8 ms·

Does it use end-to-end encryption: NOPE Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback (to protect against data retention/archiving text messages): NOPE Apple made

by sp0ck 8y ago

Does it use end-to-end encryption: NOPE Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback (to protect against data retention/archiving text messages): NOPE Apple made it with first approach. Google:chat app, sms app, allo, duo, hangount This will be next on the list. Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.

izacus 8y ago
This is not an app. :/ Why didn't you read the source?
- wccrawford 8y ago
  It's part of a messaging app. >Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
  - izacus 8y ago
    Yes, it's a standard that is already supported by several apps, including Samsung default messaging app. Which makes complaning about google making an app strange.
  - Pharylon 8y ago
    No, it's a standard that Google's messaging app will (actually, already does) support. But any messaging app can add support if it doesn't already.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
That's another bigger factor: if Apple doesn't include it as a standard for their mobile phones it's not going to get anybody anywhere unless all carriers seem to care to implement it at all. At which case I'm not seeing why pushing for XMPP wouldn't be as valid? Carriers have the capability to power XMPP networks that work accross carriers... Also requires less reinventing the wheel and being locked down to "Google said do this."
- aNoob7000 8y ago
  What I'm worried about is carriers not following the standard completely or charging for it.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Charging for what? The messages? Yes, supposedly RCS is designed to allow for per-message billing, like SMSs.
    - goalieca 8y ago
      I may be cynical but it would seem that RCS came out as a collaboration between carriers to get this model and control back.
      - sixothree 8y ago
        By design, RCS is that.
  - 21 8y ago
    There is no way you can charge again for messaging in a world of WhatsApp & co.
- 21 8y ago
  XMPP is a terrible square wheel.
  - diggan 8y ago
    While I'm sure your opinion would be interesting, the comment you left here is very much not so. Instead of saying "I don't like this" and leave it at that, HN expects you to be able to write down your arguments and opinions so others can understand them. What you done here is lazy. Some further explanation about your view would probably be interesting. Otherwise, please don't comment at al.
mtgx 8y ago
Google could encrypt the content with end-to-end encryption like Moxie did with TextSecure and SMS. The RCS content would be encrypted between Android Chat users. But from every move Google has made recently, it seems to think that people have forgotten about the Snowden stories. So they now have ZERO interest in anything that is end-to-end encrypted, because they think they can now get away with it. They threw an option in there for Allo, but it was never meant to be used by users anyway, and now they're killing Allo, too. I don't think they'll ever talk about end-to-end encryption again because they want all of that data for themselves. Now, the very least Google could do for its users is encrypt the RCS messages between its Android Chat users with some kind of Noise/HTTPS encryption. That would still give them all the user data, but at least they'd be protecting users against the carriers exploiting all of that data, too. So it would be very similar to them using HTTPS for websites or for DNS, and I see no reason why Google wouldn't do this. I still wouldn't use Android Chat because I don't trust Google at all anymore, especially after their recent interest in working with the Pentagon for developing autonomous military drones, but at least it would benefit everyone else. Also, there was a recent thread on /r/Android, and it seems nobody outside of US cares about SMS anymore (which means they don't care about RCS either, which is basically SMS+): https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based_android_users_do_you_think_messaging/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based...
- kyrra 8y ago
  What Snowden stories? You mean how Google's SREs were pissed[0] to find out what the NSA was doing? And that then Google started encrypting all their inter-datacenter traffic automatically[1]. As for a reddit discussion... that is such a poor indicator of use of a service. I don't see any statistics gathered there about usage by country. That is such a tiny sample set, it is basically useless. There are groups out there that gather SMS (and chat app) usage by country, but I think all those reports are paywalled. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-issue-fuck-you-to-nsa-over-surveillance-scandal https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-encrypts-data-amid-backlash-against-nsa-spying/2013/09/06/9acc3c20-1722-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-en...
INTPenis 8y ago
>Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. I think that last argument doesn't float for me. Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. I don't actually have it myself but I see people use it all the time. And I do know that you're able to setup Facebook chat in 3rd party clients with OTR/omemo support. But that's besides the point because it's only done by a very small minority. My point is that Facebook is a major player in targeted ads and their chat system is also unencrypted and resembles what google has tried to develop. So I think google's issue is not with the ads but something else. I agree that they've taken a few too many stabs at trying to develop a chat system. But I can't see how they're failing because of their ad business.
- pas 8y ago
  > Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. No, they added the compulsory Snapchat features (smart filters, 3D masks, I don't know how they named it: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-messengers-new-camera-app-with-filters-3d-masks-heres-how-to-use-4486236/ http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-... ) And it went through a few changes, that made it ... more irritating, as usual for apps that want more attention. There's also this Secret Conversations thing: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-messenger-update-now/ https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-... ... I haven't enable it, because .. please, like it matters, our collective OPSEC is so bad, even using the term makes me cringe .. :| But usually people don't plan ahead with the intent to have successfully deniable communications, otherwise we'd use something self-hosted.
- thisacctforreal 8y ago
  Facebook ended support for XMPP in April 2015. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empathy-pidgin-stop-working https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empath... I also don't understand your point as a whole. Facebook and Google both aim to target ads accurately; Facebook also has unencrypted messages by default; therefore "google's issue [with adding encryption] is not with the ads but something else"? I don't see how those connect. edit: ah, your real conclusion was "google's issue [with creating a successful chat app] is not with ads but something else". I didn't think GP was purporting the unencrypted chat application wouldn't be adopted, just that it wouldn't be "good for the world", or somesuch.
notyourday 8y ago
It is another pile of Google Garbage(tm). Here's what would work. Chat that just works with gmail. Not another chat app. Chat with gmail. Is the other person online? Message is immediately delivered. Is the other person not online? Message is queued. ID of another person? Their email address or a phone number. That's it. Just (a) make it actually work (b) make it not lose messages
- ninkendo 8y ago
  I don’t think I’d like that. The type of messages I leave with chat and the type of messages I leave with email are characteristically different. I suspect I’m not alone here. With instant messaging I tend to not leave long messages until I’m in contact with someone, and in messaging it’s more kosher to send quick one 1-word responses, even breaking replies into several messages to have some “timing” to my communications, similar to speech. With emails I assume the person may not get them for a while, and I tend to leave longer paragraphs, and assume a response timeline of a few hours or even days. Messages “falling back” to email, or emails turning into messages doesn’t seem like it would work to well with most people’s communication expectations IME.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    You misunderstood. Messaging/email should be the same application, accessing the same contact list because the odds are the people that you are communicating with using messaging are the people you communicate with using email. It makes no sense to have to run another application to communicate with someone just because it is on a phone. Think of it as the hangout in Gmail on the web, except if Hangout actually just worked ( such as not said the message was delivered when it was not or said the message has not been delivered yet when it was ).
Pharylon 8y ago
First, this isn't a Google app. Google is pushing the RCS standard, a standard that some carriers already support. And yeah, it doesn't support encryption so it's clearly inferior to something like Signal, but open standards that don't live in a silo are still important. For instance, I have friends that almost exclusively chat through Facebook Messenger. Since I won't install Facebook Messenger, I chat with them over SMS. A "better SMS" would be nice, and might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > open standards that don't live in a silo are still important Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    While the standard itself doesn't enforce any encryption, you could write an RCS based app that encrypts messages between endpoints. There are SMS apps that do exactly that, you just have the other contact install the same app and scan a QR code.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Is there one (or two) you'd recommend or suggest? Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?
      - Someone1234 8y ago
        For RCS? I've not seen any yet, but the protocol is just getting off the ground.
    - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      No you can’t. Unless you want to chat with yourself. These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort. That’s the point.
SomewhatLikely 8y ago
I'd add Wave to that list.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Messages is their second attempt at an SMS app too.
xboxnolifes 8y ago
> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. Google could. They have entire Google Accounts profiled. If a Google account is required to use the app, they can use information gathered outside of it.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. Sure you can. You can target ads based purely on the rate and timing of messages. If you are sending 100 messages an hour, starting at exactly 3:30 every day. You are probably a highschool kid with a smartphone. If you are only sending one or two a week, always during lunch hour, then you are an adult with a 9-5 job. At a minimum, they can estimate your sleep cycle.
tbrock 8y ago
At this point isn’t building the software that enables people to be content using your phones significantly more valuable that reading texts in transit? The advertising gains could be had by building local profiles using unencrypted texts on the device itself. Just encrypt as it flows through the network, in that case I at least know google can read them but nobody else can. The opportunity cost of screwing up something as basic as messaging experience on a phone is enormous. Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes. What the heck is Google doing? I’d want to work there just to fix this because they are blowing it.
- nandhp 8y ago
  > Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes. According to The Verge, a web interface is coming soon (presumably as a result of development effort being redirected from Allo to Messages) > So expect a couple things to happen on the app front. First, Google will finally make a desktop web interface for texting There's a screenshot in this article (about half-way down; if you're lucky this link will take you to it): https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-messages-chat-rcs-anil-sabharwal-imessage-texting#gvznFG https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Google can't make good message app They had one in Google Talk. Then they killed it.
noja 8y ago
> Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback No but it requires a data plan!
satysin 8y ago
If Apple were to open iMessage (both to other platforms and the spec/implementation) they could own the messaging market almost over night. Of course there is no real benefit for them in doing so though. They have no interest in being the dominant messaging platform. So it will almost certainly never happen :( For now it seems the best option is Signal as it falls back to standard SMS if it cannot send via IP. Of course you lose the advantages of E2EE and all the other lovely features of Signal but is it at least graceful for the user experience. Wire appears to be just as good as Signal with the exception of it not falling back to SMS. If you don't want that though I seems to be down to personal preference.

by sp0ck 8y ago

izacus 8y ago

This is not an app. :/ Why didn't you read the source?

wccrawford 8y ago
It's part of a messaging app. >Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
- izacus 8y ago
  Yes, it's a standard that is already supported by several apps, including Samsung default messaging app. Which makes complaning about google making an app strange.
- Pharylon 8y ago
  No, it's a standard that Google's messaging app will (actually, already does) support. But any messaging app can add support if it doesn't already.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

That's another bigger factor: if Apple doesn't include it as a standard for their mobile phones it's not going to get anybody anywhere unless all carriers seem to care to implement it at all. At which case I'm not seeing why pushing for XMPP wouldn't be as valid? Carriers have the capability to power XMPP networks that work accross carriers... Also requires less reinventing the wheel and being locked down to "Google said do this."

aNoob7000 8y ago
What I'm worried about is carriers not following the standard completely or charging for it.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Charging for what? The messages? Yes, supposedly RCS is designed to allow for per-message billing, like SMSs.
  - goalieca 8y ago
    I may be cynical but it would seem that RCS came out as a collaboration between carriers to get this model and control back.
    - sixothree 8y ago
      By design, RCS is that.
- 21 8y ago
  There is no way you can charge again for messaging in a world of WhatsApp & co.
21 8y ago
XMPP is a terrible square wheel.
- diggan 8y ago
  While I'm sure your opinion would be interesting, the comment you left here is very much not so. Instead of saying "I don't like this" and leave it at that, HN expects you to be able to write down your arguments and opinions so others can understand them. What you done here is lazy. Some further explanation about your view would probably be interesting. Otherwise, please don't comment at al.

mtgx 8y ago

Google could encrypt the content with end-to-end encryption like Moxie did with TextSecure and SMS. The RCS content would be encrypted between Android Chat users. But from every move Google has made recently, it seems to think that people have forgotten about the Snowden stories. So they now have ZERO interest in anything that is end-to-end encrypted, because they think they can now get away with it. They threw an option in there for Allo, but it was never meant to be used by users anyway, and now they're killing Allo, too. I don't think they'll ever talk about end-to-end encryption again because they want all of that data for themselves. Now, the very least Google could do for its users is encrypt the RCS messages between its Android Chat users with some kind of Noise/HTTPS encryption. That would still give them all the user data, but at least they'd be protecting users against the carriers exploiting all of that data, too. So it would be very similar to them using HTTPS for websites or for DNS, and I see no reason why Google wouldn't do this. I still wouldn't use Android Chat because I don't trust Google at all anymore, especially after their recent interest in working with the Pentagon for developing autonomous military drones, but at least it would benefit everyone else. Also, there was a recent thread on /r/Android, and it seems nobody outside of US cares about SMS anymore (which means they don't care about RCS either, which is basically SMS+): https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based_android_users_do_you_think_messaging/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based...

kyrra 8y ago
What Snowden stories? You mean how Google's SREs were pissed[0] to find out what the NSA was doing? And that then Google started encrypting all their inter-datacenter traffic automatically[1]. As for a reddit discussion... that is such a poor indicator of use of a service. I don't see any statistics gathered there about usage by country. That is such a tiny sample set, it is basically useless. There are groups out there that gather SMS (and chat app) usage by country, but I think all those reports are paywalled. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-issue-fuck-you-to-nsa-over-surveillance-scandal https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-encrypts-data-amid-backlash-against-nsa-spying/2013/09/06/9acc3c20-1722-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-en...

INTPenis 8y ago

>Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. I think that last argument doesn't float for me. Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. I don't actually have it myself but I see people use it all the time. And I do know that you're able to setup Facebook chat in 3rd party clients with OTR/omemo support. But that's besides the point because it's only done by a very small minority. My point is that Facebook is a major player in targeted ads and their chat system is also unencrypted and resembles what google has tried to develop. So I think google's issue is not with the ads but something else. I agree that they've taken a few too many stabs at trying to develop a chat system. But I can't see how they're failing because of their ad business.

pas 8y ago
> Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. No, they added the compulsory Snapchat features (smart filters, 3D masks, I don't know how they named it: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-messengers-new-camera-app-with-filters-3d-masks-heres-how-to-use-4486236/ http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-... ) And it went through a few changes, that made it ... more irritating, as usual for apps that want more attention. There's also this Secret Conversations thing: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-messenger-update-now/ https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-... ... I haven't enable it, because .. please, like it matters, our collective OPSEC is so bad, even using the term makes me cringe .. :| But usually people don't plan ahead with the intent to have successfully deniable communications, otherwise we'd use something self-hosted.
thisacctforreal 8y ago
Facebook ended support for XMPP in April 2015. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empathy-pidgin-stop-working https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empath... I also don't understand your point as a whole. Facebook and Google both aim to target ads accurately; Facebook also has unencrypted messages by default; therefore "google's issue [with adding encryption] is not with the ads but something else"? I don't see how those connect. edit: ah, your real conclusion was "google's issue [with creating a successful chat app] is not with ads but something else". I didn't think GP was purporting the unencrypted chat application wouldn't be adopted, just that it wouldn't be "good for the world", or somesuch.

notyourday 8y ago

It is another pile of Google Garbage(tm). Here's what would work. Chat that just works with gmail. Not another chat app. Chat with gmail. Is the other person online? Message is immediately delivered. Is the other person not online? Message is queued. ID of another person? Their email address or a phone number. That's it. Just (a) make it actually work (b) make it not lose messages

ninkendo 8y ago
I don’t think I’d like that. The type of messages I leave with chat and the type of messages I leave with email are characteristically different. I suspect I’m not alone here. With instant messaging I tend to not leave long messages until I’m in contact with someone, and in messaging it’s more kosher to send quick one 1-word responses, even breaking replies into several messages to have some “timing” to my communications, similar to speech. With emails I assume the person may not get them for a while, and I tend to leave longer paragraphs, and assume a response timeline of a few hours or even days. Messages “falling back” to email, or emails turning into messages doesn’t seem like it would work to well with most people’s communication expectations IME.
- notyourday 8y ago
  You misunderstood. Messaging/email should be the same application, accessing the same contact list because the odds are the people that you are communicating with using messaging are the people you communicate with using email. It makes no sense to have to run another application to communicate with someone just because it is on a phone. Think of it as the hangout in Gmail on the web, except if Hangout actually just worked ( such as not said the message was delivered when it was not or said the message has not been delivered yet when it was ).

Pharylon 8y ago

First, this isn't a Google app. Google is pushing the RCS standard, a standard that some carriers already support. And yeah, it doesn't support encryption so it's clearly inferior to something like Signal, but open standards that don't live in a silo are still important. For instance, I have friends that almost exclusively chat through Facebook Messenger. Since I won't install Facebook Messenger, I chat with them over SMS. A "better SMS" would be nice, and might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> open standards that don't live in a silo are still important Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  While the standard itself doesn't enforce any encryption, you could write an RCS based app that encrypts messages between endpoints. There are SMS apps that do exactly that, you just have the other contact install the same app and scan a QR code.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Is there one (or two) you'd recommend or suggest? Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      For RCS? I've not seen any yet, but the protocol is just getting off the ground.
  - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    No you can’t. Unless you want to chat with yourself. These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort. That’s the point.

SomewhatLikely 8y ago

I'd add Wave to that list.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Messages is their second attempt at an SMS app too.

xboxnolifes 8y ago

> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. Google could. They have entire Google Accounts profiled. If a Google account is required to use the app, they can use information gathered outside of it.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages. Sure you can. You can target ads based purely on the rate and timing of messages. If you are sending 100 messages an hour, starting at exactly 3:30 every day. You are probably a highschool kid with a smartphone. If you are only sending one or two a week, always during lunch hour, then you are an adult with a 9-5 job. At a minimum, they can estimate your sleep cycle.

tbrock 8y ago

At this point isn’t building the software that enables people to be content using your phones significantly more valuable that reading texts in transit? The advertising gains could be had by building local profiles using unencrypted texts on the device itself. Just encrypt as it flows through the network, in that case I at least know google can read them but nobody else can. The opportunity cost of screwing up something as basic as messaging experience on a phone is enormous. Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes. What the heck is Google doing? I’d want to work there just to fix this because they are blowing it.

nandhp 8y ago
> Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes. According to The Verge, a web interface is coming soon (presumably as a result of development effort being redirected from Allo to Messages) > So expect a couple things to happen on the app front. First, Google will finally make a desktop web interface for texting There's a screenshot in this article (about half-way down; if you're lucky this link will take you to it): https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-messages-chat-rcs-anil-sabharwal-imessage-texting#gvznFG https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Google can't make good message app They had one in Google Talk. Then they killed it.

noja 8y ago

> Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback No but it requires a data plan!

satysin 8y ago

If Apple were to open iMessage (both to other platforms and the spec/implementation) they could own the messaging market almost over night. Of course there is no real benefit for them in doing so though. They have no interest in being the dominant messaging platform. So it will almost certainly never happen :( For now it seems the best option is Signal as it falls back to standard SMS if it cannot send via IP. Of course you lose the advantages of E2EE and all the other lovely features of Signal but is it at least graceful for the user experience. Wire appears to be just as good as Signal with the exception of it not falling back to SMS. If you don't want that though I seems to be down to personal preference.