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

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#61

Post by jaywalk »

izacus wrote: post #22
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.

I keep being surprised how utterly selfish can brand fans be when it comes to their electronics toys. This doesn't affect pure Apple fanboys at all and yet they still want to mess it up.

So we (Apple brand fans) must adopt a garbage standard (RCS) just because the brand you're a fan of (Google/Android) created and adopted it?

RCS is crap and needs to die. Apple and Google should work together on a better standard.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#62

Post by daneel_w »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #40

Since RCS is a chat standard backed by Google, I wonder which company would spend money and time to support it. I guarantee, regardless of adoption, in two years, Google will have killed RCS or gotten out of it, maybe leaving it to carriers. Google is not in it for the long haul. Companies whose entire modus operandi is providing value to paying customers (e.g. Apple) will do well to steer clear.

I was wary about Google pushing AMP to "help the web", and I am equally wary about Google pushing RCS to "help people/messaging". Because Google.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#63

Post by threeseed »

jaywalk wrote: post #55
gertrunde wrote: post #44

I'm not sure why this is being framed as an XOR situation? Why would RCS support imply removal of iMessage? Surely RCS raises the lowest common denominator up a bit from SMS, and people are still free to use whatever 3rd party data-based messaging service they want to, be it iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook Messenger, or whatever else, even ICQ if that still exists. I don't think I've ever intentionally/deliberat…

I don't think it's being framed as an XOR situation. I think the article is trying to say that RCS is a shit standard (it is) and that Apple shouldn't adopt it because that would essentially solidify it as the replacement for SMS. Apple and Google should come together and make something better.

And SMS is slowly but surely dying.

So why throw it a lifeline with RCS when there can be a better standard.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#64

Post by out_of_protocol »

hpaavola wrote: post #42
threeseed wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RCS is a step backward. At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary version.

No it is not. RCS provides valuable features for users which are not present in SMS.

e.g. you can't send rcsmessage if target telcom does not support it (fallback to sms exists but that's runis the idea). Since adoption is (almost) always s-curved, last gsm operator to adopt it will do that ... not anytime soon

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#65

Post by hpaavola »

out_of_protocol wrote: post #64
hpaavola wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. RCS provides valuable features for users which are not present in SMS.

e.g. you can't send rcsmessage if target telcom does not support it (fallback to sms exists but that's runis the idea). Since adoption is (almost) always s-curved, last gsm operator to adopt it will do that ... not anytime soon

Which means that at its worst, RCS is just SMS. Which is an argument for RCS replacing SMS.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#66

Post by Gualdrapo »

As a not-that-techy person I just sorely miss the glorious days of multi-service IM apps which made your messaging transparent, reliable and fully integrated to whatever you were using. I find utterly ridiculous to have multiple half-baked apps in both desktop and mobile for each service because reasons.

I reckon RCS tried to circumvent that to a point (but still saying 'screw you' to desktop users) but alas it seems this horrible too-many-IM-apps won't be ever solved.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#67

Post by rickdeckard »

daneel_w wrote: post #6

We initially tried getting on-board the RCS train about 3 or 4 years ago, to be able to do "rich content delivery" to customers. Specifications and feature-sets were hazy and seemed to be poorly agreed upon, and service providers offering RCS termination to the mobile grid were few. Besides only Android having support for it, it turned out that in all of Europe we found just 4 cellular operators that supported it. Co…

It might be that you looked in the wrong place. I didn't check the RCS-situation in a while, but last time I checked (~1.5y ago) the Europe operators who haven't deployed RCS already (3-4 operators) dropped investment plans and decided to support RCS via Google's RCS cloud-service instead, mandating the use of Google Messaging as device-client.

(Google acquired jibe, a major company developing RCS clients/servers, and started rolling their own RCS-server and moving almost all vendors to the same client)

My expectation would be that by 2022 the majority of Europe carriers support RCS, not as an in-house service but by using either Google's cloud-based RCS or Samsung's RCS and their respective device-clients (with Samsung on steady decline).

The situation is a bit opaque, but if you look deeper on the device-side, RCS is no longer a carrier-controlled service. Google and Samsung combined control >90% of the client/server development and operations. They surely both align via the GSMA, but I doubt that the GSMA has actual control over the roadmap of RCS any more today than it had control over it ~2 years ago (which was close to zero)

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#68

Post by quitit »

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 competition in their attempt to force Apple to bundle their technology with every device.

The real hesitation by Apple is obvious, RCS is half baked: it's not a true E2EE solution and in some scenarios encryption is simply not available at all. It is demonstrably worse than other chat technologies, doesn't solve the problems it sets out to fix and the only benefit to its existence is that it gives Google a way to control a competitor's platform.

Apple have already made the right kinds of concessions for chat apps on their platforms. All apps are able to hook into the native video/voice call, Contacts and instant-notification reply interfaces. Not only does this make each 3rd party app have the same feeling and level footing as Messages. It has the run on benefit of extending support for these services into devices where there isn't even an app available. E.g. one can reply to chat messages from their car or apple watch, even if there is no app on those platforms - this really goes a long way to helping 3rd parties establish themselves without having to build an app for every single one of Apple's hardware endeavours. Google could go this route with an RCS app, but it's clear that there is no end-user benefit here, especially when Whatsapp and others did the hard work in carving out the critical mass needed to exist as a standalone chat app.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#69

Post by mogery »

bastawhiz wrote: post #15

> Adoption This is a chicken and egg argument. > Security > Prerequisites Both of these arguments rest on the assumption that RCS replaces iMessage. That's not the point. The data is already unencrypted. You already need a paid phone number. The benefit is that two large groups of users' devices that interact poorly today interact better with RCS. Google isn't asking Whatsapp or Signal to implement RCS, it doesn't ma…

How is Adoption a chicken and egg argument? RCS is, by its design, slower to update than iMessage.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#70

Post by chrismorgan »

jaywalk wrote: post #57
chrismorgan wrote: post #30

> To use iMessage, all you need is an Apple ID, which you can create for free. To use RCS, you need to have a phone number, which means that you need to have an account with a carrier. You also need to have a phone to use RCS: you can't use it on a tablet alone without LTE. I’m under the impression you need Apple hardware to use iMessage, and that even third-party solutions rely upon proxying via real Apple hardware…

Yes, you do need Apple hardware to use iMessage. But as your quote states, there are no other monthly fees associated with it. You don't need a cellular plan, or indeed even a device with cellular connectivity at all. And you can still send/receive iMessages the same as anyone else.

I don’t own any Apple hardware and no desire to own any, let alone keep it turned on. I do already have a mobile phone number that works. I believe I am among the majority of adults in Australia in this combination (though it’s quite slim and based on estimation).

If you’re already in the Apple ecosystem, fine, and that is kinda the target of the article; but it’s worded in a way that I don’t like and find extremely misleading, since it’s also about interactions with others, who have a fair chance of not possessing the required hardware.

Post reply on HN