First, this isn't a Google app. Google is pushing the RCS standard, a standard that some carriers already support.
And yeah, it doesn't support encryption so it's clearly inferior to something like Signal, but open standards that don't live in a silo are still important. For instance, I have friends that almost exclusively chat through Facebook Messenger. Since I won't install Facebook Messenger, I chat with them over SMS. A "better SMS" would be nice, and might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.
It's taken a decade to get everyone on board so they could innovate on SMS. Since the carriers don't have the leverage that they had pre-iPhone and Apple is not supporting RCS, the positioning paints RCS as an Android/(non-iphone) messenger.
Looking at the objectives of the spec from a 10k level, it feels like it's hard mixing network quality with application layer logic in a way that's just going to be messy, hard to maintain, and calcifying of applications. I know the OSI layer model seems out of fashion now, but RCS feels like a lot of lat-80's/early-90's interconnect protocols that were killed by faster moving, more layer-isolated approaches using plain HTTP or applications over fairly direct TCP/IP.
While the standard itself doesn't enforce any encryption, you could write an RCS based app that encrypts messages between endpoints. There are SMS apps that do exactly that, you just have the other contact install the same app and scan a QR code.
> Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.
And I'm saying, regardless of the current implementation, just because it's an open standard, doesn't mean it can't be encrypted -- either in-transit or end-to-end.
Asymmetric cryptography, e.g. the TLS standard, is an open standard but secure (re: encrypted).
SMS has the advantage of being accessible from a cell tower without a separate data connection. RCS does not. It's like they took all the worst parts of other messaging protocols and put it into one product.
> might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.
I disagree. Despite the hopes of the tech community, I think RCS will only really benefit people currently using SMS. Which is great; they need an upgrade. But products like FBM, Signal, iMessage, etc do so much more than even what RCS is capable of, and those feature are often important to its users.
RCS will raise the least common denominator of mobile communication. Very important nonetheless.
Exacty. This is a GSMA standard, I don't get why suddenly everyone's lumping it together with Google - perhaps they pushed a well-timed press release.
It was started way back when, when end-to-end encryption wasn't on anyone's minds and as with everything in the carrier world, it's adoption was/is molasses slow. Google jumped on the bandwagon, implemented it for Android, and made some appliance boxes that they're selling(?) to willing operators. But it's an open standard and no one has to use the Google RCS box, and some operators actually don't.
In 10-15 years there will probably be a new messaging standard that's been started work on today, with end to end encryption and other missing features, and people will be decrying that it's missing some 2028 feature.
Yes, it could be better but it's pretty good for raising the baseline. Now if only all operators and devices would support it, it'd be just great.
So my specific question is how would Google make money out of it? And more generic question would be what's Google's long term strategy with messaging apps? And whether they plan to grow users and ultimately monetize this segment of their business? If Google pushes RCS based SMS app so harder than it seems that even if this app picks up usage, It'd be harder for Google to monetize it as Google doesn't have any control on the app.
That's another bigger factor: if Apple doesn't include it as a standard for their mobile phones it's not going to get anybody anywhere unless all carriers seem to care to implement it at all. At which case I'm not seeing why pushing for XMPP wouldn't be as valid? Carriers have the capability to power XMPP networks that work accross carriers... Also requires less reinventing the wheel and being locked down to "Google said do this."
> if Apple doesn't include it as a standard for their mobile phones it's not going to get anybody anywhere unless all carriers seem to care to implement it at all.
It's a GSMA spec, and according to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSMA) the GSMA like 800 operators as members so pretty good chance this is going to get implemented (apparently Sprint already has?).
Sounds like this is a carrier lead charge, most likely in response to folks ditching SMS for more flexible/featured alternatives.
While I'm sure your opinion would be interesting, the comment you left here is very much not so. Instead of saying "I don't like this" and leave it at that, HN expects you to be able to write down your arguments and opinions so others can understand them.
What you done here is lazy. Some further explanation about your view would probably be interesting. Otherwise, please don't comment at al.
I disagree. GP isn't saying to keep their mouth shut; it's saying to put up or shut up, which is emphatically different. "$FOO is bad" isn't totally worthless, but it's weak, especially when it would have taken 45 seconds more to say, "$FOO is bad because it's implemented poorly/inconsistently, has weak support for encryption, [...]".
And comments calling out unhelpful comments are slightly unpleasant, but still desirable feedback of what the desired norms are around here.
In fact, a mocking reply like this does itself violate the HN guidelines in at least one way: it certainly doesn’t assume the most charitable intent for GGP’s comment.
Comments like GGP are why we have downvotes, and why comments that get a lot of them appear gray. No need to humiliate someone for the sake of signaling your own virtue.
Ok, since now my comment has been called "condescending", "self-righteous", "mocking", "mean" and "humiliating someone", I need to understand.
Disclaimer: English is not my first language.
I did express that I'm interested in hearing the view, if further elaborated and explained why it is lacklustre, without attacking the user itself. I'm unsure of why my comment would arise these negative feelings, but I would like to fix it to not happen again. Thanks.
>Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.
I think that last argument doesn't float for me.
Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. I don't actually have it myself but I see people use it all the time.
And I do know that you're able to setup Facebook chat in 3rd party clients with OTR/omemo support. But that's besides the point because it's only done by a very small minority.
My point is that Facebook is a major player in targeted ads and their chat system is also unencrypted and resembles what google has tried to develop.
So I think google's issue is not with the ads but something else. I agree that they've taken a few too many stabs at trying to develop a chat system. But I can't see how they're failing because of their ad business.
And it went through a few changes, that made it ... more irritating, as usual for apps that want more attention.
There's also this Secret Conversations thing: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-... ... I haven't enable it, because .. please, like it matters, our collective OPSEC is so bad, even using the term makes me cringe .. :| But usually people don't plan ahead with the intent to have successfully deniable communications, otherwise we'd use something self-hosted.
Facebook and Google both aim to target ads accurately; Facebook also has unencrypted messages by default; therefore "google's issue [with adding encryption] is not with the ads but something else"?
I don't see how those connect.
edit: ah, your real conclusion was "google's issue [with creating a successful chat app] is not with ads but something else". I didn't think GP was purporting the unencrypted chat application wouldn't be adopted, just that it wouldn't be "good for the world", or somesuch.
Google could encrypt the content with end-to-end encryption like Moxie did with TextSecure and SMS. The RCS content would be encrypted between Android Chat users.
But from every move Google has made recently, it seems to think that people have forgotten about the Snowden stories. So they now have ZERO interest in anything that is end-to-end encrypted, because they think they can now get away with it.
They threw an option in there for Allo, but it was never meant to be used by users anyway, and now they're killing Allo, too. I don't think they'll ever talk about end-to-end encryption again because they want all of that data for themselves.
Now, the very least Google could do for its users is encrypt the RCS messages between its Android Chat users with some kind of Noise/HTTPS encryption. That would still give them all the user data, but at least they'd be protecting users against the carriers exploiting all of that data, too. So it would be very similar to them using HTTPS for websites or for DNS, and I see no reason why Google wouldn't do this.
I still wouldn't use Android Chat because I don't trust Google at all anymore, especially after their recent interest in working with the Pentagon for developing autonomous military drones, but at least it would benefit everyone else.
Also, there was a recent thread on /r/Android, and it seems nobody outside of US cares about SMS anymore (which means they don't care about RCS either, which is basically SMS+):
What Snowden stories? You mean how Google's SREs were pissed[0] to find out what the NSA was doing? And that then Google started encrypting all their inter-datacenter traffic automatically[1].
As for a reddit discussion... that is such a poor indicator of use of a service. I don't see any statistics gathered there about usage by country. That is such a tiny sample set, it is basically useless. There are groups out there that gather SMS (and chat app) usage by country, but I think all those reports are paywalled.
At this point isn’t building the software that enables people to be content using your phones significantly more valuable that reading texts in transit? The advertising gains could be had by building local profiles using unencrypted texts on the device itself. Just encrypt as it flows through the network, in that case I at least know google can read them but nobody else can.
The opportunity cost of screwing up something as basic as messaging experience on a phone is enormous.
Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes.
What the heck is Google doing? I’d want to work there just to fix this because they are blowing it.
> Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes.
According to The Verge, a web interface is coming soon (presumably as a result of development effort being redirected from Allo to Messages)
> So expect a couple things to happen on the app front. First, Google will finally make a desktop web interface for texting
There's a screenshot in this article (about half-way down; if you're lucky this link will take you to it):
Yes, it's a standard that is already supported by several apps, including Samsung default messaging app. Which makes complaning about google making an app strange.
If Apple were to open iMessage (both to other platforms and the spec/implementation) they could own the messaging market almost over night.
Of course there is no real benefit for them in doing so though. They have no interest in being the dominant messaging platform. So it will almost certainly never happen :(
For now it seems the best option is Signal as it falls back to standard SMS if it cannot send via IP. Of course you lose the advantages of E2EE and all the other lovely features of Signal but is it at least graceful for the user experience. Wire appears to be just as good as Signal with the exception of it not falling back to SMS. If you don't want that though I seems to be down to personal preference.
>> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.
Sure you can. You can target ads based purely on the rate and timing of messages. If you are sending 100 messages an hour, starting at exactly 3:30 every day. You are probably a highschool kid with a smartphone. If you are only sending one or two a week, always during lunch hour, then you are an adult with a 9-5 job. At a minimum, they can estimate your sleep cycle.
> You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.
Google could. They have entire Google Accounts profiled. If a Google account is required to use the app, they can use information gathered outside of it.
Here's what would work. Chat that just works with gmail. Not another chat app. Chat with gmail. Is the other person online? Message is immediately delivered. Is the other person not online? Message is queued. ID of another person? Their email address or a phone number. That's it. Just
I don’t think I’d like that. The type of messages I leave with chat and the type of messages I leave with email are characteristically different. I suspect I’m not alone here.
With instant messaging I tend to not leave long messages until I’m in contact with someone, and in messaging it’s more kosher to send quick one 1-word responses, even breaking replies into several messages to have some “timing” to my communications, similar to speech.
With emails I assume the person may not get them for a while, and I tend to leave longer paragraphs, and assume a response timeline of a few hours or even days.
Messages “falling back” to email, or emails turning into messages doesn’t seem like it would work to well with most people’s communication expectations IME.
You misunderstood. Messaging/email should be the same application, accessing the same contact list because the odds are the people that you are communicating with using messaging are the people you communicate with using email.
It makes no sense to have to run another application to communicate with someone just because it is on a phone. Think of it as the hangout in Gmail on the web, except if Hangout actually just worked ( such as not said the message was delivered when it was not or said the message has not been delivered yet when it was ).
Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback (to protect against data retention/archiving text messages): NOPE
Apple made it with first approach. Google:chat app, sms app, allo, duo, hangount
This will be next on the list.
Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.