Google Is Taking Charge of the RCS Rollout(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Google Is Taking Charge of the RCS Rollout
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-android-texting-carriers-imessage-encryption
71 comments
iOS holds something like 50% of US marketshare and iMessage takes a lot of the wind out of third-party messaging apps.
According to StatCounter, the iOS market share in the US is 57% [0]. But worldwide it is only 22% with Android at 75% [1].
[0] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...
[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
[0] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...
[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Yes, hence the lower penetration of third party messaging apps in the US. In the US iMessage does much of what you'd want a third party app for and it's transparently integrated with SMS for approximately half the population.
Only in the US, I hear.
That's really stupid. Whatsapp is proprietary and controlled by a single giant corporation. I refuse to use it even though everyone I know has it.
I'm not in the US, and I stopped using WhatsApp for several reasons. It doesn't provide me any benefits over SMS (people still need to know your phone number, for example, and if they change phone numbers, there's the whole game of figuring out who is messaging you). Not that many people I communicate with regularly really cared if we used it or another communications method either. It is one more app draining my phone's battery. And I want to limit the apps that Facebook can use to gain information about me.
But then you're a mainstream consumer. Most people use WhatsApp because they want to send pictures/videos/voice memo's which isn't possible over SMS. So it does provide benefits for most users.
WhatsApp tells you when someone changes it’s phone number.
Not in China. Its WeChat all the way, even when they live and work abroad.
Yep. It's quite clever, actually: chinese people come to other countries, they use wechat, they make friends, their friends want to communicate with them so they start using wechat. It's penetrating other markets that way, slowly but surely.
Don’t forget China can also see what you’re typing in wechat, really boggles my mind people continue to use that. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/wechat-chinese...
Very slowly, in that case. If you're the only 1 using a messaging service, you're super likely to switch to another one, or just use several.
WhatsApp has made significant inroads in the US but it isn't universal. If you have a phone, you can almost 100% get texts.
I'm guessing the only thing that comes close to texting in terms of marketshare is iMessage. And that's simply because it is on every iOS device AND enabled by default.
I'm guessing the only thing that comes close to texting in terms of marketshare is iMessage. And that's simply because it is on every iOS device AND enabled by default.
Why would we want to move from SMS to a situation where Facebook ALSO has a copy of every message we send? Not an improvement.
facebook doesn't store your (sent) whatsapp messages, and in contrast to sms they're by default encrypted.
"Your Messages. We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Once your messages (including your chats, photos, videos, voice messages, files, and share location information) are delivered, they are deleted from our servers. Your messages are stored on your own device. If a message cannot be delivered immediately (for example, if you are offline), we may keep it on our servers for up to 30 days as we try to deliver it."
https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/?eea=1#privacy-policy-informa...
"Your Messages. We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Once your messages (including your chats, photos, videos, voice messages, files, and share location information) are delivered, they are deleted from our servers. Your messages are stored on your own device. If a message cannot be delivered immediately (for example, if you are offline), we may keep it on our servers for up to 30 days as we try to deliver it."
https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/?eea=1#privacy-policy-informa...
Except it's a matter of record that Zuckerberg is intent on undoing e2ee in whatsapp, and increasing ads[1]. you can't inject ads unless you're scanning the texts.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-fou...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-fou...
You can provide ads based on metadata alone, no need for message contents.
Ads based on metadata reveal message contents (people, location, time, and potentially message summarization).
Just like they weren't using your 2FA data to sell ads. At this point, it's best to assume that Facebook is watching at all times, even if they say they aren't. Does anyone propose anything really 'crazy out there' that Facebook does that actually doesn't eventually come true?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/yes-facebook-is-using-your...
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/yes-facebook-is-using-your...
I really don't think the average person cares if their texts are end-to-end encrypted, though. I'm not sure most people even know what that would mean.
I didn't assert tha the average person cares, just that the original claim about whatsapp is false.
And also: it doesn't matter whether end users care about encryption or not, it still benefits them, this is exactly why end-to-end encryption is a very good default.
And also: it doesn't matter whether end users care about encryption or not, it still benefits them, this is exactly why end-to-end encryption is a very good default.
I agree the average person doesn’t know what it is, but I bet they would care if they did.
But Facebook doesn't have a copy of any message you send.
Uh huh. If they didn’t keep having to ‘correct’ their ‘mistatements’ about how many people were effected by their privacy screwups I might actually trust them on that.
They do, it's just encrypted. But they still know when you sent it, to whom, how large it was, and the cadence of typing notifications, among other things.
The only SMS's I get nowadays are from automated systems (bill pay reminders, shipping, energy usage, etc). I don't talk to a single friend over SMS anymore. It's either iMessage or FB messenger (for Android people). Both of those provide a MUCH better experience and even if Apple ever supports RCS (I kind of hope they don't and it dies off) I won't use it without encryption. RCS is such a clusterfuck and I the carriers have proven time and time again that they are incompetent greedy fools.
I think you'll find there's a diverse set of messaging users and requirements.
My 70+ parents for example only know and understand SMS (and they've only recently started using it in the last six months). My brother uses Facebook chat but because I'm not on FB we have to use SMS as a lowest common denominator. He doesn't have friends on Telegram so he sees that as unnecessary bloat to add to his phone.
Unfortunately SMS still has bar none the easiest onboarding experience as it is the default chat mechanism on every phone.
My 70+ parents for example only know and understand SMS (and they've only recently started using it in the last six months). My brother uses Facebook chat but because I'm not on FB we have to use SMS as a lowest common denominator. He doesn't have friends on Telegram so he sees that as unnecessary bloat to add to his phone.
Unfortunately SMS still has bar none the easiest onboarding experience as it is the default chat mechanism on every phone.
This is part of the genius of iMessage. You use ONE APP. Your message is either SMS or iMessage automatically based on if the other person’s phone supports it. You never have to think about it. ‘Is Billy in this app or that app?’ Nope, he’s in the one and only app you use for ‘texting’.
Such a smart decision by Apple. How in the world am I supposed to know if my contact supports iMessage or not? I can’t without coordination. But Apple can and handles it.
Now someone may still use something else (FB, WhatsApp, etc) but SMS/iMessage is practically transparent.
Such a smart decision by Apple. How in the world am I supposed to know if my contact supports iMessage or not? I can’t without coordination. But Apple can and handles it.
Now someone may still use something else (FB, WhatsApp, etc) but SMS/iMessage is practically transparent.
That's a little bit of recursive thinking though. No one uses SMS because SMS is bad, not because it's SMS. People used to use SMS all the time, before it fell behind.
I use Android and moved my entire family and friend base to Signal and no longer talk to people outside of Signal unless something automated sends me SMS/MMS. Encryption is a must for me. Thinking about moving to iOS because of the privacy & encryption.
I feel the same. However, as an avid Signal user, I feel I must warn you of a huge issue in the Signal iOS client that has been open for years -- it doesn't support backup or transferring your messages to a new phone.
https://community.signalusers.org/t/ios-backup-keeping-messa...
https://community.signalusers.org/t/ios-backup-keeping-messa...
A lot of people seem excited by RCS. This escapes me, most messaging platforms have now moved into the "integrations" space.
Meaning they're less defined by delivering a message, and more defined by the "value add" services they offer (like Payments, Notifications from third party services, customer support for third party services, etc).
RCS is more powerful than MMS, but less powerful than the internet-based messaging platforms it is competing against. It is also confined by geography, is confined to cellular devices, and disposes of anonymity/privacy.
Why would I want this? It takes me from the current requirement of "only needs an internet connection" to "need a cellular plan and device." It takes me from any moniker I want to [my phone number]. It takes me from "anyone in the world" to "US only." And on and on.
I don't get it. Why should I or anyone else care about RCS? Why do people? It seems like it solves yesterday's problems next week.
Meaning they're less defined by delivering a message, and more defined by the "value add" services they offer (like Payments, Notifications from third party services, customer support for third party services, etc).
RCS is more powerful than MMS, but less powerful than the internet-based messaging platforms it is competing against. It is also confined by geography, is confined to cellular devices, and disposes of anonymity/privacy.
Why would I want this? It takes me from the current requirement of "only needs an internet connection" to "need a cellular plan and device." It takes me from any moniker I want to [my phone number]. It takes me from "anyone in the world" to "US only." And on and on.
I don't get it. Why should I or anyone else care about RCS? Why do people? It seems like it solves yesterday's problems next week.
Primarily because of interoperability. There is still no messaging format as ubiquitous as SMS, and it's a constant annoyance to me that my friends on Android don't receive my (photo/video/group) messages as easily as my friends with iPhones do. Sure, everyone could switch to one of the third party services out there, but it's been years and they still haven't. So I'm all for establishing a new baseline that doesn't try to do everything and just builds on the foundation already existing in SMS.
I'll try to explain why I'm excited: I think you hit it with the "anyone in the world" desire. If I truly want to communicate with anyone I know, I have three options: call, text, or email. No other messaging platform has anywhere near 100% coverage for the people I talk to. RCS won't initially have that coverage, but I do see a path to reaching that coverage since it doesn't require every single user installing and configuring an app. I'm already pretty happy with SMS, I just want some more features.
Implementing RCS 5.1 (while at Amdocs, a telecoms vendor) was one of the main things which drove the creation of Matrix.org, fwiw. We had never seen such a sprawling and incoherent standard, and so did the thought experiment of what the opposite non-telcoy approach might look like.
This is embarrassingly bad for Google. Their failure in creating a stable and long-lived messaging platform is well known but I can't believe they are committing so much into something with so much reliance on network operators and handset manufacturers that doesn't meed the needs of a modern, secure platform.
Guess what happens when they create a preinstalled default messaging app with SMS fallback all running on their own platform (like iMessage). You guessed it, antitrust. Influential OEMs and Carriers would complain and so would the EU.
Carriers charging for messaging? I feel like I'm in a time machine. Guys, the internet was invented!
Is there no one in charge of strategy at Google? This is an embarrassment.
Is there no one in charge of strategy at Google? This is an embarrassment.
I think we've known for a long time there is nobody in charge of strategy at Google. Look at what they did to Android Wear, Hangouts, Duo, Allo...
>Is there no one in charge of strategy at Google? This is an embarrassment.
No. If there were, we'd have Hangouts with SMS fallback. Simple as that.
No. If there were, we'd have Hangouts with SMS fallback. Simple as that.
I'm going to be really interested in seeing how this rolls out (that's assuming it ever does) in the United States. All four major carriers have RCS implementations, but as far as I can tell, none of them are interoperable or universal across devices. Would Google step in and offer a solution for all Android devices on a carrier? If so, would that interoperate with other carriers' RCS implementations?
Thinking about that makes me think rolling out to other countries prior to the US was a good idea.
Thinking about that makes me think rolling out to other countries prior to the US was a good idea.
If lack of end-to-end encryption is the price to pay to get carriers to implement the features I want - better group messages, read receipts, better quality photo sharing, typing indicators, etc - then sign me up.
And Google taking the lead by implementing this for free seems like it should put a stop to any worry that carriers will charge for it.
And Google taking the lead by implementing this for free seems like it should put a stop to any worry that carriers will charge for it.
Mmm — all our RCS traffic going through Google servers by default, sounds like a great way to gather data. Next time you see weirdly specific ads based on a text conversation you’ll have to wonder — how much of this is actually encrypted.
I don't trust google with this, poor customer service/support and a history of cancelling/abandoning projects after a few years.
> I also asked about metadata, which is often a loophole that gets ignored in privacy discussions. Those should be temporary, too: “We temporarily log metadata about the device such as IMSI, phone number, RCS client vendor and version, and timestamps for a limited period of time to provide the service.”
___
NOT, they /will be/ temporary. They /should be/ temporary.
That's a garbage answer. Also, not defining temporary is a loophole. Temporary could mean from 1 second to infinity, depending on how Google wants to sling it.
___
NOT, they /will be/ temporary. They /should be/ temporary.
That's a garbage answer. Also, not defining temporary is a loophole. Temporary could mean from 1 second to infinity, depending on how Google wants to sling it.
RCS solves NONE of the problems that need solving, and only gives carriers another thing to charge for. Specifically:
* the spec is very very complex, and most parts are optional, so no two phones/carriers/manufacturers/OS versions will ever agree on anything but the basic minimal set of features.
* there is no specification for end-to-end encryption, and even if there were, it would be optional (as noted above)
* RCS is reliant on carriers which is idiotic given that they have time and time again demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (SIM theft, wholesale sale of location data, etc). It is not a simple set of packets moving over the internet. It could have been. But it is not!
* Carriers CAN and likely WILL charge for it, because they can and because sadly (as noted above) RCS is visible to them as something more than an encrypted stream of data
* Phone number-as-identity is so stupid, even apple admitted it by allowing <email>@icloud.com accounts to work with imessage. People move countries, they change numbers. Phone number is a stupid identity! Oh, and SIM theft exists. Repeat after me: phone number is not an identity!
Google fucked this up MAJORLY so many times, it is not even funny. Hangouts could have been this, if not for internal politics at google. Another google-created service could have been it too. Before google released their 50th messaging app (or is Google up to 60 yet?), people might have listened and adopted what they offered. At this point everyone is too burned by Google releasing new messaging apps and then sunsetting them year later.
In reality, RCS is a terrible non-solution to the actual problem of rich secure messaging between people with guaranteed delivery and typing indication. It is instead a money-grab for carriers and a data-grab for the NSA. Nice and easy to spy on a protocol with no encryption.
* the spec is very very complex, and most parts are optional, so no two phones/carriers/manufacturers/OS versions will ever agree on anything but the basic minimal set of features.
* there is no specification for end-to-end encryption, and even if there were, it would be optional (as noted above)
* RCS is reliant on carriers which is idiotic given that they have time and time again demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (SIM theft, wholesale sale of location data, etc). It is not a simple set of packets moving over the internet. It could have been. But it is not!
* Carriers CAN and likely WILL charge for it, because they can and because sadly (as noted above) RCS is visible to them as something more than an encrypted stream of data
* Phone number-as-identity is so stupid, even apple admitted it by allowing <email>@icloud.com accounts to work with imessage. People move countries, they change numbers. Phone number is a stupid identity! Oh, and SIM theft exists. Repeat after me: phone number is not an identity!
Google fucked this up MAJORLY so many times, it is not even funny. Hangouts could have been this, if not for internal politics at google. Another google-created service could have been it too. Before google released their 50th messaging app (or is Google up to 60 yet?), people might have listened and adopted what they offered. At this point everyone is too burned by Google releasing new messaging apps and then sunsetting them year later.
In reality, RCS is a terrible non-solution to the actual problem of rich secure messaging between people with guaranteed delivery and typing indication. It is instead a money-grab for carriers and a data-grab for the NSA. Nice and easy to spy on a protocol with no encryption.
> * Carriers CAN and likely WILL charge for it, because they can and because sadly (as noted above) RCS is visible to them as something more than an encrypted stream of data
Exactly. Carriers will see this as another revenue opportunity with almost zero marginal cost. They'll pounce on charging a premium for it. They want the glory days of per-minute per-text charges where you had to buy large pre-paid packages or risk high per-message charges.
Google has failed themselves repeatedly at their chat offerings. I personally believe it is due simply to Google's incentives: You don't get a promotion for maintaining hangouts.
Wave, GChat/Talk, Hangouts, Allo. All failed by Google neglect. Why should RCS be any better. It isn't even dependent on Google's neglect. It is dependent on our already highly unreliable North American carriers.
Exactly. Carriers will see this as another revenue opportunity with almost zero marginal cost. They'll pounce on charging a premium for it. They want the glory days of per-minute per-text charges where you had to buy large pre-paid packages or risk high per-message charges.
Google has failed themselves repeatedly at their chat offerings. I personally believe it is due simply to Google's incentives: You don't get a promotion for maintaining hangouts.
Wave, GChat/Talk, Hangouts, Allo. All failed by Google neglect. Why should RCS be any better. It isn't even dependent on Google's neglect. It is dependent on our already highly unreliable North American carriers.
> * Carriers CAN and likely WILL charge for it, because they can and because sadly (as noted above) RCS is visible to them as something more than an encrypted stream of data
I need to agree on this one too.
I just recently found out that my Samsung phone has video calling but, surprise surprise, carrier charges for that extra!
But of course any other video app over internet (such as Google Duo) works with no additional charges because mobile internet is basically free! (where free means 10$ for two lines sharing 40 GB of data monthly)
I need to agree on this one too.
I just recently found out that my Samsung phone has video calling but, surprise surprise, carrier charges for that extra!
But of course any other video app over internet (such as Google Duo) works with no additional charges because mobile internet is basically free! (where free means 10$ for two lines sharing 40 GB of data monthly)
There is historic reason for this : all carriers and phone makers see messaging experience as critical and want to control it themselves. Google didn't have enough pull to make messaging mandatory part of default google apps bundle.
Then iMessage and WhatsApp happened and Google desperately tries to rectify the situation. See Hangouts SMS integration.
Latest two-prong attempt is Allo and RCS. Allo failed. The reason RCS kinda works out is that carriers can't combat iMessage alone anymore. RCS was conceived as asymmetrical response to iMessage which aligns both Google's and carriers' interests. Many carries don't even try to implement it and rely on Google's default client implementation and route through default google servers.
Then iMessage and WhatsApp happened and Google desperately tries to rectify the situation. See Hangouts SMS integration.
Latest two-prong attempt is Allo and RCS. Allo failed. The reason RCS kinda works out is that carriers can't combat iMessage alone anymore. RCS was conceived as asymmetrical response to iMessage which aligns both Google's and carriers' interests. Many carries don't even try to implement it and rely on Google's default client implementation and route through default google servers.
* Phone number-as-identity is so stupid, even apple admitted it
iMessage automatically working with phone numbers was the main reason it catapulted to such high usage so quickly. People didn't have to change their workflow, they just got brought into it automatically.
iMessage automatically working with phone numbers was the main reason it catapulted to such high usage so quickly. People didn't have to change their workflow, they just got brought into it automatically.
> RCS is reliant on carriers
Isn't that exactly what this article claims is changing? Google leading the main implementation also means most others will have to follow, and they very well could have an E2E mode similar to Allo's incognito mode. Not as good as always on, but still. Having it free through Google also makes it harder for ISP's to charge for it.
Isn't that exactly what this article claims is changing? Google leading the main implementation also means most others will have to follow, and they very well could have an E2E mode similar to Allo's incognito mode. Not as good as always on, but still. Having it free through Google also makes it harder for ISP's to charge for it.
And who knows how long until Google gives up on this tech and comes out with something different anyway. I give it 2 years max.
The main problem is that everyone wants to profit from messaging in some way (carriers, google etc.) whereas there is only nominal cost to run messaging (not including development hours). Whatsapp was able to do it with $1/year. So there is no way to break this conundrum in the standard capitalistic model. If they were looking for technical solutions, they could have implemented something like signal as an AOSP app and be done with it. But there's no money in that.
iMessage actually works with any email address.
I’ve found it more reliable to use an email address for sender and recipient, then it avoids the limbo of trying to send, SMS fallback, etc.
I’ve found it more reliable to use an email address for sender and recipient, then it avoids the limbo of trying to send, SMS fallback, etc.
Not to be conspiratorial but I find all of this to be pretty intentional. It's currently very hard for me to stay on T-Mobile's legacy (i.e. true) PAYG plan which only supports regular texts. I often have to ask people I'm doing business with to send things as a regular text because emojis and pics don't download.
Looking at the overview on wikipedia and gsma, this thing is feature creeped to the absolute rim before overflowing. Including parts of the specification for APIs and app integration if I'm reading it correctly.
Frankly, if a corporation wanted to lay the groundwork for itself to be the private contractor for when the government wants to make use of the data that can be hoovered from these open channels. It would look a hell of a lot like Google. All this feature creep in abundance is a great way to lock people into centralized monolithic apps or force them into new revenue streams (again, they're already trying it with my PAYG plan for MMS).
I could take it to its greatest logical conclusion especially considering the API, app integration & visible protocol fingerprint and just say this is a great way to introduce WeChat by Google.
I hope this doesn't sound irrational. But I for one find it irrational that I'm even in this position with regular texting versus MMS. It's like phone carriers are the only ones allowed to have shitty interoperability of this kind. Getting really tired of it. Also I hope you're right that their fuckups are resulting in lower adoption, because 68 (including T-Mobile) carriers have already signed onto the Universal Profile part of the spec:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services#St...
Looking at the overview on wikipedia and gsma, this thing is feature creeped to the absolute rim before overflowing. Including parts of the specification for APIs and app integration if I'm reading it correctly.
Frankly, if a corporation wanted to lay the groundwork for itself to be the private contractor for when the government wants to make use of the data that can be hoovered from these open channels. It would look a hell of a lot like Google. All this feature creep in abundance is a great way to lock people into centralized monolithic apps or force them into new revenue streams (again, they're already trying it with my PAYG plan for MMS).
I could take it to its greatest logical conclusion especially considering the API, app integration & visible protocol fingerprint and just say this is a great way to introduce WeChat by Google.
I hope this doesn't sound irrational. But I for one find it irrational that I'm even in this position with regular texting versus MMS. It's like phone carriers are the only ones allowed to have shitty interoperability of this kind. Getting really tired of it. Also I hope you're right that their fuckups are resulting in lower adoption, because 68 (including T-Mobile) carriers have already signed onto the Universal Profile part of the spec:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services#St...
> At this point everyone is too burned by Google releasing new messaging apps and then sunsetting them year later.
What if they just released an upgrade to their existing Messages app and enrolled everyone by default in a new Google version of iMessage?
That's basically what Apple did. Upgrade to iOS 5 and you're automatically enrolled in iMessage without any extra steps. Suddenly your messaging experience just got a whole lot better without any extra work.
What if they just released an upgrade to their existing Messages app and enrolled everyone by default in a new Google version of iMessage?
That's basically what Apple did. Upgrade to iOS 5 and you're automatically enrolled in iMessage without any extra steps. Suddenly your messaging experience just got a whole lot better without any extra work.
That's exactly what they did with Google Allo...
The EU would take them to court before the rollout was finished.
Not sure. There’s strong competition in the market in the form of iMessage (and others - see WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc) so I doubt there would be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.
There is yes. But Messages would presumably be preinstalled. In that case the EU would have a problem with it most likely.
If it weren‘t preinstalled. We‘ll then it‘s pretty much Signal for example and that doesn‘t solve the problem. iMessage works because it‘s preinstalled and default.
It‘s a miracle and kind of ironic that SMS being non-free drove the whole world (except the US where it was) away from it.
If it weren‘t preinstalled. We‘ll then it‘s pretty much Signal for example and that doesn‘t solve the problem. iMessage works because it‘s preinstalled and default.
It‘s a miracle and kind of ironic that SMS being non-free drove the whole world (except the US where it was) away from it.
>iMessage works because it‘s preinstalled and default.
Is this country dependent? It is absolutely on-by-default in the United States.
Is this country dependent? It is absolutely on-by-default in the United States.
True. Now that you mention it. I seem to remember having iMessage (the feature) be opt-in in Europe. So the feature is on by default in the US for sure? I guess that somehow negates my earlier post. But I suppose people would notice the green bubbles everywhere and remember to turn it on.
Hmm is this a defense against antitrust concerns as well?
Hmm is this a defense against antitrust concerns as well?
iMessage is not opt-in. It's enabled by default even here in the UK. The good thing about it is that it doesn't even require an account, if you just want to use it with a phone number (you need an account if you want to use it with another identity like an email address).
Messages is preinstalled. Regardless of strong competition in the messaging market, the EU would accuse Google of leveraging their dominance in another market (Google Apps on Android and Android itself) to assist Messages.
[deleted]
I'm from the US but I've lived abroad the last four years. I'm still surprised so many people "back home" continue to use SMS texting. Everyone I know around the world uses WhatsApp. Literally, in every single continent I know and chat with people on WhatsApp.
Only Americans still use SMS from what I've seen. I just don't get it.