5 ms·

Google had quite a number of opportunities to level the playing field here by making an actual cross platform, distributed chat app with protocol plugins. Why

Google had quite a number of opportunities to level the playing field here by making an actual cross platform, distributed chat app with protocol plugins. Why they've been making bad chat apps and demolishing each Eco system it creates is beyond me. It's been years since a Google chat app could be used by itself. Usually you need two, and no one needs another unecrypted sms replacement. The world moved on and Google missed the boat here.

izacus 7y ago
And this is literaly what they're doing with RCS - it's a carrier standardized protocol to upgrade the existing SMS functionality. I wish you'd read up on it before you fell into this complete rant. RCS also beautifully demostrates the problem with these open protocols - carriers simply refused to support it and federate between themselves, so you couldn't even send a message to a non-carrier branded phone, even if your exact carrier supported it. They (with push from governments) even demanded it's unencrypted. This is Google basically stopping to wait for carriers to stop screwing their users and allowing some users to get this messaging protocol without waiting for their carrier to stop being incompetent. Unfortunately they're also going about it in the typical Google way with insane rollout rules.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? No need to wait for carriers just try making something people want to use. I'm caught up on rcs, I suppose it's an improvement over sms, but what isn't? It's not an improvement over email, or what's app or signal.
  - izacus 7y ago
    > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? According to any kind of statistics - 100s of millions of people on the world. Yes, still. Please do look outside the bubble.
  - thekyle 7y ago
    I do. The only thing I hate more than unencrypted messages is vendor lock in. There is no way I'm going to willingly lock my self into some companies chat ecosystem if there is a widely adopted federated alternative. It's the same reason that I'll never switch from email to slack.
    - Spivak 7y ago
      Or... you could just lock yourself into the top few chat ecosystems that your friends, coworkers, etc. use and be relatively safe because the tide comes in quick for consumer chat systems that people don’t like using. Right now I have iMessage, Snapchat, SMS, Messenger, GroupMe, Email, Discord and Slack along with a bunch of apps with chat as a feature. I have been caused no harm whatsoever by this setup except that my SO has a way to fill my notification screen when they’re feeling obnoxious.
      - otabdeveloper2 7y ago
        You're forced to run 8 chat apps where just 1 would work better, all of them with their respective security, privacy and battery-destroying performance problems. How is that possibly not "harm"??
  - creato 7y ago
    > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? The irony is thick here. "Who uses the open, standard protocol for anything but authenticating proprietary, locked-in services competing on network effects?" The whole point is to make it so the standard thing that everyone has by default doesn't suck as much, so we don't need to make messaging service decisions based on network effects and lock-in.
    - Spivak 7y ago
      I mean SMS isn’t immune to this at all since it’s just ‘the protocol controlled by your carrier.’ It’s no more open in practice than any consumer messaging app. SMS has a strong network effect thanks to carriers wanting to charge you per message but basically nothing else going for it.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Most people in Europe have flat rate SMSs.
  - otabdeveloper2 7y ago
    > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? I do.

izacus 7y ago

And this is literaly what they're doing with RCS - it's a carrier standardized protocol to upgrade the existing SMS functionality. I wish you'd read up on it before you fell into this complete rant. RCS also beautifully demostrates the problem with these open protocols - carriers simply refused to support it and federate between themselves, so you couldn't even send a message to a non-carrier branded phone, even if your exact carrier supported it. They (with push from governments) even demanded it's unencrypted. This is Google basically stopping to wait for carriers to stop screwing their users and allowing some users to get this messaging protocol without waiting for their carrier to stop being incompetent. Unfortunately they're also going about it in the typical Google way with insane rollout rules.

jethro_tell 7y ago
Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? No need to wait for carriers just try making something people want to use. I'm caught up on rcs, I suppose it's an improvement over sms, but what isn't? It's not an improvement over email, or what's app or signal.
- izacus 7y ago
  > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? According to any kind of statistics - 100s of millions of people on the world. Yes, still. Please do look outside the bubble.
- thekyle 7y ago
  I do. The only thing I hate more than unencrypted messages is vendor lock in. There is no way I'm going to willingly lock my self into some companies chat ecosystem if there is a widely adopted federated alternative. It's the same reason that I'll never switch from email to slack.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    Or... you could just lock yourself into the top few chat ecosystems that your friends, coworkers, etc. use and be relatively safe because the tide comes in quick for consumer chat systems that people don’t like using. Right now I have iMessage, Snapchat, SMS, Messenger, GroupMe, Email, Discord and Slack along with a bunch of apps with chat as a feature. I have been caused no harm whatsoever by this setup except that my SO has a way to fill my notification screen when they’re feeling obnoxious.
    - otabdeveloper2 7y ago
      You're forced to run 8 chat apps where just 1 would work better, all of them with their respective security, privacy and battery-destroying performance problems. How is that possibly not "harm"??
- creato 7y ago
  > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? The irony is thick here. "Who uses the open, standard protocol for anything but authenticating proprietary, locked-in services competing on network effects?" The whole point is to make it so the standard thing that everyone has by default doesn't suck as much, so we don't need to make messaging service decisions based on network effects and lock-in.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    I mean SMS isn’t immune to this at all since it’s just ‘the protocol controlled by your carrier.’ It’s no more open in practice than any consumer messaging app. SMS has a strong network effect thanks to carriers wanting to charge you per message but basically nothing else going for it.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Most people in Europe have flat rate SMSs.
- otabdeveloper2 7y ago
  > Who uses sms for anything but authenticating WhatsApp/signal/telegram? I do.