Yep, iMessage has completely gotten rid of any worry I've had that that you're message wasn't sent. Plus it's seamless to text from other devices if you have them.
Honestly it's weird that people even think there's something wrong with people wanting to solely use an objectively superior messaging service.
FTFY ;-)Honestly it's weird that people even think there's something wrong with people wanting to solely use an objectively superior phone.
FTFY ;-)
To be honest I'd be happier with a higher price so demand is less and I have a better chance of getting the SKU I want day 1.
It didn't the last time I was on Android.SMS has delivery receipts...
It didn't the last time I was on Android.
Is it universal? or does it depend on the phones, message apps, and/or carriers?
It didn't the last time I was on Android.
Is it universal? or does it depend on the phones, message apps, and/or carriers?
My pixel XL is objectively superior to my wife's 7plus.
That's probably what it is then, no idea why they'd have that off on default.It's part of the SMS standard so it's been there since time immemorial. Most carriers support it in my experience but not all. With Android the option is off by default one would need to go into settings.
delivery you mean?Mr.Shrugglesツ;243038523 said:I don't think Android has ever not had read receipts.
I'm 24. I shit you not, I graduated in 2016, I had a 6 person group assignment and they left one guy off the group text because he caused them to use their text messages. He'd find out things the next day or so in class.
Yep, iMessage has completely gotten rid of any worry I've had that that you're message wasn't sent. Plus it's seamless to text from other devices if you have them.
Honestly it's weird that people even think there's something wrong with people wanting to solely use an objectively superior messaging service.
Yep, iMessage has completely gotten rid of any worry I've had that that you're message wasn't sent. Plus it's seamless to text from other devices if you have them.
Honestly it's weird that people even think there's something wrong with people wanting to solely use an objectively superior messaging service.
Whichever one you chose when you started the conversation.I send a message to my wife. She has iMessage on her iPad but her phone is android. Her contact has her email and phone number in it. Where does my message get sent?
I send a message to my wife. She has iMessage on her iPad but her phone is android. Her contact has her email and phone number in it. Where does my message get sent?
are we fighting about cell phones
New rumour of mirror "color" options
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/07/10/iphone-8-color-options-mirror-like-casing/
Worth 15..no...1600.
New rumour of mirror "color" options
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/07/10/iphone-8-color-options-mirror-like-casing/
Worth 15..no...1600.
Looks super tacky.
That's because that photo is a mirror case slapped on to an iPhone 6 or something. If Apple goes with Mirror it'll look like the old iPods I'd guess, but updated.Looks super tacky.
It would stop being better the second it stops getting updates, four months after launch.
Calling it super expensive for what you're getting sounds like a personal preference and doesn't really change the actual messaging service being better. I've never felt I was getting ripped off with how much I enjoy having an iPhone. And since 99% percent of the people I interact with have an iPhone, it's global market share means nothing to me.An objectively superior messaging service that is locked to an ecosystem that a fraction of the world uses and the hardware is super expensive for what you're getting? Doesn't sound superior to me. I'll stick to Whatsapp/Facebook Messenger because at least I don't need to switch between a bunch of different apps because my friends don't have Macs and iPhones.
That's probably what it is then, no idea why they'd have that off on default.
delivery you mean?
I thought this was going to be about how it would cost that if not made with third-world labor.
Fun fact: The rumored $1,500 iPhone could easily be made without slave labor and sell for half the price tag....And still make a huge profit for Apple.
The phones aren't high priced because the tech is that damn good, it's because morons will pay the entry fee without blinking an eye year after year. Apple could shift to making the phones in a decent manner, price the units at an ascending $299-$499 scale depending on memory/features, and still be a very healthy company. Possibly even healthier overall since there is the possibility that even more people would buy new phones more often.
Fun fact: The rumored $1,500 iPhone could easily be made without slave labor and sell for half the price tag....And still make a huge profit for Apple.
The phones aren't high priced because the tech is that damn good, it's because morons will pay the entry fee without blinking an eye year after year. Apple could shift to making the phones in a decent manner, price the units at an ascending $299-$499 scale depending on memory/features, and still be a very healthy company. Possibly even healthier overall since there is the possibility that even more people would buy new phones more often.
Thats more than the average american has saved in the bank I believe...GEE I WONDER WHY MISTER I HAVE A SHINY NEW PHONE!
I like nice stuff and all, but phones and cars can just go get f'd...they depreciated 'NOW' and are never the 'new thing' for more than 6 months.
I have a $80 LG something that does every last thing I would want to do on a phone. I'll keep my $1000's in my bank account.
The uproar over Gruber's post is mainly predicated around how no one will want to pay over $1,000 for a phone. Which is hogwash, of course. People will pay.
As Gruber notes, for many folks — myself included — the iPhone is the most important computer they own. If someone can afford to pay for an improved iPhone — and cost/price is something to be mindful of, but this is a typical question for Apple since, well, forever — they will. And for those people, it will be worth it.
Of course they will and there's no problem with that. At the end of they day the new iPhone will cost people an extra 35 dollars s month or so for a period of time.Look at this, a person is saying people WILL pay $1,000+ for an iPhone: https://500ish.com/apple-prime-and-the-iphone-pro-40d970060c8b
An objectively superior messaging service that is locked to an ecosystem that a fraction of the world uses and the hardware is super expensive for what you're getting? Doesn't sound superior to me. I'll stick to Whatsapp/Facebook Messenger because at least I don't need to switch between a bunch of different apps because my friends don't have Macs and iPhones.
Mr.Shrugglesツ;243064974 said:Decent manner? If it wasn't for apple being a pioneer, factories making electronics would be even worse places.
- Only 11 percent of Barclays survey respondents are interested in an iPhone that costs more than $1,000
- 18 percent of consumers who already own an iPhone are willing to spend more than $1,000
- Most consumers want to spend $582 on a new phone
Only 11 percent of Barclays survey respondents are interested in an iPhone that costs more than $1,000
18 percent of consumers who already own an iPhone are willing to spend more than $1,000
Most consumers want to spend $582 on a new phone
Apples redesigned iPhone is going to be an expensive one. According to The New York Times, the nearly bezel free iPhone weve been hearing about for the last several months will sell for around $999, about $350 more than the standard iPhone does today.
Next month, Apple is expected to introduce three new iPhones. Two will be slightly redesigned and updated versions of the iPhone 7, and one will be this high-end iPhone with a brand new design and a nearly full-screen display. There had been speculation before now that this iPhone would be at least $1,000: for one, Apple would need to charge more than $769, the price of the Plus-sized iPhone; and two, theres been some assumption that Apple will want to depress sales a bit so that it can better manage supply. But this is the first time a price has actually been reported.