PDA

View Full Version : Walkthrough of Apple's iMessages in iOS 5




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 7, 2011, 04:44 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/walkthrough-of-apples-imessages-in-ios-5/)


One of the surprising new iOS 5 features announced during the WWDC 2011 keynote was the introduction of Apple's own messaging service called iMessages. The new service offers a number of advantages over current SMS/text messaging. Features include delivery receipts, see when someone's typing, secure encryption and support for iPad and iPod Touch devices. iMessages also circumvents the costly text messaging plans required by carriers. According to DaringFireball (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/06/06/imessage), Apple's mobile carrier partners only learned about the new feature at the same time as the rest of us: during the keynote.

Cult of Mac has posted a nice walkthrough (http://www.cultofmac.com/imessage-is-going-to-be-huge-heres-our-hands-on-look-at-how-it-works/99296) explaining how iMessages work alongside standard SMS messages.

Fortunately, for the end user, the transition will be relatively transparent. iMessage has been integrated into the existing "Messages" app. If you would like to text someone, iOS 5 automatically checks to see if they are eligible to receive iMessages rather than the more costly standard text message:

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/imess.jpg

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/imess.jpg)
Once a contact is known to support iMessage, a special blue chat bubble appears by that contact's name to indicate they support iMessage. If you don't want to ever send any standard text messages, there is a preference for Messages to only try to send iMessages instead of SMSs. In summary: Overall, iMessages are great. Being able to see when a message has been delivered and whether it’s been read or not really enhance the communication experience. The best part is that you don’t have to even think about them because if Apple is doing all of the work completely behind the scenes so that you won’t even notice. Using iMessages on multiple devices with the new support of iCloud ensures that you’ll never miss a beat when you’re working on both your iPad and iPhone.Apple previewed iOS 5 during the WWDC 2011 keynote on Monday. iOS 5 is presently available as a beta to registered developers but won't be released to the public until this fall.

Article Link: Walkthrough of Apple's iMessages in iOS 5 (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/walkthrough-of-apples-imessages-in-ios-5/)



DB2k
Jun 7, 2011, 04:47 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

chrmjenkins
Jun 7, 2011, 04:49 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

Yes, they are. The $/MB is insane for texting plans.

I also don't know why you think there is going to be an explosion of data usage. No music streaming, and I'm sure most of the syncing will be Wifi only (home network near computer) with the explicit option to choose the data delivery method for such operations.

That being said, it's not as if this is anything new. Carriers have supported BB's implementation of the same type of feature for years without fuss.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 04:51 PM
Can't wait to be iIMing on imessage.

Come on Apple. Make those talented people in marketing be creative. Slapping an i in front of everything is too easy.

Biolizard
Jun 7, 2011, 04:51 PM
That being said, it's not as if this is anything new. Carriers have supported BB's implementation of the same type of feature for years without fuss.

This.

Apple's implementation might be better than RIM's, but it's nothing really new. We're not witnessing the death of SMS here as is being purported in some corners.

Small White Car
Jun 7, 2011, 04:52 PM
Ok, at first I didn't understand the point of this thing. I didn't know who'd want a whole new messaging program.

But if you just go to text and the iPhone's like "Hey, they have an iPhone...don't worry this one's free!" then that is seriously bad-ass.

slicecom
Jun 7, 2011, 04:52 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Are you kidding? AT&T's text messages cost $1,310 per Megabyte. Thats pretty darn costly.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 04:53 PM
Yes, they are. The $/MB is insane for texting plans.

I also don't know why you think there is going to be an explosion of data usage. No music streaming, and I'm sure most of the syncing will be Wifi only (home network near computer) with the explicit option to choose the data delivery method for such operations.

That being said, it's not as if this is anything new. Carriers have supported BB's implementation of the same type of feature for years without fuss.

Tell me about it. This whole text message fee from the phone companies is nothing more than collusion on their parts to fix prices. They all get to squeeze $5 extra out of every customer per month. It adds up.

The data for text messages should be covered by either the phone plan or the data plan. This is ridiculous.

Merthyrboy
Jun 7, 2011, 04:54 PM
Can't believe they changed the send button to green in the messaging app :( yeah I agree with DB2K with that the Internet plans cost more than texting. Also is there any news on how it will find out if they have iMessaging on iPad or iPod touch unless they just compare the contact to see if they have an email that is an apple ID

chrmjenkins
Jun 7, 2011, 04:54 PM
Can't wait to be iIMing on imessage.

Come on Apple. Make those talented people in marketing be creative. Slapping an i in front of everything is too easy.

Apparently you don't understand the reason they do that.

iSomething has become so ubiquitous that brand recognition is through the roof. The only thing they risk is becoming so well known that their brand loses meaning, as has happened with Kleenex (as opposed to the generic tissue).

Nyalotha
Jun 7, 2011, 04:54 PM
Are you kidding? AT&T's text messages cost $1,310 per Megabyte. Thats pretty darn costly.

Interesting, where I'm from 55$ a month get me unlimited texting, 200 minutes, unlimited after 6pm/weekends, and a gig data plan.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 04:56 PM
Interesting, where I'm from 55$ a month get me unlimited texting, 200 minutes, unlimited after 6pm/weekends, and a gig data plan.

And I'll wager for no text messages in the plan you'll save $5 a month.

It's a scam.


Apparently you don't understand the reason they do that.

iSomething has become so ubiquitous that brand recognition is through the roof. The only thing they risk is becoming so well known that their brand loses meaning, as has happened with Kleenex (as opposed to the generic tissue).

I understand it. But being a happy Apple customer for years, I get a little concerned when I groan about another "i" product. I think it is time for Apple to innovate like they usually do: before most people think it is time to. I'm not saying drop all "i" products. Keep the iphone, etc. But not every app needs that.

iPadThai
Jun 7, 2011, 04:56 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

Dude you are quite oblivious. SMS rates and packages are just stupid. It's gone from being free incoming to $0.10/message to a whopping $0.25/msg and now $30 on AT&T buys you unlimited...

If you don't need unlimited, you are offered some stupid plans (which are $$$ generators for carriers but for consumers, it's a no-win situation): 1500 messages for a double digit price. Good grief, I welcome data messages sent via iCloud.

I'm going to actually kill off SMS when this arrives in iOS 5.0 Everyone I know or give a rats arse about uses an iOS device. If you don't use one, then you don't get a message from me. And I don't care for a message from you either.

Gone are the days of cross carrier compatibility issues and delays. Apple is smart enough to release these features THIS YEAR because they have built up enough user base to justify it. If they had built this year 1 of iPhone release, I'm sure AT&T would flip and somehow manage to find a way to rrape people on their messaging/data plans again.

joeshmo2010
Jun 7, 2011, 04:57 PM
Are you kidding? AT&T's text messages cost $1,310 per Megabyte. Thats pretty darn costly.

What the hell kind of texting are you talking?? Over $1000/mb? No.... Texting on att uses voice, not data. And it's $20/month for unlimited. That's the same everywhere basically.

Nyalotha
Jun 7, 2011, 04:57 PM
And I'll wager for no text messages in the plan you'll save $5 a month.

It's a scam.

The only plan that offered that, was less of a 'bundle' so it would end up being more costly. All data plans come with unlimited texting, at least on my provider. With 500mb to 1 gig, being a 5$ difference.

baryon
Jun 7, 2011, 04:57 PM
This is awesome! I hate the character limits in text messages. Although they are free for most people, routing this through the internet still has many advantages: multiple devices, no character limits, independence of operator (could probably work on iPod Touch with WiFi?).

Simgar988
Jun 7, 2011, 04:58 PM
Apparently you don't understand the reason they do that.

iSomething has become so ubiquitous that brand recognition is through the roof. The only thing they risk is becoming so well known that their brand loses meaning, as has happened with Kleenex (as opposed to the generic tissue).

This won't happen because there are many different idevices. If it would have happened to anything, it would have been the iPod and it wasn't even close.

No chance

christophermdia
Jun 7, 2011, 04:58 PM
This is going to be HUGE for traveling especially overseas. A couple of weeks ago I went to the Bahamas where the ATT rates were astronomical for phone and data use. I decided to keep the cellular data off and use skype for my phone call needs, only thing is I could not SMS which I do a lot of....now with imessage I can sudo-sms. Also when your on a flight with wifi, I had felt the need to sms a quick question to someone, who would be more responsive with sms rather than email.......imessage will be big!

bentup
Jun 7, 2011, 05:00 PM
Looking forward to kicking Kik!

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 05:00 PM
This seems like a nice feature for phone users, but it seems to me Apple just can't make up their mind what to do with messaging between iChat, Facetime and now iMessage. Why not put all 3 into one messaging protocol that supports text and video messaging. Oh wait, iChat already did that. And people wonder why Skype is so popular?

I am curious to know if the new iMessages app for the Mac will send SMS messages to non-iPhones. That would be a useful feature. I can already chat with people on an iPhone with any one of the many messaging apps.

chrmjenkins
Jun 7, 2011, 05:00 PM
I understand it. But being a happy Apple customer for years, I get a little concerned when I groan about another "i" product. I think it is time for Apple to innovate like they usually do: before most people think it is time to. I'm not saying drop all "i" products. Keep the iphone, etc. But not every app needs that.

But it's enough of a feature to warrant a unique name and apple has a standard naming scheme for new products. What else would you suggest?

garoto
Jun 7, 2011, 05:03 PM
What if internet connection is not available (neither 3G, Edge, or WiFi), but cellular connection is available (highly unlikely), will iOS know that it needs to send it as a regular sms instead of iMessage? What if I simply want to stick to regular sms instead of iMessage, can I turn that off? Can I have control? Can I have a CHOICE?

You guys do realize where things are headed right. Yes iCloud is great now, but its headed towards hey-why-do-you-need-to-download-music-to-your-drive-we-can-just-give-you-access-to-it-through-the-cloud-without-you-ever-having-to-download-it-theres-nothing-new-to-learn-simply-purchase-songs-as-you-used-to-and-play-from-any-device-immediately-no-need-to-waste-store type of cr*p. You will NEVER OWN anything, you will have to rely on a "service". I don't like where things are headed, I think they're great now, but the cloud is going to become everybody's hard drive one day. Look at google chrome.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 05:03 PM
The only plan that offered that, was less of a 'bundle' so it would end up being more costly. All data plans come with unlimited texting, at least on my provider. With 500mb to 1 gig, being a 5$ difference.

Well it sounds like your company is actually including text messages in the data plan then. However Verizon and ATT both charge $5 a month for text messages in addition to whatever plan you have for phone and data. It has been a while since I had sprint so I do not know about them.

The data plans are ridiculous too. Similar to what you quote, you are given a choice of 200mb or greater than a GB and nothing in between. I've used less than 200mb most months but have started using data a bit more so I creep up to 400mb some months. They need more tiers.

For text messages I choose no plan and pay per message. A it goes I usually come in under the $5 per month except months with major holidays. Still I think it should be included.

In France it was exposed that the phone companies were price fixing. If we had real journalists still in the US, I'm sure the same would be found here. But the news is part of the corporate world now so that is how it goes.

Small White Car
Jun 7, 2011, 05:05 PM
You guys do realize where things are headed right. Yes iCloud is great now, but its headed towards hey-why-do-you-need-to-download-music-to-your-drive-we-can-just-give-you-access-to-it-through-the-cloud-without-you-ever-having-to-download-it-theres-nothing-new-to-learn-simply-purchase-songs-as-you-used-to-and-play-from-any-device-immediately-no-need-to-waste-store type of cr*p.

That sounds like Google's plan which is nothing like Apple's plan.

Look at google chrome.

Indeed. So?

yanksrock100
Jun 7, 2011, 05:05 PM
I have an ipod touch, and i use a free texting app so i can text phones. its not a great experience

Can i text non-ios devices with imessage?

please reply

TigerWoodsIV
Jun 7, 2011, 05:06 PM
Ok, at first I didn't understand the point of this thing. I didn't know who'd want a whole new messaging program.

But if you just go to text and the iPhone's like "Hey, they have an iPhone...don't worry this one's free!" then that is seriously bad-ass.

Yeah that's pretty awesome. Like a free upgrade from SMS to something even better. Being able to talk to iPads and iPod Touches is pretty nice too. About half the ppl I talk to on a regular basis have iPads or iPhones so not having to keep switching between phone and iPad is gonna be nice.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 05:08 PM
Apparently you don't understand the reason they do that.

iSomething has become so ubiquitous that brand recognition is through the roof. The only thing they risk is becoming so well known that their brand loses meaning, as has happened with Kleenex (as opposed to the generic tissue).


I don't know what I'd call it. If I come up with something I'll apply to Apple. LOL

I think what Apple really needs to add in imessage is an alert if someone is texting while being spoken to. It could be an alert reminding the person to have good imanners.

Spitfire411
Jun 7, 2011, 05:12 PM
What the hell kind of texting are you talking?? Over $1000/mb? No.... Texting on att uses voice, not data. And it's $20/month for unlimited. That's the same everywhere basically.

His point is that you are paying $20 a month for something that realistically costs the provider pennies a month in support. An SMS is a fraction of a MB, if not a kB. It's the easiest money a comm company can make.

mdelvecchio
Jun 7, 2011, 05:15 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

huh? $20 in the US certainly is "costly", when the data plan is $30 alone.

mdelvecchio
Jun 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
Apple's implementation might be better than RIM's, but it's nothing really new.

did i miss the part where jobs said this was never before seen functionality? cuz i only saw the part where they introduced a feature new to iOS.

garoto
Jun 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
That sounds like Google's plan which is nothing like Apple's plan.



Indeed. So?


Well, it seems to me that that's where things are headed (A better Chrome). Like I said, iCloud is great today, but I don't want to have to rely on the cloud only, but unfortunately that what will happen.

It may make user's life easy, but on the technical side not so much, and that affects me.

touchtone561
Jun 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
This is great for iOS users across the globe, international SMS is too costly.
Plus this is just the iOS unity we might need, Blackberry Messenger now has an iOS counterpart.

Maltz
Jun 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
What if internet connection is not available (neither 3G, Edge, or WiFi), but cellular connection is available (highly unlikely), will iOS know that it needs to send it as a regular sms instead of iMessage? What if I simply want to stick to regular sms instead of iMessage, can I turn that off? Can I have control? Can I have a CHOICE?

Not so unlikely at all. In fact, I found myself in that very situation this weekend. I was at a large music festival, and the large number of people was overloading the tower, even though I had full bars. My internet connection was barely there at all, and it was far too loud to make a phone call. But SMS was working like a champ.

So, to reiterate the question... can we force it to send SMS, even to other iOS 5 devices?

hobo.hopkins
Jun 7, 2011, 05:18 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Every single text messaging plan might not be costly, but the overwhelming majority of them are. Carriers grossly overcharge for a service that costs them almost nothing.

It's interesting that the carriers didn't know about this until we did. I'm sure they weren't happy!

Jerbo
Jun 7, 2011, 05:18 PM
This is nice. Eventhough my carrier is just awesome already (15 for 1000 messages to anyone, 1000 to the same carrier, 2GB free data (these last only for a month, but they still haven't charged me anything for my data, and the "free" part expired more then a month ago) and then you can still use the 15 to call), this will be a nice addition. Now I just need friends :D

TigerWoodsIV
Jun 7, 2011, 05:18 PM
Can't believe they changed the send button to green in the messaging app :( yeah I agree with DB2K with that the Internet plans cost more than texting. Also is there any news on how it will find out if they have iMessaging on iPad or iPod touch unless they just compare the contact to see if they have an email that is an apple ID

I can't believe this thing came out in 2007 and we still can't change the bubble color. I jailbroke my phone back in the day solely to get blue bubbles as opposed to green. Why is that so challenging when you could have it in 2007?

newagemac
Jun 7, 2011, 05:19 PM
Can't believe they changed the send button to green in the messaging app :( yeah I agree with DB2K with that the Internet plans cost more than texting. Also is there any news on how it will find out if they have iMessaging on iPad or iPod touch unless they just compare the contact to see if they have an email that is an apple ID

The green is there to remind you that the carriers are raping your hard earned green dollars when you text over their SMS service. The blue is on Apple's service to let you know everything's cool. :p

Mahshall
Jun 7, 2011, 05:20 PM
AT&T charges me $20 monthly for unlimited texting and $15 monthly for 200mb of data.

Most of the time my phone is on WiFi due to AT&T having poor service. I am very lucky to get 1 bar at times.

Just need more friends with iPhones and iPod Touches now...

Cerender
Jun 7, 2011, 05:20 PM
Are you kidding? AT&T's text messages cost $1,310 per Megabyte. Thats pretty darn costly.

But getting a family unlimited text message plan is cheaper then a family unlimited data plan...

Peteman100
Jun 7, 2011, 05:21 PM
I really like the idea, but iPhones are ubiquitous to the point where I could get rid of my texting plan entirely

mdelvecchio
Jun 7, 2011, 05:21 PM
What the hell kind of texting are you talking?? Over $1000/mb? No.... Texting on att uses voice, not data. And it's $20/month for unlimited. That's the same everywhere basically.

if you buy the unlimited. if you dont, the ala carte price of texts (.20 now?) adds up. its a scam by the telecom to encourage you to give them another twenty spot each month. (even tho your "unlimited" data plan is $30, practically the same amount)

Spitfire411
Jun 7, 2011, 05:22 PM
This just occurred to me, what if I have an iPad and a Blackberry (or any other non-iOS phone)? My iPhone-using friend tries texting (iMessaging) me, I'm not by my iPad and the iMessage goes to it. I wouldn't know he tried contacting me until I open my iPad.
The nice thing about BBM is that it is a separate app; with the Messgages/iMessage integration, I would assume it would always default to iMessage.
The person texting/iMessgaing would have to know what kind of phone you have before hand to select if they wanted it to be SMS or iMessage.

Maltz
Jun 7, 2011, 05:22 PM
Not so unlikely at all. In fact, I found myself in that very situation this weekend. I was at a large music festival, and the large number of people was overloading the tower, even though I had full bars. My internet connection was barely there at all, and it was far too loud to make a phone call. But SMS was working like a champ.

So, to reiterate the question... can we force it to send SMS, even to other iOS 5 devices?

Ha, answered my own question... from the Cult of Mac article:

Many people look to iMessages as a way to end their Texting Plans, but how can you keep from sending SMS messages on accident? Easy. iOS 5 allows users to turn off SMS messaging completely so that iMessages are the only protocol that can be sent. The reverse is also true in that you can turn off iMessage as well so that you’re only doing SMS.

jes79
Jun 7, 2011, 05:23 PM
BBM has been around for years and is fantastic. This is a great addition to iOS and hopefully more reliable than the third party applications that do the same thing. I don't however like the fact that anyone can send me an iMessage. I prefer RIM's design, where you have to accept a friend on BBM before they can message you. There are few people that I want sending me messages that show I have read them. Work colleagues for example, should not know whether I have checked a message until I chose to reply at a convenient time.

stringent
Jun 7, 2011, 05:24 PM
Also is there going to be a character limit? Don't see why if it's data based. I know SMS link longer texts together, but it's still multiple texts.

garoto
Jun 7, 2011, 05:24 PM
Not so unlikely at all. In fact, I found myself in that very situation this weekend. I was at a large music festival, and the large number of people was overloading the tower, even though I had full bars. My internet connection was barely there at all, and it was far too loud to make a phone call. But SMS was working like a champ.

So, to reiterate the question... can we force it to send SMS, even to other iOS 5 devices?

Good point. You may have data connection available, but sometimes its so loaded its useless. I want to believe that apple will definitely give you an option under settings, but I'm not sure if the option will be limited to having imessages completely on or completely off.

algiris
Jun 7, 2011, 05:24 PM
It's interesting that the carriers didn't know about this until we did. I'm sure they weren't happy!

And no one gives a damn about that. Apple finally realised that people are free to use their data (that they already paid for) as they please. iMessage is just that.

wardy89
Jun 7, 2011, 05:30 PM
to those who say texts aren't expensive, relatively the are the most expensive service the carriers offer and are the best and make the most money for the smallest cost. it costs the carriers roughly 0.3 cents per text message sent and they charge us what 15-20 cent per text to me that is one heck of a profit margin. even the amount the charge for texts in contracts is high.

wordoflife
Jun 7, 2011, 05:32 PM
That's pretty neat. I'm not sure if I'd downgrade from my $30 unlimited plan because I text plenty of people without iPhones.

paradox00
Jun 7, 2011, 05:37 PM
But getting a family unlimited text message plan is cheaper then a family unlimited data plan...

You don't need unlimited data for IMs though.

I can't believe that some people think texting is anything but a scam in the current market. If everyone used IM instead of texting, there'd be no need for texting plans and the increase in data usage wouldn't even be noticeable.

I wish Google, Apple, and RIM would collaborate on a single iMessage/BBM standard since people can't seem to figure out how to avoid handing over wads of cash for texting on their own. Texting is pure profit for the carriers.

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 05:39 PM
I could care less about this. Why don't we fix how the iPhone does MMS?
It was insane that it went without a basic feature of non-smart phones for years, but it doesn't do this one simple thing well at all. If someone sends you a funny animation with sound, it never works. You get a seperate sound file from the animation that never actually animates.... something $20 phones are capable of. Group lists maybe?

Hey, it's great Apple is adding a new messaging feature, but it seems only to take the old messaging app and extend it to other IOS devices. How about we make that app current with technology in the past oh, 5 years if not longer?

redscull
Jun 7, 2011, 05:40 PM
The cost argument only favors iMessages when you're talking about text messages. As soon as you throw in attachments like pictures and videos, $30 for unlimited texts for all 4 phone lines on my familiy plan is a lot less expensive than the data plans.

It's actually a pretty simple mathematical concept. For AT&T in the US, which I bet a quite a few iPhone users are on, data has no unlimited plan. Texts do. There is some amount of data transfered at which point the method with an unlimited plan unarguably becomes cheaper. That amount of data isn't all that hard to reach with 4 phones sending a lot of pictures and some videos.

I really hope there is an option to tell the device not use iMessages, or do at least favor true MMS any time a picture is attached. Otherwise I'll have to up my 200MB plan.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 05:43 PM
I will go out and say this is bad. VERY bad.
A lot of people (myself included) own or will own iOS5 capible devices but DO NOT use nor want to use an iPhone. Top that off my iOS 5 device is normally in range of wifi 24/7 sitting on my night stand at home. I get txt messages quite often from people who own iPhones and I sure as hell DO NOT want it going to my iPod instead of my cell phone because I would never recieve it.

My mom, bother and sister all own iPhones. I own an Android phone and an iPod. They message me but I never get it because opps it goes to my iPod. Something I never use for messaging. I use my cell phone for that and my cell phone has a loader alert and is normally on me.

scottparker999
Jun 7, 2011, 05:44 PM
I could care less about this. Why don't we fix how the iPhone does MMS?
It was insane that it went without a basic feature of non-smart phones for years, but it doesn't do this one simple thing well at all. If someone sends you a funny animation with sound, it never works. You get a seperate sound file from the animation that never actually animates.... something $20 phones are capable of. Group lists maybe?

Hey, it's great Apple is adding a new messaging feature, but it seems only to take the old messaging app and extend it to other IOS devices. How about we make that app current with technology in the past oh, 5 years if not longer?

Maybe because Apple feels that 'funny animations' are not 'current technology'. It certainly didn't work for Geocities in recent years!

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 05:44 PM
That's pretty neat. I'm not sure if I'd downgrade from my $30 unlimited plan because I text plenty of people without iPhones.

Can you clarify something. Are you paying $30 for just the texting on top of data? Or is that data plus unlimited texting? I'm just curious.


I'm not directing this next comment specifically at you. But I have to say part of the problem I see in getting rid of these text fees is that people are debating the prices as though any text price is legitimate. Regardless of how good the plan is, everyone should understand that the text should be part of the data plan you pay for. I see a lot of people arguing that they get unlimited text as part of a package in response to people saying texting plans are outrageous. (I know that is not the point of your post.) But everyone should really understand that the phone companies are double charging for data when they do this. You can still look for good plans if texting is part of the data.

I also have seen people in the past try to tell me that texting is over a different part of the mobile band than data. Well the text either uses the phone band or the data band. One or the other. To charge for texts is double charging. I can see putting texts down as minute calls or some time length appropriate if it is part of the phone band.

And now we see Apple is making text work as part of the data plan. So certainly the phone companies can do this. Well they will have to if Android does this too and third party apps as well.

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 05:46 PM
huh? $20 in the US certainly is "costly", when the data plan is $30 alone.

AT&T now at least gives you unlimited mobile to mobile on any carrier with the unlimited texting plan. (Though they don't add it for you. You have to add the option on att.com but it's free with that plan).

It is a money scam. $35-$50 for unlimited text and a data plan on top of your most likely $60 voice plan is just insane. Sometimes I look at things like Boost ($50 unlimited everything on Sprint network) and wonder why more people don't go that route... aside from the craptastic selection of phones.

mmoosa
Jun 7, 2011, 05:48 PM
I have an unlimited BIS plan that costs 7.50 pm on top of my contract, it includes anything that goes through BIS such as BBM, web browsing, streaming(gigabytes worth), emails including pics and files etc!

How exactly does iMessage kill this? It doesn't! I will be charged an arm and leg for the data.

Oh and in other countries Unlimited BIS goes for around 6 (South Africa)

drewc1138
Jun 7, 2011, 05:48 PM
Here's a completely unrelated question...

In that screenshot, it shows the sync icon in the toolbar, but it also shows that it's not connected to a power source (not charging). I was under the impression that wifi sync isn't available in this build. Am I just missing something?

outphase
Jun 7, 2011, 05:49 PM
I will go out and say this is bad. VERY bad.
A lot of people (myself included) own or will own iOS5 capible devices but DO NOT use nor want to use an iPhone. Top that off my iOS 5 device is normally in range of wifi 24/7 sitting on my night stand at home. I get txt messages quite often from people who own iPhones and I sure as hell DO NOT want it going to my iPod instead of my cell phone because I would never recieve it.

My mom, bother and sister all own iPhones. I own an Android phone and an iPod. They message me but I never get it because opps it goes to my iPod. Something I never use for messaging. I use my cell phone for that and my cell phone has a loader alert and is normally on me.

Why would your phone number be associated with iMessages if you don't have an iPhone?

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 05:49 PM
I will go out and say this is bad. VERY bad.
A lot of people (myself included) own or will own iOS5 capible devices but DO NOT use nor want to use an iPhone. Top that off my iOS 5 device is normally in range of wifi 24/7 sitting on my night stand at home. I get txt messages quite often from people who own iPhones and I sure as hell DO NOT want it going to my iPod instead of my cell phone because I would never recieve it.

My mom, bother and sister all own iPhones. I own an Android phone and an iPod. They message me but I never get it because opps it goes to my iPod. Something I never use for messaging. I use my cell phone for that and my cell phone has a loader alert and is normally on me.


Your iPod/iPad doesn't have a phone number...and if your phone isn't an iPhone then even better. I'm sure they thought about this already. You also have to turn the feature on... so if you don't want messages going there, don't turn it on.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 05:50 PM
I might like to point out sms messaging for carriers is near 100% profit for the carriers no matter how many messages you send a month. There is very little they have to handle on the back end of the system. Even with the 30 a month unlimited family plain on AT&T and sending lets say 15-20k messages in a month AT&T is netting lets say 99% profit off of it.
The data plans 5-6 gigs in a month cost AT&T about 30 bucks.

I just do not like Apple forcing you into iMessaging if there is a iOS 5 capable device linked to that number.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 05:51 PM
You don't need unlimited data for IMs though.

I can't believe that some people think texting is anything but a scam in the current market. If everyone used IM instead of texting, there'd be no need for texting plans and the increase in data usage wouldn't even be noticeable.

I don't believe any real consumer would suggest paying for text messaging on top of data is nothing but a scam. I really am under the impression that there are people lobbying for the phone companies when they try to suggest otherwise or confuse unlimited data plans with text fees.

I mean what consumer is really going to suggest being double billed for the data of a text message is appropriate whether it is pay per text or a text plan paid for?

If we can all agree that paying for text messages on top of a data plan is not good, I'll be glad to take $5 a month from anyone who feels like that money is burning a hole in their pocket.

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 05:52 PM
Maybe because Apple feels that 'funny animations' are not 'current technology'. It certainly didn't work for Geocities in recent years!

Animations, videos, pics, sounds, etc. are kind of the point of MMS. When your MMS app doesn't actually let those things works, why is it there? It's not just funny animations, that was just 1 example. The only thing IOS MMS does well is pictures.... which, um, is sad...

Krizoitz
Jun 7, 2011, 05:54 PM
Are you kidding? AT&T's text messages cost $1,310 per Megabyte. Thats pretty darn costly.

text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

Not expensive?
Price/MB of sending to the Hubble: $166/mb
Price/MB of for ATT texting (1000 msg plan): $74.90

Ok, so sending to the freaking Hubble Telescope is only twice as expensive as texting. But wait, that assume a best case scenario, that every single text message you send is using up 140 characters. It would take 7490 messages at full data to reach a megabyte.

But wait again you say, what about the unlimited plan, thats only $20 a month! But that only helps if you actually send that many messages per month. I.e. you send (or recieve) roughly 250 texts per day. Thats a hell of a lot of texting.

And think about this. If you made a voice call and used your phone as an audio modem and sent at 56K modem speeds it would take you about 2.5 minutes to send the same equivalent of data. Since phone companies round up thats a 3 minute call. But hey lets round up to 5 minutes just in case we aren't getting ideal speeds. Even assuming you are sending via an expensive option like a pay phone at $0.50 a minute you are talking a maximum cost of $2.50. And using phone cards you can get prices a lot cheaper than that, like an order of magnitude.

On top of ALL that text messages piggy back on unused parts of the signals that the phone companies are sending to the phones anyway! Its not extra bandwidth!

In short, text messaging is a huge rip off and the fact that prices have pretty much stayed in lockstep accross the carriers is a bad sign, not to mention they have gone UP in recent years.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 05:55 PM
For AT&T in the US, which I bet a quite a few iPhone users are on, data has no unlimited plan.

Not true.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 05:55 PM
This won't happen because there are many different idevices. If it would have happened to anything, it would have been the iPod and it wasn't even close.

No chance

He gave a poor example with Kleenex, but his point still has a sound basis. Too many companies are tacking on i to places it doesn't belong. iTrip, iChair, iPancake.

The point he was trying to make, however, is that apples marketing department has created a phenomenon with the iNames and they absolutely shod continue to use it as long as they want to maintain a hold on it's branding power; this directly contradicts the assertion made by the poster he was replying to initially.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 05:57 PM
I might like to point out sms messaging for carriers is near 100% profit for the carriers no matter how many messages you send a month. There is very little they have to handle on the back end of the system. Even with the 30 a month unlimited family plain on AT&T and sending lets say 15-20k messages in a month AT&T is netting lets say 99% profit off of it.
The data plans 5-6 gigs in a month cost AT&T about 30 bucks.

All the text should be part of the data plan. It is a scam perpetrated by the carriers to charge extra.

I just do not like Apple forcing you into iMessaging if there is a iOS 5 capable device linked to that number.

imessage is an app. I'm sure if you want to message the traditional way you can open that app. Apple isn't forcing anything.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 05:58 PM
What if internet connection is not available (neither 3G, Edge, or WiFi), but cellular connection is available (highly unlikely), will iOS know that it needs to send it as a regular sms instead of iMessage? What if I simply want to stick to regular sms instead of iMessage, can I turn that off? Can I have control? Can I have a CHOICE?

You guys do realize where things are headed right. Yes iCloud is great now, but its headed towards hey-why-do-you-need-to-download-music-to-your-drive-we-can-just-give-you-access-to-it-through-the-cloud-without-you-ever-having-to-download-it-theres-nothing-new-to-learn-simply-purchase-songs-as-you-used-to-and-play-from-any-device-immediately-no-need-to-waste-store type of cr*p. You will NEVER OWN anything, you will have to rely on a "service". I don't like where things are headed, I think they're great now, but the cloud is going to become everybody's hard drive one day. Look at google chrome.

Nice rant, but you obviously missed the part of the article that directly answers your question, I.e. You can turn SMS off and use imessage exclusively, and vice versa.

Save your diatribe for another time.

thederby
Jun 7, 2011, 06:02 PM
An SMS is a fraction of a MB, if not a kB.

1120 bits

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:02 PM
This just occurred to me, what if I have an iPad and a Blackberry (or any other non-iOS phone)? My iPhone-using friend tries texting (iMessaging) me, I'm not by my iPad and the iMessage goes to it. I wouldn't know he tried contacting me until I open my iPad.
The nice thing about BBM is that it is a separate app; with the Messgages/iMessage integration, I would assume it would always default to iMessage.
The person texting/iMessgaing would have to know what kind of phone you have before hand to select if they wanted it to be SMS or iMessage.

No they don't. Read the walkthrough

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:05 PM
Your iPod/iPad doesn't have a phone number...and if your phone isn't an iPhone then even better. I'm sure they thought about this already. You also have to turn the feature on... so if you don't want messages going there, don't turn it on.

no but they do have an Apple ID which is link to my phone number and I have a feeling Apple will use that to link everything up.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:08 PM
I could care less about this. Why don't we fix how the iPhone does MMS?
It was insane that it went without a basic feature of non-smart phones for years, but it doesn't do this one simple thing well at all. If someone sends you a funny animation with sound, it never works. You get a seperate sound file from the animation that never actually animates.... something $20 phones are capable of. Group lists maybe?

Hey, it's great Apple is adding a new messaging feature, but it seems only to take the old messaging app and extend it to other IOS devices. How about we make that app current with technology in the past oh, 5 years if not longer?

Are you talking about .gifs? That would have been legacy support even in 2007.

You're seriously complaining about not getting animations? Ive never even heard of anyone sending animation by text. I think you're in quite a small majority.

OwlsAndApples
Jun 7, 2011, 06:09 PM
iMessages looks great. What would be perfect (for me anyway) is if you could set it up just for MMS-ing (all texts remain as SMS). I get unlimited texts so they're not a problem, picture messages on the other hand are 10p a pop on my contract, so this would be a lovely way to sidestep that minor charge. ...and then just email pictures to non-iOS devices I suppose...

btcutter
Jun 7, 2011, 06:09 PM
I will go out and say this is bad. VERY bad.
A lot of people (myself included) own or will own iOS5 capible devices but DO NOT use nor want to use an iPhone. Top that off my iOS 5 device is normally in range of wifi 24/7 sitting on my night stand at home. I get txt messages quite often from people who own iPhones and I sure as hell DO NOT want it going to my iPod instead of my cell phone because I would never recieve it.

My mom, bother and sister all own iPhones. I own an Android phone and an iPod. They message me but I never get it because opps it goes to my iPod. Something I never use for messaging. I use my cell phone for that and my cell phone has a loader alert and is normally on me.


It won't be a problem.

Just turn off the iMessage (unavailable).... This is like BBM, Google Messenger etc. When other party see you are not avail they won't send you a message to your iDevice.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 06:12 PM
He gave a poor example with Kleenex, but his point still has a sound basis. Too many companies are tacking on i to places it doesn't belong. iTrip, iChair, iPancake.

The point he was trying to make, however, is that apples marketing department has created a phenomenon with the iNames and they absolutely shod continue to use it as long as they want to maintain a hold on it's branding power; this directly contradicts the assertion made by the poster he was replying to initially.

I was the original poster.

All I know is that I am a strong proponent of apple products because I use them regularly. My first hand experience of witnessing MANY Windows users (primarily Dell owners) I personally know have such headaches with their equipment that they eventually switch to Apple makes me tend to overlook the few gripes I have with Apple from time to time. The trade off is worth it to me.

However I am starting to groan when I see the overuse of "i" in front of everything. Given my strong affinity for Apple, that is saying something.

There is a difference between Apple unveiling a tablet called the "ipad" similar to the iphone and ipod and naming every single feature and app with an "i" in front.

In my opinion it is starting to look ridiculous.

I realize the argument about brand recognition. It is a valid argument. I feel though that having already purchased an iOS device, the brand is recognized. "imessage" isn't going to deliver the message to people that there are iphones out there. I can't understand what value in naming another app with an i is.

Anyway it is all opinion. I've given mine and I'm sure there are many arguments of why apple should continue doing what they are doing with "i".

I'm not saying apple should drop the i from iphone or ipad or that they shouldn't put the i in front of any new device. But they can certainly come up with some new names. Apple has been known for making drastic changes. Some of which leave people scratching their heads. Apple eliminated floppy drives from all their machines when many thought it was a mistake. (I don't need to hear how some company tentatively started doing this before apple did with some models first thank you). I think perhaps Apple should buck the trend internally now before more the "i" becomes silly to too many people. Because if people start laughing at the over use of "i" then they will laugh at all i-products including the iphone. Then it is a real problem for apple. Apple needs to protect their brand by not overusing the "i".

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:12 PM
Maybe because Apple feels that 'funny animations' are not 'current technology'. It certainly didn't work for Geocities in recent years!

+1 (http://webhamster.com/)

coolbreeze
Jun 7, 2011, 06:13 PM
huh? $20 in the US certainly is "costly", when the data plan is $30 alone.

Indeed. I pay $90/month for my wife and I to have two data plans and unlimited "family" messaging ($30 for two lines...ripoff). Add in voice and we are paying a crapload per month.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:16 PM
I might like to point out sms messaging for carriers is near 100% profit for the carriers no matter how many messages you send a month. There is very little they have to handle on the back end of the system. Even with the 30 a month unlimited family plain on AT&T and sending lets say 15-20k messages in a month AT&T is netting lets say 99% profit off of it.
The data plans 5-6 gigs in a month cost AT&T about 30 bucks.

I just do not like Apple forcing you into iMessaging if there is a iOS 5 capable device linked to that number.

There's no forcing here. iMessage will have the option to be turned off.

unlinked
Jun 7, 2011, 06:17 PM
You don't need unlimited data for IMs though.

I can't believe that some people think texting is anything but a scam in the current market. If everyone used IM instead of texting, there'd be no need for texting plans and the increase in data usage wouldn't even be noticeable.

I wish Google, Apple, and RIM would collaborate on a single iMessage/BBM standard since people can't seem to figure out how to avoid handing over wads of cash for texting on their own. Texting is pure profit for the carriers.

I can not see that happening unless it is via aim. I think both Google and Apple have/had strong links to AOL.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:18 PM
Animations, videos, pics, sounds, etc. are kind of the point of MMS. When your MMS app doesn't actually let those things works, why is it there? It's not just funny animations, that was just 1 example. The only thing IOS MMS does well is pictures.... which, um, is sad...

It handles pictures, video, and voice recordings deftly. What, other than .gifs, should it be able to do?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:19 PM
1120 bits

little off there. It is a 160 bytes. (1280 bits) but lets give it 20% overhead and 1600 bits which = 200 bytes. So all said and done max a text message size could be is 250 bypes or 1/4 of a kb. This is giving them an extra 50 bytes for any other communications that needs to go on before and after message.

iRobby
Jun 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
is iMessages international as well like WhatsApp? if so then i can delete it I use it for a friend in germany who has an iPhone

miamialley
Jun 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
So will you be able to block people from getting a receipt that you read their message? I don't like the idea of everyone knowing the second I read their message, as a delayed response can be interpreted in different ways.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
All the text should be part of the data plan. It is a scam perpetrated by the carriers to charge extra.



imessage is an app. I'm sure if you want to message the traditional way you can open that app. Apple isn't forcing anything.

it is not me using the app that worries me. It would be people like my family members who use iPhone so they try to send me an SMS. Apple picks up oh look iOS device (my iPod) and instead of my Android cell phone getting a SMS it goes to my iPod that I do not use for messaging.
That is the problem I am worried about.

It is people switching to tell the iPhone to default to iMessaging if possible and that will cause a lot of problems. The person recieve imessages I feel should be able to reject the link up if they choose. Make it like BBM were you have to accept the invite at first to allow BBM.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:23 PM
it is not me using the app that worries me. It would be people like my family members who use iPhone so they try to send me an SMS. Apple picks up oh look iOS device (my iPod) and instead of my Android cell phone getting a SMS it goes to my iPod that I do not use for messaging.
That is the problem I am worried about.

It is people switching to tell the iPhone to default to iMessaging if possible and that will cause a lot of problems. The person recieve imessages I feel should be able to reject the link up if they choose. Make it like BBM were you have to accept the invite at first to allow BBM.

Then they can turn it off, or perhaps there will be some sort of contact selections.

And then there's the whole read receipt thing. It would say if it has been delivered and/or read.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:25 PM
I was the original poster.

All I know is that I am a strong proponent of apple products because I use them regularly. My first hand experience of witnessing MANY Windows users (primarily Dell owners) I personally know have such headaches with their equipment that they eventually switch to Apple makes me tend to overlook the few gripes I have with Apple from time to time. The trade off is worth it to me.

However I am starting to groan when I see the overuse of "i" in front of everything. Given my strong affinity for Apple, that is saying something.

There is a difference between Apple unveiling a tablet called the "ipad" similar to the iphone and ipod and naming every single feature and app with an "i" in front.

In my opinion it is starting to look ridiculous.

I realize the argument about brand recognition. It is a valid argument. I feel though that having already purchased an iOS device, the brand is recognized. "imessage" isn't going to deliver the message to people that there are iphones out there. I can't understand what value in naming another app with an i is.

Anyway it is all opinion. I've given mine and I'm sure there are many arguments of why apple should continue doing what they are doing with "i".

I'm not saying apple should drop the i from iphone or ipad or that they shouldn't put the i in front of any new device. But they can certainly come up with some new names. Apple has been known for making drastic changes. Some of which leave people scratching their heads. Apple eliminated floppy drives from all their machines when many thought it was a mistake. (I don't need to hear how some company tentatively started doing this before apple did with some models first thank you). I think perhaps Apple should buck the trend internally now before more the "i" becomes silly to too many people. Because if people start laughing at the over use of "i" then they will laugh at all i-products including the iphone. Then it is a real problem for apple. Apple needs to protect their brand by not overusing the "i".

I do agree with you somewhat. And I did agree with you when you said it, until the other guy pointed out the great branding it provides.

It has been watered down a lot.

I will say, iMessage is a well utilized example of an iName. Reason being--if you begin a new text message, the top of the screen reads "message". If the person is iMessage capable, it changes to iMessage. This communicates to you whether or not it is a free message or not. So as annoying as it is to see so many iNames out there, this one at least has a practical application.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:27 PM
Then they can turn it off, or perhaps there will be some sort of contact selections.

easier said that done. For a company that prides itself on making things idiot proof this is a pretty big fail. That is a lot more work and can cause a fair number of problems and easy to screw up. I think this was a bad design and unless they have an iPhone it should not allow defaulting at all to iMessaging. iPod, and iPads will cause a huge amount of problems.

vladzaharia
Jun 7, 2011, 06:27 PM
it is not me using the app that worries me. It would be people like my family members who use iPhone so they try to send me an SMS. Apple picks up oh look iOS device (my iPod) and instead of my Android cell phone getting a SMS it goes to my iPod that I do not use for messaging.
That is the problem I am worried about.

It is people switching to tell the iPhone to default to iMessaging if possible and that will cause a lot of problems. The person recieve imessages I feel should be able to reject the link up if they choose. Make it like BBM were you have to accept the invite at first to allow BBM.

Your iPod wouldn't have a phone number associated with it. It's like FaceTime for the iPod in that your register an email address and your device can be contacted by using that email. Same concept but for messages.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:28 PM
So will you be able to block people from getting a receipt that you read their message? I don't like the idea of everyone knowing the second I read their message, as a delayed response can be interpreted in different ways.

I kind of have a similar feeling. For me, though, anyone I know who would interpret it in a negative way...they already assume I got the message and think I'm ignoring them. So it won't increase the frequency of people taking it the wrong way, but when I don't get the message, it will put them at bay.

Either way, I think the total of times those kind of people get upset about you not replying immediately will only go down.

cvaldes
Jun 7, 2011, 06:28 PM
Then they can turn it off, or perhaps there will be some sort of contact selections.
Just like FaceTime. These people are panicking over nothing.

As a matter of fact, these people don't even realize that you don't have to configure your iDevice to do anything. If you don't want to configure your address book, calendar, e-mail, FaceTime, iTunes Store, App Store, whatever, they don't need to. They don't have to take pictures or shoot video. They don't realize that they have the choice to turn off 3G data, WiFi, or even to turn off the phone and use it as a nice paperweight.

Apple isn't "forcing" people to use anything.

You don't even have to plug an iDevice in and configure it. You are perfectly free to leave it in the box forever (or sell it on Craigslist, eBay, whatever).

The amount of hysteria of these new features is completely ludicrous and utterly nonsensical.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:30 PM
it is not me using the app that worries me. It would be people like my family members who use iPhone so they try to send me an SMS. Apple picks up oh look iOS device (my iPod) and instead of my Android cell phone getting a SMS it goes to my iPod that I do not use for messaging.
That is the problem I am worried about.

It is people switching to tell the iPhone to default to iMessaging if possible and that will cause a lot of problems. The person recieve imessages I feel should be able to reject the link up if they choose. Make it like BBM were you have to accept the invite at first to allow BBM.

Since you won't be using your iPod for messaging, you can turn it off and it will rout all messages to your phone.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:30 PM
easier said that done. For a company that prides itself on making things idiot proof this is a pretty big fail.

Like it or not, it is not going to be a fail. Looks how successful BBM is.

Just because you have issues with it, doesn't mean the rest of the world will.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:31 PM
easier said that done. For a company that prides itself on making things idiot proof this is a pretty big fail. That is a lot more work and can cause a fair number of problems and easy to screw up. I think this was a bad design and unless they have an iPhone it should not allow defaulting at all to iMessaging. iPod, and iPads will cause a huge amount of problems.

Never underestimate idiots. They are very adept at finding problems when none exist.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:31 PM
Your iPod wouldn't have a phone number associated with it. It's like FaceTime for the iPod in that your register an email address and your device can be contacted by using that email. Same concept but for messages.

and yet in people contacts list my number and email address is in there so in the phone they have them link together.
I even believe my Apple ID has my cell linked to it already in terms of phone numbers.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 06:33 PM
Like it or not, it is not going to be a fail. Looks how successful BBM is.

Just because you have issues with it, doesn't mean the rest of the world will.

I am not saying iMessaging and BBM is bad. It is how everything links up. BBM I have to accept someone wanting me to put them on their BBM list. iMessaging I do not see that and it wants to default to iMessaging if it can.
That is the fail is how iMessaging takes off.

In Apple trying to push it they are going to cause huge problems for iPod and iPad owners that filter back over to iPhones but the iPod/iPad owners who use some other phone will be the problems.

RossMc
Jun 7, 2011, 06:34 PM
So you can only send messages to other people if you have there number in your contact list?

You won't get a pin like they do on BBM or be able to use it through email like Facetime?

FSMBP
Jun 7, 2011, 06:36 PM
Answers to common questions:

- You do not have to use iMessages
- "Read" Receipts are Optional (No one will know you read their iMessage)
- It is international
- No Character Limit

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:36 PM
Since you won't be using your iPod for messaging, you can turn it off and it will rout all messages to your phone.

I was going to suggest this, but I don't have any first-hand experience with iMessages.

Does anyone know what "iMessage eligible" means? Does it just mean that a person has an iDevice? Or does it actually search through the networks and confirm that an iDevice has an open and active connection?

The whole point of the read receipt alleviates these kinds of mix ups. The sender can see whether or not the recipient got the message, and then decide to use another method of contact.

nottooshabby
Jun 7, 2011, 06:37 PM
You can do all of this now on Whats App along with quite a few other texting apps on the App Store. What's App only cost $0.99. It also has some other nice features like sending your location so you don't have to explain to somebody where you are. It also has clients for android and BB. No need to pay for SMS. No, I'm not the developer or friends with the developer.

iMessage seems like a non-event.... And I'm wondering how iMessage works if you share your apple id with everybody in your family.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:39 PM
I am not saying iMessaging and BBM is bad.

I never said you did. But you did say it was going to be "a pretty big fail".

That will not be the case.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 06:43 PM
I do agree with you somewhat. And I did agree with you when you said it, until the other guy pointed out the great branding it provides.

It has been watered down a lot.

I will say, iMessage is a well utilized example of an iName. Reason being--if you begin a new text message, the top of the screen reads "message". If the person is iMessage capable, it changes to iMessage. This communicates to you whether or not it is a free message or not. So as annoying as it is to see so many iNames out there, this one at least has a practical application.

Well I guess for this particular app the nature of it makes it more important to have the "i" than in some cases. As you point out you would like to know that the other person can use the same service or not. But perhaps it is the previous overuse of the "i" that made me cringe when I saw this.


Then they can turn it off, or perhaps there will be some sort of contact selections.

And then there's the whole read receipt thing. It would say if it has been delivered and/or read.

It will probably look at the other user's ability to use facetime. If they can use that then they can use imessage. Well eventually. I think right now facetime requires wifi but eventually it will be available over 4G. Well it can look to see if the user is elligable for facetime when on wifi.

Dr Kevorkian94
Jun 7, 2011, 06:45 PM
iMessages is cool i have it set up on all the families iPads and my iPhone of course. my dad has his ipad, my mom has hers my brother has his touch and i have my iphone. It is good for my mom and brother especially, my mom is clueless (sorry mom) with the cellphone and my brother doesn't have one. i admit its a bit slower than a regular text but its a beta so its all good. the auto detect didn't work when i texted another friend with an iphone (non iOS 5) today so i guess they both must have it.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 06:46 PM
Well I guess for this particular app the nature of it makes it more important to have the "i" than in some cases. As you point out you would like to know that the other person can use the same service or not. But perhaps it is the previous overuse of the "i" that made me cringe when I saw this.

Most certainly cringe inducing!

iPunish901
Jun 7, 2011, 06:46 PM
please let there be an option to not let people know ive read their message. im the king of ignoring texts and replying whenever im in the mood to.

-LikesMac-
Jun 7, 2011, 06:47 PM
Why didn't Apple integrate iChat? That would have been AMAZING. The true chat monster would have been the messaging app with SMS, MMS, iMessage, iChat, and Facetime(?) features put in

Like, you have AIM contact, the button that you press for sending the message shows the well-known AIM icon with a yellow background and stuff.

I think iMessage is good though, I'll just get a dedicated app for other IM networks lol

However, does anyone agree with me when I say that texting should be ABSOLUTELY FREE on EVERY PHONE? I bet a text costs literally .0000000000001 CENT!!!!!! (Someone give me the actual cost if they can find) :cool:

BrianMojo
Jun 7, 2011, 06:48 PM
Not so unlikely at all. In fact, I found myself in that very situation this weekend. I was at a large music festival, and the large number of people was overloading the tower, even though I had full bars. My internet connection was barely there at all, and it was far too loud to make a phone call. But SMS was working like a champ.

So, to reiterate the question... can we force it to send SMS, even to other iOS 5 devices?

If you read the article, the answer is yes. At the very least you can turn iMessage or SMS off and thereby force it to do so. Can you do it easily? That's another question.

addicted44
Jun 7, 2011, 06:48 PM
Yes, they are. The $/MB is insane for texting plans.

I also don't know why you think there is going to be an explosion of data usage. No music streaming, and I'm sure most of the syncing will be Wifi only (home network near computer) with the explicit option to choose the data delivery method for such operations.

That being said, it's not as if this is anything new. Carriers have supported BB's implementation of the same type of feature for years without fuss.

One difference between this and BBM (besides the much better UI, and far more powerful features, such as integration with FaceTime) is that it is available to devices without cell phone chips, such as the $499 iPad, and iPod Touches.

That instantly greatly expands the use of this service. Suddenly, I can communicate with my family halfway across the world using only my iPod Touch. That is pretty great.

Edit: I know IM already exists, however, IM is barely as convenient as SMS. The proliferation of non-interacting protocols has made it a nightmare. The nice thing about iMessage is that it integrates so nicely with SMS, so I will be sending iMessages at no cost, but with the same frictionless experience as SMS.

Additionally, to the person who said SMS isn't expensive...~10c/message. And International is a ripoff (AT&T charges 50c for each RECEIVED international SMS, even if you have the unlimited plan. They don't have an unlimited international plan).

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:49 PM
It will probably look at the other user's ability to use facetime. If they can use that then they can use imessage. Well eventually. I think right now facetime requires wifi but eventually it will be available over 4G. Well it can look to see if the user is elligable for facetime when on wifi.

What about the iPhone 3GS?

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/ios-5-works-just-fine-on-iphone-3gs/

addicted44
Jun 7, 2011, 06:53 PM
Why didn't Apple integrate iChat?

They are likely to do so (more likely iChat will probably get replaced with iMessage for Mac, with FaceTime, etc. integrated). Look at FaceTime for precedence, where the Mac version came after than the iOS version.

scoobydoo99
Jun 7, 2011, 06:54 PM
However Verizon and ATT both charge $5 a month for text messages in addition to whatever plan you have for phone and data.

I don't know what world you live in, but i WISH AT&T only charged $5 a month for text messaging!!

bushido
Jun 7, 2011, 06:56 PM
lol at all people jizzing their pants over something that uve been able to do with apps like whatsapp for YEARS, come on its nothing new ppl

and iMessages is pointless as u can only do it from iDevice to iDevice, WA is much better, u can sent free text to nokia, android & bb

Portal83
Jun 7, 2011, 06:56 PM
What the hell kind of texting are you talking?? Over $1000/mb? No.... Texting on att uses voice, not data. And it's $20/month for unlimited. That's the same everywhere basically.

All things you send/receive over a cellular network is essentially 'data' whether it be voice, text, or the internet. It's all digital information being sent in bits and bytes.

If what I've read is correct, an SMS sends approx 140bytes per message. AT&T's $10/mo 1000 text plan is like paying $10 per 0.140MB (140KB, 140bytes * 1000) sent over the network. Maybe not exact, but it's in that ballpark. How do you think that adds up compared to data plans?

I don't feel the need for some of the BB-like features in this (although I might end up liking them as a bonus) and unfortunately, unless all your friends have iPhones, we'll still have to hold on to our gouging SMS plans...at least for now.

*Edit for accuracy*

addicted44
Jun 7, 2011, 06:56 PM
is iMessages international as well like WhatsApp? if so then i can delete it I use it for a friend in germany who has an iPhone

WhatsApp is the best comparison to this. What it loses to WhatsApp in lack of compatibility with non iOS devices, it makes up for in much better integration, and being far more feature packed. And in the fact that it will be available to EVERYONE with iOS5, which will be many 10s of millions come "Fall". WhatsApp is unlikely to be able to match its distribution.

However, I am unlikely to dump WhatsApp yet. I know too many BB users to be able to do that.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 06:57 PM
I don't know what world you live in, but i WISH AT&T only charged $5 a month for text messaging!!

They do. 200 messages.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
I never said you did. But you did say it was going to be "a pretty big fail".

That will not be the case.

the fail is in how they link things up. For a company that prides itself on being idiot proof I see so many huge idiot level problems here in it.

I would feel for someone that it does not detect an active iPhone it sends a warning to person sending it that they have to over ride to start a iMessage chat. This solves a lot of problems in preventing people who have iPods and iPads but no iPhone from missing txt messaging. (This applying only to people sending from an iPhone as it can do both SMS and iMessage)

It is just to prevent what I see are pretty easy problems cropping up.

They do. 200 messages.
They do not have that any more. Only people who still have $5 for 200 message are grandfathered in.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
So correct me if I'm wrong.

I just had a slight disappointment today. I was getting excited about dropping down to a lower tier of text messages and saving money.

Then I realized that the unlimited messages are tied to the free mobile to mobile option

Looks like ATT will be keeping my money one way or the
other.

Cougarcat
Jun 7, 2011, 07:04 PM
Just like Textie, except not as good. Can't text non-iPhone users for free.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 07:05 PM
Why didn't Apple integrate iChat? That would have been AMAZING. The true chat monster would have been the messaging app with SMS, MMS, iMessage, iChat, and Facetime(?) features put in

Like, you have AIM contact, the button that you press for sending the message shows the well-known AIM icon with a yellow background and stuff.

I think iMessage is good though, I'll just get a dedicated app for other IM networks lol

However, does anyone agree with me when I say that texting should be ABSOLUTELY FREE on EVERY PHONE? I bet a text costs literally .0000000000001 CENT!!!!!! (Someone give me the actual cost if they can find) :cool:

I think iChat is going the way of the buffalo, which is why it's not receiving any integration or updates. Were there even any updates announced for iChat in lion?

I rarely use iChat anymore anyway. It's all text messages now. And I think that's what apple is going for

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 07:12 PM
the fail is in how they link things up. For a company that prides itself on being idiot proof I see so many huge idiot level problems here in it.


Maybe, but how many end users is this going to effect?

Look at every successful technological innovation/advancement. Sure they don't work perfectly for 100% of the users, 100% of the time, for 100% of their needs. And it's not going to be considered a fail just because it doesn't reach a 100% success rate.

spillproof
Jun 7, 2011, 07:14 PM
I thing the standard text message Send button should stay blue, and the new iMessage Send button be green.

Stevey and Scotty want us to "not learn a new program" but they changed the color from blue, which we are accustomed to for standard text messages, to green.

No, its not hard to relearn a new color, but why make people in the first place.

Just my two cents on simplicity.

eNcrypTioN
Jun 7, 2011, 07:17 PM
What a great feature! When I end up purchasing the next iPhone looks like I won't be needing a text messaging plan since all of my friends and the majority of people I talk to already have iPhones.

louiek
Jun 7, 2011, 07:17 PM
We've got 2 iphones (me and the missus) and an ipad (kids). So thats 3 devices, two phone numbers, one AppleID. Am I able, from each of those devices, to send messages to one (and only one) of the other devices? Further, are the devices only allowed to see the device to device history or all communications for the given AppleID. I love the idea of iMessage, but if I can't keep communications separate and private then it's of limited use to me. I so wish they would allow individual accounts on the ipad. That would make it "magical".

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 07:17 PM
They do not have that any more. Only people who still have $5 for 200 message are grandfathered in.

They do not offer it anymore. Like you said people still have it and AT&T bills for it; it exists.

That poster was implying that the $5 plan (like the unlimited data plan someone else referred to) only existed in some bizarro world.

Dcuellar
Jun 7, 2011, 07:19 PM
I keep seeing more and more features on cell-phones that take away from the carriers and provide something free to the end-consumer. I think it's great, but it makes me wonder if they can't just go all the way.

What do you guys think? What if Apple one day decided their phone was going to be completely VOIP. There wouldn't be the need for plans with minutes and consumers would only have to choose a carrier of data plans. Better yet, WiFi is available EVERYWHERE you go.

Would you pay $600 to Apple for it's phone if that were the case?

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 07:19 PM
I don't know what world you live in, but i WISH AT&T only charged $5 a month for text messaging!!

That's right. They increased it to $10 didn't they? And that is the first tier.

Oh well. I wasn't going to pay $5 for it. I'm certainly not paying $10.

I think it was $5 when I joined ATT. And also the price and data allotment was different. i think I originally had 15GB but it is now 10GB if I'm not mistaken. That is a crime too. I sometimes go over 200mb but I do not even need 1GB but I have to pay for all that extra.


What about the iPhone 3GS?

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/ios-5-works-just-fine-on-iphone-3gs/

Is the new iOS going to even run on the iphone 3.5? Well I guess it will. But perhaps imessage is a feature that won't? Or my idea is not going to work.

I think iChat is going the way of the buffalo, which is why it's not receiving any integration or updates. Were there even any updates announced for iChat in lion?

I rarely use iChat anymore anyway. It's all text messages now. And I think that's what apple is going for

It does sound and video too. I don't think you can do anything more with it. Perhaps tweek the interface? Increase the video chat to more than 4 people? I don't think its going away. I just think it is all set and we shouldn't expect new versions often.

jettredmont
Jun 7, 2011, 07:20 PM
Yes, they are. The $/MB is insane for texting plans.

I also don't know why you think there is going to be an explosion of data usage. No music streaming, and I'm sure most of the syncing will be Wifi only (home network near computer) with the explicit option to choose the data delivery method for such operations.

That being said, it's not as if this is anything new. Carriers have supported BB's implementation of the same type of feature for years without fuss.

The thing that is new is that you don't have to separately configure the other app, you don't have to pass around another identifying token for the other app, and you don't have to go to a different app to talk to BBM users relative to non-BBM users.

The big innovation (if you want to call it that) is that Apple is auto-routing the concept of a "text message" to the cheapest available network. BBM didn't do that, which is largely why BBM was not shunned by network providers.

0815
Jun 7, 2011, 07:28 PM
Apparently you don't understand the reason they do that.

iSomething has become so ubiquitous that brand recognition is through the roof. The only thing they risk is becoming so well known that their brand loses meaning, as has happened with Kleenex (as opposed to the generic tissue).

And we see what happens if they don't use the 'i' in front of it: the competition claims its a generic name and start using it too in the hope of the 'brand recognition' .... Apple should have called the AppStore iAppStore and they would have less problem to argue that it is not generic.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 07:28 PM
I keep seeing more and more features on cell-phones that take away from the carriers and provide something free to the end-consumer. I think it's great, but it makes me wonder if they can't just go all the way.

What do you guys think? What if Apple one day decided their phone was going to be completely VOIP. There wouldn't be the need for plans with minutes and consumers would only have to choose a carrier of data plans. Better yet, WiFi is available EVERYWHERE you go.

Would you pay $600 to Apple for it's phone if that were the case?

If apple built wifi towers all over the place i would. Also I would pay $600 for an unlocked iphone with no contract that I could use on any carrier.

Supa_Fly
Jun 7, 2011, 07:29 PM
little off there. It is a 160 bytes. (1280 bits) but lets give it 20% overhead and 1600 bits which = 200 bytes. So all said and done max a text message size could be is 250 bypes or 1/4 of a kb. This is giving them an extra 50 bytes for any other communications that needs to go on before and after message.

that is just about correct!

However its 160Characters, separate from the header - which usually is included in the first 15characters in the SMS. Please note that the header increases when changing the Data Coding from 7-Bit to UCS2 (the latter used for international SMS'ing and using characters with accent or glyphs).

I find the bits per character math very amusing from others posted thus far 8bits=1 byte = 1 character (basic english type characters, forgive me for not using the correct character naming convention here). Oddly enough ... SMS on ANY network by default uses the VOICE channel, not the data channel - yet can be switched manually on BlackBerry's and a few other smartphones (UIQ, S60, a few others but I'm unsure which other ones specifically).

Is the rate for SMS messages actually increased on other wireless carriers other than in Canada?! I seriously would like to know - we're getting gouged here. Without a capped SMS add on or part of a larger messaging plan - we here in Canada get charged 15 cents per SMS (sent/received) blimey!!

I am not saying iMessaging and BBM is bad. It is how everything links up. BBM I have to accept someone wanting me to put them on their BBM list. iMessaging I do not see that and it wants to default to iMessaging if it can.
That is the fail is how iMessaging takes off.

In Apple trying to push it they are going to cause huge problems for iPod and iPad owners that filter back over to iPhones but the iPod/iPad owners who use some other phone will be the problems.

users of other phones won't be an issue with iOS devices ... iMessaging most likely won't work or just be standard SMS. I actually find it hilarious that the iPad couldn't do SMS on the 3G units since by definition they have an associated phone line to the MicroSIM account (its how the provider bills the data to that SIM).

This is a right step in a potentially powerful direction for Apple. I see iMessaging getting ability to share: photos/videos/calendars (native to iMessaging) yet without confusing which photos are yours or specifically part of iMessage ... just like BBM currently does. However I'm wondering if RIM owns a particular patent in this regards.

I'm MORE ecstatic over the built in dictionary and custom words being system WIDE than iMessage!!! A little known powerful function of BlackBerry's is called AutoText (in BB6 its name was changed, unsure why) but if you research this you'll know how much more powerful it is vs swipe. Apple has finally answered my gripes and any iota for me to considering a BlackBerry EVER again!

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 07:32 PM
Is the new iOS going to even run on the iphone 3.5? Well I guess it will. But perhaps imessage is a feature that won't? Or my idea is not going to work.

The link that I posted doesn't even confirm or deny iMessage. Plus, it's a beta. Hopefully someone with first-hand experience can chime in.

So then what about iPad 1? New iOSs aren't always 100% compatible with older devices, so I wouldn't be surprised if pre-FaceTime iPod Touches aren't included. I'm not one to speculate, but to not include this with the iPad 1 (with its huge, newly formed market) would be silly.

Popeye206
Jun 7, 2011, 07:35 PM
The link that I posted doesn't even confirm or deny iMessage. Plus, it's a beta. Hopefully someone with first-hand experience can chime in.

So then what about iPad 1 (and pre-Facetime iPod Touches if they are upgradeable)? New iOSs aren't always 100% compatible with older devices. I'm not one to speculate, but to not include this with the iPad 1 (with its huge, newly formed market) would be silly.

In the presentation they talked about supporting the iPhone3gs with iOS5... so I don't know why this would not work on the iPad 1.

Funny... our Android trolls seem to be void from this discussion? :rolleyes:

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 07:43 PM
In the presentation they talked about supporting the iPhone3gs with iOS5... so I don't know why this would not work on the iPad 1.


I don't recall the exact wording in the keynote. Did they specifically say iMessages would work on a 3GS?

Previously, some of the older devices would be compatible with whatever new iOS, but not 100%. They would be missing out on things multitasking, background images, etc. So technically an iPhone 3GS or iPad 1 could support iOS 5, but iMessage may be something that won't work. I don't know the answer to this.

Admittedly, I never even thought about using the FaceTime channels to check for iMessage eligibility (if that is how it works) so this has gotten me curious.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 07:44 PM
that is just about correct!

However its 160Characters, separate from the header - which usually is included in the first 15characters in the SMS. Please note that the header increases when changing the Data Coding from 7-Bit to UCS2 (the latter used for international SMS'ing and using characters with accent or glyphs).

I find the bits per character math very amusing from others posted thus far 8bits=1 byte = 1 character (basic english type characters, forgive me for not using the correct character naming convention here). Oddly enough ... SMS on ANY network by default uses the VOICE channel, not the data channel - yet can be switched manually on BlackBerry's and a few other smartphones (UIQ, S60, a few others but I'm unsure which other ones specifically).

Is the rate for SMS messages actually increased on other wireless carriers other than in Canada?! I seriously would like to know - we're getting gouged here. Without a capped SMS add on or part of a larger messaging plan - we here in Canada get charged 15 cents per SMS (sent/received) blimey!!



If I remember right SMS works on the standby signal between your phone and the tower. Cost to the carriers like I said is near zero for SMS.

As for people who freak out about data usage being sucked up on iMessage you get 4 message per KB and you get so you get 4000 message per meg and you have 200 megs on the cheapest plan you have 800,000 messages before you use 200 megs of data.

Just shows you how bad the break down is in the rip off of the thing known as SMS.

thefourthpope
Jun 7, 2011, 07:45 PM
There is nothing I don't like about this. What an awesome addition!

TigerWoodsIV
Jun 7, 2011, 07:46 PM
I don't know what world you live in, but i WISH AT&T only charged $5 a month for text messaging!!

Yeah I pay $20, $5 would be awesome.

Dagless
Jun 7, 2011, 07:48 PM
This sounds so great. I recall an interview with some phone exec chap, who said that text messages are as close to pure profit as you can get. They cost nothing to send, that they're sent in the empty spaces of packets that are sent/received all the time.

Take that away from them Apple. I may just buy an iPhone yet!

ThunderSkunk
Jun 7, 2011, 07:52 PM
1. To half the people posting in this thread: "Failure" is the word you are looking for. Not "Fail". Fail is a "doing" word. "Failure" is a state of something. You fail, and in doing so, both you and the thing you did are failures. See? Easy.

2. That is all. Thank you.

unlinked
Jun 7, 2011, 08:01 PM
little off there. It is a 160 bytes. (1280 bits) but lets give it 20% overhead and 1600 bits which = 200 bytes. So all said and done max a text message size could be is 250 bypes or 1/4 of a kb. This is giving them an extra 50 bytes for any other communications that needs to go on before and after message.

Not that is really matters but the data part of a text message is 140 bytes. It is 160 characters but they are encoded 7 bits per character. Then you need to add in headers and acknowledgement. On top of that you need to add in delivery receipts if they are turned on.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 08:02 PM
1. To half the people posting in this thread: "Failure" is the word you are looking for. Not "Fail". Fail is a "doing" word. "Failure" is a state of something. You fail, and in doing so, both you and the thing you did are failures. See? Easy.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fail


–noun
14. Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.


— n
9. a failure to attain the required standard, as in an examination

It applies to our discussion.

"iMessage will be a fail": iMessage will be obsolete. iMessage will not attain the required standard.

Popeye206
Jun 7, 2011, 08:05 PM
This sounds so great. I recall an interview with some phone exec chap, who said that text messages are as close to pure profit as you can get. They cost nothing to send, that they're sent in the empty spaces of packets that are sent/received all the time.

Take that away from them Apple. I may just buy an iPhone yet!

Wow... all this nonsense about how much data goes into a text message, and how much it costs the phone companies etc is pure junk. It has nothing to do with the value of iMessage.

This is simple... it's a feature that does not require a Text plan. Great for iPad and iPod Touch customers who want to text to phone friends or text among themselves. Plus it adds lots of cool features for normal phone texting.

So... who cares about the phone companies. That is NOT what this is all about. And those who say "Fail".... well... let's see. But I don't think so at all.

ineedamac
Jun 7, 2011, 08:08 PM
This is a welcomed new feature.

Epic Orange
Jun 7, 2011, 08:08 PM
it is not me using the app that worries me. It would be people like my family members who use iPhone so they try to send me an SMS. Apple picks up oh look iOS device (my iPod) and instead of my Android cell phone getting a SMS it goes to my iPod that I do not use for messaging.
That is the problem I am worried about.

It is people switching to tell the iPhone to default to iMessaging if possible and that will cause a lot of problems. The person recieve imessages I feel should be able to reject the link up if they choose. Make it like BBM were you have to accept the invite at first to allow BBM.

First of all, when your texting someone who uses an iDevice with iOS 5 (iPad 2, iPod Touch 3rd/4th Gen, and iPhone 4), it will detect that this is an iMessage capable device and will switch to that service of messaging. Since you own an Android phone, people in your family sending text messages (SMS) to your phone number, will go straight to your android phone. It cannot intercept to your iPod Touch, because they are not sending it to your email or Apple ID, they are specifically sending it through your phone number. If you had an iPhone with iOS 5, it would attempt to send via iMessage, because it is a capable device. If your family sends it your Apple ID or Email, then it would go to your iPod Touch.

By the way, if your creeped out that people will see what your typing, the recipient will only see 3 dots, meaning that they are texting you back. As well, the read receipts is optional, but the deliver receipts are built in.

Hunts121
Jun 7, 2011, 08:12 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

considering text messages cost these companies next to nothing? I'd say say they're very costly.

diamond.g
Jun 7, 2011, 08:18 PM
Answers to common questions:

- You do not have to use iMessages
- "Read" Receipts are Optional (No one will know you read their iMessage)
- It is international
- No Character Limit
how big of a video can you send?

beebler
Jun 7, 2011, 08:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I get unlimited text/mms and data plus voice calls for about $55-60/month so this doesn't affect me much. US carriers are stingy.

CommodityFetish
Jun 7, 2011, 08:28 PM
Such a pity this is not an open standard that any mobile OS maker can adopt. That would be the real game changer for the carriers' ridiculous text plans. Instead it's just another apple-only perk. *sigh* :rolleyes:

PCClone
Jun 7, 2011, 08:32 PM
What if internet connection is not available (neither 3G, Edge, or WiFi), but cellular connection is available (highly unlikely), will iOS know that it needs to send it as a regular sms instead of iMessage? What if I simply want to stick to regular sms instead of iMessage, can I turn that off? Can I have control? Can I have a CHOICE?

You guys do realize where things are headed right. Yes iCloud is great now, but its headed towards hey-why-do-you-need-to-download-music-to-your-drive-we-can-just-give-you-access-to-it-through-the-cloud-without-you-ever-having-to-download-it-theres-nothing-new-to-learn-simply-purchase-songs-as-you-used-to-and-play-from-any-device-immediately-no-need-to-waste-store type of cr*p. You will NEVER OWN anything, you will have to rely on a "service". I don't like where things are headed, I think they're great now, but the cloud is going to become everybody's hard drive one day. Look at google chrome.

Buy a android and then you will have something to complain about.

Blorzoga
Jun 7, 2011, 08:34 PM
text message plans aren't "costly"

Be interesting to see how much data this service uses for both ends of the conversation. Data plans are going to be very easily breached with iCloud and iMessaging.

Also Apple will have to move from udp to TCP for its notifications imo.

What a ridiculous comment. Of course text messages are costly. They are such a cash cow for the carriers. When you can send an email that pages long for free, but a text costs $.20. Sure it's not costly when Mommy and Daddy get you an unlimited text plan.

cvaldes
Jun 7, 2011, 08:39 PM
considering text messages cost these companies next to nothing? I'd say say they're very costly.
Correct.

As a matter of fact, in certain recent catastrophes, the public has been encouraged to text, but not call, since the latter is far more bandwidth intensive. Authorities pleaded people to use voice calls for emergency purposes only.

This was widely announced during the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. NZ mobile operators pleaded people to text each other unless they were calling an emergency or dangerous situation.

Text messaging costs the carriers almost nothing to send which is why they are practically free in many countries not named the United States of America.

US mobile operators are robbing the American public with their greedy texting plans. For now, the best way to combat this is to sign up for Google Voice and use one of the GV clients on a smartphone or iPod touch for your messaging.

Gemtlichkeit
Jun 7, 2011, 08:39 PM
i'm all for cutting down on my texting.. i'm already under 1000 a month

very excited about this

Gemtlichkeit
Jun 7, 2011, 08:42 PM
one thing I do like about texting is that the picture sent across MMS doesn't count towards data.. I currently run the 200mb plan and if someone sends me a lot of pictures it could add up.

does anyone know what the average picture sent over MMS is in mb or kb?

scoobydoo99
Jun 7, 2011, 08:43 PM
They do. 200 messages.

Ok. Well I guess you could also say they charge 25 cents a month for "text messaging" (1 message per month.)

Point is, to say AT&T "charges $5 a month" for text messaging makes it sound more reasonable than it is - they actually charge $10 per month for 1000 messages or $20 per month for unlimited, or 25 cents per message with no messaging plan.

acfusion29
Jun 7, 2011, 08:44 PM
oh so now everyone loves this feature. this is exactly what bbm is and i've been saying we need this and i was always given the "this is just like yahoo, aim, etc" now you people finally see it's not like any of those messaging clients because apple's made it?

:rolleyes:

great feature though. will use it all the time

Thex1138
Jun 7, 2011, 08:51 PM
iMessages is the foundations for some juicy new features ahead I am sure...
:rolleyes:

-LikesMac-
Jun 7, 2011, 08:52 PM
I think iChat is going the way of the buffalo, which is why it's not receiving any integration or updates. Were there even any updates announced for iChat in lion?

I rarely use iChat anymore anyway. It's all text messages now. And I think that's what apple is going for

There were updates for iChat in Mac OS X Lion, it makes it considerably better for me to use. http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/features.html#ichat6

I WANT TO SEND MORE THAN JUST TEXT U KNOW >:(

Gemtlichkeit
Jun 7, 2011, 08:52 PM
oh so now everyone loves this feature. this is exactly what bbm is and i've been saying we need this and i was always given the "this is just like yahoo, aim, etc" now you people finally see it's not like any of those messaging clients because apple's made it?

:rolleyes:

great feature though. will use it all the time

i don't think anyone is denying it's similarities to bbm. think about this, with it being a feature in the blackberry lineup, would it be worth it to switch from a pre 5.0 iphone to a black berry just for BBM? no

now that it's here on the iphone, i'm not going to turn my nose up at it.

DotCom2
Jun 7, 2011, 08:57 PM
Yeah I pay $20, $5 would be awesome.

I pay $5.00 a month to ATT for 200 texts a month.

lordoftheflatbu
Jun 7, 2011, 09:04 PM
I like this feature very much....but guess this is almost an exact copy of what Whatsapp does.....nothing new. And...Whatsapp does support more platforms than iOS....so what's the fuss? I keep using Whatsapp for this reason....

WhatsApp messenger is a cross platform smartphone messenger currently available for iPhone, Android, BlackBerry and Nokia phones. The application utilizes push notifications to instantly get messages from friends, colleagues and family. Switch from SMS to WhatsApp to send and receive messages, pictures, audio notes, and video messages at no cost. All features are included without the need for extra in-application purchases.

*************************************
WHY USE WHATSAPP VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS:
*************************************

* NO HIDDEN COST: Once you and your friends download the application, you can use it to chat as much as you want. Send a million messages a day to your friends for free! WhatsApp uses your Internet connection: 3G/EDGE or Wi-Fi when available.

* MULTIMEDIA: Send Video, Images, and Voice notes to your friends and contacts.

* GROUP CHAT: Enjoy group conversations with your contacts.

* NO INTERNATIONAL CHARGES: Just like there is no added cost to send an international email, there is no cost to send WhatsApp messages internationally. Chat with your friends all over the world as long as they have WhatsApp Messenger installed and avoid those pesky international SMS costs.

* SAY NO TO PINS AND USERNAMES: Why even bother having to remember yet another PIN or username? WhatsApp works with your phone number, just like SMS would, and integrates flawlessly with your existing phone address book.

* NO NEED TO LOG IN/OUT: No more confusion about getting logged off from another computer or device. With push notifications WhatsApp is ALWAYS ON and ALWAYS CONNECTED.

* NO NEED TO ADD BUDDIES: Your Address Book is used to automatically connect you with your contacts. Your contacts who already have WhatsApp Messenger will be automatically displayed under Favorites, similar to a buddy list. (You can of course always edit Favorites any way you like)

* OFFLINE MESSAGES: Even if you miss your push notifications or turn off your iPhone, WhatsApp will save your messages offline until you retrieve them during the next application use.

* STATUS: Use the status feature of WhatsApp to inform your contacts if you are busy, in a meeting, at the gym, or available for a chat.

* AND MUCH MORE: Share location, Exchange contacts, Custom wallpaper, Custom notification sounds, Landscape mode, Precise message time stamps, Email chat history, Broadcast messages and MMS to many contacts at once and much much more!

philitup23
Jun 7, 2011, 09:05 PM
anyone who has iOS 5 beta want to give me their phone number so we can try iMessaging?
my sn on AIM is philitup23. i-m me on that if you dont want give your phone number out to everyone.

PCClone
Jun 7, 2011, 09:14 PM
I use text plus on my iPad and it costs nothing. The app was free and they provide a phone number for free as well.

jlc1978
Jun 7, 2011, 09:28 PM
Tell me about it. This whole text message fee from the phone companies is nothing more than collusion on their parts to fix prices. They all get to squeeze $5 extra out of every customer per month. It adds up.

The data for text messages should be covered by either the phone plan or the data plan. This is ridiculous.

Why? They are in the business of making money, and text messaging is something people value and will pay for. The cost of providing the service has nothing to do with what you can sell it for; it's what people will pay and history shows people will pay for text messaging. By not charging for it they'd be remiss in their duty to shareholders to make as much profit as possible.

zhenya
Jun 7, 2011, 09:28 PM
I like this feature very much....but guess this is almost an exact copy of what Whatsapp does.....nothing new. And...Whatsapp does support more platforms than iOS....so what's the fuss? I keep using Whatsapp for this reason....


Sorry - Whatsapp is NOTHING like this because its usefulness hinges on the fact that the person on the other end of the conversation must also have Whatsapp installed. Yeah, that's not going to happen if you are over 17 years old.

The reason that SMS has been so wildly successful is that it is a dead-reliable instant messaging system that works for virtually every mobile phone ever built, is cross-carrier and cross platform, and requires no effort or configuration on the users end. As long as someone has your phone number, they can send you an SMS.

This update by Apple is impressive because it integrates directly into SMS, and as was well-stated earlier, automatically defaults to using the lowest cost network currently available. It takes everything that works about SMS, and whenever possible, bypasses that expensive communication method. I'm honestly surprised that Apple did this, because it has the potential to cost the carriers millions - but I don't buy that the carriers didn't know about it. AT&T has been changing their available text-messaging plans almost monthly for some time now - such that the cheap plans are no longer available - and, successfully, I might add, hooking people into lucrative unlimited messaging plans by tacking on free mobile to any mobile calling. They must have known this golden goose was about to leave the nest.

DocNYz
Jun 7, 2011, 09:36 PM
There were updates for iChat in Mac OS X Lion, it makes it considerably better for me to use. http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/features.html#ichat6

I WANT TO SEND MORE THAN JUST TEXT U KNOW >:(

Seriously. Especially huge files you can't send through email and crippled web interfaces like gmail/gchat, the direct, encrypted connection that iChat offers is exceptional for that. Not to mention video chatting with four people at the same time. Texting is great but not for people that want to interact on deeper levels or send a lot of data between each other and across the world.

ApplLover
Jun 7, 2011, 09:42 PM
I am VERY dissapointed in iMessage. I imagined something more along the lines of BBM... basically all this is is a glorified SMS.

There are no chat groups, no apart contact list like BBM.. which actually gives it an exclusive feel. Also everyone is already able to iMessasge me? WTF.

I hate it and its going to be a bust. Can't wait for BBM for iPhone.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 09:53 PM
I am VERY dissapointed in iMessage. I imagined something more along the lines of BBM... basically all this is is a glorified SMS.

There are no chat groups, no apart contact list like BBM.. which actually gives it an exclusive feel. Also everyone is already able to iMessasge me? WTF.

I hate it and its going to be a bust. Can't wait for BBM for iPhone.

So you've used the final, published version of iOS 5 extensively? And can infer that it will never have new, added features through upgrades?

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 09:54 PM
i'm all for cutting down on my texting.. i'm already under 1000 a month

very excited about this

I pay per text. Usually the cost comes in under $5 for me from a combination of text only and picture messages. During the major holiday months I get up to the $10 mark but its not worth paying for the plan.

Why? They are in the business of making money, and text messaging is something people value and will pay for. The cost of providing the service has nothing to do with what you can sell it for; it's what people will pay and history shows people will pay for text messaging. By not charging for it they'd be remiss in their duty to shareholders to make as much profit as possible.

We should all learn to not value it because it is a rip off.

Capitalism is a give and take you know. There are two sides in the negotiation. Consumers are not supposed to just accept everything without a say in the matter. If people learn to understand they are being ripped off they can decide to stop purchasing a product. Shareholders will make their money. Don't worry. The company might have to work ever so slightly harder for it and earn an honest wage. And the customers have a duty to be wise with their money if they are wise at all.

Yeah I pay $20, $5 would be awesome.

For texting? Well that depends. It would be awesome if you didn't have a data plan already. But if you are already paying for a data plan and a phone plan then the phone company is ripping you off for $5 a month for a texting plan. You shouldn't have to pay twice for something.

I would turn texting off completely but I keep it on just in case of emergency and some people text me more than I would like. However I may actually turn off texting all together. Don't we have enough ways to communicate? Can't we send email with these same phones? Let's not waste money on texting any more.

cvaldes
Jun 7, 2011, 10:03 PM
I am VERY dissapointed in iMessage. I imagined something more along the lines of BBM... basically all this is is a glorified SMS.

There are no chat groups, no apart contact list like BBM.. which actually gives it an exclusive feel. Also everyone is already able to iMessasge me? WTF.

I hate it and its going to be a bust. Can't wait for BBM for iPhone.
As you sure that the pre-release version of iMessage demoed at Steve's WWDC keynote is fully completed feature-wise and will get no future improvements?

Please let us know and provide sources that prove your argument. Feel free to include positively-verified references that support your thesis.

Thank you.

ChrisTX
Jun 7, 2011, 10:12 PM
I love the idea that sms messages get pushed to the iPad as well. So if I'm working on my iPad and get a text, it get's pushed to my iPad so I don't even hsve to change devices.

PCClone
Jun 7, 2011, 10:14 PM
I like this feature very much....but guess this is almost an exact copy of what Whatsapp does.....nothing new. And...Whatsapp does support more platforms than iOS....so what's the fuss? I keep using Whatsapp for this reason....

WhatsApp messenger is a cross platform smartphone messenger currently available for iPhone, Android, BlackBerry and Nokia phones. The application utilizes push notifications to instantly get messages from friends, colleagues and family. Switch from SMS to WhatsApp to send and receive messages, pictures, audio notes, and video messages at no cost. All features are included without the need for extra in-application purchases.

*************************************
WHY USE WHATSAPP VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS:
*************************************

* NO HIDDEN COST: Once you and your friends download the application, you can use it to chat as much as you want. Send a million messages a day to your friends for free! WhatsApp uses your Internet connection: 3G/EDGE or Wi-Fi when available.

* MULTIMEDIA: Send Video, Images, and Voice notes to your friends and contacts.

* GROUP CHAT: Enjoy group conversations with your contacts.

* NO INTERNATIONAL CHARGES: Just like there is no added cost to send an international email, there is no cost to send WhatsApp messages internationally. Chat with your friends all over the world as long as they have WhatsApp Messenger installed and avoid those pesky international SMS costs.

* SAY NO TO PINS AND USERNAMES: Why even bother having to remember yet another PIN or username? WhatsApp works with your phone number, just like SMS would, and integrates flawlessly with your existing phone address book.

* NO NEED TO LOG IN/OUT: No more confusion about getting logged off from another computer or device. With push notifications WhatsApp is ALWAYS ON and ALWAYS CONNECTED.

* NO NEED TO ADD BUDDIES: Your Address Book is used to automatically connect you with your contacts. Your contacts who already have WhatsApp Messenger will be automatically displayed under Favorites, similar to a buddy list. (You can of course always edit Favorites any way you like)

* OFFLINE MESSAGES: Even if you miss your push notifications or turn off your iPhone, WhatsApp will save your messages offline until you retrieve them during the next application use.

* STATUS: Use the status feature of WhatsApp to inform your contacts if you are busy, in a meeting, at the gym, or available for a chat.

* AND MUCH MORE: Share location, Exchange contacts, Custom wallpaper, Custom notification sounds, Landscape mode, Precise message time stamps, Email chat history, Broadcast messages and MMS to many contacts at once and much much more!

Are you their sales rep? You have only a few posts and are advertising this on multiple sites.

Worf
Jun 7, 2011, 10:18 PM
I'm just glad that in an age of Terabytes :apple: recognizes thats it's absolutely ridiculous to be paying for kilobytes! Each message is only a few kilobytes thats why text messages have such ridiculous high margins for carriers. Also US is one of few countries that still charges for incoming text messages. For those of us who have a decent number of friends and family on iOS this will be great for us.

qwerter
Jun 7, 2011, 10:24 PM
Can't wait to be iIMing on imessage.

Come on Apple. Make those talented people in marketing be creative. Slapping an i in front of everything is too easy.

It's a messaging scheme that works across all iDevices. What else would they call it?

wordoflife
Jun 7, 2011, 10:25 PM
Can you clarify something. Are you paying $30 for just the texting on top of data? Or is that data plus unlimited texting? I'm just curious.


I'm not directing this next comment specifically at you. But I have to say part of the problem I see in getting rid of these text fees is that people are debating the prices as though any text price is legitimate. Regardless of how good the plan is, everyone should understand that the text should be part of the data plan you pay for. I see a lot of people arguing that they get unlimited text as part of a package in response to people saying texting plans are outrageous. (I know that is not the point of your post.) But everyone should really understand that the phone companies are double charging for data when they do this. You can still look for good plans if texting is part of the data.

I also have seen people in the past try to tell me that texting is over a different part of the mobile band than data. Well the text either uses the phone band or the data band. One or the other. To charge for texts is double charging. I can see putting texts down as minute calls or some time length appropriate if it is part of the phone band.

And now we see Apple is making text work as part of the data plan. So certainly the phone companies can do this. Well they will have to if Android does this too and third party apps as well.

I am paying $30 for unlimited texting on top of paying for a data plan. I'm saying that I can't completely drop it because not everyone I text has an iPhone. I like the idea, but unfortunately, it makes little to no difference for me. I know that they are ripping us off like this but I guess you are paying for the convenience of sending messages to any phone. I wouldn't pay so much money for texting, but it's not something I would want to give up and I guess that's just how the world works :(

I didn't understand what you meant by "double charging for data" though. Text messages are going through the carrier and you can send them whether you have a data plan or not. If you have a data plan, it doesn't count against you. (Or are you saying that text messages travel through the data network?)

fertilized-egg
Jun 7, 2011, 10:30 PM
Just an astounding amount of people who do not read thoroughly. This is not like whatsapp or other messging services because it's completely transparent to the users - you don't use a separate app and you don't need to add any extra info. unlike BBM. On the upside you get a much cheaper or even free (in wifi zone) text and you get a host of features not available with SMS. No iOS5 for the recipient? Sure then it's just a regular SMS so nothing's lost.

This is a bonus feature to the existing SMS with very little for you to lose. Turn off the feature completely if you like. Otherwise all it does, at worst, is rerouting your texts through cheaper channels.

Blorzoga
Jun 7, 2011, 10:31 PM
Unfortunately for us consumers, once the carriers start losing all the gravy that is text message fees, they'll just make it up somewhere else. It will be just like the banks when the new regs came along that prevented them from charging for "courtesy" overdrafts, they just jacked up the fees elsewhere to replace the lost income stream.

Personally, I abhor text messaging because it is a complete rip off. On the rare occasion that I have to send one, I use a free service. So I will welcome the new iMessage service; I'm just wary of the carriers' response when they begin to lose all those fees.

CrzyCanuck72
Jun 7, 2011, 10:34 PM
Someone earlier in this thread brought up a real-life usage scenario that, based on the info we have now, could be a real problem:

I own an iPod Touch/iPad running iOS 5 and a non-iPhone (BB, Android, whatever). I have iMessages set up on my iPod/iPad using my Apple ID (or however it's set up on an iOS device that doesn't have an associated phone number) so I can message friends who are using iPhones on iOS 5 using my iPod. Later, those same friends want to send me a text - because their iPhone sees that my contact entry is iMessage-enabled, it sends the message to my iPod. I never receive it because my iPod is at home and I'm at the bar with my non-iPhone.

Unless Apple has come up with some way to address this issue, I think iMessages should have been restricted to iPhones, or to iPods/iPads that are paired with iPhones. There's too much potential for people to think they're sending a text when it's actually going to an iPod/iPad that isn't with the recipient.

TL;DR: based on iMessages settings, how can you ensure that when someone else initiates messages to you, they are going to the right device?

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 10:35 PM
no but they do have an Apple ID which is link to my phone number and I have a feeling Apple will use that to link everything up.

If Apple started using your billing phone number without your consent to force you into iMessaging, don't you think they'd be sued left and right, and have government hearings on privacy violations? Good god. How far from reality are you really trying to take your paranoia about a feature you don't even have to turn on?!?!?

Maybe they'll take your credit card number from your apple ID and start you a Gevalia coffee subscription too? I hear that free k-cup machine they're giving away is rather nice. The odds of that happening are about the same.

ianb821
Jun 7, 2011, 10:37 PM
BBM has been around for years and is fantastic. This is a great addition to iOS and hopefully more reliable than the third party applications that do the same thing. I don't however like the fact that anyone can send me an iMessage. I prefer RIM's design, where you have to accept a friend on BBM before they can message you. There are few people that I want sending me messages that show I have read them. Work colleagues for example, should not know whether I have checked a message until I chose to reply at a convenient time.

No worries mate, there is an option in the settings labeled "Send Read Receipt", you can turn it off and they will not be able to tell if it has been read or not.

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 10:43 PM
Someone earlier in this thread brought up a real-life usage scenario that, based on the info we have now, could be a real problem:

I own an iPod Touch/iPad running iOS 5 and a non-iPhone (BB, Android, whatever). I have iMessages set up on my iPod/iPad using my Apple ID (or however it's set up on an iOS device that doesn't have an associated phone number) so I can message friends who are using iPhones on iOS 5 using my iPod. Later, those same friends want to send me a text - because their iPhone sees that my contact entry is iMessage-enabled, it sends the message to my iPod. I never receive it because my iPod is at home and I'm at the bar with my non-iPhone.

Unless Apple has come up with some way to address this issue, I think iMessages should have been restricted to iPhones, or to iPods/iPads that are paired with iPhones. There's too much potential for people to think they're sending a text when it's actually going to an iPod/iPad that isn't with the recipient.


They color coded the send button! LOL. Blue and green (the two colors most people with color blindness issues can't see or distinguish between btw). In your example, that does pose an interesting question if you have activated it say on your iPod touch. I could see this being a pain. If you had to be online for it to work, it kind of is stupid. If you have to manually tell the app to revert to your phone, kind of stupid too. I think having it all as 1 unified app would be where confusion can happen. How many people would pay attention to the send button being blue or green? Perhaps someone with the beta will post about this soon.

Anyone using the beta have the answer? I would hope it would be more obvious like Facetime is.

ianb821
Jun 7, 2011, 10:46 PM
So will you be able to block people from getting a receipt that you read their message? I don't like the idea of everyone knowing the second I read their message, as a delayed response can be interpreted in different ways.

Yes, it's an option in the settings, I've attached a screenshot.

Let me know if you have any more questions, I might be able to help out.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 10:47 PM
Blue and green (the two colors most people with color blindness issues can't see or distinguish between btw).

Red-green is the most common.

sladey
Jun 7, 2011, 10:49 PM
Confused.

If I have the same apple id on my wife's and my iphone to enable icloud sync of calendar, photos, etc, then how do I iMessage her phone?

If we have separate apple ids on each iphone for iMessage, how do we sync with icloud?

MacAddict1978
Jun 7, 2011, 10:54 PM
The link that I posted doesn't even confirm or deny iMessage. Plus, it's a beta. Hopefully someone with first-hand experience can chime in.

So then what about iPad 1? New iOSs aren't always 100% compatible with older devices, so I wouldn't be surprised if pre-FaceTime iPod Touches aren't included. I'm not one to speculate, but to not include this with the iPad 1 (with its huge, newly formed market) would be silly.

The feature page on apple.com is showing compatibility with 3gs and up, and iPads 1&2 with all the announced features listed. Last time there was partial compatibility, they did highlight what areas wouldn't work (backgrounds, folders, etc.) Nothing about this update feel very heavy and more app driven so I don't see where they should have many snags. As long as it doesn't cripple devices like the poor 3G suffered. I'd wait to upgrade the 3GS when it's launched a few days to be safe.... since they make it very hard to downgrade without some hackery. If rumors of voice integration still possibly coming are true, that could change things up a bit.

DocNYz
Jun 7, 2011, 10:54 PM
Red-green is the most common.

Not only that but they chose green and blue because they're the most soothing feeling to the most people, whereas red has a connotation of warning/danger/blood/obligation etc. That's why scrubs are green or blue. I can't even begin to guess how far back in human history this has been known, addressed.

nebo1ss
Jun 7, 2011, 10:56 PM
And why would I be interested in Imessage, when I have unlimited SMS and only 1Gig of data per month? I would prefer to reserve my data usage for other purposes.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 11:00 PM
I am paying $30 for unlimited texting on top of paying for a data plan. I'm saying that I can't completely drop it because not everyone I text has an iPhone. I like the idea, but unfortunately, it makes little to no difference for me. I know that they are ripping us off like this but I guess you are paying for the convenience of sending messages to any phone. I wouldn't pay so much money for texting, but it's not something I would want to give up and I guess that's just how the world works :(

I didn't understand what you meant by "double charging for data" though. Text messages are going through the carrier and you can send them whether you have a data plan or not. If you have a data plan, it doesn't count against you. (Or are you saying that text messages travel through the data network?)

Here is what I mean: We are double paying because we are already paying for a data plan and text messaging is data. Now I've had people I assume to be activists for phone companies tell me that the text message goes through the bandwidth that phone calls do rather than the band width of the data. My response to that is that we are already paying for a phone plan too. So either way, we are paying for it already and they want to tack on a plan on top of it.

The text message is either straight data just like an email message or the downloading of a web page or it should count as a minute phone call Either way you have already paid for it. Charging for the text like it is some "third box" is a rip off.

I am coming from the perspective of someone paying for moderate data (more than I'd like but there aren't many options) and minimum minutes. I have tons of minutes left and 3/4 of my data goes unused. And the phone company wants me to pay more for texting? If you are buying the largest data plans and the text messaging is bundled in somehow then sure that is a good deal. But from what I've seen, every bundle of that sort can be had for less without the text message package.

iscott73
Jun 7, 2011, 11:00 PM
My family shares my Itunes account to save money on apps and music and stuff. I guess I would text myself to send a message to my wife's iPhone. That's kinda crappy. But I would like the text received and read feature. Can you even texts yourself? I'm Not sure I will be liking this cloud service too much. I don't need my wife getting all my documents and stuff. lol Cant wait for the notification fix as well. Apple really did well this time. Hope they can deliver on time. Early Sept Plz.:D

realspear
Jun 7, 2011, 11:09 PM
What these comments show is how little the Apple fanboy world knows about reality. In fact, the big losers in this are not the carriers, they can always find ways to make more money off users, probably through increasing data fees. The big losers are the SMS aggregators. Every carrier has to go through the aggregators for their messaging, and the aggregators make a lot of money by doing nothing except routing between the carriers. Companies like mBlox are the ones that will be affected by this, and lose their market, not the carriers. Time to get your head out of the iPad and start looking at the real world.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 11:10 PM
Not that is really matters but the data part of a text message is 140 bytes. It is 160 characters but they are encoded 7 bits per character. Then you need to add in headers and acknowledgement. On top of that you need to add in delivery receipts if they are turned on.

The missing bit is often time a parity bit so still 8 bits per char and then the over head so to make the math easier 20% at 10 bits per char.

Also I was not talking about a delivery receipt to the person you are messaging. I was talking about delivery acknowledgement from the telecom system to tell your phone that it has receive the message. Basically between your phone and the tower. You send a message and when tower knows it has it all it sends the confirmation back to your phone. When your phone recieve an SMS it tells the tower "Hey I got it the package" Also the message could be small enough to fit inside a single frame so even better.

If Apple started using your billing phone number without your consent to force you into iMessaging, don't you think they'd be sued left and right, and have government hearings on privacy violations? Good god. How far from reality are you really trying to take your paranoia about a feature you don't even have to turn on?!?!?

Maybe they'll take your credit card number from your apple ID and start you a Gevalia coffee subscription too? I hear that free k-cup machine they're giving away is rather nice. The odds of that happening are about the same.


You really have not used contact searches very often have you. Often times you can do a search by phone numbers to see if you can find some contacts.

Even outside of that a lot of people store all the contact info under one name.
For example I know my family has under my contact info on their phone my phone number and email address. That email address happens to be my Apple ID one as well so yet again the system links it all up no problem at all. So even if my phone number is not link to my Apple ID my email is which in people contacts list are link together under one name.

Still boils down to the same problem.

realspear
Jun 7, 2011, 11:10 PM
This one is typical of the lack of any real knowledge:

The text message is either straight data just like an email message or the downloading of a web page or it should count as a minute phone call Either way you have already paid for it. Charging for the text like it is some "third box" is a rip off.

No, no, no. You're paying a lot for it because the carriers have to pay the SMS aggregators just to send a message. Spend a few minutes learning about something before posting ignorant nonsense.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:11 PM
It does sound and video too. I don't think you can do anything more with it. Perhaps tweek the interface? Increase the video chat to more than 4 people? I don't think its going away. I just think it is all set and we shouldn't expect new versions often.

they don't need to offer new features to improve it. Just integrate it more. FaceTime to iChat protocols even. The fact that they haven't makes me think that they're just letting it go

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 11:12 PM
This one is typical of the lack of any real knowledge:

The text message is either straight data just like an email message or the downloading of a web page or it should count as a minute phone call Either way you have already paid for it. Charging for the text like it is some "third box" is a rip off.

No, no, no. You're paying a lot for it because the carriers have to pay the SMS aggregators just to send a message. Spend a few minutes learning about something before posting ignorant nonsense.

even accounting for the aggregators SMS is near pure profit for the carriers.

30 a month for a family plan and even with 30k+ message sent the carrier is still making nearly 100% profit off of that 30 a month. SMS is near pure profit.

Trauma1
Jun 7, 2011, 11:13 PM
What these comments show is how little the Apple fanboy world knows about reality. In fact, the big losers in this are not the carriers, they can always find ways to make more money off users, probably through increasing data fees. The big losers are the SMS aggregators. Every carrier has to go through the aggregators for their messaging, and the aggregators make a lot of money by doing nothing except routing between the carriers. Companies like mBlox are the ones that will be affected by this, and lose their market, not the carriers. Time to get your head out of the iPad and start looking at the real world.

The data used is so small it is insignificant. The "fanboys" that you are referring to are likely to still be on an unlimited data plan (for the time being) so it's irrelevant.

rjtyork
Jun 7, 2011, 11:15 PM
Every single text messaging plan might not be costly, but the overwhelming majority of them are. Carriers grossly overcharge for a service that costs them almost nothing.

It's interesting that the carriers didn't know about this until we did. I'm sure they weren't happy!

I sure hope they aren't happy! They've been screwing us for too long. I'm glad I kept my unlimited data plan. I'm going to keep it for as long as I can because I can cut my phone bill to almost nothing by downgrading to the lowest possible minutes and no texting plan and route EVERY voice call through google voice and use google voice for my texting, as well. As for iMessaging, I bet I'll be using that a lot, too. A LOT of people I know have iPhones, iPads, or iPod touches and free texting to all of them with iMessages is going to be awesome. The only disadvantage I'm at is it will seem "fragmented". I'll have to try and remember who has an iDevice that I can text through iMessages for free and remember who doesn't so I know that I need to text them with my google voice.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:15 PM
1. To half the people posting in this thread: "Failure" is the word you are looking for. Not "Fail". Fail is a "doing" word. "Failure" is a state of something. You fail, and in doing so, both you and the thing you did are failures. See? Easy.

2. That is all. Thank you.

Either you have never seen epic fail.com and the way the word has been utilized recently, or you have a bunch of dang kids who won't stay off of your lawn.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:17 PM
how big of a video can you send?

Over 9000

JayLenochiniMac
Jun 7, 2011, 11:18 PM
It'd be great if I could check/answer messages while at the computer without having to take the iPhone out of my pocket.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:21 PM
I use text plus on my iPad and it costs nothing. The app was free and they provide a phone number for free as well.

That's nice. Except people will text your actual phone number by default. Now if they have an iPhone and do that you won't be charged for an incoming text

octarine
Jun 7, 2011, 11:21 PM
Sorry - Whatsapp is NOTHING like this because its usefulness hinges on the fact that the person on the other end of the conversation must also have Whatsapp installed. Yeah, that's not going to happen if you are over 17 years old.

The reason that SMS has been so wildly successful is that it is a dead-reliable instant messaging system that works for virtually every mobile phone ever built, is cross-carrier and cross platform, and requires no effort or configuration on the users end. As long as someone has your phone number, they can send you an SMS.

You're a little off the mark there. The usefulness of Whatsapp is that it works in exactly the way you describe iMessage. The unique key is the phone number. Only contacts with Whatsapp installed are highlighed in the whatsapp contact list. You can use SMS to message others. This works very very well (and scares the crap out of the carriers) no need to exchange a second set of credentials, and it uses the most complete data source that people keep (their phone book).

If iMessage also does this, it'll be very useful.
What I question is: are apple validating the phone number of my iphone? If you go to Settings -> Phone -> My Number and enter your boss's phone number, will you magically receive all his iMessages? I hope not.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 7, 2011, 11:24 PM
I sure hope they aren't happy! They've been screwing us for too long. I'm glad I kept my unlimited data plan. I'm going to keep it for as long as I can because I can cut my phone bill to almost nothing by downgrading to the lowest possible minutes and no texting plan and route EVERY voice call through google voice and use google voice for my texting, as well. As for iMessaging, I bet I'll be using that a lot, too. A LOT of people I know have iPhones, iPads, or iPod touches and free texting to all of them with iMessages is going to be awesome. The only disadvantage I'm at is it will seem "fragmented". I'll have to try and remember who has an iDevice that I can text through iMessages for free and remember who doesn't so I know that I need to text them with my google voice.

you know routing your phone calls threw Google voice is going to suck down your minutes and with the lowest minute plan that is not going to give you the ability to have a number set to free.

Now Txting yeah you can get unlimited that way.

For me personally I use google voice for my VVM because it beats the crap out of anything else out there. 1. Do not have to pay a fee that some carriers charge.
2. I get all voice mail transcribed for free. Something that no one else is offering. Yeah the transcriptions are not perfect and often times have errors in them there is generally enough info I can pull out to get a rough idea on how important it is.

iMessaging people seem to think would allow them to get off SMS but lets face it iPhones do not have a majority of the market and chances are all iPhone users have people they txt with quite often that do not or even want an iPhone. Now carriers have seen people drop their voice plans down because of txting. Hell my family went from bumping the limit of minutes every month to now we have tons of roll over every month.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:25 PM
Unfortunately for us consumers, once the carriers start losing all the gravy that is text message fees, they'll just make it up somewhere else. It will be just like the banks when the new regs came along that prevented them from charging for "courtesy" overdrafts, they just jacked up the fees elsewhere to replace the lost income stream.

Personally, I abhor text messaging because it is a complete rip off. On the rare occasion that I have to send one, I use a free service. So I will welcome the new iMessage service; I'm just wary of the carriers' response when they begin to lose all those fees.

Possibly. But who is going to be the first to raise prices? ATT or Verizon? Who is willing to risk having their subscribers jump ship just to make some extra coin?

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:27 PM
They color coded the send button! LOL. Blue and green (the two colors most people with color blindness issues can't see or distinguish between btw). In your example, that does pose an interesting question if you have activated it say on your iPod touch. I could see this being a pain. If you had to be online for it to work, it kind of is stupid. If you have to manually tell the app to revert to your phone, kind of stupid too. I think having it all as 1 unified app would be where confusion can happen. How many people would pay attention to the send button being blue or green? Perhaps someone with the beta will post about this soon.

Anyone using the beta have the answer? I would hope it would be more obvious like Facetime is.

I think there is an accessibility option that remedies the colorblindness issue

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 11:30 PM
This one is typical of the lack of any real knowledge:

The text message is either straight data just like an email message or the downloading of a web page or it should count as a minute phone call Either way you have already paid for it. Charging for the text like it is some "third box" is a rip off.

No, no, no. You're paying a lot for it because the carriers have to pay the SMS aggregators just to send a message. Spend a few minutes learning about something before posting ignorant nonsense.

No. This is just more spin. The mobile phone companies can certainly provide this technology and service themselves. The entire process is a scam. The outsourcing to another company does not change that fact.

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:31 PM
What these comments show is how little the Apple fanboy world knows about reality. In fact, the big losers in this are not the carriers, they can always find ways to make more money off users, probably through increasing data fees. The big losers are the SMS aggregators. Every carrier has to go through the aggregators for their messaging, and the aggregators make a lot of money by doing nothing except routing between the carriers. Companies like mBlox are the ones that will be affected by this, and lose their market, not the carriers. Time to get your head out of the iPad and start looking at the real world.

Sorry, your association is flawed. Not knowing who the ******* Mblox is isn't an apple "fanboy" phenomenon. It's a normal human being phenomenon.

Way to make geeks look like complete tw*ts

lukecro
Jun 7, 2011, 11:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

This one is typical of the lack of any real knowledge:

The text message is either straight data just like an email message or the downloading of a web page or it should count as a minute phone call Either way you have already paid for it. Charging for the text like it is some "third box" is a rip off.

No, no, no. You're paying a lot for it because the carriers have to pay the SMS aggregators just to send a message. Spend a few minutes learning about something before posting ignorant nonsense.

Wrong.

Even a small local carrier can bulk-purchase SMS services from an aggregator for as little as Half A Cent a message. The major carriers should be able to negotiate even better deals.

So a company like AT&T, which, depending on your plan, charges fees of around 20 cents per message sent and per message received - or suckers you into absurdly priced SMS bundles ranging from $5-$30 - is making about, oh, 95% profit on text messaging, even after all their costs are figured in, for transmitting these tiny super-cheap little packets of data.

I don't mind them making a good profit, but it's kinda crazy that I'm paying around $20/month for texting on top of a $39 voice plan (that I barely use) and a $30 data plan (that I can't tether without paying even more).

And with the two biggest carriers having very similar offerings, it does smell like price fixing.

Also see this:

http://m.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/text-messages-c/

Of course, I can use my Google Voice app to SMS for free - but it's not fully integrated with Apple's regular SMS messaging app, so it's not as convenient - Apple's iMessage solution, if it works well, will be a big win for i-device owning consumers.

I just hope it does work well - I bloody hate the craptastic iChat on my Mac, so I don't totally trust Apple to be able to deliver a flawless SMS/chat hybrid masterpiece ;>)

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:35 PM
The missing bit is often time a parity bit so still 8 bits per char and then the over head so to make the math easier 20% at 10 bits per char.

Also I was not talking about a delivery receipt to the person you are messaging. I was talking about delivery acknowledgement from the telecom system to tell your phone that it has receive the message. Basically between your phone and the tower. You send a message and when tower knows it has it all it sends the confirmation back to your phone. When your phone recieve an SMS it tells the tower "Hey I got it the package" Also the message could be small enough to fit inside a single frame so even better.




You really have not used contact searches very often have you. Often times you can do a search by phone numbers to see if you can find some contacts.

Even outside of that a lot of people store all the contact info under one name.
For example I know my family has under my contact info on their phone my phone number and email address. That email address happens to be my Apple ID one as well so yet again the system links it all up no problem at all. So even if my phone number is not link to my Apple ID my email is which in people contacts list are link together under one name.

Still boils down to the same problem.

You keep talking about this "problem" but you have yet to address any of the myriad of people who offered the obvious solution to TURN IT OFF.

Josef Stalin said a falsehood repeated enough times becomes truth. (http://www.quotationspage.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/frazz09-12-07.jpg)

southernpaws
Jun 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
you know routing your phone calls threw Google voice is going to suck down your minutes and with the lowest minute plan that is not going to give you the ability to have a number set to free.

.

You know threw is different than through right?

I can handle your/you're and many other common errors. But that one is egregiously ignorant.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Sorry, your association is flawed. Not knowing who the ******* Mblox is isn't an apple "fanboy" phenomenon. It's a normal human being phenomenon.

Way to make geeks look like complete tw*ts

Not to mention that he failed to offer any good reason that the data handling done by SMS needs to cost that much money. When I think of the amount of data I can download in a month or the number of minutes I can call "long distance" for the price I pay, there is no reason the price per text should be that high. The SMS companies have computers sitting there handling data transfer for huge amounts of money. I'm sure the only reason the phone companies don't do this is that by out sourcing they can claim it is out of their hands. Of course the executives of the SMS and the phone companies are probably all good friends and fellow coworkers. They probably have stock in each other's company. Its a "win-win" for both organizations I'm sure.

This suggests price fixing in my opinion. If any one carrier wanted to grab SMS technology in house they would pass on savings but not one is willing to do this. They all "outsource". Why outsource when you know this is going to be a permanent part of your business plan? If you thought it was a passing fad you would of course outsource. But why pay this other company that you know you will need in perpetuity? Greed. Nothing more.

The other issue is paying for text messages received. Most comments I've read from abroad show surprise that we must pay for incoming messages.

This is a major problem for me. I refuse to pay for a text plan. My amount of texting is less than the plan would cost. However I have no control over whether someone texts me or not. If I get a spam text I pay for it even if I don't read it. This is criminal.

photographypro
Jun 7, 2011, 11:53 PM
Go into your settings people. You can NOW (on an ATT iphone) turn off the cell phone data for iCloud, etc. I have wifi at home and work, so I welcome this new messaging plan. And if I'm not at home or work, my 200 messages for $5 plan will cover the rest!

grapefruitx
Jun 8, 2011, 12:10 AM
Surely for the consumer, it would be better if RIM, Google, Apple and Microsoft got together and agreed some protocols that would allow these services to be interoperable, Unless they do that i don't think any of them will beat the brilliant, ubiquitous Simple Messaging Service,

DotCom2
Jun 8, 2011, 12:13 AM
My family shares my Itunes account to save money on apps and music and stuff. I guess I would text myself to send a message to my wife's iPhone. That's kinda crappy. But I would like the text received and read feature. Can you even texts yourself? I'm Not sure I will be liking this cloud service too much. I don't need my wife getting all my documents and stuff. lol Cant wait for the notification fix as well. Apple really did well this time. Hope they can deliver on time. Early Sept Plz.:D

"Early Sept" is not Fall. Steve Jobs said coming "This Fall". Fall doesn't start even start until Sept. 23rd.

Soniko
Jun 8, 2011, 12:27 AM
And the receipt are just for iphones and ipad conversations?
Or it works with all SMS's?

algiris
Jun 8, 2011, 12:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)


I just hope it does work well - I bloody hate the craptastic iChat on my Mac, so I don't totally trust Apple to be able to deliver a flawless SMS/chat hybrid masterpiece ;>)

iChat is not craptastic.

LondonCentral
Jun 8, 2011, 12:36 AM
Oh no, I hope this isn't the birth of a new 'my US carrier is better than your US carrier' ***** storm of a non-debate.

Anyway....

...I wonder if they have this sort of 'heated' discussion regarding SMS costs Vs BBM subscription over at the crackberry forum.:rolleyes:

ten-oak-druid
Jun 8, 2011, 12:38 AM
Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1921373,00.html)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
By ERIC BENDER

Excerpt:
...At those hearings, Srinivasan Keshav, a professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario and an expert on mobile computing, presented a detailed analysis of all the expenses that carriers incur in handling SMS messages. He showed that the wireless channels contribute about a tenth of a cent to a carrier's cost, that accounting charges might be twice that and that other costs basically round to zero because texting requires so little of a mobile network's infrastructure. Summing up, Keshav found that a text message doesn't cost providers more than 0.3 cent.

...


So 0.3 cents per message and they are now charging 0.20 cents per text.

The spin from the carriers is:
1. Percentage of customers using text is down. This is garbage because the number of customers on smart phone sis growing. So the lower percentage of the much higher number is a larger number.
2. If the infrastructure doesn't get used it still needs to be paid for. Is that right? So if all texting ended there are towers out there used solely for texting and not for carrying calls or data that would go to waste?

And don't forget that the data plan many of us pay for which should include texting anyway is a rip off for many. Sure the carriers advertise great prices on large data plans. But those of us who need more than the 200mb lowest plan end up wasting a lot of money buying larger plans that we do not need. We are in fact subsidizing the largest plans that other people get sweet deals on. I am glad to see that Verizon is going to offer more tiers in the future. Hopefully that puts pressure on other carriers.

And this was good news earlier this year:

Text Message Price-Fixing Class Action Proceeds (http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/959-text-message-price-fixing-class-action-proceeds-)
06 January 2011
By Sarah Pierce

Excerpt:
...

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the nation’s four largest wireless providers of conspiring to fix prices for text messages. The ruling is a significant victory for cell phone consumers as a similar antitrust class action was dismissed last year.

The text message class action lawsuit accuses Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA of conspiring to set prices at 10 cents a message, then colluding to increase text message prices by 5 cent increments to 20 cents a message.

The double price increase -- which occurred over a nearly three-year period -- caught the eye of Congress in 2008 and prompted Sen. Herb Kohl, chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee in the Senate Judiciary Committee, to send a letter to the big four wireless providers to demand they account for the dramatic price increase for text messages.

“Some industry experts contend that these increased rates do not appear to be justified by any increases in the costs associated with text messaging services, but may instead be a reflection of a decrease in competition, and an increase in market power, among your four companies,” Kohl said in the letter.

...

writingdevil
Jun 8, 2011, 12:56 AM
Ha, answered my own question... from the Cult of Mac article:
not being sarcastic, but i don't seem to have as much time as a lot of posters here who just start typing and making judgements with really no knowledge from info already posted.
i do read some sites regularly for they (sometimes) have good tips from experienced developers, power users or, in my case, knowledgeable ppl in digital aspects of filmmaking (post, mixing, conforming).
it seems like it's more a quick almost knee jerk response which is not helpful but certainly everybody's right. with long work hours (not surfing much , tons of outside work to pay rent) i love threads when the posters are giving knowledge.

klamse25
Jun 8, 2011, 01:09 AM
What the hell kind of texting are you talking?? Over $1000/mb? No.... Texting on att uses voice, not data. And it's $20/month for unlimited. That's the same everywhere basically.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in my life.

benjs
Jun 8, 2011, 01:22 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

In the end, what I've taken out of this is that the level with which imessages will be beneficial will range situationally. For me, texting is pricey, but my plan has my10 and I don't feel the need to text anyone else. That said, imessages is a great idea for those in places where data is more affordable than text messaging.

Something else - imessages will be
neglected for me if I know that a person will be notified immediately after I read the text. I didn't like that about bbm, still don't here - I like that I can ignore or neglect a message without feeling obligated to respond immediately.

One more thing - I believe this will lead to more reasonable text plans from carriers. Android rim and apple now have the infrastructure in place to expedite texting over data, and really it's just by bundling homemade messaging software in their operating systems. I believe greed and hunger for market share from certain parties involved will prevent the three companies from ever having a unified messaging system, but I also believe as each company displays the desire to ween themselves off a dependency towards the carrier for anything but data, carriers must provide further incentives (ie lower cost) for text messaging if they want to keep gouging the consumer on average for them.

frankrap
Jun 8, 2011, 01:39 AM
I have no desire for people to know when I receive/read their messages. I hated when I had verizon specifically for that reason. Is there a way to keep that turned off, as well the indication of the other party typing a reply? I honestly may not update to ios5 specifically for this reason. I waited months for the white iphone 4 so I have the will power to not use a better os.

MattInOz
Jun 8, 2011, 01:46 AM
Surely for the consumer, it would be better if RIM, Google, Apple and Microsoft got together and agreed some protocols that would allow these services to be interoperable, Unless they do that i don't think any of them will beat the brilliant, ubiquitous Simple Messaging Service,

For Apples part I understand everything is build on XMPP(Jabber) so your phone just creates a single XMPP to Apples host servers that link is then used for all push notifications. Your phone just doles out the messages to the right app as it gets them.

The big thing is Apple uses encryption so only clients (or hosts) with the key can send you messages. But the XMPP system was designed so that many different people could create and host networks and the hosts would mesh together to connect clients from one network to the next.

Facebook chat has an XMPP hook (it maybe XMPP based as well) So they could do a deal with Apple gets their systems talking a Boom iMessages is now your facebook chat client.

danrees
Jun 8, 2011, 01:53 AM
Slightly off-topic, but reading through this thread makes me realise how little competition you have in the US for mobile carriers. (I also noticed this for cable, etc).

I am moving to New York in three weeks and was simply shocked at the cost of either an AT&T or Verizon pay monthly contract.

$40 per month for 450 minutes (without handset)
PLUS $10 p.m. for 1,000 text messages
PLUS $45 p.m. for only 4GB data

Total = $95 p.m. I assume you add sales tax on to this...

In the UK I can get a sim-only contract with 3 mobile for 25 p.m. (including 20% VAT) with a rolling monthly contract including:

2,000 any network minutes
5,000 Three-to-Three minutes
5,000 texts
All-you-can-eat Data

You would be insane to allow T-Mobile to merge with AT&T.

Worf
Jun 8, 2011, 02:20 AM
You're a little off the mark there. The usefulness of Whatsapp is that it works in exactly the way you describe iMessage. The unique key is the phone number. Only contacts with Whatsapp installed are highlighed in the whatsapp contact list. You can use SMS to message others. This works very very well (and scares the crap out of the carriers) no need to exchange a second set of credentials, and it uses the most complete data source that people keep (their phone book).

If iMessage also does this, it'll be very useful.
What I question is: are apple validating the phone number of my iphone? If you go to Settings -> Phone -> My Number and enter your boss's phone number, will you magically receive all his iMessages? I hope not.

:eek:, I doubt iMessage with allow this, with the security measures Apple says that they have in place and they also are using the number based off our sim cards I doubt it's even possible to intercept another person's messages just by changing the number.

sjo
Jun 8, 2011, 02:24 AM
Not to mention that he failed to offer any good reason that the data handling done by SMS needs to cost that much money.

(GSM) SMS doesn't use data connection. It uses signaling interface. The capacity of which is way more limited than packet data connection.

caspersoong
Jun 8, 2011, 02:24 AM
I hope it is intelligent enough to know when the data cap is almost reached.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 8, 2011, 02:44 AM
(GSM) SMS doesn't use data connection. It uses signaling interface. The capacity of which is way more limited than packet data connection.

Yes but it does not justify the price charged. I hope the lawsuit is won and these price fixing carriers have to come clean.

sjo
Jun 8, 2011, 02:59 AM
Yes but it does not justify the price charged. I hope the lawsuit is won and these price fixing carriers have to come clean.

Limited capacity explains perfectly higher price. Basic laws of economics.

michaelcyee
Jun 8, 2011, 03:01 AM
I have a pay-as-you-go plan on T-Mobile, and they charge $0.10 each for a text going out and going in (last i checked). So I really hate texting on that phone, since a conversation can get really expensive, even one that's two or three messages long. I also hate typing on a T9, but sometimes I just have to use it because I get service everywhere, and I can't get Wi-Fi everywhere. If I did I'd use Textfree on my iPod touch exclusively.

Unfortunately it looks like iMessages can't solve that problem and I'll still have to rely on carrier SMS when I'm not on Wi-Fi.

themd99
Jun 8, 2011, 03:17 AM
What is the difference between this and Whatsapp messenger?

Hinza
Jun 8, 2011, 03:33 AM
Can someone tell me if you also can get a delivery report for a normal text message. Or is that limited to Imessages?
I am not talking about the read confirmation message.

NightFox
Jun 8, 2011, 03:52 AM
Wow, some people really getting in a state over this! Most of the answers are already in this thread, but here's a few key points:


You can turn this off (and still send/receive normal SMS on an iPhone).


You can select whether the app will send an SMS if it can't send an iM (as long as you're sending it to phone number, not an email address).


You can chose whether or not to send read receipts.


You associate one or more of your email addresses with the app (and also your iPhone phone number). If someone sends an iM to any of these email addresses or your iPhone number, it will be sent/received as an iM.


You can't associate your Nokia/Samsung etc phone number with iMessage - any iM sent to your traditional mobile/cell phone just gets sent to that phone as a plain SMS.


If your name is John Smith and I have you in my Contacts as follows:

John Smith
Home email: john.smith@me.com
Work email: john.smith@work.com
iPhone: 123 456 7890
Mobile: 987 654 3210

When I put "John Smith" into the "To" field it gives me the option of which email/number I want to use. If I select any of the first three options (assuming you've associated both email addresses, otherwise they won't appear as options), the message will be sent as an iM. If you select the last option, it'll send an SMS. You can also select a mix of iMessage/SMS recipients in the same message - it's not something you need to worry about.


As you enter each recipient, the app automatically checks if their email address or phone number is associated with an iM account.


The green/blue is down to colour-coding: green for SMS recipients/messages, blue for iM recipients/messages.


The whole process is automatic - when you send a message to a contact you don't need to worry whether it should be an iM or SMS, it's a transparent process that the app deals with for you.

kyjaotkb
Jun 8, 2011, 04:05 AM
That's fun and cool to exchange free messages between iDevices...

But where I live (France), all phone plans now include unlimited SMS, even pre-paid cards include unlimited SMS. For everyone, not just those stupid iPhone plans. And everybody except iPhone owners get delivery receipts since 1997.

For instance i pay EUR 27.90 per month for 120 min + 120 min evenings/weekends, unlimited data (throttling @256kbps allowed but never personally experienced after 500MB), unlimited TV & mail, unlimited texts + unlimited call 24/7 to my 3 favorite numbers (that's after a commercial negociation between carrier and me). 24 month contract.
Of course SMS reception is always free for everyone.

So I welcome the gesture from Apple but I would frankly have preferred standard SMS delivery report functionality over this...

shaunomacx
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 AM
How long before Apple removes WhatsApp from their store for infringing on iMessage functions.

NightFox
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 AM
That's fun and cool to exchange free messages between iDevices...

But where I live (France), all phone plans now include unlimited SMS, even pre-paid cards include unlimited SMS. For everyone, not just those stupid iPhone plans. And everybody except iPhone owners get delivery receipts since 1997.

For instance i pay EUR 27.90 per month for 120 min + 120 min evenings/weekends, unlimited data (throttling @256kbps allowed but never personally experienced after 500MB), unlimited TV & mail, unlimited texts + unlimited call 24/7 to my 3 favorite numbers (that's after a commercial negociation between carrier and me). 24 month contract.
Of course SMS reception is always free for everyone.

So I welcome the gesture from Apple but I would frankly have preferred standard SMS delivery report functionality over this...

Does that also extend to MMS as iMessage will also send these?

Even though individuals in France all get free SMS, does this extend to corporate customers? I'd imagine that corporate packages would still include some sort of blanket charge for SMS based on volume?

Personally I think Apple has done this more to tempt corporate customers rather than individuals based on the popularity of BBM in a lot of large businesses and hoping that companies looking at choosing between either BB or Apple, or potentially making the shift from BB to Apple, will be able to cross this off as no longer being an advantage of BB over Apple.

Hinza
Jun 8, 2011, 04:53 AM
Wow, some people really getting in a state over this! Most of the answers are already in this thread, but here's a few key points:


You can turn this off (and still send/receive normal SMS on an iPhone).


You can select whether the app will send an SMS if it can't send an iM (as long as you're sending it to phone number, not an email address).


You can chose whether or not to send read receipts.


You associate one or more of your email addresses with the app (and also your iPhone phone number). If someone sends an iM to any of these email addresses or your iPhone number, it will be sent/received as an iM.


You can't associate your Nokia/Samsung etc phone number with iMessage - any iM sent to your traditional mobile/cell phone just gets sent to that phone as a plain SMS.


If your name is John Smith and I have you in my Contacts as follows:

John Smith
Home email: john.smith@me.com
Work email: john.smith@work.com
iPhone: 123 456 7890
Mobile: 987 654 3210

When I put "John Smith" into the "To" field it gives me the option of which email/number I want to use. If I select any of the first three options (assuming you've associated both email addresses, otherwise they won't appear as options), the message will be sent as an iM. If you select the last option, it'll send an SMS. You can also select a mix of iMessage/SMS recipients in the same message - it's not something you need to worry about.


As you enter each recipient, the app automatically checks if their email address or phone number is associated with an iM account.


The green/blue is down to colour-coding: green for SMS recipients/messages, blue for iM recipients/messages.


The whole process is automatic - when you send a message to a contact you don't need to worry whether it should be an iM or SMS, it's a transparent process that the app deals with for you.


Thanks for this great info :).
Good that you can easily choose between Imessage or sms. Because some of my friends that have a Iphone don't have a data plan so their data is mostly turned off. So if I would send them a IMessage they would only receive it when they are at home and connect to wifi or so.

One more question: Is it possible to receive a delivery report from a regular text message? Or is that IMessage exclusive?

j.larsen
Jun 8, 2011, 05:54 AM
To all of you who complain about how much you pay to use your phones: Move to Europe :D

I pay ~19.50USD/month and get free sms/mms, 200mb free data and 2 free hours of talk (if I call someone who's the same provider as me, I call for free)

You can choose to pay ~29.50USD and get 600mb + 5 hours talk
Or you can pay ~39USD and get 1gig data and 10 hours talk

That's pretty nice :D

zhenya
Jun 8, 2011, 06:24 AM
What is the difference between this and Whatsapp messenger?

The difference is that this will be integrated directly into the main messaging app, and will by and large seamlessly choose the lowest cost network, with no effort by end-users. It will also work across multiple devices, allowing you to pick up a conversation you started on your iPhone on your iPad, for example.

Whatsapp is a separate app, that has no SMS integration (you can have either an SMS conversation with someone, or a Whatsapp conversation, not both), no ability to seamlessly carry on from device to device, and, most importantly, requires the party on the other end to install their paid app! I have a contact list of several hundred people and not a SINGLE one has Whatsapp installed! I would wager that 50-100 of those people have iPhones, and 80% of the people I text most are on iPhones - and those messages will eventually be free - without us having to do anything.

Thunderhawks
Jun 8, 2011, 06:33 AM
To all of you who complain about how much you pay to use your phones: Move to Europe :D

I pay ~19.50USD/month and get free sms/mms, 200mb free data and 2 free hours of talk (if I call someone who's the same provider as me, I call for free)

You can choose to pay ~29.50USD and get 600mb + 5 hours talk
Or you can pay ~39USD and get 1gig data and 10 hours talk

That's pretty nice :D

No need to move anyplace.

Some things take a little longer to happen on both sides of the ocean.

For example:USA has been mostly protecting non-smokers for over 30 years and in Germany it took 25 years to get that done.

Apple and all the other companies releasing smart phones will put tremendous pressure on data usage.

Time for some overriding competition which like a network of gas stations create Wi-Fi wherever you are.

Plenty of FREE wifi already.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and others would create a data network if the current providers don't get there act together

nebo1ss
Jun 8, 2011, 06:43 AM
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in my life.
Don't know which part of this you think is dumb, but it is spot on accurate. Texting does not use your data plan. Try switching your data off and you will still send and receive text successfully.

nebo1ss
Jun 8, 2011, 06:51 AM
To all of you who complain about how much you pay to use your phones: Move to Europe :D

I pay ~19.50USD/month and get free sms/mms, 200mb free data and 2 free hours of talk (if I call someone who's the same provider as me, I call for free)

You can choose to pay ~29.50USD and get 600mb + 5 hours talk
Or you can pay ~39USD and get 1gig data and 10 hours talk

That's pretty nice :D
You are sure right about that, the us plans are one big ripoff. I pay sterling 15 in London about $24 and get 600 minutes, unlimited SMS, unlimited wifi and 1gig of 3G data per month on a sim only plan. I saw an offer for the same deal yesterday from a competitor for Sterling 10 or about $16. The carriers that do not offer unlimited SMS generally include 2000 SMS for free in their plans.

TheNewDude
Jun 8, 2011, 07:48 AM
iMessage won't work like BBM does with RIM's own servers right?

If that's the case, I'm sure someone will port it over to Android soon enough.

zhenya
Jun 8, 2011, 07:53 AM
iMessage won't work like BBM does with RIM's own servers right?

If that's the case, I'm sure someone will port it over to Android soon enough.

It will depend on how Apple authenticates the connection. Most likely it will be encrypted, so short of getting hold of the master key, not possible to fake authentication as an Apple device. In any case, what would be the point? The reason this system is impressive is because it integrates directly into the existing messaging app, and stands to save consumers money without them having to do anything. As has been noted many times here, there are lots of stand-alone apps that do basically the same thing - it is, after all - just IM - but very well integrated into the SMS system.

ChazUK
Jun 8, 2011, 07:56 AM
Been playing with iMessages today on my fourth gen touch and my wife's 3gs and I love it.

This unified messaging system will be a boon to the platform, especially on the devices lacking any GSM hardware and it's good to see IMO.

diamond.g
Jun 8, 2011, 08:21 AM
Has anyone been able to get videos to work?

Becordial
Jun 8, 2011, 08:23 AM
Yeah that's pretty awesome. Like a free upgrade from SMS to something even better. Being able to talk to iPads and iPod Touches is pretty nice too. About half the ppl I talk to on a regular basis have iPads or iPhones so not having to keep switching between phone and iPad is gonna be nice.

Does it really even matter anyhow because for most of us SMS is already free or very close to it? I put it that no ones bill is going to go down a nickel even. I like the cross-device benefit though. It might be less compelling though if some friends are not on iOS and then you have to remember to go back to the handset.

zhenya
Jun 8, 2011, 08:27 AM
Does it really even matter anyhow because for most of us SMS is already free or very close to it? I put it that no ones bill is going to go down a nickel even. I like the cross-device benefit though. It might be less compelling though if some friends are not on iOS and then you have to remember to go back to the handset.

Define 'most of us' because from where I'm standing, SMS is not anything like 'free or very close to it.'

I would bet that this is the first step in Apple integrating SMS/imessaging/ichat/facetime into a single app. Apple likes to take baby steps though so that they can better guarantee the user experience.

James Enright
Jun 8, 2011, 08:35 AM
I have an ipod touch, and i use a free texting app so i can text phones. its not a great experience

Can i text non-ios devices with imessage?

please reply

No, imessage works by checking if the device you are messaging is compatible with imessage. Currently only the iPod touch, iPad and iPhone are compatible with imessage as they are the only devices that run iOS 5.

NightFox
Jun 8, 2011, 08:50 AM
Does it really even matter anyhow because for most of us SMS is already free or very close to it? I put it that no ones bill is going to go down a nickel even. I like the cross-device benefit though. It might be less compelling though if some friends are not on iOS and then you have to remember to go back to the handset.

Don't forget this also means you can now message contacts with online non-phone iOS devices; iPod Touches and iPads, it's not as if you could send an SMS to them.

btcutter
Jun 8, 2011, 09:51 AM
Here's a scenario.

Brother has iPhone 4
I have android phone, iPad 2 and MacBook .

When my brother decides to message me with his iPhone. Where does the message go? MacBook may be on but on standby. Does message appear every where (on all devices) and once I click read or reply it's done? How does Apple know if my iPad or MacBook is actively used so message comes to those apple devices vs my android phone via SMS?

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this setup.


Thanks

logandzwon
Jun 8, 2011, 09:58 AM
OK, now all I want is the ability to get a data only plan, imessages, and a VOIP for backup calling.

diamond.g
Jun 8, 2011, 10:06 AM
OK, now all I want is the ability to get a data only plan, imessages, and a VOIP for backup calling.

They call it: Get an iPad... Then take the SIM and put it in an iPhone...

NightFox
Jun 8, 2011, 10:27 AM
Here's a scenario.

Brother has iPhone 4
I have android phone, iPad 2 and MacBook .

When my brother decides to message me with his iPhone. Where does the message go? MacBook may be on but on standby. Does message appear every where (on all devices) and once I click read or reply it's done? How does Apple know if my iPad or MacBook is actively used so message comes to those apple devices vs my android phone via SMS?

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this setup.


Thanks

It depends - when he puts your name in the "to" field it will make him chose either your phone number or your email address (or one of them if you've got more than one), based on whatever he's got in your details in Contacts.

If he choses your phone number, the message will be sent as an SMS to your Android phone.

If he choses your email address, the message will be sent as an iMessage to an iMessage server in the cloud. Any iOS device that has iMessage running (and that same email address registered within iMessage) will then pick up the message from the cloud either straight away, or when the device is turned back on if it is off. You can have multiple email addresses registered in the app.

So, it's very much like push email. You'll get the message instantly on your iPad, and when you turn your MacBook on you'll also see it on there.

Bottom line is that you don't send a message to a person, you send it to a specific phone number or email address belonging to that person.