On 2024-05-18, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 17 May 2024 23:33:19 GMT :
>
>>> There is a downsampling so that's the conversion we are speaking of.
>>> That downsampling is happening somewhere - where you don't say
>>> where. Where is the downsampling occurring?
>>
>> I already told you it happens on the receiving cellular provider's
>> side, as each provider sets their own file size limits.
>
> And you are most likely wrong, Jolly Roger, which Frank Slootweg
> explained. But you tried so I'll leave it at that.

My god, Arlen, you just wallow in your ignorance and *beg* to be
schooled, so here you go - straight from Android Police, no less:

---
Multimedia Messaging Service, or MMS for short, is the culprit behind
blurry text message photos. Many phones default to using this
media-sharing standard despite the existence of better alternatives. It
was created in the early 2000s, a time when the photo quality of most
phones was only a few megapixels. So perhaps it isn't surprising that
smartphones have outgrown the technology.

MMS has a strict file size limit.

The main problem with MMS is that *most carriers limit the size* of files
that can be sent. For example, Verizon only allows images up to 1.2MB to
be sent over text messages and videos up to 3.5MB. AT&T is even
stricter, only allowing videos up to 1MB. If an image or video is too
large, *it is compressed automatically*.
---

<https://www.androidpolice.com/why-text-message-videos-look-blurry-how-to-fix/>

Again, the reason it is the carrier who compresses MMS videos is because
each carrier has their own defined size limit.

>>> The process, based on what you said, appears to be this, is that correct?
>>>
>>> 1. iPhone sender is logged into the iMessaging Apple mainframe servers
>>
>> Oh, tHe HoRrOr - tHeY aRe LoGgEd InTo MaInFrAmE sErVeRs, yOu SaY??
>
> Apple is like Ashley Madison, claiming privacy while it's always a lie.

You're a fucking idiot. iMessage has full end-to-end encryption. And
like the man-child you are, you're trying to change the topic because
you have noting more to offer in this conversation.

>> No other messagaing app or service requires you to be logged
>> into it, RIGHT
>
> There is no other common consumer platform which requires you to be logged
> into it for the basic functionality of the phone - except for iOS, JR.

No Apple login is required to use the basic functionality of an iPhone,
you complete idiot troll. You can make phone calls, send messages, and
do lots of other things without ever logging into an Apple server. You
like because you have nothing else. And it's fucking sad.

> That you don't understand that fact is indicative of your religious mantra.
>
>>> iPhone recipient is also logged into the iMessaging Apple mainframes
>>
>> Oh, noz!
>
> That you are unaware that Android sends & receives messages through the
> default messenger app without logging into Google servers is clear.

So does iOS, dip shit. As you have been told *countless* times, iMessage
is *optional* and *opt-in*. And you can send messages through your
cellular carrier without iMessage.

> Only Apple requires you log into their mainframe servers for the messaging

Bullshit.

> you religious zealots

Projection. You're the one trolling non-stop day in and day out in the
Apple news groups. You are the biggest zealot to ever step foot in these
news groups. And your trolls are *pathetic*. Just sad.

>>> Android recipient is not logged into Apple or Google mainframes
>>
>> Lots of Android users log into Google servers. And that's irrelevant
>> as to this discussion, you tool.
>
> It's no longer shocking you don't understand that no other operating system
> but iOS requires the user to be logged in 24/7/365 for basic functionality.

Repeating that outright lie doesn't strengthen it, Arlen. It just makes
you look like the clueless dumb ass you are.

> Google does not require that login into Google's mainframe servers.
> Apple does.

Google requires a login to use plenty of their services, Arlen. That's
an indisputable FACT.

> Note: You can say "don't log in" but I've done that. Apple will
> unilaterally brick your iOS device if you stop logging into the servers
> for a period of time (two years in my case on two different iPads).

Nope. What you have admitted to doing is logging in with a bogus email
address and a password you never bothered to remember, then when asked
to verify it after not using your device for months and months, you
couldn't. And since you used a bogus email address, you made it so
recovery of your account was impossible, like the ignoramus you are -
then you turned around and blamed Apple and starting spouting your
bullshit. Pepperidge farm remembers, Arlen.

> There's a reason Apple designed the iOS device to be a dumb terminal, JR.
> It can't do anything that you love about iOS without Apple server logins.
>
>>> All have an active data connection to carrier towers & servers
>>> Apparently on the Apple messaging mainframe server is kept a detailed
>>> tracking of iOS-owners' AppleID associated with their phone number.
>>
>> Yes, and the Android cellular MMS message server keeps track of the
>> phone number and account details (including the name and other details)
>> of the user.
>
> So does the iOS cellular MMS service, Jolly Roger. Nobody said
> otherwise.

Try to keep up, dip shit. You pointed out that Apple's messaging service
keeps track of iMessage users account - and the same applies to Android,
whether it be your cellular provider or an messaging app like WhatsApp
or Signal.

>>> 2. iPhone sender tries to send a short video to iPhone & Android recipients
>>> 3. That attempt to send apparently goes over the Internet first to Apple
>>> mainframe servers which send back the decision of which of the
>>> recipients AppleID's are logged into Apple messaging servers
>>> (and which are not).
>>>
>>> (I don't yet know what happens if there is no Internet connection
>>> established by the sender's iPhone to Apple messaging servers though.)
>>
>> Common sense should tell you that iMessage is an internet technology,
>
> Ah, but Android's default messaging is not - although RCS may change that.

Ah, but iOS's default messaging is not an internet service either,
Arlen. It's cellular as well. As you have been told countless times:
iMessage is *optional* and *opt-in*.

>> When you aren't signed into iMessage, you naturally can't send
>> messages through the service. So messages are sent as SMS/MMS messages
>> through your cellular provider instead.
>
> Exactly.
> Without logging into Apple's mainframe servers, all the things you love
> about your iPhone instantly cease to exist,. It's just a dumb terminal.

Bullshit. You're a fucking tool.

>>> 4. Apple messaging servers accept only the videos whose AppleID's match
>>> Apple's determination of who is logged into their messaging servers.
>>> For those AppleIDs, Apple send the video over the Internet to the
>>> recipients who are logged into the Apple messaging mainframe servers.'
>>>
>>> (I'm not sure what happens if the recipient is on an iPhone and yet
>>> they don't have cellular data Internet or Wi-Fi Internet at the moment.
>>> What if the iPhone recipient only has a carrier non-data connection?
>>
>> No data connection and no internet means no messaging. Duh.
>> Same for Android smartphones.
>
> I didn't say that. I said either or.

Your words: "I'm not sure what happens if the recipient is on an iPhone
and yet they don't have cellular data Internet or Wi-Fi Internet"

No "either or".

>>> How is it sent when the message could be sent either way, right?
>>
>> That "question" makes no sense as written.
>
> Either by WI-Fi Internet or by cellular data Internet.

Still not a question.

>>> How is that message sent to iPhone owners?
>>> a. Cellular-data Internet connection?
>>> b. Wi-Fi Internet connection?
>>> c. (It's probably not sent over the carrier's non-data connection.)
>>
>> You can't send messages without a cellular connection or internet
>> connection.
>
> Again, there's the concept of either or that you need to study.

God, you're boring.

>> How in the holy fuck are you this clueless?
>> You regularly claim you know more about iPhones and technology than anyone
>> else here.
>
> I just don't deal with iOS messaging since the iPads are just toys to me.

You don't know shit about basic messaging even on Android, as your posts
show, dumb ass.

>>> 5. Apparently Apple messaging servers do not accept for transit on
>>> their messaging mainframe servers any messages from the sender's
>>> iPhone intended for people not recognized by the Apple messaging
>>> mainframe server. Those are rejected apparently.
>>
>> Nope, wrong again. The iPhone doesn't even use the iMessage service for
>> Android recipients.
>
> There must be a method on the phone that tells the iPhone which people are
> logged into the Apple mainframes and which people are not logged into them.

Here's a clue for you: Asking if an account exists doesn't mean sending
a message through the service. You implied a message was sent and
rejected, which is not the case. Nothing is rejected. The app asks if an
iMessage account exists. If not, the app uses another method to send the
message. There is no "rejection".

>>> 6. For any message rejected by the Apple mainframe messaging servers,
>>> the senders iPhone is informed, again over the Internet of that fact.
>>
>> Nope. See above.
>
> I'm not sure if you're right. See above.

You aren't really sure of much of anything.

>>> 7. Only at this point, apparently, does the sending iPhone resort to
>>> sending the messages to the carrier (although this brings up the
>>> question of whether only cellular data will work or if a local
>>> Wi-Fi connection to the Internet to the carrier will also work).
>>
>> Wrong again. The iPhone checks to see if the recipient is an iMessage
>> user, and if not sends the message through the cellular network instead.
>
> How does the iPhone know if the iMessage user is logged into the Apple
> mainframe servers? I'm not logged into my Messages app on my iPad.

You're so fixated on "logging into mainframes" you can't see the forest
through the trees.

>>> 8. Now is the problem of which machine does the downsizing of the
>>> video, turning it into crap. Presumably the carrier does that.
>>> Is that correct?
>>
>> Yep. And each carrier has their own file size limits and compression
>> mechanism.
>
> I'm not sure if that's the case, as Frank made an eloquent argument that
> the compression to shit of the videos is happening on the iPhone itself.

Frank is wrong, and so are you. What's comical is this is well known to
anyone who knows anything about it. SMS/MMS messaging has been around
since like 2002, so it's no secret.

>>> 9. Once the carrier (presumably) downsizes the video, then it's sent
>>> over the carrier's celltowers, one of which communicates with
>>> the Android recipient's phone over the phone number identification.
>>
>> Yup.
>
> We're not sure yet where the downsizing to shit happens. Frank's argument
> is valid that the carriers don't want to do it as that would negate the
> whole point of limiting the amount of data sent to the carriers.

Wrong.

>>> Thank you for helping to hone how the process works.
>>
>> You could have looked this up on the web in seconds.
>
> I doubt it. Show me a full explanation on the net where it is
> explained.

Already did. If you reject reality and refuse to do your own research at
this point, that's your problem.

>>> I'm sure I got some things wrong above, and even if I got them right, there
>>> are still questions in the analysis above, so where do we need corrections?
>>
>> "We" don't need any of this - your little exercise is rather pointless,
>> since all of this is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about
>> technology, Arlen.
>
> Actually, none of us (including you) knows how it works, as all of us
> (except you iKooks) have openly said we're not sure how it works.

LOL... Back to the juvenile insults, eh? That all you got left no that
you've been schooled, little boy? Pathetic.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR