3 ms·

"RCS embraces the flaws of GSM, and Apple using it would be a step backwards." Nope. As RCS is better than SMS, adopting it would be a step forward. The whole

"RCS embraces the flaws of GSM, and Apple using it would be a step backwards." Nope. As RCS is better than SMS, adopting it would be a step forward. The whole article can be summed up to "RCS is not perfect, so it should not be used". Which is of course silly as RCS is better than the current option it replaces, SMS.

threeseed 4y ago
RCS is a step backward. At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary version.
- hpaavola 4y ago
  No it is not. RCS provides valuable features for users which are not present in SMS.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    But Google RCS is proprietary. So then why not use another proprietary client like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc.
    - hpaavola 4y ago
      Because taking any of those services into use requires you to take those services into use. RCS requires no action from the user. That's why. Before you ask a question, please spend 15 minutes thinking about the answer.
  - out_of_protocol 4y ago
    e.g. you can't send rcsmessage if target telcom does not support it (fallback to sms exists but that's runis the idea). Since adoption is (almost) always s-curved, last gsm operator to adopt it will do that ... not anytime soon
    - hpaavola 4y ago
      Which means that at its worst, RCS is just SMS. Which is an argument for RCS replacing SMS.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary [RCS] version. AFAICT, the only thing "proprietary" about Google's RCS client implementation is E2EE: otherwise it's a fairly standard RCS client that can talk to any other RCS client. I'd be happy if Apple did the same thing with iMessage (app): standard SMS/RCS client when sending to non-iMessage people, and 'fancy' client (blue bubbles) between iMesssage users.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Glad we can agree it's proprietary. So the question is if Google was willing to deviate from the standard for encryption what else will they do in the future.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > Glad we can agree it's proprietary. No. If I telnet to tcp/25, do a "EHLO foo", and in addition to: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-PIPELINING 250-8BITMIME 250-SIZE 27962030 250-DSN 250-ETRN 250-DELIVERBY 250 HELP There is a line: 250-X-GOOGLE-CRYPTO Or even: 250-X-APPLE-CRYPTO That does not mean that Google (Apple) is running a (completely) proprietary SMTP server. They have a proprietary option/capability, but if my Postfix can send a regular RFC 821 message then they have a non-proprietary base implementation that they have extended. If I can send SMS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'm content. If I could send (non-extended) RCS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'd be content. If either company wants to add 'extra' features between their own clients, go right ahead. And, using the above analogy, it would be best if there was a "250-STARTTLS" RCS-equivalent that anyone could implement.

threeseed 4y ago

RCS is a step backward. At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary version.

hpaavola 4y ago
No it is not. RCS provides valuable features for users which are not present in SMS.
- threeseed 4y ago
  But Google RCS is proprietary. So then why not use another proprietary client like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc.
  - hpaavola 4y ago
    Because taking any of those services into use requires you to take those services into use. RCS requires no action from the user. That's why. Before you ask a question, please spend 15 minutes thinking about the answer.
- out_of_protocol 4y ago
  e.g. you can't send rcsmessage if target telcom does not support it (fallback to sms exists but that's runis the idea). Since adoption is (almost) always s-curved, last gsm operator to adopt it will do that ... not anytime soon
  - hpaavola 4y ago
    Which means that at its worst, RCS is just SMS. Which is an argument for RCS replacing SMS.
throw0101a 4y ago
> At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary [RCS] version. AFAICT, the only thing "proprietary" about Google's RCS client implementation is E2EE: otherwise it's a fairly standard RCS client that can talk to any other RCS client. I'd be happy if Apple did the same thing with iMessage (app): standard SMS/RCS client when sending to non-iMessage people, and 'fancy' client (blue bubbles) between iMesssage users.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Glad we can agree it's proprietary. So the question is if Google was willing to deviate from the standard for encryption what else will they do in the future.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Glad we can agree it's proprietary. No. If I telnet to tcp/25, do a "EHLO foo", and in addition to: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-PIPELINING 250-8BITMIME 250-SIZE 27962030 250-DSN 250-ETRN 250-DELIVERBY 250 HELP There is a line: 250-X-GOOGLE-CRYPTO Or even: 250-X-APPLE-CRYPTO That does not mean that Google (Apple) is running a (completely) proprietary SMTP server. They have a proprietary option/capability, but if my Postfix can send a regular RFC 821 message then they have a non-proprietary base implementation that they have extended. If I can send SMS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'm content. If I could send (non-extended) RCS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'd be content. If either company wants to add 'extra' features between their own clients, go right ahead. And, using the above analogy, it would be best if there was a "250-STARTTLS" RCS-equivalent that anyone could implement.