9 ms·

This accusation is wrong. Chat is using a protocol which is a successor of SMS. It's an interface to this protocol and not a 100% WhatsApp/Telegram copy. And th

This accusation is wrong. Chat is using a protocol which is a successor of SMS. It's an interface to this protocol and not a 100% WhatsApp/Telegram copy. And this will be also the reason it will fail... it's not all on Google's control, even the network providers will have control and iOS will be missing (that means no entire market reach). The problem with this new standard (RCS I think) is that it was never designed for end to end encryption.

hahainternet 9y ago
Yours is the only post in this entire thread adding the needed context. The article doesn't either. Yet somehow you were at the bottom of the page for me. I don't understand why.
crystaln 9y ago
Apple has implented a solution with iMessage, albeit a proprietary one only for iOS communications. If Google prioritized the privacy of users thet would build a similar product as the default Android messaging service, hopefully as an open platform. I have been very reluctant to switch to Android for precisely this reason. It represents a lack of concern for user privacy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kyrra 9y ago
  It is easy is to send an insecure message via iMessage. When the app will fallback to SMS, there isn't any clear indication that this is less secure. Sure you get the green vs blue bubbles, but security isn't exactly pointed out.
  - crystaln 9y ago
    Sure it's not perfect. The point is a default that respects and enforces privacy. It is night and day from Android. I wish Apple would open the protocol.
  - throwahey 9y ago
    SMS fallback can be easily disabled.
    - ajross 9y ago
      And secure chat applications can be easily installed. The whole kerfuffle here is about defaults.
- e12e 9y ago
  I'd say signal is already a better imessage. The use of phone numbers for linking contacts isn't great; but it's workable as a "better sms". And I prefer it to relying on solo'ed Google contacts. I still want something that federated, secure(able) and easy to self-host. But I really don't see the need for another iMessage.
  - crystaln 9y ago
    The need is for defaults. I want everyone using end to end encryption by default. If Signal became the default, great.
    - e12e 9y ago
      As long as imessage isn't generally available, it isn't a viable "default".
dingaling 9y ago
> that means no entire market reach Globally iOS is about 15% to 20% max. So the onus would be on Apple to integrate RCS into iMessage in order to reach the majority of the market. I can't see RCS succeeding anyway but it won't be because of Apple. It'll be because it took 11 years to come to market and even my dentist uses WhatsApp now.
- arbitrage 9y ago
  Onus? Like there are rules? Or moral obligations on the part of multinationals? Apple's only responsibility is to itself, and its shareholders.
  - eli 9y ago
    Yes, there is a moral obligation to do the right thing.
    - denom 9y ago
      Also, ethics provides specific practices and actions that we can take in order to ‘do the right thing’. The fact that some corporations act ruthlessly and mercenary with regards to human rights and individual suffering (like Facebook in the recent data scandal), does not abrogate our collective and individual obligation to a higher ethical practice.
    - PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
      How would one determine what such an obligation is any more than one would determine a religious obligation to do the right thing? As much as we wish there was, and as much as we think society would be better if there was, I don't think they exist and the closest thing to them we can emulate, that of a social obligation, has a number of flaws (since social obligations are enforced by social backlash and advertising strongly influences social backlash, and social backlash can often be counter productive).
      - landryraccoon 9y ago
candiodari 9y ago
It's funny how the people here are sort of flocking to the alternative: having regulated privacy guarantees. Of course Google is only implementing RCS here. That would be the agreed (with governments & telcos) standard, the result of regulation. Needless to say, it totally exposes everything to government, and to telcos, and to "interoperability providers" (which Google would be). It is strictly worse than Google when it comes to privacy. I think it includes more than just their chat messages, it seems to include things where you'd be like "why does this need to be part of chat ?" like location. And it comes with a little something for telcos that I doubt anyone here will like : per-message billing. On the plus side: it will work without a data subscription (I think). On the minus side: per-message billing, with or without data subscription. So the net effect is that people are being deceived - by amnesty no less - into pressuring Google and governments to expose more of their private information to more parties. Unfortunately what this does mean is that Google is now caving to government demands - full exposure of everyone's information all the time, without any reason or oversight. Not just to the government, but because the government is also incompetent and can't be bothered to actually store these or make them searchable, they demand you also give all telcos access to it (who will then store it and make it accessible to government agents), and we all know most of those telcos will outsource actually doing this, because they're government monopolies.
- tantalor 9y ago
  > like location Sharing current location with contacts is a pretty basic feature.
  - pacala 9y ago
    Where "contacts" that are truly interested in this "basic feature" consist of Google, Verizon and 3 letter agencies. Sign me out, thank you very much.
    - kalleboo 9y ago
      Google (who's software is running your phone) and your operator (who is constantly triangulating you to know where to broadcast the radio signal) already know exactly where you are.
ViViDboarder 9y ago
Any idea why they’d even bother implementing the interface, given it appears to be a step backwards compared to current options that customers have? They did have a choice to adopt it themselves.
- josteink 9y ago
  > Any idea why they’d even bother implementing the interface, given it appears to be a step backwards compared to current options that customers have? It's only a "step backwards" if you for some reason don't consider decentralized, standardized protocols implementable by anyone superior to centralized, closed-source walled-garden services.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    "Anyone can implement a client" isn't the strongest argument when that's also true for most chat services as well. It's nice that the protocol is out in the open but it's effectively a service provided by cell providers and locked to them. RCS could have been amazing as a general-purpose protocol for short datagrams that could be sent/received in areas where you can't get a data connection. It would effectively enable every chat app to work when the network is under load but carriers opted for the walled garden.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Or if you judge services on how well they work, not just on how "open" they are. To many people, just being "open" is not the be-all, end-all of whether something is better.
- occamrazor 9y ago
  It is a step forward from SMS, although with many of the same drawbacks as SMS.
libeclipse 9y ago
The point is that they're backing this non-secure chat over backing a secure alternative, like Allo.
- Kalium 9y ago
  You may recall that Google tried to back Allo. They recently backed away from it, with press reports pointing to a near-total lack of support from critical players such as carriers. Google is stuck working with things their partners will support. They can't reliably be dictatorial like Apple can.
  - amdavidson 9y ago
    > They can't reliably be dictatorial like Apple can. Why not? If they never shipped an RCS client and made Allo part of the required Android install for Play Services compliance, who is going to stop them? They choose not to be dictatorial.

hahainternet 9y ago

Yours is the only post in this entire thread adding the needed context. The article doesn't either. Yet somehow you were at the bottom of the page for me. I don't understand why.

crystaln 9y ago

Apple has implented a solution with iMessage, albeit a proprietary one only for iOS communications. If Google prioritized the privacy of users thet would build a similar product as the default Android messaging service, hopefully as an open platform. I have been very reluctant to switch to Android for precisely this reason. It represents a lack of concern for user privacy.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kyrra 9y ago
It is easy is to send an insecure message via iMessage. When the app will fallback to SMS, there isn't any clear indication that this is less secure. Sure you get the green vs blue bubbles, but security isn't exactly pointed out.
- crystaln 9y ago
  Sure it's not perfect. The point is a default that respects and enforces privacy. It is night and day from Android. I wish Apple would open the protocol.
- throwahey 9y ago
  SMS fallback can be easily disabled.
  - ajross 9y ago
    And secure chat applications can be easily installed. The whole kerfuffle here is about defaults.
e12e 9y ago
I'd say signal is already a better imessage. The use of phone numbers for linking contacts isn't great; but it's workable as a "better sms". And I prefer it to relying on solo'ed Google contacts. I still want something that federated, secure(able) and easy to self-host. But I really don't see the need for another iMessage.
- crystaln 9y ago
  The need is for defaults. I want everyone using end to end encryption by default. If Signal became the default, great.
  - e12e 9y ago
    As long as imessage isn't generally available, it isn't a viable "default".

dingaling 9y ago

> that means no entire market reach Globally iOS is about 15% to 20% max. So the onus would be on Apple to integrate RCS into iMessage in order to reach the majority of the market. I can't see RCS succeeding anyway but it won't be because of Apple. It'll be because it took 11 years to come to market and even my dentist uses WhatsApp now.

arbitrage 9y ago
Onus? Like there are rules? Or moral obligations on the part of multinationals? Apple's only responsibility is to itself, and its shareholders.
- eli 9y ago
  Yes, there is a moral obligation to do the right thing.
  - denom 9y ago
    Also, ethics provides specific practices and actions that we can take in order to ‘do the right thing’. The fact that some corporations act ruthlessly and mercenary with regards to human rights and individual suffering (like Facebook in the recent data scandal), does not abrogate our collective and individual obligation to a higher ethical practice.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
    How would one determine what such an obligation is any more than one would determine a religious obligation to do the right thing? As much as we wish there was, and as much as we think society would be better if there was, I don't think they exist and the closest thing to them we can emulate, that of a social obligation, has a number of flaws (since social obligations are enforced by social backlash and advertising strongly influences social backlash, and social backlash can often be counter productive).
    - landryraccoon 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

It's funny how the people here are sort of flocking to the alternative: having regulated privacy guarantees. Of course Google is only implementing RCS here. That would be the agreed (with governments & telcos) standard, the result of regulation. Needless to say, it totally exposes everything to government, and to telcos, and to "interoperability providers" (which Google would be). It is strictly worse than Google when it comes to privacy. I think it includes more than just their chat messages, it seems to include things where you'd be like "why does this need to be part of chat ?" like location. And it comes with a little something for telcos that I doubt anyone here will like : per-message billing. On the plus side: it will work without a data subscription (I think). On the minus side: per-message billing, with or without data subscription. So the net effect is that people are being deceived - by amnesty no less - into pressuring Google and governments to expose more of their private information to more parties. Unfortunately what this does mean is that Google is now caving to government demands - full exposure of everyone's information all the time, without any reason or oversight. Not just to the government, but because the government is also incompetent and can't be bothered to actually store these or make them searchable, they demand you also give all telcos access to it (who will then store it and make it accessible to government agents), and we all know most of those telcos will outsource actually doing this, because they're government monopolies.

tantalor 9y ago
> like location Sharing current location with contacts is a pretty basic feature.
- pacala 9y ago
  Where "contacts" that are truly interested in this "basic feature" consist of Google, Verizon and 3 letter agencies. Sign me out, thank you very much.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    Google (who's software is running your phone) and your operator (who is constantly triangulating you to know where to broadcast the radio signal) already know exactly where you are.

ViViDboarder 9y ago

Any idea why they’d even bother implementing the interface, given it appears to be a step backwards compared to current options that customers have? They did have a choice to adopt it themselves.

josteink 9y ago
> Any idea why they’d even bother implementing the interface, given it appears to be a step backwards compared to current options that customers have? It's only a "step backwards" if you for some reason don't consider decentralized, standardized protocols implementable by anyone superior to centralized, closed-source walled-garden services.
- Spivak 9y ago
  "Anyone can implement a client" isn't the strongest argument when that's also true for most chat services as well. It's nice that the protocol is out in the open but it's effectively a service provided by cell providers and locked to them. RCS could have been amazing as a general-purpose protocol for short datagrams that could be sent/received in areas where you can't get a data connection. It would effectively enable every chat app to work when the network is under load but carriers opted for the walled garden.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Or if you judge services on how well they work, not just on how "open" they are. To many people, just being "open" is not the be-all, end-all of whether something is better.
occamrazor 9y ago
It is a step forward from SMS, although with many of the same drawbacks as SMS.

libeclipse 9y ago

The point is that they're backing this non-secure chat over backing a secure alternative, like Allo.

Kalium 9y ago
You may recall that Google tried to back Allo. They recently backed away from it, with press reports pointing to a near-total lack of support from critical players such as carriers. Google is stuck working with things their partners will support. They can't reliably be dictatorial like Apple can.
- amdavidson 9y ago
  > They can't reliably be dictatorial like Apple can. Why not? If they never shipped an RCS client and made Allo part of the required Android install for Play Services compliance, who is going to stop them? They choose not to be dictatorial.