
Upgrading Messaging on Android in the U.S. with RCS - trimbo
https://www.blog.google/products/rcs/upgrading-messaging-android-us-rcs/
======
AcerbicZero
There was a time when I really thought Google was going to shake things up.
Nexus Phones, Google Fiber, Google Fi, etc all sounded awesome. I bought a
Nexus 5, switched to Fi, went through the super fun process of mixing around
my google voice numbers, (breaking all kinds of stuff) but eventually I was
mostly setup and functional. I'd lost some core parts of gVoice, but I figured
it was just a matter of time before it was back up to a similar level.

Having Hangouts as a full featured SMS/Voice/MMS replacement, which also let
you do all of those things from your computer was an awesome experience. GV
features like Spam filter wasn't supported with Fi, and just accessing your GV
account with a Fi subscription on your google account was difficult.

Then they split SMS/Hangouts (although Fi users were somewhat grandfathered
in), which broke basically every text convo I had going on, and made it _more_
difficult to text Hangout friends compared with SMS only friends. Then they
rolled back the gVoice/Fi plans, and made it clear that Hangouts was going
away, and gVoice wasn't going to be an option. Then the Nexus phones started
to get worse instead of better. The 6P was mediocre at best, and "Stock"
Android was starting to make compromises, while somehow getting worse. The
Pixels have continued this trend of decline, Hangouts can't really even send
Gifs anymore (size limit of like, 3mb or something) Fi has made almost no
progress, and when Hangouts goes away I'll be retiring the last of my Android
devices.

Kind of a long rant, but my point is I don't trust google to do anything
competent in this space, and even if they did, I wouldn't trust them not to
fuck it up 6 months later.

~~~
OkGoDoIt
Exactly my experience. I finally bit the bullet and switched to the Apple
side. There are things I miss from android but I trust Apple not to self
sabotage much more than I trust Google these days. Which is weird, and exactly
the opposite of the feeling I had 5 years ago.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I'm in this situation right now - was just debating buying an iPhone yesterday
after never owning anything from Apple. How do you like it so far?

~~~
superturkey650
Not the parent, but I recently switched to an iPhone and I'm liking it.

On Android, I was constantly using new Apps, looking at /r/android for release
announcements, and getting excited about all the new releases. Then, at some
point, I realized I just wanted a phone that works. That's when I switched to
Apple. That's not to say my Pixel didn't do everything my iPhone does. It
could do it all and in many cases it could even do it better or in a more
customized way. But, it also required effort. Effort to learn the new apps,
effort to change all the settings, and effort every time Google decided to
change something that I thought was already working just fine.

Then I switched to Apple and I realized I didn't want necessarily want to
spend all my time learning my phone, I wanted to spent my time USING it. To
me, my iPhone is more like an appliance than a new tech gadget. It doesn't
necessarily provide you with all the options and capabilities that an Android
phone does, but it absolutely nails its core competencies and is very easy to
use. I don't spend a single extra second trying to figure out HOW to use it,
it just works.

~~~
what_ever
Couldn't you use your Android phone as you are using your iPhone? It was your
choice after all to go to /r/Android and try out new apps. I am pretty sure
you are using the same 90% of apps on iPhone now that you used on your
Android. And for the other 10% you could very well have settled on something
and be done with it.

I bet you will be looking at /r/Apple in a few months.

~~~
0b0001
I’ve used non-Google devices most of the time, now trying out an iPhone.

Just did a factory reset and restore via iCloud. My fear of loosing my phone,
incomplete backups and messed up restore is gone. Works.

Might be possible with Google phones, too. For all the others it’s just messy.

(I‘d agree with you, until I tried it three weeks ago. Working with computers
all day, I need others to take care of my personal and pocket computers...)

~~~
what_ever
I have upgraded from Nexus 4 to Nexus 6p to Pixel 3 and have never started off
fresh. Have factory reset my phone a couple of times and have been able to
restore where I was. So I can't relate to you to what you are saying.

Sort of unrelated - I hate these kinds of comment chains. One clarifies
something, other comes up - what about this though. And this whole chain
itself when the article is about RCS.

Also disc that I am a Googler.

------
atonse
Can anyone confirm the biggest issue (in my opinion) with RCS? It's not end-
to-end encrypted.

Update: Confirmed it myself [1]. End-to-end encryption is not even an option.
Which is perfect for the data addicts like Google. But honestly I would never
ever recommend this as an avenue for people to use over something like
WhatsApp.

[1]: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20964477/googles-rcs-
cha...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20964477/googles-rcs-chat-android-
rollout-us-ccmi-texting-sms)

~~~
beisner
It's almost certainly the carriers imposing this restriction. The reason these
features took so long is because, as they did for SMS, every single carrier
across the world has to get on board with this. , so I'm sure that's the
reason it's not encrypted. The Messages app might be a Google product, but the
underlying transport has to be implemented by carriers, and I'm sure there are
many, many carriers who aren't interested in encrypting the messages that are
carried across their networks (either because they don't have the technical
competency, they want the data for themselves, or they have to comply with
local law enforcement regulations about texting).

This is not to excuse the lack of encryption, but the finger should probably
be pointed more at carriers (and maybe OEMs) than at Google.

One question I have is whether Google-account to Google-account messages will
be encrypted, like how Apple does it with their iMessage/SMS boundary within
the same app...

~~~
superturkey650
Is there any reason someone couldn't make an sms client that gives the option
of encryption assuming the person you are conversing with was using a client
following the same encryption protocol? It would require a few automated texts
to exchange keys but would allow encrypted communication over sms easily.

I'm guessing there just isn't a big enough market for it given that people are
willing to create an account with WhatsApp to get the same thing.

~~~
gnomewascool
That's exactly what TextSecure (now Signal) used to do[0]. Since the code is
open-source, somebody has forked the SMS code and apparently kept it alive[1].
(It's even on both F-Droid and Google Play.)

[0] [https://lwn.net/Articles/638621/](https://lwn.net/Articles/638621/)

[1] [https://git.silence.dev/Silence/Silence-
Android/](https://git.silence.dev/Silence/Silence-Android/)

------
nathankunicki
A couple of weeks ago AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile announced that they
had started working on their cross-provider RCS implementation -
[https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/24/20931202/us-carriers-
rcs...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/24/20931202/us-carriers-rcs-cross-
carrier-messaging-initiative-ccmi-att-tmobile-sprint-verizon)

Does Google doing this essentially mean they've gotten sick of waiting for the
carriers and decided to bypass them entirely? If so, the carriers can't be
happy about that.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google was trying to market Jibe as a service carriers could pay for to handle
their RCS messaging for them. When carriers announced CCMI, they made it clear
they weren't interested in paying for Jibe. [https://jibe.google.com/jibe-
platform/](https://jibe.google.com/jibe-platform/)

Clearly, Google wants the data badly enough to provide said messaging services
for free, and doesn't want carriers to keep the data to themselves. But they
were hoping carriers would pay them and that they'd also get the data.

------
mrandish
Let me see if I understand the strategic landscape around RCS correctly...

* To the extent RCS:

a) makes it easier for users to switch between mobile providers and keep
advanced features that used to be offered for lock-in or more $$, or

b) makes it easier for users to switch between the old SMS network and wifi -
then, it's not good for mobile telco provider's business models.

* To the extent RCS increases privacy for users (E2E encryption, etc) - then, it's not good for Google's business models.

* To the extent it allows feature-rich messaging to work across ALL major platforms (Android, Web & iOS)- then, it's not good for Apple's platform lock-in.

While I agree that an open, extensible, feature-rich, privacy-aware, cross-
platform, cross-network messaging standard is highly desirable - is it correct
that RCS (as currently formulated) is a non-starter and, from a strategic
perspective, always was?

~~~
rusk
I remember this the last time around, with MMS 20 years ago. It was a non-
starter then and I’ve seen little this time around to give me confidence this
will be different. The Google thing is a novel digression, but from where I’m
sitting it looks like they’re just trying to fence off a section of the market
for themselves and adding little else besides.

------
jbredeche
I have a Pixel 3XL on Google Fi. Every time I try to enable Chat Features on
Messages, it just grays out on "Setting up ...". If I try too many times in a
day, it locks me out for 24 hours.

If Google can't figure out how to make it work _on their own phone carrier_, I
really do not have much hope for Android's messaging strategy.

------
Daniel_sk
The blue bubbles in the GIF example look exactly like iMessage on iOS,
coincidence?

~~~
nacs
Except unlike in iMessage where blue bubbles basically mean end-to-end
encrypted messaging, Google's version is completely unencrypted.

------
Aaronstotle
New protocol in 2019 with no support for encryption, this is not acceptable.

~~~
kbenson
The protocol is from 2008. None of the carriers were getting around to
supporting it (since it's federates to AT&T and Verizon have to have their own
servers that talk to each other), so Google is publishing a "universal
profile" so Android can talk to Android at least. This is really just Google
kicking the carriers kicking and screaming into 2010 level technology. As a
standalone protocol, it's not great. As an upgrade to SMS it's _long_ overdue.

------
awill
RCS has completely blown up in Google's face. They should have just copied
Apple and created gMessage

~~~
toast0
They did: Google Talk/gChat, Hangouts, Allo, Duo, Wave (I think it did
messaging, I don't really know). There's probably more I forgot.

Google Talk notably supported tons of mobile platforms and was XMPP based and
had federation, before they started down their path of reinventing messaging
over and over.

~~~
tuxracer
Sure they created a lot of apps but they never replicated THE key feature of
iMessage which is seamless SMS fallback within the same app. You don't have to
even think about "Oh this person doesn't use such and such app"

Allo came the closest but messages sent to phone numbers not on Allo were sent
through some proxy number so the recipient ended up getting the message as
from some random google phone number.

RCS is the closest Google has ever come to the effortlessness of iMessage in
terms of having a single app you can message anyone with, and incidentally
there are some benefits if the other person is using a compatible app but
regardless the message will get through (and from your number) one way or
another.

~~~
hocuspocus
> Sure they created a lot of apps but they never replicated THE key feature of
> iMessage which is seamless SMS fallback within the same app. You don't have
> to even think about "Oh this person doesn't use such and such app"

To be fair, while Google certainly could have had a better strategy,
replicating Apple's would probably have been a failure.

For several reasons, iMessage's success is very US-centric. SMS fall-back is
really not an option in countries where unlimited SMS isn't the norm. Google
should have tried harder to acquire Whatsapp, or at least grab another big
fish in this space (like Viber).

RCS is going to benefit carriers more than Google, since they might claim back
some of the IM traffic. Google realizes it can at least try to control the app
(Messages) which will be deployed to most low and mid-range Android phones,
that are running stock or close to stock Android.

------
bonerpolizei
I'm guessing this is what borked names being attached in SMS Hangouts chat in
Gmail. Anyone else having this issue?

~~~
pilom
Yep, just noticed that today as well.

------
m-p-3
No E2EE is a dealbreaker for me, no reason for me to use that or old-fashioned
SMS.

------
russellbeattie
iMessage was launched in 2011. It's been 8 years and still no real solution
for Android phones. RCS isn't encrypted, which is insane, and there's still
massive infighting between carriers and Google. And even _if_ RCS actually
launches in the next year or so in the U.S., there's zero mention of iMessage
interop (and zero interest from Apple), which means 45% of your contacts will
still fall back to basic SMS/MMS. And who knows what the international
situation will be like.

This realistically means the current crazy messaging situation is going to
remain for the next 5 to 10 years.

------
codedokode
Isn't RCS invented to let mobile carriers take back the market of mobile
messaging from messengers like Telegram or Whatsapp? There will be no
encryption, it won't work without Internet and users can be charged for every
message.

Of course, no sane person will want to use it so Google will have to add
something that will be available only to RCS and not to other messengers.

------
ocdtrekkie
I am very curious how carriers will respond to Google deciding to preempt them
by pushing an app update to redirect all text messaging straight to Google
servers versus the carriers. Google seemed like it was respecting the
carriers' involvement, right up until carriers announced plans to build their
own RCS system that didn't give Google the data. Suddenly, Google is turning
on RCS?

Presumably Google was hoping it could convince carriers to pay Google to host
their messaging platforms, and when Google lost that gamble, they decided they
still wanted the data either way.

This is the sort of coup I half-wonder if carriers would drop the Android
platform over. (At the very least, I think four more large companies will be
vocally supporting the DOJ's antitrust investigation.)

~~~
Mindwipe
To be honest, I think they might find after it's turned on that the limitation
to the Google Messages app (which is not the default on Samsung devices and
hence represents very little in terms of market share) doesn't move the needle
at all and makes very little difference. Certainly, the impact of turning it
on on the UK market seems to have been zero.

If Google follows through by enabling it system wide in future OS versions
that might change a little, but Android being as it is that will take a long,
long time, and the carriers probably suspect their own RCS implementations
will have worked before then, or Whatsapp will just take over the US too and
RCS will be dead.

~~~
kelnos
I _do_ use the Google Messages app, but I don't plan to enable RCS any time
soon. The main reason is that I use the "SMS Backup & Restore" app to back up
my SMSes & MMSes, and it's unable to back up RCS messages because they're
stored in a separate DB that currently has no system API access.

So chalk that up as perhaps another reason why some people won't "upgrade".

------
brenden2
I've only got a cursory understanding of RCS, but in what way is this good for
consumers? I can understand how it's good for Google, but aside from Google
it's unclear how anyone benefits.

~~~
rectang
> _I 've only got a cursory understanding of RCS_

Try `man rcs`. Heh.

I hate name collisions.

~~~
cameronbrown
Something something naming things.. ;)

------
awill
I use PulseSMS. Unless Google quickly allows third party apps to integrate,
third party apps are all doomed. Isn't this an anti-trust problem?

~~~
thekyle
Given that lots of people use the SMS app that comes with their phone (which
often isn't Android Messenger) I suspect it is more the case that if Google
doesn't allow 3rd party apps to integrate then Google's RCS is doomed.

------
aitchnyu
Would this work where mobile internet is slow or non existent? Would this
break dependence on having Firebase as the power-efficicent centralized push
system? Will this have delivery receipts? Can this be used as a transport for
E2EE apps?

------
vinvin
How is there not an uproar over the lack of E2E encryption? With all the
headlines lately around Cambridge Analytica and Snowden and Facebook - who in
their right mind is okay with letting Google read their text messages? It's
insane.

------
JohnFen
No, thanks.

I really, really, really don't want SMS "upgraded" in this way. If I wanted
something like RCS, I'd be using a messaging app.

Here's hoping that everything remains compatible with old-school SMS.

~~~
gowld
Why use SMS instead of a messaging app? Why is the call network side channel
the ideal cellular messaging protocol?

~~~
JohnFen
The call network side is universal. Messaging apps aren't. It's really that
simple for me.

With SMS, I don't have to agree with the other parties about what app we're
going to use. We can just exchange messages without a hassle.

The only downside is the lack of encryption, but I can live with that.

Another consideration, and this is why I'm resistant to RCS, is that I
actively don't want all the bells and whistles that messaging apps have. All I
want to do is be able to exchange short plain text messages.

------
xen2xen1
And still no RCS support in Google Voice. Brilliant.

------
Causality1
Those are nice features, but half the people I talk to use iOS so I'm not
going to use any of them. Trying to remember who has what is too much hassle.

------
calin2k
phone are running android os isn't it? carriers still can roll their rcs on
ios

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Apple has shown no interest in supporting RCS, because the features it adds
are basically akin to iMessage... which iPhones already have.

~~~
Daniel_sk
And RCS has no support for E2E encryption, it would be actually a downgrade
from iMessage.

~~~
umeshunni
Not for iOS users sending messages to Android users.

------
olliej
Uh huh. “Upgrading” to plain text completely unencrypted data that can be
monetized by google and carriers. A+.

------
jlgaddis
Is this basically an Android-only version of iMessages?

~~~
pathartl
No, it's an industry agreed standard of an implementation similar to iMessage
without end to end encryption.

It was created by many of the carriers as an upgrade to SMS.

~~~
wlesieutre
It's an industry standard, but if Apple doesn't implement it in iOS then it's
only useable from one Android device to another.

That effectively makes it into crappy iMessage for Android. Only works within
one OS ecosystem, but it's unencrypted, managed by your carrier, and limited
to the one cellular device itself instead of also working directly on your
wifi-connected tablet and computer.

It would be nice of Apple to support this if it's an improvement over SMS/MMS,
but Apple drags their feet on supporting any sort of standards that they
didn't create. And even some that they _did_ (pour one out for OpenCL).

~~~
Mobius01
I don’t see Apple supporting this if end-to-end encryption isn’t in place,
they’ve been more and more positioning privacy as a competitive advantage for
their services.

~~~
otachack
Apple already supports SMS to their Messages app. Those communication threads
fall back to SMS rather than their proprietary protocol, I imagine. RCS
equipped message apps will probably fall back to regular SMS when sending to
Apple Messages equipped phones, maybe?

------
Aghoree
Can't wait for no one to use it ever

~~~
dang
" _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A
good critical comment teaches us something._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
iamaelephant
This is very exciting for the 8 people still using SMS I suppose.

~~~
etaioinshrdlu
I'm a 20 something in tech circles in the West Coast of the US and I use SMS
at least some of the time to communicate with:

* Brother

* Mother

* Father

* Uncle 1

* Uncle 2

* Roommate 1

* Roommate 2

* Friend of roommate

* Cousin

* Business partner

All of that is in just the last week. SMS is the first messaging system
softened mentioned when meeting new people. Because it's a lowest common
demoninator.

Why am I not cool enough to hang out with Whatsapp-using people? Joking....

~~~
maratc
The reason you don't use WhatsApp is that the people you communicate with
don't use WhatsApp. The reason _they_ don't use WhatsApp is that the people
_they_ communicate with (this includes _you_ ) don't use WhatsApp.

This is called "network effect", where the value of the product for you is
amplified as more and more other people use the same product. You can get a
value out of a microwave oven, even if no other people ever use it; you can't
get a value out of WhatsApp if other people don't use it, since there's not
much value in WhatsApp-ing yourself.

The question, then, becomes: Why the US doesn't get value out of WhatsApp?,
and this has to do with history.

As people started to use messaging (only SMS existed at that point) instead of
calling, the US carriers responded by increasing the basic subscription price
while including unlimited messaging (SMS). The relatively rich US population
could bear this added cost. This, however, was not the situation in pretty
much the rest of the world, where the SMS was either an expensive "added value
service" (not good for the customer), or "unlimited within provider" (again,
not good for the customer who has to guess whether their SMS is going to be
free or not).

As of 2010, when WhatsApp started gaining popularity, its value in the US was
questionable, since no-additional-price unlimited SMS was a viable alternative
(as it still is). The rest of the world have seen a tremendous value in
unlimited and free alternative to the expensive SMS. (WhatsApp pricing was $0
for unlimited messaging in the first year, and $1 per year after that.) With
that value, the rest of the world switched swiftly. Not all of them went to
WhatsApp, as Viber seems to be the most popular in Eastern Europe and LINE in
Japan.

