Samsung has released a new video in support of Google’s #GetTheMessage campaign which calls for Apple to adopt RCS or “Rich Communication Services,” the cross-platform protocol pitched as a successor to SMS that adopts many of the features found in modern messaging apps… like Apple’s own iMessage.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    282
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    AFAIK there is no open source messaging app that support RCS yet. It’s not even included in android AOSP (or is it? I can’t find any reference). It would help with adoption if google actually open-sourced the RCS client app.

    • ArtificialLink@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      188
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They won’t let any third party apps use it so they are basically as bad as imessage.

      • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        The simple fact that iMessage has 0 interoperability makes it much worse than everything else.

        So I doubt RCS could be as bad except if they remove the ability to operate with other RCS clients. And even for Google and Samsung that would be extremely stupid.

          • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve just been googling a bit because I haven’t read about RCS in a while, but I remember thinking then that the show stopping thing is that it’s not E2E, and Apple would be dumb to move to since iMessage is. It seems now that E2E is supported but requires clients to support it, which tbh seems the worst of all worlds. At least today I know blue = encrypted, green = not encrypted. If it’s optional and we end up in a “is this encrypted? we’ll see ¯\(ツ)/¯” type of world that is honestly terrible. I also don’t know how great it would be if you have to rely on the client vendor to accurately report encryption status because there are some I trust, and especially when it comes to “just download whatever RCS client you want” I absolutely would not trust that.

            • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              iMessage is only E2E encrypted if both users have iCloud disabled or have gone into their iCloud settings and enabled “Advanced Data Protection”

        • Virkkunen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          RCS is only interoperable with apps and carriers that adopt the Jibe protocol, so not much has changed.

      • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Forgive me if I’m mistaken but did Signal adopt RCS? I they abandoned SMS for RC- if I recall - couldn’t SMS my friends on it anymore and abandoned ship lol

        Edit: wait, I don’t think signal is open source

        • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know what you’re talking about. Signal does not use RCS and it is open source.

        • NebLem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          ASFAIK Signal doesn’t support RCS, only Signal protocol, after they dropped SMS.

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fundamentally the problem is that SMS is rather dated and doesn’t support a lot of features expected of a modern messaging app. Apple decided to do what Apple does and made their own proprietary protocol that runs parallel to SMS. When you send a “text message” on iMessage it checks if the person you’re talking to is also using iMessage and if so sends the message via Apples private service. If they aren’t using iMessage it dumbs things down and send it via SMS as a fallback.

            Google came along and more or less did the same thing but made their protocol (RCS) licensable which makes them slighty better than Apple, but it’s still not as good as an actual open standard.

            Signal is yet another solution, but they were primarily focused on security and encryption rather than new features, but fundamentally they did the same thing as iMessage initially. About a year or two ago Signal dropped the option to fallback to SMS so now you can only send Signal messages between Signal users. Unlike Apple or Google, signals protocol is open, but Signal itself is closed source and I don’t believe they allow interop with their service so I’m not sure their protocol being open actually does much good.

            Basically everyone sucks in their own way, but if you want SMS interop then the least bad option is RCS currently.

              • orclev@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well that’s interesting. I didn’t think they had made their server source available, but I just checked their github and it does actually have a repo for their server.

        • jackalope@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Signal is open source. The only part that isn’t is the server side spam filtering.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, Samsung is the party with some credibility here. It’s a lot harder to hear Google whine about messaging standards when their churn in messaging has been hilarious and embarrassing.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      131
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve lost track of all the messaging apps they had:

      • Hangouts
      • Chat
      • Gmail Chat
      • Google+
      • Voice

      I’m sure I’m forgetting a few.

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Samsung has 0 credibility here because they just use Google messages and Google’s Jibe implementation of RCS.

      If Google drops Jibe for something else, it means Samsung is as well.

      RCS isn’t really a standard anymore either. Once Google put out their own proprietary Jibe implementation, everyone just adopted that instead of putting in the work to implement it themselves. All the carriers in the US use Jibe as their RCS backend, and Samsung moved to using Google Messages as their default messenger. And all RCS messages go through Google servers.

      If Google decides to do something else and drop Jibe, like they have with every other messaging service they have had, that’s it for RCS.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Samsung’s record on RCS isn’t great. Their Samsung Messages app didn’t work across networks for most of last year. Like RCS only worked on t-mobile, but only for t-mobile branded phones, and for some time they couldn’t send to AT&T. Not sure if Google Messages was much better during that time period.

  • Encode1307@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unless the EU makes them, they’re not adopting rcs. I could see them putting out an imessage app for Android though. Probably ad supported to make the experience extra shitty for us. They’d quickly own the messaging market, at least in the US.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gotta love how Google has spent the last, what, 10 years?, fighting iMessage and losing due to their own short-sightedness/lack of focus and incompetence. The company that dethroned MSN Messenger couldn’t win a fight against an opponent that, on a global scale, represents ~25% of the mobile market. Meanwhile, Whatsapp dominates the instant messaging world.

  • Porgey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    While Apple should adopt RCS, I cannot help but feel that Google is being extremely hypocritical. They complain about iMessage being proprietary, but their implementation of RCS isn’t open source, and I believe they even mentioned they have no plans to open it up for 3rd party devs to implement it into their own sms apps. This just feels like an iMessage equivalent for Android. It has rich features that are exclusive to Android as a platform (more specifically exclusive to Google Messages or whatever the app is called now)… just like iMessage within iOS/MacOS/iPadOS…

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the only issue is that RCS is actually better and the counter argument is that Apple is breaking the messaging platform by not implementing it in some way.

      The other point to make here is that iMessage wouldn’t have to just disappear. They could continue to support iMessage while just allowing text messages to be better for those who just don’t want an iPhone. The whole thing is hypocritical on both sides. Apple has convinced it’s users, very successfully might I add, that it is an Android problem and instead of having choice over your phone, you should just buy an iPhone.

      As someone who works in IT this is really not the answer users should get. To me, this is equivalent to, “your computer quit working? Just buy a new one.” But imagine you only had one choice and it’s because that company refuses to just improve standard text messaging for all users across the board but iPhone users don’t understand that Google has a method to fix this problem Apple just refuses to make it a better experience for everyone.

      Additionally, I think RCS is an open platform. Google’s fork of it carries encryption and group messaging integration. Point being Google genuinely has a viable iMessage solution to non iMessage texts. Apple wouldn’t even have to stop using iMesaage.

      • Porgey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While I agree, Apple is being obnoxiously stubborn and it truly only does benefit Apple users as well, it just feels disingenuous from Google. It more feels like they want to get their product onto Apple devices. If Apple could implement RCS the way they wanted to and interoperate with Google, then I think it would be a more valid argument (and I suppose they can, but Apple would be caught dead investing money into something like that). But Google clearly wants Apple to use their own version and is putting up this annoying ad campaign to mask it. (As far as I know, the standard RCS implementation doesn’t even include E2EE, rather it’s something unique to googles implementation, correct me if I’m wrong). Google uses encryption as a talking point in their ad campaigns and is honestly for me the biggest reason for it to be used in iOS. Otherwise the experience is only marginally better than sms, and I wouldn’t expect Apple to even bother with it. At least with encryption one can challenge Apple‘s stance on being a privacy focused company…

        Im also a software engineer and it’s annoying as hell that Apple is stubborn, but from a business perspective, it’s a gold mine for Apple - ecosystem lock-in is just too valuable to them as a company.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Google’s encryption extension is published so anybody could implement it (if you already have enough access to create your own client, like Samsung)

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Has apple tried to work with Google on the RCS version? If not, I see everything you’ve written here as an invalid false equivalency

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They haven’t really. What they really should do is run their own RCS server and federate and support the e2e extension, but they don’t want to.

            The most annoying part is that the imessage encryption protocol is so far behind state of art (same underlying encryption protocol with small RSA keys and no deniability since ~2011 when Signal has been around since 2010 with a better protocol). Meanwhile Google based their encryption extension on the Signal production. It would be a solid security improvement if Apple adopted it.

      • Porgey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do, but if you pay attention to the ad-campaign, Google is touting features such as E2EE as a benefit to bringing it to iOS, which is NOT part of the rcs protocol, rather part of googles implementation.

        The RCS protocol by itself is only marginally better than SMS.

        • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Marginally better than SMS”

          I don’t mean to be rude, but I agree with the sentiment of not knowing what a protocol is. RCS is significantly better than SMS and, encryption wise not entirely feature wise (depending on what you consider a feature that you care about), better than iMessage.

          First, the way an SMS is delivered is a big part of the problem that RCS has fixed and it is a problem that still plagues SMS and MMS and that is message length.

          The SMS and MMS protocol send your messages in layers and not always in order, hence why you can still get SMS text messages out of ordered, or that SMS that gets converted to MMS based on the length of the text fails to send. This doesn’t even begin to touch group messaging sending images, encryption, etc.

          https://www.androidauthority.com/rcs-vs-sms-3330098/

          If you really want to learn and this honestly is a genuine conversation and you are willing to talk about it then I will let that article be your read. There are massive benefits over RCS the largest one being encryption while still being able to send larger text messages, way better video and image quality as well as different and more types of image types and RCS has the ability to just continue to get better, more secure, and continue to grow.

          Apple has a tendency to stick to what you know because their customers stick to what they know. While Apple has a viable and continued method. That doesn’t mean their method is great. Consider the USB-C standard on the iPhone being a forced change. Apple made an argument that forcing the iPhone to USB-C ruined the creative and innovative market. While there is probably some reasonable argument to be made there then the question becomes why weren’t they working on these methods for all other products that they believed were better off with USB-C. Point being Apple is an example of only changing when they are forced to or have no other way out. This is a bad model to allow the continuance of what they are arguing against. RCS isn’t worse it’s better and more than marginally. The problem is Apple won’t change unless forced to and that is bad for you as a consumer and innovation that they swear they believe in.

          RCS should just be the standard and Apple should get on board and there is zero reason for them not to other than to push the iMessage agenda and that makes them money. They don’t care about the consumer. That doesn’t mean Google does either but Google at the very least wants all messaging to just be fluid across what ever platform you choose and Apple just wants you to buy an iPhone. You tell me which sounds better to you, because I will take Google’s approach no matter how you feel about Google.

            • Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I may be the only person on this thread old enough to remember that this has long been Apple’s MO, walled gardens and such.

              And also the only person couldn’t give less of a shit about blue or green bubbles. Both platforms are shit compared to numerous free dedicated third party communications apps.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    MKBHD closed this topic for me forever. Apple is never going to open up. It provides them tremendous value. They don’t give a shit if Samsung taunts them lol. They want your teenage kids taunting their friends over their green bubbles. And it’s working.

  • NebLem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why should anyone care about RCS? The trend has been to get everything into data instead of carrier owned services for two decades now, we don’t need another SMS (it will likely always be a fallback). What we should move onto is a carrier and device type angnostic universal standard protocol over TCP / QUIC like XMPP or Matrix, with SMS as the backup.

    When you get a phone you can get an phone system account and a telephone number already. Modern apps in the Google ecosystem should already recognize you are already signed in with Google and sync your contacts. Since almost everyone is already in the Google ecosystem, if Google supported it they could have extended their XMPP implementation in Hangouts to allow messaging directly via XMPP to those contacts and SMS for anyone not yet in the system (similar to how Signal did, Apple does, and Google does now with RCS). Unlike Apple, since its just XMPP, users can still add friends and be added by friends on other XMPP servers (ex. their ISPs, their own, or a third party). They could have supported or jumpstarted a new very simple open source alternative app for that portion for AOSP if the EU complained. Eventually Carriers could have supported passthroughs for those still on feature phones and other users of SMS to use the number@carrier accounts to hit XMPP users with generated SMS numbers for non-SMS users (pushed either by business necessity or part of a government / teleco org like GSMA staged removal of SMS and telephone numbers). It’s all data at the end of the day.

    Instead, they developed a whole new protocol to fluff the telecos and keep the now badly managed telephone number system even more necessary allowing spammers and allow the problems of legacy SMS to continue.

    Apple, Google, and Samsung should all be shamed for not supporting fully open protocols and necessitating dependency on user harming stacks.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      This sounds nice at a superficial level, but there’s a lot of reliability and backwards compatibility issues being ignored. During natural disasters and emergency situations, internet and cellular data are the first to fail. It’s not casual. For the phone and SMS (GSMA) protocols are sturdy enough that they can operate with very simple, low energy consuming and highly reliable machines. Internet data services on the other hand consume way more electricity (more expensive to have them operate with backup generators, for example) and are more delicate and prone to failure. They also need to be replaced more often. 100% of national emergencies systems run on phone and SMS tech, that could reliably operate for several decades with little maintenance that would cost billions to replace them with internet based system that were as reliable and durable. And then on top of it all, wired phones can even operate without electricity and connect with cellular terminals to contact other phones and cellphones. Only the tower needs to have power. There’s just a lot banked of that reliability that most modern conveniences don’t have.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In case of emergency it runs or it doesn’t run. No matter if cellular or data.

        Best were something like Briar’s local wifi mesh standardized for emergency anyway.

      • NebLem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I totally agree we can’t simply drop SMS immediately, but what am I missing in supporting backwards compatibility (for example via my pseudo number solution, like how VOIP works) preventing us from moving forward during a stagged shutdown in the span of decades? MMS and RCS both would also fail under cellular data loss, and SMS itself hasn’t always been available during major disasters. I’m not sure I buy the argument you can’t have similarly low energy towers (even with net neutrality states, you can still cap all bandwidth per user), and a simpler tower that only does data should be far more reliable than a tower that provides multiple carrier services given the simplicity (and it’s very rare to have towers that only do voice + SMS anymore).

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and SMS itself hasn’t always been available during major disasters.

          Neither has running water or electricity. And SMS isn’t actually the last fall-back (over here), that’s FM radio which has better reach and crank-powered receivers start at like 10 bucks. Also there’s a ton of generator-powered receivers around (called cars). Oh, dang, no, that’s not actually the last fall-back that’d be megaphone trucks and cars practically all emergency service vehicles have some kind of PA system.

          Solar storm killed the electrics of the new vehicles? There’s a 60-year old Unimog still standing around getting moved once a year to keep it operational and I bet you’ll find an analog megaphone in storage somewhere. It’s astonishing how little stuff gets thrown away, we once stumbled across a stash of field telephones, half of them with swastikas ground off, the others still intact. Those require a crank and a copper cable to operate, nothing more. We used them to organise parking for a summer camp before the days of mobile flatrates.

          The actual upside of plain ole GSM is that practically everyone carries around a receiver all the time, and there’s reception literally everywhere. Better reach and better signal bandwidth than sirens, though of course nothing beats the oh fuck oh fuck hear it in your marrow aspect of sirens.

          Catastrophe relief isn’t an area where you ever want to have a single strategy because absolutely nothing is 100% fail-safe. In principle something like TETRA would be better than GSM but civilian phones don’t speak it. (TETRA uses mesh networking, you can do direct handset to handset calls, drive around base stations in trucks to extend reach, etc)

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know for certain. But one point to consider is that you have to qualify your “simply” statements with the fact that we are talking about millions of towers and hundreds of millions of repeaters over millions of square miles. While RCS works on top of the backbone that’s already there and fallsback to SMS by design. So it might actually be simpler. The big up is that the server is on the carrier, not centralized, which makes it entirely different than what you are talking about and giving it more resilience.

        • Xenocrat@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is so much nonsense being said about RCS, it will not fail under “cellular data loss”.

  • jcs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine a world where we can adopt a scalable, secure, open communication protocol where users can use whatever app they want. Imagine humanity moving past the diaspora of special-snowflake chat apps and on to better things.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Breaking news: Apple and majority of its users still don’t care.

    I’d love to have RCS, but it’s not a make or break feature for me, and I’m tech savvy enough to know what it is and what it does. Good luck trying to convince the average consumer to give a fuck about invisible tech that doesn’t meaningfully change their experience.

  • krakenx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Apple is not going to change this unless legally forced to because it is quite possibly the biggest driver of iPhone sales.

    A whopping 87% of American teens use an iPhone, and the green text from Android SMS is the biggest reason. At that age people will do almost anything to fit in and get a date, and the green text was chosen specifically to elicit an “eww” response. Most of those teens will likely will continue to use iPhones as adults because it’s what they know.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meanwhile outside of the United States basically no one uses iMessage. Precisely because it’s so terrible it interfacing with non-apple devices. Everyone just uses WhatsApp which will work with anything.

      Of course WhatsApp’s quite a crap program as well missing basic functionality but at least it’s not device specific.

    • IGMKI@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As someone from the EU, I’m so confused about why this would matter to people. At that age, people will just find any excuse to bully regardless of what it is, it’s why uniforms don’t work either for those purposes. Hell, if someone were to try and shame me for the fucking color of my messages I’d be thankful, they’ve shown me another cunt to avoid associating with. In that sense it might actually be useful. (also, who even uses sms anymore?)

    • Surdon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The green text peer pressure means nothing to me, but you are 100% spot on about the ecosystem driving sales. My whole family uses apple and I get left out of so many group chats and face times that I’ve actually considered switching to Apple even though I’m a die hard Note fan. Apples hardware may be nothing special, but they have a killer feature in their seamless, closed ecosystem, and they know it. At the end of the day, a phones job is to communicate, and Apple does that seemlessly- with other Apple devices

      • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what lured me in and also why I left. I wanted devices that worked together for accessibility reasons, not because I wanted to be on some over engineered chat network that only works with itself.

      • Robaque@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a slippery slope though. Unless you own a mac or pay subscribe to icloud storage tranferring photos and other files off your phone is gonna be a pain. Also, unless you get a mac with enough storage space it’s also gonna be a pain because iphotos doesn’t support direct transfer to external drives, so you gotta use image capture which is ridiculously barebones.

        • Surdon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait you can’t transfer images directly to external harddrives?? Honestly I genuinely wonder why people put up with this shit

          • Robaque@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            On macs, only with image capture, which is very subpar

            No wonder they make people pay so much for extra storage loool

    • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Very true and very ridiculous. A great deal of people will commonly do almost anything to be apart of a desirable group.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d be ok with everybody adopting Signal protocol but I can safetly say no government anywhere would “allow” that

  • el_bhm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. EU passes the chat interop legislation.
    2. Apple is forced to do RCS.
    3. ???
    4. Corpos that shout now declare victory.

    First privacy, then USB, now RCS.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only thing I know about RCS is that it has caused a few of my texts to never be sent, because the “send as normal text if RCS doesn’t work” also didn’t work. Other than that it has done nothing for me.

      • zepheriths@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are mandated back doors in most message apps. Messages between different message systems are normally harder to read

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Samsung has released a new video in support of Google’s #GetTheMessage campaign which calls for Apple to adopt RCS or “Rich Communication Services,” the cross-platform protocol pitched as a successor to SMS that adopts many of the features found in modern messaging apps… like Apple’s own iMessage.

    The video, titled “Green bubbles and blue bubbles want to be together,” shows a Romeo and Juliet-style conversation between two users who want to be together, but who are kept apart by one of their “parents.”

    The “bubbles,” of course, are a reference to Apple’s iMessage interface which shows feature-rich blue bubbles for messages sent between Apple users, and discordant green SMS bubbles with reduced functionality when Android users participate in the chat.

    This two-class system is especially frustrating in countries like the US where about half the population is using an iPhone and the other half is running Android on a Samsung device.

    Apple, of course, has every incentive keep the status quo as a form of ecosystem lock-in, but it might be forced to open up its messaging service as a result of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

    Regulators are currently investigating whether iMessage meets the bar to be considered a “core platform service” under the rules, which would compel Apple to offer interoperability with other messaging services.


    The original article contains 232 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 6%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • jerjajjijerj@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Apple will never listen, but maybe the EU could decide it’s important enough issue for them to force it. It’s starting to feel like we should just go to them, first. I’d like to imagine we have another candidate problem for regulation enforced fixing, with Mac laptops’ long-standing displayport multistream problem. Macs will only mirror and never extend to an nth monitor over displayport splitting … but the availability of thunderbolt adapters as a workaround takes some of the “oomph” out of that argument. That one’s been around like ten or more years.

    The other issue alluded to by another commenter, though, is that rcs is not low-level in Android os quite like SMS is. Like the API to get the information into other competing apps is not there, so it seems a little bit hypocritical.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      The EU could have had an effect on it via the DMA, but it seems that not many people use iMessage in the EU. People use Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger way more here, so those are forced into opening up.

      iMessage message bubble colors seem to be an US problem.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe don’t buy Apple hardware? Why is it the government’s job to fix every minor annoyance you have with Apple?

      • stankmut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most people complaining about imessage are people who bought Android devices. In places where imessage use is prevalent, people with iphones tend to leave their android owning friends out of group chats and complain about their text bubble color being green if they text an android phone.

          • stankmut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I haven’t said anything about the EU. There’s no way the EU would address this, it’s almost exclusively a US problem.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean… I did and you were replying to me so… Guess you just ignored my point and posted with a “fun fact” for no reason then.

              • stankmut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh, I see the problem. You seem to have forgotten that you wrote:

                Maybe don’t buy Apple hardware?

                I was responding to your point. You appeared to be arguing that this was a problem that could just be solved by just buying a different phone. I was saying that the people complaining are already the ones buying different phones.

        • Duranie@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Someone leaves me out of a group chat due to the color of my text bubble, I doubt there was any benefit to being included in the conversation anyway.

          • stankmut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well they aren’t leaving you out because of the color of the text bubble. It’s because having a phone that isn’t an iPhone in the group causes it to fallback to using MMS instead of imessage. They lose a lot of the features that iPhone users love about imessage and the quality of shared images and video is much worse. The moment someone tries to share a video and everyone just gets a blurry smudge of pixels is the moment all the iPhone users get their own group together.