3 ms·

I'm really hoping they're doing this to pave the way for an RCS implementation. If it can be done, GOS is in the best position to make it happen, and without RC

I'm really hoping they're doing this to pave the way for an RCS implementation. If it can be done, GOS is in the best position to make it happen, and without RCS, chatting with normies is both extremely inconvenient (large group chats straight up do not work) and categorically insecure. If I could convince all my friends and family to use Signal I would, but they just think I'm on about some weird Edward Snowden shit, and they just write me off as crazy. "Why would I checks notes download software to solve a problem when I could use the one that came with my phone?"

loufe 21d ago
Don't give up the good fight! Took some time but I got the whole family to adopt it as we had no common shared platform before, and it's been great.
greatgib 21d ago
I'm thinking quite the opposite. I hope RCS can die fast. We already have chat apps WhatsApp, signal, telegram, you can even create your own. I'm quite happy that SMS for one are not something centralized by the giant US big corp. Would be the dream of Google to get all your messages as a gateway.
- inquirerGeneral 21d ago
  [dead]
- sva_ 21d ago
  So I looked into this because my idea of RCS was that it was pretty decentralized direct encrypted communication. TIL that RCS was designed as a fairly decentralized protocol where every carrier could run their own RCS servers, but it didnt get adoption. So Google stepped in and built their own routing infrastructure, and now mostly all RCS is centralized on Google's servers (even if you use an iPhone, because the RCS server is mandated by your carrier)
  - emayljames 20d ago
    The implementations of RCS servers that were being done (here in the UK) by carriers, had many issues. A lot of the time your Google messages couldn't connect to the carrier RCS server, messages silently didn't send. I don't know if that was due to something like the carriers not updating their servers, or bad implementation though.
  - antibarbarus 20d ago
    In my neck of the woods Google actually disabled some of that routing infra, breaking RCS, I guess wanting to force the carriers to build out parts of it? Needless to say the carriers wouldn’t have any of it, so as it stands RCS is fully broken, has been for some time, and will continue to be. This just shows the fragility of the tech and why I wouldn’t want to rely on it for anything crucial.
    - sicktriple 20d ago
      RCS has been an absolutely unmitigated disaster, and it's just a black box when it breaks. There's no reason why messaging in 2026 should need to have cell carriers involved whatsoever - everyone's phone is connected to the internet, every phone should have an IP based messaging app by default.
inquirerGeneral 21d ago
[dead]
sebastiennight 20d ago
I'll give you the strategy that works for me. Do NOT talk about privacy, E2EE, or any of that. To regular people, "privacy" has negative value, so even if they wanted something, your talk of private communication and not being scanned by data brokers and governments will make them want it less. So what to do then? I present Signal as a novelty and focus on one single feature: "hey, video calls work much better than WhatsApp! Try it out!" Bam, instant download.
- duskdozer 20d ago
  Why do you say negative? My impression is that it has zero value to them.
  - deleted 19d ago
    [deleted]
  - sebastiennight 17d ago
    "zero value" would be neutral. Eg, if you tell someone, "Try DuskDozerIM, let's message on there! I like this thing where doubletapping the emojis plays a fun random little animation". Then maybe this is "zero value" to them and their response would be "whatever, sure, let's try it". What I'm saying is if you go, "Try DuskDozerIM, let's message on there! It's private and secure, the government and large ad companies and data brokers can't read your messages and harvest your data" then you evoque a feeling of suspicion (negative value) and their response will be "look, I already have like a thousand apps, I don't really want one more". One additional way you can confirm this hypothesis is that almost everybody has given WhatsApp access to { all contacts ; all notifications ; all permissions } but if you sell them Signal with the "privacy/security" angle and watch them install it, you will notice they hesitate for a sec and then reply "no" to contacts, notifications and permissions, as if they're suddenly trying to inhabit the conspiracy-theorist-cum-privacy-activist mindset. Which they're uncomfortable with, and don't like. Negative value.

loufe 21d ago

Don't give up the good fight! Took some time but I got the whole family to adopt it as we had no common shared platform before, and it's been great.

greatgib 21d ago

I'm thinking quite the opposite. I hope RCS can die fast. We already have chat apps WhatsApp, signal, telegram, you can even create your own. I'm quite happy that SMS for one are not something centralized by the giant US big corp. Would be the dream of Google to get all your messages as a gateway.

inquirerGeneral 21d ago
[dead]
sva_ 21d ago
So I looked into this because my idea of RCS was that it was pretty decentralized direct encrypted communication. TIL that RCS was designed as a fairly decentralized protocol where every carrier could run their own RCS servers, but it didnt get adoption. So Google stepped in and built their own routing infrastructure, and now mostly all RCS is centralized on Google's servers (even if you use an iPhone, because the RCS server is mandated by your carrier)
- emayljames 20d ago
  The implementations of RCS servers that were being done (here in the UK) by carriers, had many issues. A lot of the time your Google messages couldn't connect to the carrier RCS server, messages silently didn't send. I don't know if that was due to something like the carriers not updating their servers, or bad implementation though.
- antibarbarus 20d ago
  In my neck of the woods Google actually disabled some of that routing infra, breaking RCS, I guess wanting to force the carriers to build out parts of it? Needless to say the carriers wouldn’t have any of it, so as it stands RCS is fully broken, has been for some time, and will continue to be. This just shows the fragility of the tech and why I wouldn’t want to rely on it for anything crucial.
  - sicktriple 20d ago
    RCS has been an absolutely unmitigated disaster, and it's just a black box when it breaks. There's no reason why messaging in 2026 should need to have cell carriers involved whatsoever - everyone's phone is connected to the internet, every phone should have an IP based messaging app by default.

inquirerGeneral 21d ago

[dead]

sebastiennight 20d ago

I'll give you the strategy that works for me. Do NOT talk about privacy, E2EE, or any of that. To regular people, "privacy" has negative value, so even if they wanted something, your talk of private communication and not being scanned by data brokers and governments will make them want it less. So what to do then? I present Signal as a novelty and focus on one single feature: "hey, video calls work much better than WhatsApp! Try it out!" Bam, instant download.

duskdozer 20d ago
Why do you say negative? My impression is that it has zero value to them.
- deleted 19d ago
  [deleted]
- sebastiennight 17d ago
  "zero value" would be neutral. Eg, if you tell someone, "Try DuskDozerIM, let's message on there! I like this thing where doubletapping the emojis plays a fun random little animation". Then maybe this is "zero value" to them and their response would be "whatever, sure, let's try it". What I'm saying is if you go, "Try DuskDozerIM, let's message on there! It's private and secure, the government and large ad companies and data brokers can't read your messages and harvest your data" then you evoque a feeling of suspicion (negative value) and their response will be "look, I already have like a thousand apps, I don't really want one more". One additional way you can confirm this hypothesis is that almost everybody has given WhatsApp access to { all contacts ; all notifications ; all permissions } but if you sell them Signal with the "privacy/security" angle and watch them install it, you will notice they hesitate for a sec and then reply "no" to contacts, notifications and permissions, as if they're suddenly trying to inhabit the conspiracy-theorist-cum-privacy-activist mindset. Which they're uncomfortable with, and don't like. Negative value.