The above is a strawman and here is why. Since the NSA is known to penetrate consumer devices, if apple cares about security it wouldn’t produce a max or iPhone or iPad because those devices enable the NSA.
Last edited:
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.
'It's Time for Apple to Fix Texting' Says New Android Website Pushing RCS Messaging Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, and, according to some here, even if no one is using it, it’s a standard and Apple should adhere to CurrentC where it makes sense.
Which of course is nowhere. LOL
I don't know if group chats are encrypted. really anything's better than SMS/MMS which kinda leaves everything out in the open, not just metadata, but the contents of the texts.
The problem with introducing industry wide changes is they get stuck there for decades. If we’re moving on from SMS/MMS, there’s absolutely no reason to not insist privacy be baked in to the new standards and adoptions. There is never going to be follow up to do this after the fact so why settle for another decade or two of a de facto corporate spying mechanism being the standard?
Nothing. The green bubbles are there to let the user know that message was sent via SMS. For people not on an unlimited plan, it’s an important visual “head’s up” that if they keep messaging that way, their bill could end up being significantly larger. Even an iPhone messaging another iPhone via SMS will be a green bubble. Has nothing to do with Android.If they ever implement RCS, what's stopping them from keeping the bubbles green...
And, if the carriers DO implement an SMS replacement (not RCS, that’s dead, but something else), you can bet they’re going to charge for it. So, again it will make sense to let people know visually when they’re potentially being charged.
It was a popup. And you tell me! Kinda creepy, don't you think? I changed my settings to block the 'helpful' popup reminder notifications, but do you think that made their algorithm actually quit skimming info from email in gmail?
Respectfully, your response is also a strawman. If what you say is true (which is questionable, but lets assume it is just for the sake of debate), then there's no point to any security.
Since both of our positions nullify each other, the only sane choice is to use secure processes, procedures, and protocols where available.
That's not an appropriate analogy.
HTTPS vs HTTP, or OpportunisticTLS are better examples. You use security where it's available.
Here's the thing, something I don't believe people in this thread "get". When you send a message to 202-555-1212 your device starts a process to determine where that number "lives".
- is it a number registered with iMessage? If so, negotiate an iMessage connection to the target recipient
- is it a number registered elsewhere? If so ... USE SMS.
Now instead of "USE SMS" it can (and should) negotiate an RCS connection. If that doesn't work it can fall back to SMS. Just like android does, right now. The advantages are that messages are sent securely where possible.
What is being proposed through this thread and effort is to use better communication where it is available, not to replace anything in iMessage-land, or fundamentally alter the ecosystem. It's about providing a telco-wide upgrade in messaging security and functionality.
Your response above is solely assuming that if you want the 70% of the world's phones to communicate with Apple devices in the same security they must use 3rd party apps.
Well imagine if Safari didn't play well with Microsoft365. Would you scream at Apple to fix Safari? Would you scream at Microsoft? Or would you insist the solution must only be Edge, as that's the 3rd party app? It's an adhoc example, but seems like what you insist must occur. No matter what, Apple has yet to even come to the table to entertain a RCS answer or discussion. And I'll keep saying that this degrades security for Apple customers, which is fundamentally wrong. Just like HTTPS or TLS or other protocols, Apple says they care about their security, they're lying in this context.
Or better yet, Apple needs to say to within all green bubble conversations "This conversation is unencrypted. Please use a 3rd party app for greater security." They can't have it both ways and tout security while not using it or advocating their own risk vectors.
Nobody is saying that wouldn't be a better scenario.
But that can't happen. It's an impossibility. Google controls RCS. This is Google RCS. This is NOT carrier RCS. Google does not, and as it currently stands, WILL NOT create a public API to access the Gateway. Someone else brought up a fantastic point as well, doing so would require federation and Google wants full control here. In any event, what Google is really asking for here is OS level access to iOS so they can build in SMS to their RCS client. They aren't going to get that -- but let's continue that fantastical notion. If they got it, now you've got Google Messages on iPhone... now how do I send an iMessage? Oh... I need to go to another app because Google won't give up the API. Since it's "just another app" the whole point is that there are other "just another app" choices available; and should Google want to they could release Google Messages, sans SMS capability, right now - quite literally right now - and put this to bed. It needs only a data connection, it's an IP service.
Except that it shouldn’t… unless the assumption is that every phone is a smartphone, which it isn’t. I can understand how folks that grew up in a world where smartphones are what most of the people around them have, may have a slightly altered view of reality which might lead them to such a conclusion.
For someone on AT&T in the US, if the fallback from iMessage is RCS, then that message is excluding the majority of folks that live on the planet. Based on the current market numbers, a person isn’t even able to reach most of the folks in the US! Stepping away from the carrier based SMS solution, even when considering Google’s “just another app” Google RCS, that’s STILL a minority of phones, not even most Google Android phones can use Google RCS. And, once a person has decided that “just another app” solutions are acceptable, do you know what a huge number of those Android phones that can’t use Google RCS CAN use? WhatsApp… which is the cross-platform solution the vast majority of folks use.
If this was about Samsung, Motorola, Apple and whatever other handset companies communicating to the carriers about supporting a more advanced protocol, then THAT would be about providing a telco-wide upgrade in messaging security and functionality. Because this thread is about Google pushing Google RCS, this thread is about their “just another app” solution, which even most Android phones don’t support, far short of “telco-wide”. WhatsApp has a wider reach and they don’t even have agreements with carriers!
Well, that IS what exists in reality right now. And, if it was something arduous or onerous, if it was “terrible” or caused “suffering” as some like to state, it wouldn’t have taken off like it has, removing millions of dollars of SMS fees from the carriers. I don’t even have to speculate on some potential future time… Right now, folks that want to communicate, specifically encrypted, between iPhones and Android devices are doing so quite effectively.
Because RCS, as it exists, is going nowhere. Everyone knows it, GSMA has abandoned it. The last push in the US for something that used RCS was the CCMI (Cross Carrier Messaging Initiative) that the carriers were working on without Apple, there’s no need for Apple to be a part of the conversation as they’ll just support whatever the carriers dictate, just like with SMS/MMS. The best thing now would be for the carriers to go back to square one and contract with someone to focus on the interoperability from the start, bring that up at a future GSMA meeting and try again. Whatever poison RCS carries with it that kills every attempt at implementation (that would make it more than “just another app”) needs to be left behind. Unfortunately, Google, desperate to find a path to a ‘win’ in messaging won’t let it die!
The carriers wouldn’t allow Apple to do anything even remotely resembling that.
And if Apple tried, Apple would quickly find themselves without carrier support, worldwide. The carriers control the hardware connection requirements, with all the insecurity that SMS entails, for their financial benefit. And there’s no handset maker that’s ever going to be allowed to turn off that spigot.
I was pointing out the folly of your original argument. And yes, iMessage is secure. Today sms is the lowest common denominator. I suppose the World could get together and decide that rcs would be the lowest common denominator.
I can understand Apples caution. Google has an ongoing history of sharing data. There’s also the issue of Google’s bipolar software engineers. I think they’ve developed and discarded 7 messaging apps. Google should get their house in order before preaching to others
Here’s a solution for those unhappy Android users. Apple should develop virtualizing software for IOS. If iPhone users want RCS they can use it in a virtualised Android. This would protect their personal information from Google. Probably completely impractical.
Google could also release RCS in their iPhone client. I thought they had but, upon further examination, no. So, Google can’t support their own RCS between devices with their own app, but they want Apple to?
I don't "know it". That makes the first part of this wrong.
GSMA has not announced abandonment of it. They still release info and data for it. So that's also wrong.
Your intuition does not make anything correct just because you have a contrary position.
And everything else is bad fruit from the wrong-tree.
No one has provided a good reason why Apple cannot use RCS where it is available. There's nothing in the RCS spec that prevents it. It is technically possible. It would enable, amongst other things, greater security for Apple consumers, when communicating with the green bubbles, so it would be a win-win.
It generally isn’t all that available. There are really only two gateways for RCS on a technical level, none of which are carrier gateways per se. There’s Jibe, which some carriers have outsourced RCS to, but that’s not strictly a carrier gateway like SMS/MMS use. It’s not obvious that Apple could support it technically the same way they support SMS/MMS. It’s an IP connection vs a radio connection (even an IP based radio connection, a la Universal Profile). Sure, iMessage is IP based, but it may still be technically challenging to add support for Jibe into Messages. (Reminds me a lot of the legal argument a few years back that Apple should “unlock” the FM receiver chip in the Bluetooth controller they were using. Never mind that iPhones had no wiring for an antenna for the FM band, even for using headphones as an antenna.) And the only non-Jibe gateway is the proprietary one Google Messenger uses. Even if you make the argument in favor of the Jibe gateway, Apple can’t use Google Messenger’s gateway without licensing it directly from Google at who knows what cost. And since Jibe RCS is incompatible with Google Messages, that means that the only way to send RCS messages to most people who actually use RCS is Google Messages’ proprietary gateway. Effectively, RCS isn’t actually available (unless you license it from Google), and it’s an awful idea for a fallback protocol considering the incompatibility between the only two remaining gateways (and the fact that RCS has never been interoperable).
To be blunt, you either don’t realize what RCS actually is or believe things about it to be true that are demonstrably untrue. Or you feel as though you stand to gain from peddling misinformation about it.
No one? It would seem you’re ignoring everyone. It’s technically impossible, in the literal sense, for Apple to add RCS. There’s no public API available from Google. That’s the end of that story.
OK, everyone but you “know it”.
Unfortunately, you’re not in a position to make it happen. The GSMA, which includes operator members that are in a position to MAKE it happen, DO know it’s going nowhere. That’s why they’ve given up on it.Oh yeah, they totally still release info for it. I mean just look at this Press Release post for RCS on GSMA’s website.
Japan’s RCS Service Seeing Strong Momentum and Growing Business Messaging Opportunity
More Than 40m Users of Japan’s +Message Service Forecast by 2021 Tokyo: Japan’s RCS-based ‘+Message’ service is demonstrating strong consumer adoption and is aiming to become a leading platform for business messaging in the country, according to a new report. Japanese operators KDDI, NTT...
www.gsma.com
How about the blogs, even if they don’t have any formal press releases, they’ve certainly been posting blogs about its success at being rolled out. Ah, here’s the most recent blog post that mentions RCS
New Research Highlights Demand for RCS Business Messaging
Global adoption of Rich Communications Services (RCS) is accelerating quickly around the world, with over 50 network launches as well as network interconnections in the Americas and Europe. Additionally, numerous brands are already launching trials of RCS Business Messaging to improve the...
www.gsma.com
The RCS spec (updated in October 2019) doesn’t prevent anything. BUT carriers not SUPPORTING RCS prevents pretty much everything that RCS is capable of. Once the carriers adopt and support RCS the same way they did with SMS/MMS, RCS messages would just show up inside Messages, the same as SMS/MMS. At that point there would be NO way for Apple to reject RCS… the carriers would make supporting RCS a requirement for hardware devices connecting to the network. Unfortunately for those few that don’t want to use applications specially made for cross platform communications, carriers have shown no interest in supporting RCS. At a stretch, Apple COULD potentially support Google’s RCS, but Google has not offered any public API’s and don’t appear to be interested in doing so.
I think it’s just that RCS is what they’re using for “cross platform, robust, modern SMS/MMS replacement”, when RCS is absolutely not that. As RCS is dead, I think I’m going to personally use MMSXT for that just to make it clear that, while I understand it’d be cool for there to be better cross platform solution, I clearly understand that RCS is not and can never be that.
I know you said the calls work fine, but next time you have an issue with SMS: Double-check that wifi calling is turned on and your iPhone shows “T-Mobile ᯤ” in the top left when you swipe down to control center.
This is fair but regarding your point that "How do I send an iMessage?" Apple can still make iMessage as the priority--if no iMessage available with the recipients, fall back to RCS, and then fall back to SMS.
With that said Google RCS is a non-starter, and it's obvious why. Until carriers embrace RCS the way they did SMS/MMS, this isn't simply a feature Apple will turn on without resulting in a massive degradation of usability.
I’d say they should put RCS out to pasture.
It was obviously too complex and not ready for prime time and trying to implement any of it would just lead to the same failure as a result.So, now I’m wondering… how many folks NEED an upgrade for SMS? Outside the US, I’d imagine the only usage of SMS at a wide scale is businesses that need to send the lowest common denominator information to customers. Information that, by its nature, doesn’t NEED to be encrypted. And this is primarily because no one wants to pay the SMS fees so they’re already using something else (Like WhatsApp).
A country where using SMS versus something else is NOT a financial choice (as they’d both be free) is the US. SMS is embraced as a go-between for iOS and Android, not because it’s the best option, it’s not (for many reasons posted here), it’s because it’s free. If SMS had a cost in the US, it’s very likely that US customers would also have already moved to WhatsApp just like most of the world.
If, tomorrow, all communications between US customers were to move to WhatsApp, we’d have the same situation as the rest of the world, where SMS is relegated to something used for Amber, weather, and other governmental alerts, retail notifications (your order is ready, your package has shipped), or other messages that really don’t rise to the level of needing encryption, read receipts, typing notifications, etc.
When I think of it this way, it’s pretty clear why carriers haven’t done (and likely won’t do) anything to bring more features to SMS/MMS. They’re not going to make a capital investment (and their shareholders would likely frown on a capital investment) without defining what the return on that investment would be. And, there wouldn’t be very much return here at all. For all the folks that WANT RCS, if all the carriers got together… and implemented a worldwide cross platform solution, published the API’s and got the hardware manufacturers onboard, even the WhatsApp’s and Telegrams of the world… BUT, in order to send a message over this system it cost 7 cents per message, Would you pay? You’d have read receipts, typing notifications, better quality images and videos (there may be a data surcharge as well), would it be worth the 7 cents per message to have all your messages bundled in one app?
Hi Mom -7 cents
Hey -7 cents
How are you doing? -7 cents
I -7 cents
Sorry, I meant to say I’x dfoihng inre -7 cents
Darn it! -7 cents
I meant to say I’m doing fine -7 cents
Stupid phone. How are you? -7 cents
For this kind of a haul, I’d bet the carriers would be really happy to get working on that tomorrow. I don’t think there’s enough customers that would be willing to pay for it (and that’s just my pretend assumption they were able to get an API that would let WhatsApp and others chat. Without that, if you’re only talking phone to phone so you’d still need those other apps to talk on those, would this phone to phone messaging WITH all the trimmings, be worth 7 cents per message to you?
A country where using SMS versus something else is NOT a financial choice (as they’d both be free) is the US. SMS is embraced as a go-between for iOS and Android, not because it’s the best option, it’s not (for many reasons posted here), it’s because it’s free. If SMS had a cost in the US, it’s very likely that US customers would also have already moved to WhatsApp just like most of the world.
If, tomorrow, all communications between US customers were to move to WhatsApp, we’d have the same situation as the rest of the world, where SMS is relegated to something used for Amber, weather, and other governmental alerts, retail notifications (your order is ready, your package has shipped), or other messages that really don’t rise to the level of needing encryption, read receipts, typing notifications, etc.
When I think of it this way, it’s pretty clear why carriers haven’t done (and likely won’t do) anything to bring more features to SMS/MMS. They’re not going to make a capital investment (and their shareholders would likely frown on a capital investment) without defining what the return on that investment would be. And, there wouldn’t be very much return here at all. For all the folks that WANT RCS, if all the carriers got together… and implemented a worldwide cross platform solution, published the API’s and got the hardware manufacturers onboard, even the WhatsApp’s and Telegrams of the world… BUT, in order to send a message over this system it cost 7 cents per message, Would you pay? You’d have read receipts, typing notifications, better quality images and videos (there may be a data surcharge as well), would it be worth the 7 cents per message to have all your messages bundled in one app?
Hi Mom -7 cents
Hey -7 cents
How are you doing? -7 cents
I -7 cents
Sorry, I meant to say I’x dfoihng inre -7 cents
Darn it! -7 cents
I meant to say I’m doing fine -7 cents
Stupid phone. How are you? -7 cents
For this kind of a haul, I’d bet the carriers would be really happy to get working on that tomorrow. I don’t think there’s enough customers that would be willing to pay for it (and that’s just my pretend assumption they were able to get an API that would let WhatsApp and others chat. Without that, if you’re only talking phone to phone so you’d still need those other apps to talk on those, would this phone to phone messaging WITH all the trimmings, be worth 7 cents per message to you?
My main phone is my iPhone and I have a Pixel 6 Pro as well, and I love iMessage and RCS. RCS is what Android moving to and SMS and MMS are old and need to be retired