'It's Time for Apple to Fix Texting' Says New Android Website Pushing RCS Messaging Technology

[SMH4KIDIOT]

to be fair, there's not anything there that many of us are going to think 'i really wish texting did that'. I accept everyone is different.

• Client-to-server encryption with optional end-to-end encryption Dont Care

You should care. With all the targeted hacks happening to corporations, you want your data to be encrypted on the phone and in transit to the receiver. Also, the corporations cannot read the content of your message.

• Data-based messaging with SMS/MMS fallback I have free texts so dont care

Every messaging app you use now is data-based. iMessage is data-based but uses SMS/MMS fallback for when you don't have proper data connection. You don't have to care; it just modernizes the most common way people send text-based messages globally.

• Delivery and read receipts, and typing indication Nice but not important to me.

It isn't important but every modern messaging service has it so why not?

• Full resolution Image, GIF, video, and other rich media content Most people just send annoying GIFS. If i want to send content to family i can send it by email although tbh they all have apple so imessage does fine

And nobody said you couldn't continue emailing. Lot of people however rely on text messaging to send photos and video, so it is good to modernize. Not all my friends and family have Apple and there are over 3 billion Android devices out there and growing.

• Group chats I can understand this would allow people who love groups so they can send daft gifs without whatsapp but id be more likely to use email or facebook for a group

You are always thinking about you, again there are 3 billion Android devices. The benefit to RCS is you can remove yourself from a group chat, so you won't get those daft GIFS. And perhaps not everyone wants to use Facebook group or many of the different apps. Your primary messaging app should be able to do those things in 2022.

• Group file transfers Email or facebook do fine.

Yet a lot of people send files via messaging apps. We used GroupMe throughout University to send documents, notes, assignments etc.

• IP voice and video calls, both individual and group I have unlimited calls.

Everything is about you is the theme I'm getting.

• Geolocation exchange Why?

People share locations with friends and family when they are going out. It would be a much better experience?

• Business and services messages I get lots of business and services messages through SMS, do i really want them being able to send video or see if ive read them?

Think, airport boarding passes. When you buy a ticket, you receive a text from the travel agency with your boarding pass. You don't have to check your email; you can just open it in your text.

 

[spinedoc77]

That’s because RCS is in a weird position. On a technical, standards-compliant level, RCS is Universal Profile. But Universal Profile was hot garbage and Google Jibe was the only way to make it not utterly suck. But Jibe’s implementation of RCS isn’t exactly Universal Profile RCS, even if it is largely compatible with it. But Google Messenger isn’t even Jibe, it’s Google-specific stuff on top of Jibe, which is Jibe specific stuff on top of Universal Profile. You don’t get the Google Messenger stuff if you just use Jibe as your gateway, a la T-Mobile. The Google Messenger stuff is limited to Google and Samsung, who directly licenses it, and it all goes through Google’s gateway. So, in some sense, it’s still the same mess we had with Universal Profile and its incompatible implementations, just controlled by Google instead of the carriers.

But Google is in large part responsible for the confusion, since they deliberately and maliciously refer to Google Messenger (and Jibe, for that matter) as RCS, as if they’re compliant implementations of the standard, and Apple is the bad guy for not using open standards. But Google Messenger isn’t RCS, it’s RCS + Jibe + proprietary Google features. RCS is Universal Profile and not this other stuff that’s dependent on paying a licensing fee to Google. And Universal Profile is the carriers. So it’s kinda sorta OTT but also kinda sorta not, and a large part of Google’s argument is that it’s not OTT and that it’s the “open” and “standard” way of doing it.

That's really interesting information, so Google is pushing their RCS and not the universal RCS from the carriers? What's to stop Apple from just implementing the universal carrier version of RCS?

 

[spinedoc77]

to be fair, there's not anything there that many of us are going to think 'i really wish texting did that'. I accept everyone is different.

• Client-to-server encryption with optional end-to-end encryption Dont Care
• Data-based messaging with SMS/MMS fallback I have free texts so dont care
• Delivery and read receipts, and typing indication Nice but not important to me.
• Full resolution Image, GIF, video, and other rich media content Most people just send annoying GIFS. If i want to send content to family i can send it by email although tbh they all have apple so imessage does fine
• Group chats I can understand this would allow people who love groups so they can send daft gifs without whatsapp but id be more likely to use email or facebook for a group
• Group file transfers Email or facebook do fine.
• IP voice and video calls, both individual and group I have unlimited calls.
• Geolocation exchange Why?
• Business and services messages I get lots of business and services messages through SMS, do i really want them being able to send video or see if ive read them?

Most people just send annoying GIFS. If i want to send content to family i can send it by email

Hmm, is this really true? I don't send annoying GIFs, I send pictures and videos of my kids to other family members. Do you really think having everyone send content via email is a solution? That's one of the primary reasons I even own a smartphone, the convenience of instantly messaging someone else. Why don't you try sending every video/picture by email for a month or two and let us know how convenient that is.

 

[SMH4KIDIOT]

There’s nothing “illogical” about that, as neither is a contradictory statement (unless you’re operating from an unstated and unproven assumption that Apple must do something to improve chat compatibility between Android and iPhone).

It is illogical. I am operating under common sense that Apple must do something to improve the chat compatibility between Android because amongst family, friends, co-workers we all use iOS and Android and adopting RCS will improve the experience when iOS user want to communicate with Android users.

One can logically hold both positions if they feel that Apple doesn’t need to do anything in this scenario.

I want these corporations to improve the customer experience for users of their products. That is the only scenario I am viewing this from.

It’s up to you to prove the logic of your unstated assumption before you can say whether these statements are logical or not.

The statement is illogical because it means Apple does nothing.

Can Apple adopt RCS to improve texting non iMessage contacts? Yes, but you say Google spies on you and reads your messages.

Can Apple open up iMessage and enforce E2E encryption? Yes, but now you say apple shouldn't be obligated to do so.

You are in fact being illogical. The end result is a terrible experience for Apple users who communicate with the several billion Android users every day.

Now, if the original comment you’re replying to had suggested Apple needed to do something but rejected the only possible solutions, then it would be illogical. But are these two the only possible solutions if we accept that Apple needs to improve interoperability? Not necessarily, Apple could always make some compatibility system that isn’t RCS, then it would be in Google’s court.

There is a solution, and it is being rejecting because "google sells your data" while being on a website that literally does cross-site tracking, targeted ads and using iOS and Apple services that does the exact same thing.

 

[kc9hzn]

That's really interesting information, so Google is pushing their RCS and not the universal RCS from the carriers? What's to stop Apple from just implementing the universal carrier version of RCS?

Compatibility issues, mostly. Apparently Universal Profile was such a hot mess that, despite notionally being implementations of the same standard, none of them were intercompatible between carriers. Which is why basically all the carriers use Jibe now. It’s the same compatibility issues, just glossed over by the fact that everyone is using the same proprietary implementation (ie Google’s). And then Google has the nerve to stick proprietary stuff on top of that.

 

[kc9hzn]

You are illogical.

“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The term illogical only makes sense in the context of formal logic. Your argument is not logically sound from the perspective of formal logic. Therefore, your claim of others being illogical is itself illogical.

As for the actual substance of your argument, you’re presenting a false dichotomy. Even if your assertion that the responsibility rests on Apple is correct, the two approaches (“accept RCS” and “port iMessage”) are not necessarily the only approaches. I suggested a third approach that could be better (namely, “reach interoperability through a better fallback standard than RCS that isn’t full iMessage”), though it’s about as realistic as the two you propose. (Actually, it might be slightly more realistic, since Apple couldn’t port the full iMessage experience to Android these days on account of iMessage applications.) Additionally, if encryption is your concern, RCS is a complete non-starter unless your suggestion is “license Google’s proprietary extensions to RCS and use Google’s servers”, which grants Google unwarranted market power re: messaging. And even then, it’s not completely obvious it’s true end to end encryption of the sort that has no back doors. If I may be blunt, it doesn’t matter whether Google can or cannot scan the contents of my texts, why does Google get to be the single point of failure for all of texting? They’ve done nothing to achieve any meaningful market penetration in terms of texting in the US or abroad. This would be a forced subsidy to a company that needs no subsidy.

 

[spinedoc77]

Compatibility issues, mostly. Apparently Universal Profile was such a hot mess that, despite notionally being implementations of the same standard, none of them were intercompatible between carriers. Which is why basically all the carriers use Jibe now. It’s the same compatibility issues, just glossed over by the fact that everyone is using the same proprietary implementation (ie Google’s). And then Google has the nerve to stick proprietary stuff on top of that.

It's fascinating to me that Google pays Apple a crap-ton of money every year to keep them as the default search engine. If Google was going to benefit from RCS implementation I would think there was some kind of deal to be made there. Other than that it seems the carriers need to get off their duffs and fix their RCS implementation. Maybe the FCC or other governmental bodies need to get involved, although this is clearly a world-wide issue.

But besides that there has to be some sort of solution, and if that's the "Evil Google makes money from my data" then at least Apple can put in a toggle to turn off RCS and fall back onto SMS/MMS. That "toggle" is there with Google search if you want to change your search engine, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of consumers just leave Google as the default search engine, and probably would do the same with RCS.

Alternatively Apple could offer an iMessage app for Android, I'd be more than willing to pay a reasonable monthly fee for using it, say $4.99/month. Apple is all about the subscription services so I'm surprised they haven't jumped on this one, although of course the hardware side of their business needs to be considered. Still, an iMessage app could be barebones and Apple could retain most of the iMessage features for iPhones.

 

[kc9hzn]

It's fascinating to me that Google pays Apple a crap-ton of money every year to keep them as the default search engine. If Google was going to benefit from RCS implementation I would think there was some kind of deal to be made there. Other than that it seems the carriers need to get off their duffs and fix their RCS implementation.

But besides that there has to be some sort of solution, and if that's the "Evil Google makes money from my data" then at least Apple can put in a toggle to turn off RCS and fall back onto SMS/MMS. That "toggle" is there with Google search if you want to change your search engine, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of consumers just leave Google as the default search engine, and probably would do the same with RCS.

Alternatively Apple could offer an iMessage app for Android, I'd be more than willing to pay a reasonable monthly fee for using it, say $4.99/month. Apple is all about the subscription services so I'm surprised they haven't jumped on this one, although of course the hardware side of their business needs to be considered. Still, an iMessage app could be barebones and Apple could retain most of the iMessage features for iPhones.

Of course, the problems no one mentions with even a paired down approach to iMessages on Android are that 1) Google would probably still complain that it’s not being done their way and 2) would Apple really be able to get enough Android users to use iMessage (even for free) to get the problem to go away? iMessage would just encounter the same resistance that occurs whenever anyone tries to introduce a new chat app, and just having it there wouldn’t fix the problems unless Android users actually download the app. A paired down CoreiMessage that other parties could implement could maybe do something to help adoption, but good luck getting Google to support it, which means good luck getting the users who’d most benefit from it to have access.

The more I think about the issue, the less I think Google actually has users interests in mind and the more I think their position is thoroughly self serving. (But they get to pretend to be the PR good guy while doing so, which is oh so rare for Google these days.)

 

[1129846]

There are of course 2 solutions here

1. Apple adopt industry standards
2. iMessage comes to Android

Both are firmly in Apples court but both rely on Apple making consumer choice easier so they won't.

while true. The other thing is Apple claims they care about user security and in Apple doing nothing they are showing they are not caring about the users privacy and security. Adapting either one from Apple would greatly enhance security.
I even argue Apple should adopt support of RCS just for security and privacy reasons alone and allow that to be the first fall back from iMessage between users.

 

[I7guy]

Think of the same features you have now when using iMessage but now you can have similar features when messaging friends and family who do not use iOS or have iMessage.

• Client-to-server encryption with optional end-to-end encryption
• Data-based messaging with SMS/MMS fallback
• Delivery and read receipts, and typing indication
• Full resolution Image, GIF, video, and other rich media content
• Group chats
• Group file transfers
• IP voice and video calls, both individual and group
• Geolocation exchange
• Business and services messages

Apple does not need to invent anything new to implement RCS, the features and specification are there for how to implement it. They just need to be willing to do it without being forced to. There is no "engineering effort", it's not hard to implement.

Can you prove it’s not hard to implement? Can you prove that the iOS ecosystem is not weakened in any way?

 

[1129846]

Not sure what you mean, iMessage is a proprietary messaging protocol, and Google can't implement it without Apple authorization. And Apple has nothing to gain to make iMessage cross platform. Same for Google

Honestly I think Apple could gain a lot by allowing iMessage to work on things other than Apple products. Namely allowing it to work on PCs. A lot of people own iPhones yet they have to work on windows PC at work. Imagin being able to just using iMessage while at work. I know for my wife she would love it. She is jealous that I can and do respond to text from her on my work machine as I am an iOS developer.

 

[BuffaloTF]

This is how illogical you are.

Apple should implement RCS

You: No

Apple should open iMessage so others can adopt it

You: No

Matter of fact, Apple can use the considerable amount of power and leverage they have to add to the RCS specifications, but I imagine you would also say NO.

Your reason being targeted ads also makes no sense as Google's RCS is E2E encrypted except for group messages.

That’s… not illogical at all. It’s you not understanding what you’re talking about.

RCS is a series of CLOSED user groups. Apple just can’t add RCS and solve the problem, they’d just introduce yet another CLOSED user group that could only send to other Apple devices that would never get used, as iMessage would supersede it in the hierarchy.

For Apple to add RCS that would allow them to communicate to the CLOSED user group of Google RCS, GOOGLE - not Apple - would need to create a third party API to access the core network and become a dumb pipe. Google, not Apple, doesn’t want this. They want OS level access to iOS to hook into the SMS/MMS capabilities within the OS.

That’s what’s they’re asking for. OS level access. They want more metadata to sell ads, they don’t want to offer a free messaging service for the betterment of mankind.

 

[kc9hzn]

while true. The other thing is Apple claims they care about user security and in Apple doing nothing they are showing they are not caring about the users privacy and security. Adapting either one from Apple would greatly enhance security.
I even argue Apple should adopt support of RCS just for security and privacy reasons alone and allow that to be the first fall back from iMessage between users.

But RCS doesn’t actually increase security and privacy, unless you’re using Google’s specific proprietary implementation that gives E2E encryption. The one that Google presumably keeps very close to its chest

 

[videosoul]

Still neither. Rather not use the service at all.

Well, unless you want to be unreachable by text, you kinda have to just go along with whatever the majority of your friends/family/colleagues use.

 

[kc9hzn]

That’s… not illogical at all. It’s you not understanding what you’re talking about.

RCS is a series of CLOSED user groups. Apple just can’t add RCS and solve the problem, they’d just introduce yet another CLOSED user group that could only send to other Apple devices that would never get used, as iMessage would supersede it in the hierarchy.

For Apple to add RCS that would allow them to communicate to the CLOSED user group of Google RCS, GOOGLE - not Apple - would need to create a third party API to access the core network and become a dumb pipe. Google, not Apple, doesn’t want this. They want OS level access to iOS to hook into the SMS/MMS capabilities within the OS.

That’s what’s they’re asking for. OS level access. They want more metadata to sell ads, they don’t want to offer a free messaging service for the betterment of mankind.

Either that, or they want to force Apple into licensing their whole stack. Either way, Google wins, and I’m not necessarily sure end users win in either scenario (certainly they lose in your scenario), and Apple loses both ways.

 

[spinedoc77]

Of course, the problems no one mentions with even a paired down approach to iMessages on Android are that 1) Google would probably still complain that it’s not being done their way and 2) would Apple really be able to get enough Android users to use iMessage (even for free) to get the problem to go away? iMessage would just encounter the same resistance that occurs whenever anyone tries to introduce a new chat app, and just having it there wouldn’t fix the problems unless Android users actually download the app. A paired down CoreiMessage that other parties could implement could maybe do something to help adoption, but good luck getting Google to support it, which means good luck getting the users who’d most benefit from it to have access.

The more I think about the issue, the less I think Google actually has users interests in mind and the more I think their position is thoroughly self serving. (But they get to pretend to be the PR good guy while doing so, which is oh so rare for Google these days.)

I don't know, it seems the whole green/blue bubble issue is serious for some consumers. But at the very least just being able to send uncompressed video/pictures should be a major incentive for most consumers. Or maybe Apple can have iMessages preinstalled on Android phones, although what sort of anti-trust issues this brings up, and the complexity of negotiating with individual phone OEMs come to mind.

But back to RCS, Apple does have some sort of responsibility in this game since it's a much more secure standard than SMS/MMS. I get that most of Apple's privacy stance is just double-speak marketing, but this could be seen as a huge marketing opportunity for their privacy stance.

Also in reading a bit from what I understand Google's RCS jibe implementation would still fall back on the universal implementation if the carriers built in support, so as usual it seems that some of this comes back to the carrier's inability to implement anything as RCS has been bandied around for what a decade? Sure Google has ulterior motives, that's why they haven't given Android system level support for RCS, but I kind of feel like "so what." Most of us trust Apple's propietary iMessages just fine, tons of users trust Facebook messenger, Whatsapp, etc., what's one more solution?

I still feel a toggle would be the best solution. Don't want RCS? Don't trust Google? Just turn the toggle off and go back to SMS/MMS as a fallback. From what I understand the GSMA could force Apple to do this through networking standards, so I'm not sure why it's not enforced. That enforcement might be enough for Apple, Google, and phone carriers to hammer out a universal solution.

 

[spinedoc77]

It's fascinating how psychology plays a role in all of this. https://medium.com/@_sdc/how-apple-...ndroid-through-subtle-design-cues-518cd7eda80

 

[kc9hzn]

I actually thought of a super simple solution to the image/video resolution issue that I’m shocked no one has brought up before. Apple already has a feature where you can send large attachments via email by uploading it to iCloud. You attach the attachment, but, if it’s too big to go through, it automatically gets turned into a link. Other Apple Mail users see the attachment in-line as if it was an attachment all along, while users of other mail clients see it as a link.

Apple could easily do that with MMS photos and videos. Try to send an image that’s too large or that’s HEVC or HEIC to an MMS conversation? Messages can prompt you to send it in full quality (which would be a link, one that could be in a portable format like PNG) or in reduced quality (traditional MMS). For other iPhone users in the conversation, they’d see the link inline as if it were an iMessage conversation. But non-Apple users could see it in full quality via the link. (Or maybe it could be sent via MMS as well, so they don’t have to open the link to see if it’s something they’re interested in seeing in full quality.)

 

[adampk17]

95%+ of my friends and family I text with have iPhones so while RCS may eliminate the annoying green bubbles it's not a big deal to me.

 

[spinedoc77]

I actually thought of a super simple solution to the image/video resolution issue that I’m shocked no one has brought up before. Apple already has a feature where you can send large attachments via email by uploading it to iCloud. You attach the attachment, but, if it’s too big to go through, it automatically gets turned into a link. Other Apple Mail users see the attachment in-line as if it was an attachment all along, while users of other mail clients see it as a link.

Apple could easily do that with MMS photos and videos. Try to send an image that’s too large or that’s HEVC or HEIC to an MMS conversation? Messages can prompt you to send it in full quality (which would be a link, one that could be in a portable format like PNG) or in reduced quality (traditional MMS). For other iPhone users in the conversation, they’d see the link inline as if it were an iMessage conversation. But non-Apple users could see it in full quality via the link. (Or maybe it could be sent via MMS as well, so they don’t have to open the link to see if it’s something they’re interested in seeing in full quality.)

This capability has been around, but it just makes things more complicated. Try explaining to your elderly parents how this all works, at least with my parents and in-laws it's a nightmare when they just expect the picture/video to just pop up into their iMessage app. I do appreciate the function as I use it a lot when I send myself video, as email providers have really low file size limits.

 

[dba415]

Kids in the US get kicked out of group chats with their friends and called poor if they don't have iPhones. It's unforgiveable and Apple is well aware that this is going on.

Apple is evil.

 

[I7guy]

Kids in the US get kicked out of group chats with their friends and called poor if they don't have iPhones. It's unforgiveable and Apple is well aware that this is going on.

Apple is evil.

Apple is evil because you don’t like how it’s customers behave anecdotally?

 

[I7guy]

It's fascinating how psychology plays a role in all of this. https://medium.com/@_sdc/how-apple-...ndroid-through-subtle-design-cues-518cd7eda80

The psychology to me is that green bubbles signify the message was not sent via iMessage. Period. Full stop. It’s not about “hating android.”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

How bad someone wants this is inversely proportional to how persuasive/charming they are. If you are the kind of people folks want to know, be around, and be in the “good graces” of, this is a non-issue, folks will use whatever it is you’re using and not blink even if it’s a tool they currently don’t use. They’ll create an account, log in and set notifications so they can get your messages.

This? This is just for the kind of folks that other people really can’t be bothered to inconvenience themselves to change how they message.

 

[spinedoc77]

The psychology to me is that green bubbles signify the message was not sent via iMessage. Period. Full stop. It’s not about “hating android.”

Without any actual insider information all anyone can do is speculate, but it still strikes me as odd that the contrast changes were not made universally, especially against their own accessibility guidelines for contrast.