That isn’t an actual solution as it requires running the display at a non-native resolution and thus seriously compromises text readability. It’s basically just low tech digital zoom.
I want to make things bigger in pixel resolution, not make pixels bigger.
It's enough of an actual solution for Apple to have been using as all of their best-selling laptops' default setting since they switched to Retina in 2012.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users? How would they even know that a user is on iMessage without it already being their default SMS app? Is Apple then really obligated to build an Android app that can facilitate base-level SMS conversations? How is that good for their business or valuable to their customer base?
I don't know about the average Android user, but I imagine you'd get a lot of users.
I don't really use Apple products, but I do have lots of friends/family that I can't convince to use anything other than iMessage to chat on their phone. I'd literally be the only contact they'd bother talking to not on iMessage. So right now, our experience sending pictures/videos is pretty terrible. I'd install iMessage on my Android device in a heartbeat if it meant I could actually send decently sized photos and videos to them. Doubly so if it meant I could actually participate in their Facetime calls and they could easily Facetime me.
I understand that that perspective might be prevalent here on HN. But really, let's try to understand the target market of this theoretical iMessage Android client. It's specifically for folks who:
1. Are committed to only using Android phones (i.e. can't be convinced to get an iPhone).
2. Communicate (or are forced to communicate) over the default messaging experience with primarily iPhone users (remembering that the iMessage / SMS default is mostly just a U.S.-centric thing and cuts out most of the rest of the world).
3. Are willing and able to download a third-party messaging app to address this specific use-case.
Do you think this is an incredibly rare group of people? Android has ~40% market share in the US, so there's a lot of Android users out there. It seems extremely likely for an Android user to have some iPhone users they communicate with. And at least in my experiences, people with Android devices are generally willing to install 3rd party chat apps given how terrible Google has been with really making a solid single chat platform for Android. The kind of people who aren't willing to install some chat app are more likely to be iPhone users, given the default chat options on Android are highly fragmented you pretty much need a third-party app to have a decent chat experience.
I'm largely someone who fits into #1 but I'm the end I'd like grandparents/great aunts/cousins/etc to easily visit my kids digitally, and it would be nice to just be closer to them. I'm not going to radically change my entire digital life to do so, but installing a (hopefully free) app would be nice and something I'd do in an instant.
I think it wouldn't be like >50% of Android users using it or anything, but I imagine there's a lot of people similar to me in this case.
> Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users?
Absolutely yes. Apple could also make the Android iMessage app fall back to SMS (IIRC the Android FB Messenger app does something similar) if the user wasn’t on iMessage if they wanted to.
Sure, they could do that. But once again, I must ask: How is making an SMS Android app in 2024 good for their business or valuable to their existing customer base?
Well, if secure communications is what they're customer base is interested in, it would make sense to provide them a means to use Apple's app to communicate securely with their Android friends.
[best Don Draper impression] That's what the regulation is for!
It obviously isn't in Apple's business interest. Regulations primarily exist to force companies to work in the consumers interest even if it's against their business interest. If every regulation was in line with business best interest there wouldn't be any point making them.
This is the most accurate and in-depth article I've read which discusses the state of external monitors on the Mac. So many others get hung-up on the implementation details of high-DPI scaling that they miss the forest for the trees.
After nearly three years of working on a 4K 27" with the oft-maligned non-native scaling applied to resize elements to look like 2560x1440, the experience is absolutely fine and so much nicer than a native 1440p screen which I used to use. At ~$300 for my monitor instead of ~$1600 for the Apple-approved 218 PPI Studio Display, it's really hard to conjure up a reason to recommend people splurge on the "true Retina" experience. It's really a case of diminishing returns when you get much above ~150PPI at a normal viewing distance.
Microsoft would never say it, of course, but truly the best “alternative solution” is Jetbrains Rider. It’s head and shoulders above VS for Mac in every way. I learn more C# features through its recommendations than even reading Microsoft’s development docs.
I made my own thing, fetching an RSS feed and posting entries to an existing account. It makes the code much simpler, but is not practical if you have lots of feeds (you need yo create all accounts separately): https://sr.ht/~rakoo/rss2ap/
If you're on a Mac or iOS, NetNewsWire can fetch and extract the whole article for an individual item, or you can set it to automatically do it for an entire feed: https://netnewswire.com/help/mac/5.1/en/reader-view
