Google Says Over 1 Billion RCS Messages Sent in the US Daily (techcrunch.com) 55
An anonymous reader shares a report: During the Android Show leading up to Google I/O, Google on Tuesday offered a brief update on the adoption of the RCS (Rich Communication Services) protocol, an upgrade to SMS that offers high-resolution photos and videos, typing indicators, read receipts, improved group chat, and more. The company shared that the messaging standard now supports over a billion messages per day in the U.S.
This metric is based on an average of the last 28 days, Google noted. The stat is notable because Google fought for years to get Apple to adopt support for RCS on iOS, allowing for better communication between Android and Apple devices. Previously, iPhone users who received texts from friends on Android had to deal with blurry videos and images, and couldn't as easily manage group chats when their green-bubbled friends joined. Unlike with iMessage, group chats with Android users couldn't be renamed, nor could people be added or removed, and you couldn't exit when you wanted. Emoji reactions also didn't work properly, leading to annoying texts to let you know how an Android user reacted, instead of just displaying their emoji reaction directly.
This metric is based on an average of the last 28 days, Google noted. The stat is notable because Google fought for years to get Apple to adopt support for RCS on iOS, allowing for better communication between Android and Apple devices. Previously, iPhone users who received texts from friends on Android had to deal with blurry videos and images, and couldn't as easily manage group chats when their green-bubbled friends joined. Unlike with iMessage, group chats with Android users couldn't be renamed, nor could people be added or removed, and you couldn't exit when you wanted. Emoji reactions also didn't work properly, leading to annoying texts to let you know how an Android user reacted, instead of just displaying their emoji reaction directly.
Google Tracking It All (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's because Google forces all Android phones to send their RCS messages through Google's own servers. This allows them to know who you're messaging and when, which is valuable data they can further use for advertising and more, especially paired with things like your location and more.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In some of our group chats...they don't seem to be able to use these "new features" that I've long used on my iPhone.....so, curious if they need to change their settings?
Re: (Score:2)
Could be down to their carriers or their phone brand. RCS is a protocol but Google uses their own modified version of it. Normally, messages would go through their carrier RCS server but Android forces messages to instead use Google's servers.
Your friends may have to check to see what RCS-related features they have enabled. There are options around if they do or don't use such with group messages.
Re:Google Tracking It All (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC its you as an Apple user that would have to enable RCS (Apple didn't support this at all until recently). If you don't enable RCS then communications to/from Android users would still be over regular SMS.
Re:Google Tracking It All (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Google Tracking It All (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The RCS standard did not include E2EE.
GSMA standardised adopted Google's E2EE protocol as a standard a few months back. However: in a lot of countries, including mine, telecommunications carriers have interception obligations that prohibit them from implementing any encryption which they cannot remove in order to provide clear text to authorities. As Google is not (for probably political reasons) classed as a telecommunications carrier, they can get away with it.
I am not an encryption expert by any means but my reading of the standard suggests
Re: (Score:2)
The RCS standard did not include E2EE. Google added their own proprietary encryption extension for RCS messages sent through their apps and servers, which most Android phones use. Encryption didn't work if both users were not using Google apps or for group chats.
GSMA adopted E2EE in the 3.0 specification [gsma.com] in March 2025. Implementation remains to be seen.
Google did not run a Signal gateway or interoperate with Signal in any way.
Google's encryption is based on the Signal protocol. I did not say it operates with Signal./p.
Re: (Score:2)
So they decrypt your message and reencrypt to send out by signal protocol?
That would defeat the End to End part of E2EE. The players have to figure out these two encryption systems should work together.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, lets think about this.
For starters, you are converting protocols from what I understand. RCS goes in, and Signal protocol goes out if it passes thru the Google server. So that implies decryption and re-encryption.
I only know how WireGuard works, and a bit about Signal protocol.. but..
So with wireguard... as far as I know, and I can dig deeper, point to point means your device to the server. So the encrypted packets go from your device to the server and are decrypted in RAM. If you a
Re: (Score:2)
RCS goes in, and Signal protocol goes out if it passes thru the Google server.
Citation needed. Passing "through" the Google server is not decryption any more than when encrypted messages are passed through the Internet via packets. The possible security exploit you are describing is "interception". The whole point of encryption is that even if the message is intercepted, it is hard if not impossible to decipher.
So with wireguard... as far as I know, and I can dig deeper, point to point means your device to the server. . .
What are you talking about? That is not remotely close to how encryption works.
If you are routing the message to another encrypted node on the network, Wireguard now encrypts it and sends it to that device. So it's encrypted 2x, once up to server, then again from server to the destination. I don't think the encrypted packets passthru. The data in RAM is unencrypted and could be inspected.
No. Let's start with a simple example. You establish a secure connection to Amazon.com to do so
Re: (Score:2)
>>Citation needed. Passing "through" the Google server is not decryption any more than when encrypted messages are passed through the Internet via packets. The possible security exploit you are describing is "interception". The whole point of encryption is that even if the message is intercepted, it is hard if not impossible to decipher.
poster above said this, and I didn't dig further on it because it made sense to me,
Re: (Score:2)
I just reread the whole thread.. it was you! I believe it is you who should be providing references.
You said " Signal protocol goes out if it passes thru the Google server." That is not how the Signal protocol [wikipedia.org] works. Not remotely close
This is false, you are correct that the encryption is not compromised, but the way the routing works potentially allows access to the data in cleartext:
You should read up on how End to End Encryption [wikipedia.org] works. Sending anything in the clear is not End to End Encryption.
This is true, but the endpoint of your communication is an apple or google server, not the other device:
Again not remotely true. For RCS and iMessage, the endpoints are the users. Not Apple. Not Google. Not your ISP. It is not End to Server Encryption. It is End to End Encryption.
You probably understand this, but whoever holds the private keys can have access to the information, that is Apple and Google.
Again. Not. Remotely. True. Apple and Google do not hold the private keys. The users d
Re: (Score:2)
Do have any actual networking experience?
Re: (Score:2)
but YOU were the one who suggested that google uses signal protocol in their version of RCS, then you asked ME to provide references... I find that as irritating as my ex wife... you hit a hot button there...
So I really meant to question your reading comprehension, which really would be an even lower blow, so
lets call this one done and I apologize for any snarky tones.
Also, a knee jerk reaction to anything out of
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for mis interpreting everything I said.
How should I have misinterpeted: "Signal protocol goes out if it passes thru the Google server."? Signal protocol does not go "out" if it passes through the Google server. You simply do not know how the Signal protocol works.
Do have any actual networking experience?
Yes. And how is that remotely relevant that you do not know how Signal works?
Re: (Score:2)
but YOU were the one who suggested that google uses signal protocol in their version of RCS, then you asked ME to provide references... I find that as irritating as my ex wife... you hit a hot button there...
Again. You literally wrote: "Signal protocol goes out if it passes thru the Google server." 1) Google DOES use the Signal protocol in RCS and 2) That's not how Signal works and I provided references; however, YOU still have not provided any references as to anything you wrote.
So I really meant to question your reading comprehension, which really would be an even lower blow, so lets call this one done and I apologize for any snarky tones.
Now you are trying to gaslight somehow because YOU didn't know how E2EE or Signal works. You probably still don't.
Also, a knee jerk reaction to anything out of ChatGPT isn't required. You should vet the output yourself, rather than just saying it's as wrong as your neighbor.
My interpretation is that you had ZERO clue on how E2EE works or how Signal works. But instead of actually researching th
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry if this has gone off the rails I don't enter into discussion to malign people or insult them, so I apologize, I don't know how this ended up in the ditch but it appears you seem to not understand what you have written.
You seem like a reasonable person and I wish you no malice, but this discussion is over.
Let's move on, I do apologize. Let's just shake hands and move on to the next discussion another day.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ. YOU SAID THAT. I took your word for it, and ran with it.
No I did not. I said "The players have to figure out these two encryption systems should work together." The iMessage protocol is DIFFERENT than Signal protocol. Apple and Google will need to figure out how to pass messages between different E2EE systems. At no point did I say the process would involving decrypting and then re-encrypting a message as I specifically said that would defeat the entire purpose of E2EE.
Considering that RCS 3.0 was released in March 2025, probably neither Apple nor Google have an
Re: (Score:1)
If you don't enable RCS then communications to/from Android users would still be over regular SMS. ... or "what ever".
Not would be via Telegram, Signal
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And they probably need to use Google Messages and not whatever Samsung (or whatever) sets by default. The Apple user also has to have iOS 18 and a carrier that supports RCS for iPhones, this is definitely not all of them, although the big three now support RCS on iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, Google only "forces" RCS through Google's servers when the service provider has decided to not provide their own servers. Google only made their own servers because service providers were not providing them, and now some of them are still not providing them. (And I think a few have contracted with Google to use Google's servers.)
I think that iPhones will only use RCS if service providers have designated RCS servers.
If you have evidence that Google "forces all Android phones to send their
Re: (Score:2)
If you use the default text messaging app on Android, Google forces use of their RCS servers through the Jibe hub.Additionally, Google doesn't openly make people aware of which servers are being used. The only way the carrier server is used is if the Universal Profile is configured and the carriers own messaging app is utilized. If the user installs Google Messages with RCS support via Jibe, messages go through Google’s servers.
https://developers.google.com/... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The page you linked is "RCS Business Messaging" and is a marketing front page with zero technical details and no mentions of "server" or Jibe. Maybe try providing a link that actually says what you are claiming?
The Wikipedia RCS page says "Google Jibe provides RCS service directly if carrier does not" which seems to directly contradict your whiney conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, Wikipedia is a very legit source for technical information about messaging platform implementation. If you're so concerned about it, look into it. What I've shared is fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't force use of their RCS servers, but they do default to it. That's partly, as you say, because carriers were hit and miss about providing RCS themselves, but also because Google doesn't actually implement RCS, they implement their own proprietary extended version of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Proprietary extended version" is exactly how every open protocol in the world has ever worked. You implement the base protocol so that you can interoperate with everyone, then add your optional extensions with the hope that the extension will be a part of the protocol in the future. And "proprietary" is doing a LOT of work here given that Google's E2EE has been open from the beginning, and is now well documented and will likely be in a future version of the protocol.
Also, do you have a source for "defaul
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how every open protocol has ever worked. Do you work for Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
This allows them to know who you're messaging and when
That's a great conspiracy but the reality is they never needed RCS for this. You already run their OS, they have completely administrative control, no RCS needed.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason google wants RCS is it makes it feature parity between iphone and android and thus less of a reason for some people to stick with iphone (ie: if everything is "even" meaning cross device communication, then the ecosystem you choose is based on preference rather than a lack of feature) which actually provides a larger device footprint (which DOES benefit google and by extension android phone manufacturers).
Because RCS is an OPEN STANDARD
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, that's all well and good in theory. But Google doesn't utilize the standard open source RCS. They have their own implementation which allows for capture of additional data and utilizes non-standard features only available through Google's specific implementation.
And no, they do not use carrier or other servers in most cases. If you use Google Messages, which has more than 5 billion downloads and have RCS enabled (which Google said this year is enabled by more than 1 billion users) then it will only use
Re: (Score:2)
I can confirm that this is not true.
Open the Messages app, tap on your profile picture, settings, RCS chats, and then at the top it will say whose RCS server you are using. On my phone it is my cellular carrier's server, not Google's.
Furthermore, since I never gave Google permission to use RCS data for anything other than delivering the messages, it would be illegal to use it for advertising. They have already been fined for GDPR violations so if they are doing it, I look forward to the next round of contri
This "standard" is 0% open (Score:5, Interesting)
The RCS "standard" has no reference implementation and no support in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), whose components are the basis for myriads of third-party forks like the Fossify suite [github.com] as well as the stock apps for pretty much all Android forks. As far as I know, only a few RCS clients have ever been created, and none of them are open-sourced: Google's, Apple's (which is new), Samsung's ("partially discontinued" and no longer on Google Play as of January [androidauthority.com]), +Message (only works in Japan), and a handful that only work in China and on HarmonyOS or HyperOS.
With that in mind, it appears Google now has a view of pretty much every RCS in the world, especially outside of China and Japan. While they may not have your content, they have your relationship graph, which is very powerful metadata, especially when they combine it with everything else they know about you.
(I wonder if Samsung would be willing to open-source their Samsung Messages app...)
Re: (Score:2)
The standard seems 100% open, including the E2EE piece. There is no open source implementation, but that is a completely different thing.
Note that I have never tried to access the RCS standard to prove its openness, because I really don't care. But I've seen multiple statements that the RCS standard is open, so I suspect you're just abusing the term "open standard" to mean "open implementation" to bash Google (or RCS, or E2EE, or just to whine, I have no idea).
Also: I am not happy that there are no open
Re:This "standard" is 0% open (Score:4, Interesting)
The post then goes down the rabbit hole with tons of examples. The top-rated response to that does note that the documentation goes deeper than the author thought, so while it might be technically possible to create an open implementation with minimal reverse-engineering, it's extraordinarily difficult to do, especially without corporate backing, because it's unnecessarily complex and most OSS developers are waiting for AOSP to have a usable skeleton of a client (the RCS Test App doesn't appear to deliver this).
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's fine to define "open standard" as "MUST HAVE no license, no patent issues, complete and perfect documentation, and a perfect open implementation". And hey, all of those are good and are preferred. But saying "ha ha not open because it doesn't meet my definition of open" seems disingenuous. (And let's not even start with the arguments about "is this open implementation REALLY open by my definition of open"; I've seen enough of those BSD-vs-GPL arguments for a lifetime.)
So, saying "This standa
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I have never tried to access the RCS standard to prove its openness, because I really don't care.
They're a pain in the arse to find on the GSMA site, but they are indeed there to download for free. This is the E2EE spec, which they adopted from Google: https://www.gsma.com/solutions... [gsma.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, its open.. but like Ethernet, USB, Bluetooth and a number of open specs, to actually be compatible and validate the intercommunication isn't for the weak
Which "RCS" do they mean? (Score:2)
Google Voice anyone? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Voice sends and delivers from the cloud. But Google is also pushing E2EE for RCS. I don't think this will go anywhere until they extend E2EE to support multiple devices for one recipient the way that iMessage does.
Only one billion? (Score:2)
WhatsApp was sending 100 billion daily messages back in 2020, although thatâ(TM)s globally.
https://x.com/wcathcart/status... [x.com]
Presumably Google only mentioned daily RCS messages in the US because everybody else is using WhatsApp.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that or other apps.
I only use SMS messages instead of a proprietary app when I want to be sure the message will get sent and received, even without Internet connection on my side or the receiver's side.
RCS fails at that, and is thus useless to me.
When mobile operators will make RCS work when connected to 3G, 4G or 5G even without enabling/having mobile data, then it'll truly be useful and have a chance outside of the US.
RCS Failure (Score:2)
RCS has also been a huge failure, at least within my family. Routinely, the messages outright fail to send. And without looking closely in the messaging app, its hard to tell they didn't send. And even more-so, they've made it more difficult to find the right place to tap on the impossibly small icon to swap back to SMS/MMS just to get a message to someone else.
And... (Score:2)
And Google reads every one of them (Score:2)
Don't you love it that Google peeks into every one of these 1 billion messages every day?
Actually only 1 million (Score:2)
Alas, it's not commonly used. (Score:2)
Unfortunately for Google, iMessage is so entrenched nobody wants to really switch to RCS, even with the GSMA working on an open end-to-end encryption standard. Most everyone in the USA are either on Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp as their primary messaging platforms.