Google Urges Apple Not to 'Drop the Ball' on Fixing Messaging in New Billboard Pushing RCS

[sir1963nz]

Apple doesnt care about Privacy at all. Only profits.

As opposed to who ?
Google ? Google makes over 90% of its profits from advertising and that requires them to be able to "target" adverts, and they do that by tracking you, tracking your information, and selling that information.
Google has been found to illegally track children, do end runs around "do not track" choices, etc etc.
This is why you can not delete email from gmail, they get "archived", ie google gets to snoop over all your past activity too.
The only company that is worse than Google is Facebook

 

[Unregistered 4U]

However, if Android users in the US coalesced around a new solution the way consumers in Europe, Latin America and other parts of the world have already done, that would probably push a significant amount of iPhone users to download that app as well unless your entire network is on iPhones. That would potentially weaken how locked in consumers would be into Apple's ecosystem in the same way as in other markets. That would be a win for Google.

Well, we can look at the current state of Apple’s market in the EU, a region where iMessage currently has VERY low usage and the number of physical devices sold per month is FAR lower than Android. In that environment that’s about as negative as it can be for iOS messaging, Apple saw over 20% growth last year. That’s in a market where we can be assured that every iOS user is going to make WhatsApp or some other app the FIRST thing they download after connecting the phone to the internet.

It wouldn’t potentially weaken, it would certainly weaken how locked in those users are. But, as we see in Europe, Apple just happens to make a device and provide a system that’s so attractive to folks such that they want to buy it. Being able to use the same messaging service as everyone else they know, regardless of device? That actually becomes a selling point for the iPhone.

 

[Atomic1977]

according to popular belief  is actually better than android. I will never touch an android anything.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Yes there is. Because companies fence off valuable features from competitors. No surprise.

Example: Apple can’t let you natively write to MS formatted disks, other than FAT32.

There are workarounds in Terminal I believe.

I’m bold I think that’s a licensing n nda issue. Not capability issue.

 

[DeepIn2U]

There lies one of the problems, Google shouldn't be running with the ball. Instead, the GSMA really should be implementing a lot of these feature into the standard (including securing the protocol).

If vendors, networks and the GSMA got around the table, then i don't see why a decent RCS-like standardised protocol couldn't be hashed out. Users will still favour other messaging apps but a "rich" cross-platform default messaging protocol that improves upon the current SMS experience for all, isn't a bad thing.

Ahem ‘that improves upon the current SMS experience’.

Why is so many people here talking tech advancements yet unsure how to properly use the legacy terms ?! I’m t should be MMS not sms as the latter does not support rich text.

 

[Azathoth123]

I’m bold I think that’s a licensing n nda issue. Not capability issue.

That’s correct. What is silly is that most portable hard drives come with ‘work around’ software and there are terminal commands I believe, that can enable cross format writing.

 

[sir1963nz]

I’m bold I think that’s a licensing n nda issue. Not capability issue.

Yep, same reason cameras etc use FAT32 for the SD cards, its a licence thing.

 

[sir1963nz]

That’s correct. What is silly is that most portable hard drives come with ‘work around’ software and there are terminal commands I believe, that can enable cross format writing.

I have Tuxera NTFS, works well

 

[DeepIn2U]

That’s correct. What is silly is that most portable hard drives come with ‘work around’ software and there are terminal commands I believe, that can enable cross format writing.

Indeed. Yet those have much much smaller licensing fees than what Microsoft would charge & perpetually charge Apple.

 

[TimFL1]

Quite possibly, I didn’t ask and couldn’t really see since it was still set up for Covid protection. It could have been a service like the one you mentioned, I have seen that some businesses use those and some that just have a cell phone or cellular tablet that they use. I have had similar instances with standard cell carriers though too

Correct, the “default” RCS protocol is client to server encryption. Problem is that’s hardly any more secure than SMS. The carrier/service whose RCS protocol you are using has the keys since it is client to server. Basically no different than it is now the only different is your neighbor can’t just intercept your texts. So just how it is now a simple request of phone records will still give info just as SMS.

Ultimately you are correct with it being more secure than SMS, but by a thin margin because I don’t see any news articles of someone intercepting SMS. Listen I do not have a problem with RCS at all, but if you can’t even match the security at least of the competition then it isn’t even a fight. Google just rolled out E2EE and waiting on group now and this is only using their protocol most messaging platforms has this now.

Google is basically doing the same thing as Apple, Google is pitching just RCS correct? But the features and abilities it pitches but leaves out is using only their protocol. So if iMessage can only be used between Apple devices, and similar abilities can only be used via Google’s protocol how are things any different?

Edit: I’m on mobile and don’t feel like editing out that top section I forgot to unquote. I also wanted to add to truly have a secure RCS standard protocol you would need client to server encryption and server encryption on top of it to secure that same data, problem is with server side encryption a hack can still get those keys and then we are back to where we were with client to server

It‘s not just security, it‘s also reliability. You have no real way of telling whether a text message arrived or got lost. It‘s simply an ancient technology whereas RCS would be a vastly more modern fallback to have.

Got a reference? ’In transit’ seems to mean encrypted between the client and the destination. By who?

I’m fascinated.

Literally standard encrypted connections, like this website works… ?

 

[strongy]

It‘s not just security, it‘s also reliability. You have no real way of telling whether a text message arrived or got lost. It‘s simply an ancient technology whereas RCS would be a vastly more modern fallback to have.

Literally standard encrypted connections, like this website works… ?

i believe they want a source for the information

 

[Abazigal]

I think the EU would eventually force messaging interoperability with their Digital Markets Act to make things fair for everyone!! It's not about Apple vs Android, it's about bringing people together!

I have no idea how that is even going to work from an engineering perspective.

 

[Fred Zed]

Only reason Google is pushing RCS is for their own gain. Google’s late attempt to gain some traction from those WhatsApp and Telegram users.

 

[Abazigal]

Let's say people are right in that Apple wants people using iMessage so they continue to use (and buy) iPhones.

What's google's angle for wanting Apple to adopt RCS and improve interoperability between iOS and android users? To avoid current android smartphone users from defecting to iOS?

Does this not strike people as Google being disingenuous in expecting Apple to support a feature the latter knows is not to their benefit at all? At least Apple is being upfront enough in admitting why they have no interest in supporting iMessage on android.

Google sees the writing on the wall. More and more people in the US are using iPhones (which isn't surprising, because Apple's ecosystem is the greatest there). This comes across more as desperation than anything else.

 

[Blue Quark]

RCS is security issue waiting to happen.

How RCS exposes mobile users to hackers

Discover how the implementation of Rich Communication Services (RCS) could expose mobile users to hackers, and the security risks associated with RCS deployments.

www.autobahn-security.com

And this is why Apple never implemented, and never will. iMessage is still super encrypted and is the gold standard for encrypted messaging.

Clearly you don't know what the term "gold standard" means. Signal is the gold standard, followed by Telegram, followed by WhatsApp.

And frankly, as mentioned above, most folk outside the U.S. do not use iMessage or, frankly, SMS in general. My European friends all use WhatsApp and look on us as being backward af.

 

[Blue Quark]

Let's say people are right in that Apple wants people using iMessage so they continue to use (and buy) iPhones.

What's google's angle for wanting Apple to adopt RCS and improve interoperability between iOS and android users? To avoid current android smartphone users from defecting to iOS?

Does this not strike people as Google being disingenuous in expecting Apple to support a feature the latter knows is not to their benefit at all? At least Apple is being upfront enough in admitting why they have no interest in supporting iMessage on android.

Google sees the writing on the wall. More and more people in the US are using iPhones (which isn't surprising, because Apple's ecosystem is the greatest there). This comes across more as desperation than anything else.

You're kidding, right? Like, you don't actually believe what you said.

 

[Blue Quark]

With like a 75-25 split (or worse) it doesn't sound life Android is dying to me.

I don't think there is any feature request list that exist out there for iOS 17 asking for RCS. In fact, I think many Apple users would be pissed to find out Apple diverted resource to focus on that feature versus tweaking or working on damn near anything else.

Side bar: The new generation mostly uses Apple iPhones. Android is dying.

 

[Abazigal]

You're kidding, right? Like, you don't actually believe what you said.

You should know me by now. I don’t joke around here.

 

[Blue Quark]

I really can't believe people here are actually dumb enough to believe the nonsense which is most of this thread's content.

Apple has a history, leading all the way up to today, of not being compatible with anyone else unless at least one of two factors is in play:

1. There is too much industry demand to ignore it; and/or

2. It's fundamentally baked into a given piece of technology they've chosen to use.

Even Microsoft (of whom I am no defender) is more willing to accept bridges of compatibility.

Apple lost the dominance fight in the ultra-portable OS space (think tablet and smartphone) and is nowhere even remotely close. Frankly, Apple should be genuinely ashamed and embarrassed since they effectively started the modern era of smartphones.

There's no question Google and the rest of Silicon Valley are data whores.

People who are genuinely interested in privacy and security use Signal or Telegram. I would add PureOS and the Librem 5 to this list, but it's not yet mature enough (by a very, very long way) to be objectively viable.

At least Google doesn't limit us to what hardware we can get or that we can interface with.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple lost the dominance fight in the ultra-portable OS space (think tablet and smartphone) and is nowhere even remotely close.

And yet... some governments think Apple is too dominant.

Weird!

 

[Blue Quark]

And yet... some governments think Apple is too dominant.

Weird!

As someone who agrees with and supports Noam Chomsky, Danielle Citron, David Graeber, and Richard Stallman, I believe there are ways members of the general public should be treated by businesses, as worker or customer, and where that needs to be defined and defended, then I'm all for appropriate government intervention and action.

 

[bobcomer]

How do we know that there isn't some other reason that Apple is reluctant to adopt that standard (like security)?

Because Apple hasn't said anything like that. If they have a reason like that, I'd definitely think they'd advertise it.

 

[bobcomer]

I'm curious if this will change even the slightest Apple's opinion on this topic?

Of course not, but it will change some of Apple customer's opinions.

 

[bobcomer]

There was a time when there was only Altair.

There were lots of computers before Altair, some even as small as a home built Altair machine. (but most were much bigger.

 

[bobcomer]

And for that nearly full decade Apple had secure text and nobody else did? It’s amazing how quickly people forget.

?? They still don't have secure text when sending to anything other than an Apple product. It's defaults back to SMS/MMS, which is definitely not secure.