That makes it sound like android phones are at fault. It's an iOS problem where they refuse to be compatible. People who use iOS should be asking Apple to fix it if they cared about this problem at all.
Not Android, but SMS. SMS is a terrible messaging layer; Apple is not going to sink (very expensive) engineer time into papering over its badness when they already have a working alternative that their customers use.
RCS is not SMS; it’s a significantly easier protocol to build a smooth UX around.
I’m not claiming Apple is beyond criticism here; they absolutely treat iMessage as a moat. But RCS also clearly burdened by competitive interests, including the unclear state of E2EE in RCS.
My point is that RCS exists essentially to “paper over the badness” of SMS. So does iMessage. And implementing support for RCS at this stage of the game is Apple investing resources in fixing their SMS problem, using an imperfect solution that was introduced to paper over the issues with SMS.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by papering over the badness.
As a dumb question, how does Apple make a change that would allow android messaging to work without a cellphone? How does apple make a change so that android's messaging system isn't unencrypted by default? RCS is not encrypted, google has an extension that makes it encrypted that only recently supported encrypting beyond 1:1 chats.
It's not Apple's fault google half assed messaging on android for a decade+.
> It's not Apple's fault google half assed messaging on android for a decade+.
It’s also clear that Apple was never interested in pushing for an industry solution to this problem either. These two companies are in the unique position to provide leadership in this category, and they haven’t.
In the earlier days of the web and in other areas of innovation, the companies at the forefront of their respective industries industry champion new standards to support their broader goals. This was a use case ripe for better standards, but all parties involved are more motivated by greed than interoperability/supporting the consumer.
> It’s also clear that Apple was never interested in pushing for an industry solution to this problem either.
The industry (cell carriers) don't want a solution, at least not one that interests non-carriers. It's almost a rehash of the Netheads vs Bellheads fight.
Carriers want a messaging system that requires a SIM and thus a paid subscription to their services. They own network infrastructure and want end users beholden to them to access services. Cell carriers loved the days of WAP and MMS where anything done on a phone was a for-pay service from the carriers. They resent anything that bypasses their ability to nickel and dime people.
Neither Apple nor Google (or WhatsApp or Signal) want a messaging system that requires a SIM and any dependence on carriers' infrastructure. They want an entirely over the top service that transits a completely agnostic Internet layer. Just in practical terms they don't want to only be able to provide service to devices with cellular radios.
RCS is top to bottom a protocol designed by carriers. It requires a SIM for access and hasn't included E2EE because carriers love their data mining. It's a capable replacement for SMS/MMS but it's still tied to carriers. Google and Apple have provided leadership with messaging but carriers are not interested in the direction they're leading. WhatsApp grew primarily because of carriers charging stupid texting rates, especially international rates.
The core problem is groups wanting Internet based messaging get no buy-in from carriers. Even though smartphones are an overwhelming majority of the messaging landscape they're not the only devices used. If the carriers had their way you'd never be able to send a message from your laptop to my phone unless the laptop had a cellular radio and a service plan.
These issues existed before Google started pushing RCS.
On a side note, I still believe iMessage was in response to Google Talk, whose protocol was both open-source and interoperable with platforms outside of Google.