Google Urges Apple Not To 'Drop the Ball' on Fixing Messaging in New Billboard Pushing RCS (macrumors.com) 142
Google is continuing on with its #GetTheMessage campaign attempting to convince Apple to adopt the RCS messaging protocol, this time taking out a large New Year's-themed ad at Harmon Corner in Las Vegas. From a report: The digital billboard urges Apple not to "drop the ball" on fixing its "pixelated photos and videos." Hey Apple, it's Android, the ball may have dropped on 2022, but you don't have to drop the ball on fixing your pixelated photos and videos. [...] After the short message, the billboard scrolls through RCS code, ending with a plea to customers to "Help Apple #GetTheMessage," the hashtag that Google has been using for the campaign.
While you're at it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still have to use lotus 1-2-3 at work for legacy purposes and, to be honest, it's better than modern excel for everything except for manipulating lots of records but, generally speaking, that's not the place of a spreadsheet (though often is sadly)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anybody really care about sending pictures and video via text these days? Most people I know solved the problem ages ago - by not using text messages.
There are so many ways to send effectively full res images and better quality video than you can do via MMS, all of which work on iOS and Android devices, and none of which use RCS.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many ways to send effectively full res images and better quality video than you can do via MMS, all of which work on iOS and Android devices, and none of which use RCS.
Name one service that everyone I know has on their cell phones.
Oh yeah, the only one is SMS, that is why. Not everyone is in every chat service.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have SMS.
SMS is not the common denominator. It only works on devices with a cellular radio, turned on, with signal, and enough battery.
My laptop computer and a much faster wired internet connection can't send/receive SMS.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had an SMS plan, I could make sure that my cell phone is on, with coverage (within my operators's network, which is limited to a single country) and battery, and synced with my laptop, so that my laptop can get SMS.
But why? Why use a protocol which is designed not to work on most internet-connected devices? Why use two devices when I could be using just one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Her problem. She's free to get one for free.
Definitely not an excuse for using SMS. None of my nieces have a cell phone number able to receive SMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 2007 when iPhones were brand new, all of Apple's marketing was around using email to send pictures. The OS didn't even get MMS support until 2009, and it seemed to me at the time that it was only added for compatibility with "dumbphones", rather than being something you were "supposed" to use. It's funny how more than a decade later people are still using the fallback technology.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many ways to send effectively full res images and better quality video than you can do via MMS, all of which work on iOS and Android devices, and none of which use RCS.
While I agree with you in principle, the technical truth -- on which Google's entire narrative hangs -- is that there is one specific service which is not compatible with Android -- iMessage. Apple implemented iMessage over a decade ago as a significantly improved alternative to the aging MMS system, whereas at the time, Google still hadn't yet decided which way it wanted to go with messaging... and now Google is kind'a irked that Apple beat them to the punch. (That whole "blue vs green" thing is just a hig
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even realize that you're shilling for vendor lock-in. Google isn't doing that. They're trying to unlock Apple users to use an open standard that works directly through the carrier. Like email or phone calls or SMS. All the providers pick a common identifier and they allow communication from other providers. This has always been a major (somewhat intentional) flaw with iMessage.
There are plenty of other "chat vendors," and Google has even run multiple - Chat and Hangouts. And there's also Wh
Re: (Score:2)
And none of them are a replacement for carrier messaging
Remind me why we need "carrier messaging" to begin with? Sounds exactly like what I am trying to avoid at all costs: the ability for my cell phone carrier to bill me per message, or even be aware that I sent or received messages, even if the content is encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds less like a legitimate privacy concern and more like you need a new carrier.
Carrier messaging is a universal fallback that works with everyone that has a phone number without any setup and without any lock in.
If you and your contacts want to set up accounts with a service, that's great. But SMS is not a sane fallback anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds less like a legitimate privacy concern and more like you need a new carrier.
Why should I need a mobile phone carrier just to send a message? I already have an ISP.
Carrier messaging is a universal fallback that works with everyone that has a phone number
No it doesn't. It only works with MOBILE phone numbers. And the carrier owns that number. You can't register one, you can't host one yourself (unlike say email or xmpp). When traveling to another country and swapping SIM card, guess what happens to your incoming SMS? Who knows? It depends on your carrier. Best case, you'll read them 2 weeks later on your way back home, and worst case, they are gone forever without the sen
Re: (Score:2)
You can't register one, you can't host one yourself (unlike say email or xmpp).
Different problem. It sounds like you don't want the service, so it shouldn't matter to you what happens between SMS/RCS/iMessage, just like you probably don't care what happens with landline telephone service. All of your arguments also apply to voice calls and yet we still use voice calling with telephone numbers even when newer options are available.
Re: (Score:2)
I do care, I hope all three of SMS, RCS and iMessage die as soon as possible. There is simply no need for messaging that is either locked-in to a single vendor or only working with mobile phones.
Just like there is no need for voice calls which would only works with mobile phones. Voice calls are fine, SMS/RCS/iMessage are not.
Re: (Score:2)
When traveling to another country and swapping SIM card, guess what happens to your incoming SMS? Who knows? It depends on your carrier. Best case, you'll read them 2 weeks later on your way back home, and worst case, they are gone forever without the sender even been notified.
It's actually a data service and would probably work over WiFi or no matter what carrier. But it might require dual-sim when travelling so that your messaging app still knows the ISMI numbers it's supposed to send/receive with. Internally RCS messaging uses the ISMI and not the phone number for addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS maybe, but for that part I was talking about SMS. So no, it's not a data service and it doesn't work over WiFi.
Anyways, why take the risk? SMS and RCS both suck and there are plenty of cross-platform alternatives not relying on a mobile phone carrier (phone number / ISMI) to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anybody really care about sending pictures and video via text these days?
Yes. Because it remains one of the few 3rd party tech company agnostic ways of communicating.
Most people I know solved the problem ages ago - by not using text messages.
Ok boomer. Back in reality WhatsApp, Messenger, and yes iMessage are used the world over by literally billions of people. People didn't stop sending text messages, they stopped sending SMSs instead adopting some solution from Farcebook, or whomever.
A solution that really sucks when you travel between multiple countries and release that not every special purpose tech company product is popular all over the world.
You
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, SMS sucks when you travel between multiple countries, especially when swapping SIM cards to avoid exorbitant roaming fees.
Any messaging solution based on a phone number as the ID will suck.
What you are looking for is e-mail, not SMS or RCS.
But yes, even Facebook Messenger is better than iMessage or SMS.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, SMS sucks when you travel between multiple countries, especially when swapping SIM cards to avoid exorbitant roaming fees.
Huh? Swapping SIM cards? Exorbitant fees? Are you
a) living in 2002?
b) paying the worlds cheapest and most basic mobile plan?
b.1) subquestion: how can you afford to travel if you are using the world's cheapest and most basic mobile plan?
The last time I swapped SIM cards was in 2013, and I take on average 4 intercontinental flights a year, in some cases to real shitholes. Next one is Azerbaijan! Get yourself a decent phone plan.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no phone plan with cheap world-wide roaming in Canada. It just doesn't exist. At best you'll get one covering the USA.
But yes, I have a cheap plan and can still afford to travel. I don't see why I would pay 4x more to mobile phone carriers just to get features I don't need.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I value being able to browse my own message history more than E2EE. Just like for Email. I like being able to login to my webmail from any PC and be able to find any previously received email, even though it means my webmail provider is able to read my mail for advertising purpose (which I block using browser extension anyways).
In fact, I'd like to e2e encrypt my email before my instant messaging, but I haven't done it (yet?).
And 99.99% of people using e2ee messaging are using not e2e encrypted phone c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, MMS doesn't work across borders, since it needs data
Well considering you think data doesn't work across borders I find it hard to take the rest of your post seriously. Not everyone:
a) travels
b) travels while also paying for the worlds cheapest and crappest mobile plan forcing them to go through some dual SIM / SIM swap rigmarole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, people care.
the idea is that you should not need to download a third party app that is only compatible with users of said third party app. if apple adopted rcs that means the default sms app of either platform will work and mms will effectively be killed
i would switch to imessage on android if that was possible instead of rcs. it would actually be funny if apple decided to provide imessage for android instead of rcs support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, everyone's phone can do SMS & MMSes.
As a fanboy... (Score:2)
I couldn't give a shit what google/android was complaining about, my device works great!
Oh, and I don't expect much from all of you green bubbles out there...
Google already dropped it (Score:3)
It's pretty odd Google is saying Apple should not "drop the ball", when Google already has it on the ground from a pretty much failed rollout of RCS [google.com].
From vendor specific oddness to just plain flaky behaviour, there is no reason for any sane company to co-mingle with RCS at this point.
For users, RCS does not matter as they can just use communication apps like Signal, if the really want rich cross-platform communication. And isn't that really better anyway rather than luring users into some telco approved approach that is easily spied upon?
Re: (Score:2)
> Google already has it on the ground from a pretty much failed rollout of RCS
And that's after a long time of promoting their own Google-only standard. Funny how it was perfectly OK for Google to use a proprietary standard until it wasn't, and even more amusing to watch the anti-Apple people actually fall for it.
Who cares anyway? I use Signal.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you have any trouble with convincing everyone you know and want to message with, to download, install and create an account with Signal?
Any problems with new people you meet that you might want to message soon...that don't know what Signal is?
Not saying signal isn't great or even superior, but the problem is...it isn't ubiquitous.....
I shudder at the thought of having to train my parents on one more thing like this, I'm still doing tech support from time to time on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Maybe its because I'm getting a bit older these days....but I don't know and so far, have never met anyone that uses "Signal" or even knows what the app is.
They all just use either native text, email or social media like FB, etc.
I don't do social media, so they send text or email with me...or at times FaceTime for video chat, but we're just talking sending pics and videos here....
But interesting....thanks for the a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? You're condemning Google because prior to RCS they made do with a home grown technology in the absence of any viable standards, but as soon as a viable, non-proprietary, standard was introduced, they jumped on it?
Uh... RCS was introduced in 2008 in February. Android was also released in 2008, but in September. So RCS manages to (slightly) pre-date Android, sort of.
In any case, Google pretty much ignored RCS until 2018, when they added support to Google's Messages app.
So it took literally a decade for Google to use the open standard, and they only did it after their own proprietary standards fell apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares anyway? I use Signal.
Signal sucks because it relies on the phone number as an ID (you can't sign-up without having a cell phone number from what I understand). Properly designed messaging services rely on user names or email as the ID.
And while it's nice to have end to end encryption, not even seeing your message history when installing Signal desktop sucks. I want to be able to access all my past messages from any device I may own in the future, and be able to search in my previous conversations. I'd rather give up e2ee for us
Re: (Score:2)
I have one. I'm just saying that I see no reason for designing or using a messaging protocol or service which is made on purpose not to work on internet-connected PCs.
Just because I have a mobile phone number doesn't mean I want to reply to my messages from my tiny phone (or even have my messages go through my phone) when I sit in front of my PC a big part of the day.
There is simply no good reason, no advantage, in using a mobile phone number as an ID for messaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how it was perfectly OK for Google to use a proprietary standard until it wasn't, and even more amusing to watch the anti-Apple people actually fall for it.
There's nothing to fall for. Fuck Google for trying to be Apple, but praise them for adopting an actual open standard and for pushing their weight to promote adoption from other people who should be given an equal number of fucks.
Consider adopting the message rather than focusing on who it was saying it.
Who cares anyway? I use Signal.
Cool, can you Whatsapp me from Signal? Since when was Slashdot an proponent of non-interoperable standards?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I can either try to teach my 76 year old mother how to install Signal or whatever, and then answer questions until she dies about why she can't send messages to everyone she knows from the same app, or deal with a miserable but ubiquitous messaging experience via SMS.
Thanks, Apple.
Of course, Apple could just stop being anticompetitive asshats and release iMessage for Android (and even charge for it if they like) but we already know they won't because they want the wedge.
Re: (Score:2)
From vendor specific oddness to just plain flaky behaviour, there is no reason for any sane company to co-mingle with RCS at this point.
Saying you shouldn't adopt a public standard and retain something custom because of a vendor adopting the standard being flaky has to be the dumbest race to the bottom I've heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Signal isn't cross-platform, it is phone-only. So are most of these idiotic messaging apps.
Existing devices (Score:2)
I don't see apple supporting a protocol that it isn't backwards compatible with existing devices. They are the company of it just works, and if it doesn't work, users will blame Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't it work with existing devices? It's not like there are hardware requirements for RCS - it's software.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that it could work with previous iPhones just fine if Apple allowed it.
However, it's not only software, otherwise, I could download an RCS software for my PC and start using it. It's unfortunately tightly dependent on a mobile phone subscription / phone number. And for no reason other than allow mobile phone carriers and/or Google to bill per message and/or harvest the meta data.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay sure if you want to be pedantic, yes it requires a SIM card and a GSM radio, so that it has a phone number and radio to connect to the cellular network with.
You know what has SIM cards and GSM radios? Every iPhone ever manufactured.
That was kind of implied by "iPhone".
Re: (Score:2)
iPod touch and most iPads don't. 99% of PCs don't.
Why should anyone switch to a new messaging service that is incompatible with those, with no added benefit? There is no point to RCS in this century.
Google Can't Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Google already tried a proprietary approach and abandoned it. It would be like Apple now introducing a headphone jack and criticising Google for not having one.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are Google still making Pixel phones in 2023 anyway? They should have made Vector phones years ago!
Google has no clout (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason for SMS is that it works everywhere
No it doesn't. It only works on cell phones.
It prevents 100% of non-cellular tablets and computers from using it.
SMS sucks, and RCS sucks by trying to emulate the worst features of SMS. The cell phone carriers shouldn't know when and to whom I sent a message. They shouldn't even be able to bill me per message. They are dumb pipes and should just relay my data.
And iMessage suck even more by being single-vendor, relying on the phone number as an ID, and preventing SMS from dying.
Re: (Score:2)
iMessage does not rely on a phone number as an ID, otherwise it wouldn't also work on Mac, non-cellular iPad and iPod touch. Sure, you can have a phone number tied to your account, but it's not necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason for SMS is that it works everywhere, and RCS doesn't have that
RCS can have that if SMS can. It can just as easily work everywhere. Just as not all cell carriers started out with SMS service. That was a while back and it takes time to gain critical mass.
The reason for SMS is as a fallback for RCS. Until it's not needed anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with XMPP is where the trust relationship exists for federation. Putting it at the carrier level makes sense for phone service. RCS is not a Google-specific thing.
The fact that carriers took a lazy and botched rollout method is the problem and that has nothing to do with Google. Or with RCS, really. There's a long-running trend with any new technology for vendors to do just as much minimal work as required to put a checkmark on the product box and then stop there. This is why most smart hom
Google looks like a toddler on this one (Score:2)
Almost everyone I know uses Messages and others work fine with SMS. RCS rolled out in 2007 and Google wasn't interested until after a few failed messaging attempts. RCS itself is a mess between carriers and phone implementations.
Oh...It's...Probably Not Reaction Control System (Score:3)
Video from iPhone user (Score:2)
video stream: 151 kb/s 176x144 10fps avc
audio: 12.8 kb/s 8000Hz 13bits 1 channel AMR narrow band. Ouch.
Google disabled RCS in India (Score:2)
Google disabled RCS support in India because users were overwhelmed with rich content spam from business. Google wants that to happen to iOS devices too, which is why they keep pushing it.
Thanks, google.
Hey, Google - #GetTheiMessage (Score:2)
Just pay Apple whatever it takes to license iMessage.
Re: (Score:2)
See my answer to that, a few posts below.
Do we really want a new actor for ads? (Score:2)
If I were Apple... (Score:2)
I'd release iMessage on Android for free and charge them 99 cents per month or 4.99 dollars per year for the service. At that point, it would make them look good by being compatible with another platform, it would generate more profits and the cherry on top would be to tell Google to shut the fuck up about their custom, non-standard RCS bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, make the Android iMessage bubbles "light/sky blue" instead of green. That's still a different colour to differentiate them from the regular blue of Mac/iPhone/etc iMessage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On Apple all data is distributed among all your devices
Recent versions of iOS and Mac OS have enabled "device specific passkeys", so at the least, your U2F/FIDO2 tokens needn't be portable between devices.
Re: (Score:2)
ON my iPhone...images are perfectly clear and videos are easily sent full sized via iMessage between 95% of my friends that all use iPhone.
Seems by this request, Google is asking Apple to step back and send inferior images?
Why doesn't Google just get Android to work on same type protocols as iPhone? Maybe license some software that obviously works VERY WELL.
Re: Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:3)
Re: Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:2)
Sending videos (and even photos) is not the good way to do it.
The video should be uploaded to the cloud, and only a link is sent this way it doesn't matter if it's over SMS, iMessage, RCS, email or whatever, the quality is preserved and it doesn't fill the inbox.
Re:Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I see my friends sending Android to Android videos and images...and they even suck over there...compressed and very small often.
Over SMS. That's the whole issue under discussion here. If you use Google's messaging software with just SMS, you can send photos as a link to a file at full resolution without much thought, though it goes on Google's servers. Apple doesn't do this when sending to a non-iPhone user. They just crush the life out of it and use SMS. You can't really make SMS/MMS support anything more advanced than that without sending hyperlinks. Apple knows they could just send an iCloud link but they want to make this look like an Android issue.
RCS is a federated system that works more like iMessage, but in an OS and device agnostic way. It uses a data connection instead of SS7 signaling and can send full resolution files just fine.
Why doesn't Google just get Android to work on same type protocols as iPhone?
Yes. It's called RCS and they're offering it free - even a free reference implementation server for carriers. Apple is not going to be licensing iMessage. No amount of licensing fees is going to be worth more to them than giving the perception that it's only possible on an iPhone All Apple has to do is fall back to RCS instead of SMS for sending to non-iPhone numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't send photos over messaging so I can't say. I know Hangouts, when it supported SMS, did this automatically when when it was set as the default messaging app. Otherwise you basically have to copy a link from the Google photos app and paste into the text message.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm. Can you give me a successful company that does act in good faith?
Typically in tech the #1 company will do things their own way. The #2 company will follow the standards, as well the lower ranking companies...
If the #2 company becomes #1 they will stop following the standards and do things their own way.
Back in 2001 Apple released OS X, based off the BSD Kernel, and had open sourced much of the Darwin code, as well it came with a lot of GNU tools, and made sure it was certified as a POSIX Unix. Back
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typically in tech the #1 company will do things their own way. The #2 company will follow the standards, as well the lower ranking companies...
If the #2 company becomes #1 they will stop following the standards and do things their own way.
You seem to have things exactly backwards.
Apple's share of the smartphone market is like 28%.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's share of the smartphone market is like 28%.
80% of the profits [appleinsider.com], though. Guess which is more important.
Re: Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:2)
More like 15% worldwide.
Re:Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
RCS is designed for Advertisers. iPhones do not need messaging based around advertising. Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being disingenuous. Apple is resisting Google's push for advertising methods on the iPhone, and I'm sure iPhone users support that.
https://automateddreams.com/bl... [automateddreams.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Apple is preventing e2e messaging by keeping SMS alive.
Apple makes E2EE text messaging easy, iMessage is end to end encrypted and the encryption key isn't even in your iCloud backups if you have Advanced Data Protection turned on, which you should if this is a concern for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes E2EE text messaging easy, iMessage is end to end encrypted
Apple makes E2EE easy as long as you only ever chat with other iPhone users. If you ever need to talk to non-iPhone users, Apple says "sucks to be you, it's not encrypted now, we could encrypt with RCS but you'll support us even if we screw you over so guess what we're gonna do..."
So Google wants all SMS-like communication to be E2EE, whether or not you are using Google products. Apple only cares about E2EE if you and 100% of your friends are giving money to Apple.
Re:Only Federal involvement will sway Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple won't implement RCS because RCS is an insecure protocol. Virtually the instant Google started rolling it out in India back in 2020, RCS spam emerged. By 2022 it had gotten so bad that Google actually temporarily disabled RCS for the entire region. Even today, the top piece of advice Android users whose text messages are full of multimedia spam are told is, "Disable RCS or use a different SMS client that blocks RCS".
Google chiding Apple to support RCS is like inviting your rival over to swim in your turd-filled algae swamp of a swimming pool. Why on Earth would they do that?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a ridiculous take. SMS is an insecure protocol. RCS has E2E encryption for messages at least as an option. There is no take where claiming SMS is more secure than RCS makes sense.
If RCS is enabling spam that didn't happen under SMS, then they are federating with carriers that they shouldn't be. There's no reason to for a carrier to accept RCS from any carrier that it hasn't explicitly whitelisted - same as SMS. This isn't a security issue, per se. It's a signal vs. noise issue.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS has E2E encryption for messages at least as an option.
Not quite true. Google's version of RCS added E2EE. The problem is that all phones and carriers must use Google's version to use E2EE. From what I know in the US alone each major carrier have implemented their own version of RCS that is only compatible with certain phones. So it is a crapshoot as to whether your messages are encrypted using RCS right now. If your recipient and you have the same phone on the same carrier then it is more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
GSMA’s Universal Profile is all that's needed server/carrier side. Everything else is handled by the clients corresponding. In essence, an E2EE message is like a different MIME content type and like email the server doesn't need to know how to interpret it - just how to route it. And RCS can fall back to plain text if both clients don't support encryption. None of that is a reason not to start leaving SMS/MMS behind.
Re: (Score:2)
GSMA’s Universal Profile is all that's needed server/carrier sid
1) Universal Profile does not require encryption as mandatory. 2) Not all carriers support all features of Universal Profile. 3) Not all Android phones support RCS. Right now, RCS is a crapshoot on what features you will get.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it's not a step backward from SMS, you have to start somewhere to get where you want to go. SMS should not still be the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
SMS should not still be the standard.
Please name another standard that cell phones support right now. . . . I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS with SMS fallback is where we should be everywhere right now. You're not going to get a full feature set without a partial adoption phase. How do you think these things reach critical mass?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but the problem is India (regulators and/or phone carriers) here, not RCS.
India is also a very big source of spam phone calls spoofing phone numbers from other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't take Apple being anti-competitive and monopolistic argument too much...
I have a Samsung Galaxy 20 (Android phone) I got it after having an iPhone of one type or an other for the previous 12 years. I am not sorry for switching, heck I barely can tell the difference. The only loss is Facetime... However for Work we use MS Teams so it isn't an issue. And I don't really Facetime friends because I am old, being said, I see most kids not using Facetime as well, but other apps.
This is really different
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how I remember the 1990's. People who bought winmodems built into their systems were always having connectivity issues. Winmodems were considered junk.
Word wasn't compatible with word and often you had to use an OSS application to recover damaged documents. I remember once I had to use Gnumeric to finish a budget on Linux because the franchise was to cheap to upgrade to the new version of Windows and Office. Head office was annoyed that I had access to the password protected sections.
I also remem