Since Google is just trying to get people to use their closed off communication standard (they added a bunch of stuff to RCS and that’s what they want the eu to force Apple to use). And I don’t trust Google with anything anymore, not sure why you would. The killed by Google website is proof enough of that.
I love the fact that Lemmy users here don’t know shit about how these tech works and they will jump on Apple hate every chance they get. And your comment must raise Linux and open source etc or else it will be an instance downvote.
The EU isn’t going to swap one closed proprietary service for another. If iMessage is included under the DMA as a core platform service, it will require Apple to permit interoperability. I.e. the creation of open APIs. Google, and anyone else, can choose to build connectors into their own apps.
Wrapping an internet messaging service with a text messaging system was probably one of the worst things that Apple did.
When I had switched to Android, I was hoping I’d still be able to use iMessage from my iPad occasionally, But eventually I had to give up because whenever I sent an iMessage from my email, my family would just try responding from there as well, Even when I sent a SMS message afterwards.
I managed to convince my father to download WhatsApp (since he doesn’t want to use signal or telegram, and personally, I don’t really like signals lack of external features like no smartwatch app or assistant integration. And I don’t know why not Telegram), but the only other messaging platform my mom uses is Facebook Messenger so that kind of sucks that it’s my only option for communicating outside of SMS. Can’t really convince my sister to switch to something else (and she blocked me on discord for whatever reason, probably because she’s 16 and going through this huge phase right now and I tend to use my sona for almost all online accounts as opposed to my real name)
My family kept complaining that by using something else beyond SMS, requiring them to check yet another messaging app, I’d be complicating their lives too far. But I’m still continuing because there is absolutely no reason for me and my family to be using SMS anymore, and I personally would like to have things like typing indicators and higher quality media back
On a side note, why is Facebook Messenger so much worse than WhatsApp despite being owned by the same company?
They didn’t make WhatsApp, they bought it. And were smart enough to leave it mostly alone. They don’t even really need to outright spy on convos, just sucking in all the contacts, building shadow profiles and figuring out relations from who’s talking to whom is worth gold.
Google and company can go fuck themselves on this one, and I’m usually the first one to bash on Apple for selling overpriced status symbols.
I’m frankly amazed at how much importance Google gives iMessage, when it’s not the number 1 messaging app anywhere in the world. Hell, even if you assume Apple halved its report of monthly active users in Europe, that’s 90 million people in Europe. Significant, but less than 25% of the total population of the EU
Outside USA and Canada, you’ll be hard pressed to find people who give a damn about iMessage, because most are using a different, cross compatible app anyway, like Whatsapp or Telegram, even across most European countries.
In my opinion, ALL nessaging apps should be compatible with each other. It should be like email, just different clients on the same protocol. I know it won’t happen anytime soon (if ever in my life), but I’d like that. And we should start somewhere. Maybe here.
Because those aren’t internet messages, RCS is supposed to supersede SMS and MMS, which is how Google whatever (hangouts? talk? messages?) sends messages to iPhone numbers. Meanwhile, apple-apple communication via iMessage is done via internet
Because the standard is mostly controlled by Google and Samsung, Apple’s biggest rivals in the mobile space
Because Google has been completely anal about being easily spotted in iPhone conversations for quite a while. It is pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with using better standards. AFAIK, even phones that can use RCS have it turned off by default.
Because anyone with an internet connection already has access to several widely used apps that do much more than RCS does
This feels a bit like asking MS Teams to play nice with Google Meet, or demanding that Apple’s office suite (Pages, Numbers, etc.) deliver the exact same product when files are saved in an OpenOffice format. This doesn’t seem to be an issue with any other products…
Apple have designed their product to work well with their devices. The Messages app still functions with non-Apple devices. SMS messages can be sent and received to anyone. The fact that pictures and whatever come through like crap is more an issue with the SMS platform than it is with Apple’s app.
Ultimately, Google dislikes the fact that there is a “green bubble” stigma (for lack of a better word) on Apple devices that encourages those who care about such things to prefer Apple devices. Because Google doesn’t have their own widely used iMessage equivalent, they can’t turn around and make messages outside their platform appear as red bubbles or something, so they are attacking from this angle instead.
Google are attempting to start this fight in Europe in hopes that they can push Apple to change in the US as well. The whole green bubble thing is US-only, but Google haven’t been even remotely successful in trying to force Apple to change, and Apple’s “remedy” to the issue is “Get an iPhone”.
Anybody remember Hangouts? Google’s iMessage that was better in every conceivable way than its Apple analog, integrated with Google voice, could be accessed anywhere you could get on Gmail etc? Dropping the ball on Hangouts to favor carrier pre-installed messaging Apps was such an incredible and short-sighted blunder. I concede that exactly like their many app deprecations/cut-and-runs that did not take the long-term sentiment of the end user into account and damaged their reputation and adoption. And now here we are… trying to grovel back into iMessage’s purview.
I think you’re right. I got some people to start using Hangouts and then Google killed it. I don’t even bother to learn what Google has available now for chats because I know now there’s no point to trying to get people to switch, no matter how good/bad it may be.
Wait you thought hangouts was good? Holy shit would that be one of the worst Google offerings of the decade if it wasn’t for the ten other Google chat and video systems they have made. My god I can’t think of a worse communication platform than hangouts. You might be the first person I’ve heard of liking it.
I don’t want to make assumptions, but your reply makes me think you arrived at Hangouts once it was already being deprecated by Google. Granted, being US based I didn’t need the coverage of WhatsApp (limited as they was even then to phone # accounts), the scant usage of Viber or the other innumerable messaging apps I touched in that time period. Hangouts integrated seamlessly with SMS, let me send media/stickers/map embeds to mixed-platform groups never worrying about quality downgrade. And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail? iMessage makes you jump hoops to do that shit today.
And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail?
this was actually one of the things I hated the most about it. It doesn’t really matter what features you provide when the product is so bad it can’t even make up for it. I had no clue it had sms passthrough, it was just a shitty chat/voice client integrated into my email client, slowly making things slower and slower the more they added.
Bingo. This whole case is designed to make Apple look like the bad guy whilst Google hides their real agenda of forcing Apple to use a protocol Google controls and thus stamp out Google’s competition.
From what I’ve read, Google just owns the reference implementation. Apple could implement it themselves, but then lose out on certain non-cross-platform features, like e2e encryption.
I’ve read the specification. Google’s implementation is the only real implementation (raw RCS is basically a dead project) as Google have added a load of custom extensions to RCS that means, to be interoperable, you’d need to use Google’s (which I imagine requires licensing since it doesn’t appear to be open source).
It’s RCS not RMS and Google didnt even want control of it in the first place, it’s well documented Google has been trying to get US carriers to stop dragging their feet on RCS for a long time. They never did until Google literally went “Fine, I’ll do it myself then”
AND RCS is an open protocol, nobody really has “control” over it, Google runs some RCS servers but if it disappeared tomorrow (Or you changed the defaults) RCS itself would run just fine on whatever including if Apple supports RCS
ETA: Also SMS is absolute trash, it’s from the early 90’s (it’s older than me FFS) it doesn’t really support what we want out of it media wise today, and what it does support it was forced to. It’ll send “video” but it’ll be completely unrecognizable. It needs to be put to pasture already.
It will be an easier sell if Google manages to get their proprietary extensions to RCS into RCS version 10, rather than only being supported in Google Messenger
SMS takes less bandwidth and is perfect for large broadcast messages and works perfectly fine for text based messaging. The only major problems it has are security and media, which while are valid needs, are not a reason to get rid of one of the few universally accepted standards
It doesn’t need to be a fallback. It’s still perfect for text messages, government alerts, mass notification of customers, etc.
It’s barely used today anyways. The only time it’s used on iPhone is if you’re messaging someone outside the iMessage ecosystem, which really isn’t a problem for 95% of Apple users.
I don’t know why you insist on holding onto a 30+ year old protocol. It’s not perfect and at times it can be downright unreliable. Once it’s left your phone you have no idea if it was successfully delivered or not, there’s no acknowledgement no retrys no retransmits. It just shoots it off and hopes for the best.
Group chats are laughably broken even among all SMS recipients (It was never intended for it anyway) and frankly the bandwidth required for text regardless of if it’s over SMS or RCS is inconsequential, who cares if RCS messages need a bit more bandwidth to send text. The difference is negligible.
That’s why it works so well. What you see as problems with SMS I see as good design decisions. It’s an incredibly simple implementation that does exactly what it’s supposed to. You just want it to do more than it needs to.
Something will eventually replace it, but it sure as hell won’t be RCS. RCS is a defacto google standard now. Many features are locked out if you don’t use google servers. It’s not an open standard and it’s disingenuous to portray it as one.
Uh yea, because we do so much more on our phones, it might be well designed, but it was well designed for the 90s. That’s why it makes a good fallback protocol, but by no means should it be the go-to.
RCS is the replacement, it’s been the replacement for a long time in the EU. In fact, if the US carriers just implemented it when the EU did, this entire thread wouldn’t even exist.
It’s a standard until Google takes control of the GSM Association.
The Verge in 2019 criticized the inconsistent support of RCS in the United States, with carriers not supporting RCS in all markets, not certifying service on all phones, or not yet supporting the Universal Profile. Concerns were shown over Google’s decision to run its own RCS service due to the possibility of antitrust scrutiny, but it was acknowledged that Google had to do so in order to bypass the carriers’ inconsistent support of RCS, as it wanted to have a service more comparable to Apple’s iMessage service available on Android.
You’re like a lot of people on Lemmy: so eager to paint everything even tangentially connected to Google as some kind of grand conspiracy that you can’t even get the most basic facts right.
It’s quite literally well documented that Apple doesn’t want to support RCS because it pressures people to get iPhones. SMS is an ancient garbage protocol, what Google is trying to do is get Apple to support SMSs 21st century replacement and RCS support will fix literally every issue iPhone users have texting Android users. Broken group chats, trash quality videos, ultra compressed images, no reactions or stickers, threaded chats etc etc
Google wants Apple to use Google’s proprietary extension of RCS, which runs on Google’s own servers as is precisely as open as iMessage. Effectively nobody uses the industry-standard version of it.
Where’s the source for that? Last I read, Google was using the GSMA Universal RCS profile
Google does own and run the Jibe platform as an RCS vendor, but Apple doesn’t need to use it. They can go with a different vendor or run their own RCS servers just as easily
Google's astroturf campaign for "RCS" promotes encrypted messages but RCS has no support for this. Google wants to force people to use its proprietary extension, which runs exclusively on Google's servers.
The difference is, you can choose not to use Googles RCS extension and opt for the Universal Profile standard instead and it will interop with people on other RCS profiles, even Googles, just fine.
iMessage doesn’t do any of that, your choice is iMessage with other Apple users or a 30+ year old protocol. That’s it.
Except that’s not what happened in reality before Google started rolling out their version of RCS.
The carriers implemented their own versions that didn’t weren’t interoperable with each other, and that was for the ones that even bothered with it at all.
And now they have even less incentive to try.
RCS is nice in theory, but no one is serious about implementing the universal profile.
SMS is the bare minimum. The only reason iPhone supports it is because it was supported before iMessage was a thing. It was also so it could still communicate with “dumb” phones.
SMS is an ancient garbage protocol, what Google is trying to do is get Apple to support SMSs 21st century replacement, RCS
But Apple doesn’t want that because RCS support will fix literally every issue iPhone users have texting Android users. Broken group chats, trash quality videos, ultra compressed images, no reactions or stickers, threaded chats etc etc
Specifically Googles implementation is a replacement, but then it’s the exact same situation we’re in now, just with Google instead of Apple.
No, because I can dig up official documentation for googles implementation. Where’s Apples iMessage documentation?
RCS is a replacement for SMS, it was intended for carriers to implement it as is standard in the EU. In the US however, the carriers have infamously resisted calls to get off their ass and implement it. Even Google was calling on carriers to do it for years, they only came out with their Jibe platform because the carriers weren’t doing their jobs
Does documentation matter if it’s still a closed platform? Imo it doesn’t.
RCS requiring 3rd party servers makes it not a replacement for sms. SMS is a very well thought out protocol that works exactly as intended, it just doesn’t have the bandwidth required for modern media.
Google can call on carriers all they want. It’s still a proprietary google implementation which is no better than Apple. And I trust Apple a hell of a lot more than google (which still isn’t a lot).
Yes, because documentation as I’m referencing it is for accessing the API. You can’t access iMessages API (Well without serious reverse engineering effort) so therefore they have no documentation
RCS is a standard, Google has it’s flavor and Apple could just as easily have their own or any other flavor.
SMS is antiquated and should be used for nothing more than a fallback at best. It’s 30+ years old.
I still don’t see that as any different. Apple has a proprietary implementation, google has an proprietary implementation. You like google because they have documentation. Neither is an open platform, yet you seem to be pushing google like it’s the bastion of open communication.
RCS is not standard, will not be standard and should not be standard.
SMS works perfectly fine. So what if it’s 30 years old. It still works exactly as intended.
It doesn’t have to be open, just provide publicly accessible APIs so that apps can interconnect with it. Google provides this, Apple does not.
To be clear IDGAF about Google. I promote RCS and you can say it’s not a standard, but it is. It’s maintained by the GSM Association and they put out a universal profile that anyone can implement and extend just like Google did and Apple could easily do. They’re just extending an existing standard.
Even in the Google messages app I can change the RCS backend servers at any time, you don’t have to use Googles RCS implementation
Doesn’t everyone hate it when google extends APIs? Think it’s called EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish). They have a history of killing standards as soon as they have enough market share.
If you change off of googles servers you lose features. I’d consider that no longer an open platform. So despite not needing to use their implementation, if you want the modern features RCS is often advertised as having, you have to go through google. That’s not an open standard.
The only 2 features I’m aware of the you lose are e2ee and those sticker things, all other modern features in RCS are present in the Universal Profile and there’s no reason that e2ee won’t come to the Universal Profile in time.
Like I said I’m not enthralled that Google is the one bringing RCS to the US, but I prefer Google over the carriers (Who were supposed to do it in the first place)
On the tech side, Android users also get lower-quality photos and videos when they're sent through iMessage.
Android users don’t receive anything at all through iMessage; the whole conversation becomes SMS/MMS. I suppose getting major, relevant tech details is hard for an outlet like Engadget.
I’m pretty sure they meant when messages are sent using the iMessage app - from the point of view of iPhone user distinction between iMessage protocol and SMS/MMS doesn’t matter.
The app is called Messages. The entire point of the article is to discuss the iMessages versus SMS so I absolutely do think it’s important to get the distinction right in this case.
But the statement made is not incorrect. I agree that a note that it’s because the conversation switches to S/MMS would be handy, but they’re not incorrect.
(When photos and videos are sent to an Android user through iMessage), (Android users receive lower-quality photos and videos [via being downgraded to SMS/MMS).
The statement in the article is literally incorrect. You cannot send a message to an Android user through iMessage. That fact is at the core of the discussion and they got it wrong. It’s not degraded from an iMessage. The conversation is just happening over SMS/MMS, as the Messages app has supported since launch in 2007.
The surrounding context of that statement is talking about the app, not the protocol. From the Apple user’s perspective, they see no difference except for the bubble color.
Again, protocols are core to the discussion, and from the user's perspective which protocol they are using is very obvious (which, again, is core to the discussion). This isn't some trivial detail to get wrong. If they author can't carefully distinguish themselves and educate their audience, why are they even writing about it in the first place?
You went from being pedantic to straight up disingenuous.
No reasonable person reading that line would think they were talking about the protocol. You picked out one thing you thought you could pick apart, and it makes no sense. When called out on it, you’re doubling down.
I pointed out sloppy, inaccurate writing that hints that the writer maybe doesn't have a good grasp of the subject matter. There's nothing to "call out"; I was pretty clear from the start what I was criticizing.
Low quality SMS. There are lots of things Apple could do to improve the experience of texting people without iMessage, lots of things built into the SMS standard that they do t implement.
Edit: wow thought this was commonly known. Basically Apple hasn’t adopted industry standard SMS improvements. There’s a whole campaign to try to get them to. Here’s an article explaining www.android.com/get-the-message/
Basically Apple hasn’t adopted industry standard SMS improvements. There’s a whole campaign to try to get them to.
This is an advertising campaign to get Apple to adopt Google's proprietary version of RCS, which is not the SMS standard. It is, functionally, Google's own version of iMessage, running Google software on Google servers.
This is just false, it’s sent over carrier networks and the carriers decide whose infrastructure to use. Google is one of several options. RCS is an open standard and it is the industry standard for SMS. It’s literally why every other non iphone can send high quality pictures to each other. Apple not adopting it is anti competitive.
it’s sent over carrier networks and the carriers decide whose infrastructure to use.
The carriers never bothered to implement RCS; they just outsourced the whole thing to Google.
RCS is an open standard
That nobody uses.
it is the industry standard for SMS.
It's meant as a replacement for SMS. It's not just some new version of SMS that Apple hasn't upgraded to, which is what you were basically saying earlier.
It’s literally why every other non iphone can send high quality pictures to each other.
It's a messaging service used exclusively by Android phones. iPhones all support iMessage; Androids (mostly) all support RCS. All of those iMessages go over Apple's servers; all of those RCS messages go over Google's servers.
For what it's worth, iPhones have supported sending full-quality pictures to everyone over a legitimately open protocol since launch day. It's called email.
Apple not adopting it is anti competitive.
Google's attempts to legally force Apple to adopt its proprietary platform is transparently anticompetitive.
They’re not sent from iMessage. That is the point. If you write an article in a tech publication talking about messaging apps and protocols, you need to get the names right.
The user is using the Messages app, which launched with support for SMS and MMS. Years later, Apple added iMessage as a third protocol to the app for use when messaging other Apple devices if they both turn iMessage on. If you message with an Android user, it remains with the default SMS and MMS. Nothing is being translated or downgraded; it's just the original, default functionality of the app.
There is nothing to distinguish here. iMessage is the protocol and messaging platform. An iMessage sent remains as an iMessage when received. Android users are not sent and do not receive iMessages. They are sent SMS/MMS and they receive SMS/MMS. If all of the iMessage servers exploded right now, nothing at all would change in Apple to Android messaging because iMessage was never involved.
You’re forgetting the most important thing it is to users: an app. An app that sends messages. Messages that can be received by Android devices because iMessage automatically sends over SMS.
An iMessage sent remains as an iMessage when received.
This might be true from a certain technical perspective, depending on what you mean by “an iMessage”, but it’s certainly not true from a user perspective. The user sends a message from the iMessage app and doesn’t care much whether it’s delivered by iMessage or SMS. Messages sent by iMessage are automatically degraded when sent over SMS if they contain media or use iMessage-specific features. Ergo a message is sent by iMessage and received by an Android device as an SMS message.
If all of the iMessage servers exploded right now, nothing at all would change in Apple to Android messaging because iMessage was never involved.
You’re forgetting the most important thing it is to users: an app.
iMessage is not an app. It has never been an app. It is one of the ways a message can be sent/received in the Messages app. And yes, users of the Messages app are extremely aware of the distinction between sending an iMessage versus an SMS or MMS.
Spot on. The iPhone’s Messages app sends messages as iMessages, SMS, or MMS depending on context. And it makes it obvious. Every iPhone user knows blue vs green. It’s not sneaky or anything.
iMessage isn’t an app… you’re not paying attention to what they’re saying at all. iMessage has never been an app. It’s a protocol for Apple messages through their server hardware. Messages is the app, Messages can send emails, sms, mms, and iMessages.
I guess this is a way for google to force apple to open the protocol since they can’t just open it in the EU, so it affects the US too. But the EU don’t have to listen to google… if imessage is such a minor player they may just leave it alone.
We use it when WhatsApp has server problems every once in a while or for a round of GamePigeon.
Ironically, in Europe you’d be “missing out” on most group conversations if you’d insist on using iMessage, as most of your buddies probably have an Android phone with WhatsApp installed.
For example, in Sweden, probably half as high of a percentage of people have iPhones as the US and yet everyone uses Facebook messenger and whatsapp, at least when I studied there 5 years ago.
The EU won’t leave Apple alone, that’s the whole purpose of the Digital Markets Act (prevent “gatekeepers” from excluding other players).
The irony here is that Google is throwing stones when they have huge glass roofs. This law will certainly bite them back elsewhere, hopefully. We need strong laws to curb these modern day robber barons.
Because it gave the possibility of free text and calling over the internet , that was a big deal for many developing countries and it is very simple to use. Like I heard some Apple fanboys said that iMessage comes already installed with the phone? And on my mind I am like : How hard is to download an app and just put your phone number you are up and running in less than 2 minutes.
You just explained why Europeans have a lot more motivation to install it than Americans do, yet you immediately jump to laziness as an explanation for why Americans aren’t as eager to adopt an app they have little reason to care about.
Your attempt to criticize Americans is very…what’s the word…oh yeah, lazy.
Even in non developing countries. Texting has historically been expensive and limited in a lot of the EU. My plan is still limited to something like 150 texts a month and I'd have to pay extra to work around that, but even if I did it wouldn't be worth the money because nobody uses text here.
Basically in a lot of Europe texting was or still is expensive and not unlimited and WhatsApp was a free alternative and Meta did not own it at the time.
So everyone was like well fuck texting and adopted apps like WhatsApp and then Meta bought WhatsApp. Now in these countries it's the defacto standard whether you like it or not. Businesses, people, and even sometimes government uses it as the default way to text. It sucks.
I wish the US could have been the same in developing on internet messaging. Instead, It’s virtually impossible to find a plan that doesn’t have unlimited SMS and therefore no one ever sees the antiqueness of SMS to be an issue.
MMS and UMTS videocalls were dead in the water the second mobile carriers tried to charge a truckload for that. They did this, they basically made Whatsapp the standard.
We use Whatsapp a lot in Europe, but business fronts still communicate with phone and email. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, everything is on whatsapp! You book an hotel? whatsapp message. You need a taxi? whatsapp! you want to order in room service? send a whatsapp message, there’s not even a phone in the room. A tour guide will contact you directly on whatsapp, if you don’t have it installed, good luck.
Here in the Netherlands a ton of businesses use WhatsApp. You see it listed as a primary contact method on stationary, signs, vehicles, advertisements, etc all the time here.
So it’s more that companies text you. You don’t need WhatsApp to send or receive those texts. So why do you need it installed or good luck? Is there some other functionality?
This, if Meta can spend years ignoring ignore warnings that facebook is literally being used to genocide people I don't see why this guy expected them to heed his warning about child mental health.
engadget.com
Newest