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

Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 729 posts

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#671

Post by dwaite »

kelnos wrote: post #508
kemayo wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is, honestly, a pretty reasonable default. For the average person, the failure mode is "I lost my phone, and I can't remember my iCloud password", not "I really need the cops to not be able to get into my backup", and they'd be super pissed off if Apple couldn't get them their data back. Having good security be available, but not the default, and requiring you to acknowledge the risks is a sensible trade-off…

I kinda agree with you, but I think there's also a reasonable argument to be made around the idea that a user might be super pissed off that Apple made the default be not secure against state actors. Also, how many people actually care all that much about their message history? I know I do (and I have 1GB of SMS/MMS/RCS message history dating back to 2010 that I back up to GDrive nightly), but it seems to me that mos…

The nice thing is that there is now an advertised set of features to protect against state actors in the form of Advanced Data Protection, Lockdown mode and (soon) iMessage Contact Key Verification.

These all have significant usability impacts; I think Apple still has the correct defaults.

Finally, my understanding is that recovery keys are escrowed in a HSM separate from cloud hosting, and releasing an escrowed key is an audited event. My concern is mostly about actors accessing my data or surveilling me without transparency, as that gives no chance for accountability.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#672

Post by zorrotorro »

onlyhumans wrote: post #532
cubefox wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carriers supported it. Just Apple didn't, for a long time. The reason is obvious: To increase their market dominance in the US, where iMessage is common. Especially among US teens this was apparently successful. Teens didn't want to be the lame green bubble kids with reduced messaging features. They flocked to iPhones. RCS is (was) the prime example of Apple's anticompetitive behavior, after the App Store exclusivity…

Google could have released a rcs messenger app on iOS this whole time. Not sure what they were doing

I'm pretty sure it's literally impossible? I suspect RCS, just like SMS needs some special telecom interaction.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#673

Post by jmull »

sonicanatidae wrote: post #666
jmull wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're following the thread correctly. I guess re-read it, if you want to understand what is being said (probably a waste of time though).

I love the non-rebuttal, followed by immediate dismissal. lol ok..

Your response doesn’t address the content of the thread coherently. What else can I say? We need to actually be talking about the same things to have a discussion.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#674

Post by roneythomas6 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #500
spiralpolitik wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the trap door in this. Apple is going to implement RCS exactly as the specification says it should be implemented, no more or no less. Any incompatibilities with Android will be laid at Google's door to resolve. Having beaten Apple with the RCS stick for the last year, Google might find themselves now getting beaten back.

> Any incompatibilities with Android will be laid at Google's door Where it belongs. Google's fork of the open RCS standard is closed source and proprietary. > Google's version of RCS—the one promoted on the website with Google-exclusive features like optional encryption—is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. So…

Not sure why people thinks it’s a fork. RCS is only a standard, there is no open source implementation. Even to use it commercially you need to license it from GSMA. So every implementation of RCS is proprietary for the server side. On client side, Google has published the code in Android 12 sources. But most clients are all proprietary too.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#675

Post by roneythomas6 »

stouset wrote: post #456
spiralpolitik wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the trap door in this. Apple is going to implement RCS exactly as the specification says it should be implemented, no more or no less. Any incompatibilities with Android will be laid at Google's door to resolve. Having beaten Apple with the RCS stick for the last year, Google might find themselves now getting beaten back.

If RCS doesn’t get E2E encryption added to the public spec, they should highlight unencrypted messages with an even more offensive yellow bubble.

RCS messages outside of Google’s Jibe uses HTTPS/TLS so there is encryption. What Google has done is add E2E on top.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#676

Post by randomdata »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #667
randomdata wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really only see that in tech, and do so because of lack of meaningful competition. You get some sideline competition, yes, but never direct competition. The law doesn't allow you to directly compete. As soon as you try you will be slapped with a patent/copyright/whatever lawsuit that will kill you off before you ever had a chance. Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems.

> Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems. No, they suffer much worse . Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? This is not an accident, this is competition optimizing out any quality it can get away with removing.

> Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years?

No. I can't think of anything I buy that I would want to go back in time with. The quality in my experience has only improved, often dramatically. Those who try to skimp on quality get destroyed by the competition. What are you referring to?

The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to – based on what I hear other say, not based on my own buying habits – is things like appliances where manufacturers have really dug deep into computerization so that they can enjoy the same legal moats other tech companies do. But what you are experiencing there is the lack of competition we spoke of earlier.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#677

Post by randomdata »

izacus wrote: post #661
randomdata wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple and Google ARE NOT PEOPLE. That's incorrect. Apple here refers to a group of people, not the fruit. Google here too refers to a group of people, not the software that provides search features. > They do NOT HAVE FEELINGS you need to defend. Their feelings need to be defended as much as any other person. Which, logically, is not at all, but as you are defending your own feelings here what is logical is already…

Let's use the term "corporate entity" instead of "group of people". Because corporate entities do not have human emotions or human properties and actively work on suppressing them to generate (or extract) value.

A 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#678

Post by randomdata »

bigfudge wrote: post #655
randomdata wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't the regulation involved in laying copper and Microsoft would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't intellectual property regulation.

For Bell, presumably the goal was to provide a monopoly to achieve an otherwise difficult goal: universal service. That's certainly the case with the post office in the UK (although now being eroded). For Microsoft: I think that's a weird argument. Plus I think there would have been lots of things pushing towards a single big player for desktop computing in the early-middle days (network effects).

No matter what the goal was, it remains that other players would have jumped in if there wasn't the legal impediments. But such regulation provided a moat in which they were able to build their monopoly.

Same goes for Microsoft. Everyone and their brother would have released their own 'Windows' if regulation weren't there to disallow it. Again, that regulation offered a moat which allowed them to establish their monopoly.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#679

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #388
lotsofpulp wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is. But the nature of popular media is that it is desired by the populous. Lots of cheap places and venues have no name bars with no name musicians and singers playing all the time. But if you want to see someone that appeals to the whole populace, then you will have to compete with the whole populace.

Nope. Pearl Jam basically proved that TicketMaster is a monopoly. TicketMaster is a textbook example of a consumer-harming monopoly, and yet they have gone unprosecuted for decades. No excuse.

Ha ha ha, some TicketMaster/LiveNation shill actually down-modded that.

Pathetic.

Re: Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year

#680

Post by dragonwriter »

randomdata wrote: post #677
izacus wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's use the term "corporate entity" instead of "group of people". Because corporate entities do not have human emotions or human properties and actively work on suppressing them to generate (or extract) value.

A 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.

Yes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.
Post reply on HN