3 ms·

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 h

• 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.