4 ms·

I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard. Now don't get me wrong, SMS is a terrible stan

I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard. Now don't get me wrong, SMS is a terrible standard in several ways, but they seem to have built a service where they pretend to fix SMS, and they do it in a way that makes it basically impossible to actually fix the SMS standard. That said, I am beginning to think that companies of Apple's size should be required to offer interoperability with their network. I don't think they should be forced to do it for free, but Beeper charges $10/month and Apple's fee probably should be low enough that Beeper is only paying at most 10% to Apple. (Of course, Apple could offer their own third-party client if they want to compete.)

mikhailt 3y ago
> I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard Are you confusing SMS with RCS? Apple hasn't done anything to undermine SMS. Remember, bubbles is not part of SMS, so Apple choosing different colors for each service is not them undermining anything. Apple has announced RCS support next year for iMessages.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%.
  - mikhailt 3y ago
    > Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%. I agree with that part, no company should be allowed to set defaults without the ability to change the defaults. That's not related to SMS though, that's a much larger problem that Apple (and MS) should be forced to change. I also think platform vendors should not be allowed to spam users about the said defaults either like how MS is forcing users to go through ads and so on whenever they search for Chrome to install and change to it as default.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Which demographics do they have 90% market share?
    - Mountain_Skies 3y ago
      Teenagers in the US are close to 90% Apple. While that doesn't mean they all must use iMessage but it comes bundled with their phone and is what the vast majority of fellow teens have access to so it naturally becomes what they use. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023... Intentional or not, Apple gets to ride off of the natural inclination of teens to conform to their peer group.
      - mikhailt 3y ago
        That's true for any default apps on any platforms though. It's why Google pay Apple tens of billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine. That's why there needs to be regulations that default apps must be optional and must be permitted to switch to any apps for open standards that are available. Apple should not get to pick which services I want to use, that's my choice on a device that I own. If I want to use Google Messages as the default SMS/RCS client, that should be permitted and without any pushback from the platform vendors.
  - temp0826 3y ago
    Maybe I just don't understand (maybe it's purely about principles?) but I really can't understand the desire for a separate app for sms, without imessage. Maybe for sms+potentially with other integrations?
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      There is a world of possibilities. Signal's optimistic encryption over SMS was one nice enhancement, at least before they dropped SMS support.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  Apple isn't implementing encryption in RCS. I don't really care about SMS. I just want it to be that when I send a text to someone on iOS it's encrypted. And it would be nice if it had good support for emojis and multimedia. This is partially on Google too but from the outside looking in, it seems like Google has been honestly trying and Apple has been deliberately sabotaging them. (Not that I'm on Google's side - I just want a good encrypted multimedia messaging standard.)
  - mikhailt 3y ago
    How do you know what they're implementing and not, all we know is that they said they will implement RCS, nothing more than that. If they do not, they lose their main messaging that they care about privacy first (which is already bullshit I know). The main issue here is that Apple is not permitting users from selecting a different SMS/RCS app on their devices. That needs to be addressed. It should never be up to Apple (or any company in general) to regulate what open standards can be used nor what apps can be used as default for said open standards. Apple should not be forced to support RCS but they should be forced to allow users to switch to Google Messages (or anyone else like Beeper, Insta, etc) as the default RCS client if they want.
    - fh9302 3y ago
      Even "open" Android doesn't have a third party API for RCS. Google wants to lock everyone into Google Messages. The only exception is Samsung, they got special permission from Google.
      - mikhailt 3y ago
        Yea, Android is not open, AOSP is. Google is not immune to this either, all companies should be treated the same way IMO. Monopoly status should not be a factor when it comes to default apps and such.
  - mdasen 3y ago
    We don't know that Apple isn't supporting encryption. The rumors are that they're working with the GSM Association on an encryption spec for RCS. Google has been pushing RCS as an open standard. In some ways it is. However, the encryption isn't. That's just Google Messages. Google's strategy with RCS is to look like they're honestly trying to support an open standard - after trying to create a walled-garden with a half dozen proprietary messengers. However, I have a hard time trusting Google on this one. I remember Google pushing XMPP and federation with Google Talk. Lots of us gave them positive word of mouth because Google was offering us the open chat network we'd wanted. Once they got people to migrate off AIM and others, they closed it off. In this case, is Google's RCS support even open? Can I create an RCS client? It looks like the answer is "no" (but I might be wrong). Reddit users are suggesting that you can only use Google Messages (or Samsung Messages on their devices). XDA Developers notes that Google made a special permission only available to Samsung for RCS. Even then, it looks like support for Samsung Messages might be dropped with Bell Mobility telling customers they'll have to use Google Messages for RCS. Google has a history of shouting "we're the good guy with openness," while they plot how to close things off. Android was trumpeted as open and once Android was the only non-Apple option Google started putting everything into Google Play Services and using their essential apps to force phone makers into proprietary licensing agreements. They pushed XMPP just to burn it down. With RCS, it looks like they haven't even created something that works with third party apps from the start. Plus, Google is controlling the RCS servers for a lot of carriers. The messages might be encrypted, but Google knows who is texting who with RCS. If someone has better information on third-party access to RCS, I'd love to learn more. It seems like even Android fans are lamenting that RCS is restricted to the Google Messages app on Android. Maybe I'm missing something, but RCS seems like something Google co-opted because it was a "standard" and then decided that only they could build for that standard (at least on Android). https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/znsrkz/anyone_know_any_third_party_applications_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/znsrkz/an... https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third-party-apps/#update1 https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third... https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/
wutwutwat 3y ago
Wonderful open standard SMS is, we should keep using it forever > Silent SMS > In 2010 Germany, almost half a million "silent SMS" messages were sent by the federal police, customs and the secret service "Verfassungsschutz" (offices for protection of the constitution).[83][84] These silent messages, also known as "silent TMS", "stealth SMS", "stealth ping" or "Short Message Type 0",[85] are used to locate a person and thus to create a complete movement profile. They do not show up on a display, nor trigger any acoustical signal when received. Their primary purpose was to deliver special services of the network operator to any cell phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Vulnerabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Vulnerabilities Let's not forget the messages sit unencrypted on your providers servers until they can be delivered. During such times, anyone with access who cares to look, can look, and it's very often looked at, if not always
Larrikin 3y ago
Why shouldn't interoperability be free for messages? It is free for email. AIM was free, IRC was free, MSN Messenger was free, Pidgin offered a free product for years that let me talk to everyone. Then a bunch of assholes hired some awful people to make the world a worse place and constructed barriers to communication, so they could make money.
- mikhailt 3y ago
  Nothing is for free. Email is open standard, so it is designed to be interoperable from the start but services offering emails are not free by default. They're free up to a certain point, each email service has restrictions such as certain amount of email per day or size restrictions, or they offer ads (take a look at Outlook for an example). Back then, Internet was free too, via NetZero with ads. You get what you pay for. In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans. I would prefer Apple to open up and offer Messages for Android/Windows/Linux and the only way to use them is via paid iCloud plans.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans. I have an active iCloud subscription and I've spent at least ten grand on Apple products over the years. Why can't I see and send iMessages on my other devices?
    - mikhailt 3y ago
      Because there's no iMessage client for these devices, just as there is no iMessages for Windows or Linux either. As long as iMessage is not an open standard, your access to your Messages is restricted to the platforms that Apple owns and/or have an app for. As for iCloud plans, I was referring to the storage for Messages, as you need paid plans to host more than 5gb of content of messages such as all of the photos and videos and so on.
      - throwup238 3y ago

mikhailt 3y ago

> I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard Are you confusing SMS with RCS? Apple hasn't done anything to undermine SMS. Remember, bubbles is not part of SMS, so Apple choosing different colors for each service is not them undermining anything. Apple has announced RCS support next year for iMessages.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%.
- mikhailt 3y ago
  > Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%. I agree with that part, no company should be allowed to set defaults without the ability to change the defaults. That's not related to SMS though, that's a much larger problem that Apple (and MS) should be forced to change. I also think platform vendors should not be allowed to spam users about the said defaults either like how MS is forcing users to go through ads and so on whenever they search for Chrome to install and change to it as default.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Which demographics do they have 90% market share?
  - Mountain_Skies 3y ago
    Teenagers in the US are close to 90% Apple. While that doesn't mean they all must use iMessage but it comes bundled with their phone and is what the vast majority of fellow teens have access to so it naturally becomes what they use. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023... Intentional or not, Apple gets to ride off of the natural inclination of teens to conform to their peer group.
    - mikhailt 3y ago
      That's true for any default apps on any platforms though. It's why Google pay Apple tens of billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine. That's why there needs to be regulations that default apps must be optional and must be permitted to switch to any apps for open standards that are available. Apple should not get to pick which services I want to use, that's my choice on a device that I own. If I want to use Google Messages as the default SMS/RCS client, that should be permitted and without any pushback from the platform vendors.
- temp0826 3y ago
  Maybe I just don't understand (maybe it's purely about principles?) but I really can't understand the desire for a separate app for sms, without imessage. Maybe for sms+potentially with other integrations?
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    There is a world of possibilities. Signal's optimistic encryption over SMS was one nice enhancement, at least before they dropped SMS support.
lukeschlather 3y ago
Apple isn't implementing encryption in RCS. I don't really care about SMS. I just want it to be that when I send a text to someone on iOS it's encrypted. And it would be nice if it had good support for emojis and multimedia. This is partially on Google too but from the outside looking in, it seems like Google has been honestly trying and Apple has been deliberately sabotaging them. (Not that I'm on Google's side - I just want a good encrypted multimedia messaging standard.)
- mikhailt 3y ago
  How do you know what they're implementing and not, all we know is that they said they will implement RCS, nothing more than that. If they do not, they lose their main messaging that they care about privacy first (which is already bullshit I know). The main issue here is that Apple is not permitting users from selecting a different SMS/RCS app on their devices. That needs to be addressed. It should never be up to Apple (or any company in general) to regulate what open standards can be used nor what apps can be used as default for said open standards. Apple should not be forced to support RCS but they should be forced to allow users to switch to Google Messages (or anyone else like Beeper, Insta, etc) as the default RCS client if they want.
  - fh9302 3y ago
    Even "open" Android doesn't have a third party API for RCS. Google wants to lock everyone into Google Messages. The only exception is Samsung, they got special permission from Google.
    - mikhailt 3y ago
      Yea, Android is not open, AOSP is. Google is not immune to this either, all companies should be treated the same way IMO. Monopoly status should not be a factor when it comes to default apps and such.
- mdasen 3y ago
  We don't know that Apple isn't supporting encryption. The rumors are that they're working with the GSM Association on an encryption spec for RCS. Google has been pushing RCS as an open standard. In some ways it is. However, the encryption isn't. That's just Google Messages. Google's strategy with RCS is to look like they're honestly trying to support an open standard - after trying to create a walled-garden with a half dozen proprietary messengers. However, I have a hard time trusting Google on this one. I remember Google pushing XMPP and federation with Google Talk. Lots of us gave them positive word of mouth because Google was offering us the open chat network we'd wanted. Once they got people to migrate off AIM and others, they closed it off. In this case, is Google's RCS support even open? Can I create an RCS client? It looks like the answer is "no" (but I might be wrong). Reddit users are suggesting that you can only use Google Messages (or Samsung Messages on their devices). XDA Developers notes that Google made a special permission only available to Samsung for RCS. Even then, it looks like support for Samsung Messages might be dropped with Bell Mobility telling customers they'll have to use Google Messages for RCS. Google has a history of shouting "we're the good guy with openness," while they plot how to close things off. Android was trumpeted as open and once Android was the only non-Apple option Google started putting everything into Google Play Services and using their essential apps to force phone makers into proprietary licensing agreements. They pushed XMPP just to burn it down. With RCS, it looks like they haven't even created something that works with third party apps from the start. Plus, Google is controlling the RCS servers for a lot of carriers. The messages might be encrypted, but Google knows who is texting who with RCS. If someone has better information on third-party access to RCS, I'd love to learn more. It seems like even Android fans are lamenting that RCS is restricted to the Google Messages app on Android. Maybe I'm missing something, but RCS seems like something Google co-opted because it was a "standard" and then decided that only they could build for that standard (at least on Android). https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/znsrkz/anyone_know_any_third_party_applications_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/znsrkz/an... https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third-party-apps/#update1 https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third... https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/

wutwutwat 3y ago

Wonderful open standard SMS is, we should keep using it forever > Silent SMS > In 2010 Germany, almost half a million "silent SMS" messages were sent by the federal police, customs and the secret service "Verfassungsschutz" (offices for protection of the constitution).[83][84] These silent messages, also known as "silent TMS", "stealth SMS", "stealth ping" or "Short Message Type 0",[85] are used to locate a person and thus to create a complete movement profile. They do not show up on a display, nor trigger any acoustical signal when received. Their primary purpose was to deliver special services of the network operator to any cell phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Vulnerabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Vulnerabilities Let's not forget the messages sit unencrypted on your providers servers until they can be delivered. During such times, anyone with access who cares to look, can look, and it's very often looked at, if not always

Larrikin 3y ago

Why shouldn't interoperability be free for messages? It is free for email. AIM was free, IRC was free, MSN Messenger was free, Pidgin offered a free product for years that let me talk to everyone. Then a bunch of assholes hired some awful people to make the world a worse place and constructed barriers to communication, so they could make money.

mikhailt 3y ago
Nothing is for free. Email is open standard, so it is designed to be interoperable from the start but services offering emails are not free by default. They're free up to a certain point, each email service has restrictions such as certain amount of email per day or size restrictions, or they offer ads (take a look at Outlook for an example). Back then, Internet was free too, via NetZero with ads. You get what you pay for. In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans. I would prefer Apple to open up and offer Messages for Android/Windows/Linux and the only way to use them is via paid iCloud plans.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans. I have an active iCloud subscription and I've spent at least ten grand on Apple products over the years. Why can't I see and send iMessages on my other devices?
  - mikhailt 3y ago
    Because there's no iMessage client for these devices, just as there is no iMessages for Windows or Linux either. As long as iMessage is not an open standard, your access to your Messages is restricted to the platforms that Apple owns and/or have an app for. As for iCloud plans, I was referring to the storage for Messages, as you need paid plans to host more than 5gb of content of messages such as all of the photos and videos and so on.
    - throwup238 3y ago