Google has started the global roll-out of its new Chat messaging service(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Google has started the global roll-out of its new Chat messaging service
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43836504
222 comments
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.
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.
The carriers have been working on RCS Messaging since 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
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.
It's an amazingly fragmented space.
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.
It's an amazingly fragmented space.
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.
> open standards that don't live in a silo are still important
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.
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.
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.
No you can’t. Unless you want to chat with yourself. These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort. That’s the point.
> These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort.
It works fine without "everyone" using it. It can be used as best-effort security rather than a complete blanket.
It works fine without "everyone" using it. It can be used as best-effort security rather than a complete blanket.
i'll have one iphone, please
If you have to build it yourself then why even use it when there are existing options?
Is there one (or two) you'd recommend or suggest?
Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?
Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?
For RCS? I've not seen any yet, but the protocol is just getting off the ground.
I could be wrong re: what OP intended, but "open standard" doesn't imply non-encrypted.
It's encrypted in transit but not end-to-end encrypted.
Obviously responding to:
> 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).
> 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.
My understanding is if RCS doesn't work for whatever reason it's just regular SMS.
> 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.
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.
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.
> This is a GSMA standard
There is notechnical reason we couldn't have e2ee in rcs as far as I know
There is notechnical reason we couldn't have e2ee in rcs as far as I know
I basically said just that. There may eventually be a new standard that's RCS with E2EE and some new features but it's going to take a lot of time.
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.
Google is competing with Apple for mobile phone market share. Apple kicks their ass at messaging but RCS could help narrow the gap.
There already is an open standard: XMPP
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.
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.
What I'm worried about is carriers not following the standard completely or charging for it.
There is no way you can charge again for messaging in a world of WhatsApp & co.
Charging for what? The messages? Yes, supposedly RCS is designed to allow for per-message billing, like SMSs.
XMPP is a terrible square wheel.
Do you mind clarifying what you mean?
They probably mean something like what I posted here a while ago:
"No thanks, we are too busy":
https://jugad2.blogspot.in/2015/07/no-thanks-we-are-too-busy...
Check the image (in the post) and the labels below the post.
"No thanks, we are too busy":
https://jugad2.blogspot.in/2015/07/no-thanks-we-are-too-busy...
Check the image (in the post) and the labels below the post.
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.
What you done here is lazy. Some further explanation about your view would probably be interesting. Otherwise, please don't comment at al.
huhtenberg(1)
>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.
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.
> Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume.
No, they added the compulsory Snapchat features (smart filters, 3D masks, I don't know how they named it: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-... )
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.
No, they added the compulsory Snapchat features (smart filters, 3D masks, I don't know how they named it: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-... )
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 ended support for XMPP in April 2015.
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empath...
I also don't understand your point as a whole.
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.
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empath...
I also don't understand your point as a whole.
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.
[deleted]
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+):
https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based...
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+):
https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based...
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.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-en...
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.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-en...
Sure, Google was pissed when it was _their_ data being intercepted, but when it comes to their users' data? No so much...
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.
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):
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...
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):
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...
> Google can't make good message app
They had one in Google Talk. Then they killed it.
They had one in Google Talk. Then they killed it.
This is not an app. :/ Why didn't you read the source?
It's part of a messaging app.
>Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
>Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
No, it's a standard that Google's messaging app will (actually, already does) support. But any messaging app can add support if it doesn't already.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback
No but it requires a data plan!
No but it requires a data plan!
I'd add Wave to that list.
Messages is their second attempt at an SMS app too.
It is another pile of Google Garbage(tm).
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
(a) make it actually work
(b) make it not lose messages
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
(a) make it actually work
(b) make it not lose messages
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.
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 ).
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 ).
> Google's Anil Sabharwal told technology news site The Verge that "RCS continues to be a carrier-owned service", which means that messages can still be legally intercepted.
No thanks. We should push toward services which offer end-to-end encryption.
No thanks. We should push toward services which offer end-to-end encryption.
For a global standard, unfortunately this is a nonstarter. I personally agree that e2e encryption is the only communications policy I'll be satisfied with, but unfortunately there are MANY countries where text messaging globally is a protected class of communication that must be accessible to law enforcement.
That's the difference between this being a SERVICE and STANDARD.
The RCS standard has to work even in those countries that forbid e2e encryption for this sort of comms. Even if it's a minority of countries, I think it would be very difficult to convince carriers in more liberal societies to adopt the standard if it means they won't be able to interoperate with carriers in those more restricted countries.
Progress is incremental; the RCS standard, while imperfect, adds a bunch of really desirable features that will help interoperability between platforms and services globally.
Apps that integrate with RCS could still offer e2e within their applications; think how iOS does both iMessage (encrypted) and SMS (unencrypted) within the same app. It's just a major improvement to SMS.
That's the difference between this being a SERVICE and STANDARD.
The RCS standard has to work even in those countries that forbid e2e encryption for this sort of comms. Even if it's a minority of countries, I think it would be very difficult to convince carriers in more liberal societies to adopt the standard if it means they won't be able to interoperate with carriers in those more restricted countries.
Progress is incremental; the RCS standard, while imperfect, adds a bunch of really desirable features that will help interoperability between platforms and services globally.
Apps that integrate with RCS could still offer e2e within their applications; think how iOS does both iMessage (encrypted) and SMS (unencrypted) within the same app. It's just a major improvement to SMS.
I wonder why the Signal protocol could not be the SMS replacement. And it is already widely used.
Call me cynical, but I don't think Google wants to fight this fight. While I admire that they backed out of China instead of complying, if anyone has the deep pockets and influence to make such changes, it's Google.
Look at what's happening to Telegram with Russia; I don't think Google is interested in participating in such a battle. They want just to have a simple messaging app and to have a compelling competitive messaging app to WhatsApp et. al. (They don't care about Messages since it's locked to iOS devices)
But to do Encryption, that means taking a stand against many big governments controlling some big markets. I don't see Google as ready to fight with the likes of Russia, China, Turkey, etc. If they just hand over the keys, what good is the E2E encryption?
Look at what's happening to Telegram with Russia; I don't think Google is interested in participating in such a battle. They want just to have a simple messaging app and to have a compelling competitive messaging app to WhatsApp et. al. (They don't care about Messages since it's locked to iOS devices)
But to do Encryption, that means taking a stand against many big governments controlling some big markets. I don't see Google as ready to fight with the likes of Russia, China, Turkey, etc. If they just hand over the keys, what good is the E2E encryption?
Signal or something that is a direct derivative of Signal, and can be implemented by anyone other than carriers... Almost like XMPP but I guess not XMPP? XMPP with Signal for E2E somehow?
>XMPP with Signal for E2E somehow?
That's a well developed thing already:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO
Common OMEMO supporting XMPP clients are Conversations[1] for Android, ChatSecure[2] for iOS and Gajim[3] for the desktop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_(software)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatSecure
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajim
You can see the OMEMO status of the various XMPP clients here:
* https://omemo.top/
That's a well developed thing already:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO
Common OMEMO supporting XMPP clients are Conversations[1] for Android, ChatSecure[2] for iOS and Gajim[3] for the desktop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_(software)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatSecure
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajim
You can see the OMEMO status of the various XMPP clients here:
* https://omemo.top/
That's pretty much WhatsApp. They use their own weird "Fun" version of XMPP with Signal's Noise protocol.
But they don't federate. Which I think is a pretty clear example of why not having one true solution isn't a technical problem, it's a political problem. Companies don't want to make it easy to compete with their products.
But they don't federate. Which I think is a pretty clear example of why not having one true solution isn't a technical problem, it's a political problem. Companies don't want to make it easy to compete with their products.
They also demand complete access to your whole contacts list.
Yeah but the difference here is this app is intended to be installed by default on phones which would have a larger userbase if done right. To be honest I never use Android's default messaging app it always felt horrible, until Signal I would always use third party alternatives which had more customization capabilities.
Each company wants to earn by using your data, and Signal doesnt allow that (but it can be backdoored). No company like google, apple, microsoft,... is going to give you application where they cant intercept the content.
Apple's iMessage is end-to-end encrypted
You can receive messages on multiple devices. So it would be easy for Apple to simply add a new device without showing you.
Your comment is close to hitting the weak point: you have to trust Apple. If you can’t, then this single / multiple devices detail doesn’t matter: they could find a million ways to silently subvert the encryption in a closed source app on a closed source OS. But if you can, then waxing on details doesn’t matter either: you trust them, so you trust them.
The thing is: it is valid to trust a company to keep their explicit word. That’s a different issue from trusting a company who never explicitly said they wouldn’t listen to your data: companies can be held liable for these sorts of public statements. If Facebook silently (knowingly) subverts Whatsapp E2E, they’re in trouble. But reading regular Facebook messages for ads? Storing them plain text? They never said they wouldn’t.
This is why Apple explicitly stating they E2E iMessage is a data point with value. It is valid to trust Apple more now, simply because they’ve upped the stakes for themselves.
Compare this to a bar bet: someone makes a claim, I am sceptical. They say, honest! Still sceptical. They say ok, bet you £300. I suddenly am much more inclined to believe them. No money changed hands :)
The thing is: it is valid to trust a company to keep their explicit word. That’s a different issue from trusting a company who never explicitly said they wouldn’t listen to your data: companies can be held liable for these sorts of public statements. If Facebook silently (knowingly) subverts Whatsapp E2E, they’re in trouble. But reading regular Facebook messages for ads? Storing them plain text? They never said they wouldn’t.
This is why Apple explicitly stating they E2E iMessage is a data point with value. It is valid to trust Apple more now, simply because they’ve upped the stakes for themselves.
Compare this to a bar bet: someone makes a claim, I am sceptical. They say, honest! Still sceptical. They say ok, bet you £300. I suddenly am much more inclined to believe them. No money changed hands :)
From: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/apple-explains-exactly-how...
You’ve actually got one set of keys for each device you add to iCloud, and each iMessage is encrypted independently for each device. So if you have two devices — say, an iPad and an iPhone — each message sent to you is actually encrypted (AES-128) and stored on Apple’s servers twice. Once for each device. When you pull down a message, it’s specifically encrypted for the device you’re on.
You’ve actually got one set of keys for each device you add to iCloud, and each iMessage is encrypted independently for each device. So if you have two devices — say, an iPad and an iPhone — each message sent to you is actually encrypted (AES-128) and stored on Apple’s servers twice. Once for each device. When you pull down a message, it’s specifically encrypted for the device you’re on.
What’s your point?
The question at hand is whether any major company would allow consumers to send messages the company can’t harvest for data. The answer is yes. Apple does.
Are you saying they don’t? —That they actually have backdoored their E2E messaging app already?
If you are just saying that it’s not entirely impossible for them to do backdoor, I don’t see what bearing that has on the discussion.
The question at hand is whether any major company would allow consumers to send messages the company can’t harvest for data. The answer is yes. Apple does.
Are you saying they don’t? —That they actually have backdoored their E2E messaging app already?
If you are just saying that it’s not entirely impossible for them to do backdoor, I don’t see what bearing that has on the discussion.
Why backdoor the messaging app, when you can just add a new device.
Apple does, but as far as trust goes, they are on the same level as WhatsApp (also E2E).
Apple does, but as far as trust goes, they are on the same level as WhatsApp (also E2E).
WhatsApp is part of Facebook. Claiming Apple is on the same level as a Facebook-owned entity is absurd. Apple can’t see who your contacts are (it’s encrypted in iCloud) but Facebook can.
So Apple delivers your messages via magic? You are logged in from one endpoint. So Apple knows that you are you. It does also know who your other chat partner is. At some point there is a transmission of data from A to B. I don't see a way to hide the metadata if the data is transmitted through Apples network. If it's P2P, then yes.
Whenever a new device (AppleID/phone number) is associated with Messages/iMessage, a notification appears on other devices saying something like "Your phone number is now being used for iMessage on <device>", along with some more text. Apple also sends an email about that to the email address associated with the iCloud account. So I don't understand what you mean by "it would be easy for Apple to simply add a new device without showing you". If that refers to Apple circumventing this kind of warning for specific users for some reason, then I guess other popular messaging platforms/apps cannot be trusted either.
Not true. They would have to have access to your iCloud credentials and you would have to confirm the new device from one of your old devices.
Or they could push out a (targeted) software update that lets them do that silently. I don’t think they would, but they could.
I don't think there's any messaging platform in the world that's immune to this kind of an attack. So singling out Apple is pointless in that context.
Agreed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16903916.
E2E currently nicely converges with Apples business and brand.
Stop believing the marketing, they can say message is end to end encrypted even if they encrypt it twice, once with apple key and once with "end" key (actually it is more complicated, but for the sake of this debate it is good enough, for a simple algorithm, check bellow)
Before you start downvoting spree, read this:
For Apple: https://mashable.com/2013/10/17/apple-nsa-imessage
http://bgr.com/2015/08/06/iphone-fbi-imessage-facetime-backd...
https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-n...
For WhatsApp: https://tobi.rocks/
(encrypt data with random key with symmetric encryption algorythm (AES,...), which is then encrypted and stored with the mesage twice. Once encrypted with recipient public key (asymmetric: RSA,ECC) and once encrypted with apple public key. This way you can say that you are having end to end encryption while you can still read everything and you can also use all the nice words in marketing material, AES, end2end, RSA/ECC,...).
Before you start downvoting spree, read this:
For Apple: https://mashable.com/2013/10/17/apple-nsa-imessage
http://bgr.com/2015/08/06/iphone-fbi-imessage-facetime-backd...
https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-n...
For WhatsApp: https://tobi.rocks/
(encrypt data with random key with symmetric encryption algorythm (AES,...), which is then encrypted and stored with the mesage twice. Once encrypted with recipient public key (asymmetric: RSA,ECC) and once encrypted with apple public key. This way you can say that you are having end to end encryption while you can still read everything and you can also use all the nice words in marketing material, AES, end2end, RSA/ECC,...).
That article does not say that Apple is encrypting the per-message key with an Apple public key (alongside the device-specific keys), just that it could. Yes, there are many ways Apple could bypass its own E2E encryption, but we haven’t seen any evidence that it is or has.
Well, the point of E2E encryption is that you cant bypass it. That only the recipient is able to read it. Believe me that if I start making e2e encryption, no one will bypass it and I doubt the engineers at Apple are not able to do it, unless instructed otherwise.
I will tell you another case: Skype. It had a p2p protocol, highly encrypted and obfuscated, also the application was armored. The communication wasn't going through Skype servers but directly between devices. Once Microsoft bought it, the next version was using Microsoft servers and p2p was gone. Interesting, right?
I will tell you another case: Skype. It had a p2p protocol, highly encrypted and obfuscated, also the application was armored. The communication wasn't going through Skype servers but directly between devices. Once Microsoft bought it, the next version was using Microsoft servers and p2p was gone. Interesting, right?
I'd be curious to hear a proposal on how Apple could implement an E2E encrypted messaging service in a way that it would be impossible for them to circumvent it in the future via a software update. I suspect it's not possible, and therefore, either you accept some trust in Apple and take their model as "good enough" or you don't trust them at all (meaning you don't use iOS or macOS). There are, of course, lots of people that do that. But for most the population of iOS users, I think the iMessage model is very much good enough.
> I'd be curious to hear a proposal on how Apple could implement an E2E encrypted messaging service in a way that it would be impossible for them to circumvent it in the future via a software update.
Open source. And for really impossible also open hardware.
Open source. And for really impossible also open hardware.
How would anyone validate what exactly is running on the servers at any point in time so that you can trust it every single second? At some point, it comes down to trusting someone or the other.
Sure, but it's better if I don't have to trust Apple but let's say Mozilla IMHO.
This is overly pessimistic. Some companies do that sort of thing, but as consumers we have to look carefully and investigate companies to find one's that dont, and that we trust. Somebody already mentioned apple's e2e product, and Google doesn't stop anybody from using signal, or others. I don't think consumers will make the best choices if they think they're choosing the lesser of many evils.
[deleted]
End-to-end encryption works only because WhatsApp (or iMessage or whichever other service) servers store everyone's public keys: https://stratechery.com/2018/open-closed-and-privacy/
Open, secure, usable by ordinary people: choose two.
Insecure, open, usable: Google Chat
Secure, centralised, usable: WhatsApp
Secure, open, poor UX: PGP.
If you're building a consumer-grade service, rather than a niche service usable only by security geeks, and you're arguing for end-to-end encryption, then you're knowingly or unknowingly arguing for centralisation and against interoperability.
Open, secure, usable by ordinary people: choose two.
Insecure, open, usable: Google Chat
Secure, centralised, usable: WhatsApp
Secure, open, poor UX: PGP.
If you're building a consumer-grade service, rather than a niche service usable only by security geeks, and you're arguing for end-to-end encryption, then you're knowingly or unknowingly arguing for centralisation and against interoperability.
> No thanks. We should push toward services which offer end-to-end encryption.
Agreed but I feel like there is some confusion here - this sounds more like a extension to SMS to make it less crummy.
Good secure solutions already exist, we should push for people to actually use them.
Agreed but I feel like there is some confusion here - this sounds more like a extension to SMS to make it less crummy.
Good secure solutions already exist, we should push for people to actually use them.
Is there anything specific to RCS that stops Google from implementing end-to-end encryption in their client?
I don't want my chat messages routed through some foreign jurisdiction, encrypted or not, so carrier-owned sounds good to me.
I don't want my chat messages routed through some foreign jurisdiction, encrypted or not, so carrier-owned sounds good to me.
I've heard that RCS technically supports end-to-end encryption, but it won't be enabled by carriers due to their legal obligation to provide legal intercepts.
Though it will feature client-server encryption, so at least in this respect it's more secure than SMS.
Though it will feature client-server encryption, so at least in this respect it's more secure than SMS.
> The company said it expected the functionality to be widely available on Android phones within two years.
Just in time to kill it off!
Just in time to kill it off!
This isn't a Google app, it's a GSMA standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services) that's been in the works as long as Android itself. Also, I don't get why they're saying it will be available in the future, it's already been available since Android 6, if I'm not mistaken (https://blog.google/topics/rcs/delivering-rcs-messaging-andr...)
>To develop Chat, Google has worked with more than 50 mobile networks including Vodafone, T-Mobile and Verizon and manufacturers such as Samsung, LG and Huawei.
Why? This is a proposal for a protocol that works over the internet. What do networks and hardware makers have to do with this?
In practice the only entity they would have to talk to for a SMS replacement would be Apple. The world does not actually need a universal SMS replacement however. The world needs a universal instant message protocol that works everywhere; not just on phones.
Why? This is a proposal for a protocol that works over the internet. What do networks and hardware makers have to do with this?
In practice the only entity they would have to talk to for a SMS replacement would be Apple. The world does not actually need a universal SMS replacement however. The world needs a universal instant message protocol that works everywhere; not just on phones.
To be fair, for the only things that SMS is still used for (outside the US) this could be quite useful. E.g. parcel tracking SMS's could now include a map. Bank statement texts could be in a proper tabular form. That sort of thing.
But that's only if networks don't charge as much as they charge for SMS and I'm not holding my breath.
But that's only if networks don't charge as much as they charge for SMS and I'm not holding my breath.
How couldn't that be done with an instant messaging service? Nothing prevents companies from sending parcel tracking notifications to XMPP addresses, except for their own incompetence.
All this stuff is done on what’s app and line outside of the US...
Does your bank send you messages on WhatsApp? Ofcourse not. They use SMS.
This whole initiative is about extending the base-protocol (SMS) which everyone is currently limited by.
While not universally good (carriers are still given too much power, w.r.t. billing, etc), it's main advantage over any other platform currently available is that this is a protocol-standard suggestion.
It's not a walled garden like iMessage or any of those other IM services (which is why no banks or similar use these services, but still use SMS).
This is something completely different, and I honestly wish more tech-startups would think in terms of standardized protocols instead of closed services.
Creating and developing standardized protocols is what once made the internet great and infinitely innovative. Recently the rise of closed services is what has caused this innovation-curve to almost completely drop down to zero.
Basically we need more protocol-development. EOT.
Maybe next time we can draft a standardized protocol which wont give or even include carriers. But for now this is a good start for creating a standard IM platform available for everyone to replace SMS.
Apple should have done this ages ago with iMessage, but didn't. Props to Google for actually putting in the effort this time around!
This whole initiative is about extending the base-protocol (SMS) which everyone is currently limited by.
While not universally good (carriers are still given too much power, w.r.t. billing, etc), it's main advantage over any other platform currently available is that this is a protocol-standard suggestion.
It's not a walled garden like iMessage or any of those other IM services (which is why no banks or similar use these services, but still use SMS).
This is something completely different, and I honestly wish more tech-startups would think in terms of standardized protocols instead of closed services.
Creating and developing standardized protocols is what once made the internet great and infinitely innovative. Recently the rise of closed services is what has caused this innovation-curve to almost completely drop down to zero.
Basically we need more protocol-development. EOT.
Maybe next time we can draft a standardized protocol which wont give or even include carriers. But for now this is a good start for creating a standard IM platform available for everyone to replace SMS.
Apple should have done this ages ago with iMessage, but didn't. Props to Google for actually putting in the effort this time around!
> Does your bank send you messages on WhatsApp? Ofcourse not. They use SMS.
I would much prefer if they used WhatsApp, because then it would not be ridiculously insecure.
I would much prefer if they used WhatsApp, because then it would not be ridiculously insecure.
So instead of your operator, you want Facebook of all the things ingesting information about your purchases and account balance?
Well, supposedly it is end-to-end encrypted, so they don't get that information unless they are lying. Even if, it is still better than "anyone how cares to listen". SMS is not secure at all.
The content is e2e encrypted but Facebook can get all the metadata - who you message and when.
I wouldn't call it extending the SMS protocol when it uses your data plan[1].
[1] https://youtu.be/PCh-qRYMAKk?t=3m39s
[1] https://youtu.be/PCh-qRYMAKk?t=3m39s
> But for now this is a good start for creating a standard IM platform available for everyone to replace SMS.
Or it's just a bandaid on a hobbling, old protocol that we should move past. I think Google errs here in being too concerned about backwards compatibility. That there are so many alternatives (WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal) shows there's demand to move on from SMS. And Google of all companies should know how crappy it is to have to rely on carriers (look at the years-long Android updates debacle).
I hear what you're saying about standards being helpful on the Internet, but SMS is a shitty standard from 1984 that even then was built on compromises and hacks (basically fudging things by using an area of GSM that was never designed for messaging):
* "The GSM is optimized for telephony, since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Initial_concept
Or it's just a bandaid on a hobbling, old protocol that we should move past. I think Google errs here in being too concerned about backwards compatibility. That there are so many alternatives (WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal) shows there's demand to move on from SMS. And Google of all companies should know how crappy it is to have to rely on carriers (look at the years-long Android updates debacle).
I hear what you're saying about standards being helpful on the Internet, but SMS is a shitty standard from 1984 that even then was built on compromises and hacks (basically fudging things by using an area of GSM that was never designed for messaging):
* "The GSM is optimized for telephony, since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Initial_concept
> Does your bank send you messages on WhatsApp?
Was setting up an account in India (Yes Bank, I believe). Banker messaged me on WhatsApp.
Was setting up an account in India (Yes Bank, I believe). Banker messaged me on WhatsApp.
Your banker messaging you is completely different from your bank's systems sending you messages for overdraft, balances, etc. This will likely still happen over sms...
https://www.commercial.hsbc.com.hk/1/2/commercial/online-ser...
WeChat != WhatsApp but it is as close as it gets to the 'Messaging Service as an OS/platform' paradigm as it gets
WeChat != WhatsApp but it is as close as it gets to the 'Messaging Service as an OS/platform' paradigm as it gets
It is also as dystopian as it gets.
Switzerland here. My creditcard bill access code is still delivered by SMS...
[deleted]
I think this is really short-sighted. I’ve got 3 kids, and they message with bunch of their friends on tablets. Not phones connected to carriers - WiFi tablets. This isn’t uncommon either. Why require a cell carrier to back your messaging app? It’s just soooo limiting!
I agree. Google could have easily turned Allo into something very similar to iMessage by just adding Google account support, default E2E encryption and SMS fallback. It would have also worked on every device that was connected to the Internet. But, it looks like they've decided to get into bed with the carriers again and used some altruistic bullshit explanation that an open solution, involving the carriers, is the right solution. This company just can't seem to learn from its mistakes.
> Why require a cell carrier to back your messaging app? It’s just soooo limiting!
I totally agree - but this is about replacing/improving SMS where you already need a carrier.
I totally agree - but this is about replacing/improving SMS where you already need a carrier.
FYI this requires a data plan[1] which is going to be really frustrating for those using prepaid/gophone/low income cheap plans with out a contract.
[1] https://youtu.be/PCh-qRYMAKk?t=3m39s
[1] https://youtu.be/PCh-qRYMAKk?t=3m39s
And they can just use regular SMS?
Weird...
https://support.google.com/chat/?hl=en
"Goodbye Google Chat
Google Chat was officially shut down on June 26, 2017. To continue chatting and video calling, try Hangouts. Learn more about Hangouts.
Google Chat, the simple Google Talk chat experience in Gmail, launched in 2005. In 2013, we began replacing Google Chat with Hangouts, while still giving users the option to continue using Google Chat.
Hangouts offers advanced improvements over Google Chat such as group chat, Android and iOS apps, group video calling, and integration with other Google products."
https://support.google.com/chat/?hl=en
"Goodbye Google Chat
Google Chat was officially shut down on June 26, 2017. To continue chatting and video calling, try Hangouts. Learn more about Hangouts.
Google Chat, the simple Google Talk chat experience in Gmail, launched in 2005. In 2013, we began replacing Google Chat with Hangouts, while still giving users the option to continue using Google Chat.
Hangouts offers advanced improvements over Google Chat such as group chat, Android and iOS apps, group video calling, and integration with other Google products."
How quaint. Is Google Fax still in late Beta and will be released next month?
But seriously - Is 'SMS replacement' even a thing now? I think I only ever chat to my wife via SMS these days because she won't install third party apps on her phone and has no social media accounts. All my friends, colleagues and kids send messages to each other via about 3 different chat apps depending on age (kids) and context.
But seriously - Is 'SMS replacement' even a thing now? I think I only ever chat to my wife via SMS these days because she won't install third party apps on her phone and has no social media accounts. All my friends, colleagues and kids send messages to each other via about 3 different chat apps depending on age (kids) and context.
SMS is still very widely used by parties who don't know each other. In theory, anybody with a phone number can receive an SMS (though not always in reality, because SMS is a bag of suck). So your pharmacy can SMS you when your prescription is ready, your mechanic can SMS you when your car is fixed, etc.
I don't personally know anybody who still uses SMS to communicate directly with friends or frequent real-world contacts. But I also don't know anybody who still watches real-time broadcast TV with ads. I assume there are still a lot of both out there in the world, however.
I don't personally know anybody who still uses SMS to communicate directly with friends or frequent real-world contacts. But I also don't know anybody who still watches real-time broadcast TV with ads. I assume there are still a lot of both out there in the world, however.
> In theory, anybody with a phone number can receive an SMS
Basic landlines are still a thing, and cannot, even in theory, recieve SMS.
Basic landlines are still a thing, and cannot, even in theory, recieve SMS.
When someone sends an SMS to my landline, the phone rings and there's some kind of automated service that reads it out to me. It's even pretty intelligible, usually.
This isn't something I ever signed up for explicitly. But maybe it's just my provider?
This isn't something I ever signed up for explicitly. But maybe it's just my provider?
Actually, depending on your phone carrier, it might be possible to send SMS even to landline: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/05/bt_land_text/
A remember seeing a national landline operator accepting SMS sent to its numbers, and reading them to the user after converting them to speech.
The result was not exactly exciting, but the idea wasn't half bad.
Aren't landline and mobile number formats clearly distinct in the US?
Afaik in the entirety of Europe mobile numbers have a different prefix than landlines.
> Basic landlines are still a thing
Oh yeah, LOL, I quite honestly forgot about the existence of those haha
Oh yeah, LOL, I quite honestly forgot about the existence of those haha
Where are you based ?
Here in France, SMS / MMS are still the most widely used. More than any other third party app.
Most of phone carriers plans here offer unlimited sms / mms for free now, so it's pretty much THE default.
It would be interesting to see a messaging apps usage comparison, country by country.
I am in Australia, and just going back through my messages list on my phone, I can see that my wife, my massage therapist and doctor/dentist etc. are mainly who sends me texts these days, oh, and my telco also does voice to text translations and send the transcripts to me via SMS.
I do recall that my doctors office did offer the option of Snapchat recently, I believe, for appointment alerts. Also, the voice to text thing, I have been thinking of writing my own little app connected to my SIP phone system and Amazon AWS to try and achieve the same thing, just as a little programming exercise.
If I have to be honest, if my SMS was turned off tomorrow, there would be very little impact on my life (as long as I installed Telegram or Snapchat on my wife's phone).
I do recall that my doctors office did offer the option of Snapchat recently, I believe, for appointment alerts. Also, the voice to text thing, I have been thinking of writing my own little app connected to my SIP phone system and Amazon AWS to try and achieve the same thing, just as a little programming exercise.
If I have to be honest, if my SMS was turned off tomorrow, there would be very little impact on my life (as long as I installed Telegram or Snapchat on my wife's phone).
I'm also in Australia. Most of my messaging goes through other apps, mostly WhatsApp or FB messenger. I do have a few friends that are holding out on SMS but mostly I just treat it as a backup service for when I don't have data.
SMS has already been replaced by far more secure and mature apps. It's good to have it there as a primitive option though.
SMS has already been replaced by far more secure and mature apps. It's good to have it there as a primitive option though.
> Here in France, SMS / MMS are still the most widely used
What, which part? Over here SMS is used only as a last resort: interoperability when people aren't using the same set of messaging apps, or no data due to bad network conditions. Everyone is using Messenger (when mutually added), WhatsApp, Telegram, or iMessage, the latter three automatically populating when phone numbers are added to contact lists, which people happily upload.
What, which part? Over here SMS is used only as a last resort: interoperability when people aren't using the same set of messaging apps, or no data due to bad network conditions. Everyone is using Messenger (when mutually added), WhatsApp, Telegram, or iMessage, the latter three automatically populating when phone numbers are added to contact lists, which people happily upload.
Very interesting since here, south of the Pyrenees, it's mostly the opposite. Carriers charge per SMS, and therefore they are only used by automated services such as 2FA, etc. I haven't received an SMS from an actual human in years. Most people use WhatsApp et al. instead, even companies and business communicating with clients.
In many parts of the world SMS is still very popular (most popular?) and upgrading that experience seems a net win. I wish there was a push for end to end encryption but I doubt the carriers would have agreed to that given that in many countries they are legally obligated to hand over data when a court deems it necessary.
Your wife is a smart woman. We'd all be better off if we were like her.
This just seems comical at this point. Google Voice, Google Talk, Google Allo.... I thought they all were supposed to be SMS "replacements."
Google Talk
Google Notebook
Google Reader
Google Buzz
Google Wave
Google Plus
Google Health
Google Knol
Google SearchWiki
Google Allo
I'm not really sure if I want to get onboard with this new thing.
Google Notebook
Google Reader
Google Buzz
Google Wave
Google Plus
Google Health
Google Knol
Google SearchWiki
Google Allo
I'm not really sure if I want to get onboard with this new thing.
Do you also say the same thing about Microsoft products and services?
https://pastebin.com/5tYG5YCL
https://pastebin.com/5tYG5YCL
Good point.
a. Some of these hark back to the 90's so they were superseded than discontinued b. Some are actually comparable to Google's discontinuations
a. Some of these hark back to the 90's so they were superseded than discontinued b. Some are actually comparable to Google's discontinuations
And the list of Google products that haven't been killed off numbers in the hundreds. Seriously, what large software development company hasn't ended development on some of its products? People dragging out Google Reader every time Google launches something new is getting old.
hangouts
Google Analytics - that thing that everybody "is used by", on every website, and without even knowing [0] or explicit consent.
[0] techies exempt.
[0] techies exempt.
To add to that: they bought that.
It used to be called Urchin I think.
It used to be called Urchin I think.
Yep, that’s where the ‘UTM’ in all the query strings comes from, Urchin Traffic Monitor I think it was. I used to have the standalone version installed which worked locally on servers and was completely independent of Google, but looked identical to Google Analytics at that time. Of course, Google realized they couldn’t mine any of the tracking data from the standalone version, so that was axed around like 2008 or 2009.
Urchin's original mode of operation was as a cron job that scanned your correctly-formatted Apache access_log (via LogFormat stanza) and dumped them into a DB. So there's issues of scale that had to be dealt with, and they decided to just dump it and go w/ the tracking JS.
[deleted]
Is the title misleading or am I confused? Google can only rollout its app on stock Android for Chat (known as RCS), the supposed successor to SMS that is (also) a carrier protocol that comes with the ubiquity and disadvantages of SMS. Google announced recently that it has worked with several telecom carriers around the world, Android OEMs, etc., on the implementation and rollout of RCS. But it's not the one that's going to be doing any rollouts by a large measure.
Yep the title is misleading.
"Google has stressed that Chat is not a new Google app. Since RCS is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and phone-makers to switch on the functionality."
The title should be something like: Google has started the global roll-out to support a new messaging standard.
"Google has stressed that Chat is not a new Google app. Since RCS is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and phone-makers to switch on the functionality."
The title should be something like: Google has started the global roll-out to support a new messaging standard.
But Chat is still a new Google app, isn't it? RCS is the new standard, but "Chat" is a Google app. There's a chance they could stop supporting it, and with the next-next version of android go back to shipping an SMS messenger, or (more believably) decide a new standard is better and ship that, dumping RCS.
To me it reads like "Google has stressed that Chrome is not a new Google app. Since HTTP is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and website-makers to switch on the functionality."
To me it reads like "Google has stressed that Chrome is not a new Google app. Since HTTP is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and website-makers to switch on the functionality."
This is definitely going to work - it's just iMessage for Android. Google can deploy a default version of Chat in the next one or two Android releases. Users won't notice the difference except that SMS has some nicer features.
Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run. Even if they can't, a better default messaging experience will take business away from competitors like WhatsApp and Messenger.
Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run. Even if they can't, a better default messaging experience will take business away from competitors like WhatsApp and Messenger.
> This is definitely going to work - it's just iMessage for Android.
It's neither like iMessage nor specifically for Android.
> Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run.
It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
It's neither like iMessage nor specifically for Android.
> Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run.
It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
> It's neither like iMessage
It will provide a similar experience, a default messaging client that gracefully enhances the SMS experience we're used to.
> nor specifically for Android
It's a standard, but considering Android is the biggest mobile operating system and the second biggest has it's own version of this, and the protocol is being pushed by the Android's creators, it's fair to say this is "for Android", at least at first.
> It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
It's possible that Google would provide services to support it, the same way Apple provides the service for push notifications.
It will provide a similar experience, a default messaging client that gracefully enhances the SMS experience we're used to.
> nor specifically for Android
It's a standard, but considering Android is the biggest mobile operating system and the second biggest has it's own version of this, and the protocol is being pushed by the Android's creators, it's fair to say this is "for Android", at least at first.
> It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
It's possible that Google would provide services to support it, the same way Apple provides the service for push notifications.
> gracefully enhances the SMS experience we're used to
I'm eagerly awaiting the gracefully enhanced experience of receiving unsolicited rich-content spam.
EDIT: Just realised this abbreviates to RCS. Pure luck.
I'm eagerly awaiting the gracefully enhanced experience of receiving unsolicited rich-content spam.
EDIT: Just realised this abbreviates to RCS. Pure luck.
> and the protocol is being pushed by the Android's creators
I think it's really being pushed by the carriers who want people to use it. Google is just implementing it.
I think it's really being pushed by the carriers who want people to use it. Google is just implementing it.
Another piece in Google's mass surveillance business model.
An not even encrypted "on the surface" (as Facebook's WhatsApp):
> it does not offer encrypted messages
Not in this life.
An not even encrypted "on the surface" (as Facebook's WhatsApp):
> it does not offer encrypted messages
Not in this life.
> An not even encrypted "on the surface" (as Facebook's WhatsApp):
As a Telegram user who feel betrayed by and doesn't like WhatsApp, -can we try to keep this sane?
Unless you have extraordinary proofs then WhatsApp is effectively E2E encrypted as verified by multiple industry experts.
The current problem is not message encryption but metadata leaking to an owner that is known to "move fast and break things", and is considered untrustworthy by many of us.
- that is, again, unless you have proof that their encryption is broken.
I do not recommend WhatsApp as long as they are owned by Facebook and don't have a business model that is compatible with putting users first, I just think we should be careful about throwing around accusations.
As a Telegram user who feel betrayed by and doesn't like WhatsApp, -can we try to keep this sane?
Unless you have extraordinary proofs then WhatsApp is effectively E2E encrypted as verified by multiple industry experts.
The current problem is not message encryption but metadata leaking to an owner that is known to "move fast and break things", and is considered untrustworthy by many of us.
- that is, again, unless you have proof that their encryption is broken.
I do not recommend WhatsApp as long as they are owned by Facebook and don't have a business model that is compatible with putting users first, I just think we should be careful about throwing around accusations.
No encryption and from Google. Thanks but no thanks.
Why cant Google just stick to one messaging service?
.. Or just being the advertising company they really are. Turns out it is really hard to be a tech company, when the primary target is to spy on you and not create actual useful products.
This isn't a Google messaging service, its a carrier messaging service that Google happens to be building an Android client for.
Hope this catches on. Now have a pixel 2 XL which I love but still carry an iPhone mostly for iMessages.
Is this something that users will have to opt in to to use or will it be a seamless integration with existing applications? i.e., will it require the download of a new app or will it just be something that extends Android's existing messaging app?
Maybe Google's strategy is: get nice messaging into the market first as a fallback. Then we'll push Allo again and we can fall back to RCS...
The carriers shouldn't be involved in messaging at all, sigh. SMS was a downgrade from AIM and ICQ.
The carriers shouldn't be involved in messaging at all, sigh. SMS was a downgrade from AIM and ICQ.
From all the articles I have read on this, it is never mentioned if this will be in AOSP or part of Google Play Services. I really hope they allow any app to use RCS messages instead of keeping it in their own walled garden.
I think RCS has been available for a while.
I know my Samsung Phone supports it.
In other news, Google wants to read your SMS messages.
I have a prediction for this: Dead on arrival
Google's messaging strategy is starting to sound more and more like that XKCD [1]
How Standards Proliferate
(See: A/C chargers, character encodings, instant messaging, etc.)
Situation:
There are 14 competing standards.
Cueball: 14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
Ponytail: Yeah!
Soon:
Situation: There are 15 competing standards.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Let's just everybody install whatsapp and put an end to this stupidity please.
Yes, let's perhaps create a law forcing everyone to provide Facebook with some more of their (meta)data /s
Perhaps in some utopia, where we could force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and have it be managed instead as a non-profit sponsored by our benevolent world government...
Perhaps in some utopia, where we could force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and have it be managed instead as a non-profit sponsored by our benevolent world government...
It's better than giving literally all our data to Google.
... to be shut down 18 months later because of lack of traction.
RCS is a GSM standard (like SMS). So there is nothing to shut down. It's up to the carriers whether they want to support it or not. And support seems to be ok worldwide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Are they seriously re-doing MMS?
I think he was talking about the new messaging service - as Google have a history of turning things off.
That's the point though: this isn't a new messaging service, it is a protocol standard that will be implemented by carriers, not Google. It is not thing that Google will shut down because there is nothing to shut down.
We have better alternatives (Signal, WhatsApp...) for those who care. Those who don't will continue using SMS, and for those, RCS is a good step forward.
We have better alternatives (Signal, WhatsApp...) for those who care. Those who don't will continue using SMS, and for those, RCS is a good step forward.
Bit of a technicality that though isn't it. An alternate way of saying it is "Android to stop supporting RCS messages in the messaging app"
Google aren't building a service. The "Google Chat" app is just an RCS client.
Ahh. Thank you.
Any link for the APK yet? Would love to try this out!
How long until they abandon this one?
iOS does not support RCS so it's dead on arrival.
Trolling right? If my phone can, and 86% of other smart phone users can then I'd say it doesn't really matter if iphone users can as well. They could buy a smart phone, too.
Not really trolling, think about it. Here in Europe we all have whatsapp that works right. Why would we switch to RCS, which is an inferior replacement (no E2E for example), and that does not even support all major platforms?
Back when RCS (under the name of Joyn) was about to be released everybody dreamt of switching to it, thinking that maybe, just maybe, telcos would make RCS free, so you wouldn't have to buy data to chat, like you have to do with whatsapp (back then many people didn't have data). That never happened evidently, and now most people have data because it's gotten much cheaper. So there's no way we will leave whatsapp, and yes RCS is dead.
Back when RCS (under the name of Joyn) was about to be released everybody dreamt of switching to it, thinking that maybe, just maybe, telcos would make RCS free, so you wouldn't have to buy data to chat, like you have to do with whatsapp (back then many people didn't have data). That never happened evidently, and now most people have data because it's gotten much cheaper. So there's no way we will leave whatsapp, and yes RCS is dead.
I don't know a single person that uses WhatsApp, and I live in Europe. We have a tendency to think that everyone adopts the same things, especially when it comes to technology. This has been demonstrated to not be true multiple times.
It'd be cool if we had a standard that everyone could use, like SMS, just that supported larger messages. Oh wait...
It'd be cool if we had a standard that everyone could use, like SMS, just that supported larger messages. Oh wait...
What do your people use? Facebook chat, Telegram...?
Kind of besides the point, but Facebook Messenger, Snapchat and iMessage has very good penetration, people usually have two of the three. And everyone just fall back on SMS when if they need to.
Do they really use Snapchat for writing? I've tried to use it besides picture sharing and it's really cumbersome...
It's really slow to startup (compared to other apps), the UI is confusing, and old messages get deleted...
I have no clue, as I don't use it. I imagine most people use it for sharing pictures and use other apps for chatting.
In which country do you live? UK?
[deleted]
Neat. I look forward to seeing an awesome post-mortem in 2 years when they abandon this project.
It is so obvious that it will be a failure.
I know like 4 big Google projects and all seem to be failures (Kubernetes being the most successful, but still in hype so nobody realizes yet how mediocre it is). Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
I know like 4 big Google projects and all seem to be failures (Kubernetes being the most successful, but still in hype so nobody realizes yet how mediocre it is). Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
Can you clarify on what is mediocre about Kubernetes?
Could you clarify what is not? The only advantage over rolling out docker images by yourself is the scheduler. And if I consider what we wasted amounts of time we already in my team I'd say in that time we could have written our own docker container that can schedule containers on (or from) other hosts.
You can easily see that a solution is mediocre if you see that it doesn't attempt to solve any of the hard problems (in this case networking, network debugging, storage, performance) while requiring lots of overhead to do a trivial thing (e.g. here are my static html files, no go and host these).
It works okay on AWS/GoogleCloud but at least on AWS you already have all the features of k8s on IaaS level. On everything else it runs shitty and you spend more human resources on getting it to work / keeping it working than when you do the scheduling yourself.
You can easily see that a solution is mediocre if you see that it doesn't attempt to solve any of the hard problems (in this case networking, network debugging, storage, performance) while requiring lots of overhead to do a trivial thing (e.g. here are my static html files, no go and host these).
It works okay on AWS/GoogleCloud but at least on AWS you already have all the features of k8s on IaaS level. On everything else it runs shitty and you spend more human resources on getting it to work / keeping it working than when you do the scheduling yourself.
> I know like 4 big Google projects and all seem to be failures
> Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
If all Google had was the handful of failures you claim to be (rather selectively) aware of, there'd be no need for a Google killer.
> Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
If all Google had was the handful of failures you claim to be (rather selectively) aware of, there'd be no need for a Google killer.
Mind naming the 4 big failed projects?
So this is Googles attempt to compete with Whatsapp but only on Andriod? I can't see my friendship groups segmenting in two depending on choice of mobile platform.
> However, it will be up to mobile operators to enable the service and it does not offer encrypted messages.
Yep this will kill it off in short order.
> However, it will be up to mobile operators to enable the service and it does not offer encrypted messages.
Yep this will kill it off in short order.
> So this is Googles attempt to compete with Whatsapp but only on Andriod?
RCS may have it’s flawa but this is not one of them. It isn’t an Android-specific protocol.
RCS may have it’s flawa but this is not one of them. It isn’t an Android-specific protocol.
Relative to LINE/WhatsApp/Messenger/WeChat/Hangouts -- does anyone use SMS?
If big G really thinks it's going to "replace SMS" ( and they can leverage their platform to roll it out / lock in ) then good luck to them, maybe they can replace SMS.
But so what?
SMS was not the killer messaging app.
Those things are elsewhere.
Why does big G have an aversion to big acquisitions?
FB buys WhatsApp & IG -- Great moves
MS has made some big purchases
But the big G seems to purchase, but only for small dollar amounts (relatively). Same with Apple.
Even tho these two corps have (don't they?) big loads of cash.
I think it's technical arrogance. Big G and Apple are used to being revered as King S&&t of their tech.
So they think they can build it themselves. Ahahaha, sure, you can BUILD it...but can you get product/market fit to where it matters as a replacement?
I feel sorry for them. I think Big G and Apple obviously do great, but couldn't they do better to just narrow their focus. Even tho FB is f^&&d up in a lot of ways, one thing to really admire about their business is their narrow narrow focus. Even Oculus makes sense because Zuck sees a "Ready Player 1" world as the future ( with him as God Emperor, of course..heh ).
If big G really thinks it's going to "replace SMS" ( and they can leverage their platform to roll it out / lock in ) then good luck to them, maybe they can replace SMS.
But so what?
SMS was not the killer messaging app.
Those things are elsewhere.
Why does big G have an aversion to big acquisitions?
FB buys WhatsApp & IG -- Great moves
MS has made some big purchases
But the big G seems to purchase, but only for small dollar amounts (relatively). Same with Apple.
Even tho these two corps have (don't they?) big loads of cash.
I think it's technical arrogance. Big G and Apple are used to being revered as King S&&t of their tech.
So they think they can build it themselves. Ahahaha, sure, you can BUILD it...but can you get product/market fit to where it matters as a replacement?
I feel sorry for them. I think Big G and Apple obviously do great, but couldn't they do better to just narrow their focus. Even tho FB is f^&&d up in a lot of ways, one thing to really admire about their business is their narrow narrow focus. Even Oculus makes sense because Zuck sees a "Ready Player 1" world as the future ( with him as God Emperor, of course..heh ).
> Why does big G have an aversion to big acquisitions?
This is Nonsense, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, Nest, DoubleClick, YouTube, Waze, DeepMind and lastly the HTC phone division.
This is more true of Apple, but they did buy Beats for 3bn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
This is Nonsense, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, Nest, DoubleClick, YouTube, Waze, DeepMind and lastly the HTC phone division.
This is more true of Apple, but they did buy Beats for 3bn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
Sure ok. I don't know. Just making stuff up.
In high school I hated having ICQ and MSN and AIM because friends opted to use different ones. SMS is great because it connects you to anyone with a phone.
And that's why I like apps like signal that will fallback to SMS but make it trivial to use the secure protocol if it happens that the person you're talking to also uses signal.
And that's why I like apps like signal that will fallback to SMS but make it trivial to use the secure protocol if it happens that the person you're talking to also uses signal.
> Relative to LINE/WhatsApp/Messenger/WeChat/Hangouts -- does anyone use SMS?
Absolutely.
Why? Because I simply do not want to install 7 different chat apps.
Absolutely.
Why? Because I simply do not want to install 7 different chat apps.
arbitrage(1)
I know in Europe, most phone plans have limited SMS, so often Whatsapp is preferred which uses data or Wifi.
So if this uses Data, how will this be advantageous for US users who have plans with limited data, but unlimited SMS?
So if this uses Data, how will this be advantageous for US users who have plans with limited data, but unlimited SMS?
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.