iMessage as Seperate App

[Daveoc64]

your service is what makes it unreliable

What service?

I've tried it on a variety of carriers and several Wi-Fi networks. SMS is a very basic system. iMessage relies on a stable data connection between the device and the iMessage server (including all of the layers of the network stack involved in that), the iMessage system functioning correctly and then a stable data connection between the iMessage server and the recipient.

Then there are activation problems.

I turned it on earlier today, yet activation keeps failing. Why? Because it's trying to use the number from the previous SIM that was in the device.

Does it TELL ME that it can't activate? No. It just turns off.

 

[MozMan68]

...and iMessage is technically "free" from Apple

 

[BFizzzle]

What service?

I've tried it on a variety of carriers and several Wi-Fi networks. SMS is a very basic system. iMessage relies on a stable data connection between the device and the iMessage server (including all of the layers of the network stack involved in that), the iMessage system functioning correctly and then a stable data connection between the iMessage server and the recipient.

Then there are activation problems.

I turned it on earlier today, yet activation keeps failing. Why? Because it's trying to use the number from the previous SIM that was in the device.

Does it TELL ME that it can't activate? No. It just turns off.

reset the network settings?
did you restore your device?

once again, this sounds like it is an issue with your phone, and not imessage entirely. Mine works just fine across all my devices, iphone 4s, iPad3, iMac, Mac mini, as well as most the people.
To say it is unreliable based on your own issues is ignorant.
Have you even tried contacting apple???

 

[MozMan68]

...and if you simply go to contacts and select "send message" in the person's contact info, it does give you a choice of what "account" to use.

 

[Daveoc64]

reset the network settings?
did you restore your device?

once again, this sounds like it is an issue with your phone, and not imessage entirely. Mine works just fine across all my devices, iphone 4s, iPad3, iMac, Mac mini, as well as most the people.
To say it is unreliable based on your own issues is ignorant.
Have you even tried contacting apple???

The only reason I'm in this forum is because there's a thread below this one with the same problem I'm experiencing.

As for iMessage vs. SMS in general, the simple fact is that iMessage is an abstracted, IP-based service which will always be less reliable than SMS.

This isn't down to how Apple has designed it, but is inherent to any service of this type.

----------

...and if you simply go to contacts and select "send message" in the person's contact info, it does give you a choice of what "account" to use.

It doesn't for me (on iOS 5.1.1. at least). It just goes straight to the Messages app with the blue send button and "iMessage" as the placeholder text in the message box.

 

[BFizzzle]

The only reason I'm in this forum is because there's a thread below this one with the same problem I'm experiencing.

As for iMessage vs. SMS in general, the simple fact is that iMessage is an abstracted, IP-based service which will always be less reliable than SMS.

This isn't down to how Apple has designed it, but is inherent to any service of this type.

----------



It doesn't for me (on iOS 5.1.1. at least). It just goes straight to the Messages app with the blue send button and "iMessage" as the placeholder text in the message box.

sooo sending a sms to the cell tower, then to your carrier, then to the recipients carrier, then to their nearest cell tower,on to their cell phone for EVERY text. is farrrr more reliable than establishing a encrypted p2p link between the two ip's ONCE (unless you loose service/connection) is less reliable???? lol

whatever you say buddy. lol Your personal issues "with it being unreliable" is something to do with your personal phone, reset the network settings, restore the device and set up as a new device. call apple. Dont claim there is a problem with iMessage entirely.

 

[Daveoc64]

is farrrr more reliable than establishing a p2p link between the two ip's ONCE (unless you loose service)

I don't think you understand how SMS or iMessage works based on this post

whatever you say buddy. lol Your personal issues "with it being unreliable" is something to do with your personal phone, reset the network settings, restore the device and set up as a new device. call apple. Dont claim there is a problem with iMessage entirely.

My problems are not with iMessage per-se, more with the concept that iMessage implements.

Google, RIM, Microsoft or any other company couldn't solve the underlying issue - a data connection has more points of failure.

 

[BFizzzle]

I don't think you understand how SMS or iMessage works based on this post



My problems are not with iMessage per-se, more with the concept that iMessage implements.

Google, RIM, Microsoft or any other company couldn't solve the underlying issue - a data connection has more points of failure.

you obviously dont understand how they work.. hahahhaha google, do some research.


they are piggy backing on the signals it constanly sends already... but those signals have to be routed to the carries of each person before going to the phones.

Cell phones are always sending and receiving information through signals even when the phone isn't in use. The signals are sent and received from a cell phone tower or control channel. In order for the phone calls and messages to come through, the control channel needs to know which phone belongs to which phone number. Depending on the location of the cell phone, it will communicate with different towers as the user moves around the city, state, country and even the world. If the phone is unable to communicate with a tower, then it will not receive a signal and can't be used.
The control channel maps the path for SMS, or text messages. When a message is sent, it first must go through the nearby tower and then the SMS center. The SMSC receives the message and sends it to the appropriate tower closest to the location of the cell phone and then to the destination. So what is the SMS job in the entire process? SMS formats the message in a way that it is able to travel to and from the town, and still be received by the cell phone. SMS also sends data associated with the message, such as the length of the message, destination, format and time stamp.


iMessage

Once activated with iMessage, your program sends your specific connection information, including your IP address and the port you are using, to the server.

Once you've selected someone to talk to , your instant messaging program sends any messages you choose directly to the IP address and port of the person in question. This is what enables conversations to happen in real-time, as you aren't sending a message to a server and back to another computer. Two computers (phones w/e) are directly connected to each other at that point, and can send messages to each other as rapidly as they choose.

It's quite simple

 

[*Calypso*]

Because SMS requires only the most basic signal to get through first time.

iMessage will repeatedly try and send a message over a data connection, then give up after 5 minutes and send it via SMS.

That delay is what makes it unreliable.

I'd say it's the other way around. SMS only works when you have cell reception, while iMessage works over EDGE, 3G and WiFi. For instance, if I go to my basement, I have no cell reception, but WiFi. Same if I go abroad and disable data roaming, but use free WiFi. Plus, iMessages are free worldwide, while SMS is the most ridiculously overpriced crap since printer ink.

 

[Daveoc64]

i do know how they work, explain to me where i am wrong?

iMessage is not peer to peer for starters.

ithey are piggy backing on the signals it constanly sends already... but those signals have to be routed to the carries of each person before going to the phones.

Cell phones are always sending and receiving information through signals even when the phone isn't in use. The signals are sent and received from a cell phone tower or control channel. In order for the phone calls and messages to come through, the control channel needs to know which phone belongs to which phone number. Depending on the location of the cell phone, it will communicate with different towers as the user moves around the city, state, country and even the world. If the phone is unable to communicate with a tower, then it will not receive a signal and can't be used.
The control channel maps the path for SMS, or text messages. When a message is sent, it first must go through the nearby tower and then the SMS center. The SMSC receives the message and sends it to the appropriate tower closest to the location of the cell phone and then to the destination. So what is the SMS job in the entire process? SMS formats the message in a way that it is able to travel to and from the town, and still be received by the cell phone. SMS also sends data associated with the message, such as the length of the message, destination, format and time stamp.

This is true for SMS, but these processes are more simple than the equivalent for iMessage.

iMessage:

Phone > Wi-Fi or Cellular Data > Carrier/local network > Internet > Apple's server

Apple's server > Internet > Recipient's carrier/local network > Wi-Fi/Cellular data connection > Phone


SMS:

Phone > Carrier SMSC > Recipient's Carrier SMSC > Recipient's phone

How often do you hear of an SMSC going down? It's not as often as you hear people rebooting their router at home

----------

I'd say it's the other way around. SMS only works when you have cell reception, while iMessage works over EDGE, 3G and WiFi. For instance, if I go to my basement, I have no cell reception, but WiFi.

That is indeed very true.

Same if I go abroad and disable data roaming, but use free WiFi. Plus, iMessages are free worldwide, while SMS is the most ridiculously overpriced crap since printer ink.

Roaming costs much less here, so I'm not too bothered about that.

 

[BFizzzle]

iMessage is not peer to peer for starters.




This is true for SMS, but these processes are more simple than the equivalent for iMessage.

iMessage:

Phone > Wi-Fi or Cellular Data > Carrier/local network > Internet > Apple's server

Apple's server > Internet > Recipient's carrier/local network > Wi-Fi/Cellular data connection > Phone


SMS:

Phone > Carrier SMSC > Recipient's Carrier SMSC > Recipient's phone

How often do you hear of an SMSC going down? It's not as often as you hear people rebooting their router at home

----------



That is indeed very true.



Roaming costs much less here, so I'm not too bothered about that.

you'r right there is a dedicated server, so it isnt p2p, but a direct link is established between the two peers via apples server. and left open so you can send and receive in real time. you dont have to route the messages every time as opposed to a SMS.

Yes the routing is more "complex" for iMessage, but that is only the initial activation with their servers. once connection is established its far faster and more reliable than having to route it everytime with sms

 

[Daveoc64]

you'r right there is a dedicated server, so it isnt p2p, but a direct link is established between the two peers via apples server. and left open so you can send and receive in real time. you dont have to route the messages every time as opposed to a SMS

There is no direct link between the clients, that would waste too much power and would be unreliable. It would also be a nightmare for NAT traversal

Such a connection would be very difficult to maintain as an iOS device will be constantly switching between Wi-Fi networks, handing off to different cell sites (potentially on different carriers), on a combination of 2G and 3G networks. The IP address would change too frequently, resulting in having to notify each of your contacts continually about your current IP, which would use a lot of data and power.

Each message goes through's Apple's servers (like push notifications).

 

[BFizzzle]

There is no direct link between the clients, that would waste too much power and would be unreliable. It would also be a nightmare for NAT traversal

Such a connection would be very difficult to maintain as an iOS device will be constantly switching between Wi-Fi networks, handing off to different cell sites (potentially on different carriers), on a combination of 2G and 3G networks. The IP address would change too frequently, resulting in having to notify each of your contacts continually about your current IP, which would use a lot of data and power.

Each message goes through's Apple's servers (like push notifications).

your port wouldnt change though nor your devices udid. It works in real time, sms doesnt. you cant argue that.

----------

your port wouldnt change though nor your devices udid. It works in real time, sms doesnt. you cant argue that.

but all this is neither here nor there, the fact is Most useres find iMessages more reliable, your phone is having problems reading the old sim or something. that doesnt make iMessage less reliable. period. It means it isnt reliable for you currently because you havent tried all the steps in solving it.

 

[Daveoc64]

your port wouldnt change though nor your devices udid

Port and UDID are not relevant.

Apple needs to send data to and from your device by IP Address. If your IP address has changed, then they need to start sending the data to the new address.

It works in real time, sms doesnt. you cant argue that.

It works identically to SMS in that regard.

The message travels from one device to another by passing through intermediary servers.

Neither service is "real time".

Think about it, how else does an iMessage get delivered if the recipient's phone is off when you send it?

If it went direct, you'd never be able to send a message to someone who is out of service/has their phone switched off.

----------

but all this is neither here nor there, the fact is Most useres find iMessages more reliable, your phone is having problems reading the old sim or something. that doesnt make iMessage less reliable. period. It means it isnt reliable for you currently because you havent tried all the steps in solving it.

That's a separate issue.

Activation can be buggy (which Apple could improve), but that doesn't change the way the service works (which Apple can't change).

 

[BFizzzle]

It works identically to SMS in that regard.

The message travels from one device to another by passing through intermediary servers.

Think about it, how else does an iMessage get delivered if the recipient's phone is off when you send it?

If it went direct, you'd never be able to send a message to someone who is out of service/has their phone switched off.

----------



That's a separate issue.

Activation can be buggy (which Apple could improve), but that doesn't change the way the service works (which Apple can't change).

you're kidding right?
apples servers hold the message and send it when the person signs back in. just like AIM or any other instant messaging platform works. they are directly connected. that is how it is real time. It is direct when the person is available obviously LOLOL

 

[Daveoc64]

you're kidding right?
apples servers hold the message and send it when the person signs back in. just like AIM or any other instant messaging platform works. they are directly connected. that is how it is real time.

So the message goes directly between each device AND via Apple's servers?

Which one is it?

Reverse engineering of the iMessage protocol shows that a single connection is maintained to Apple's servers (for the reasons I've outlined above).

As such, the process is as I've outlined in Post 35

With both iMessage and SMS, the process happens as quickly as possible, but that's dependent on many factors. As shown in post 35, there are more factors that can delay or prevent the successful sending/receiving of an iMessage.

 

[Macclone]

Does anyone else wish that they made iMessage as a seperate app? I feel like with BBM it felt a lot more secure and stable as a seperate app. When I'm texting somene and it switches to iMessage or back to text, I feel like it's cheap and does not feel very stable. Does anyone else agree with me?

Nope. Fine as is.

 

[BFizzzle]

So the message goes directly between each device AND via Apple's servers?

Which one is it?

Reverse engineering of the iMessage protocol shows that a single connection is maintained to Apple's servers (for the reasons I've outlined above).

As such, the process is as I've outlined in Post 35

With both iMessage and SMS, the process happens as quickly as possible, but that's dependent on many factors. As shown in post 35, there are more factors that can delay or prevent the successful sending/receiving of an iMessage.

lolol
i dont think you understan how instant messaging works, the two devices are connected directly via a server. you have an assigned port. no matter if your ip changes.

google how instant messaging works.

 

[Daveoc64]

lolol
i dont think you understan how instant messaging works, the two devices are connected directly via a server. you have an assigned port. no matter if your ip changes.

google how instant messaging works.

I don't think you understand how words work.

Directly - "With nothing or no one in between"

Via - "By way of; through"

You cannot have a direct connection that goes through something.

As I've said repeatedly, people have worked out how iMessage works, and it doesn't work like you describe!

Explain what you think that a "port" is, and we'll see if it corresponds to the actual definition...

 

[BFizzzle]

I don't think you understand how words work.

Directly - "With nothing or no one in between"

Via - "By way of; through"

You cannot have a direct connection that goes through something.

As I've said repeatedly, people have worked out how iMessage works, and it doesn't work like you describe!

Explain what you think that a "port" is, and we'll see if it corresponds to the actual definition...

So by your logical to computers can only be directly connected via a LAN lol
A port, a computer or a program connects to somewhere or something else on the Internet via a port. Port numbers and the user's IP address combine into the "who does what" information kept by every ISP

 

[Daveoc64]

So by your logical to computers can only be directly connected via a LAN lol

No. Any two clients can be "directly" connected. It's just that in this case, iMessage doesn't use that topology.

A direct connection is good in some regards, but terrible in others.

A port, a computer or a program connects to somewhere or something else on the Internet via a port. Port numbers and the user's IP address combine into the "who does what" information kept by every ISP

I'm not sure that you grasp what a port is used for.

It's more like a "door" that's used by a specific program to send/receive data while attached to a network. Your web browser will connect to the web server that hosts these forums over port 80. That port is used by virtually every web site on the internet, so the port number in itself is no use in establishing a connection.

The IP is the important part.

The IP is more like the number of an apartment building, while the port is the number to the door of the apartment.

The issue is never knowing what port you want to use, it's knowing the IP address of the computer you're trying to connect to.

An iPhone will have one IP from the carrier (e.g. AT&T) that may change at any time and another IP from each Wi-Fi network that it connects to.

That IP could change multiple times, all within the space of 30 seconds.

For a "direct" connection to work, the change in IP would have to be notified to each of your iMessage contacts on a continual basis and a new connection would need to be established between each one.

Doing that involves using battery power and consuming data - neither of which is desirable. That's not to mention that it's time consuming.

Most IM services and protocols (like AIM, MSN and XMPP) weren't really designed with the idea of rapidly changing IPs in mind.

Apple gets around this by virtually replicating their Apple Push Notification (APN) service, which maintains ONE connection between the device and an Apple server, passing all data through that one connection. When the network configuration changes, it only has to be changed once (e.g. 3G > Wi-Fi).

The major downside to this is that if that one connection fails for whatever reason, you miss all of your notifications or messages.

 

[moonman239]

Does anyone else wish that they made iMessage as a seperate app? I feel like with BBM it felt a lot more secure and stable as a seperate app. When I'm texting somene and it switches to iMessage or back to text, I feel like it's cheap and does not feel very stable. Does anyone else agree with me?

No. It just doesn't make sense, because messages are messages, regardless of whether they're sent via SMS or via iMessage.
But, I would like to be able to select which contacts my phone should send iMessages to and which it should send SMS's to. This would be useful for those who have a relative who works in a military hospital (where you can only get a signal in certain places, if at all, depending on your carrier) or if you want to make use of your texting plan - after all, what good is paying for 500 text messages if you only send or receive 100 because one or more of your friends has enabled iMessage?

 

[mrsir2009]

Does anyone else wish that they made iMessage as a seperate app? I feel like with BBM it felt a lot more secure and stable as a seperate app. When I'm texting somene and it switches to iMessage or back to text, I feel like it's cheap and does not feel very stable. Does anyone else agree with me?

Why does it do that on a regular basis? iMessage never does that to me

Besides, I already have Messages for messaging some people, Kik for message some people and WhatsApp for messaging some people... A fourth messaging app would not be fun in my opinion.

 

[irDigital0l]

Why does it need to be a separate app?

I iMessage people that have iOS devices and sent regular text messages to people that don't have them.

Everything works fine.

 

[miss.manson]

Does anyone else wish that they made iMessage as a seperate app? I feel like with BBM it felt a lot more secure and stable as a seperate app. When I'm texting somene and it switches to iMessage or back to text, I feel like it's cheap and does not feel very stable. Does anyone else agree with me?

No. It doesn't make sense to have them separate.