I am a bit late to this conversation. But I find it interesting how folks throw out the word "open" without really knowing what that means. For anyone who has seen the word "open" used in this thread and thought "open source" or "open standard" akin to looking up an IETF RFC or an IEEE document that you can reference, good luck doing so with regard to RCS. Go ahead. I'll wait.
If you Google for "RCS standard" or just about anything along those lines, you will almost certainly land on the Wikipedia page for RCS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Read that through. Notice anything? Yep, Google is the driving force here. This page doesn't really do the history justice. So try reading this as well: https://linkmobility.com/evolution-or-revolution-rcs-history-current-state-and-market-outlook/
I take absolutely nothing at face value. But if you actually do your homework, you'll see that RCS is nowhere NEAR truly "open" in the context that I suspect most folks are thinking it. Originally started by the GSMA in 2008, it is very clear that it was Google who picked up the ball and ran with it. Why? Because Google needed something to counter everything from Apple's iMessages to every other OTT app like WhatsApp, WeChat, etc. And with their size/money, they were able to buy their way in and go from there.
But for all those who keep claiming RCS is "open", please do everyone a favor. Link to the specs for RCS please. Not the Wikipedia page, which simply states version numbers. If RCS is "open", we should be able to see the specifications for exactly how an RCS message is formed, sent, received, etc.
But for those who don't simply blindly accept what others say, read the 2 pages at the links above, especially the latter one. And pay careful attention. First, Google is clearly the driving force behind RCS. Whether that is good or bad is hard to tell, because once again... let's see the details first, shall we?
Second, let me quote a few lines from that second article. Any bolding is mine.
Keep in mind that RCS relies on the carriers, just as SMS/MMS does. That means support for RCS has to be "baked into" the carrier side of things. This is very different from the OTT apps like iMessages, WhatsApp, WeChat, and everything else which simply makes use of the Internet data connection. The various vendors, be it Apple, Facebook (WhatsApp), or whoever, can upgrade their backend servers and push out updates to their clients at any time, allowing for rapid advances. But RCS? So there is the sheer logistical challenge of getting the carriers to keep their infrastructure up to date with what looks like a rather long list of updates to the RCS standard. That is a non-trivial ask right there.
Now even more concerning is the FUD around RCS such as end-to-end encryption. There is nothing in the RCS standard that says it is e2e. The only thing I have found is what is written in that Wikipedia page, which states
Also, once again, harkening back to the sheer difference in architecture between OTT apps and RCS, end-to-end encryption will be damn near impossible to achieve, difficult to ensure, and spotty at best. Just again, read a bit and notice how it all falls down if all the pieces aren't exactly right in place. And since the carriers are required to do their part, that means true e2e can never be assured, as that opens the door for (un)lawful intercept of communications by such entities as governments. Some think "Rah rah USA!" while others think "China", "Iran", "Syria", etc. when they read that. YMMV.
And sure, as others have noted, Google wants to track user data. That's their business model. They are not a search company. They are not a software company. They are an ad company. And all of the rest is in service to that. Facebook is definitely no better. And sure sure, Apple is also in it to make money. The key differentiator in this case, though, is that Apple's business model is not built on ad revenue. But I am digressing.
Key point here is that with RCS, the door is open for getting in the middle, whether to intercept for law enforcement purposes, for authoritarian purposes, collecting data to generate targeted ads, or anything else. And all the variations in profiles, features, what has to be in place on both ends and in the middle for something (e.g., just one-to-one conversations to be encrypted, forget group chats), etc., means that the end user experience will very likely be quite suboptimal.
Do I believe it would be nice to have a true open standard (ideally open-source as well) so that everyone could communicate with each other whether they had an iPhone, Android, 2005 Traffone flipphone, or any other device? Absolutely. Do I think RCS is it? No, I don't.
I get why Google is pushing for it. I really do. SMS/MMS is very long in the tooth. And in their mind, something is better than nothing. And RCS would give them better image support, read receipts, etc. All things that are lacking in SMS.
But to those who argue that something is better than nothing, I would counter that this is not always true. Sometimes it's actually worse.
P.S. I have wondered many other things regarding RCS which I haven't covered here. But as just one thought from a tech perspective, I have to wonder how carriers/operators would charge for texting with RCS. That is, with SMS it was basically a "fire and forget" sorta deal. You typed a short text, you sent it. And you got billed either a flat rate/month or some variation of X sheckles per inbound text and/or outbound text. (Every operator did it differently.) Eons ago I had a plan that charged me $0.10/text whether inbound or outbound. So every time a coworker/friend texted me, it cost me money!
But with RCS, how exactly would that work, especially when they have things like typing notifications and read receipts? To me there are an awful lot of unanswered questions which, again, might be answered if the actual specifications/standard were truly open. But I can't say as I haven't found the docs anywhere that explain all this akin to how I can read something like RFC822 to understand SMTP, etc.
If you Google for "RCS standard" or just about anything along those lines, you will almost certainly land on the Wikipedia page for RCS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Read that through. Notice anything? Yep, Google is the driving force here. This page doesn't really do the history justice. So try reading this as well: https://linkmobility.com/evolution-or-revolution-rcs-history-current-state-and-market-outlook/
I take absolutely nothing at face value. But if you actually do your homework, you'll see that RCS is nowhere NEAR truly "open" in the context that I suspect most folks are thinking it. Originally started by the GSMA in 2008, it is very clear that it was Google who picked up the ball and ran with it. Why? Because Google needed something to counter everything from Apple's iMessages to every other OTT app like WhatsApp, WeChat, etc. And with their size/money, they were able to buy their way in and go from there.
But for all those who keep claiming RCS is "open", please do everyone a favor. Link to the specs for RCS please. Not the Wikipedia page, which simply states version numbers. If RCS is "open", we should be able to see the specifications for exactly how an RCS message is formed, sent, received, etc.
But for those who don't simply blindly accept what others say, read the 2 pages at the links above, especially the latter one. And pay careful attention. First, Google is clearly the driving force behind RCS. Whether that is good or bad is hard to tell, because once again... let's see the details first, shall we?
Second, let me quote a few lines from that second article. Any bolding is mine.
So there are multiple versions/variations on RCS including this RBM. More on that in a minute.
Does this sound like an open standard to you? Because to me this sounds like a Google standard. If in order for RCS to work an operator must have an agreement with Google, there is nothing open here.
Keep in mind that RCS relies on the carriers, just as SMS/MMS does. That means support for RCS has to be "baked into" the carrier side of things. This is very different from the OTT apps like iMessages, WhatsApp, WeChat, and everything else which simply makes use of the Internet data connection. The various vendors, be it Apple, Facebook (WhatsApp), or whoever, can upgrade their backend servers and push out updates to their clients at any time, allowing for rapid advances. But RCS? So there is the sheer logistical challenge of getting the carriers to keep their infrastructure up to date with what looks like a rather long list of updates to the RCS standard. That is a non-trivial ask right there.
Now even more concerning is the FUD around RCS such as end-to-end encryption. There is nothing in the RCS standard that says it is e2e. The only thing I have found is what is written in that Wikipedia page, which states
and
Again, that's not open. That's a Google thing.
Also, once again, harkening back to the sheer difference in architecture between OTT apps and RCS, end-to-end encryption will be damn near impossible to achieve, difficult to ensure, and spotty at best. Just again, read a bit and notice how it all falls down if all the pieces aren't exactly right in place. And since the carriers are required to do their part, that means true e2e can never be assured, as that opens the door for (un)lawful intercept of communications by such entities as governments. Some think "Rah rah USA!" while others think "China", "Iran", "Syria", etc. when they read that. YMMV.
And sure, as others have noted, Google wants to track user data. That's their business model. They are not a search company. They are not a software company. They are an ad company. And all of the rest is in service to that. Facebook is definitely no better. And sure sure, Apple is also in it to make money. The key differentiator in this case, though, is that Apple's business model is not built on ad revenue. But I am digressing.
Key point here is that with RCS, the door is open for getting in the middle, whether to intercept for law enforcement purposes, for authoritarian purposes, collecting data to generate targeted ads, or anything else. And all the variations in profiles, features, what has to be in place on both ends and in the middle for something (e.g., just one-to-one conversations to be encrypted, forget group chats), etc., means that the end user experience will very likely be quite suboptimal.
Do I believe it would be nice to have a true open standard (ideally open-source as well) so that everyone could communicate with each other whether they had an iPhone, Android, 2005 Traffone flipphone, or any other device? Absolutely. Do I think RCS is it? No, I don't.
I get why Google is pushing for it. I really do. SMS/MMS is very long in the tooth. And in their mind, something is better than nothing. And RCS would give them better image support, read receipts, etc. All things that are lacking in SMS.
But to those who argue that something is better than nothing, I would counter that this is not always true. Sometimes it's actually worse.
P.S. I have wondered many other things regarding RCS which I haven't covered here. But as just one thought from a tech perspective, I have to wonder how carriers/operators would charge for texting with RCS. That is, with SMS it was basically a "fire and forget" sorta deal. You typed a short text, you sent it. And you got billed either a flat rate/month or some variation of X sheckles per inbound text and/or outbound text. (Every operator did it differently.) Eons ago I had a plan that charged me $0.10/text whether inbound or outbound. So every time a coworker/friend texted me, it cost me money!
But with RCS, how exactly would that work, especially when they have things like typing notifications and read receipts? To me there are an awful lot of unanswered questions which, again, might be answered if the actual specifications/standard were truly open. But I can't say as I haven't found the docs anywhere that explain all this akin to how I can read something like RFC822 to understand SMTP, etc.
Last edited:
