3 ms·
> SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of diffe
by radlad 2y ago
> SMS is bad for sharing media and missing a lot of features that make for better conversation. And group texts in SMS are just kind of broken in a lot of different ways, nothing to do with iMessage.
RCS solves these issues.
- crazygringo 2y agoThat's true. RCS has only been present on iPhones in the past few months. Are people even remotely aware? Have they noticed a difference? I wonder if it might takes years for people to regain trust with carrier-provided messages with group texts...
- radlad 2y agoAvailable since September 2024 on iOS, I believe. Indeed, it seems Apple intentionally launched RCS support quietly, after refusing to implement it for many years (Android has had widespread support since at least 2019, possibly earlier on some manufacturers' phones, like Samsung.)
- lxgr 2y agoIt solves some issues, but it still needlessly ties instant messaging to a given mobile operator and a SIM card, which causes all kinds of problems when traveling internationally and using different SIM cards etc. It's a completely US-centric solution to an US-exclusive problem.
- crazygringo 2y agoBut everything you're describing applies to your phone number in general, including voice calls. You sound like you're against phone numbers entirely...?!
- lxgr 2y agoYes, I very much am. They're horrible personal identifiers as they're at least tied to a given country; you lose them if you don't have a service contract; you can't really own them in a way you can own TLDs etc. There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. Using them as a means of contact discovery I can live with, making it the primary and only identifier is a big mistake, in my opinion.
- Sophira 2y agoOkay. So now the question is, who maintains this database of people who can be contacted using a phone number-less system? And what do you use as the unique identifier?
- lxgr 2y agoEmail addresses have worked pretty well, and have the big advantage of allowing "self-custody" via using your own TLD, but don't require it. I don't have any issues with also allowing phone numbers as identifiers and most people preferring these, but I don't want to be forced to do so myself.
- radlad 2y ago> There's no technical reason for modern instant messaging to still rely on any part of the phone network, except as a dumb pipe to transmit data over. I understand that the reason Signal, for example, does this is to cut down on spam on the network. You can't use traditional spam filters, since that would negate the privacy aspects of Signal. So instead you have to increase the cost to spam (i.e. by requiring a valid phone number, which can also be banned from the network.)
- dns_snek 2y agoThat's not a technical reason. They could just as easily ask for cryptocurrency payment of $1 (which is more than a phone number would cost), or even proof of work. The fact that they require an identifier that is typically tied to one's real identity is suspicious on its own, IMHO.