Comment

Comment on Samsung joins Google in RCS shaming Apple

While Apple should adopt RCS, I cannot help but feel that Google is being extremely hypocritical. They complain about iMessage being proprietary, but their implementation of RCS isn’t open source, and I believe they even mentioned they have no plans to open it up for 3rd party devs to implement it into their own sms apps. This just feels like an iMessage equivalent for Android. It has rich features that are exclusive to Android as a platform… just like iMessage within iOS/MacOS/iPadOS…

source

Sort:hotnew top

Yawnder@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Their implementation is closed source, not the protocol. They can’t change the protocol unilaterally whenever they want, etc.

Big difference.

source
- Porgey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Okay but their implementation is what they are touting. The standard RCS protocol is only marginally better than sms. Google constantly uses encryption in their ad campaigns for RCS, which is exclusive to to googles implementation. There is no way anyone is going to get Apple to work on an implementation that interoperates with Google
  
  source
  - Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    www.gstatic.com/messages/…/messages_e2ee.pdf
    
    🤷‍♂️
    
    source
- Emerald@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Any open source Android RCS SMS apps then?
  
  source
  - Yawnder@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    No idea, but that has nothing to do with anything. Considering that the standard is public and free (unlike ISO stuff bte), that most relevant telecoms support it, and that a lot of phone manufacturers have a custom client that does support it, it’s not remotely close to being closed sourced, and service-authentication-gated like iMessages.
    
    source
    Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    However access to each carrier gateway is very guarded …
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - ubermeisters@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Believe it or not you might need to pay for something that you like and use. Wierd fuckin notion I know
    
    source
    Emerald@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Believe it or not you might need to pay for something that you like and use. Wierd fuckin notion I know.
    
    You are confusing open source with free-as-in-price. Open source is a development philosophy, not a price tag.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Probably. Have a look on FDroid.
    
    source
Prethoryn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yeah, the only issue is that RCS is actually better and the counter argument is that Apple is breaking the messaging platform by not implementing it in some way.

The other point to make here is that iMessage wouldn’t have to just disappear. They could continue to support iMessage while just allowing text messages to be better for those who just don’t want an iPhone. The whole thing is hypocritical on both sides. Apple has convinced it’s users, very successfully might I add, that it is an Android problem and instead of having choice over your phone, you should just buy an iPhone.

As someone who works in IT this is really not the answer users should get. To me, this is equivalent to, “your computer quit working? Just buy a new one.” But imagine you only had one choice and it’s because that company refuses to just improve standard text messaging for all users across the board but iPhone users don’t understand that Google has a method to fix this problem Apple just refuses to make it a better experience for everyone.

Additionally, I think RCS is an open platform. Google’s fork of it carries encryption and group messaging integration. Point being Google genuinely has a viable iMessage solution to non iMessage texts. Apple wouldn’t even have to stop using iMesaage.

source
- Porgey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  While I agree, Apple is being obnoxiously stubborn and it truly only does benefit Apple users as well, it just feels disingenuous from Google. It more feels like they want to get their product onto Apple devices. If Apple could implement RCS the way they wanted to and interoperate with Google, then I think it would be a more valid argument. But Google clearly wants Apple to use their own version and is putting up this annoying ad campaign to mask it. (As far as I know, the standard RCS implementation doesn’t even include E2EE, rather it’s something unique to googles implementation, correct me if I’m wrong). Google uses encryption as a talking point in their ad campaigns and is honestly for me the biggest reason for it to be used in iOS. Otherwise the experience is only marginally better than sms, and I wouldn’t expect Apple to even bother with it. At least with encryption one can challenge Apple‘s stance on being a privacy focused company…
  
  Im also a software engineer and it’s annoying as hell that Apple is stubborn, but from a business perspective, it’s a gold mine for Apple - ecosystem lock-in is just too valuable to them as a company.
  
  source
  - TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Has apple tries to work with Google on the RCS version? If not, I see everything you’ve written here as an invalid false equivalency
    
    source
    Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    They haven’t really. What they really should do is run their own RCS server and federate and support the e2e extension, but they don’t want to.
    
    The most annoying part is that the imessage encryption protocol is so far behind state of art (same underlying encryption protocol with small RSA keys and no deniability since ~2011 when Signal has been around since 2010 with a better protocol). Meanwhile Google based their encryption extension on the Signal production. It would be a solid security improvement if Apple adopted it.
    
    source
  - Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Google’s encryption extension is published so anybody could implement it (if you already have enough access to create your own client, like Samsung)
    
    source
wild@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Google Voice still doesn’t support it!

source
yoz@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Its just trillion dollar companies doing trillion dollar things.

source
- Porgey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Haha fair enough 😂
  
  source
SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It doesn’t seem like you understand what a protocol is

source
- Porgey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I do, but if you pay attention to the ad-campaign, Google is touting features such as E2EE as a benefit to bringing it to iOS, which is NOT part of the rcs protocol, rather part of googles implementation.
  
  The RCS protocol by itself is only marginally better than SMS.
  
  source
  - Deftdrummer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Ok bro we get it
    
    source
    TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Prethoryn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    “Marginally better than SMS”
    
    I don’t mean to be rude, but I agree with the sentiment of not knowing what a protocol is. RCS is significantly better than SMS and, encryption wise not entirely feature wise (depending on what you consider a feature that you care about), better than iMessage.
    
    First, the way an SMS is delivered is a big part of the problem that RCS has fixed and it is a problem that still plagues SMS and MMS and that is message length.
    
    The SMS and MMS protocol send your messages in layers and not always in order, hence why you can still get SMS text messages out of ordered, or that SMS that gets converted to MMS based on the length of the text fails to send. This doesn’t even begin to touch group messaging sending images, encryption, etc.
    
    www.androidauthority.com/rcs-vs-sms-3330098/
    
    If you really want to learn and this honestly is a genuine conversation and you are willing to talk about it then I will let that article be your read. There are massive benefits over RCS the largest one being encryption while still being able to send larger text messages, way better video and image quality as well as different and more types of image types and RCS has the ability to just continue to get better, more secure, and continue to grow.
    
    Apple has a tendency to stick to what you know because their customers stick to what they know. While Apple has a viable and continued method. That doesn’t mean their method is great. Consider the USB-C standard on the iPhone being a forced change. Apple made an argument that forcing the iPhone to USB-C ruined the creative and innovative market. While there is probably some reasonable argument to be made there then the question becomes why weren’t they working on these methods for all other products that they believed were better off with USB-C. Point being Apple is an example of only changing when they are forced to or have no other way out. This is a bad model to allow the continuance of what they are arguing against. RCS isn’t worse it’s better and more than marginally. The problem is Apple won’t change unless forced to and that is bad for you as a consumer and innovation that they swear they believe in.
    
    RCS should just be the standard and Apple should get on board and there is zero reason for them not to other than to push the iMessage agenda and that makes them money. They don’t care about the consumer. That doesn’t mean Google does either but Google at the very least wants all messaging to just be fluid across what ever platform you choose and Apple just wants you to buy an iPhone. You tell me which sounds better to you, because I will take Google’s approach no matter how you feel about Google.
    
    source