Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage (theverge.com) 232
iMessage serves as "an important gateway between business users and their customers" and should be regulated as a "core" service under the EU's new Digital Markets Act (DMA), said Google and a group of major European telcos in a letter sent to the European Commission. From a report: Being designated as a "core platform service" would be significant for iMessage, as it could compel Apple to make it interoperable with other messaging services. The letter arrives as the European Commission investigates whether iMessage meets the requirements to be regulated under the bloc's strict DMA rules. Google has been very vocal about its desire for Apple to adopt RCS, the cross-platform messaging standard pitched as the successor to SMS, with its #GetTheMessage campaign. "Apple's iMessage lock-in is a documented strategy," Google senior vice-president Hiroshi Lockheimer posted on X, then known as Twitter, last year. "Using peer pressure and bullying as a way to sell products is disingenuous for a company that has humanity and equity as a core part of its marketing. The standards exist today to fix this."
Would they ever think to.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problem texting my Android friends...most of my friends are iPhone, but there are many with Android I text with daily.
No problem, the only thing that sucks is they can't seem to send/receive video and pictures at as high resolution as I can.
But the only thing I could see with this if Google gets its way...is the degradation of my iPhone experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Big question there is are their features in iMessage that RCS does not support or could not be added?
High res photos and videos can be sent form Android to Android users
Re:Would they ever think to.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Would they ever think to.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that Apple's sticking point? If they could agree on a common, open RCS implementation would that that be feature compatible with that iMessage does?
I think that's fair for Apple if that is in fact the case. Are there technical reasons Google's RCS implementation would not work for everyone, Apple, Google, carriers if it was implemented as a standards based thing with working group control? Or is this just company bickering?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that Apple's sticking point? If they could agree on a common, open RCS implementation would that that be feature compatible with that iMessage does?
Apple's sticking point is they are not adopting a "standard" that Google is trying to portray as some sort of universal standard everyone uses when it is not. It would be like MS criticizing Google for Chrome not supporting Microsoft Edge HTML (.mhtml).
I think that's fair for Apple if that is in fact the case. Are there technical reasons Google's RCS implementation would not work for everyone, Apple, Google, carriers if it was implemented as a standards based thing with working group control? Or is this just company bickering?
Like every standard there has to be agreement. Currently both companies are putting in features that mimic a feature of the other company but may work very differently behind the scenes. Getting a working group composed of just the carriers to agree on someth
Re: (Score:2)
Well certainly sounds like this is very clear a case for the EU and other legal bodies to step in and resolve the matter if these two companies cannot. Between them they control some odd 90%+ of the mobile ecosystem so it's fair to say "you need to figure this out"
Re: (Score:2)
Well certainly sounds like this is very clear a case for the EU and other legal bodies to step in and resolve the matter if these two companies cannot. Between them they control some odd 90%+ of the mobile ecosystem so it's fair to say "you need to figure this out"
Would you suggest that SIgnal do the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
What I would say is that the emergence of a common protocol would necessitate the governance of an open working group, similar to USB or SMPTE that companies like Signal can either sit on the board or at at a minimum have royalty free access to implement the standard.
I am not saying this protocol is "the only protocol" but it's the baseline and Google and Apple by nature of their duopolistic positions in the market should have to follow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the standard is open and interoperable like say, USB, what would be the reason for carriers not to implement it?
Also carriers in this sense are also becoming more and more like natural monopolies, in the US we are down to 3 megacarriers, I don't see an issue in saying with the advent of an open standard they have to support it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the standard is open and interoperable like say, USB, what would be the reason for carriers not to implement it?
They do not have to. They do not need any more reason than that. My cynical perspective is they do not want it to interoperate as they currently charge for SMS. iMessage bypasses that to use cellular data. If new standard removes a revenue stream, the carriers will not like it.
Also carriers in this sense are also becoming more and more like natural monopolies, in the US we are down to 3 megacarriers, I don't see an issue in saying with the advent of an open standard they have to support it.
You are confusing the ease of implementing vs the desire to implement it. Carriers want to make it so that customers stay with them. Making it something more convenient for a customer is not neccesarily in their best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the comic isn't wrong but it is not presenting that as a good thing, in fact it can be looked at as a less than ideal thing. It's not always the case that "competitive == ideal"
Shouldn't there be a common, open protocol underneath these systems that they are all able to communicate on at a baseline level, especially at this point when for nearly all of those programs they are 90% doing the exact same thing and carrying the same feature set? Especially in the scenario of a working group where all of th
Re:Would they ever think to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EU starts getting involved, Apple is still not going to do what Google wants, which is to adopt their RCS bullshit. If they were smart, they would release an iMessage client for Android that uses their own iCloud SSO and the Android SMS Bridge to basically torpedo Google Messages and RCS right in the side, below the waterline.
FWIW, I think Google would be fine with this. Google doesn't really care about RCS, Google cares about iMessage not being a marketing wedge that keeps people on iOS. But that's why Apple has not released an iMessage client for Android, and won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should release iMessage for Android, make the app and service free for a few months and then charge a low yearly fee for the service. Keep it free for iPhone users. The ads write themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not depending on your carrier to implement it and let you use it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TFB, this high res issue is because of Apple. If Apple supported RCS, or if Apple made imessage available to non Apple users, then this would not be an issue. Android users can send high res pictures and videos to each other all day using RCS. For proper interoperability, Apple either has to open it's walled garden of imessage to android, or allow imessage to send and receive messages with android users via RCS, instead of sticking to the outdated SMS, and MMS. Believe it or not, the only reason Android sti
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never had issues receiving high-res pictures, they're just attachments in an MMS. If there is a problem with attaching high-res pictures in an MMS, then that's a problem with Android.
Re: (Score:3)
TFB, this high res issue is because of Apple. If Apple supported RCS, or if Apple made imessage available to non Apple users, then this would not be an issue.
Not all carriers support all features of Google's RCS so Apple supporting it does meant there will be complete interoperability. To be clear Google uses the term "RCS" when they actually mean Google's version of RCS. Google would like everyone to believe that Apple is the main obstacle when it is not.
Believe it or not, the only reason Android still has to support the old SMS and MMS is so that they can message iphones.
That is not true. Between any two Android phones, there is not 100% RCS implementation much less on different carriers. I am also pretty sure that other phones besides Androids and iPhones exist so SMS and MMS
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's not the case across the board for some reason.
My android friends, can't send high rez images, especially video between themselves.
Re: Would they ever think to.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Dunno what to tell you...
I believe they are all using Samsung phones, what models or how old I dunno....but they tried to figure how to change settings if that was it....and to no avail.
Re: (Score:3)
Believe it or not, the only reason Android still has to support the old SMS and MMS is so that they can message iphones.
Not even close to true. There's far more than one reason to still supports SMS, and even if there was only one reason, Apple being a pain in the ass wouldn't be it.
Think of how many SMS messages you receive from SMS gateways on a regular basis for MFA, for example.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Would they ever think to.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering that you just picked out the two most useless feature sets that are frequently added to, that's not a very useful comment.
How about these features which are far more relevant to being a decent chat app:
- automatic end-to-end encryption when available between chat participants
- support for high resolution video, audio, and modern image formats in ALL chat modes including cross-platform group chats
- backup and multi-device sync
- no bullshit meant to socially wedge people that don't buy into y
Re:Would they ever think to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google provided several decent chat apps, and a bunch of others that could have been decent with a bit of work. Google just didn't have the attention span to keep any of them running.
https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up.
That's exactly right.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Apple releasing an iMessage client for Android that uses the Android SMS Bridge like every other messaging client on Android cause "degredation of [your] iPhone experience" ?
That's all it would take for all of this to go away. They could even charge money for it if they like. Not one single bit would need to change on your phone's software image.
Re: Would they ever think to.... (Score:2)
Can you send iCloud links if you really need to send high res versions? WhatsApp has been sending heavily degraded pictures and videos for years, but most people donâ(TM)t care.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On what standard? If you don't like iMessage (which uses SMS/MMS, unless it 'knows' that the other party has an iPhone) then use any of the many chat apps out there and convince your family to also use it. The problem is that there is no security standard for SMS/MMS and nobody (Samsung, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Meta etc) will agree upon any other standard. iMessage supports XMPP, Apple even shipped an iMessage server in macOS for a long time and Android explicitly went another way because Google
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like iMessage (which uses SMS/MMS, unless it 'knows' that the other party has an iPhone) then use any of the many chat apps out there and convince your family to also use it.
This is what I think ultimately dooms Google's case, there are so many other chat apps out there, there's no reason to be stuck with iMessage. According to the article (or at least an article, I read about this elsewhere, I'm keeping Slashdot tradition of not bothering reading the linked article), iMessage use is highest among teens in the US. It's pretty much unused in the EU.
But all this raises an interesting question: what if, instead of requiring Apple to implement RCS, the EU just tells them that they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the case at all here...
My android friends can NOT send high rez images or video between themselves.
They actually post to YouTube videos they need to share that they want to be clear, not grainy and small....
Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:5, Insightful)
It's blindingly obvious that they recognise that Apple's ability to offer its own differentiated messaging service on its own platform to its users is an important competitive advantage vs Android, and they want to erode that. They understand that it's not possible to guarantee E2EE and thus privacy for cross-platform messaging, and they're content to throw that baby out with the bathwater. An asshole move if ever there was one
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RCS supports end-to-end encryption:
https://support.google.com/mes... [google.com]
If Apple want's to make that a requirement for a common platform I think that's great. Do messages between Apple and Android devices offer e2e between them currently? If not this is a case for interoperability, not against it.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS is an ancient, broken proprietary standard owned by GSMA. The encryption layer that Google provides is not compatible with anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be yes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Andro... [reddit.com]
There's a notable lack of any open source RCS servers, or even open source clients. Google owns a company called Jibe that provides RCS servers to carriers. They definitely don't have a download link, and they won't tell you anything unless you give them your contact information and sign up for their newsletter.
RCS is designed like SMS: as something carriers implement and potentially charge for (my carrier charges $5 a month for MMS/RCS). Carriers were being
Re: (Score:2)
Really seems like we have 3 groups (Apple, Google, the Carriers) who through some form a huge chunk of interpersonal communications passes through who simply cannot agree on something for their own business reasons.
This seems like a clearcut case for legislation, this isn't all that different than the EU making them all support the same charging port. An open standard baseline would be the right thing for the consumers in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Google's version of RCS supports E2EE as that was a feature they added. Standard RCS does not have that as a feature.
If Apple want's to make that a requirement for a common platform I think that's great. Do messages between Apple and Android devices offer e2e between them currently? If not this is a case for interoperability, not against it.
Probably there are differences in how encryption is implemented. The security model of Apple requires the keys be stored in the secure enclave of the hardware. As the hardware manufacturer, Apple added that to their devices years ago. Google on the other hand has to work with manufacturers to add that. I am not aware what the equivalent is for Android and whether it is required.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like there needs to be a standard for hardware enclaves that hardware manufacturers can implement (wouldn't this be similar to a TPM on PC hardware? I might be off) as well as a standards based protocol for using it for messaging?
The info in this thread is making me dislike Google and Apple in this fight and really want the EU to crack them both down harder on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is Apple's Secure Enclave takes TPM security further by storing all data encrypted in a secure area. TPM stores the necessary keys in permanent memory but things like bank passwords are stored on disk but should be encrypted. To do that the Secure Enclave has to have a large enough and separate flash memory module to store all those things. TPM as a stand alone module or part of current PC hardware do not have a huge amount of memory for cost considerations.
I would like interoperability too
Re: (Score:2)
I get the technical differences but that to me just means there needs to be an agreed upon implementation of these secure enclaves.
One thing TPM has going for it is it does in fact have a working group so anyone who wants to implement it can do so (and does)
https://trustedcomputinggroup.... [trustedcom...ggroup.org]
I don't think Apple is blameless here either, they've had every opportunity to open iMessage and likely if they had done so earlier it likely would have become the de facto standard today (similar to Tesla not opening the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google has a tendency to act selfishly but in that selfishness do the right thing. Similar to when they bought On2 for the VP7/8 codecs. Absolutely they wanted to avoid MPEG licensing for Youtube but at the same time they released the codec open source and now we are all the better for it having free access to VP9 and AV1 and the panic over h.264/265 costs is a nonissue.
RCS has some issues for sure about who controls it (isn't it technically the GSMA?) but Apple could just the same make demands for joint
Re: (Score:2)
RCS has some issues for sure about who controls it (isn't it technically the GSMA?) but Apple could just the same make demands for joint control or open source.
Standard RCS is controlled by GSMA; however, Google has created their own version. The problem is not that Apple could join an organization that extends RCS to add features they want; the issue is that Google is criticizing Apple for not wholly adopting their version which Apple has no control. That is like MS of old criticizing Linux for not using MS Office formats.
The arguments against a common messaging protocol seem pretty empty but it's fair for Apple to not want Google at the helm of it but I don't think it's the right move for Apple to just say no, they should set conditions.
The argument is not against common protocols. The problem is implementation across all players is hard. Google cannot control that all Android
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but this just would lead someone like the EU to say "you both suck, you need to agree on something inbetween" no?
It's not as though Apples protocol is open for Google or anyone but Apple to interface with correct? Is this just a case of both parties suck because they want their own walled garden?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but this just would lead someone like the EU to say "you both suck, you need to agree on something inbetween" no?
Even if both companies agree that does not mean the carriers and manufacturers agree. That does not mean other apps agree. This is much larger problem than "Apple won't implement RCS" as Google is trying to frame it.
It's not as though Apples protocol is open for Google or anyone but Apple to interface with correct? Is this just a case of both parties suck because they want their own walled garden?
The original problem is that SMS and MMS is antiquated. I guess Apple foresaw the issues of getting everyone to agree on an updated version and created a version that works for them on all their devices rather than deal with herding cats. Since Apple controls their hardware, they can do this. Go
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I would advocate for a 3rd party working group to manage this since, as you say, this is bigger than just Apple/Google just like how things such as USB and TPM are handled.
A good compromise means everyone is unhappy.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple tried this decades ago. It failed because Google refused exactly because of the E2EE issue (they want to read your messages). Hence why E2EE on Android only works between Google devices, Google controls the key server and the backup of your private keys.
Re: (Score:2)
It is sounding more and more to me like negotiations have failed and some legislative body needs to force them both to comply on a common system.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What real govt problem is there?
Any given user has the solution in their own hands already. They can agree, along with other people with whom they want to communicate, on a mutually acceptable messaging platform. No govt involvement is necessary.
The only thing forcing a standard does is:
1). Require people to get messages from people they're not interested in hearing from - or the some as of yet undefined steps to block such messages.
2). Make it easier for assholes to blast their unwanted spam to more
Re: (Score:2)
The problem as I would see it is mobile messaging exploded in popularity off an open standard everyone bought into (SMS)
Now that everything has advanced we are abandoning that open standard for a mish-mash of proprietary ones with no clear successor to the original thing that brought it about and in that timeframe mobile communication has gotten more and more important for not just people but huge parts of the global economy.
Standards drive the world, it's what the internet and our other infrastructure oper
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but SMS is being used less and less as each manufacturers messaging platform essentially co-opts to default to their protocol when possible. Two iPhone users are not communicating over SMS anymore by default, it's going over iMessage.
SMS is also a protocol out of time, you could say it's almost 40 years old, why shouldn't we have an open SMS2.0 that carries that same advantage of universal interoperability but with some modern features that people want and expect.
Re: (Score:2)
But why does government need to be involved? It's not like there aren't choices available to consumers or some competition issue. SMS and MMS are things. Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp and many other options exist.
Regulatory intervention comes at a price. The more it's invited for pissant issues, the more you should expect it will overreach and ultimately stifle innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because open standards are what run the world. Electrical, communications, building codes, infrastructure, the POTS phone system, TCP/IP, USB, I can go on and on and on but when something comes to affect a large majority of people (in this case it's probably 90% of mobile phone users, everyone who in previous years would have just used SMS) then a standard as the baseline becomes something valid to regulate.
That doesn't mean there are no competing systems, something like Telegram and Signal could still be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it is very limited in capability by todays standards. People want more capability from communications, when SMS was first bandied about in the 1980's and then rose to popularity in the 1990's even before cameras were on phones. Everything after 140 characters was been bolted on after the fact.
Much like we wouldn't be happy with using USB v1.0 at 1.5mbps or cellular data on EDGE today, moving to something new doesn't mean abandoning an open standard of doing things, it means having a method
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:2)
Apple tried this decades ago. It failed because Google refused exactly because of the E2EE issue (they want to read your messages). Hence why E2EE on Android only works between Google devices, Google controls the key server and the backup of your private keys.
I smell a strong odor of bullshit here. Where did you hear this from? Because it sounds like the typical shit spewed on Apple forums:
https://forums.appleinsider.co... [appleinsider.com]
I love this bit:
E2EE can only happen when the sender(s) and receiver(s) are on the same server. With iMessage, E2EE is possible because the sender(s) and receiver(s) are using Apple servers.
I've already seen several people here on slashdot repeat exactly this crap. It seems the typical ifan has no idea what E2EE even means, or why who owns the servers (Apple doesn't even own them, they're azure servers, which means Microsoft does) holds no relevance.
Or maybe they know something that I don't, which would be that ime
Re: (Score:3)
They understand that it's not possible to guarantee E2EE and thus privacy for cross-platform messaging
That's straight forward garbage on the face of it. Both Signal and Whatsapp (danger - Facebook controlled) do reasonable end to end encryption between iPhones and Android on a mass scale. Even on the charitable interpretation that you mean "with multiple different companies in control of their own servers" that's clearly something that is solved in a bunch of other communication protocols - all you need is to set up some trust system (PKI ain't great but it will do) and forward public keys from one device t
Re: Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:2)
The only way that you could believe that e2ee in this way is somehow impossible means you are entirely clueless about how public key cryptography works. Thus the only way it's possible for GPs story to work is if the security model Apple uses is so bad that they're literally able to eavesdrop on the messages but simply promise not to, (which is a very laughable security model) hence he stupidly assumes that if there was interoperability, then suddenly any privacy guarantees go away.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way that you could believe that e2ee in this way is somehow impossible means you are entirely clueless about how public key cryptography works
The issue is getting different cryptographic systems to interoperate; the issue is not that public key cryptography does not work. Pesky details like the algorithms used are important. Even when messaging apps like Google, Signal, and WhatsApp uses the same protocol, that does not mean the apps can interoperate. A lot of the web operates because there is agreement on exactly how things.
Re: Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:2)
They understand that it's not possible to guarantee E2EE and thus privacy for cross-platform messaging
If this is even remotely true, then their e2ee was never truly private to begin with, because that's not how it works. Though it's more likely that you have no fucking idea how modern cryptography works so you're spouting off FUD so that you can have more of Tim's Cock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:4, Informative)
They understand that it's not possible to guarantee E2EE and thus privacy for cross-platform messaging,
I don't think you should talk about technical things anymore.
Re:Disingenuous bollix from Google (Score:5, Informative)
They understand that it's not possible to guarantee E2EE and thus privacy for cross-platform messaging
This is not true. Android provides all of the required building blocks, in secure hardware, and his since long before iOS did. I know because I designed and built the Android stuff.
The key things Apple would need are:
1. Device-bound signing keys. You need to ensure that these keys are bound to the device and cannot be extracted. This implies you also need to ensure the keys were generated on device. Android keystore provides these capabilities on all devices and to all apps, and has since Nougat (all devices launching with Nougat)
2. Proof of #1. Android provides a key attestation record, ultimately signed by a Google-owned key, that proves the signing keys are device-bound and were generated on-device. Android provides these capabilites on all devices and to all apps, and has since Oreo (all devices launching with Oreo).
Given that, it's a simple matter for the iMessage app to generate an authentication key pair to act as the user's identity, and send that to Apple's servers to verify the attestation and store the public key as the user's identity. Then, whenever a device encounters another (Android or iOS) for the first time, the iMessage server performs "introductions", giving each device the other's public key. From there, the devices can use a standard ECDHE key exchange to set up an encrypted session with perfect forward secrecy.
This is all bog standard stuff, not at all complicated or difficult. Apple would have to trust Google-signed attestations, but there's no problem with that, any more than Apple has a problem with accepting TLS certificates from Google's CA. If Apple wanted to review Google's practices around key management, etc., that could be arranged.
E2EE is not an obstacle.
But think about the poor marketers! (Score:5, Insightful)
iMessage serves as "an important gateway between business users and their customers"
They can fuck right off with that, full stop.
iMessage has been a consumer service since day zero and it's great for communicating with friends, family, acquaintances. I absolutely do not want businesses trying to spam me with it, because then my email address is all they would need. (And my email address already fields enough junk, thank you very much.)
In the rare cases that I allow a business to send me text messages (such as appointment reminders from my dentist) SMS will suffice. That is already as regulated as it is going to get.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the reason iMessage is great. Apple seems to have some way of preventing spam.
I get spam on every other platform including texts, but they're rare or absent on iMessage.
Just turn it off (Score:3)
I wouldn't blame Apple if this made them disable iMessage for EU users.
It would piss off too many of their customers so it will never happen but I would be nice to see some push-back on overbearing EU laws and and companies using them to force change on their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience, most people outside of the US use other apps like WhatsApp to chat with other people. Using direct SMS was pretty uncommon
"Google loses tech war, turns to government" (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has an inferior messaging technology and wants Daddy Government to come fix it for them.
If it was the other way around they'd shut Apple out in a split second and spend whatever they had to to buy politicians to keep it that way.
This has nothing to do with privacy or the users, etc. And do keep in mind that google's users are not the people sitting at a keyboard or holding an android. They are the product. Their customers are the companies buying google ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google can't create a superior smartphone is really more relevant here. If they did so, the iPhone and hence iMessage would lose relevance over time.
Re: (Score:2)
True, iMessage is better than sms but that isn't saying much.
There are a number of interesting / decent text-like features out there on various platforms but they're all ad supported.
It would be nice if there was a good open standard that had the cool features including e2ee but without the ads but I'm not holding my breath. RCS isn't it and certainly the google hacked version of RCS isn't it. Besides, anything google makes will be killed off a few years after launch so nothing they control is acceptable d
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem. How do you make a chat program that's not ad supported?
Apple does it by bundling it with their phones, as did Blackberry.
Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
My Trillian IM hasn't been able to access Google Chat for about two years now. If Google is serious about opening up iMessage, maybe they should open up their messaging APIs.
No, no, no, anything but some Google IM/SMS thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind how they completely screwed their own 25+ messaging apps (did you know there's a chat in Google Docs and one in Google Pay?), but I haven't seen a bigger abomination than their RCS.
Each time they flex their muscle and something makes it to media you'd think RCS is ready to replace everything from SMS to WhatsApp but when the rubber meets the road it's literally not only the service I can't test with anyone, I can't even test between my own devices. It works only on SOME phones with whatever the right sauce is, the client isn't installed by default (or if it is like it's on the Pixels it's opt-in to enable RCS) and it's provider and subscription dependent! In short despite having a handful of SIMs it's available only on one. And even there it's an obscure setting in the "Messages" app (BTW well done having the same name for totally different app from Google and Samsung, it's not like they're both big names on Android!!!) and the way it registers is totally opaque, of course with no logs or meaningful error messages (and the providers are useless for troubleshooting this, of course).
Hopefully it will be an optional feature (Score:2)
The whole messaging 'problem' is pretty much a ploy because RCS exists primarily to provide Google with another channel to push advertising on us. If it is forced into messages then I would certainly not consider activating it on iOS devices if I could avoid it. I would not enjoy providing Google with a mechanism to shove unsolicited ads into my phone without my permission or participation.
There are basically zero issues with exc
Re: (Score:2)
There definitely should be a "allow RCS (or whatever) messages" option in iMessage, if this whole bullshit is forced through. And it should default to NO.
Of course, the usual parties will still bitch about how that is somehow unfair, or unreasonable or racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic or nationalist or anti-Semitic or inhuman or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you get ads if you use RCS? That explains why Google bugged me so much to activate chat features that I had to substitute the messaging app.
RCS = Business Ad Spam. Why? (Score:3)
RCS enables rich text messages, which to google means you can use them for ads.
Why would anyone besides google and the carriers want this?
It was so successful that google disabled RCS in India due to spam:
https://www.indiatoday.in/tech... [indiatoday.in]
to me (Score:3)
This (Score:2)
pretty much this. I have a hard time imagining Google has exhausted the innovation possible here.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think happens when just one person dares to go outside that proprietary platform?
I am that person on the outside. I don't notice anything missing. I still get the messages. I don't know what Google is upset about. Now if I wasn't getting messages because Apple is not sending like they should, that would be an issue I would be upset about. Prolly would make Google mad as well.
Re: I dont see the big deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you mean reactions?
Which would something I would absolutely murder if I could. I hate that I can't do that in Teams. I find a benefit that Android doesn't have that. They should leave it be.
Re: I dont see the big deal (Score:4, Informative)
Group messaging doesnâ(TM)t work with SMS. You get the message, but you canâ(TM)t see who else received it, and nor will your reply go to everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming the OP was implying that they use Android while the rest of their family is on iPhones. SMS does work fine if you really don't care to know if the recipient saw your message or even received it at all (cell reception still isn't perfect in every location). It's also fine if you don't do group texts or try to send longer/higher quality videos, which are sent through the horribly outdated MMS protocol.
You know what else is fine? It's also fine to walk to work in the rain if you don't mind the
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
As for iMessage, no.
Re:I dont see the big deal (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think Apple should bother with RCS, or if they do, have it in a separate app. About a year ago, Google had to pause RCS in India because it was used to barrage people with ads on an extreme scale.
Then there is the issue of fragmentation. Which RCS version would Apple go with, as there are multiple, done by phone makers.
RCS doesn't guarantee end to end encryption. This is a deal-killer right here. Why should I use something other than SMS without this?
Of course, the kicker is more ad analytics and more data accessible to Google.
Overall, I see no advantage to use RCS for anything. It may help Google stock, but that's not any real reason why a user should choose a messaging protocol. iMessage, on the other hand, brings effortless end to end encryption, both for data in transit, and data at rest.
Re: (Score:3)
As for iMessage, no. Never fix with regulation what the free market can fix
This is a duopoly, not a free market.
If it was in Apple's interest to open up iMessage, they would have done so, if their customers wanted it
Why in a duopoly, would Apple particularly care what its customers want? We can assume they wanted user-repairable devices and after 15 years, and lots of pressure from the EU, Apple still hasn't folded on that one.
Opening the protocol up would also destroy it. I can send a friend a wallet pass, an Apple Pay payment or request, an app, etc... and I know the iPhone on the other end will work just fine sharing them an App.
And email falls over every time a client doesn't support a MIME-type?
Tell me, why would Apple go through the expense of doubling the devices (and therefore the underlying infrastructure) to host messages for yet more people who have not otherwise engaged with them financially to do so?
Because they're made to under anti-competition laws.
Whether this will make much difference to the dominance of the duopoly, I doubt it. I don't actually know how to fix it but keeping Jolla
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking about the messaging market, which is decidely *not* a duopoly. There are hundreds of messaging apps: Teams, Signal, Telegram, Messenger, X, Snap, WhatsApp, etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The lightning ports on iDevices are reliable, but the cables are absolute garbage. Apple's first party cords begin fraying within weeks, and every brand of third party cord I've ever used usually only makes it a few months before developing reliability issues with the connection. I'm glad Apple finally made the switch to USB-C for their phones.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to disagree for one reason alone. I have had to dig more crap(dust hair etc) out of loghting ports than usb C and i have had usb c ports longer. Using a toothpick to clean lighting ports had yo be done every 6 months for me. And i havent done it once since i switched to andriod and usb c.
Beyond that one grievance i had no issues with either other than substandarisb c cables having a major run.
Over all woth quality cables durability is about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You think it will be harder to block those messages than plain old sms spam?
I don't know the network protocol or topology to implement it, so I really am asking, not making a snide comment.