
Google gives up on Google Allo - spacemanspiffy
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/04/google-gives-up-on-google-allo-hopes-carriers-will-sort-out-rcs-messaging/
======
merricksb
Previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882539](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882539)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16881497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16881497)

------
kyrra
There are 2 front page stories about Google messaging strategy, both of which
were spawned from TheVerge article[0][1] that was posted last night that
didn't get as much traction then. Google gave them an exclusive interview and
they put together a well detailed piece that is talking about what Google is
doing around messaging and why.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16881497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16881497)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-
android-m...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-
messages-chat-rcs-anil-sabharwal-imessage-texting)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
FWIW, I'd much rather read a journalist's take on what Google is doing with
messaging than a Google PR piece from a site which mostly writes PR pieces.[1]
But there's probably good cause for multiple threads on the topic to be merged
together.

[1]Mostly when a company does exclusive interviews with a site, you should be
very skeptical of anything that site says on the matter. Especially if they
have a design team making custom animations and such for said exclusive
article.

~~~
Sgt_Apone
The Ars piece is much better researched than the one written by The Verge. In
the latter case they seem to make it like RCS is a wholly Google project when
its in fact a GSMA thing with several RCS solution providers.

------
AznHisoka
Google already had a product that could've beated WhatsApp, iMessage and every
other messaging app. It was called Google Talk/Chat. It was sticky b/c it was
embedded in Gmail. They killed it.

~~~
m-p-3
Wasn't it called Google Talk? And it was based on Jabber/XMPP, which let you
use any compatible client.

I hate that they dropped support for it, choosing to go with a proprietary
protocol without any public APIs.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It was Talk, but I think before it was a separate offering/app, it was just
"chat on Gmail", and hence, "GChat" took off as an informal name for it.

------
bsharitt
Google's problem is launching products to to compete with something that's
just there. I would guess there's a very large chunk of iPhone users, perhaps
a majority, that are completely unaware they're using an Apple messaging
service. Messages is just their SMS app that happens to behave slightly
differently when talking to other iPhone users.

~~~
evilduck
I'm pretty sure most iOS users were at least once aware they were using
Apple's messaging service because they were required to initially sign into
iCloud (or create their iCloud account for the first time) and explicitly opt
into iMessages.

But because the service and application are reliable and consistent and
because upgrading between iPhones is also mostly seamless and carries those
settings forwards between device upgrades, it just fades into the background
as something you did 5 years ago and don't need to think about again.

------
spadros
'The cell carriers fear being turned into "dumb pipes" and generally prefer
proprietary services that give them customer lock-in.'

Uhh, that's kind of what I pay my service providers to do though; deliver
services through their "dumb pipes" and infrastructure. There's not a lot of
differentiation in internet or phone services from provider to provider for
consumers. The biggest difference I can find is price and network
availability. Your job as a provider is to give me access to "dumb pipes".

~~~
zeveb
That's what I want, too. The thing is, that's so very much not what the
carriers want. They don't want to be a commodity (like corn or bacon): one
provider of a commodity is very much the same as every other, which means that
there's a race to the bottom on price. What the providers want is to
differentiate themselves from their competition, in order to add friction to
switching and thus help sustain higher prices.

The thing is, with general-purpose computing devices in our pockets we can run
just about anything. We don't _need_ special carrier features, and in fact
those are anti-features: why would I want something I can only use with those
of my friends on the same carrier?

Ultimately, of course, this also applies to OSes: why would I use something
Android- or iOS-specific when I could use something universal instead? Right
now, there are plenty of iPhone users using iCloud services which lock out
their Android-using friends & family, but over time social pressure will lead
the to find more platform-neutral ways to share.

The web is eating the world, and that means being in the ISP or OS space is a
losing game (in the long term: in the short term, of course, there's plenty of
profit to be had).

~~~
spadros
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. What's the point of a feature like RCS to me
when I can only use it with other Fido users? I'm not going to expect my
friends and family to stay on my provider, so that _actively discourages_ me
from wanting any provider locked in features. Make your dumb pipes better and
available to all networks and maybe I'll consider it.

------
geostyx
When it comes to messaging tools, you really have to play the long game to get
any real traction. I don't think I'd move away from Telegram unless Google's
chat app had been around for 5+ years with growing popularity, and is better
than Telegram (UX wise).

~~~
ocdtrekkie
That's the great comedy here: Everyone succeeding in the chat market has been
around for a number of years. Google tries something for about a year, decides
it doesn't have enough immediate traction, and then dumps it before anyone
even has an account. And they keep abandoning the little shares they gain each
time.

If there's anyone who I have to chat with in the Google world, it's likely
they still use or have Hangouts, because, including Talk, it's been around for
a long time. As soon as Google decided to abandon it's existing, sizeable user
base, it basically left the market.

~~~
bartq
No, Google just sinks in people into project which is going to be doomed
anyway - otherwise the same people could build businesses of higher chance of
success and endanger Google's position. It's destroying competition by paying
people salaries. Not sure if Google does it purposely or it's uncontrolled
fatal mechanism.

------
linuxlizard
(ham handed attempt at market research) Does anyone think there's a market
opening for a NxN group chat? We've been trying to find a usable group video
chat application. GotoMeeting is a 1 to many (broadcast) solution. Skype has
degraded over the last decade such that there's always at least one person who
can't completely join the meeting.

In my hubris, I wonder how hard it would be to create an NxN group video chat
app with OpenCV, some ffmpeg, and a lot of my own ignorance.

------
msiyer
"Google Allo was Google's attempt at a WhatsApp clone, and it launched just a
year-and-a-half ago with a laundry list of deficiencies."

With the greatest talents working in tandem, I fail to comprehend how they can
ever create something that is less than perfect? A great product failing due
to market dynamics is one thing, but releasing a half-baked product is
something that leaves me bewildered.

------
sathackr
This will fail also.

Why on Earth would anyone write a message system that wasn't based on dumb-
pipe internet? What can RCS do for an end user that IP can't?

Nobody likes being tied to their carrier. I have been using Google Voice for 5
years now and love that I am not tied to my carrier.

Yes I am tied to Google, but so is any other messaging system from Google.

This may just be a political move. "Hey carriers! Look? See? We're on your
side!"

~~~
ocdtrekkie
SMS/MMS is already operated through your carrier. RCS is no different, in that
regard. My main peeve with this whole Google Jibe thing is that we, as
consumers, won't get to opt in or out of Google collecting our conversations.

Since we didn't all decide to send Google our chat conversations, Google has
decided to start convincing carriers to hand over our chat conversations in
bulk without our permission.

------
MajorSauce
Yep, that was the last time I pushed for a Google messaging service to my
family members who did not want to deal with Signal's limitations.

I hoped Google became self-conscious with their image on messaging services.

I hoped they had changed.

Time to check if Signal's desktop client sync speed improved and start the
move for them.

------
bryanlarsen
You'd think that Google giving up on proprietary silo protocols and switching
to an open inter-operable standard would have people cheering from the
rooftops.

Yes, I'd rather have a standard that isn't tied to carriers and supported
encryption, but this is still a massive step forward IMO.

------
bastawhiz
The thing, in my opinion, that killed Allo, was not getting SMS right. I have
to use Hangouts for SMS. Why on earth would I use Allo? If I can't have one
unified inbox, I don't want the app.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Getting unified messaging "right" is very hard. I don't know if Apple has
really solved it either. I recall people having weird problems if they
switched away from iPhones because Apple would still try and prefer their own
proprietary protocol over SMS. There's like a web portal now to remove
yourself from iMessage, right?

~~~
bastawhiz
I wouldn't be as salty if Hangouts didn't work fine. Hangouts almost totally
seamlessly deals with chats and SMS. Allo makes a complete mess of it.

------
Apreche
Make hangouts great again.

