3 ms·

FWIW, my understanding was that Apple did try to engage with carriers, but there was't interest in turning RCS into what Apple wanted (for instance, adding E2EE

by dwaite 3y ago

FWIW, my understanding was that Apple did try to engage with carriers, but there was't interest in turning RCS into what Apple wanted (for instance, adding E2EE). AFAIK 15 years later, RCS still hasn't started to define E2EE.

rezonant 3y ago
Interesting, I tried to find a reference to this online but was unable. If you can find a link to such a statement let me know. What's kind of interesting about this to me is that Google was able to add encrypted messaging on top of RCS without the help of carriers (and it's not just because they develop/host Jibe, the most common RCS server side implementation-- E2EE messages can be sent over any RCS server/relay from what I understand). They just use a special mimetype and some base64 encoding and a custom identity server for exchanging keys. All things Apple could have done with RCS back in 2011. Google's whitepaper on their E2EE: https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf
- nani8ot 3y ago
  Only Google Messages supports end-to-end encryption. E2E is not part of the official RCS spec, instead it's Google's extension.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    I'm well aware! At this point I think everyone is, as it seems to come up in every sub thread! That doesn't change anything about what I said.
jorvi 3y ago
What was also really revealing is Signal’s operational cost breakdown. Their biggest cost is activation texts, because providers have lost consumer SMS as a milk cow, so they’ve now started to charge insane rates for business texts. With RCS or iMessage they cannot justify charging for these.
- rezonant 3y ago
  Both iMessage and RCS require carrier services to register phone numbers. In iMessage' case it is an activation SMS text.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Well that's their own fault for requiring a phone number. They could just support creating accounts with username and password and they would never have to send texts. It would be way better for user privacy too.

by dwaite 3y ago

rezonant 3y ago

Interesting, I tried to find a reference to this online but was unable. If you can find a link to such a statement let me know. What's kind of interesting about this to me is that Google was able to add encrypted messaging on top of RCS without the help of carriers (and it's not just because they develop/host Jibe, the most common RCS server side implementation-- E2EE messages can be sent over any RCS server/relay from what I understand). They just use a special mimetype and some base64 encoding and a custom identity server for exchanging keys. All things Apple could have done with RCS back in 2011. Google's whitepaper on their E2EE: https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf

nani8ot 3y ago
Only Google Messages supports end-to-end encryption. E2E is not part of the official RCS spec, instead it's Google's extension.
- rezonant 3y ago
  I'm well aware! At this point I think everyone is, as it seems to come up in every sub thread! That doesn't change anything about what I said.

jorvi 3y ago

What was also really revealing is Signal’s operational cost breakdown. Their biggest cost is activation texts, because providers have lost consumer SMS as a milk cow, so they’ve now started to charge insane rates for business texts. With RCS or iMessage they cannot justify charging for these.

rezonant 3y ago
Both iMessage and RCS require carrier services to register phone numbers. In iMessage' case it is an activation SMS text.
wkat4242 3y ago
Well that's their own fault for requiring a phone number. They could just support creating accounts with username and password and they would never have to send texts. It would be way better for user privacy too.