5 ms·

There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and support RCS for interop with non-Apple dev

There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and support RCS for interop with non-Apple devices and for users who would rather not route their messaging through Apple. That they choose not to support a standard protocol as a competitive advantage is exactly the problem. Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P. There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.

threeseed 5y ago
a) RCS is not a standard and doesn't support end to end encryption. Apple has every right not to bother implementing it. b) There is no such case that such behaviour is illegal or that it is impacting competition in the messaging space. The fact that WhatsApp, Telegram, Kakao, Line etc are so popular is indicative of this fact.
- jacob019 5y ago
  RCS is a carrier standard. It does not support end-to-end encryption. No one is suggesting that Apple stop allowing Apple users to communicate via iMessage. WhatsApp and friends are not baked in as the default messaging app in the dominant smartphone platform. Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here. Microsoft was accused of using their Windows monopoly to put Netscape out of business. Which monopoly is Apple using to what end, and who are they putting out of business? Microsoft’s behaviour resulted in the Great Web Stagnation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but there is nothing of the sort here. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and Telegram seem to be doing ok. So who is being harmed here? I don’t buy the RCS argument. RCS is insecure and inferior to all the platforms I mentioned, and pushed only by carriers (who I am sure have the users’ interests at heart) and Google. Also, if we follow your logic, Apple needs to authorise other apps to process SMSes. That would be the equivalent to Microsoft letting users change the default browser. Microsoft was never forced to port IE to any other platform.
  - SllX 5y ago
    > RCS is a carrier standard. Are carriers clamoring for Apple to implement RCS? If they are, what are they offering Apple? And if they are and have been lobbying for Apple to implement RCS, then is it possible work has already begun for a future OS release and we just don’t know about it because they haven’t announced that release yet or it’s not far enough along? I have this vague impression that the carriers don’t particularly care about RCS themselves, and so Apple wouldn’t have any reason to care either. Maybe I’m wrong on both counts.
- kcb 5y ago
  Neither does SMS...
  - threeseed 5y ago
    The difference is that SMS is a dumb, text-only format with no features. And so it made it easy for people to switch to WhatsApp, iMessage etc as they could easily offer compelling features. RCS has a lot of those compelling features and so would be able to take market share away from those proprietary apps. Great right ? Well no because RCS is unencrypted specifically so that carriers and governments can read your messages.
aspenmayer 5y ago
dev_tty01 5y ago
>Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P. That would be a very bad product design decision. I would realize that I had made a bad purchase and I would return the TV to the store and buy one that didn't do that. There are lots and lots of TVs to choose from. On the other hand, if you really like AppleTV, you might not care. Either way, it is the consumer's choice, so no harm. Lots of TVs have features people don't like. >There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal. No there isn't. iOS is a minority platform (globally) by a very large number. Also, there are a number of app based messaging options, many of which are quite popular and some use strong encryption.
- jacob019 5y ago
  You're first point is well made, however I don't have any other choice when I communicate with an Apple user. Everything is so siloed these days. The lack of federated protocols harms us all. You're second point is irrelavant. Apple is a US company and iOS is the dominant majority mobile platform in the US. I live in the US and I am discussing this as a domestic issue as it relates to me and the laws of my country. We wouldn't be having this discussion if iMessage was just another messaging app alongside the default SMS app.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Okay, but there is no iMessage app, it is a protocol available to Messages users. Messages is the default SMS app and it defaults to using SMS. If a user ops in to iMessage, they get E2E and the other iMessage goodies. If they don't opt in, it does SMS and MMS. Even opted in, it does SMS and MMS to non iMessage users. So, the user has the choice to participate in iMessage the protocol or stick with SMS. Both options are available within the default SMS app. The question here is whether Apple should be forced to implement RCS. They aren't stopping anyone from communicating since SMS and MMS are available. I suspect if RCS gains enough traction, Apple might add that capability for non iMessage users. I don't know that of course, but I wouldn't be surprised. iMessage still has many advantages over RCS for in-ecosystem users so it wouldn't harm them to add it. Time will tell I guess.
ubermonkey 5y ago
Such a case could ONLY be made if my local big-box retailer wasn't absolutely overflowing with TVs made by other manufacturers that feature no such restriction. Are you really suggesting that Apple be FORCED to support this older, insecure, less useful RCS protocol instead of iMessage? That's absurd.

threeseed 5y ago

a) RCS is not a standard and doesn't support end to end encryption. Apple has every right not to bother implementing it. b) There is no such case that such behaviour is illegal or that it is impacting competition in the messaging space. The fact that WhatsApp, Telegram, Kakao, Line etc are so popular is indicative of this fact.

jacob019 5y ago
RCS is a carrier standard. It does not support end-to-end encryption. No one is suggesting that Apple stop allowing Apple users to communicate via iMessage. WhatsApp and friends are not baked in as the default messaging app in the dominant smartphone platform. Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.
- kergonath 5y ago
  > Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here. Microsoft was accused of using their Windows monopoly to put Netscape out of business. Which monopoly is Apple using to what end, and who are they putting out of business? Microsoft’s behaviour resulted in the Great Web Stagnation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but there is nothing of the sort here. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and Telegram seem to be doing ok. So who is being harmed here? I don’t buy the RCS argument. RCS is insecure and inferior to all the platforms I mentioned, and pushed only by carriers (who I am sure have the users’ interests at heart) and Google. Also, if we follow your logic, Apple needs to authorise other apps to process SMSes. That would be the equivalent to Microsoft letting users change the default browser. Microsoft was never forced to port IE to any other platform.
- SllX 5y ago
  > RCS is a carrier standard. Are carriers clamoring for Apple to implement RCS? If they are, what are they offering Apple? And if they are and have been lobbying for Apple to implement RCS, then is it possible work has already begun for a future OS release and we just don’t know about it because they haven’t announced that release yet or it’s not far enough along? I have this vague impression that the carriers don’t particularly care about RCS themselves, and so Apple wouldn’t have any reason to care either. Maybe I’m wrong on both counts.
kcb 5y ago
Neither does SMS...
- threeseed 5y ago
  The difference is that SMS is a dumb, text-only format with no features. And so it made it easy for people to switch to WhatsApp, iMessage etc as they could easily offer compelling features. RCS has a lot of those compelling features and so would be able to take market share away from those proprietary apps. Great right ? Well no because RCS is unencrypted specifically so that carriers and governments can read your messages.

aspenmayer 5y ago

dev_tty01 5y ago

>Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P. That would be a very bad product design decision. I would realize that I had made a bad purchase and I would return the TV to the store and buy one that didn't do that. There are lots and lots of TVs to choose from. On the other hand, if you really like AppleTV, you might not care. Either way, it is the consumer's choice, so no harm. Lots of TVs have features people don't like. >There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal. No there isn't. iOS is a minority platform (globally) by a very large number. Also, there are a number of app based messaging options, many of which are quite popular and some use strong encryption.

jacob019 5y ago
You're first point is well made, however I don't have any other choice when I communicate with an Apple user. Everything is so siloed these days. The lack of federated protocols harms us all. You're second point is irrelavant. Apple is a US company and iOS is the dominant majority mobile platform in the US. I live in the US and I am discussing this as a domestic issue as it relates to me and the laws of my country. We wouldn't be having this discussion if iMessage was just another messaging app alongside the default SMS app.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Okay, but there is no iMessage app, it is a protocol available to Messages users. Messages is the default SMS app and it defaults to using SMS. If a user ops in to iMessage, they get E2E and the other iMessage goodies. If they don't opt in, it does SMS and MMS. Even opted in, it does SMS and MMS to non iMessage users. So, the user has the choice to participate in iMessage the protocol or stick with SMS. Both options are available within the default SMS app. The question here is whether Apple should be forced to implement RCS. They aren't stopping anyone from communicating since SMS and MMS are available. I suspect if RCS gains enough traction, Apple might add that capability for non iMessage users. I don't know that of course, but I wouldn't be surprised. iMessage still has many advantages over RCS for in-ecosystem users so it wouldn't harm them to add it. Time will tell I guess.

ubermonkey 5y ago

Such a case could ONLY be made if my local big-box retailer wasn't absolutely overflowing with TVs made by other manufacturers that feature no such restriction. Are you really suggesting that Apple be FORCED to support this older, insecure, less useful RCS protocol instead of iMessage? That's absurd.