Don't see any exposure, I could not give a toss if my phone number was sold online. Anyone could sit down and create a list of phone numbers anywayI’m very happy in the safe walled garden thx
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Again Criticizes Apple for Not Adopting RCS for Messages App: 'Their Texting is Stuck in the 1990s'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has zero incentive to adopt RCS as with iMessage it already features a far superior messaging service. Also, there are tons of messaging alternatives like Whatsapp, Telegram or Signal in case you'd (also) want to contact anyone on Android.
There’s a full thread, my guy. It’s a bit presumptuous of you to jump into a conversation then expect everyone to bring you up to speed.
How do Apple customers with non-cellular iPads, Macs, and Watches get RCS messages like they do with iMessage?
RCS message not, but WhatsApp works well on all these devices. As long as you have registered with a phone you can then install whatsapp on non cellular devices and link it to your phone account.
I’ll get @chucker23n1 up to speed. This from another response to the latest post by Google:
’First, Google cites security thanks to end-to-end encryption. However, it forgets to mention that users have to send messages via the Google Messages app for encryption. That, and encryption for group chats is only available to users of the Google Messages beta.
Second, Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.
Finally, Google calls RCS an industry standard. Which it isn't, not even close. Google hasn't even adopted RCS across all of its disparate messaging platforms.
The post also disparages Apple for using SMS as a fallback, despite RCS doing the same. RCS only works over an internet connection, so it will fall back to SMS just like iMessage does when internet strength isn't good enough.’
What is the official WhatsApp app for the Watch? I didn’t know that there was one.
Not to mention having to use a Facebook app, which is fine for many people but not to others, especially when iMessage already works.
The messages just arrive on my watch and I can answer. Same with Microsoft Teams. Looks like the phone takes care of it.
I was kind of on the fence about this - I mean, Apple could implement RCS as a step up from SMS, I guess - but then I read this article.
FTA:
Google's version of RCS—the one promoted on the website with Google-exclusive features like optional encryption—is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. Some messaging apps, like Beeper, have asked Google about integrating RCS and were told there's no public RCS API and no plans to build one. Google has an RCS API already, but only Samsung is allowed to use it because Samsung signed some kind of partnership deal.
If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google. Google bought Jibe, the leading RCS server provider, in 2015. Today it has a whole sales pitch about how Google Jibe can "help carriers quickly scale RCS services, iterate in short cycles, and benefit from improvements immediately." So the pitch for Apple to adopt RCS isn't just this public-good nonsense about making texts with Android users better; it's also about running Apple's messages through Google servers. Google profits in both server fees and data acquisition.
There is no way in Hell I would use a messaging service where the messages go through Google's servers.
(Yes, I understand that Apple has contracts with Google for data storage etc., but this is way more than that.)
FTA:
Google's proprietary fork of RCS
Being from 2008 means RCS lacks much of what you would want from a modern messaging standard. First of all, as a standard, RCS is carrier messaging, so messages are delivered to a single carrier phone number, rather than multiple devices via the Internet, like how you would expect a modern service to operate. As a standard, there's no encryption. Google tried to glom features onto the aging RCS spec, but if you consider those part of the RCS sales pitch, which Google does, now it's more like you selling "Google's proprietary fork of RCS." Google would really like it if Apple built its proprietary RCS fork into iMessage.Google's version of RCS—the one promoted on the website with Google-exclusive features like optional encryption—is definitely proprietary, by the way. If this is supposed to be a standard, there's no way for a third-party to use Google's RCS APIs right now. Some messaging apps, like Beeper, have asked Google about integrating RCS and were told there's no public RCS API and no plans to build one. Google has an RCS API already, but only Samsung is allowed to use it because Samsung signed some kind of partnership deal.
If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google. Google bought Jibe, the leading RCS server provider, in 2015. Today it has a whole sales pitch about how Google Jibe can "help carriers quickly scale RCS services, iterate in short cycles, and benefit from improvements immediately." So the pitch for Apple to adopt RCS isn't just this public-good nonsense about making texts with Android users better; it's also about running Apple's messages through Google servers. Google profits in both server fees and data acquisition.
There is no way in Hell I would use a messaging service where the messages go through Google's servers.
(Yes, I understand that Apple has contracts with Google for data storage etc., but this is way more than that.)
Tim needs to shut his lying pie hole and just implement it for the greater good. I’m tired of seeing his vendettas play out in public while he brazenly makes a mockery of antitrust laws. The App Store needs to be opened up so they can have a healthy, arms-length relationship with people, not exerting control over content because they’re the new morality police. Please. Steve’s “If you want porn, get an Android.” arrogance lives on… except in a cherry-picked fashion. I can go on Grindr and see nude butts all day but then if it’s on a straight app, it’s immoral. WTF?
At this point, he’s just acting like a goon with a legal army on so many issues, and it’s coming out in the products and services they offer. Android’s not going away, you have no excuse to stifle greater tech innovation for your own selfish gain, and Apple and you are among the least charitable out there. Why they either would have a good reputation, it’s really not deserved except possibly with the quality of their (slave-made) products. This is why I don’t want to see them in any way being the face of ethics. They’re communist trash.
I’m way ready to see different “talent” come along. Seriously, bye dude. You’re done. 🤌
At this point, he’s just acting like a goon with a legal army on so many issues, and it’s coming out in the products and services they offer. Android’s not going away, you have no excuse to stifle greater tech innovation for your own selfish gain, and Apple and you are among the least charitable out there. Why they either would have a good reputation, it’s really not deserved except possibly with the quality of their (slave-made) products. This is why I don’t want to see them in any way being the face of ethics. They’re communist trash.
I’m way ready to see different “talent” come along. Seriously, bye dude. You’re done. 🤌
Last edited:
Some of us probably even use fax. Your argument is not an argument - it's fanboy whitewashing.
"The standard is not old, I still use my f***ing morse key to contact my friends I see no issue"
No, it’d be for the greater good of me and hoards of everyday users too. SMS blows for privacy especially, and there’s a better way. The better way is NOT iMessages, a closed platform. Should they really be in the position of actively trying to inhibit Google? When their entire OS is OWED to the community of developers who believed in an exciting, open world of technology that was free? It grosses me out that people have come to double down on totally unnecessary (and very hypocritical!) proprietary restrictions like this.
Uh. Why? I already know all that (in fact, I mentioned it in that very post), and it isn't relevant to my question to @Chriss_m, which was: how is Apple choosing not to implement RCS an example of Apple "lagging behind competitors".
iMessage shipped (with E2EE) eleven years ago, and Google suddenly deciding (after trying and failing countless times with Talk and Hangouts and Meet and Allo and Duo and others to launch an iMessage competitor) that they're the "open standards" good guys now makes them the ones who are "lagging behind competitors". That was my point. Google is full of it. They don't actually care that RCS is an open standard (which is debatable anyway), and their particular implementation of it is proprietary anyway. They're only promoting RCS now because their own efforts have bombed.
The world doesn’t support rcs 10 carriers worldwide most in the USA 👀
Probably the only decent point I’ve seen here. But their surrender/change of heart doesn’t make them bad. It only means that they’ve come full circle to make the case for open standards to begin with!
We need open standards and rely upon them all day, every single day. We do not want to create these evil ecosystems that will get more restrictive over time. It will begin to manifest as rights violations the more ensconced technology becomes in our daily lives.
So the only way to get RCS encryption is with a closed Google app? There are no public APIs that can be used for RCS encryption that I know of, and Google has said that they have no plans to release one.
Progress has to happen somewhere. Look at USB-C. Today’s inconvenience is tomorrow’s open standards…
If Apple really has a superior product/software, then they should have NO problem allowing another option. But the fanboys here don’t support superiority; they support technological entitlement syndrome where it’s justifiable to snub the standard for something inferior or proprietary for no good reason.
Clearly you have not actually researched this