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

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.