No way - iMessage is one of the strongest and most pervasive eco system lock-in advantages they have.
There is no reason I can think of for Apple to offer this on other platforms as it's not a paid service.
The could make it a paid/sub app on Windows and Android, and free on MacOS and IOS devices to exploit the benefits of the Apple ecosystem.
They won't do that ...
I will happily eat crow if wrong, but this move would be very anti-Apple
Trust me - I'd LOVE them to bring iMessage to Android and Windows.
It literally is one of the biggest reasons I don't stray from macOS and iOS at this point.
@jerryk All that's well and good, but iMessage is staying exclusive in my opinion.
Love to be wrong, and will admit it hardily if so, but I don't think I will be.
Would messaging work better on an iPhone and MBP then it does with my S8 and MBP? Again, no way for me to know.
The answer is "yes it would" and the way to find out is buy an iPhone again.
That is Apple's approach.
They've grown way beyond the phase 10-12 years ago when they were even remotely worried about luring Windows users (with the Mac Mini - bring your own peripherals type of thing).
That makes me kind of sad. Even Google is pretty scrappy in the areas I deal with them in. I hope Apple does not get like a former employer of mine, Digital Equipment. There was internal debate about buying Apple in the 1980s. But our CEO had famously said "Who wants a computer in their home?" As they say "Pride goeth before the fall"
I'm not sure why you and HenryDJP with his "liking" of every single post of yours continue to attack Q-6. I think he makes reasonable points. The conclusions he draws from his points don't agree with yours, but because you keep insisting that your own viewpoint is reasonable and balanced, that leaves you with the conclusion—incorrectly—that he must be a biased Apple hater.
"Greed" is not a human attribute ascribed to a company. Using the Apple dictionary, it's "intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food." Companies have exactly that: an intense...desire for...wealth. That's an artifact of being a public company, which means its #1 charge is building shareholder value. Different companies have different philosophies about how best to do that (e.g., short run vs long run, customer service vs efficiency, etc.). You acknowledge this, but then you talk about other pieces (e.g., environmental and social policies) as if they are necessarily altruistic in nature. That may be the case. It may not be the case. I personally think both Facebook and Google provide a lot of social good—just not in the same proportions are areas as Apple chooses to do so. Both of those companies get terribly maligned, and I say this as someone who curses Facebook regularly for various other reasons.
You'll notice I have agreed with about 99% of your substance so far. Right? But then you conclude with, "Thinking they don't care about all of this is wrong." There's simply inadequate evidence out there to support either conclusion. Unless you have a bug in Uncle Timmy's office and the board room, you can't conclude that they "care" or "don't care." Is it all part of a coherent corporate strategy, or is it altruism? The truth is that no one ones. Heck, even they might not know. You'd be surprised how many corporate execs drink their own Kool Aid enough that they start believing it.
Q-6 tends to be a little more pessimistic than I am about Apple, and you tend to be a lot more optimistic than I am about Apple. I wish you'd both give each other a little more time to digest what the other is saying and consider the possibility that maybe--juuuuuuust maybe--they're right or at least have valid points. In his case, he wouldn't be here if he didn't care about Apple and have strong feelings based on his long time Apple experience.
You agreed with him and others on the keyboard because it matched your own personal experience. Anecdotal experience is a poor basis for drawing inferences and conclusions, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
in conclusion, I'll cite your most recent quote, which is what put the bee in my bonnet:
You did this a few weeks ago in a thread with me. There's a pattern. You can't simultaneously insist you're a reasonable person who continues to update their opinions as new information comes along when your mindset is that you've found "the truth." On complex real world topics, the truth is an ever-changing, ever-evolving, and usually-unknowable objective thing. The moment any of us thinks we've discovered the all-knowing truth, it's a tell-tale sign we've eaten bias for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert.
(P.S. Apologies to Queen 6 if you're female. I thought about re-doing all the pronouns with s/he but that would make the above awfully difficult to read.)
Yes I also don't understand why the MB is not part of the lawsuit.Back to the raw topic - another Mac news site is reporting today that there is a class action lawsuit now on file over the keyboard issues in the 2016 and 2017 MBP. The law firm has posted a page on their claims here: https://www.girardgibbs.com/apple-macbook-pro-keyboard-defect-lawsuit/
One of the things that is interesting (to me) is that, according to the other site's report, the complaint filed in the district court makes extensive claims about how the 2015 rMB, which was the original Apple laptop with this keyboard, started showing defects almost immediately - but the lawyers apparently have not sought any compensation on behalf of rMB owners. Given the economics of class action suits, that seems odd.
I will say that, just as a matter of unscientific observation, the 12" rMB keyboard seems to generate a lot fewer complaints about keyboard failures.
Yes I also don't understand why the MB is not part of the lawsuit.
On the other hand when u just compare the number of forum post of the MB vs the MBP (28k vs 130k) probably there are just less units sold that's why there are less complaints.
All this back and forth, people making excuses for an unreliable keyboard design, trying to deflect the real issue by questioning failure rates, recommending users buy an external keyboard, etc. The noise in this thread is unbearable.
Apple just needs to get this whole mess fixed. It needs to stop charging insane amounts of money for replacements for current models, and ensure that future models don't have the same problem.
Ive =/= engineer. His team work to the parameters set but he engineers who will work out what’s possible. Ive’s team just make the design look pretty. He’s likely involved with the decision making in the board room, but I doubt he’s sat there just saying ‘needs to be thinner’ as the popular meme would have it...There’s a worrying trend under Cook where Ive appears to be indulged.
Yes, he and his team are creating industrial design products that are approaching sculpture/what you’d find in the luxury industry.
When you compare what Apple does with their competitors, they are leagues ahead.
However, I’d argue that Apple are always at their best when they get that Bauhaus inspired mix of ‘form and function’ at a perfect 50/50.
It seeems lately that form is increasingly being prioritised over function - and an object being easily repairable is an important part of function.
I’d like to see them dial back the ‘object as a sculpture approach’ for their Macs and get back into the groove of appreciating that letting a user open their computer and within 5 minutes, have upgraded its memory and/or its SSD thus massively improving its function.
Or allowing a certified service professional to easily open a computer and replace and repair more complex parts in no more than lunchtime.
That’s beautiful too.
I would suspect that the only other person who has more influence at Apple than Ive, is Cook.Ive =/= engineer. His team work to the parameters set but he engineers who will work out what’s possible. Ive’s team just make the design look pretty. He’s likely involved with the decision making in the board room, but I doubt he’s sat there just saying ‘needs to be thinner’ as the popular meme would have it...
I mean, I don't doubt he is pretty influential within the company, but I think there's an over tendency to think thinner design = Ive's doing. I'd imagine it's more the case that it's a company wide ethos to make smaller, lighter, faster products - that's pretty much been the standby enhancements for years now. Schiller is in charge of marketing, so of course he's going to want to tout a new more compact but still more powerful computer, iPad or iPhone too. Again, I think it's decisions taken by the company executive as a whole, not everyone pulling for larger products to facilitate better x,y,z features, but Ive putting his foot down and saying 'no we're making it thinner, or else'.I would suspect that the only other person who has more influence at Apple than Ive, is Cook.
I’m not down on Ive. He leads a team that has created some of the best industrial design, ever.
I think though, that since Jobs passed away, he’s not had someone say ‘no’ to him enough.
Presumably Cook fears that if he says ‘no’ too many times, Ive will retire and consult at a car or watch company or something.
Though Cook obviously did say ‘no’ to more gold watches. Apple in the luxury bracket was an uncomfortable fit -it did seem like we had a gold watch mostly because Ive wanted to experiment with gold.
Again, an example of Ive being a little bit too self indulgent.
Presumably Cook fears that if he says ‘no’ too many times, Ive will retire and consult at a car or watch company or something.
More or less it’s perception, I think there’s also a quote from someone who worked at Apple saying Steve Jobs put Ive on a pedestal re: design, but I think it’s been taken and twisted wildly out of context.Where do ya'll get this inside Ive/Cook information? Genuinely curious.
Ok cool - was wondering if I was missing some secret blog or website or something. Thanks!More or less it’s perception, I think there’s also a quote from someone who worked at Apple saying Steve Jobs put Ive on a pedestal re: design, but I think it’s been taken and twisted wildly out of context.