Apple's iMessage may have caught carriers off-guard

OneMoreThing... · Jun 7, 2011

Apple's iMessage may have caught carriers off-guard

The announcement of Apple's new iMessage service in iOS 5, which allows mobile device users to send MMS-like messages to each other for free, may have come as a surprise to wireless carriers, according to Daring Fireball's John Gruber and other sources. The service, which will work across both Wi-Fi and 3G, uses secure encryption and includes delivery receipts and optional read receipts -- rather a lot like Blackberry's proprietary Blackberry Messenger (BBM) service....

Lifeisabeach · Jun 7, 2011

I'm sure they are crapping in their pants. SMS service fees are basically free money for them. I hope Apple releases this as a public spec for any OS vendor to integrate so we can do away with those ridiculous fees.

RONE · Jun 7, 2011

This is great news. I've been using Whatsapp for quite some time, so it's great to see the functionality added into the Messages app. Now I'll just have to remember who to contact via Whatsapp and who to contact via iMessages. LOL

Shikarnov · Jun 7, 2011

I wonder if they'll even have to carry it, or allow Apple to have it enabled on their networks. After all, AT&T manages to keep Apple from offering tethering to users that haven't signed up for it (or jailbroken their phones) even though tethering users could be operating within their standard data limits. Surely, if they really want to, this will be something they'll defeat too, one way or another.

RONE · Jun 7, 2011

Shikarnov said:
I wonder if they'll even have to carry it, or allow Apple to have it enabled on their networks. After all, AT&T manages to keep Apple from offering tethering to users that haven't signed up for it (or jailbroken their phones) even though tethering users could be operating within their standard data limits. Surely, if they really want to, this will be something they'll defeat too, one way or another.

AT&T isn't going to block this.

Doug b · Jun 7, 2011

RONE said:
AT&T isn't going to block this.

Famous last words. They won't block it, but they'll find a way to charge for it one way or another.

Doug

baggss · Jun 7, 2011

Shikarnov said:
AT&T manages to keep Apple from offering tethering to users that haven't signed up for it (or jailbroken their phones)

VZW does the same...do they not?

Doug b said:
Famous last words. They won't block it, but they'll find a way to charge for it one way or another.

Doug

If it goes out as data (and not SMS, which seems to be true) therein lies the answer. You use this, you use more data, you need to increase your data plan to keep up, or only use it when on WiFi. It's the consumers choice how to use their data allowance which they pay for. In the end the carriers still make more money for the bandwidth being used.

RONE · Jun 7, 2011

Doug b said:
Famous last words. They won't block it, but they'll find a way to charge for it one way or another.

Doug

They've never blocked my using Whatsapp, which is the exact same thing. These message are going to be sent over the data connection, so there is nothing AT&T can do. Just imagine the outrage if they even acted like they were going to try.

Doug b · Jun 8, 2011

Outrage eh? As if people would do a darned thing. That's pretty funny right there. If they wanted to, and found a way, there would be zero action taken. I almost wish we could bet on it so that I could offer up my soul were I to be proven wrong.

It just seems pointless for ATT to offer text or MMS plans to anyone with a smart phone these days, that's the angle I'm looking at this from.

Doug

baggss · Jun 8, 2011

Doug b said:
It just seems pointless for ATT to offer text or MMS plans to anyone with a smart phone these days, that's the angle I'm looking at this from.

Why? The vast majority of users still use SMS/MMS on a large scale. That could change but it's not going to happen any time soon. Not everyone is as tech savvy as you, and even some of the more savvy just find it easier to use SMS/MMS.

RONE · Jun 8, 2011

Doug b said:
Outrage eh? As if people would do a darned thing. That's pretty funny right there. If they wanted to, and found a way, there would be zero action taken. I almost wish we could bet on it so that I could offer up my soul were I to be proven wrong.

It just seems pointless for ATT to offer text or MMS plans to anyone with a smart phone these days, that's the angle I'm looking at this from.

Doug

Did you offer your soul in a bet that people wouldn't complain when Apple dropped the price of the iPhone a few years ago?

Doug b · Jun 8, 2011

baggss said:
Why? The vast majority of users still use SMS/MMS on a large scale. That could change but it's not going to happen any time soon. Not everyone is as tech savvy as you, and even some of the more savvy just find it easier to use SMS/MMS.

I just don't see what the difference is between the standard sms/mms clients which come standard from the handset manufacturer and provider and the apps which are provided otherwise. They certainly make the former kind of obsolete, especially since it throws having to pay for the service out the window.. don't you think ?

And no RONE, I did not. but complaining on the internet to your geeky peers doesn't exactly count as raising a stink with either Apple or ATT, now does it.

Doug

RONE · Jun 8, 2011

Doug b said:
I just don't see what the difference is between the standard sms/mms clients which come standard from the handset manufacturer and provider and the apps which are provided otherwise. They certainly make the former kind of obsolete, especially since it throws having to pay for the service out the window.. don't you think ?

And no RONE, I did not. but complaining on the internet to your geeky peers doesn't exactly count as raising a stink with either Apple or ATT, now does it.

Doug

Well, seeing as Apple issued refunds to those early adopters, they obviously were raising a stink with the right people.

Doug b · Jun 8, 2011

Pretty sure it was more policy than anything else. Kind of like how they'll issue you a return for an exchange when a new product comes out. Just a matter of protocol for certain circumstances. Otherwise, PR would need to rectify things in another way. Kind of like rolling dice, really.

D.

schweb · Jun 8, 2011

Maybe I'm in the in minority but I don't like iMessage. I do not want yet another walled garden IM-like service that only works with other people on that service. We have enough proprietary IM services that require people to have all kinds of accounts.

And honestly what makes this one worse is not only is it proprietary, but it's also hardware specific so it locks some people out.

I just don't want to have ot deal with yet another random place to have to pay attention for messages or friends.

mrplow · Jun 8, 2011

schweb said:
Maybe I'm in the in minority but I don't like iMessage. I do not want yet another walled garden IM-like service that only works with other people on that service. We have enough proprietary IM services that require people to have all kinds of accounts.

And honestly what makes this one worse is not only is it proprietary, but it's also hardware specific so it locks some people out.

I just don't want to have ot deal with yet another random place to have to pay attention for messages or friends.

I agree, to a point. I guess it depends how you look on it.

As iMessage and SMS are integrated, once you have you contacts setup etc it becomes transparent in use.

I just see it as a way of being able to send messages to my family to and via iPad and iPod Touch.

My parents are far more likely to be able to reply to a message that appears on the iPads (that they never put down) than on a small fiddly keyboard on a phone.

Horses for courses I guess, though an open standard in the mix would be better all round.

Lifeisabeach · Jun 8, 2011

schweb said:
Maybe I'm in the in minority but I don't like iMessage. I do not want yet another walled garden IM-like service that only works with other people on that service. We have enough proprietary IM services that require people to have all kinds of accounts.

And honestly what makes this one worse is not only is it proprietary, but it's also hardware specific so it locks some people out.

I just don't want to have ot deal with yet another random place to have to pay attention for messages or friends.

My understanding is that it's literally seamless with SMS. There is no separate SMS app. You send an SMS/MMS and if it goes to an iPhone that has iOS 5, it uses the data service. Any other phone, SMS service is used. This is what's utterly brilliant about it. You don't have to think about it.

iggibar · Jun 8, 2011

baggss said:
It's the consumers choice how to use their data allowance which they pay for.

That's a surprising statement coming from you! Did you have a change of heart or something? I could have sworn you were arguing the complete opposite last time.

Also, the link doesn't work for some reason.

RONE · Jun 8, 2011

schweb said:
Maybe I'm in the in minority but I don't like iMessage. I do not want yet another walled garden IM-like service that only works with other people on that service. We have enough proprietary IM services that require people to have all kinds of accounts.

And honestly what makes this one worse is not only is it proprietary, but it's also hardware specific so it locks some people out.

I just don't want to have ot deal with yet another random place to have to pay attention for messages or friends.

I don't think it functions quite how you think it does. My understanding is that there is one iMessages app on the phone (replaces Messages), and that you use it for all texting needs. And if the person you are texting happens to be on iOS 5, the text is sent via the new data path as opposed to through the carrier like normal.

EDIT: Didn't notice there was another page and that 2 other people had already posted this same info. Apologies.

Shikarnov · Jun 8, 2011

baggss said:
VZW does the same...do they not?

Beats me. I don't have Verizon. But it wasn't my intent to single out either carrier for one sin or another; rather I was citing an example of built-in functionality being adapted for or by a carrier.