27 ms·

> and for all other chat there are a ton of other great alternatives. We don't need RCS, it's a solution in search of a problem If you need to install a propri

by Alupis 4y ago

> and for all other chat there are a ton of other great alternatives. We don't need RCS, it's a solution in search of a problem If you need to install a proprietary app to communicate with some subset of your contacts list... then that is not a good solution. SMS lets you send a message to any mobile phone number in the world... it just works. Why would someone want 3+ apps just to communicate with different circles of contacts? Who governs these apps and protocols? Some fly-by-night company that gets bought by Facebook and turned into an Ad Platform, or a company that doesn't take security seriously and leaks private messages everywhere? These are awful solutions. iMessage is gated for only iDevices. That makes it a bad solution. While it may work great for Apple users, it was literally designed not to work with anything else. Guess what... Apple devices are the extreme minority of devices out there in the wild. Perhaps RCS isn't the best replacement of SMS as it could be - but it is a huge improvement for majority of the world, and Apple not playing along makes them a bad actor - not Google. After all, RCS benefits Apple users too. So the argument that RCS isn't as great as it could be, and it's driven by Google (the largest maker of mobile operating systems in the world!) falls very short. If anything, Apple should collaborate on the RCS spec, if they feel it's lacking for some reason.

joshstrange 4y ago
> If you need to install a proprietary app to communicate with some subset of your contacts list... then that is not a good solution. RCS is effectively proprietary and will absolutely lag in features. I don't understand why people seem to think it's the end-all-be-all. > SMS lets you send a message to any mobile phone number in the world... it just works. And it hasn't changed since launch. RCS will similarly fall behind quickly. Why would we adopt a new languishing "standard", it makes no sense, everyone is going to have 3rd party chat apps anyways, why not use them? > Why would someone want 3+ apps just to communicate with different circles of contacts? Who governs these apps and protocols? Some fly-by-night company that gets bought by Facebook and turned into an Ad Platform, or a company that doesn't take security seriously and leaks private messages everywhere? These are awful solutions. And you think Google+carriers is the answer to this? Google is an ad platform, carriers are going to try to use this to extract more money/control. > iMessage is gated for only iDevices. That makes it a bad solution. While it may work great for Apple users, it was literally designed not to work with anything else. Guess what... Apple devices are the extreme minority of devices out there in the wild. Literally not part of this discussion. I do not care. Don't use it, use something else. iMessage being amazing or terrible has nothing to do with RCS being a waste of time. > Perhaps RCS isn't the best replacement of SMS as it could be - but it is a huge improvement for majority of the world, and Apple not playing along makes them a bad actor - not Google. After all, RCS benefits Apple users too. Bullshit. The carriers haven't even gotten their shit together when it comes to RCS and again Google effectively owns/controls RCS. It's not an improvement over what's a simple download away (other chat apps). > So the argument that RCS isn't as great as it could be, and it's driven by Google (the largest maker of mobile operating systems in the world!) falls very short. I'm not sure why you think being the largest makers of mobile operating systems is positive or matters in this discussion? Google is also the company that has an embarrassing number failed chat platforms in it's history. Google Talk used to be build on XMPP but they abandoned that even though it was extendable. They will either abandon RCS or continue to make it more proprietary than it already is. They are not good stewards of chat.
- Alupis 4y ago
  As an iDevice user that admits to using iMessage - why do you care what SMS replacement the rest of the world gets? At this point, anything is better than SMS, and no - it is flatly not acceptable to force people into using ad-hoc communications apps solely because Apple refuses to play nice with the community. Seriously, iDevice to iDevice communications will remain in iMessage. You literally get to have your cake and eat it too. > And you think Google+carriers is the answer to this? Obviously they are. Google makes the most prolific mobile operating system in the world, and carriers have to transport the messages. Obviously this requires both of them to cooperate. People want a replacement and upgrade from SMS - not a WhatsApp or some other 3rd party proprietary app that will go away eventually. Time to get in line Apple. You're hurting your own users by refusing to modernize SMS for quite literally no good reason. Telling folks to just buy an iPhone is like telling them to slap a rubber band around their expensive device due to an obvious design flaw... it's just unacceptable.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    > As an iDevice user that admits to using iMessage - why do you care what SMS replacement the rest of the world gets? Because I don't want Google's messaging system adopted as a "standard". I don't want another chat protocol forced on me that will stagnate just like SMS. I don't want to involve the carriers at all. > At this point, anything is better than SMS, and no - it is flatly not acceptable to force people into using ad-hoc communications apps because Apple refuses to play nice with the community. Absolutely false, and I challenge the idea that RCS is "better" on the whole. RCS is not a "standard", RCS is not open source, it's literally just another proprietary chat protocol. That's not a step up in my book. It's painfully obvious that some kind of "open protocol" is not going to take hold, email is the only real example we have left of this and it's shit as well. No companies can agree and again, RCS is not open, it's effectively owned by Google. Would you ok with iMessage being the SMS replacement? (Don't waste time talking about how you think Apple wouldn't do that, just imagine we live in a world where they would). > Obviously they are. Google makes the most prolific mobile operating system in the world, and carriers have to transport the messages. Obviously this requires both of them to cooperate. And they make, in my opinion, a rather shitty OS. You clearly think differently (no pun intended) and that's fine but I don't want Google involved in chat. They have the worst track record as do carriers. Just look at the RCS rollout and how Google effectively owns the implementation, how is that good? The carriers refused to play ball until Google provided the implementation, why should we believe either will be good stewards of it? > People want a replacement and upgrade from SMS - not a WhatsApp or some other 3rd party proprietary app that will go away eventually. Look outside of the US buddy. SMS is pretty much a US-only thing and trust me, RCS is not going to bring people back in droves, they left SMS for better and they are staying there.

by Alupis 4y ago

joshstrange 4y ago

> If you need to install a proprietary app to communicate with some subset of your contacts list... then that is not a good solution. RCS is effectively proprietary and will absolutely lag in features. I don't understand why people seem to think it's the end-all-be-all. > SMS lets you send a message to any mobile phone number in the world... it just works. And it hasn't changed since launch. RCS will similarly fall behind quickly. Why would we adopt a new languishing "standard", it makes no sense, everyone is going to have 3rd party chat apps anyways, why not use them? > Why would someone want 3+ apps just to communicate with different circles of contacts? Who governs these apps and protocols? Some fly-by-night company that gets bought by Facebook and turned into an Ad Platform, or a company that doesn't take security seriously and leaks private messages everywhere? These are awful solutions. And you think Google+carriers is the answer to this? Google is an ad platform, carriers are going to try to use this to extract more money/control. > iMessage is gated for only iDevices. That makes it a bad solution. While it may work great for Apple users, it was literally designed not to work with anything else. Guess what... Apple devices are the extreme minority of devices out there in the wild. Literally not part of this discussion. I do not care. Don't use it, use something else. iMessage being amazing or terrible has nothing to do with RCS being a waste of time. > Perhaps RCS isn't the best replacement of SMS as it could be - but it is a huge improvement for majority of the world, and Apple not playing along makes them a bad actor - not Google. After all, RCS benefits Apple users too. Bullshit. The carriers haven't even gotten their shit together when it comes to RCS and again Google effectively owns/controls RCS. It's not an improvement over what's a simple download away (other chat apps). > So the argument that RCS isn't as great as it could be, and it's driven by Google (the largest maker of mobile operating systems in the world!) falls very short. I'm not sure why you think being the largest makers of mobile operating systems is positive or matters in this discussion? Google is also the company that has an embarrassing number failed chat platforms in it's history. Google Talk used to be build on XMPP but they abandoned that even though it was extendable. They will either abandon RCS or continue to make it more proprietary than it already is. They are not good stewards of chat.

Alupis 4y ago
As an iDevice user that admits to using iMessage - why do you care what SMS replacement the rest of the world gets? At this point, anything is better than SMS, and no - it is flatly not acceptable to force people into using ad-hoc communications apps solely because Apple refuses to play nice with the community. Seriously, iDevice to iDevice communications will remain in iMessage. You literally get to have your cake and eat it too. > And you think Google+carriers is the answer to this? Obviously they are. Google makes the most prolific mobile operating system in the world, and carriers have to transport the messages. Obviously this requires both of them to cooperate. People want a replacement and upgrade from SMS - not a WhatsApp or some other 3rd party proprietary app that will go away eventually. Time to get in line Apple. You're hurting your own users by refusing to modernize SMS for quite literally no good reason. Telling folks to just buy an iPhone is like telling them to slap a rubber band around their expensive device due to an obvious design flaw... it's just unacceptable.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > As an iDevice user that admits to using iMessage - why do you care what SMS replacement the rest of the world gets? Because I don't want Google's messaging system adopted as a "standard". I don't want another chat protocol forced on me that will stagnate just like SMS. I don't want to involve the carriers at all. > At this point, anything is better than SMS, and no - it is flatly not acceptable to force people into using ad-hoc communications apps because Apple refuses to play nice with the community. Absolutely false, and I challenge the idea that RCS is "better" on the whole. RCS is not a "standard", RCS is not open source, it's literally just another proprietary chat protocol. That's not a step up in my book. It's painfully obvious that some kind of "open protocol" is not going to take hold, email is the only real example we have left of this and it's shit as well. No companies can agree and again, RCS is not open, it's effectively owned by Google. Would you ok with iMessage being the SMS replacement? (Don't waste time talking about how you think Apple wouldn't do that, just imagine we live in a world where they would). > Obviously they are. Google makes the most prolific mobile operating system in the world, and carriers have to transport the messages. Obviously this requires both of them to cooperate. And they make, in my opinion, a rather shitty OS. You clearly think differently (no pun intended) and that's fine but I don't want Google involved in chat. They have the worst track record as do carriers. Just look at the RCS rollout and how Google effectively owns the implementation, how is that good? The carriers refused to play ball until Google provided the implementation, why should we believe either will be good stewards of it? > People want a replacement and upgrade from SMS - not a WhatsApp or some other 3rd party proprietary app that will go away eventually. Look outside of the US buddy. SMS is pretty much a US-only thing and trust me, RCS is not going to bring people back in droves, they left SMS for better and they are staying there.