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

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#151

Post by skinnymuch »

poisonborz wrote: post #140
skinnymuch wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have Matrix bridging and Mattermost nowadays so we have https://Beeper.com and https://Texts.com and similar open source matrix installs. All in one app is amazing.

With how complex messaging became, I'm not even sure this is the best method for everyone. Sure, having basic chat functionality and interoperability is great and should be even mandatory. But there are a lot of platform-specific feats that break or are impossible this way. Until the utopia that everyone unites in a common protocol, webapps and these kind of switching apps are a great alternative, not just a stopgap.

I think this stuff is too much for most people to use, but Beeper is not missing anything deal breaking. I use it daily and besides being bulky, it has nearly everything one would expect. For most apps, it has their reactions functionality for example.

What’s missing: The reply mechanism doesn’t work as well as it does for specific apps that are better with this. It does basic reply quoting but that’s all.

Notifications could be better. There’s no customization per type of app. They do all keyword notifications which almost no app does. However since notifications are all or nothing it is just okay.

—

Overall, the app is super solid and works well. I agree I don’t think it’s perfect and has plenty of bugs or lacks specific nuanced features.

I don’t think we will ever get a common uniting protocol. We never had it. Even when jabber was the common protocol, FBM didn’t support group chats with it.

I am assuming Matrix is the best we will get. Or some other sleeker app building off Matrix will come out. We do have MatterMost too but it seems Matrix “won”

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#152

Post by tmottabr »

Semaphor wrote: post #100
tmottabr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

several.. truth is that whatsapp was made to be used in one device only and is not frindly to be used in multiple devices at the same time. Until recently (like days ago) you still needed the main device to be online and connected to their server to use the both the web or desktop apps, although for some time there was a beta going for the feature they released a few days ago where that is "no longer required". Even…

Never had issues with the beta (before it, I simply did not use WA), but then I also never used it heavily. > Also there is still no official way to have the same whatsapp across multiple phone\tablets devices. That seems dumb. Luckily not an issue for me.

Yeah, it is completely dumb, but it is what it is..

The problem is that whastapp is old and it was first designed those decisions made sense..

the only other option around was SMS but it was expensive in many countries.. So now you had the option to pay a few dollars to buy the whatsapp (yeah, had to pay for it back then) and you could send SMS-like messages for free..

That is why it is so widespread in many countries, because it was a cheap alternative to SMS..

It was designed as a replacement for SMS and many of the early technical decisions that are limiting then today were made with that in mind..

One phone number = one phone = one whatsapp account

that is no longer the case today but they have to deal with the technical debts of those early decisions..

AFAIK all the other alternatives available today came much later with a completely different mind set, so they do not have those same limitations..

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#153

Post by quitit »

webmobdev wrote: post #141
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…

> 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…

There's a few problems with this thinking.

First you need to distinguish between what your phone knows and what Apple knows. Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows. Through a judicial process of attaining access to your iCloud backup (should you opt into such a service) could law enforcement then have access to that data. This is a significantly different approach to Android, where Google actively collect and use that data in profile building - this is perhaps where the confusion might be coming from.

Secondly there is some naivety about using an Apple phone and believing that you're not sharing functonality-essential data with the manufacturer and author of the operating system. Your device basically will not function without Apple's service backend. There isn't any moral question here because you would be aware that by buying an Apple device and using Apple-fed services that you are in some way engaging in some kind of relationship with Apple. If you believe that these devices can function without such backends, you are grandly mistaken. Moral questions come about when you engage in a relationship with one tech company, only for that company to start on-selling your data through a variety of products based on your use of the device. I.E. What happens with Android.

Also I'm not going to even touch the absolute hilarity of using WhatsApp while having concerns about privacy/metadata collection.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#154

Post by webmobdev »

quitit wrote: post #153
webmobdev wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There's a few problems with this thinking. First you need to distinguish between what your phone knows and what Apple knows. Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows. Through a judicial process of attaining access to your iCloud backup (should you opt into such a service) could law enforcement then have access to that data. This is a significantly different approach to Android, where Google…

> Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows.

Not when your call list is automatically synced to the cloud (default settings), and all the BigTech reset your settings to default whenever you update to get more of your personal data.

> Secondly there is some naivety about using an Apple phone and believing that you're not sharing functonality-essential data with the manufacturer and author of the operating system.

That's exactly what I am complaining about - people like you think that is ok and normal, many of us don't and so we vocally complain out loud. My phone runs Sailfish OS, and I don't have to worry about these kind of bullshit with it.

> you would be aware that by buying an Apple device and using Apple-fed services that you are in some way engaging in some kind of relationship with Apple.

Making a voice or video call through a third-party app has nothing to do with Apple. Buying an Apple device doesn't imply that we have to accept servitude or an abusive one sided relationship with Apple, as most of you are proposing that we accept blindly.

> Moral questions come about when you engage in a relationship with one tech company, only for that company to start on-selling your data through a variety of products based on your use of the device.

And you are naive to believe Apple has not started doing that. As more and more regulation appear around the world that force Apple to open up their device, you will find Apple becoming more and more abusive with their user's data.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#155

Post by webmobdev »

pornel wrote: post #147
webmobdev wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The distinction of what belongs to telecoms and what belongs to the Internet is only due to how the technologies have evolved.

True. But it is also a fact that telecom networks inside a country offer better privacy and better protect democratic rights (in a democratic country) than some foreign powered network like the internet - if Google or Facebook misuse my data, I have less recourse to complain about them with the law than against a telecom company who have to follow stricter laws and regulations.

> You should have more privacy and have more control over your identity than what the legacy telecom setup allows.

This is again a disingenuous argument when it is a fact that telecom companies in democratic countries better protect your privacy because they are legally mandated to. In a democratic setup, the government requiring identity documents or logging 6 months of CDR are completely acceptable (and necessary) compromises as your rights are safeguarded in a democracy. Foreign BigTechs have no such obligations to us and even misuse the trust some people place in them to be truly abusive in violating a users data by invasively collecting vast amounts of data that they feel they are free to exploit in any manner. (E.g. WhatsApp's New Privacy Policy Shares Sensitive Data With Facebook, Forces Users Into Agreement By Providing Mirage Of Choice: Delhi HC - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-whatsap... ).

Offering "free" services to hijack communication in a country is both anti-democratic and anti-competitive that needs to be curbed strongly by all democratic nations.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#156

Post by quitit »

webmobdev wrote: post #154
quitit wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a few problems with this thinking. First you need to distinguish between what your phone knows and what Apple knows. Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows. Through a judicial process of attaining access to your iCloud backup (should you opt into such a service) could law enforcement then have access to that data. This is a significantly different approach to Android, where Google…

> Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows. Not when your call list is automatically synced to the cloud (default settings), and all the BigTech reset your settings to default whenever you update to get more of your personal data. > Secondly there is some naivety about using an Apple phone and believing that you're not sharing functonality-essential data with the manufacturer and author of…

You being ignorant to how devices work isn't the same thing as your device secretly spying on you.

Your phone literally can't make a phone call without having initially shared data with Apple and your telco. This isn't some privacy-invading norm, it's the literal spec for cellular devices.

That's why when you go to Apple, give them your details and activate your phone - you are knowingly engaging in a relationship with them. This isn't some point of controversy - it is literally you making a choice about which phone you wanted to buy. You choosing to ignore Apple's and your telco's privacy policy which outline the types of data needed to operate the device really isn't something you can blame them for.

The point I'm making, which I think is lost here is that people like yourself are painfully unaware how dependent your device is on the manufacturer to function. It's a point of tedium because your type will rant on about privacy without having any understanding about what is privacy, what is essential data for the operation of the device - and then jump to literally absurd conclusions with the little information you have garnered.

Secondly you acknowledge that there are ways to limit the functionality of your device by providing less data to the manufacturer. So clearly something is working upstairs, but the compromise in that is you have limited functionality - in which case I question why you purchased that device to begin with.

Finally you are naively unaware about the differences in how your personal data is handled between Apple and Google. They are not in any way equivalent, and you've made many incorrect assumptions that Apple are doing things that Google do with Android, despite their public statements, privacy policy and 3rd party investigation that confirms otherwise.

In short you sound like a tinfoil idiot. You're not interested in facts, you're interested in mudslinging, and it's patently clear that you're happy to lie in order to do that.

Post reply on HN