Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I hope Apple never adopts RCS

blog.mogery.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#141

Post by webmobdev »

quitit wrote: post #68
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #4

The SMS/RCS/iMessage/blue bubble-green bubble debate is almost entirely exclusive to the strange market of the US. Almost everywhere else in the world, users have simply adopted a variety of 3rd-party messaging apps that use the phone's Internet rather than GSM connection, like WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, Signal, WeChat, etc. EDIT: While I understand the need for a 'universal E2EE messaging standard', we don't hav…

The blue bubble/green bubble thing is Google's iPhone is just "round corner" argument. They're very good at pushing the "our competitor is evil" style messages rather than being honest about the genuine reasons why others aren't embracing their various platforms. Google have repeatedly failed at making legitimate competitors to popular chat services such as Whatsapp, so Google is trying to sneak around the competitio…

> All apps are able to hook into the native video/voice call, Contacts and instant-notification reply interfaces.

From a privacy perspective, I hate this - Apple did this only to access more of our data. E.g. if anyone voice or video calls me on one of these apps, Apple has access to that metadata because it will now be listed in the recent call list that is under Apple's control. If I am using (for e.g.) WhatsApp or Signal, it's partly because I want to avoid iMessage and ensure Apple doesn't have access to more of my personal data.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#142

Post by fbanon »

advisedwang wrote: post #114
fbanon wrote: post #45

RCS is inferior to iMessage simply because it doesn't work on tablets and desktop computers. Since RCS is tied to mobile carriers, who don't want to give up control over those juicy messages, the problem will persist forever.

EDIT: wrong iMessage is device centered - your messages are just relayed to desktop by the mobile messaging app. Android messages can do this too [1], So can Samsung [2] [1] https://support.google.com/messages/answer/7611075 [2] https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00087322/

Wildly wrong.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#143

Post by webmobdev »

pornel wrote: post #132
throw0101a wrote: post #13

So those of us who happen to own iPhones, and have friend who have Android devices, and would like to have (e.g.) group chats can go pound sand? Or try to get all of our friends/family to install yet another app? What is the main argument(s?) against implementing RCS? That it doesn't have E2EE? Neither does SMS, so RCS is no worse in that regard, but seems to have some extra nice things.

It gives power back to mobile operators, and that's a step back for net neutrality. My experience with mobile operators is that they are universally horrible, both on technical and business level. MMS has been a dumpster fire since the beginning. They haven't improved it in all these years, but still price it as if they hand deliver the messages on a golden plate (my operator's cheapest MMS price is 20x more expensiv…

> It gives power back to mobile operators, and that's a step back for net neutrality.

I see that as a huge positive - I'd rather that my personal communication never be under the control and mercy of foreign BigTechs, and would prefer that it be under the telecom companies who are obliged to follow certain laws and regulations on pricing and QoS. I don't see it as having anything to do with net neutrality.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#144

Post by webmobdev »

hnburnsy wrote: post #134

>iMessage uses end-to-end encryption, and Apple has, on multiple occasions, refused to add a backdoor to its systems. The backdoor is that you cannot exclude iMessage from your enabled by default iCloud backup.

Apple’s iMessage Is Secure … Unless You Have iCloud Enabled - https://www.howtogeek.com/710509/apples-imessage-is-secure.....

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#145

Post by pornel »

webmobdev wrote: post #143
pornel wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gives power back to mobile operators, and that's a step back for net neutrality. My experience with mobile operators is that they are universally horrible, both on technical and business level. MMS has been a dumpster fire since the beginning. They haven't improved it in all these years, but still price it as if they hand deliver the messages on a golden plate (my operator's cheapest MMS price is 20x more expensiv…

> It gives power back to mobile operators, and that's a step back for net neutrality. I see that as a huge positive - I'd rather that my personal communication never be under the control and mercy of foreign BigTechs, and would prefer that it be under the telecom companies who are obliged to follow certain laws and regulations on pricing and QoS. I don't see it as having anything to do with net neutrality.

Looking at pricing of MMS, roaming charges, and lack of security in interchange that allows spam and fake caller IDs, these laws are insufficient. A technical solution that makes operators "dumb pipes" solves it better. It's a Net Neutrality issue, because it allows operators to charge for bytes of RCS messages differently than bytes of Signal messages or Matrix messages or any other packet.

Ideally messaging shouldn't be controlled by either BigTech or BigTelecom, but RCS being a Google-telecom cooperation fails on both counts at the same time.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#146

Post by webmobdev »

pornel wrote: post #145
webmobdev wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It gives power back to mobile operators, and that's a step back for net neutrality. I see that as a huge positive - I'd rather that my personal communication never be under the control and mercy of foreign BigTechs, and would prefer that it be under the telecom companies who are obliged to follow certain laws and regulations on pricing and QoS. I don't see it as having anything to do with net neutrality.

Looking at pricing of MMS, roaming charges, and lack of security in interchange that allows spam and fake caller IDs, these laws are insufficient. A technical solution that makes operators "dumb pipes" solves it better. It's a Net Neutrality issue, because it allows operators to charge for bytes of RCS messages differently than bytes of Signal messages or Matrix messages or any other packet. Ideally messaging shouldn…

> It's a Net Neutrality issue, because it allows operators to charge for bytes of RCS messages differently than bytes of Signal messages or Matrix messages or any other packet.

That's a disingenuous argument as voice and data (sms, video calls, mms etc.) on any telecom network has never been considered a part of the internet. Even though RCS uses parts of internet technologies (only because 4g / 5g are IP based and have replaced switch based technology), it's still a stretch to call it part of the "internet" as it is part of the telecom infrastructure and can connect to other telecom networks without necessarily needing the "internet" to do so.

And this legally mandated "inter-connectivity" remains the key point and advantage of telecom networks. The internet is also supposed to be like that, and many early internet technology were built with this feature of distributed inter-connectivity too. But WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal, Skype etc. are all disconnected islands that are actually an aberration of this core value of the internet, and devalues the internet as a whole.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#147

Post by pornel »

webmobdev wrote: post #146
pornel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at pricing of MMS, roaming charges, and lack of security in interchange that allows spam and fake caller IDs, these laws are insufficient. A technical solution that makes operators "dumb pipes" solves it better. It's a Net Neutrality issue, because it allows operators to charge for bytes of RCS messages differently than bytes of Signal messages or Matrix messages or any other packet. Ideally messaging shouldn…

> It's a Net Neutrality issue, because it allows operators to charge for bytes of RCS messages differently than bytes of Signal messages or Matrix messages or any other packet. That's a disingenuous argument as voice and data (sms, video calls, mms etc.) on any telecom network has never been considered a part of the internet. Even though RCS uses parts of internet technologies (only because 4g / 5g are IP based and h…

The distinction of what belongs to telecoms and what belongs to the Internet is only due to how the technologies have evolved. It's a legacy quirk of the "it's always been like that" type. I'm all for reducing telecoms entirely to "dumb pipe" ISPs and moving everything to IP, calls too. Mandated inter-connectivity only exists to fix a problem that telecoms have created by having access to unencrypted insecure special-purpose comms traffic and being able to abuse this privilege. This should have been encrypted IP data they can't touch or discriminate.

Phone numbers are an outdated idea, and shouldn't exist any more (and Signal is terrible for using them). You should have more privacy and have more control over your identity than what the legacy telecom setup allows. For example in most countries in Europe you can't get a phone number without a government ID tying it to your legal identity, and telecoms may be obliged to log your call metadata. Would you prefer e-mail as an open IP protocol, or a setup of traditional licensed postal operators that require government's permission to make an e-mail account for you?

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#148

Post by hendersoon »

All the problems this article are addressed by using Google's own Messages app. Carrier support is not needed, it supports E2E encryption, it's a Google app so it's available on every Android device, etc. You do need a phone number, that is an accurate criticism.

Of course Google's app isn't straight RCS, but it _is_ what everybody actually uses, because RCS failed to gain cross-platform, carrier, and manufacturer acceptance. So Google basically followed Apple's lead and created their own centralized messaging.

So this isn't about "Apple should support the open-standard known as RCS", it's "Apple should natively integrate Google's messaging app".

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#149

Post by hendersoon »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #128
quitit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blue bubble/green bubble thing is Google's iPhone is just "round corner" argument. They're very good at pushing the "our competitor is evil" style messages rather than being honest about the genuine reasons why others aren't embracing their various platforms. Google have repeatedly failed at making legitimate competitors to popular chat services such as Whatsapp, so Google is trying to sneak around the competitio…

iMessage is non-interoperable by design. RCS is at least a standard, and better than the existing SMS standard. So it's progress, even if E2EE isn't there yet.

That's a facile argument because nobody uses RCS. RCS failed to gain acceptance, so Google took RCS and built their own app with centralized servers and that's what everybody actually uses on Android. It's basically the same as iMessage, except it requires a phone number.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#150

Post by tinus_hn »

webmobdev wrote: post #144
hnburnsy wrote: post #134

>iMessage uses end-to-end encryption, and Apple has, on multiple occasions, refused to add a backdoor to its systems. The backdoor is that you cannot exclude iMessage from your enabled by default iCloud backup.

Apple’s iMessage Is Secure … Unless You Have iCloud Enabled - https://www.howtogeek.com/710509/apples-imessage-is-secure.....

Unless you have iCloud backup enabled, actually.
Post reply on HN