
Google Is Taking Charge of the RCS Rollout - iwasakabukiman
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-android-texting-carriers-imessage-encryption
======
dmitrygr
RCS solves _NONE_ of the problems that need solving, and only gives carriers
another thing to charge for. Specifically:

* the spec is very very complex, and most parts are optional, so no two phones/carriers/manufacturers/OS versions will ever agree on anything but the basic minimal set of features.

* there is no specification for end-to-end encryption, and even if there were, it would be optional (as noted above)

* RCS is reliant on carriers which is idiotic given that they have time and time again demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (SIM theft, wholesale sale of location data, etc). It is not a simple set of packets moving over the internet. It could have been. But it is not!

* Carriers CAN and likely WILL charge for it, because they can and because sadly (as noted above) RCS is visible to them as something more than an encrypted stream of data

* Phone number-as-identity is so stupid, even apple admitted it by allowing <email>@icloud.com accounts to work with imessage. People move countries, they change numbers. Phone number is a stupid identity! Oh, and SIM theft exists. Repeat after me: phone number is not an identity!

Google fucked this up _MAJORLY_ so many times, it is not even funny. Hangouts
could have been this, if not for internal politics at google. Another google-
created service could have been it too. Before google released their 50th
messaging app (or is Google up to 60 yet?), people might have listened and
adopted what they offered. At this point everyone is too burned by Google
releasing new messaging apps and then sunsetting them year later.

In reality, RCS is a terrible non-solution to the actual problem of rich
secure messaging between people with guaranteed delivery and typing
indication. It is instead a money-grab for carriers and a data-grab for the
NSA. Nice and easy to spy on a protocol with no encryption.

~~~
iwasakabukiman
> At this point everyone is too burned by Google releasing new messaging apps
> and then sunsetting them year later.

What if they just released an upgrade to their existing Messages app and
enrolled everyone by default in a new Google version of iMessage?

That's basically what Apple did. Upgrade to iOS 5 and you're automatically
enrolled in iMessage without any extra steps. Suddenly your messaging
experience just got a whole lot better without any extra work.

~~~
themacguffinman
The EU would take them to court before the rollout was finished.

~~~
Nextgrid
Not sure. There’s strong competition in the market in the form of iMessage
(and others - see WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc) so I doubt there would be
grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.

~~~
v7p1Qbt1im
There is yes. But Messages would presumably be preinstalled. In that case the
EU would have a problem with it most likely.

If it weren‘t preinstalled. We‘ll then it‘s pretty much Signal for example and
that doesn‘t solve the problem. iMessage works because it‘s preinstalled and
default.

It‘s a miracle and kind of ironic that SMS being non-free drove the whole
world (except the US where it was) away from it.

~~~
x2f10
>iMessage works because it‘s preinstalled and default.

Is this country dependent? It is absolutely on-by-default in the United
States.

~~~
v7p1Qbt1im
True. Now that you mention it. I seem to remember having iMessage (the
feature) be opt-in in Europe. So the feature is on by default in the US for
sure? I guess that somehow negates my earlier post. But I suppose people would
notice the green bubbles everywhere and remember to turn it on.

Hmm is this a defense against antitrust concerns as well?

~~~
Nextgrid
iMessage is not opt-in. It's enabled by default even here in the UK. The good
thing about it is that it doesn't even require an account, if you just want to
use it with a phone number (you need an account if you want to use it with
another identity like an email address).

------
kilroy123
The whole world has already moved beyond texting. It's called WhatsApp.

I'm from the US but I've lived abroad the last four years. I'm still surprised
so many people "back home" continue to use SMS texting. Everyone I know around
the world uses WhatsApp. Literally, in every single continent I know and chat
with people on WhatsApp.

Only Americans still use SMS from what I've seen. I just don't get it.

~~~
Vrondi
Why would we want to move from SMS to a situation where Facebook ALSO has a
copy of every message we send? Not an improvement.

~~~
Barrin92
facebook doesn't store your (sent) whatsapp messages, and in contrast to sms
they're by default encrypted.

 _" Your Messages. We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of
providing our Services to you. Once your messages (including your chats,
photos, videos, voice messages, files, and share location information) are
delivered, they are deleted from our servers. Your messages are stored on your
own device. If a message cannot be delivered immediately (for example, if you
are offline), we may keep it on our servers for up to 30 days as we try to
deliver it."_

[https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/?eea=1#privacy-policy-
informa...](https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/?eea=1#privacy-policy-information-
we-collect)

~~~
dbbk
I really don't think the average person cares if their texts are end-to-end
encrypted, though. I'm not sure most people even know what that would mean.

~~~
Barrin92
I didn't assert tha the average person cares, just that the original claim
about whatsapp is false.

And also: it doesn't matter whether end users care about encryption or not, it
still benefits them, this is exactly why end-to-end encryption is a very good
default.

------
joshstrange
The only SMS's I get nowadays are from automated systems (bill pay reminders,
shipping, energy usage, etc). I don't talk to a single friend over SMS
anymore. It's either iMessage or FB messenger (for Android people). Both of
those provide a MUCH better experience and even if Apple ever supports RCS (I
kind of hope they don't and it dies off) I won't use it without encryption.
RCS is such a clusterfuck and I the carriers have proven time and time again
that they are incompetent greedy fools.

~~~
meddlepal
I think you'll find there's a diverse set of messaging users and requirements.

My 70+ parents for example only know and understand SMS (and they've only
recently started using it in the last six months). My brother uses Facebook
chat but because I'm not on FB we have to use SMS as a lowest common
denominator. He doesn't have friends on Telegram so he sees that as
unnecessary bloat to add to his phone.

Unfortunately SMS still has bar none the easiest onboarding experience as it
is the default chat mechanism on every phone.

~~~
MBCook
This is part of the genius of iMessage. You use ONE APP. Your message is
either SMS or iMessage automatically based on if the other person’s phone
supports it. You never have to think about it. ‘Is Billy in this app or that
app?’ Nope, he’s in the one and only app you use for ‘texting’.

Such a smart decision by Apple. How in the world am I supposed to know if my
contact supports iMessage or not? I can’t without coordination. But Apple can
and handles it.

Now someone may still use something else (FB, WhatsApp, etc) but SMS/iMessage
is practically transparent.

------
Someone1234
A lot of people seem excited by RCS. This escapes me, most messaging platforms
have now moved into the "integrations" space.

Meaning they're less defined by delivering a message, and more defined by the
"value add" services they offer (like Payments, Notifications from third party
services, customer support for third party services, etc).

RCS is more powerful than MMS, but less powerful than the internet-based
messaging platforms it is competing against. It is also confined by geography,
is confined to cellular devices, and disposes of anonymity/privacy.

Why would I want this? It takes me from the current requirement of "only needs
an internet connection" to "need a cellular plan and device." It takes me from
any moniker I want to [my phone number]. It takes me from "anyone in the
world" to "US only." And on and on.

I don't get it. Why should I or anyone else care about RCS? Why do people? It
seems like it solves yesterday's problems next week.

~~~
untog
Primarily because of interoperability. There is _still_ no messaging format as
ubiquitous as SMS, and it's a constant annoyance to me that my friends on
Android don't receive my (photo/video/group) messages as easily as my friends
with iPhones do. Sure, everyone could switch to one of the third party
services out there, but it's been years and they still haven't. So I'm all for
establishing a new baseline that doesn't try to do everything and just builds
on the foundation already existing in SMS.

------
Arathorn
Implementing RCS 5.1 (while at Amdocs, a telecoms vendor) was one of the main
things which drove the creation of Matrix.org, fwiw. We had never seen such a
sprawling and incoherent standard, and so did the thought experiment of what
the opposite non-telcoy approach might look like.

------
amanzi
This is embarrassingly bad for Google. Their failure in creating a stable and
long-lived messaging platform is well known but I can't believe they are
committing so much into something with so much reliance on network operators
and handset manufacturers that doesn't meed the needs of a modern, secure
platform.

~~~
v7p1Qbt1im
Guess what happens when they create a preinstalled default messaging app with
SMS fallback all running on their own platform (like iMessage). You guessed
it, antitrust. Influential OEMs and Carriers would complain and so would the
EU.

------
stefan_
Carriers charging for messaging? I feel like I'm in a time machine. Guys, the
internet was invented!

Is there no one in charge of strategy at Google? This is an embarrassment.

~~~
ClassyJacket
I think we've known for a long time there is nobody in charge of strategy at
Google. Look at what they did to Android Wear, Hangouts, Duo, Allo...

------
dstaley
I'm going to be really interested in seeing how this rolls out (that's
assuming it ever does) in the United States. All four major carriers have RCS
implementations, but as far as I can tell, none of them are interoperable or
universal across devices. Would Google step in and offer a solution for all
Android devices on a carrier? If so, would that interoperate with other
carriers' RCS implementations?

Thinking about that makes me think rolling out to other countries prior to the
US was a good idea.

------
joefkelley
If lack of end-to-end encryption is the price to pay to get carriers to
implement the features I want - better group messages, read receipts, better
quality photo sharing, typing indicators, etc - then sign me up.

And Google taking the lead by implementing this for free seems like it should
put a stop to any worry that carriers will charge for it.

------
prasanthv
Mmm — all our RCS traffic going through Google servers by default, sounds like
a great way to gather data. Next time you see weirdly specific ads based on a
text conversation you’ll have to wonder — how much of this is actually
encrypted.

------
ProAm
I don't trust google with this, poor customer service/support and a history of
cancelling/abandoning projects after a few years.

------
imchillyb
> I also asked about metadata, which is often a loophole that gets ignored in
> privacy discussions. Those should be temporary, too: “We temporarily log
> metadata about the device such as IMSI, phone number, RCS client vendor and
> version, and timestamps for a limited period of time to provide the
> service.”

___

NOT, they /will be/ temporary. They /should be/ temporary.

That's a garbage answer. Also, not defining temporary is a loophole. Temporary
could mean from 1 second to infinity, depending on how Google wants to sling
it.

