Google is Blocking RCS on Rooted Android Devices (theverge.com) 105
Google is cracking down on rooted Android devices, blocking multiple people from using the RCS message feature in Google Messages. From a report: Users with rooted phones -- a process that unlocks privileged access to the Android operating system, like jailbreaking iPhones -- have made several reports on the Google Messages support page, Reddit, and XDA's web forum over the last few months, finding they're suddenly unable to send or receive RCS messages. One example from Reddit user u/joefuf shows that RCS messages would simply vanish after hitting the send button. Several reports also mention that Google Messages gave no indication that RCS chat was no longer working, and was still showing as connected and working in Google Messages. In a statement sent to the Verge where we asked if Google is blocking rooted devices from using RCS, Google communications manager Ivy Hunt said the company is "ensuring that message-issuing/receiving devices are following the operating measures defined by the RCS standard" in a bid to prevent spam and abuse on Google Messages. In other words, yes, Google is blocking RCS on rooted devices.
You will use our devices (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You will use our devices (Score:4, Informative)
Well to the extent that corporations engage in the security theatre of 2FA via messages sent to a phone number then RCS might be a better option than SMS.
In reality, there are no open source client implementations of the RCS protocol, if you want to use that feature, you abide by their restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You will use our devices (Score:5, Informative)
Its a protocol. Not a piece of software. So it is a power grab to block it on devices they dont completely control.
It is a protocol created and designed by Google. Remember Google RCS is not stock RCS (Universal Profile) as Universal Profile does not offer end-to-end encryption. In their public complaints about Apple not using their RCS, they fail to mention this little fact over and over again pretending their version of RCS is some sort of universal standard protocol. It is not. As it is their protocol, they can do whatever they want including not supporting it on modified, unsupported Android.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not supporting something generally means if you can get it to work more power too you but we're not going to spend a dime on it.
No. Not supporting means if it breaks, it breaks. If you can fix, that's on you but there are no guarantees if can be fixed.
This is an active act of willful sabotage. Going out of their way to discriminate and break something that really doesn't have any technical dependency on root status or no root status.
Google RCS messages are encrypted end-to-end meaning there has to be security trust at multiple layers like the hardware and the OS. If the OS has been rooted, then there is no trust that the OS is secure anymore. Yes that is Google's decision but I cannot see how they can guarantee that messages are secure while working in an unsecured OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does guarantees are not appropriate to claims of security. Probability projections sure. But no one who understands security would ever guarantee any claim.
And Google knowing the OS is not secure is going to allow encrypted messages to be passed anyway? If you want to create your own E2EE messaging protocol and allow it to be used on rooted Android, go ahead. Google does not have to do that with their own protocol. I am sure all the other messaging apps like WhatsApp [whatsapp.com] or Telegram [telegram.org] is fully supported with rooted Android. Oh wait, they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a closed project on a private campus. They already sent it out into the world and and so it is nearly a component for other people to modify as they see fit. Claims of ownership lose their power when you leave your stuff scattered all over other people's property.
Please cite where they gave up ownership of their version of RCS. That is like saying because my USB cables are all over my house, I own all the IP associated with USB.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about the RCS standard - not the original open standard, nor Google's proprietary extension of it - requires the OS to be "secured" (read: not have root access) to allow E2E encrypted communications.
Sigh. Universal Profile has not E2EE. Google RCS requires E2EE. Trying to communicate securely in an unsecured environment like a rooted Android is stupid.
That's just stupid. What you're effectively saying is it would be totally ok for Google to disable HTTPS in Chrome if used on a Linux machine that has a root user.
Google does not own HTTPS so that is irrelevant. HTTPS is also a standard that Google does not control. Google RCS is not standard RCS
Never thought I'd see the day morons on Slashdot would support the "Extinguish" step after Embracing and Extending, but here we are.
I never thought I see the day morons would require a software company that they must support software they did not control nor release. If you want Google RCS, use stock Android. It is that simple. If you root Android and R
Re: You will use our devices (Score:2)
I'm not completely convinced that you know what it means to root an Android device. It definitely doesn't mean that the device is "insecure". It just means that the user has root access to the device, so they can make whatever changes they want to. It doesn't mean that J Random Hacker gets a free invite to snoop around.
who cares (Score:2, Funny)
apple is the worst for not implementing RCS the way gooogle WANTS!!! *cry*
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - i was just thinking that kills Google's high ground on the Apple imesage stuff (which is a shame because I'd love for Apple to impliment RCS).
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why these Android users don't just download a non-Google RCS app. Unlike iMessage it's an open standard and all, right? Right?
Re:who cares (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I think I've gotten a few phone calls from that company. They'd like me to go to the store and buy some Amazon gift cards so the police won't arrest me.
??bsbdsh (Score:2)
I'm on a rooted phone and rcs works for me?
Re:??bsbdsh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:??bsbdsh (Score:5, Interesting)
I just read that the "SafetyNet" plugin for Magisk is now obsolete, and that people should move over to a different plugin called "PlayIntegrityFix" [github.com]. There's also another variation called "PlayIntegrityNext" which provides ways to use downloadable spoofed device fingerprints to get around device bans, but I don't need that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that some roots work better than others. Magisk "Hide" is probably a big part of that.
Security (Score:5, Informative)
Google is probably correct here, but ironically if you know what you're doing you can do a more valid test of security with a rooted a device than none.
Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how there's any more justification to prevent rooted phones from using RCS than there would be to prevent them from using SMS. It looks to me like Google is just taking yet another opportunity to make Android a little more like a walled garden by making rooting more difficult and impractical, as usual.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see how there's any more justification to prevent rooted phones from using RCS than there would be to prevent them from using SMS.
Besides the fact that RCS messages are encrypted end-to-end and using a rooted phone breaks security? Other than inherent security risks, no other reason.
It looks to me like Google is just taking yet another opportunity to make Android a little more like a walled garden by making rooting more difficult and impractical, as usual.
No. Rooting is still as simple to implement as ever; however, no one at Google ever guaranteed that a rooted Android device works exactly the same as stock Android. In fact, Google has stated that there are risks to rooting your Android. It is almost the same warnings Google as using an alternate store. You can do it; Google warns you that there are risks.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides the fact that RCS messages are encrypted end-to-end and using a rooted phone breaks security? Other than inherent security risks, no other reason.
LOLWUT? How would the phone being rooted break E2EE? Do you think general-purpose desktop computers suffer from the same issue? Because by this logic there would be no secure way to implement E2EE on an ordinary Windows or Linux PC.
No. Rooting is still as simple to implement as ever
I see you're not familiar with how much more difficult rooting Android phones has become over roughly the last half-dozen Android versions, and how newer versions have also allowed non-root apps to do less and less, also making rooting more necessary. Google warning people that t
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand we are talking about E2EE in Google RCS right? As such what the heck does that have to do with Windows or Linux E2EE in general? For their implementation of E2EE in an Android, Google wants complete control over the OS to use their version of RCS. Those are their terms. Your whataboutism arguments are irrelevant
That sounds like an EULA issue rather than a technical issue. Maybe we could agree that Google is pushing this requirement for completely artificial non-technical reasons while rooting poses no actual threat their E2EE solution in RCS?
So you admit you have have been warned that using non-supported versions of software means not everything will work. And you are actively complaining about something you knew does not help your case.
Again you seem to think that the ability to dictate the terms of EULAs means companies should be exempt from criticism for being complete bastards to their users because the terms of the EULA allow it. We may have to agree to disagree on that point.
I expect and understand some
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an EULA issue rather than a technical issue. Maybe we could agree that Google is pushing this requirement for completely artificial non-technical reasons while rooting poses no actual threat their E2EE solution in RCS?
If you know that the OS that your messaging system is in has been compromised that means the messages are no longer secure. I do not know what your definition of "artificial" is but the whole point of E2EE is that the messages are secure. Working in an unsecured OS is the opposite of secure. I am not sure why you are so desperate to get Google to agree to support software they did not release.
Again you seem to think that the ability to dictate the terms of EULAs means companies should be exempt from criticism for being complete bastards to their users because the terms of the EULA allow it. We may have to agree to disagree on that point.
Google did not authorize or support rooted Android that a user puts on their phone. If they download it and it break
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that rooting both breaks encryption and "compromises" the device in some way. It definitely does not break the encryption, and it's a huge stretch to say that it "compromises" the OS by granting access to the device's legal owner. It wouldn't be much more of a stretch to say that the device was compromised by the owner having physical access to it. E2EE does not depend on the security of a client device at all. E2EE does not mean that every device that may send or receive a message is part
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that rooting both breaks encryption and "compromises" the device in some way.
Let me explain it slowly. End to End means END to END. If the system cannot ensure the message is secured END TO END, then then END TO END system is broken. I am not sure how to explain this any clearer to you.
It definitely does not break the encryption, and it's a huge stretch to say that it "compromises" the OS by granting access to the device's legal owner.
No one has said the encryption was broken. No one. Again if you are working in an unsecured OS, that means no messages can be secured END to END. From the stand point of the system, an unsupported OS is by definition unsecured. The problem again is that the OS is not supported by Google.
It wouldn't be much more of a stretch to say that the device was compromised by the owner having physical access to it. E2EE does not depend on the security of a client device at all.
By that logic,
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be using a definition of E2EE that includes the endpoint devices right down to the hardware. I can't find any definition like this. Wikipedia's definition even explicitly excludes endpoint security:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Maybe Google's using your definition too. But E2EE doesn't mean what they, or you, think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be using a definition of E2EE that includes the endpoint devices right down to the hardware. I can't find any definition like this. Wikipedia's definition even explicitly excludes endpoint security:
In your own link; "The end-to-end encryption paradigm does not directly address risks at the communications endpoints themselves." "Does not directly address" does not mean "exclude". You are asserting "explicitly excludes". You also ignored other parts like "Major attempts to increase endpoint security have been to isolate key generation, storage and cryptographic operations to a smart card such as Google's Project Vault." TEE and Apple's Secure Enclave are also attempts to increase security in smartphone
Re: (Score:2)
"Compromising" the OS by allowing the legal owner root access to their own device after authenticating normally does not compromise the security of the system or cause any technical issue that would break it. Again, this is still a standard feature of most general-purpose desktop/server OSes. By all appearances the app is going out of its way to check for root access and disable RCS if it detects it. And this is on the same device that may have some cheapo Chinese smartwatch connection app that scrapes all
Re: (Score:2)
"Compromising" the OS by allowing the legal owner root access to their own device after authenticating normally does not compromise the security of the system or cause any technical issue that would break it.
The fact that you state that rooting does not compromise the security of the system is laughable. The whole point of rooting is to change the security of the system. That point alone is idiotic.
Again, this is still a standard feature of most general-purpose desktop/server OSes.
They are not Android smartphones so your point is irrelevant.
By all appearances the app is going out of its way to check for root access and disable RCS if it detects it
By all appearances meaning what? Rooting an Android changes many permissions. Breaking permissions causing apps not to work has been common place since the beginning of rooting. This is why some apps will not support working on rooted Androids.
And this is on the same device that may have some cheapo Chinese smartwatch connection app that scrapes all the system notifications and does who-knows-what with them.
So let me get
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know that rooting the phone doesn't freely grant root access to everything on the device, but requires the phone user to allow escalated privileges with a UAC/gksudo-style prompt?
They are not Android smartphones so your point is irrelevant.
I don't see how the shape and manufacturer of the hardware an OS is running on makes root access more or less dangerous. You can install Android on an x86 PC or desktop GNU/Linux on an Android smartphone. So if root access is dangerous on a smartphone, why is it acceptable on desktop OSes?
By all appearances meaning what? Rooting an Android changes many permissions. Breaking permissions causing apps not to work has been common place since the beginning of rooting. This is why some apps will not support working on rooted Androids.
Rooting does not necessarily change
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know that rooting the phone doesn't freely grant root access to everything on the device, but requires the phone user to allow escalated privileges with a UAC/gksudo-style prompt?
I never said that it did. I said changing the security of the OS compromises it. Why is it that you always seem to state things that are not true?
I don't see how the shape and manufacturer of the hardware an OS is running on makes root access more or less dangerous.
Let me explain this slowly then as you seem not to understand security principles. Android has been designed by Google to run in a certain way. That includes every single permission. Changing how permissions work changes the security. It compromises security especially since Android has precise permissions.
You can install Android on an x86 PC or desktop GNU/Linux on an Android smartphone.
1) How is that remotely relevant to this discussion? As a
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong in pointing to the security of the system as a whole, but you are ignoring the fact that the device owner might not deem Google trustworthy per default at all times.,
Hey if you don't want to trust Google, that's fine. I am pointing out that rooting an Android means that Google is not longer responsible for fixing anything that broke because you rooted it. It appears the Google RCS is broken with rooted Androids and the OP seems to think Google is required to fix it.
A device cryptographically locked down by an untrusted party is not secure, and the fact that it is locked down makes it even harder for the owner to inspect the system. So by your own argument, the whole system can be always be considered insecure, no matter whether it's rooted or not.
No my point is that for most E2EE messaging systems like WhatsApp do not control the OS. However if the secure messaging system knows the OS has been compromised should it continue to work? WhatsApp specifica
Re: (Score:2)
Let me explain this slowly then as you seem not to understand security principles. Android has been designed by Google to run in a certain way. That includes every single permission. Changing how permissions work changes the security. It compromises security especially since Android has precise permissions.
Rooting doesn't necessarily change any permissions, in terms of file permissions or the user/privileges apps normally run under. The main difference is that it becomes possible for user-launched apps to run with root permissions, rather than only internal OS processes that the user can't control having this capability. Other than that, permissions don't need to change and generally don't. I'm all too aware of Android's fine-grained permissions and how badly things can break if they're tampered with. If the
Re: (Score:2)
Rooting doesn't necessarily change any permissions, in terms of file permissions or the user/privileges apps normally run under.
Sweet Jesus. WHAT KIND OF IDIOCY IS THIS? Rooting changes what the user can do. That requires changing permissions. How do you not understand permissions?
The main difference is that it becomes possible for user-launched apps to run with root permissions,
Holy Buddha. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT CHANGING PERMISSIONS? User-launched apps should not run with root permissions in Linux. User-launched apps run in userspace with user permissions only. Do you understand Linux at all?
Other than that, permissions don't need to change and generally don't. I'm all too aware of Android's fine-grained permissions and how badly things can break if they're tampered with.
Praise be Vishnu. And yet you said changing them (LIKE WHEN ROOTING THE OS) does not change the permissions. You claim to know what you
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think there's a difference between "elevated privileges" and root access. Get ready to have your mind blown.
In a Linux environment, run something with "elevated privileges" like a package manager or partition editor, or maybe even a text editor. Things an ordinary user might do to install updates, format a new storage device, or change system settings. You can use sudo or pkexec/gksudo to do this manually, or find something that requests privilege escalation on launch through the GUI, such as gp
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think there's a difference between "elevated privileges" and root access. Get ready to have your mind blown.
OH MY FUCKING GOD. How do you know not the difference?
In a Linux environment, run something with "elevated privileges" like a package manager or partition editor, or maybe even a text editor. Things an ordinary user might do to install updates, format a new storage device, or change system settings. You can use sudo or pkexec/gksudo to do this manually, or find something that requests privilege escalation on launch through the GUI, such as gparted.
No that's not even remotely close. Please read up on Linux security as YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE.
Next use a process monitor/task manager to find your process and see what user it's running as. You could use "ps aux | grep gparted" if that's what you ran.
ORDINARY USERS ARE ALLOWED TO USE PS, YOU IDIOT!
WHAT DOES IT SAY?
IT SAYS YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE HOW LINUX WORKS, YOU IDIOT!
BEHOLD THE TERRIBLE TRUTH! THE "ELEVATED" APPS HAVE BEEN RUNNING AS ROOT THE ENTIRE TIME! And if it was a server-oriented OS it probably had SELinux too!
Why do you even comment when they are idiotic at best? YOU DO KNOW SELINUX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SERVER-ORIENTED OS?
How is this different from me using root access on Android to start a GNU/Linux chroot or modify files in system directories, or modify arbitary directories on the MicroSD, or anything else I may wish to do as the owner and authenticated user of a supposedly general-purpose computing device? Well apparently Google didn't intend for me to be able to do that, so it "breaks the security model" and makes it acceptable for apps to check for this capability and shut themselves down, even though if they didn't have such checks added, or if the OS were modified to render such checks ineffective, they would run without issue, and the only thing it succeeded at protecting against was the carefully "privilege-elevated" actions of the same user whose data it's supposedly trying to protect.
You still have no clue. And you never will. You are unwilling to learn. You are hopeless.
Why is it remotely acceptable for a chat app or even a banking app to close itself on launch if a user can "elevate privileges" on Android/Linux but not on GNU/Linux (or Windows)? Because Google says so? General-purpose computing cannot work if users are permanently stuck in a jailshell with no way to get the kind of root access you would've used in the prior exercise, so that isn't general-purpose computing. Google should quit with this security-model-based EULA-enabled frog-boiling bullshit and just admit that they're slowly turning Android into a walled-garden DRM'ed playpen, so that open-source developers who work on Android can recognize that as the fundamental threat to the OS' future development that it is. It looks a lot like a newer, more sophisticated form of tivoization that Google is pulling off here.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Every app
Re: (Score:2)
Rooted or not, there's no guarantee that the host device isn't compromised, thus your definition of E2EE can never always be satisfied
If you know the OS is unsecured, the messages are not secure. How hard is that for people to admit. A rooted Android system is an unsecured one.
E2EE is not about host and destination devices, it's about everything between devices. This is why it's still called E2EE even when third parties control the encryption keys. Which is dumb.
If the system knows the device has been compromised, what kind of system just ignores that? Not a very good one.
Re: (Score:2)
A rooted Android system is an unsecured one.
From Google's perspective, yes. Because Google lost control over it. For the person whom the "secure messages" are received, not so much. They are the device's owner and thus letting the device's owner control the OS has no impact on the security of said messages. (They were the intended recipient, if the intended recipient shouldn't be allowed to read the messages, then you shouldn't have sent them in the first place. Idiot.)
INB4 "WhAt AbOuT wHeN i LeAvE mAh PhOnE iN a PuBlIc ReStRoOm FoR tHrEe DaYs?!?!
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think general-purpose desktop computers suffer from the same issue?
Nope, they don't. They hear a big multinational screaming "see-kur-a-tea" from the rooftops and their brains shut off like the good little convenient sheep that they are.
Not that they'd have any knowledge to even try to make sense of it anyway. A good sheep doesn't learn about technology, they only use it. Then when it fails, they bitch, moan, and pay more rent money. Ya know, progress.
Re: (Score:2)
>Google is probably correct here,
Yet they complain about apple having the same concern.
Obviously, they should let rooted phones use RCS, but color the messages from such phones a disturbing shade of mauve.
hawk
TLA explainer (Score:4, Informative)
You mean rooting will stop the phone bothering me? (Score:4, Informative)
My new Android phone has a nasty habit of pressuring me to agree to an obnoxious Google "privacy policy" and enable RCS. I wish it would just stop. If I root my phone, will it stop bothering me? Sounds like a reason to root my phone.
Re:You mean rooting will stop the phone bothering (Score:5, Informative)
My new Android phone has a nasty habit of pressuring me to agree to an obnoxious Google "privacy policy" and enable RCS. I wish it would just stop. If I root my phone, will it stop bothering me? Sounds like a reason to root my phone.
If you're lucky enough to have a phone supported by LineageOS, there's no reason to root, and no reason to put up with Google's obnoxious BS. Just install Lineage WITHOUT all the Google nonsense. Become familiar with F-Droid and with sideloading APK's downloaded from trustworthy sources. Migrate from Gmail - you shouldn't be on that crap anyway - to Protonmail.
It's a tradeoff - installing an alternate OS isn't for the faint of heart and can occasionally result in bricking a device. And there's a loss of convenience that results from not letting Google own all your shit. I'm ornery and obstinate enough to accept those downsides. In return I get to extend the middle fingers of both hands to the obnoxious Big G. If I'm ever in the position of being unable to do that, I'll go back to a flip phone, and texting be damned.
If I held the button that eliminated Google from the face of the earth I wouldn't be writing this, I'd be busy pressing repeatedly to make sure the job got done. Fuck Google, not gently, with a running chainsaw, sideways. And fuck Sundar Pichai's transparently phony noblesse oblige.
Re: (Score:2)
I love LineageOS and F-Droid, I wish the open source movement were larger on Android. Most app developers seem to drool at the 0.00001% chance that their app goes viral so of course they want to enable ads, while in reality making basically nothing anyway.
However, the loss of convenience that you mention can be somewhat gradual. You can still use for example gmail and normal apps from google play store with LineageOS, which may be more or less "necessary" when you need to run an application from some clue
Re: (Score:2)
If you're lucky enough to have a phone supported by LineageOS, there's no reason to root, and no reason to put up with Google's obnoxious BS. Just install Lineage WITHOUT all the Google nonsense. Become familiar with F-Droid and with sideloading APK's downloaded from trustworthy sources. Migrate from Gmail - you shouldn't be on that crap anyway - to Protonmail.
How do people backup their phones without root?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're lucky enough to have a phone supported by LineageOS, there's no reason to root, and no reason to put up with Google's obnoxious BS. Just install Lineage WITHOUT all the Google nonsense. Become familiar with F-Droid and with sideloading APK's downloaded from trustworthy sources. Migrate from Gmail - you shouldn't be on that crap anyway - to Protonmail.
How do people backup their phones without root?
I'm not entirely clear on the extent of backup you're referring to; but for things like contacts, texts, and photos, I just plug the phone into my computer's USB port and copy files. In the case of texts I use an app called 'SMS Backup and Restore'. It's been a while, but IIRC it creates a file which it can then restore on any phone which has it installed.
To be fair, my usage is less demanding than that of many folks. I never let myself get sucked in to relying heavily on my phone for anything beyond texts,
Re: (Score:2)
I need like 4 apps on my phone. Can I install gmail, google voice, and google maps?
Its more and more of a world where you either belong to one if not multiple Microsoft, Google, Apple.
Even my work now is basically requiring people to install MS Auth on their personal phones or they are fired.
And nothing of value was lost (Score:2, Offtopic)
My wife has been so mad that Google started shoving RCS down her throat.
My phone's not rooted, but it uses a custom ROM with no Google apps.
RCS has no use cases that appeal to me.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems worse than just "blocking RCS" (Score:2, Troll)
At least if TFS is accurate: Google is also obfuscating what it's doing - pretending things are hunky-dory, not showing there's any problem with your messaging connectivity, but quietly sending the messages off into the ether.
Seems pretty actively evil, at least to me.
Re:This seems worse than just "blocking RCS" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all what happens. The sending of messages fails, and you're notified as such. It gives you the option of retrying with RCS (which will repeatedly fail), or switching the conversation to SMS/MMS and re-sending.
Sure, 8 hours later. Go ahead and ask me how I know and why I disable RCS.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is also obfuscating what it's doing - pretending things are hunky-dory, not showing there's any problem with your messaging connectivity, but quietly sending the messages off into the ether.
I don't understand. If someone has rooted their device what expectation of support do they expect from Google? If I've modified or replaced the engine in my Honda with a third party, I don't expect to demand Honda fix anything that went wrong afterwards. RCS messages are unreliable if someone has rooted their Android. And?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because they are spending money in programmer time to actively sabotage the functionality that technically has no dependency on whether you have root or not.
Citation needed. Google's exact answer is they are "ensuring that message-issuing/receiving devices are following the operating measures defined by the RCS standard”. The author then cried "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Do not support something is to ignore it. They are actively attacking it. So that's why people are reacting. If you're actively sabotaging then if the company would say we're at war with root and will do anything to frustrate users attempts to bring their devices behavior into compliance with their own needs.
Again citation needed. What actions are "actively sabotaging" and "actively attacking". Google like any software company made changes to their software which broke 3rd party unsupported versions. Since they were unsupported, Google is not going to fix it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that comes on the phone belongs to the owner of the device. The action of distribution is louder than declaration of intent. Actions are always more credible than words.
That is idiotic at best. If I buy a phone does not mean I own the patents in the phone. I do not own the copyrights of the software. I cannot take my phone to a manufacturer and have a million copies made. Dude, face it, you have no real arguments and are just grasping at straws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are only redeemable in court. Until then physical reality and physical measure reigns supreme. Patents only applied commercial operations not to real life outside the commercial compromise, in which a person is modifying something found in their environment for personal utility.
Dude, you are just spouting nonsense. You had no points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes a perfect example of the points you've been making. Illogical and have nothing to do with anything. Thank you for agreeing with me that you make no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Actively looking for root and discriminating based on it t To activate alternate instruction branches.
What? Rooting a device changes many things about it like permissions. Rooting a device also signals it is not the same version that Google supports. Why do you have such a persecution complex that Google not supporting a version they did not create is "discriminating".?
It's going to be broken anyway. It was overzealous for Google to ever claim they could control it.
It is Google's RCS protocol. They can do whatever they want. Why do you feel entitled to control their protocol?
All this does is waste money, and makes it even harder for users and owners of their devices to administer and control their own physical properties behaviors.
What does wasting money have anything to do with anything. You want Google RCS, use stock Android. It is that simple. If you root
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing anybody owns truly is not available to anyone else to interface with. Compromise that and it's gone wild.
Your incomplete thoughts betray your incomplete logical points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google should just ... (Score:2)
Right to Repair (Score:2)
Imagine thinking that you've allowed to repair your phone but not keep your data without using a surveillance company's cloud backup service.
With the demise of Titanium Backup, Swift Backup has done a good job of letting you get a secure and complete backup, but you must root to do it, due to Google's anticompetitive measures.
RCS was already an uphill battle and good luck with that if you're losing the Alpha Geeks.
I got my Signal username yesterday - good times.
Of course, otherwise how could they help the man? (Score:2)
People who root their devices may use RCS and ensure they use real E2Em instead of one app that probably is spoofable and tappable...
So No RCS for you! (think Soup-Nazi guy voice)
DOA (Score:4, Insightful)
That makes RCS dead on arrival. If there is no chance that everybody can use it, everybody is going to use something else.
You have it wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
From what I can tell, Google is actually just locking the "Google Messages" app to signed Android firmwares. This doesn't lock anyone out from communicating with RCS.
"Google Messages" specifically connects to the "Jibe Cloud" and almost certainly, someone will make an open source RCS client. Now, if Google is a dick and decides only "Google Messages" can use the "Jibe Cloud" then it's still not locking everyone out because you can register your own RCS Instant Messenger System (IMS) to communicate with "Jib
"Just run your own IMS and federate with Google" (Score:1)
From what I can tell, Google is actually just locking the "Google Messages" app to signed Android firmwares. This doesn't lock anyone out from communicating with RCS.
This article is literally about users on legit Android phones who unlock root losing access to RCS. If I want to make a full backup of my phone, why should I silently be locked out from messaging?
"Google Messages" specifically connects to the "Jibe Cloud" and almost certainly, someone will make an open source RCS client. Now, if Google is a dick and decides only "Google Messages" can use the "Jibe Cloud" then it's still not locking everyone out because you can register your own RCS Instant Messenger System (IMS) to communicate with "Jibe Cloud" via "Jibe Hub".
Every cell carrier in the US has signed up to use Google's Jibe servers for RCS instead of running their own. RCS isn't part of open source Android so Google Messages relies upon proprietary Google Play APIs for RCS. The only clients implementing and allowed to use Google proprietary extensions are Google Messages
Re: (Score:2)
This article is literally about users on legit Android phones who unlock root losing access to RCS.
Read closer because it specifies "Google Messages".
The only clients implementing and allowed to use Google proprietary extensions are Google Messages and Samsung's licensed version.
However, the core of RCS (text communication) is still supported which means those can be implemented using the specification. Sure, you won't get all the dumb extensions but not many people use then and the people that do aren't rooting their phones.
Don't need root (Score:3)
You should not be using root for RCS.
Did you do it that way with SCCS?
Really you ought to switch to CVS.
Or maybe git!
just use simplex (Score:1)
Google's RCS isn't very useful in the EU (Score:1)
Where we don't use SMS apart from when we want to be sure the message will be received. RCS doesn't ensure that.
Right now, RCS is just Google's latest attempt to gain some market share in the instant messaging business.
Even if it were to become fully supported by smartphones and mobile carriers, it would still require an Internet connection to receive the messages.
And the optional SMS fallback only works when the sender doesn't have an Internet connection.