Reply to post: Re: Next Case...

Court KOs irate Apple iMessenger woman's bid for class-action face off

Steve Evans

Re: Next Case...

Almost Thomas 6... Except iMessage isn't an option outside of Appleland.

Person A has an iPhone, and sends a message to person B with an iPhone... The iPhones recognise they are both iMessage capable, and from that moment on, every "text" message they attempt to send completely avoids the SMS standards (and SMS allowances of your contract) and instead are sent via an Apple server as data.

This all works fine until person A get a non Apple device.

Person B sends person A a message. B's iPhone goes "oh yes, I remember them, they're on iMessage" and sends the message to the Apple server, where it sits... Forever.

Person A sees and hears nothing.

The problems are:

1) iMessage is an Apple "feature" (or hijack depending on how you look at it) which isn't available on non-Apple devices

2) The general public don't realise that when they send an SMS between iPhones that have "recognised" each other as iMessage capable, it's not an SMS anymore.

3) There is no fall-back or timeout on a delivery failure via iMessage.

This would have been a complete non issue if Apple had considered the idea that people might leave their distortion field and had a delivery failure timeout... Once a delivery fails via iMessage the sending phone could then use the *global standard* of SMS unless the other device once again "negotiates" and they agree on iMessage again.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019