353671)
Re:Call me (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356787)
iMessage doesn't have to use PSTN. It works fine for people who don't have a number at all so it can't forward to a number.
Huh (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353539)
Took them long enough. What was that about 30 minutes of dev time?
Re:Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353841)
Thats alot if you do it while having a gay sex orgy.
But I'm a tolerant person and therefore i think its still better than actually developing shit nobody needs like /. devs with beta. They should try youporn or redtube to get some inspirations for orgies of their own.
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354057)
Wait. Who the fuck needs iMessage? All it does is make your texts use the internet instead of SMS and fail. So what's the hype? Colorful emoticons?
Texting is unlimited. Data is not.
Re: Huh (1)
Colin Castro (2881349) | 3 days ago | (#48354185)
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354211)
You can also iMessage to different countries and whatnot without extra fees.
Re: Huh (1)
danbob999 (2490674) | 3 days ago | (#48355973)
Re: Huh (2)
ArcadeMan (2766669) | 3 days ago | (#48354195)
Not everyone has an "unlimited texts" contract. And when you compare the few dozen bytes required for a simple text message vs your data quota, it might as well be unlimited even with a monthly cap as low as 100MB.
Also, iMessage also works on devices that are not a phone. This allows you to send a message from a Mac to another person who is on the road with his iPhone. Who the fuck needs SMS in 2014?
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354231)
All of use that don't use Apple stuff.
Re: Huh (1)
ArcadeMan (2766669) | 3 days ago | (#48354285)
There's better options than SMS on other devices.
What we need is for Apple, Google, Microsoft and others to just sit down and agree to a single messaging service. We have a single standard for email, for the Web, for images (JPEG, PNG, GIF), why is messaging still messed-up after all those years?
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354419)
I've submitted a story about this topic recently but nobody liked it as it seems:
http://slashdot.org/submission/3968785/eu-telcos-to-juncker-tear-down-that-wall-around-us-tech-companies-gardens
I still think the title is cool.
Re: Huh (1)
tlhIngan (30335) | 3 days ago | (#48354757)
Well, why was there ICQ, AIM, MSN Messenger, YIM, etc? Why did they all make incompatible messaging protocols?
Because no one bothered to try to standardize something. Sure someone made XMPP, but damn if Google didn't drop support for it as well and make their own.
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354875)
That was because microsoft did the microsoft thing: abuse everyone else's generous offer. Larry page gives a good explanation on this in a video linked by a story
I've submitted [slashdot.org] .
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355613)
Google drops a standard and it's microsoft's fault. Check.
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48357485)
Re: Huh (1)
Noah Haders (3621429) | 3 days ago | (#48356785)
the issue is that apple has interest in making it encrypted to meet customer expectations. imessages are so encrypted apple can't read them at all in transit. goog would hate this, and needs them to be sent in plaintext so they can advertise against them. this is why there will never be a cross compatible standard.
next best thing tho. unlike whats app or similar, imessage is optional and transparent to the user. if i send a text to an iphone user, it goes through imessage, and if i send it to a droid person, it goes sms.
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354477)
IRC, jabber [wikipedia.org] and xabber. [xabber.org] Good IM clients with integrated support for a bunch of protocols and servers exist for every device I've ever heard of (with the possible exception of iPhones due to Apple's 'we hate you' policy towards users)
Re: Huh (1)
macs4all (973270) | 3 days ago | (#48354835)
IRC, jabber [wikipedia.org] and xabber. [xabber.org] Good IM clients with integrated support for a bunch of protocols and servers exist for every device I've ever heard of (with the possible exception of iPhones due to Apple's 'we hate you' policy towards users)
Nice Try, Hater.
Not only is Cisco Jabber [apple.com] available for iOS, and according to Xabber's Blog [xabber.com] , Xabber is currently in development for iOS; but In about 2 seconds of Googling, I found FOUR iOS IRC Clients:
Palaver [apple.com]
Colloquy [apple.com]
LimeChat [apple.com]
Turbo IRC [apple.com]
There may (probably are) more; but those are sufficient to put your little rant to rest...
Metered text and unmetered data (1)
tepples (727027) | 3 days ago | (#48354219)
Texting is unlimited. Data is not.
Even if this is true of the plan to which you subscribe, it may not be true of plans to which other people subscribe. Consider someone with a PC at home and a $7/mo pay as you go flip phone. In this case, data is unmetered (or damn close to it at 300 GB/mo) and texts are 20 cents each: 10 to send and 10 to receive.
Re: Huh (1)
Applehu Akbar (2968043) | 3 days ago | (#48354675)
Nobody calls iMessage explicitly. Apple users send texts using the regular texting app. It an Apple device is detected at both ends, the app automatically send the text over the Internet using iMessage; if it detects an infidel device at the other end, it falls back to SMS. The sender knows which choice was made by seeing the sent message in a blue or green bubble, respectively. The advantage to the user is that iMessage has no 140-character length limit, included pictures, etc. are faster, and the messages do not count against any SMS plan count limit.
Re: Huh (1)
Hamsterdan (815291) | 3 days ago | (#48354717)
Texting is unlimited if you have it included in your phone plan. Many providers will otherwise double-dip on each SMS (charge both the sender and receiver)
Re: Huh (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355533)
"Texting is unlimited.Texting is unlimited."
Not for everyone, and I'm more than happy to give up unlimited texts for a decent health system.
Re: Huh (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356791)
iMessage integrates with you Mac so you can use it as a computer messaging client that also works well from your phone.
Overdue (1)
blueshift_1 (3692407) | 3 days ago | (#48353609)
Re:Overdue (0)
arbiter1 (1204146) | 3 days ago | (#48353971)
Re:Overdue (4, Funny)
ArcadeMan (2766669) | 3 days ago | (#48354229)
In Apple's defense, it took them 54 days to decide the radius for the corners of the patch.
Re:Overdue (2)
BasilBrush (643681) | 3 days ago | (#48354929)
February 14, 2012 to April 3, 2012 - is 18 days.
And it's interesting that you had to go back 2.5 years for your mistaken example.
Re: Overdue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355637)
Math bro
Re:Overdue (1)
jo_ham (604554) | 3 days ago | (#48355987)
Today I learned that a month is 9 days.
You learn something new every day!
Re:Overdue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354453)
While I'm still on iOS myself, this was a long overdue issue.
Because all the rabid fanboys (which is not all Apple users, just the vocal religious advocates) told us this wasn't a problem and that iMessages would just bounce and that the sender would see that they weren't "delivered" and it would instead be sent as SMS. But in fact they were delivered to the server, which is what the "delivered" label means in that context, so assuming the sender could connect to the iMessage server everything was "delivered" but that doesn't mean it reached the recipient.
Never the less, the fanboys harped on in their own ignorance and that grew this misconception that the problem wasn't a problem at all. Don't blame Apple, blame the user...the usual mantra. There were a number of stories about this a long time ago and you can see the resident slashdot Apple fanboys doing exactly this in spite of the fact that it was unbelievably easy for them to try it out and understand that this really was an issue.
Re:Overdue (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356805)
That's correct. Delivered and Read are different statuses. Which is ironic given you are complaining about the rapid fanboys yet still even today haven't bothered to read the instructions they were telling you to read.
Re:Overdue (1)
macs4all (973270) | 3 days ago | (#48354901)
While I'm still on iOS myself, this was a long overdue issue. It's incredibly frustrating to have to switch on/off imessage to send messages to people who have moved over to android. iMessage was/is a great idea, but it took a bit too long for this bug fix to be resolved.
I send SMS messages to Android users all the time from iMessage. What are you talking about? Are you talking about only from OS X, or iOS, too?
Re:Overdue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355063)
I send SMS messages to Android users all the time from iMessage. What are you talking about? Are you talking about only from OS X, or iOS, too?
You're dense. He's talking about sending messages from his iPhone to people who have switched from iOS to Android. Well, that's exactly what he said in his post:
It's incredibly frustrating to have to switch on/off imessage to send messages to people who have moved over to android.
When those people move on to Android, Apple doesn't automatically deregister their numbers as valid iMessage addresses. So when you try to text them, your iPhone uses iMessage instead of SMS because Apple's servers think your friend's number is still valid. Your friend never gets the message, and you never get an "undeliverable" error because Apple's servers dutifully hang onto the message, waiting for the next time your friend's phone connects to the server. Except that never happens because your friend's old iPhone is lost/sold/stolen/in a drawer while your friend is using Android!
I know you can't comprehend people switching away from your beloved Apple, macs4all, but in the real world it does happen.
Re:Overdue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48356355)
I know you can't comprehend people switching away from your beloved Apple, macs4all, but in the real world it does happen.
Ah! That was the key: iOS -> Android Switchers. Skimming article at work == low reading comprehension sometimes...
Re:Overdue (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356799)
It isn't really a bug. It is a correction for users not thinking, not reading and not paying attention. The system was doing what they told it to do.
Try explaining that... (5, Insightful)
sarguin (702714) | 3 days ago | (#48353667)
Re:Try explaining that... (-1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353859)
Who the fuck still uses SMS (or MMS)? With what the carries charge for them, everyone has moved to iMessage, Hangouts, Whatsapp, etc. I don't think I've sent or received an SMS in a few years.
Aren't SMS message even more expensive in the States?
Re:Try explaining that... (2)
kannibal_klown (531544) | 3 days ago | (#48353923)
SMS used to be quite limited in the USA, but most providers started making "Unlimited" SMS either the standard or a very cheap price.
I still still send / receive SMS. It's the one universal method to reach someone (other than calling). Meanwhile some of my friends use iMessage, some Hangouts, some WhatsApp, some email, etc. Instead of dealing with a bunch of different apps I just use iMessage app for SMS and iMessage.
But when it comes to sending pics or whatever, I just use Email.
SMS to land line (1)
tepples (727027) | 3 days ago | (#48354147)
I still still send / receive SMS. It's the one universal method to reach someone (other than calling).
Universal among cell phone users that is. How many land line providers render SMS using text to speech?
Instead of dealing with a bunch of different apps I just use iMessage app for SMS and iMessage.
So what do you use to talk to people who use not-Mac PCs or Android tablets?
Re:SMS to land line (1)
Colin Castro (2881349) | 3 days ago | (#48354255)
Re:SMS to land line (1)
tepples (727027) | 3 days ago | (#48354923)
Do people who use non-mac PCs and Android tablets not have cell phones too?
Some do. But people who use a land line as a primary phone and a cell phone only for urgent calls (roadside assistance, finding someone in a large mall, letting an apartment dweller know to unlock the door and let him in, etc.) tend to choose a cheap pay-as-you-go plan because it's cheaper than an unlimited plan. Pay-as-you-go subscribers in the United States have to pay for each text message sent or received. And with QWERTY phones becoming hard to find, T9 isn't exactly the most convenient input method for replying to your texts.
Re:SMS to land line (1)
angel'o'sphere (80593) | 3 days ago | (#48355071)
Ehy don't you read what you quote? He stated clearly: SMS.
Re:SMS to land line (1)
tepples (727027) | 3 days ago | (#48355243)
Re:SMS to land line (1)
angel'o'sphere (80593) | 3 days ago | (#48355653)
What has this 'I spell it out' to do with the topic?
And yes you can SMS to a land line phone or to a PC. In what yahoo part of the world do you live that you can't?
Re:Try explaining that... (4, Interesting)
danlip (737336) | 3 days ago | (#48355129)
SMS used to be quite limited in the USA, but most providers started making "Unlimited" SMS either the standard or a very cheap price.
Which they did after iMessage and other alternative messaging services came out, of course. I'm grateful to Apple for forcing their hand.
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
danbob999 (2490674) | 3 days ago | (#48355949)
It's the one universal method to reach someone (other than calling).
What happened to email? Way more universal as you don't need to write it on your phone. And you don't even need a cell phone.
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
Tridus (79566) | 3 days ago | (#48353997)
There was 145 billion of them sent last year, so the answer is probably "lots of people".
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
Sowelu (713889) | 3 days ago | (#48354121)
Many places in semi-rural USA don't have reliable 3G, so SMS is a good fallback.
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
danbob999 (2490674) | 3 days ago | (#48355961)
Re:Try explaining that... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353867)
Or you could just do it for her, and skip the explanation.
Re:Try explaining that... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353925)
Nuker her from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Re:Try explaining that... (4, Insightful)
cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | 3 days ago | (#48354571)
I think Occam's razor applies here. You can either read it as "EVIL APPLE, take over SMS to screw people OVER!!!!!" or you can read it as "Apple tried to make imessage a seamless extension on SMS, and got them a little too intermixed". I kind of see it more as the latter. Witness this with the issue with SMS/google account intermixing in Google Hangouts.
Re:Try explaining that... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355803)
And then refuse to make it seamlessly work when you move away.
And no, people moving off of Android devices still get their text messages when you send to them.
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | 3 days ago | (#48356537)
Not sure how "announcement of website to allow people to walk away" leads into refusal. Oh, it must be seamless? Are you an engineer? Do you realize the complexity of decoupling two things? If you mix salt and sugar into a bowl, are you then evil when you say you can't divide them?
Please explain how iPhone corporate is supposed to know when you drop a SIM into another phone? Or are you supposed to call Apple if you move SIMs now? Which will lead to people complaining about how Apple is being a speedbump into moving SIMs from one phone to another.
This is more complex than people think. Apple doesn't do itself favors sometimes when it hides complexity. This is one such time. People think there's some Illuminati thing going on, when complexity is just hard.
Re:Try explaining that... (1)
LordLimecat (1103839) | 3 days ago | (#48357149)
Or you could say, "Apple has a grossly oversized ego and thinks the world centers around them."
It's all about the Phone Number ID (1)
Macrat (638047) | 3 days ago | (#48353787)
The real issue is that you can't opt out of automatically having your phone number become and account/id in iMessage.
I want to use iMessage on my iPhone, but only with regular iCloud accounts, not with the phone number being used to create an account.
Unfortunately, the iOS team doesn't give the user that option.
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (1, Informative)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353927)
You can, just go into the imessage settings. In fact you are specifically asked if you want to add your phone number to imessage when you set up your phone.
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (1)
Macrat (638047) | 3 days ago | (#48355149)
You can, just go into the imessage settings. In fact you are specifically asked if you want to add your phone number to imessage when you set up your phone.
Incorrect.
Your phone number is used to create an ID immediately when you turn on iMessage. You have no choice in the matter.
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (2, Informative)
Rosyna (80334) | 3 days ago | (#48354055)
The real issue is that you can't opt out of automatically having your phone number become and account/id in iMessage.
I want to use iMessage on my iPhone, but only with regular iCloud accounts, not with the phone number being used to create an account.
Unfortunately, the iOS team doesn't give the user that option.
The option is given when you set up a device for iMessage. It explicitly asks how you want to be contacted. By number, by email(s)/AppleIDs, or all of the above
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354891)
Plus you can always change it under "Send & Receive" in Message's settings is the Preferences app.
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (1)
Macrat (638047) | 3 days ago | (#48355131)
Plus you can always change it under "Send & Receive" in Message's settings is the Preferences app.
Incorrect.
You can change OTHER ids but the phone number id is greyed out and you can't deselect it.
Re:It's all about the Phone Number ID (1)
Macrat (638047) | 3 days ago | (#48355159)
The option is given when you set up a device for iMessage. It explicitly asks how you want to be contacted. By number, by email(s)/AppleIDs, or all of the above
It does not. It only asks if you want to use OTHER ids that you have set up. Your phone number becoming an id isn't optional.
iMessage isn't bad... (3, Interesting)
MMC Monster (602931) | 3 days ago | (#48353805)
I actually like the idea behind iMessage: If you have internet access, sending a message via internet is potentially much cheaper than via SMS (unless you have an unlimited SMS plan). Even Apple's implementation of iMessage isn't too bad.
The problem is that it's lock-in to Apple devices, of course. If Apple could get their head out of the sand and create a unified protocol with Google and whoever is left in the smartphone OS field (BlackBerry?, Mozilla?), it would be fantastic. Especially if the protocol was expanded a bit. Imagine being able to share files like via dropbox, but seemlessly through an SMS app?
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48353985)
The problem is that it's lock-in to Apple devices, of course. If Apple could get their head out of the sand and create a unified protocol with Google and whoever is left in the smartphone OS field (BlackBerry?, Mozilla?), it would be fantastic
Blackberry did that a long time ago with BBM, and BBM is available for iphone & android.
Of course, no one cares... OOOOH! Shiny!
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354051)
and you just invented WhatsApp!
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
ArcadeMan (2766669) | 3 days ago | (#48354267)
And it's not the default configuration for all devices!
If we could force users to use a single program instead of the default ones, Internet Explorer would have died a decade ago.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354277)
Except WhatsApp sucks rocks
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | 3 days ago | (#48354119)
If Apple could get their head out of the sand and create a unified protocol with Google and whoever is left in the smartphone OS field (BlackBerry?, Mozilla?), it would be fantastic.
I don't know about Blackberry or Mozilla, but Google supports XMPP messaging with at least several different messaging apps (and Linux/OSX/Windows programs). But even Google has some features that only work with its messaging app.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (2)
the_B0fh (208483) | 3 days ago | (#48354257)
Uh, do you not read slashdot?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Dragonslicer (991472) | 3 days ago | (#48356033)
I know that Chat/Hangouts isn't really XMPP anymore, but it does still support XMPP connections at least for regular messages.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354389)
GoogleTalk is deprecated and its XMPP federation is broken. Hangouts does not support XMPP, the protocol is proprietary. This is the reason I use neither, I stopped using GT when federation stopped working and I refuse to use Hangouts unless I can use my own client. I never stopped using IRC and it is the only IM service I use today.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
kenshin33 (1694322) | 3 days ago | (#48357253)
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Archangel Michael (180766) | 3 days ago | (#48354297)
Apple Lock-In ... but I repeat myself.
My Choice is to go to the device agnostic Google, using Google Voice and Hangouts to do everything (and more) than any iDevice/iMessage can do. SMS from any computer with a browser. Apps for both iOS and Android, PC and Mac.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (2)
exomondo (1725132) | 3 days ago | (#48354569)
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
BasilBrush (643681) | 3 days ago | (#48354999)
Google Voice is US only, and Google Hangouts is every bit as proprietary as iMessage.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Archangel Michael (180766) | 3 days ago | (#48355193)
Can I use iMessage if I don't have anything Apple? That is proprietary.
Hangouts is available via web service, not proprietary. Closed network, possibly (except SMS works too, regardless of having GV or not)
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355037)
I'd much rather use the system provided by the company trying to keep me buying their phones than the system provided by the company trying to keep mining all of my data to sell and advertise at me.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
Archangel Michael (180766) | 3 days ago | (#48355179)
You think you're not being mined? LOL funny.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (1)
thegarbz (1787294) | 3 days ago | (#48354359)
If you have internet access, sending a message via internet is potentially much cheaper than via SMS (unless you have an unlimited SMS plan).
I'm not sure what plans are like in the USA, but here in Australia and from what I've seen from family in Europe people watch their data caps and couldn't care less about their SMS plans. The included value on SMSes even for the lowest tier plans is in the order of several hundred messages a day and you need to be a teenage girl in her first love to start worrying about hitting SMS allowances.
Re:iMessage isn't bad... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48356079)
I haven't looked at other providers, but AT&T only gives two choices now: 20 cents per message or $20 per month for unlimited messages.
Great! Now how about... (0)
OldSport (2677879) | 3 days ago | (#48354287)
A utility for getting all my photos out of iPhoto, and all my data out of Time Machine?
Re:Great! Now how about... (2)
ArcadeMan (2766669) | 3 days ago | (#48354435)
AFAIK Time Machine uses local storage. Then again I don't use iCloud, so maybe that's an option that I don't know about.
Re:Great! Now how about... (2)
Imagix (695350) | 3 days ago | (#48354531)
Re:Great! Now how about... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355573)
Or just open the iPhoto app as a folder, browse into the folders and copy the files out yourself.
Re:Great! Now how about... (1)
jo_ham (604554) | 3 days ago | (#48356009)
A utility for getting all my photos out of iPhoto, and all my data out of Time Machine?
You mean something that reads the HFS+ filesystem?
Time Machine backups are copies of your files. If you have software that can read your original files then that very same software can also open the copy of the file that Time Machine made. You do not need Time Machine's interface to read these files.
If you use Time Machine on a network drive then there's an additional step of mounting the disk image it creates, which is left as an exercise to the reader.
No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
davebarbarian24 (3906619) | 3 days ago | (#48354493)
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
Todd Knarr (15451) | 3 days ago | (#48355073)
This was what I was thinking too. Apple doesn't appear to have considered the recycling of phone numbers at all, either when they first did the redirection or when they created the deregistration process. What their system should do is monitor the iPhone and, if it hasn't connected to the network in the last 30 days using the phone number in question, automatically deregister the device from iMessage and revert to vanilla SMS for it. Or they should at least allow controlling this all through the Apple account so the account-holder can deregister numbers when they don't have the device (eg. when it's been lost or stolen).
Lesson for developers: Getting it right for the normal case is easy. What separates the professionals from the amateurs is how you handle the abnormal cases and the error conditions.
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48356075)
It does do exactly that. The number is deregistered automatically after a period of time (45 days, I think). The problem is that the service has no way of knowing whether the phone is just off or permanently out of use.
Not all users encounter difficulty when switching. Because of the SMS fallback on delivery of messages, the majority of conversations work as expected. The problem is that the presence sensing on the service isn't perfect, particularly when multiple devices are registered to iMessage. There's no foolproof method of automatically determining whether the device is temporarily or permanently out of use. 45 days is a reasonable timeframe for an automatic deactivation to avoid frustrating people who went on vacation, but it's an eternity if you're actively using another device. There's no great way of balancing this, although the service probably should have an SMS short code to contact to "deactivate" the current number so you can just text from your Android phone to jump start the automatic process, but that would only work for associated phone lines, and the service is more complex than that.
The issue isn't recycling of numbers or devices, but rather user education about remembering to tell Apple to deactivate the service before moving. It's just like changing your physical address--you have to put a little thought into it ahead of time to make sure it goes smoothly.
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
Todd Knarr (15451) | 3 days ago | (#48356657)
The issue isn't recycling of numbers or devices, but rather user education about remembering to tell Apple to deactivate the service before moving. It's just like changing your physical address--you have to put a little thought into it ahead of time to make sure it goes smoothly.
And this is what I meant when I said that dealing with the abnormal cases and error conditions is what separates the professionals from the amateurs. For the change-of-address process, for instance, it's prepared to handle the case where someone doesn't plan ahead. If mail begins piling up with nobody emptying the mailbox, the carrier will collect the mail and leave a note to pick it up at the local post office. If nobody comes to get the mail, it'll be returned to the sender. If someone else has moved in and marks the mail "Not at this address", the post office will return it to the sender and will make a note so any further mail to the same person will mostly get bounced back as well. The system doesn't just assume all is well and that people will always do the right thing, it's prepared to handle cases where somebody forgot to do the right thing or just plain screwed up and did the wrong thing.
Similarly, iMessage shouldn't have just queued up undeliverable messages indefinitely. At some point the sender should've been informed that their message didn't go through, and delivery should've reverted back to basic SMS to bypass any problems within Apple's system. And 45 days is way too long. If the person's actively using another device that's receiving the same messages, then messages shouldn't be queuing up without being delivered. If the other device isn't receiving the same messages, then it can be ignored and the system should probably be taking action after no more than maybe 2 weeks without being able to deliver any messages to the device. Most people don't just go on vacation and forget to take their phone, so if it's out of touch with iMessage it's likely still reachable by regular SMS. As far as the system being more complex... well, the more complex the system the more numerous and hairier the abnormal/error conditions will be and the more thought needs to go into how to handle them safely and sanely (and management is all too often blithely oblivious to just how complicated the error handling can get).
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356875)
First off Apple doesn't deliver via. SMS. The fallover to SMS happens on the phone. If you want your messages you pick them up with your Mac.
Second, Apple has websites to change settings and tech support for people to call if they screw up. So they do handle the edge cases.
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
Todd Knarr (15451) | 3 days ago | (#48357375)
No, they don't. For one thing, the problem here is that Apple's system has registered the recipient's phone as handling messages through iMessage rather than SMS, and tells the sender's phone to use iMessage. And then when the recipient's phone isn't able to receive messages via iMessage, Apple's system never tells the sender that the messages can't be delivered so the sender doesn't know to do anything. The recipient can't pick up "their" messages on their Mac because they may not own a Mac, and they no longer own their iPhone. So yes the problem's in Apple's system where it fails to detect and handle the case where text messages can't be delivered via iMessage.
If Apple were handling the edge cases, this wouldn't've become so severe that they're having to do damage control now.
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48355423)
Recycling a phone number takes quite some time, at least in the United States. Years, not months. Your point still stands though. We should all be assigned a number at birth, have it tattooed somewhere on us and use that as our contact information. We no longer "need" area codes for things like long distance or "local toll". Let's just eliminate this potential privacy issue with recycled phone numbers.
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
DavidRawling (864446) | 3 days ago | (#48356771)
Re:No one seems to see the real privacy issue (1)
jbolden (176878) | 3 days ago | (#48356863)
That person still had the number registered and likely had a mac.
So number X is tied to account Y. Account Y can still be delivered via. a mac or iPad or ... So from Apple's perspective everything is good. That person didn't deregister their number with Apple.
Maybe Apple should have gotten a clue (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48354595)
WTF? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 3 days ago | (#48356247)
It's stupid that people need to do this, but they *have* been able to do this for years with just three steps:
It's the last step that removes your device's UUID from all Apple service bindings related to your AppleID.