5 ms·

> But everyone already has the default messaging app installed, so that problem just goes away. Okay, so let's say Apple implements RCS support. Should they s

> But everyone already has the default messaging app installed, so that problem just goes away. Okay, so let's say Apple implements RCS support. Should they support the version of RCS that the carriers want? The version Google implemented? Are they now going to be required to implement support for proprietary Google extensions? Will they have to run their own RCS servers because carriers don't support this version of RCS? RCS is a fragmented mess. It's dead in the water. This noise is just Google flailing about after having binned yet another one of their messaging platforms. Personally I don't care what Apple does here. I still want SMS support for when I'm in an area with little/no data coverage and I'm still going to treat RCS with the same disdain I'd treat any unencrypted messaging platform.

kelnos 4y ago
They should implement the version (and extensions) that gives them interoperability with the most users. Which, yes, would probably be whatever Google implemented, including the E2EE extensions. This... isn't really hard?
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Why should Apple (or anyone) be on the hook for implementing proprietary extensions? Once you peel back the marketing schtick this is just demanding that Google be able to determine which proprietary services are included on an Apple product. That's ridiculous on its face. If the issue is interoperability with Android users, fine. Google had successful messaging apps on iOS (I used a few) and they destroyed them through their own mismanagement. RCS doesn't solve that in the slightest. > This... isn't really hard? If you want E2EE the demand is now that Apple spin up its own Google-RCS servers and/or rely on Google's infrastructure. If you want Apple to rely on the carriers you don't get E2EE. Rather than work with the carriers Google fragmented RCS making implementation that much more difficult.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    At the end of the day, what we need is interop, so Apple should be forced to either open the protocol, or adopt something that is already open. But either option is strictly better than the existing mess.
    - simonh 4y ago
      >or adopt something that is already open Like SMS?
      - anifru 4y ago
        Obviously we're talking about something more modern than SMS here.
        simonh 4y ago
        The problem is none of the 'more modern' open alternatives to SMS actually seem any better.
        int_19h 4y ago
        How exactly RCS is not strictly better than SMS?
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Turn that on its head. What does RCS bring to the table? RCS brings two types of features: those that carriers will try to monetize (file transfer, VoIP, visual voice mail) and those that seek to drive "customer engagement" (chatbots, carousels, branding, quick-reply suggestions, "rich" cards). From the Wikipedia page: RCS Business Messaging (RBM) is the B2C (A2P in telecoms terminology) version of RCS. *This is supposed to be an answer to third-party messaging apps (or OTTs) absorbing mobile operators' messaging traffic and associated revenues*. While RCS is designed to win back Person-to-Person (P2P) traffic, RBM is intended to retain and grow this A2P traffic. … RBM is expected to attract marketing and customer service spend from enterprises, thanks to improved customer engagement and interactive features that facilitate new use cases. *This was the primary reason for the development of RCS by the GSMA*. No. Thanks. As I said, I don't really care if Apple implements RCS support in their Message app. If they do it's just one more thing I'll disable. My take is that carriers should be dumb pipes. Voice, SMS, and data routing and that's it. Part of the reason RCS is already fragmented is because the carriers are trying to monetize it, you can bet your ass they're going to continue to drag their feet with E2EE – which is why Google's stood up their own separate RCS infrastructure.
- gumby 4y ago
  > They should implement the version (and extensions) that gives them interoperability with the most users They already have that, with SMS. Perhaps you only exchange messages with people in rich countries so don’t notice what is most commonly implemented by carriers?

kelnos 4y ago

They should implement the version (and extensions) that gives them interoperability with the most users. Which, yes, would probably be whatever Google implemented, including the E2EE extensions. This... isn't really hard?

inferiorhuman 4y ago
Why should Apple (or anyone) be on the hook for implementing proprietary extensions? Once you peel back the marketing schtick this is just demanding that Google be able to determine which proprietary services are included on an Apple product. That's ridiculous on its face. If the issue is interoperability with Android users, fine. Google had successful messaging apps on iOS (I used a few) and they destroyed them through their own mismanagement. RCS doesn't solve that in the slightest. > This... isn't really hard? If you want E2EE the demand is now that Apple spin up its own Google-RCS servers and/or rely on Google's infrastructure. If you want Apple to rely on the carriers you don't get E2EE. Rather than work with the carriers Google fragmented RCS making implementation that much more difficult.
- int_19h 4y ago
  At the end of the day, what we need is interop, so Apple should be forced to either open the protocol, or adopt something that is already open. But either option is strictly better than the existing mess.
  - simonh 4y ago
    >or adopt something that is already open Like SMS?
    - anifru 4y ago
      Obviously we're talking about something more modern than SMS here.
      - simonh 4y ago
        The problem is none of the 'more modern' open alternatives to SMS actually seem any better.
        int_19h 4y ago
        How exactly RCS is not strictly better than SMS?
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Turn that on its head. What does RCS bring to the table? RCS brings two types of features: those that carriers will try to monetize (file transfer, VoIP, visual voice mail) and those that seek to drive "customer engagement" (chatbots, carousels, branding, quick-reply suggestions, "rich" cards). From the Wikipedia page: RCS Business Messaging (RBM) is the B2C (A2P in telecoms terminology) version of RCS. *This is supposed to be an answer to third-party messaging apps (or OTTs) absorbing mobile operators' messaging traffic and associated revenues*. While RCS is designed to win back Person-to-Person (P2P) traffic, RBM is intended to retain and grow this A2P traffic. … RBM is expected to attract marketing and customer service spend from enterprises, thanks to improved customer engagement and interactive features that facilitate new use cases. *This was the primary reason for the development of RCS by the GSMA*. No. Thanks. As I said, I don't really care if Apple implements RCS support in their Message app. If they do it's just one more thing I'll disable. My take is that carriers should be dumb pipes. Voice, SMS, and data routing and that's it. Part of the reason RCS is already fragmented is because the carriers are trying to monetize it, you can bet your ass they're going to continue to drag their feet with E2EE – which is why Google's stood up their own separate RCS infrastructure.
gumby 4y ago
> They should implement the version (and extensions) that gives them interoperability with the most users They already have that, with SMS. Perhaps you only exchange messages with people in rich countries so don’t notice what is most commonly implemented by carriers?