4 ms·

> Also blue texts Not that Google has an attention span here (I'm still annoyed at them for what they did to XMPP), but RCS exists, and Apple is perfectly capa

> Also blue texts Not that Google has an attention span here (I'm still annoyed at them for what they did to XMPP), but RCS exists, and Apple is perfectly capable of at least supporting a fallback spec written this century. Their choice to instead just actively degrade the messaging experience, for everyone involved, when anyone involved isn't their customer, makes the entire market worse. See also: Safari

pmarreck 5y ago
Apple absolutely has zero incentive to support RCS as a fallback. Not only that, it's not only been inconsistently supported by Google despite existing for... decades, now?... but isn't even supported by all carriers! https://www.androidauthority.com/rcs-google-3090142/ https://www.androidauthority.com/rcs-google-3090142/ > In a word, RCS is like SMS, but better. Except that it isn’t. Not every operator has enabled it yet. Not all phones support it. Not every implementation is the same — especially in terms of encryption since that bit is optional. And even if you download Google Messages and use the now-supposedly worldwide ‘Chat features’ there, you’re still at the mercy of Google’s servers which can go down or become buggy any time. Which they have done rather frequently. > RCS is also completely reliant on your phone number being active when you send or receive messages (note: Apple stores iMessages for some time offline). This makes it intricately linked to your carrier bill (h/t Ron Amadeo for bringing this into the discussion). If you happen to miss a payment or have an issue with your carrier, or if you live in a country where number portability is difficult or nonexistent, your line goes down and so does your ability to use SMS and RCS. This is unlike IP-based chat services where you can connect back at any point in the future, get all of your pending messages, and continue where you left off. Google probably guessed (which was reasonable) that an app like Whatsapp would come along and handle this market... which wasn't entirely false... but instead it's been fractured across many apps like Whatsapp instead of having a unified feature set (such as iMessages', such as: end to end encryption, reactions, high resolution photos and videos and livephotos, voice texts, offline storage of messages until devices come back online, smooth transition to a high resolution audio or video chat (Facetime Audio or Facetime), etc.) And Whatsapp STILL doesn't have features I'd consider basic at this point, like Tapbacks: https://www.engadget.com/google-messages-android-imessage-reactions-emoji-150947375.html https://www.engadget.com/google-messages-android-imessage-re... So now Google is realizing that this was a mistake (perhaps due to the unexpected "luxury appearance" of "blue-message cachet") and is NOW pushing hard for RCS... too little, too late IMHO. As an iPhone user, my messaging is currently scattered across: mostly iMessage, but some Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger (and a smattering of others now and then like Signal). The advantage of the top 3 of those for me is that I can also send and receive them from my laptop... something that RCS also DOES NOT provide. In last place behind all of these we have SMS messages from Android users, where messaging is less reliable (I have literally gotten into fights with people due to missed messages!!), sending a photo along with text either fails or downsamples the photo to a thumbnail, etc. etc. etc. At least I can send and receive SMS to Androids from my laptop in iMessages, through my phone when it is nearby.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  > Apple absolutely has zero incentive to support RCS as a fallback Wouldn't their users gain better security and privacy with RCS (because of e2e support)? Or are you saying that an Apple user's security and privacy is not an incentive for Apple?
  - chaosharmonic 5y ago
    Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, the E2E part is being added via Google's network and isn't part of the spec. It's using the Signal protocol, which is just as open for Apple to use as it is for anyone else, but it doesn't inherently come with every RCS implementation.
- chaosharmonic 5y ago
  So to be clear I generally agree w Amadeo's point, as I'd much rather see every chat network built on top of phone numbers die out like the widespread use of ICQ. Personally I'm much more interested in seeing something like Matrix take hold, because to me a Web-based model, with some sort of user@site identifier and, incidentally, the ability to deploy one yourself, are non-negotiables for anything I adopt as a primary communication spec in the future. But this isn't about the use of Web-based services, this is about a text client. That's not going to just disappear anytime in the near future, it isn't reasonable to compare them to better chat networks when we're specifically talking about fallbacks, and whether they have incentive to implement a standard for it doesn't mean they should just have free reign to promote ecosystem lock-in for the basic functionality of a phone. And do I also agree that the implementation of RCS has been less than stellar, but that's in part because of fragmented adoption among vendors, which is a problem that Apple is a part of. (And speaking of ways that markets are worse because they don't have "incentives" to adopt standards, I forgot to mention their continued use of Lightning.)

pmarreck 5y ago

Apple absolutely has zero incentive to support RCS as a fallback. Not only that, it's not only been inconsistently supported by Google despite existing for... decades, now?... but isn't even supported by all carriers! https://www.androidauthority.com/rcs-google-3090142/ https://www.androidauthority.com/rcs-google-3090142/ > In a word, RCS is like SMS, but better. Except that it isn’t. Not every operator has enabled it yet. Not all phones support it. Not every implementation is the same — especially in terms of encryption since that bit is optional. And even if you download Google Messages and use the now-supposedly worldwide ‘Chat features’ there, you’re still at the mercy of Google’s servers which can go down or become buggy any time. Which they have done rather frequently. > RCS is also completely reliant on your phone number being active when you send or receive messages (note: Apple stores iMessages for some time offline). This makes it intricately linked to your carrier bill (h/t Ron Amadeo for bringing this into the discussion). If you happen to miss a payment or have an issue with your carrier, or if you live in a country where number portability is difficult or nonexistent, your line goes down and so does your ability to use SMS and RCS. This is unlike IP-based chat services where you can connect back at any point in the future, get all of your pending messages, and continue where you left off. Google probably guessed (which was reasonable) that an app like Whatsapp would come along and handle this market... which wasn't entirely false... but instead it's been fractured across many apps like Whatsapp instead of having a unified feature set (such as iMessages', such as: end to end encryption, reactions, high resolution photos and videos and livephotos, voice texts, offline storage of messages until devices come back online, smooth transition to a high resolution audio or video chat (Facetime Audio or Facetime), etc.) And Whatsapp STILL doesn't have features I'd consider basic at this point, like Tapbacks: https://www.engadget.com/google-messages-android-imessage-reactions-emoji-150947375.html https://www.engadget.com/google-messages-android-imessage-re... So now Google is realizing that this was a mistake (perhaps due to the unexpected "luxury appearance" of "blue-message cachet") and is NOW pushing hard for RCS... too little, too late IMHO. As an iPhone user, my messaging is currently scattered across: mostly iMessage, but some Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger (and a smattering of others now and then like Signal). The advantage of the top 3 of those for me is that I can also send and receive them from my laptop... something that RCS also DOES NOT provide. In last place behind all of these we have SMS messages from Android users, where messaging is less reliable (I have literally gotten into fights with people due to missed messages!!), sending a photo along with text either fails or downsamples the photo to a thumbnail, etc. etc. etc. At least I can send and receive SMS to Androids from my laptop in iMessages, through my phone when it is nearby.

deadmutex 5y ago
> Apple absolutely has zero incentive to support RCS as a fallback Wouldn't their users gain better security and privacy with RCS (because of e2e support)? Or are you saying that an Apple user's security and privacy is not an incentive for Apple?
- chaosharmonic 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, the E2E part is being added via Google's network and isn't part of the spec. It's using the Signal protocol, which is just as open for Apple to use as it is for anyone else, but it doesn't inherently come with every RCS implementation.
chaosharmonic 5y ago
So to be clear I generally agree w Amadeo's point, as I'd much rather see every chat network built on top of phone numbers die out like the widespread use of ICQ. Personally I'm much more interested in seeing something like Matrix take hold, because to me a Web-based model, with some sort of user@site identifier and, incidentally, the ability to deploy one yourself, are non-negotiables for anything I adopt as a primary communication spec in the future. But this isn't about the use of Web-based services, this is about a text client. That's not going to just disappear anytime in the near future, it isn't reasonable to compare them to better chat networks when we're specifically talking about fallbacks, and whether they have incentive to implement a standard for it doesn't mean they should just have free reign to promote ecosystem lock-in for the basic functionality of a phone. And do I also agree that the implementation of RCS has been less than stellar, but that's in part because of fragmented adoption among vendors, which is a problem that Apple is a part of. (And speaking of ways that markets are worse because they don't have "incentives" to adopt standards, I forgot to mention their continued use of Lightning.)