Will we ever get instant messaging?

dietPEPSI

New Member
Bronze
Jun 29, 2007
80
0
0
#1
Ever?
Its a basic thing to have on phones now...and I really want it.

isn't there iChat or something......i find it kind of ridiculous that it didn't come with it, and probably never will..

The webapps arent worth it all because ATT's reception is so bad....the phone could be in one spot and have full reception and then you could move it like 2 inches over and it will lose all signal...its ridiculous....

So getting webapps just to use AIM or something is dumb....
 

Kev1000000

New Member
Bronze
Jun 26, 2007
234
0
0
#2
Well, if you jailbreak your phone, Apollo is a great iChat-like app.
 

bfakhroo

New Member
Bronze
Oct 2, 2007
132
1
0
#4
Ever?
Its a basic thing to have on phones now...and I really want it.

isn't there iChat or something......i find it kind of ridiculous that it didn't come with it, and probably never will..

The webapps arent worth it all because ATT's reception is so bad....the phone could be in one spot and have full reception and then you could move it like 2 inches over and it will lose all signal...its ridiculous....

So getting webapps just to use AIM or something is dumb....
jailbreak your phone and install the "apollo" app it has (AIM, ICQ, MSN, .mac)
 

shawn

New Member
Bronze
Oct 11, 2007
77
0
0
#6
My theory is that AT&T negotiated with Apple to limit messaging capability to SMS because it costs less than MMS to implement on AT&T's part(less bandwidth). AT&T sells SMS messaging, and if they find a simple way to sell MMS as an upgrade, they will. But any "instant messaging" will obviously negate a lot of need for either MMS or SMS and thereforee is a no-go, if AT&T has anything to say. Unless they really had a brain fart when they negotiated their agreement with Apple, then "instant messaging" will likey be something that Apple will never support actively.
 

coinstar99

Member
Bronze
Sep 6, 2007
221
0
16
#7
I can understand a company wanting as much money as possible but, what about customers who really want IM. I am actually thinking of getting a SK iD or LX or something just to have IM. I am willing to pay that much money and all just to have IM. So wouldn't it make more sense to try and keep that money in company and even give me some paid wait of IM other that what's in the browser?

Most AT&T devices are starting to come with an OZ client now, so wouldn't it make sense that after the SDK is released that we get some kind of OZ client for the iPhone. It uses text and would make AT&T their money and give us access to IM.

It is really annoying to get the functionality that I want, I have to use the browser, and Apollo both at the same time, as well as IM Forwarding. It really shouldn't be that tough to use AIM, right?
 

fury

Evangelist
Gold
Oct 23, 2007
2,274
238
63
33
Louisville, KY
#8
They may be trying to figure out with all the IM companies how to make a reliable connection-less state for the phone to use. Apple is big on having a polished user experience, and having an IM client frequently connect and disconnect (as it would through wifi jumping and spotty reception on edge) would be a major pain, both for the one using the phone, and the people seeing them repeatedly signing in and out.
 

skinsgamer

New Member
Bronze
Aug 13, 2007
70
0
0
#9
I've had att phones for the past 4 years and everyone before now has had IM. And yes these were cheap flip phones.
 

dietPEPSI

New Member
Bronze
Jun 29, 2007
80
0
0
#10
where do i find apollo?

I have the installer app which i got after that jailbreakme.com thing...but apollo isn't on the list of downloadables....

How do i get it?
 

iFuNk

New Member
Bronze
Oct 25, 2007
93
0
0
#12
I know im being redundant but ... yes .. apollo is great!
 

Dawgfan

Member
Bronze
Jul 27, 2007
347
0
16
Atlanta, GA
#13
They may be trying to figure out with all the IM companies how to make a reliable connection-less state for the phone to use. Apple is big on having a polished user experience, and having an IM client frequently connect and disconnect (as it would through wifi jumping and spotty reception on edge) would be a major pain, both for the one using the phone, and the people seeing them repeatedly signing in and out.
I would bet you are closer to the reality of the situation.
 

Quake97

New Member
Silver
Jul 10, 2007
522
0
0
Philly Burbs
#14
My theory is that AT&T negotiated with Apple to limit messaging capability to SMS because it costs less than MMS to implement on AT&T's part(less bandwidth). AT&T sells SMS messaging, and if they find a simple way to sell MMS as an upgrade, they will. But any "instant messaging" will obviously negate a lot of need for either MMS or SMS and thereforee is a no-go, if AT&T has anything to say. Unless they really had a brain fart when they negotiated their agreement with Apple, then "instant messaging" will likey be something that Apple will never support actively.
Why not have the iChat IM app use SMS for IMs like it does with most phone's built-in app. I could live with that and it'd negate your theory.

Joe
 

Dawgfan

Member
Bronze
Jul 27, 2007
347
0
16
Atlanta, GA
#15
My theory is that AT&T negotiated with Apple to limit messaging capability to SMS because it costs less than MMS to implement on AT&T's part(less bandwidth). AT&T sells SMS messaging, and if they find a simple way to sell MMS as an upgrade, they will. But any "instant messaging" will obviously negate a lot of need for either MMS or SMS and thereforee is a no-go, if AT&T has anything to say. Unless they really had a brain fart when they negotiated their agreement with Apple, then "instant messaging" will likey be something that Apple will never support actively.
I would have to disagree with this. How do you know that the cost of an MMS, SMS is cheaper than the data used to send an IM? How do you know that AT&T wouldn't prefer to have that small bit of data related to an IM cost over SMS costs?

I would bet that IM is coming and coming soon with the announcement of the SDK. I could be wrong here but I would actually bet we get some "quality" apps sooner than later as I have a gut feeling that Apple is working with certain developers already on apps that they deem crucial to the success of the iPhone.
 

coinstar99

Member
Bronze
Sep 6, 2007
221
0
16
#16
Why not have the iChat IM app use SMS for IMs like it does with most phone's built-in app. I could live with that and it'd negate your theory.

Joe

I would have to agree with this, I wouldn't mind using SMS, all the other OZ clients use SMS so just give us iPhone users the same thing that any other IM user for AT&T has. It just makes sense and seems fair right?
 

fury

Evangelist
Gold
Oct 23, 2007
2,274
238
63
33
Louisville, KY
#17
I have just the basic 200 SMS message allowance. I'd rather be able to use SMS as a supplement to instant messages (for situations where the person I need to talk to is not at an IM capable location) - unless the SMS messages related to instant messaging are free and don't count toward that limit.
 

arok413

New Member
Jul 31, 2007
13
0
0
#18
I bet that in February when Apple lets 3rd party developers make programs for the iPhone, we'll have a full fledged AIM, Yahoo IM , etc.
 

jjvaldez

New Member
Gold
Jul 3, 2007
2,615
0
0
33
Salinas, Ca
#19
it cannot be that hard.... i had aim on my treo [third party] and my brother has aim on his razor [ATT wireless] the new tilt has aim, so what is this issue with slowing down EDGE when there are other phones that have AIM out there?
 

SoleAddict23

New Member
Bronze
Sep 16, 2007
46
0
0
#20
apollo IM is not that great like everyone is makin it out to be. it freezes and signs you off constantly, especially when you have hella chats going on. rite now im using jivetalk through the web browser and its just like the real AIM. been signed on for the past 14 hours and still counting. i just hope that a real AIM app update would work with the iPhone instead of me using my web browser all the time.