Comment by itslennysfault
2 years ago
If only someone would release a universal protocol that the app's native messaging apps could utilize to eliminate the need for these 3rd party messaging apps. Oh, right, it's called RCS and Apple refuses to support it.
RCS is anything but universal. It requires the explicit cooperation of mobile phone providers, which makes it a non-solution in many scenarios – including usage on any device that happens to not be a phone.
RCS is exactly what it says on the box: A modern successor to SMS. That does not make it a good modern instant messenger.
Apple announced today they are going to support RCS https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
RCS is better than SMS no doubt but lets not pretend it is on the same level as iMessage. Lack of end to end encryption alone makes RCS a dated standard
Good news, Apple just announced they'll start supporting RCS next year.
https://www.techradar.com/phones/iphone/breaking-apple-will-...
I see that you feel strongly about RCS, but as far as I know even some of the bigger US carriers dont support the universal profile on all the Android devices they offer. So maybe you’ll get your wish some point after carriers align on RCS.
RCS the “universal protocol” is not end to end encrypted.
Google has made some proprietary extensions to RCS to support end to end encryption but this is not the same thing.
> Oh, right, it's called RCS and Apple refuses to support it.
No one wants to support it. Even telecoms don't want to support it.
Telecoms don't even want to roll out all of the infrastructure they get paid by the government to, I don't know that their willingness to do anything is a point I'd try to stand firmly on.
Exactly, so how on earth does Google think that it is a good idea to put them in charge of running the infrastructure powering the future of instant messaging?
Any chance at all it has something to do with the fact that they've acquired an RCS infrastructure provider that they can sell to telcos?
https://jibe.google.com/
1 reply →
Literally nobody wants RCS except Google and a handful of HN commenters. It’s so unwanted that Google had to scrap their original plan of making the carriers host the infrastructure and do it themselves, because the carriers didn’t give a shit.
(And even Google doesn’t really have any love for RCS, they crawled back to it as a fallback plan with their tail between their legs when their own proprietary lock-in messaging apps didn’t work out. Which makes their attempts to shame Apple into adopting it pretty hilariously disingenuous.)
> It’s so unwanted that Google had to scrap their original plan of making the carriers host the infrastructure and do it themselves, because the carriers didn’t give a shit.
To be fair, that wasn't Google's plan, that was the GSMA's plan. GSMA created the RCS spec, failed to get more than a handful of their members to use it, and kind of abandoned it to the wolves. For reasons I don't quite understand, Google decided it'd be a good idea to take it up, and then push it harder than any of their previous messaging services; but it's not like they came up with it.
> with their tail between their legs when their own proprietary lock-in messaging apps didn’t work out
For what it's worth, they've worked tirelessly to ensure their failure.
> only someone would release a universal protocol
Nobody wants this. Universal access means universal access for spammers. iMessage won over SMS because of cost and spam filtering.
> Nobody wants this.
Not nobody.
> iMessage won over SMS because of cost and spam filtering.
Really? I've never used imessage.
> Not nobody
Within the scope of messaging network effects, nobody.
> Really?
Yes. iMessage spam is rare and stamped out fast. Open protocols tend to have spam problems the moment they begin scaling.