4 ms·

Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protoc

Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protocol. Apple, when it comes to their values, is all lip service. I have intimate experience here with them both openly lying and purposefully deceiving their user base in this case.

Jtsummers 3y ago
What word? They never said they'd open iMessage. FaceTime is what they intended (or at least Jobs announced the intent) to open, and then that got caught up in a patent dispute.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  No, they could have shipped a product on android, or they could have used secure RCS, or several other things. FaceTime is not really true either. This was a convenient mistruth. There were several way to remedy that situation. Also your misremembering iMessage there was no such issue.
  - matchbok 3y ago
    It's not Apple's fault that the carriers/RCS/Google don't know how to make messaging work. RCS sucks, it pales in comparison to anything but SMS.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Google could have continued to support XMPP. If wishes were knishes doggies would eat.
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    You wrote: > Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. What word did they not back up with respect to iMessage? When did they ever say they'd open it up?
  - drcongo 3y ago
    FaceTime is definitely true. I've used it.
- 0x457 3y ago
  I remember them saying releasing iMessage as an open standard.
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    Can you point to a source for that outside your memory?
    - layer8 3y ago
      They’re confusing it with FaceTime: https://youtu.be/JOxf9tEXEKQ https://youtu.be/JOxf9tEXEKQ
      - Jtsummers 3y ago
        I figured that was the case. I just wanted one of these folks that keep claiming it to cough up some evidence. It's a tired thing. There are lots of things to criticize Apple (and most companies) for, at least pick something that isn't imaginary.
      - 0x457 3y ago
        I guess. But I swear I remember it was about iMessage. oh well, my bad.
  - jxdxbx 3y ago
    That was FaceTime, and it was because it was a peer-to-peer protocol. Then Apple was sued over a patent and had to implement a more normal design, where it pays for and runs the servers. Apple didn't want to run the servers for Android people to talk to each other.
matthew-wegner 3y ago
> They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protocol. End-to-end RCS encryption is via proprietary Google extension and not even available to other Android RCS messaging apps.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  It was made available to Apple.
  - zchrykng 3y ago
    Doesn't really help the argument that it is a proprietary Google technology. The fact that it had to be "made available" to Apple means that it isn't an open standard and requires trusting Google, which many of us don't.
  - jxdxbx 3y ago
    Encrypted RCS should be a standard. When it is Google should adopt the standard, not its proprietary version. In the meantime I want Apple to implement standards, not proprietary Google technologies.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Citation? Beeper was explicitly told it was not available to others when they wanted to implement Google's encrypted RCS on their Android client. https://twitter.com/ericmigi/status/1557050351974420480 https://twitter.com/ericmigi/status/1557050351974420480
  - brookst 3y ago
    Under what terms, and with what promises? If Google's strategy was anything other than "get Apple to adopt, then screw them", Google would have contributed the enhancements back to the standard.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> the developed encrypted RCS protocol Google's proprietary closed source fork of RCS? > Google's version of RCS... is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. Some messaging apps, like Beeper, have asked Google about integrating RCS and were told there's no public RCS API and no plans to build one. If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google... So the pitch for Apple to adopt RCS isn't just this public-good nonsense about making texts with Android users better; it's also about running Apple's messages through Google servers. Google profits in both server fees and data acquisition. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs-apple-for-mercy-in-messaging-war/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs...
kergonath 3y ago
> Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. I saw that you moved the goalposts in your reply, but anyway: which words? > They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protocol. The protocol that was designed by Google and in which Google’s infrastructure is crucial? It’s not Apple’s fault that RCS does not have mandatory end-to-end encryption. > I have intimate experience here with them both openly lying and purposefully deceiving their user base in this case. Do you mean that they lied to you personnally? You should write about that, it sounds much more interesting.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  I worked on several integration attempts between Apple and Google. They often presented specs that clearly showed security holes then simply would deny they were there or say “that’s secure”. It was a truly wild experience.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    This sounds fascinating, you really should write about this.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      I'm following up here just because of your comment. I've thought about this often but I've run into a few problems: 1) This tier of work is roundly invisible to almost everyone in the field. Many in the field are so confident in their knowledge of 'how things work.' that they simply can't accept the real 'in the room' realities of whats going on. Often engineers most of all, who are often deceived by their executives on the real goals. Are you and eng? Have you ever had that feeling of being gaslit by your VP? Yea you probably were, and you didn't know why. 2) Even at that level, I had a limited picture and a good extrapolation of what was going on in other rooms, but nothing I can say fully factually 3) No one wants to know. People love the just-so stories of these companies and really genuinely seem to get hurt/be in denial when they are faced with the reality that they are made up of ultra-selfish, shark like people with very little invested in the consumer, the company, or really anyone else. It's a game played to win for personal satisfaction. I've found that most people, simply cannot accept this.

Jtsummers 3y ago

What word? They never said they'd open iMessage. FaceTime is what they intended (or at least Jobs announced the intent) to open, and then that got caught up in a patent dispute.

tsunamifury 3y ago
No, they could have shipped a product on android, or they could have used secure RCS, or several other things. FaceTime is not really true either. This was a convenient mistruth. There were several way to remedy that situation. Also your misremembering iMessage there was no such issue.
- matchbok 3y ago
  It's not Apple's fault that the carriers/RCS/Google don't know how to make messaging work. RCS sucks, it pales in comparison to anything but SMS.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Google could have continued to support XMPP. If wishes were knishes doggies would eat.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  You wrote: > Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. What word did they not back up with respect to iMessage? When did they ever say they'd open it up?
- drcongo 3y ago
  FaceTime is definitely true. I've used it.
0x457 3y ago
I remember them saying releasing iMessage as an open standard.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  Can you point to a source for that outside your memory?
  - layer8 3y ago
    They’re confusing it with FaceTime: https://youtu.be/JOxf9tEXEKQ https://youtu.be/JOxf9tEXEKQ
    - Jtsummers 3y ago
      I figured that was the case. I just wanted one of these folks that keep claiming it to cough up some evidence. It's a tired thing. There are lots of things to criticize Apple (and most companies) for, at least pick something that isn't imaginary.
    - 0x457 3y ago
      I guess. But I swear I remember it was about iMessage. oh well, my bad.
- jxdxbx 3y ago
  That was FaceTime, and it was because it was a peer-to-peer protocol. Then Apple was sued over a patent and had to implement a more normal design, where it pays for and runs the servers. Apple didn't want to run the servers for Android people to talk to each other.

matthew-wegner 3y ago

> They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protocol. End-to-end RCS encryption is via proprietary Google extension and not even available to other Android RCS messaging apps.

tsunamifury 3y ago
It was made available to Apple.
- zchrykng 3y ago
  Doesn't really help the argument that it is a proprietary Google technology. The fact that it had to be "made available" to Apple means that it isn't an open standard and requires trusting Google, which many of us don't.
- jxdxbx 3y ago
  Encrypted RCS should be a standard. When it is Google should adopt the standard, not its proprietary version. In the meantime I want Apple to implement standards, not proprietary Google technologies.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Citation? Beeper was explicitly told it was not available to others when they wanted to implement Google's encrypted RCS on their Android client. https://twitter.com/ericmigi/status/1557050351974420480 https://twitter.com/ericmigi/status/1557050351974420480
- brookst 3y ago
  Under what terms, and with what promises? If Google's strategy was anything other than "get Apple to adopt, then screw them", Google would have contributed the enhancements back to the standard.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> the developed encrypted RCS protocol Google's proprietary closed source fork of RCS? > Google's version of RCS... is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. Some messaging apps, like Beeper, have asked Google about integrating RCS and were told there's no public RCS API and no plans to build one. If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google... So the pitch for Apple to adopt RCS isn't just this public-good nonsense about making texts with Android users better; it's also about running Apple's messages through Google servers. Google profits in both server fees and data acquisition. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs-apple-for-mercy-in-messaging-war/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs...

kergonath 3y ago

> Yes but that would have meant giving up sales in exchange for actually backing up their words. I saw that you moved the goalposts in your reply, but anyway: which words? > They aren’t even going to use the developed encrypted RCS protocol. The protocol that was designed by Google and in which Google’s infrastructure is crucial? It’s not Apple’s fault that RCS does not have mandatory end-to-end encryption. > I have intimate experience here with them both openly lying and purposefully deceiving their user base in this case. Do you mean that they lied to you personnally? You should write about that, it sounds much more interesting.

tsunamifury 3y ago
I worked on several integration attempts between Apple and Google. They often presented specs that clearly showed security holes then simply would deny they were there or say “that’s secure”. It was a truly wild experience.
- kergonath 3y ago
  This sounds fascinating, you really should write about this.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    I'm following up here just because of your comment. I've thought about this often but I've run into a few problems: 1) This tier of work is roundly invisible to almost everyone in the field. Many in the field are so confident in their knowledge of 'how things work.' that they simply can't accept the real 'in the room' realities of whats going on. Often engineers most of all, who are often deceived by their executives on the real goals. Are you and eng? Have you ever had that feeling of being gaslit by your VP? Yea you probably were, and you didn't know why. 2) Even at that level, I had a limited picture and a good extrapolation of what was going on in other rooms, but nothing I can say fully factually 3) No one wants to know. People love the just-so stories of these companies and really genuinely seem to get hurt/be in denial when they are faced with the reality that they are made up of ultra-selfish, shark like people with very little invested in the consumer, the company, or really anyone else. It's a game played to win for personal satisfaction. I've found that most people, simply cannot accept this.