Google Again Criticizes Apple for Not Adopting RCS for Messages App: 'Their Texting is Stuck in the 1990s'

[Unregistered 4U]

According to Mr Cook, Apple customers are not asking for RCS. Me included. I can’t tell that I’m missing much.

On a mixed group chat this morning, someone posted a very legible image (related to a holiday sentiment) and everyone’s responses were “Loved an Image”. And, I think to myself… how happy I am that reading that message doesn’t lead me to believe that I’m, in some way, missing something in the communication because it wasn’t represented by a heart icon.

Now, to be fair, it was not a 100MB image, but still quite clear, I didn’t see an activity indicator letting me know they were pasting the image (and even if there were, I wasn’t looking at the phone at the time so it wouldn’t have mattered) and they absolutely didn’t get a read receipt when I read it. Oh, and it wasn’t encrypted. But, still, our group with mixed devices “got” the message. SMS/MMS is truly a right sized technology and fits it’s purpose perfectly.

 

[dk001]

On a mixed group chat this morning, someone posted a very legible image (related to a holiday sentiment) and everyone’s responses were “Loved an Image”. And, I think to myself… how happy I am that reading that message doesn’t lead me to believe that I’m, in some way, missing something in the communication because it wasn’t represented by a heart icon.

Now, to be fair, it was not a 100MB image, but still quite clear, I didn’t see an activity indicator letting me know they were pasting the image (and even if there were, I wasn’t looking at the phone at the time so it wouldn’t have mattered) and they absolutely didn’t get a read receipt when I read it. Oh, and it wasn’t encrypted. But, still, our group with mixed devices “got” the message. SMS/MMS is truly a right sized technology and fits it’s purpose perfectly.

Disagree because all too often I’ll (or someone else) get a video or shot from a peer and we end up having to email it in order for all parties get get the needed resolution.

Not saying RCS would fix this rather that SMS/MMS has definite limitations especially in this day with better and better phone cameras.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Disagree because all too often I’ll (or someone else) get a video or shot from a peer and we end up having to email it in order for all parties get get the needed resolution.

Not saying RCS would fix this rather that SMS/MMS has definite limitations especially in this day with better and better phone cameras.

Video, sure. Image, can’t say that I’ve ever gotten an image where it wasn’t clear what it was an image of.

 

[dk001]

Video, sure. Image, can’t say that I’ve ever gotten an image where it wasn’t clear what it was an image of.

I’m not talking about a basic photo, rather a photo of higher def.
You can see what it is, you just cannot see the detail.

Can do it iMessage to iMessage. RCS to RCS. Email to Email.
But not if MMS is involved.

 

[transphasic]

iMessage will be left behind. The world is embracing RCS. iMessage will become another FireWire

Firewire, lightning port...

Apple just keeps repeating the same mistake; manufacture a standard no one else uses/will use, force its user base to buy devices to justify its existence in the Apple-built ecosystem, then quietly drop that port/standard once the rest of the industry has moved on - while costing its user base millions to switch to the modern standard.

 

[quarkysg]

Firewire, lightning port...

Apple just keeps repeating the same mistake; manufacture a standard no one else uses/will use, force its user base to buy devices to justify its existence in the Apple-built ecosystem, then quietly drop that port/standard once the rest of the industry has moved on - while costing its user base millions to switch to the modern standard.

Actually you are selling Apple short IMHO.

Without the Lightning port, you likely will not have USB C as a connector.

Apple needed a solution then that nobody provides. What do you expect Apple to do at that time? This is true for both Firewire and Lightning.

 

[HDFan]

Apple just keeps repeating the same mistake; manufacture a standard no one else uses/will use, force its user base to buy devices to justify its existence in the Apple-built ecosystem, then quietly drop that port/standard once the rest of the industry has moved on

It's the other way around, at least for thunderbolt.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Nothing wrong with thinking that should happen. In reality, no one outside the US is interested because those carrier’s customers are using OTT apps for rich format messaging which can be used by both iPhones and Android phones.

aka. LINE, WeChat and WhatsApp. And Facebook Messenger here in North America.

 

[bobcomer]

Without the Lightning port, you likely will not have USB C as a connector.

That's an EXTREME stretch.

Other phone manufacturers had to solve the same problem that Apple did with Lightening, and they'd have come up with USB-c or something like it -- no doubt! Data transfer and charging speed needs demands it.

 

[bobcomer]

It's the other way around, at least for thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt was a collaboration effort between Intel and Apple to begin with...

 

[I7guy]

Firewire, lightning port...

Apple just keeps repeating the same mistake; manufacture a standard no one else uses/will use, force its user base to buy devices to justify its existence in the Apple-built ecosystem, then quietly drop that port/standard once the rest of the industry has moved on - while costing its user base millions to switch to the modern standard.

In the meantime, since 2012 apple has had one standard for its iPhone, costing its user base virtually nothing over 10 years.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m not talking about a basic photo, rather a photo of higher def.
You can see what it is, you just cannot see the detail.

Can do it iMessage to iMessage. RCS to RCS. Email to Email.
But not if MMS is involved.

Ah, I can see how if one person sends a second person a picture of their grandpa with their 7 grandkids surrounding them, that not being able to see the texture of the fabrics, stitching and pores on their skin would make it very hard for that second person to even understand what the picture was about.

 

[OneBar]

? TMo and AT&T have implemented it. Verizon supports is for specific devices.
That is the 3 main US carriers.

All three are using the Google Messages version.

You do know that Google doesn't own RCS, right? RCS or Universal Profile is intended as a...wait for it... UNIVERSAL PROTOCOL. What Google has is not UP, it's essentially a shell on UP like people make shells for Android. We don't want Google's version of UP, we want UP. We don't Google having access to our information any more than they already do and we certainly don't want our conversations being sent through their "encrypted" servers.

 

[OneBar]

Because pretty much every carrier that was going to implement UP was doing their own version. By using Google’s they had a “standard” version to use. Win - Win for Google and the Carrier.

That's incorrect. The UP consortium, or whatever they called it, were going to implement the vanilla UP that existed in 2019. They were just waiting for it to be stable. Then Google came along and said, hey we have our own version that's stable *whispers* but it's on our servers alone and you can only run it on Android and we have total access to everything */whispers* BUT HEY, HERE'S A FAD WAD OF CASH, USE OUR STUFF HEY??? Meanwhile they get all your information to build your server profile ever larger and push more ads at you.

 

[dk001]

Ah, I can see how if one person sends a second person a picture of their grandpa with their 7 grandkids surrounding them, that not being able to see the texture of the fabrics, stitching and pores on their skin would make it very hard for that second person to even understand what the picture was about.

Hadn't thought of that use case but ....

 

[dk001]

You do know that Google doesn't own RCS, right? RCS or Universal Profile is intended as a...wait for it... UNIVERSAL PROTOCOL. What Google has is not UP, it's essentially a shell on UP like people make shells for Android. We don't want Google's version of UP, we want UP. We don't Google having access to our information any more than they already do and we certainly don't want our conversations being sent through their "encrypted" servers.

How would that work? To make UP user accessible it has to work through a front end.
Carriers were developing their own resulting in potentially many variations. They elected to "standardize" and use Google Message.

 

[OneBar]

How would that work? To make UP user accessible it has to work through a front end.
Carriers were developing their own resulting in potentially many variations. They elected to "standardize" and use Google Message.

Exactly the same way that SMS/MMS works. Google doesn't own them. AT&T doesn't own them. Apple doesn't own them. They are their own entity and carriers implement them so that everyone can communicate. That's how a universal protocol works. Google's is not universal nor is it a protocol, per se. It's a modified protocol that they only allow certain devices to make use of.

 

[dk001]

Exactly the same way that SMS/MMS works. Google doesn't own them. AT&T doesn't own them. Apple doesn't own them. They are their own entity and carriers implement them so that everyone can communicate. That's how a universal protocol works. Google's is not universal nor is it a protocol, per se. It's a modified protocol that they only allow certain devices to make use of.

Color me a bit confused then. Here is what I understand.

1. RCS is not a Google platform (UP) however Google has built support into Android Messages for RCS, SMS, and MMS.

2. Many carriers including the three main US carriers have adopted UP and use Android Messages as the default messaging app on Android devices. The limitation on what devices can be used is carrier based, not Google based.

3. Google is partnering with carriers and OEMs to offer a native messaging client, Messages, for RCS, SMS and MMS messaging. Messages supports the GSMA's Universal Profile for interoperability across operator networks and devices. It was presented to the carries but they were slow to adopt it a carrier service. However, in June 2019, Google took the reins back. This has seen RCS messaging supported on Android devices and using Google's servers rather than the mobile phone network's servers. Google has said, however, that if a network supports RCS, its own servers can be used for the transfer of messages.

4. Google wants iMessage RCS support as RCS for iPhones would allow several new features when an iPhone user texts an Android user, including higher-resolution photos, the ability to send texts over Wi-Fi, and the ability to display read receipts.

 

[I7guy]

Color me a bit confused then. Here is what I understand.

1. RCS is not a Google platform (UP) however Google has built support into Android Messages for RCS, SMS, and MMS.

2. Many carriers including the three main US carriers have adopted UP and use Android Messages as the default messaging app on Android devices. The limitation on what devices can be used is carrier based, not Google based.

3. Google is partnering with carriers and OEMs to offer a native messaging client, Messages, for RCS, SMS and MMS messaging. Messages supports the GSMA's Universal Profile for interoperability across operator networks and devices. It was presented to the carries but they were slow to adopt it a carrier service. However, in June 2019, Google took the reins back. This has seen RCS messaging supported on Android devices and using Google's servers rather than the mobile phone network's servers. Google has said, however, that if a network supports RCS, its own servers can be used for the transfer of messages.

4. Google wants iMessage RCS support as RCS for iPhones would allow several new features when an iPhone user texts an Android user, including higher-resolution photos, the ability to send texts over Wi-Fi, and the ability to display read receipts.

5. Google wants to build in a compatible layer such that mms/sms is a fallback.

 

[OneBar]

Color me a bit confused then. Here is what I understand.

1. RCS is not a Google platform (UP) however Google has built support into Android Messages for RCS, SMS, and MMS.

2. Many carriers including the three main US carriers have adopted UP and use Android Messages as the default messaging app on Android devices. The limitation on what devices can be used is carrier based, not Google based.

3. Google is partnering with carriers and OEMs to offer a native messaging client, Messages, for RCS, SMS and MMS messaging. Messages supports the GSMA's Universal Profile for interoperability across operator networks and devices. It was presented to the carries but they were slow to adopt it a carrier service. However, in June 2019, Google took the reins back. This has seen RCS messaging supported on Android devices and using Google's servers rather than the mobile phone network's servers. Google has said, however, that if a network supports RCS, its own servers can be used for the transfer of messages.

4. Google wants iMessage RCS support as RCS for iPhones would allow several new features when an iPhone user texts an Android user, including higher-resolution photos, the ability to send texts over Wi-Fi, and the ability to display read receipts.

1. RCS/UP is not a Google platform. Correct. Google has built onto an iteration of RCS/UP (I don't know if they're using the current spec of RCS/UP or not) and make their own version of it.

2. No. Many carriers have adopted Google's shell of RCS/UP, which only works with Google Messages. I don't actually know who is limiting what phones use it, I just know the list doesn't include Apple because Apple doesn't want Google's fingers in their code.

3. As far as I know Messages does not support vanilla UP. If it supported vanilla UP, then Apple could implement vanilla UP alongside SMS/MMS and we'd not be having this discussion. Vanilla UP was what the carrier consortium was working towards implementing before Google side-swiped the whole thing. "Can be used for the transfer of messages" at the carrier's cost, when Google claims they can do it themselves, to which the carrier says, nah, we don't want to mess with that. Now Google has all your text messages.

4. The literal only thing Google cares about getting GMess on iOS for is ad profiling you, as you will be the product if you're not paying for the messaging app. That means random ad messages or popups while you're trying to have a conversation. People are complaining about ads in the app store and Apple is responding to those, don't think they want to open a can of worms that would be ads in i/GMess.

 

[dk001]

1. RCS/UP is not a Google platform. Correct. Google has built onto an iteration of RCS/UP (I don't know if they're using the current spec of RCS/UP or not) and make their own version of it.

2. No. Many carriers have adopted Google's shell of RCS/UP, which only works with Google Messages. I don't actually know who is limiting what phones use it, I just know the list doesn't include Apple because Apple doesn't want Google's fingers in their code.

3. As far as I know Messages does not support vanilla UP. If it supported vanilla UP, then Apple could implement vanilla UP alongside SMS/MMS and we'd not be having this discussion. Vanilla UP was what the carrier consortium was working towards implementing before Google side-swiped the whole thing. "Can be used for the transfer of messages" at the carrier's cost, when Google claims they can do it themselves, to which the carrier says, nah, we don't want to mess with that. Now Google has all your text messages.

4. The literal only thing Google cares about getting GMess on iOS for is ad profiling you, as you will be the product if you're not paying for the messaging app. That means random ad messages or popups while you're trying to have a conversation. People are complaining about ads in the app store and Apple is responding to those, don't think they want to open a can of worms that would be ads in i/GMess.

I'm still looking into this as there is some conflicting info out there. Thanks for the conversation.

The one aspect which came from Google and was a surprise, was in #3, "Google has said, however, that if a network supports RCS, its own servers can be used for the transfer of messages."

Not sure I agree with #4. They already have this info if the iDevice is using anything Google on it - that's most.

 

[quarkysg]

I'm still looking into this as there is some conflicting info out there. Thanks for the conversation.

The one aspect which came from Google and was a surprise, was in #3, "Google has said, however, that if a network supports RCS, its own servers can be used for the transfer of messages."

Not sure I agree with #4. They already have this info if the iDevice is using anything Google on it - that's most.

Actually, to be blunt, you have not understood the actual issue at hand IMHO.

Many, including myself, have been pointing out that RCS as it stands today is dead. No carriers have implemented RCS UP 1.0 as stated in the GSMA specification correctly, because it involves capital investment and on-going maintenance cost.

Carriers have not been able to monetise RCS like they do SMS/MMS, so there is no motivation at all for any carrier to implement RCS UP 1.0. Also consider that RCS is running on the IP network. Any data that gets sent between exchange carriers are now chargeable between the networks, and this adds to the cost. With up to 100MB per file that RCS proudly supports, it quickly adds up.

Google stepped up because they can then monetise the information (my guess is location information) it collects from users to improve their ad business.

Google does not have as much iOS users' info if they are only using Google Search for example. They can at most track you via cookies. If iOS users starts using Google RCS, Google now have a phone number that is attached to a user that Google know is iOS. And if it combines this with the cookies they collect and cross reference it with the IP addresses, they now have a more complete picture of the iOS user.

Finally, let's do a thought experiment:

We know that not ALL Android devices are "blessed" with the Google RCS capability, even when using the same carrier network. When a group of Android users sets up a group chat via RCS that includes a device that is not blessed, what happens when a text or multimedia contents get sent into the chat group? Does the "unblessed" device gets sent SMS/MMS or they do not get anything?

 

[quarkysg]

That's an EXTREME stretch.

Other phone manufacturers had to solve the same problem that Apple did with Lightening, and they'd have come up with USB-c or something like it -- no doubt! Data transfer and charging speed needs demands it.

Erm ... no. History have shown that all data connector standards prior to the Lightning connector are non-reversible and not user friendly. IMHO, and again from memory, no electronics manufacturer has the same objectives as Apple when it comes to consumer product user friendliness, not even Sony.

The USB C specs was finalised in 2014 and the Lightning port came out with the iPhone 5 in 2012. Apple sits in the USB IF board. Pretty sure Apple had tons of inputs and push to make USB C connector what it is today, as they needed it for their Macs.

You post history suggest you tend to bash Apple, and that's fine. But I think credit should be given where it's due.

 

[dk001]

Actually, to be blunt, you have not understood the actual issue at hand IMHO.

Many, including myself, have been pointing out that RCS as it stands today is dead. No carriers have implemented RCS UP 1.0 as stated in the GSMA specification correctly, because it involves capital investment and on-going maintenance cost.

Carriers have not been able to monetise RCS like they do SMS/MMS, so there is no motivation at all for any carrier to implement RCS UP 1.0. Also consider that RCS is running on the IP network. Any data that gets sent between exchange carriers are now chargeable between the networks, and this adds to the cost. With up to 100MB per file that RCS proudly supports, it quickly adds up.

Google stepped up because they can then monetise the information (my guess is location information) it collects from users to improve their ad business.

Google does not have as much iOS users' info if they are only using Google Search for example. They can at most track you via cookies. If iOS users starts using Google RCS, Google now have a phone number that is attached to a user that Google know is iOS. And if it combines this with the cookies they collect and cross reference it with the IP addresses, they now have a more complete picture of the iOS user.

Finally, let's do a thought experiment:

We know that not ALL Android devices are "blessed" with the Google RCS capability, even when using the same carrier network. When a group of Android users sets up a group chat via RCS that includes a device that is not blessed, what happens when a text or multimedia contents get sent into the chat group? Does the "unblessed" device gets sent SMS/MMS or they do not get anything?

I do not agree.
We need something to replace SMS/MMS and right now nothing is being looked at, developed, agreed to, or even considered except RCS.

As for chat, depends if they are iOS. iOS gets nada as Apple does not allow any handling of RCS.
As for older Android devices, I don't know. Have not run into it yet as the limitation appears to be carrier defined, not RCS or Google defined. Do I use RCS? Not a lot due to iOS here in the States and WhatsApp (and others) in the rest of the world.

IMO you are missing the point I made much earlier. It isn't that I am for or against RCS. I do see that currently RCS is the only protocol that is even being looked at as the next gen SMS/MMS. Now if something else came about from the techs getting together to develop it, I would take a hard look.
Right now RCS gives me on the Android side what iMessage does on the iOS side. Messaging is the wild west and it really should be fixed.

 

[jvolkman]

Many, including myself, have been pointing out that RCS as it stands today is dead. No carriers have implemented RCS UP 1.0 as stated in the GSMA specification correctly, because it involves capital investment and on-going maintenance cost.

AT&T has their own implementation, and it's recently integrated with Google's Jibe servers. Some AT&T rep posted a helpful update a couple of months back. Prior to their services integrating with Jibe, people with AT&T-branded phones (even Pixel 7s) couldn't communicate with others on other carriers, even if using Google Messages. But reports from customers say that's been fixed now.

Or do you have information that says otherwise?

Google stepped up because they can then monetise the information (my guess is location information) it collects from users to improve their ad business.

Bold claim given that they explicitly say they don't do this.

Finally, let's do a thought experiment:

We know that not ALL Android devices are "blessed" with the Google RCS capability, even when using the same carrier network. When a group of Android users sets up a group chat via RCS that includes a device that is not blessed, what happens when a text or multimedia contents get sent into the chat group? Does the "unblessed" device gets sent SMS/MMS or they do not get anything?

You can't add the "unblessed" user to the RCS group. If you try to do so, Google Messages will inform you that a new SMS/MMS group will be created instead.