4 ms·

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,

by 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.
- Alupis 4y ago
  The rest of the world left SMS because their carriers charged way too much for it. In the US, it's really unusual these days to not have unlimited SMS built into even the most basic pre-paid plans. Apples & Oranges... Your own personal feelings aside - why would Apple not adopt RCS for non-iDevices? Do they share your opinion? If so, why not push iMessage as the standard protocol and make it available on all devices, work with carriers to make it native, etc? Because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone. They are not a good actor in this situation... it's really that simple.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    > The rest of the world left SMS because their carriers charged way too much for it. In the US, it's really unusual these days to not have unlimited SMS built into even the most basic pre-paid plans. Apples & Oranges... They may have left only because of the cost but now the features are more than enough to keep them off SMS/RCS even if it was free. > Your own personal feelings aside - why would Apple not adopt RCS for non-iDevices? Why would Apple adopt a Google messaging service (which RCS is)? If the roles were reversed Google wouldn't bake iMessage into their platform, why should it be any different with the roles reversed. > Because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone. They are not a good actor in this situation... it's really that simple. And Google wants to own chat, they are not a good actor either. Apple being a bad actor or not wanting to expand iMessage access doesn't mean we should all jump on Google's chat version.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      I don't know what "owning chat" means here. This is a SMS protocol replacement... and it's designed so that any messaging system can be compatible and send/receive messages from other devices, operating systems, apps, etc. Google isn't receiving, storing, and parsing your messages with RCS. It's a protocol, not a service. Google doesn't really stand to gain anything here. There's no money to be made in having their name stamped on the original design... it couldn't matter less who created the original RFC or whatever. If Apple had an alternative they were pushing as being better than RCS, then it would be fair for there to be a "battle" over which SMS replacement wins... but they don't have an alternative. Besides, Google isn't the only proponent for RCS. According to Wikipedia, 88 carriers in 59 countries with approximately 390 million monthly users are already using RCS[1], dwarfing anything Apple could offer. This leaves Apple with an unhealthy dose of NIHS... and it hurts their own users as much as it hurts the rest of the world. Apple had their chance to push for a better SMS protocol, but they decided to make it proprietary in true Apple fashion. Now the rest of the world got together and made a new better SMS protocol, and Apple is refusing to cooperate for no good reason. This reminds me of the micro sim card battles of the early 2010's. Apple clearly had the better design, and today nearly all new phones use it (Apple designs and not). RCS is clearly a better design than SMS... so they should use it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

by Alupis 4y ago

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.

Alupis 4y ago
The rest of the world left SMS because their carriers charged way too much for it. In the US, it's really unusual these days to not have unlimited SMS built into even the most basic pre-paid plans. Apples & Oranges... Your own personal feelings aside - why would Apple not adopt RCS for non-iDevices? Do they share your opinion? If so, why not push iMessage as the standard protocol and make it available on all devices, work with carriers to make it native, etc? Because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone. They are not a good actor in this situation... it's really that simple.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > The rest of the world left SMS because their carriers charged way too much for it. In the US, it's really unusual these days to not have unlimited SMS built into even the most basic pre-paid plans. Apples & Oranges... They may have left only because of the cost but now the features are more than enough to keep them off SMS/RCS even if it was free. > Your own personal feelings aside - why would Apple not adopt RCS for non-iDevices? Why would Apple adopt a Google messaging service (which RCS is)? If the roles were reversed Google wouldn't bake iMessage into their platform, why should it be any different with the roles reversed. > Because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone. They are not a good actor in this situation... it's really that simple. And Google wants to own chat, they are not a good actor either. Apple being a bad actor or not wanting to expand iMessage access doesn't mean we should all jump on Google's chat version.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I don't know what "owning chat" means here. This is a SMS protocol replacement... and it's designed so that any messaging system can be compatible and send/receive messages from other devices, operating systems, apps, etc. Google isn't receiving, storing, and parsing your messages with RCS. It's a protocol, not a service. Google doesn't really stand to gain anything here. There's no money to be made in having their name stamped on the original design... it couldn't matter less who created the original RFC or whatever. If Apple had an alternative they were pushing as being better than RCS, then it would be fair for there to be a "battle" over which SMS replacement wins... but they don't have an alternative. Besides, Google isn't the only proponent for RCS. According to Wikipedia, 88 carriers in 59 countries with approximately 390 million monthly users are already using RCS[1], dwarfing anything Apple could offer. This leaves Apple with an unhealthy dose of NIHS... and it hurts their own users as much as it hurts the rest of the world. Apple had their chance to push for a better SMS protocol, but they decided to make it proprietary in true Apple fashion. Now the rest of the world got together and made a new better SMS protocol, and Apple is refusing to cooperate for no good reason. This reminds me of the micro sim card battles of the early 2010's. Apple clearly had the better design, and today nearly all new phones use it (Apple designs and not). RCS is clearly a better design than SMS... so they should use it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services