3 ms·
I don’t get why RCS has to involve carriers. Apple could implement iMessage without involving carriers, so it should be possible to implement a messaging protoc
by larsnystrom 4y ago
I don’t get why RCS has to involve carriers. Apple could implement iMessage without involving carriers, so it should be possible to implement a messaging protocol which doesn’t rely on them (but also isn’t proprietary). By involving carriers you’re making it harder (impossible?) to create a client to be used on devices not on the cellular network. I just don’t see the point.
- chimeracoder 4y ago> By involving carriers you’re making it harder (impossible?) to create a client to be used on devices not on the cellular network. I just don’t see the point. On the contrary, RCS allows you to text over Wi-Fi, which SMS does not.
- solarkraft 4y agoCan I use RCS without a phone plan?
- pwinnski 4y agoDoes RCS work for devices that do not have a phone number? My reading suggests it does not, that there is still a carrier dependency. iMessage has no carrier dependency, no phone number dependency at all. Kids all over the world use iMessage over Wi-Fi without working phone service at all.
- toast0 4y agoRCS involves carriers because the username is a phone number. iMessage also involves carriers when using the phone number as the username (there's verification of the number that you usually don't see). RCS is also a standard the GSMA (gsm carrier association) came up with and didn't deploy terribly much. I don't think 'it's a standard' stands for much when it's only moving forward because one company is pushing it unilaterally. (It doesn't help that that company has a history of abandoning messaging products)