11 ms·

Google is ramping up its efforts to replace SMS with RCS

81 points by elorant 7y ago

quaquaqua1 7y ago
I will be extremely displeased if they do. It is a basically free way to communicate silently and asynchronously with virtually any phone in a given area. The same cannot always be said for other messaging apps. Sure, you can communicate globally with Telegram and Whatsapp, but they require a slightly more stable connection and of course they use data which has a non-zero cost. I work in a building that has horrible, horrible reception. The only thing making it out of those walls is text messages. Whatsapp even will rarely work, and Hangouts messages? Forget about it. It has to ping a server 17 times before sending a message, seemingly.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  SMS is far from "free". It's often bundled into a package consumers buy, so "included" perhaps, but the actual data costs for SMS traffic are insanely higher than data connection traffic.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Eh, SMS, the very short text protocol is insanely cheap for the networks. MMS does eat a lot more data though.
    - infogulch 7y ago
      SMS and MMS are so cheap I wouldn't be surprised if the total operating cost is dominated by side things like extra staff at customer service centers etc. But this isn't a question about how much SMS costs the carrier, it's how much they charge their customers for it. Retail price is often completely divorced from the actual cost of the goods and services provided.
      - mrweasel 7y ago
        SMS is basically free to operate, it's in the networking equipment you need to install and run to provide cellular service anyway. Similarly telcos no longer meter your SMS usage, basically the only thing they charge for and cap is data. As someone else pointed out, it's SMS across borders that's ridicules. There is no reason why that should cost €0.5 per SMS.
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      SMS is not as cheap as most people imply. Sure, the total bitrate of sms messages is low, but the software and services are all legacy, require people with special skills to setup, and have quite high license fees to keep running. Set up your own SMSC and tell us how easy it was...?
      - fnshshebb 7y ago
        I'd wager no more difficult than operating the mobile network on which it runs in the first place.
      - lukeschlather 7y ago
        The bitrate is a huge deal. High costs on the backend are a legitimate concern, but ultimately we've got a finite number of base stations and some areas simply will not get base stations, ever. SMS is probably the only protocol that can extend any amount of coverage into these remote areas where message delivery can be a matter of life or death. And some of these areas aren't even that remote, just unintentionally RF shielded.
      - darkerside 7y ago
        When people call it cheap, they are likely referring to the marginal cost being near zero. This makes sense as telecom carries a huge overhead to operate, SMS or no.
  - glitchc 7y ago
    SMS is carried in the status/beacon messages that the phone and tower periodically exchange. This is why there is a character limit. Bandwidth cost is zero.
    - zeta0134 7y ago
      Right; it's free on a technical level. Many, many carriers charge for it anyway, certainly in the US, though I don't know what the situation is abroad. I think a better argument for the standard is simply that it's built into the protocol, and therefore unlikely to vanish anytime soon. Can't say the same for the trendy app of the week.
      - tenryuu 7y ago
        Well,telcos aren't a charity either, consider yourself paying regular service fees, enabling employees to keep their jobs, or even just using that money for the Mobile Data you use. I have a cheap prepaid, still using SMS every day because I know I have unlimited use of it, to several countries even. Data is where they make their money
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    SMS requires looking up where the receiver is and sending around the message if he moves before it is received. It doesn’t cost much but it definitely isn’t free.
  - gwenzek 7y ago
    In France you can have unlimited SMS + 2 hours of call per month for 2€. So it's very close to "free". Texting is free towards all EU, USA and a bunch of other countries around the world.
- ryeights 7y ago
  Google wants carriers to drop SMS for RCS, a new text messaging standard. They aren’t pushing for the elimination of text messages.
  - tw04 7y ago
    No, but they are pushing yet another standard that's insecure by default because their entire business model is based on spying on end users.
    - thekyle 7y ago
      How does RCS help Google "spy on users" any more than SMS?
      - tw04 7y ago
        We're talking about the REPLACEMENT for SMS. SMS was developed in a time when encryption and security were barely even an afterthought. if we're designing the messaging standard for the next decade+, why on earth would we want something that's equally insecure? Imagine if SSH didn't exist and we were all still using telnet in 2019. If Google were backing a replacment that lacked even basic encryption, would you be OK with that, or would you point out it's absolutely ridiculous? Because that's what we're talking about here...
        delfinom 7y ago
        Go ahead, find out how fast you get thrown in national security prison if you try and encrypt SMS as a baseline ;)
        floatboth 7y ago
        Well, the creators of WhatsApp and iMessage and Signal are not in prison..
      - noselasd 7y ago
- wyldfire 7y ago
  > course they use data which has a non-zero cost. It's odd that you keep mentioning cost. Text messages are often metered at some ludicrous rate (or sold at a similarly ludicrous unlimited monthly addition). > virtually any phone in a given area. From what I understand, outside of the US, text messages are not quite as reliable. I don't know if that's cause or effect of the fact that outside of the US nearly everyone uses WhatsApp or WeChat.
  - heinrich5991 7y ago
    They're also very reliable in Germany. What are the countries where they're unreliable?
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      Text messages on some networks in the UK sometimes have a 10-15 minute delay at busy times. Even on good days, there is usually a 10 second or so delay. That makes them impractical for realtime chat, and even makes 'verification codes' a pain.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      I have a UK number and the amount of times SMS verification codes fail to appear is huge. There are companies specifically selling services for this that can’t even send a SMS to a first world phone number. I haven’t used it for personal communication for years but I do not remember it being particularly reliable when I did. SMS from my perspective is absolute rubbish.
      - petepete 7y ago
        Perhaps it varies by network, mine have seemed instant for years (with O2 then Tesco Mobile).
    - tinus_hn 7y ago
      It’s just reliable compared to internet connectivity which is terrible in Germany. Poorly connected Edge all around.
devoply 7y ago
what happens if/when Google simply drops support for SMS? It could force this easily.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  I don’t think you can drop support for SMS, at least not in the US receiving messages is required for FCC compliance for handsets currently iirc.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    What are the consequences of this? What prevents Google from making and selling a six-inch ("phone-sized") tablet, and moving SMS to Hangouts and calls to Duo?
    - dingo_bat 7y ago
      Probably the fact that nobody would buy it.
    - Macha 7y ago
      Is this device going to rely on public Wifi to get messages when out and about? Otherwise, if it needs a data connection, you'll have to get mobile networks involved, and I doubt they'd co-operate with an end run around themselves.
    - theferalrobot 7y ago
      Tablets with a data connection are still required to support sms
- wyldfire 7y ago
  That's unlikely. It could be described by the network operators as a failure to conform to the standard. It's possible that regulatory features like Amber alerts/weather alerts use SMS.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
nenadg 7y ago
Google wanting to put and control under it's umbrella i no news. This is sad.
- readams 7y ago
  Google could go the Apple route and make a proprietary version that silently substitutes itself. Instead they're pushing for a standards based approach
  - nenadg 7y ago
    They already did that with google talk, android, etc.
dade_ 7y ago
What a horrible headline, but Wired being the source is enough of a warning. Google is doing nothing nefarious here, SMS needs to go the way of 9600bps modems. Newsflash, your phone calls aren't encrypted on the PSTN and neither are your SMS messages. RCS is a great thing as it means interoperability and compatibility which are words that causes anaphylactic shock at Apple. iMessage and WhatsApp are the worst technologies hoisted on our society, but make possible by lazy and money grubbing owners of carrier networks.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  There's definitely some nefarious parts here. Namely, that most RCS compatible carriers are using Google's cloud service to operate it, as far as I am aware, and its likely Google rolling out RCS without carriers in some instances is a bid to pressure them into it. Furthermore, the strategy of implementing messaging through carriers came after all of their repeated failures to convince the public to use their chat apps, and having the carriers push the feature instead removes user agency. It's a way to force us to message with Google after we've repeatedly rejected them. As per usual, Google is claiming to develop something in the open as a standard, but it's designed chiefly to bring everything under their roof. RCS is kinda like AMP for text messaging.
  - sverige 7y ago
    "Those who have adopted the system most fervently, such as Vodafone in the UK, have done so because they see the opportunity to monetise smarter messaging" Everything I need to know about why I don't want RCS is contained in this simple statement.
  - kyrra 7y ago
    (googler, opinions are my own) Disagree. RCS is most definitely an open standard that Google has bought onto in the last few years. The standard itself is 20 years old at this point I think. The problem was that carriers could not agree on a set of features to implement, which made all of the various implementations non-compatible. Google bought Jibe that was working on a standard implementation that carriers could roll out. The biggest thing really that Google has been pushing for with the GSMA is the universal profile, which defined a set of features that all carriers would implement. We are now at the spot where universal profile has mostly been agreed upon. Carriers can implement their own version, get a self-hosted version of Jibe, or let Google host the RCS system. The last option is the easiest for carriers to do, but obviously puts Google in the middle. The nice thing about RCS is that it is a standard. Google could totally walk away from it, and all the carriers and phone makers could still use it. You can't say that about any other chat app out there (maybe matrix would be the only one).
itg 7y ago
No thanks Google, I would prefer a communication platform/protocol that tech companies don't control. Last thing I want is them deciding what messages I can send and who can use the platform.
- vidanay 7y ago
  So...paper, pencil, and postage?
  - sverige 7y ago
    It's as simple as retaining SMS.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  Unless you are using the us post office, which messaging app isn't done by a tech company? I guess if we're still considering telecoms non tech bit regardless of designation, they are not what I would consider trust worthy either.
- toast0 7y ago
  RCS is a protocol that comes from the GSMA, an association of mobile telephone carriers. Google didn't develop the protocol. Based on experience with things that come from the telco world, I'm guessing it's a fairly terrible protocol. Based on the glacial pace of rollout, I'm guessing the available software to support it is maybe worse than the usual telco stuff, or anyway is harder to setup, deploy, and manage than carriers care to. But... It's still a standard that google needs to support as the OS for handsets, because carriers who went through the trouble to run RCS aren't going to want to sell phones that don't support it, and Google can't make the on device platform SMS libraries work right for RCS delivered messages unless they supply the client. But, in house, they need to test against a server, and they've got what 7 messaging platforms? So it's not too hard to write a toy server, but somehow it escapes to real carriers and boom, now we have Google actively pushing this. Google certainly gets benefits by being a platform provider of RCS, but I don't see it as coming from a nefarious place. Benefits include whatever tracking etc, but probably they also get free messaging to connected carrier customers and a piece of commercial messaging. There's still a ton of value in commercial messaging, and being able to observe it provides competitive intelligence -- auth code sends are strongly related to user counts and can be cross referenced with app install data from android devices with Google services.
neltnerb 7y ago
And, of course, t-mobile will only support it on phones they sell in their stores. Which are all too big for people with hand problems like me. Can Google bypass the carrier on this, or can you only do that with something like a google voice number? All the other features aside, being able to receive text messages in my office that has no cell service would sure be nice. Moreso if it integrates with Signal so at the least I actually get messages from my iPhone wielding friends with only Apple chat clients when I have connectivity to the internet.
lol768 7y ago
The sooner mobile networks start acting like dumb IP pipes, the better. I don't care about SMS (I can't remember the last time I sent a message with it), I can use VoIP for calls and everything else uses TCP/IP or UDP/IP. SMS is legacy precisely because it requires mobile carriers to maintain the system. RCS is a joke because it requires exactly the same amount of co-operation and aoption has been terrible to date. Google's move away from internet-based messaging (unconnected to the mobile carrier) was a step in the wrong direction, but one that was unsurprising given their track record with messaging applications.
coding123 7y ago
I dont understand why Google can't do what Apple did. And they did it like 10 years ago.
- jeroenhd 7y ago
  They tried. Several times. Google Talk / Hangouts was an early attempt; Allo tried again when Hangouts didn't take the public by storm and Google needed to get Assistant out to more people. One problem with Google is that it can't keep any modern project running for more than 2 years. Such unreliability makes it difficult for people to use any new Google app as a primary means of communication. Another problem is that end-to-end encryption goes against everything Google is about: information mining. Google can't make a direct profit of such a communication system, so e2e won't happen anytime soon.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    And they can't decide what to use for communication. Google Login or phone number. Later it became both. A mess of systems, principles, apps, support and branding (and internally teams).
- jayd16 7y ago
  The hacky way Apple tracks iPhone users vs other contacts that leads to dropped messages when you switch away from iOS is not something I want to see Google replicate.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  Rumor has it anti-trust is what's stopping them.
- izacus 7y ago
  Can you imagine the outrage on HN if Google would redirect messaging from SMS to a proprietary iMessage-like protocol on all Android phones?
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  Apple did something clever here: they first created a product a lot of people wanted and then they negotiated hard with carriers to get the full IOS experience to users. This was quite revolutionary at the time. Most manufacturers had to negotiate with individual operators about such things like which features the operators needed to have turned off or removed (e.g. thethering, or bundled software like Skype). Then additionally firmware updates had to be approved and shipped seperately for each operator. All of this continues to be a problem with Android ten years later. Things like iMessage were basically dictated by Apple and operators had the choice between not supporting IOS and being abandoned by iphone fans or supporting IOS as is. These days, Apple just launches new phones and operators bend over backwards to be able to support it on the day it launches. Apple's negotiation position is awesome. Google has the problem that there are a lot of Android OEMs and customizing Android by these OEMs is common. Their negotiation position is simply not that strong and a lot of these OEMs really need those deals with operators and are willing to do anything. Operators can really screw over these OEMs by blocking their access to the market; and this happens regularly. They can't afford to do that with Apple.
burtonator 7y ago
Awesome... another messaging technology that Google can completely screw up. At this point I've lost all hope that the company can execute. They're 3rd place in cloud computing. Elasticsearch is destroying them on search. They're constantly fucking up on Youtube.
- seabrookmx 7y ago
  Hardly a Google fanboy and I agree with the general sentiment that their messaging apps up until now have been a dumpster fire. But Google is a huge company and certain parts can definitely succeed when others fail. 70% of the developed world have an Android phone.. I'm typing this one one. They might be third to cloud computing because they were late to the party. Having used their tech and AWS, I can say confidently that they're executing just fine. Especially with respect to k8s support (oh yeah.. they made k8s). And how is ElasticSearch destroying them on search? ElasticSearch as a system of indexing things is not remotely comparable to the web scale implementation Google runs and orders via their Page Rank algorithm. Am I missing something here? I'll concede YouTube. Nobody know how/why they rank shit there and it makes no sense. Anyways, my point is that blanket statements for any entity as large as Google, MS, Apple, IBM etc. are largely ridiculous.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> Lane compares it to WhatsApp or iMessage, with everything from better photo or video sharing within messages to typing indicators and read receipts available You may say "typing indicators and read receipts", I say "spying".
segmondy 7y ago
This is a move to fight Whatsapp but with a nice catch, it will be the default app without being accused for being a monopoly. Imagine if Google made a Whatsapp alternative and then had it as the default SMS app, the world would lose it's mind. However if they get the carriers to buy in, they can maybe pull off this coup. Good luck to them, I hope they fail.
remir 7y ago
If Google can bypass the carriers entirely, which from what I understand they're trying to do with RCS, then this could be interesting.
- remir 7y ago
  Source: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-android-texting-carriers-imessage-encryption https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-... For the first time in years, Google will directly offer a better default texting experience to Android users instead of waiting for cellphone carriers to do it. It’s not quite the Google equivalent of an iMessage service for Android users, but it’s close. Not knowing when or if RCS Chat would be available for your phone was RCS’s second biggest problem, and Google is fixing it.
floatboth 7y ago
TIL > The GSM Association, a mobile industry body, chose to adopt RCS as the replacement for SMS back in 2008 Wasn't that the MMS days?
19870213 7y ago
I suppose adoption would help if Google's 'Carrier Services' app on Android didn't look like someone accidentally uploaded the base example app. The first time I saw that app in the updates list I thought I somehow had gotten some badly disguised malware...
jwm4 7y ago
SMS operates via the SS7 protocol; SS7 protocol-based signaling occurs in a separate (side-band) channel of the voice-based public switched telephone network. It is used for call routing (setup and tear down) of a switched PTP connection, billing, other administrative purposes, and for the transmission of SMS messages. It existed long before (1970's) there was such a thing as SMS (developed in early 990's). Consequently, it is essentially free (from the marginal cost perspective that governs economic decision making in telecoms) to the carriers. I speak as a former RBOC and ISP executive who was heavily involved in financial decision making.

81 points by elorant 7y ago

I will be extremely displeased if they do. It is a basically free way to communicate silently and asynchronously with virtually any phone in a given area. The same cannot always be said for other messaging apps. Sure, you can communicate globally with Telegram and Whatsapp, but they require a slightly more stable connection and of course they use data which has a non-zero cost. I work in a building that has horrible, horrible reception. The only thing making it out of those walls is text messages. Whatsapp even will rarely work, and Hangouts messages? Forget about it. It has to ping a server 17 times before sending a message, seemingly.

sokoloff 7y ago
SMS is far from "free". It's often bundled into a package consumers buy, so "included" perhaps, but the actual data costs for SMS traffic are insanely higher than data connection traffic.
- pixl97 7y ago
  Eh, SMS, the very short text protocol is insanely cheap for the networks. MMS does eat a lot more data though.
  - infogulch 7y ago
    SMS and MMS are so cheap I wouldn't be surprised if the total operating cost is dominated by side things like extra staff at customer service centers etc. But this isn't a question about how much SMS costs the carrier, it's how much they charge their customers for it. Retail price is often completely divorced from the actual cost of the goods and services provided.
    - mrweasel 7y ago
      SMS is basically free to operate, it's in the networking equipment you need to install and run to provide cellular service anyway. Similarly telcos no longer meter your SMS usage, basically the only thing they charge for and cap is data. As someone else pointed out, it's SMS across borders that's ridicules. There is no reason why that should cost €0.5 per SMS.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    SMS is not as cheap as most people imply. Sure, the total bitrate of sms messages is low, but the software and services are all legacy, require people with special skills to setup, and have quite high license fees to keep running. Set up your own SMSC and tell us how easy it was...?
    - fnshshebb 7y ago
      I'd wager no more difficult than operating the mobile network on which it runs in the first place.
    - lukeschlather 7y ago
      The bitrate is a huge deal. High costs on the backend are a legitimate concern, but ultimately we've got a finite number of base stations and some areas simply will not get base stations, ever. SMS is probably the only protocol that can extend any amount of coverage into these remote areas where message delivery can be a matter of life or death. And some of these areas aren't even that remote, just unintentionally RF shielded.
    - darkerside 7y ago
      When people call it cheap, they are likely referring to the marginal cost being near zero. This makes sense as telecom carries a huge overhead to operate, SMS or no.
- glitchc 7y ago
  SMS is carried in the status/beacon messages that the phone and tower periodically exchange. This is why there is a character limit. Bandwidth cost is zero.
  - zeta0134 7y ago
    Right; it's free on a technical level. Many, many carriers charge for it anyway, certainly in the US, though I don't know what the situation is abroad. I think a better argument for the standard is simply that it's built into the protocol, and therefore unlikely to vanish anytime soon. Can't say the same for the trendy app of the week.
    - tenryuu 7y ago
      Well,telcos aren't a charity either, consider yourself paying regular service fees, enabling employees to keep their jobs, or even just using that money for the Mobile Data you use. I have a cheap prepaid, still using SMS every day because I know I have unlimited use of it, to several countries even. Data is where they make their money
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  SMS requires looking up where the receiver is and sending around the message if he moves before it is received. It doesn’t cost much but it definitely isn’t free.
- gwenzek 7y ago
  In France you can have unlimited SMS + 2 hours of call per month for 2€. So it's very close to "free". Texting is free towards all EU, USA and a bunch of other countries around the world.
ryeights 7y ago
Google wants carriers to drop SMS for RCS, a new text messaging standard. They aren’t pushing for the elimination of text messages.
- tw04 7y ago
  No, but they are pushing yet another standard that's insecure by default because their entire business model is based on spying on end users.
  - thekyle 7y ago
    How does RCS help Google "spy on users" any more than SMS?
    - tw04 7y ago
      We're talking about the REPLACEMENT for SMS. SMS was developed in a time when encryption and security were barely even an afterthought. if we're designing the messaging standard for the next decade+, why on earth would we want something that's equally insecure? Imagine if SSH didn't exist and we were all still using telnet in 2019. If Google were backing a replacment that lacked even basic encryption, would you be OK with that, or would you point out it's absolutely ridiculous? Because that's what we're talking about here...
      - delfinom 7y ago
        Go ahead, find out how fast you get thrown in national security prison if you try and encrypt SMS as a baseline ;)
        floatboth 7y ago
        Well, the creators of WhatsApp and iMessage and Signal are not in prison..
    - noselasd 7y ago
wyldfire 7y ago
> course they use data which has a non-zero cost. It's odd that you keep mentioning cost. Text messages are often metered at some ludicrous rate (or sold at a similarly ludicrous unlimited monthly addition). > virtually any phone in a given area. From what I understand, outside of the US, text messages are not quite as reliable. I don't know if that's cause or effect of the fact that outside of the US nearly everyone uses WhatsApp or WeChat.
- heinrich5991 7y ago
  They're also very reliable in Germany. What are the countries where they're unreliable?
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Text messages on some networks in the UK sometimes have a 10-15 minute delay at busy times. Even on good days, there is usually a 10 second or so delay. That makes them impractical for realtime chat, and even makes 'verification codes' a pain.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    I have a UK number and the amount of times SMS verification codes fail to appear is huge. There are companies specifically selling services for this that can’t even send a SMS to a first world phone number. I haven’t used it for personal communication for years but I do not remember it being particularly reliable when I did. SMS from my perspective is absolute rubbish.
    - petepete 7y ago
      Perhaps it varies by network, mine have seemed instant for years (with O2 then Tesco Mobile).
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    It’s just reliable compared to internet connectivity which is terrible in Germany. Poorly connected Edge all around.

devoply 7y ago

what happens if/when Google simply drops support for SMS? It could force this easily.

dogma1138 7y ago
I don’t think you can drop support for SMS, at least not in the US receiving messages is required for FCC compliance for handsets currently iirc.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  What are the consequences of this? What prevents Google from making and selling a six-inch ("phone-sized") tablet, and moving SMS to Hangouts and calls to Duo?
  - dingo_bat 7y ago
    Probably the fact that nobody would buy it.
  - Macha 7y ago
    Is this device going to rely on public Wifi to get messages when out and about? Otherwise, if it needs a data connection, you'll have to get mobile networks involved, and I doubt they'd co-operate with an end run around themselves.
  - theferalrobot 7y ago
    Tablets with a data connection are still required to support sms
wyldfire 7y ago
That's unlikely. It could be described by the network operators as a failure to conform to the standard. It's possible that regulatory features like Amber alerts/weather alerts use SMS.
- londons_explore 7y ago

nenadg 7y ago

Google wanting to put and control under it's umbrella i no news. This is sad.

readams 7y ago
Google could go the Apple route and make a proprietary version that silently substitutes itself. Instead they're pushing for a standards based approach
- nenadg 7y ago
  They already did that with google talk, android, etc.

dade_ 7y ago

What a horrible headline, but Wired being the source is enough of a warning. Google is doing nothing nefarious here, SMS needs to go the way of 9600bps modems. Newsflash, your phone calls aren't encrypted on the PSTN and neither are your SMS messages. RCS is a great thing as it means interoperability and compatibility which are words that causes anaphylactic shock at Apple. iMessage and WhatsApp are the worst technologies hoisted on our society, but make possible by lazy and money grubbing owners of carrier networks.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
There's definitely some nefarious parts here. Namely, that most RCS compatible carriers are using Google's cloud service to operate it, as far as I am aware, and its likely Google rolling out RCS without carriers in some instances is a bid to pressure them into it. Furthermore, the strategy of implementing messaging through carriers came after all of their repeated failures to convince the public to use their chat apps, and having the carriers push the feature instead removes user agency. It's a way to force us to message with Google after we've repeatedly rejected them. As per usual, Google is claiming to develop something in the open as a standard, but it's designed chiefly to bring everything under their roof. RCS is kinda like AMP for text messaging.
- sverige 7y ago
  "Those who have adopted the system most fervently, such as Vodafone in the UK, have done so because they see the opportunity to monetise smarter messaging" Everything I need to know about why I don't want RCS is contained in this simple statement.
- kyrra 7y ago
  (googler, opinions are my own) Disagree. RCS is most definitely an open standard that Google has bought onto in the last few years. The standard itself is 20 years old at this point I think. The problem was that carriers could not agree on a set of features to implement, which made all of the various implementations non-compatible. Google bought Jibe that was working on a standard implementation that carriers could roll out. The biggest thing really that Google has been pushing for with the GSMA is the universal profile, which defined a set of features that all carriers would implement. We are now at the spot where universal profile has mostly been agreed upon. Carriers can implement their own version, get a self-hosted version of Jibe, or let Google host the RCS system. The last option is the easiest for carriers to do, but obviously puts Google in the middle. The nice thing about RCS is that it is a standard. Google could totally walk away from it, and all the carriers and phone makers could still use it. You can't say that about any other chat app out there (maybe matrix would be the only one).

itg 7y ago

No thanks Google, I would prefer a communication platform/protocol that tech companies don't control. Last thing I want is them deciding what messages I can send and who can use the platform.

vidanay 7y ago
So...paper, pencil, and postage?
- sverige 7y ago
  It's as simple as retaining SMS.
jethro_tell 7y ago
Unless you are using the us post office, which messaging app isn't done by a tech company? I guess if we're still considering telecoms non tech bit regardless of designation, they are not what I would consider trust worthy either.
toast0 7y ago
RCS is a protocol that comes from the GSMA, an association of mobile telephone carriers. Google didn't develop the protocol. Based on experience with things that come from the telco world, I'm guessing it's a fairly terrible protocol. Based on the glacial pace of rollout, I'm guessing the available software to support it is maybe worse than the usual telco stuff, or anyway is harder to setup, deploy, and manage than carriers care to. But... It's still a standard that google needs to support as the OS for handsets, because carriers who went through the trouble to run RCS aren't going to want to sell phones that don't support it, and Google can't make the on device platform SMS libraries work right for RCS delivered messages unless they supply the client. But, in house, they need to test against a server, and they've got what 7 messaging platforms? So it's not too hard to write a toy server, but somehow it escapes to real carriers and boom, now we have Google actively pushing this. Google certainly gets benefits by being a platform provider of RCS, but I don't see it as coming from a nefarious place. Benefits include whatever tracking etc, but probably they also get free messaging to connected carrier customers and a piece of commercial messaging. There's still a ton of value in commercial messaging, and being able to observe it provides competitive intelligence -- auth code sends are strongly related to user counts and can be cross referenced with app install data from android devices with Google services.

neltnerb 7y ago

And, of course, t-mobile will only support it on phones they sell in their stores. Which are all too big for people with hand problems like me. Can Google bypass the carrier on this, or can you only do that with something like a google voice number? All the other features aside, being able to receive text messages in my office that has no cell service would sure be nice. Moreso if it integrates with Signal so at the least I actually get messages from my iPhone wielding friends with only Apple chat clients when I have connectivity to the internet.

lol768 7y ago

The sooner mobile networks start acting like dumb IP pipes, the better. I don't care about SMS (I can't remember the last time I sent a message with it), I can use VoIP for calls and everything else uses TCP/IP or UDP/IP. SMS is legacy precisely because it requires mobile carriers to maintain the system. RCS is a joke because it requires exactly the same amount of co-operation and aoption has been terrible to date. Google's move away from internet-based messaging (unconnected to the mobile carrier) was a step in the wrong direction, but one that was unsurprising given their track record with messaging applications.

coding123 7y ago

I dont understand why Google can't do what Apple did. And they did it like 10 years ago.

jeroenhd 7y ago
They tried. Several times. Google Talk / Hangouts was an early attempt; Allo tried again when Hangouts didn't take the public by storm and Google needed to get Assistant out to more people. One problem with Google is that it can't keep any modern project running for more than 2 years. Such unreliability makes it difficult for people to use any new Google app as a primary means of communication. Another problem is that end-to-end encryption goes against everything Google is about: information mining. Google can't make a direct profit of such a communication system, so e2e won't happen anytime soon.
- ulfw 7y ago
  And they can't decide what to use for communication. Google Login or phone number. Later it became both. A mess of systems, principles, apps, support and branding (and internally teams).
jayd16 7y ago
The hacky way Apple tracks iPhone users vs other contacts that leads to dropped messages when you switch away from iOS is not something I want to see Google replicate.
Medicalidiot 7y ago
Rumor has it anti-trust is what's stopping them.
izacus 7y ago
Can you imagine the outrage on HN if Google would redirect messaging from SMS to a proprietary iMessage-like protocol on all Android phones?
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Apple did something clever here: they first created a product a lot of people wanted and then they negotiated hard with carriers to get the full IOS experience to users. This was quite revolutionary at the time. Most manufacturers had to negotiate with individual operators about such things like which features the operators needed to have turned off or removed (e.g. thethering, or bundled software like Skype). Then additionally firmware updates had to be approved and shipped seperately for each operator. All of this continues to be a problem with Android ten years later. Things like iMessage were basically dictated by Apple and operators had the choice between not supporting IOS and being abandoned by iphone fans or supporting IOS as is. These days, Apple just launches new phones and operators bend over backwards to be able to support it on the day it launches. Apple's negotiation position is awesome. Google has the problem that there are a lot of Android OEMs and customizing Android by these OEMs is common. Their negotiation position is simply not that strong and a lot of these OEMs really need those deals with operators and are willing to do anything. Operators can really screw over these OEMs by blocking their access to the market; and this happens regularly. They can't afford to do that with Apple.

burtonator 7y ago

Awesome... another messaging technology that Google can completely screw up. At this point I've lost all hope that the company can execute. They're 3rd place in cloud computing. Elasticsearch is destroying them on search. They're constantly fucking up on Youtube.

seabrookmx 7y ago
Hardly a Google fanboy and I agree with the general sentiment that their messaging apps up until now have been a dumpster fire. But Google is a huge company and certain parts can definitely succeed when others fail. 70% of the developed world have an Android phone.. I'm typing this one one. They might be third to cloud computing because they were late to the party. Having used their tech and AWS, I can say confidently that they're executing just fine. Especially with respect to k8s support (oh yeah.. they made k8s). And how is ElasticSearch destroying them on search? ElasticSearch as a system of indexing things is not remotely comparable to the web scale implementation Google runs and orders via their Page Rank algorithm. Am I missing something here? I'll concede YouTube. Nobody know how/why they rank shit there and it makes no sense. Anyways, my point is that blanket statements for any entity as large as Google, MS, Apple, IBM etc. are largely ridiculous.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

> Lane compares it to WhatsApp or iMessage, with everything from better photo or video sharing within messages to typing indicators and read receipts available You may say "typing indicators and read receipts", I say "spying".

segmondy 7y ago

This is a move to fight Whatsapp but with a nice catch, it will be the default app without being accused for being a monopoly. Imagine if Google made a Whatsapp alternative and then had it as the default SMS app, the world would lose it's mind. However if they get the carriers to buy in, they can maybe pull off this coup. Good luck to them, I hope they fail.

remir 7y ago

If Google can bypass the carriers entirely, which from what I understand they're trying to do with RCS, then this could be interesting.

remir 7y ago
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-android-texting-carriers-imessage-encryption https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-... For the first time in years, Google will directly offer a better default texting experience to Android users instead of waiting for cellphone carriers to do it. It’s not quite the Google equivalent of an iMessage service for Android users, but it’s close. Not knowing when or if RCS Chat would be available for your phone was RCS’s second biggest problem, and Google is fixing it.

floatboth 7y ago

TIL > The GSM Association, a mobile industry body, chose to adopt RCS as the replacement for SMS back in 2008 Wasn't that the MMS days?

19870213 7y ago

I suppose adoption would help if Google's 'Carrier Services' app on Android didn't look like someone accidentally uploaded the base example app. The first time I saw that app in the updates list I thought I somehow had gotten some badly disguised malware...

jwm4 7y ago

SMS operates via the SS7 protocol; SS7 protocol-based signaling occurs in a separate (side-band) channel of the voice-based public switched telephone network. It is used for call routing (setup and tear down) of a switched PTP connection, billing, other administrative purposes, and for the transmission of SMS messages. It existed long before (1970's) there was such a thing as SMS (developed in early 990's). Consequently, it is essentially free (from the marginal cost perspective that governs economic decision making in telecoms) to the carriers. I speak as a former RBOC and ISP executive who was heavily involved in financial decision making.