3 ms·
Well, let me preface by saying I specifically avoided talking about vendor lock-in in my previous post for a reason. I only wanted to talk about why iPhone user
by parker_mountain 4y ago
Well, let me preface by saying I specifically avoided talking about vendor lock-in in my previous post for a reason. I only wanted to talk about why iPhone users perceive Android users negatively. I think this lock-in is generally bad.
I think there are actual, material reasons why Apple won't integrate with RCS until they're forced to, but also opening up iMessage is a very difficult proposition. Here is my speculation:
> refused to scale across the rest of the industry.
iMessage was not designed to be a decentralized chat protocol, RCS was. iMessage was not designed to work well with carrier UIs, RCS was. They are extremely different things. "scaling it" is much easier said than done.
> nobody is stopping them from opening the iMessage specification
iMessage is tied closely to apple accounts and centralized auth. It'd take a huge amount of engineering effort to open iMessage up, for zero benefit to Apple.
iMessage uses per-device-keys as a mechanism of spam control, and will blacklist physical devices. One of iMessage's key spam controls would be wrecked if it was "completely open". This means that android devices would have to be certified for imessage, to ensure that they have unique device keys, and that the manufacturer is actually operating in good faith.
They'd probably have to negotiate with individual device vendors for enrollment. How would you feel if iMessage was on Samsung devices only? Anyways, it's a huge amount of work that only yields negative strategic benefit.
Anyways,
Porting iMessage to Android is extremely non-trivial. RCS is a piece of shit (it really is, go look at the spec, the carriers put their hands all over it and it's rough).
Stop trusting major vendors, use signal or self host your chat.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smoldesu 4y agoI don't know why you're obsessed with RCS so much; Apple doesn't have to use it. People just want a sustainable, open interface to use with iMessage; if Apple won't provide that, then they're the ones responsible for locking people out. It's as simple as that. Your response here is a very measured take that boils down to "don't trust iMessage either", which defeats the purpose of promoting any improvement over SMS. If we're just going to promote cross-platform software anyways, why should we not encourage our software vendors to work together? What do we stand to lose?
- parker_mountain 4y ago1. Not obsessed with RCS, it's just directly relevant to the conversation. I think that RCS is poorly implemented and something else should take it's place. I feel like you are being unnecessarily combative. 2. What people want is decent cross platform chat. 3. The iMessage model makes an open interface a difficult proposition, for the reasons mentioned plus additional ones. I would describe it as a technical deficiency, and not a sustainable solution. 4. I think SMS and carrier-provided messaging is a dead end. Frankly, they're defacto authn providers, and I don't like that either. 5. Only one phone OS software vendor provides a compelling E2EE solution, and that's Apple - and they've made their choices, quite clearly. I don't trust the major phone os vendors to do the right thing - they've had a decade to figure it out and they still haven't.