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

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#81

Post by vidanay »

jaywalk wrote: post #61
izacus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Apple were really interested in a standard, they would be promoting iMessage as a standard. Instead, when Google proposes RCS, they just sit and shake their head and say "no, not good enough."

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#82

Post by throw0101a »

threeseed wrote: post #54
throw0101a wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least SMS is a standard where as Google has their own proprietary [RCS] version. AFAICT, the only thing "proprietary" about Google's RCS client implementation is E2EE: otherwise it's a fairly standard RCS client that can talk to any other RCS client. I'd be happy if Apple did the same thing with iMessage (app): standard SMS/RCS client when sending to non-iMessage people, and 'fancy' client (blue bubbles) between…

Glad we can agree it's proprietary. So the question is if Google was willing to deviate from the standard for encryption what else will they do in the future.

> Glad we can agree it's proprietary.

No. If I telnet to tcp/25, do a "EHLO foo", and in addition to:

    250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
    250-PIPELINING
    250-8BITMIME
    250-SIZE 27962030
    250-DSN
    250-ETRN
    250-DELIVERBY
    250 HELP
There is a line:

    250-X-GOOGLE-CRYPTO
Or even:

    250-X-APPLE-CRYPTO
That does not mean that Google (Apple) is running a (completely) proprietary SMTP server. They have a proprietary option/capability, but if my Postfix can send a regular RFC 821 message then they have a non-proprietary base implementation that they have extended.

If I can send SMS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'm content. If I could send (non-extended) RCS messages between iPhones and Androids, then I'd be content. If either company wants to add 'extra' features between their own clients, go right ahead.

And, using the above analogy, it would be best if there was a "250-STARTTLS" RCS-equivalent that anyone could implement.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#83

Post by Macacity »

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.

How does that work without internet? And you can only send iMessage to a small part of the population, as only people who have iMessage can receive it, is that correct?

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#84

Post by throw0101a »

jaywalk wrote: post #72
throw0101a wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iMessages are tied to Apple serial numbers, making spamming a lot harder. Except that you can already get spam "in iMessage" because the iMessage app is also the (default) SMS app on iPhones, and so anyone can send an SMS to your phone number and you'll receive it. > RCS would bring the spam protection to sms levels, i.e. absolutely non-existant You already have no protection against SMS on your iMessage app, so no…

> Except that you can already get spam "in iMessage" because the iMessage app is also the (default) SMS app on iPhones The app is Messages, the protocol is iMessage. Don't confuse the two, it's an important distinction. There is practically zero iMessage spam.

Nothing you have said invalidates my point:

* You can get spam in the app because it displays SMS.

* If it implemented RCS you could also get spam in the app too.

* But RCS also gives you extra capabilities.

How is this a worse situation?

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#85

Post by [deleted] »

jaywalk wrote: post #61
izacus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#86

Post by throw0101a »

jaywalk wrote: post #61
izacus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

And in the meantime, I—an iPhone owner—should not be able to have group chats with my Android-using friends?

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

RCS may not be perfect, but it seems to have nice things over and above SMS. I have no objections to adding more nice things to RCS (or whatever comes after it), but why shouldn't we implement the nice things of RCS?

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#87

Post by rickdeckard »

The author lost me on the assumption that RCS is a carrier-controlled service. I doubt that carriers have much control over the roadmap of RCS, they haven't had real control over it for years now. It's basically a service of Google (and to a decreasing extend Samsung).

Until 2015 the direction of RCS was for every carrier to setup infrastructure to operate a own RCS server. A few companies offered such RCS infra, but a key player in the center of the whole standardization and interoperability matter was a company called jibe. Jibe was selling RCS servers (and clients) to network operators, and got a few of the key-carriers as customers from the start.

As each device-manufacturer was expected to develop/source his own client, and network carriers needed servers to interoperate as well, alot of interoperability discussions, testing and refinement was needed. As a key server-vendor, jibe was at the heart of all those topics and a strong participant in GSMA RCS.

In 2015 Google made a move to enter the RCS space and acquired jibe. It started the trajectory which transformed RCS into the mostly Google-operated service that it is today. Google integrated RCS-client capabilities into their Android Messages application and offer RCS as a unified cloud-based service to operators.

Within just a few years:

- All network operators who planned to invest into RCS infrastructure scrapped those plans, entered an agreement with Google to use their cloud-based RCS-service instead and mandated towards device-vendors to adopt Android Messages.

- Network operators who had no concrete plans for RCS made the same agreement with Google as it promised revenue-share but required zero investment from them.

What remains is a handful of network carriers who #1: already have RCS-infra and #2: Didn't shut it down yet.

I'd say that 99% of all Android Smartphones today either use a Google Messages client or a Samsung Message client, with the majority of them connecting either to a Google RCS-server or a Samsung RCS-server.

The companies surely still align via GSMA, and the carriers / network operators are still involved in discussions about the specification, but given the direction of the past 5 years I don't see that they have actual control over the roadmap of RCS.

---

All that said, RCS is the best candidate we have to replace SMS, with a majority of carriers chipping in, so it would be reasonable for Apple to adopt RCS as a replacement for SMS and align with the industry on how this standard should be shaped.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#88

Post by jaywalk »

throw0101a wrote: post #84
jaywalk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that you can already get spam "in iMessage" because the iMessage app is also the (default) SMS app on iPhones The app is Messages, the protocol is iMessage. Don't confuse the two, it's an important distinction. There is practically zero iMessage spam.

Nothing you have said invalidates my point: * You can get spam in the app because it displays SMS. * If it implemented RCS you could also get spam in the app too. * But RCS also gives you extra capabilities. How is this a worse situation?

The point is that if we're going to finally replace SMS (which we should) then we should replace it with a protocol that's better. Saying "you can get spam on SMS, so who cares if RCS can spam you too?" is ridiculous. Maybe 20 years ago RCS would have been a nice protocol. Nowadays, it's utter trash. We need a proper, interoperable standard that doesn't involve carriers. RCS is not even remotely it.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#89

Post by chrismorgan »

Macacity wrote: post #83
jaywalk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does that work without internet? And you can only send iMessage to a small part of the population, as only people who have iMessage can receive it, is that correct?

“Without cellular connectivity” ≠ “without internet”.

Re: I hope Apple never adopts RCS

#90

Post by throw0101a »

jaywalk wrote: post #88
throw0101a wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you have said invalidates my point: * You can get spam in the app because it displays SMS. * If it implemented RCS you could also get spam in the app too. * But RCS also gives you extra capabilities. How is this a worse situation?

The point is that if we're going to finally replace SMS (which we should) then we should replace it with a protocol that's better. Saying "you can get spam on SMS, so who cares if RCS can spam you too?" is ridiculous. Maybe 20 years ago RCS would have been a nice protocol. Nowadays, it's utter trash. We need a proper, interoperable standard that doesn't involve carriers. RCS is not even remotely it.

And in the meantime, I—an iPhone owner—should not be able to have group chats with my Android-using friends?

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

RCS may not be perfect, but it seems to have nice things over and above SMS. I have no objections to adding more nice things to RCS (or whatever comes after it), but why shouldn't we implement the nice things of RCS in the meantime?

Post reply on HN