3 ms·

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/rece

by 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

joshstrange 4y ago
I think you need to do some more research on RCS. Google has one of the biggest deployed implementations (that runs on their cloud, called Jibe). Most carriers dragged their heels on RCS until Google said "Here, RCS in the Cloud, just pay us for it". Which is why I don't want anything to do with RCS. Google controls the protocol as the only real RCS provider (especially in the US). > 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. It's not about their name on the design, it's about their implementation being "RCS" at this point. They do get paid by carriers to run the RCS infrastructure for them. > 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. The alternative is any other chat app in the stores, those are fine alternatives. Much better than letting google own the defato messaging on phones. > 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. And a number of those are using Google's implementation making it a lot more of a monoculture than it appears at first glance.

by Alupis 4y ago

joshstrange 4y ago

I think you need to do some more research on RCS. Google has one of the biggest deployed implementations (that runs on their cloud, called Jibe). Most carriers dragged their heels on RCS until Google said "Here, RCS in the Cloud, just pay us for it". Which is why I don't want anything to do with RCS. Google controls the protocol as the only real RCS provider (especially in the US). > 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. It's not about their name on the design, it's about their implementation being "RCS" at this point. They do get paid by carriers to run the RCS infrastructure for them. > 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. The alternative is any other chat app in the stores, those are fine alternatives. Much better than letting google own the defato messaging on phones. > 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. And a number of those are using Google's implementation making it a lot more of a monoculture than it appears at first glance.