2 ms·

I really, really, really hope RCS doesn't make it as a standard. Now that it's end-to-end encrypted, it's slightly better than SMS, but it's still laughably in

by lxgr 2y ago

I really, really, really hope RCS doesn't make it as a standard. Now that it's end-to-end encrypted, it's slightly better than SMS, but it's still laughably incapable compared to decades-old protocols that support multiple devices, phone-number-independent identifiers, self-hosting, have open implementations and non-insane specifications etc. As it is, RCS is just Google Talk (Google runs most of the infrastructure), but tied to a single device (no messaging from your laptop or tablet if your phone battery dies!) and impossible to use without a phone number. It makes me really sad to see that even technical audiences don't see the long-term plan here: Cementing the use of phone numbers instead of email addresses as the primary identifiers in people's digital lives, and making the closed, carrier and Google operated RCS ecosystem the ultimate replacement for email and other open web standards for B2C and P2P messaging. (Yeah, most people already use Gmail, but the point is that self-hosting email is at least still possible, and there's still relatively free competition of sending service providers; with RCS, there's no chance to play without paying the cartel.)

ezfe 2y ago
It's far more than "slightly better." It supports full resolution content, longer messages, and reactions/interactions. For most people it's indistinguishable from iMessage/etc. Do you really think that phone numbers aren't already a ubiquitous identifier? That is done. Nothing you're saying is changing because of RCS.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Yes, it's already largely done, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea, so why cheer moving into the same bad direction just because there's now finally a baseline of security? It's also anything but indistinguishable from iMessage. I can use iMessage on any number of devices without my phone having to be turned on, having the SIM with my number on it inserted, and being connected to the Internet (not always a given when traveling etc.) The same is true for WhatsApp. Even XMPP could do it 20 years ago! This is not a new niche feature – it's absolutely essential for a modern instant messaging protocol!
  - MBCook 2y ago
    You’d rather we turn everything over to Facebook/Meta?
    - lxgr 2y ago
      No, I'd rather we have an actually open, federated standard such as XMPP or Matrix, with a trusted directory service binding phone numbers (that one could be operated by phone networks) and email addresses or DNS domains to IM handles. And if we can't figure that out, I consider Google and Meta equally bad gatekeepers of global B2C and P2P communication, and don't see why I should use the technically strictly inferior solution of the two.
dmix 2y ago
> Cementing the use of phone numbers instead of email addresses as the primary identifiers in people's digital lives From my experience RCS is just a backup/temporary holdover system to keep SMS usable as is, since people are increasingly using regular chat apps like WhatsApp. Plus as long as spam/identity is a major issue then phone numbers will be a part of verification systems. They will use anything they can get to make it harder to abuse. Whether the root ID is phones or not doesn't really make a difference if a phone number is required at some point to use a service.
- lxgr 2y ago
  There's a large split here between the US (where people largely use SMS and now RCS) and the rest of the world, which largely uses WhatsApp, WeChat, or very few others. I'm of course also just as critical of having Meta run the world's communication industry instead of Google, but that's the duopoly (or rather two monopolies split geographically) we're headed towards. Cheering on RCS as a way out of it, instead of directly towards it, is deeply misguided. That said, at least WhatsApp provides some basic features that XMPP has supported more than 20 years ago (multiple devices being logged in simultaneously, synced message archives etc.) – I'm not holding my breath ever seeing these on RCS. As a pseudo-federated standard, protocol and client development will always be much more complex, and looking at the baseline complexity of the RCS specification powering the few existing features, I'm just not seeing it happen. Needing my phone to be powered up and connected to the Internet to message people from my computer in 2025 is absurd.
  - CivBase 2y ago
    > I'm of course also just as critical of having Meta run the world's communication industry instead of Google, but that's the duopoly Don't forget Apple with their iMessage protocol.
summm 2y ago
Even worse: it silently fails if the device does not run an unmodified anf certified Google Android OS. This means, it will not work on alternative OS and rooted devices
- thriw7383848 2y ago
  It also silently fails if other party has android phone, but no internet connection. There is no fallback to SMS which works over plain GSM.
jeroenhd 2y ago
RCS is a GSMA standard, like VoLTE and SMS messages. Of course it's going to use telecoms features as unique identifiers, that's what it was designed to do. While I agree that tying everying to a phone number is far from optimal, it's the status quo in messenger land. Only tech nerds use services like XMPP and Matrix, the rest all use either chat apps that tie you to a phone number or just text directly. RCS is there for the people who still use SMS/MMS. In my country, that's basically nobody. In Canada and the US, that's the majority of non-iPhone people, and the iPhone people have been complaining about the shitty integration between iMessage and MMS since the day iMessage took off (because MMS is terrible for modern messengers). RCS runs on your carrier's infrastructure. Google hosts RCS services for people whose carrier doesn't support RCS, but Apple won't be using those. RCS on iOS requires carrier support, which many carriers still have yet to turn back on. I think you're confusing the status quo with the goal behind RCS. The unfortunate truth is, the people who are using RCS would've used SMS/MMS before. RCS just appeared in their messengers some day and made texting a lot better. I'd still advocate for signal over RCS any time of the week (though I don't need to, because nobody uses SMS/RCS here anyway thanks to WhatsApp), but RCS is an abject improvement over the terrible messenger protocols it replaced.
- lxgr 2y ago
  > it's the status quo in messenger land Yes, and it's incredibly frustrating that we couldn't avoid ending up here. Maybe it was inevitable, but I still find it very sad.

by lxgr 2y ago

ezfe 2y ago

It's far more than "slightly better." It supports full resolution content, longer messages, and reactions/interactions. For most people it's indistinguishable from iMessage/etc. Do you really think that phone numbers aren't already a ubiquitous identifier? That is done. Nothing you're saying is changing because of RCS.

lxgr 2y ago
Yes, it's already largely done, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea, so why cheer moving into the same bad direction just because there's now finally a baseline of security? It's also anything but indistinguishable from iMessage. I can use iMessage on any number of devices without my phone having to be turned on, having the SIM with my number on it inserted, and being connected to the Internet (not always a given when traveling etc.) The same is true for WhatsApp. Even XMPP could do it 20 years ago! This is not a new niche feature – it's absolutely essential for a modern instant messaging protocol!
- MBCook 2y ago
  You’d rather we turn everything over to Facebook/Meta?
  - lxgr 2y ago
    No, I'd rather we have an actually open, federated standard such as XMPP or Matrix, with a trusted directory service binding phone numbers (that one could be operated by phone networks) and email addresses or DNS domains to IM handles. And if we can't figure that out, I consider Google and Meta equally bad gatekeepers of global B2C and P2P communication, and don't see why I should use the technically strictly inferior solution of the two.

dmix 2y ago

> Cementing the use of phone numbers instead of email addresses as the primary identifiers in people's digital lives From my experience RCS is just a backup/temporary holdover system to keep SMS usable as is, since people are increasingly using regular chat apps like WhatsApp. Plus as long as spam/identity is a major issue then phone numbers will be a part of verification systems. They will use anything they can get to make it harder to abuse. Whether the root ID is phones or not doesn't really make a difference if a phone number is required at some point to use a service.

lxgr 2y ago
There's a large split here between the US (where people largely use SMS and now RCS) and the rest of the world, which largely uses WhatsApp, WeChat, or very few others. I'm of course also just as critical of having Meta run the world's communication industry instead of Google, but that's the duopoly (or rather two monopolies split geographically) we're headed towards. Cheering on RCS as a way out of it, instead of directly towards it, is deeply misguided. That said, at least WhatsApp provides some basic features that XMPP has supported more than 20 years ago (multiple devices being logged in simultaneously, synced message archives etc.) – I'm not holding my breath ever seeing these on RCS. As a pseudo-federated standard, protocol and client development will always be much more complex, and looking at the baseline complexity of the RCS specification powering the few existing features, I'm just not seeing it happen. Needing my phone to be powered up and connected to the Internet to message people from my computer in 2025 is absurd.
- CivBase 2y ago
  > I'm of course also just as critical of having Meta run the world's communication industry instead of Google, but that's the duopoly Don't forget Apple with their iMessage protocol.

summm 2y ago

Even worse: it silently fails if the device does not run an unmodified anf certified Google Android OS. This means, it will not work on alternative OS and rooted devices

thriw7383848 2y ago
It also silently fails if other party has android phone, but no internet connection. There is no fallback to SMS which works over plain GSM.

jeroenhd 2y ago

RCS is a GSMA standard, like VoLTE and SMS messages. Of course it's going to use telecoms features as unique identifiers, that's what it was designed to do. While I agree that tying everying to a phone number is far from optimal, it's the status quo in messenger land. Only tech nerds use services like XMPP and Matrix, the rest all use either chat apps that tie you to a phone number or just text directly. RCS is there for the people who still use SMS/MMS. In my country, that's basically nobody. In Canada and the US, that's the majority of non-iPhone people, and the iPhone people have been complaining about the shitty integration between iMessage and MMS since the day iMessage took off (because MMS is terrible for modern messengers). RCS runs on your carrier's infrastructure. Google hosts RCS services for people whose carrier doesn't support RCS, but Apple won't be using those. RCS on iOS requires carrier support, which many carriers still have yet to turn back on. I think you're confusing the status quo with the goal behind RCS. The unfortunate truth is, the people who are using RCS would've used SMS/MMS before. RCS just appeared in their messengers some day and made texting a lot better. I'd still advocate for signal over RCS any time of the week (though I don't need to, because nobody uses SMS/RCS here anyway thanks to WhatsApp), but RCS is an abject improvement over the terrible messenger protocols it replaced.

lxgr 2y ago
> it's the status quo in messenger land Yes, and it's incredibly frustrating that we couldn't avoid ending up here. Maybe it was inevitable, but I still find it very sad.