What I'm not digging about the entire iMessage I turned off my iMessage option and someone else here in the office was trying to send me a txt. >From the looks of it the iPhone does not let you pick between wanting to send an iMessage or txt I could be wrong, but his phone was forcing iMessage and of course I was not getting the messages. Little bit of an issue not getting those messages.
Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 101 Haskins Way, So. San Francisco, CA. 94080 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 Fax: +1 650 246 8901 / carlos *at* race.com / http://www.race.com On 10/14/11 11:48 AM, "Martin Millnert" <[email protected]> wrote: >Jared, > >On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jared Mauch <[email protected]> >wrote: >> Rebuilding this trust can take some time. I do expect that with the >>iMessage stuff that was released yesterday (SMS/MMSoIP to email/phone#) >>many more companies will shift to using that instead as the value of BBM >>is decreased. > >With iMessage, Apple is following the lead of multi-platform apps such >as Viber (integrated voice over ip) and whatsapp (integrated "rich" >texting over ip). Integrated meaning the unique name/key registered in >the system's name lookup service is your phone number, so you >automagically discover who of all your address book entries have the >application. Turning on whatsapp on my 360 contact address book >yielded me 10% of my contact list *online* using it. :) > >Not being multi-vendor/platform, I wonder if iMessage on iPhone is >going to reach similar uptake. Being installed from start certainly >helps though, but not piggy backing on the phone numbers is a clear >strategic error in my opinion (apple IDs are obviously a long long way >from being as universal as phone numbers). > >I tried out whatsapp yesterday on an old Symbian S60 Nokia (N97) and >it works great. Only thing I regret is not trying it out sooner. > >Now, if mobile devices only had ... globally unique and *reachable* IP >addresses, you could even envision sending messages/pictures/video >directly from your own device to a peer, with no need for bouncing >through overloaded centralized bottlenecks, such as is the case with >whatsapp (and certainly iMessage as well). > >There's certainly a business case in there for a legacy-free, >bandwidth-optimized, IP only, LTE-network... (read: no [stupid] >tunnels) > > >> I also wonder what the impact of iMessage and others will be on places >>like hotel networks as the devices camp out longer/more often on the >>wifi, etc. We observed the impact to a hotel of the NANOG crowd this >>week (i wonder if there will be lessons learned on the part of lodgenet, >>etc?) >> >> I know personally I've observed the attwifi ssid expanding to more >>places (including hilton branded properties) in the past 6 months to >>offload cellular data. > >Offloading is wise, indeed. > > >Cheers, >Martin > >
