Apple is bringing RCS to the iPhone in iOS 18 | The new standard will replace SMS as the default communication protocol between Android and iOS devices ( www.theverge.com )

The long-awaited day is here: Apple has announced that its Messages app will support RCS in iOS 18. The move comes after years of taunting, cajoling, and finally, some regulatory scrutiny from the EU.

Right now, when people on iOS and Android message each other, the service falls back to SMS — photos and videos are sent at a lower quality, messages are shortened, and importantly, conversations are not end-to-end encrypted like they are in iMessage. Messages from Android phones show up as green bubbles in iMessage chats and chaos ensues.

Apple’s announcement was likely an effort to appease EU regulators.

PsyDoctah9Jah ,
@PsyDoctah9Jah@lemmy.world avatar

RCS is crap, inconsistent, unreliable, lacking, buggy. It doesn't even handle Dual SIM .....

Android needed a native "iMessage" style solution at least 10 years ago.

I can buy a $99 flip phone, basic phone, up to a $1,500 premium device, SMS/MMS will function the same across all 3 devices. RCS however will not. So how is this the answer to advanced messaging on Android? It isn't.....

If Google bought BBM & made it their own when it was still relevant in the consumer space, made it native on all Android 10 devices & later with SMS/MMS fall back, this would be something! Damn I miss BlackBerry....

RCS is not seamless, not native, and it simply is not it. It's the 1 thing I hate about Android, as creative and customizable as the software is, we need more.....I hate what Apple represents in the consumer space and how people often think who use an iPhone which makes me never want one.....

The moment Google saw the exclusivity Apple was doing, Android should have followed suite.

RCS sucks.....

GreatAlbatross ,
@GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk avatar

I'm still of the opinion that the basic message app should only be SMS.
Then anything else should be its own thing. Mixing the two is a recipe for disaster, where it's a consumer product.

QuaternionsRock ,

Counterpoint: SMS shouldn’t exist, and RCS is our best shot at replacing it right now

PlusMinus ,

What? SMS is a proven standard that works reliably. Why do we need to replace that? I tried RCS twice, in both cases the other end did not receive my message or at a later time. Even if SMS needed replacement, RCS is not it.

bloodfart ,

I’m gonna wait to see how this is implemented but it sounds bad on the face of it.

foremanguy92_ ,

I don't know if it's a good thing... To use RCS you have to use a compatible OS + device and use the google messages app (maybe also the Samsung one now) and why does the brand implemented this is because google "offered" the servers to run this protocol. I think even today the best way is to get onto secure messaging apps (like Signal, Session, SimpleX...)

theherk ,

I loved how blasé he mentioned it and moved right along. It is a pretty big announcement and I’m glad they are finally doing it. It will benefit many even if only indirectly.

BearOfaTime , (edited )

It's a terrible move, especially to make it default.

It's just as bad a protocol as SMS in its own way:

It's still tied to a phone number/sim, so you can't just login to the service via a browser or an app.

It has lots of failures, worst of all, SILENT FAILURES, where you don't even know your messages aren't being sent - just look at the communities around here discussing it.

There's no common protocol here really, lots of parts work only by decree of each host (e.g. iOS won't have E2EE with anyone not on iOS, because that requires every cell provider to agree to the config they're going to use.

This is the 21st century, and this is the best they can do - a protocol that fails with no notice? Without standardized encryption? That's tied to hardware?

I had a better experience in 2009 running Pidgin on my phone and my laptop using XMPP. That didn't require a phone number - I could login and see my messages in both places simultaneously... 15 years ago.

No, RCS is a way to make the plebes think they've got a new and better system while still delivering garbage.

Love you downvoters that don't know enough to argue, just drive by and downvote.

ONE person had the guts to say why he disagreed with me.

Nevermind that BorgDrone explained what's wrong with RCS better than I care to. You drive-by downvoters can't even be bothered to learn about RCS.

RCS is garbage. Plain and simple. I will never allow it on my devices, just like with Whatsapp, Facecrap, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

fatalError ,

Who even uses sms/mms these days? The only cases I see myself using sms is the poorly implemented 2fa over sms, which is bad since sim hijack is a real threat.

Other than that whatsapp is the norm around here, whether we like it or not. Some also use facebook messanger, but no1 uses mms, it never picked up with the astronomical prices that carriers kept around for no good reason.
I wish more people used telegram or signal, but 99% of my contacts don't, so whatsapp it is.

Meltrax ,

Like 90% of Americans who have android phones use SMS. WhatsApp is more common in places outside the US. Not inside.

dan , (edited )
@dan@upvote.au avatar

It's still common in the USA for some reason. I think because SMS has been free for a long time and people don't like change. Other apps gained popularity elsewhere in the world because SMSes were expensive.

BearOfaTime , (edited )

I try not to.

I'll happily use one or more of any of dozens of proper modern, network-based messaging systems. A few off the top of my head, none of which must be tied to hardware/sim/phone number (Signal is working on moving away from phone numbers, and it's still not tied to a phone number the same way RCS is):

Matrix

Signal

Conversations

Simplex

Wire

Or pick an XMPP server and client, there's plenty out there. I was using XMPP on my phone in 2009, chatting, sending uncompressed videos to people on desktops/laptops.

Hell, even Telegram is a thousand times better than this RCS garbage.

Don't get me started on the privacy nightmare of WhatsApp... Holy shit, may as well not even care about privacy or encryption.

(I have most of these messaging apps on my phones and my laptop, because they work).

fatalError ,

Unfortunately, no matter how good the alternatives are, you are stuck with whatever is on the other end. I can't force anyone to change their main app for comms. Even if I do manage to get them to install anything else, they will realise they only use it with me and probably drop it next time they change their phone.

While I do agree whatsapp is a privacy nightmare , I also see why it won't go away anytime soon. You only need someone's phone number to contact them, you get easy media transfers although compressed to shit, it's still serviceable and it's carier independant, and most importantly free even internationaly. People even started using it for audio calls due to higher quality audio over the plain voice calls. All these reasons create the perfect mix for the average privacy-ignorant person to overlook any competitors.

pirrrrrrrr ,

I SMS my boss when I'm off sick.

Natanael ,

But SMS still needs an upgrade, because it's not going to be killed of if there isn't a slot-in replacement, and so something has to take its role of being a messaging system where your carrier directly verifies your control of your phone number.

That's why RCS exists.

KLISHDFSDF ,
@KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s a terrible move, especially to make it default.

Subjective, but lets see what you bring to the table.

It’s just as bad a protocol as SMS in its own way:
It’s still tied to a phone number/sim, so you can’t just login to the service via a browser or an app.

That's how text (SMS/RCS) messaging works. Did you expect something different? Did you expect the SMS replacement to not require a phone number?

It has lots of failures, worst of all, SILENT FAILURES, where you don’t even know your messages aren’t being sent - just look at the communities around here discussing it.

I've been using it without issue for quite a while now, but that's just one data point. If you have stats to back up your claim, I would love to see that.

There’s no common protocol here really, ...

"The GSMA’s Universal Profile is a single, industry-agreed set of features and technical enablers developed to simplify the product development and global operator deployment of RCS" Source: https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/technologies/networks/rcs/universal-profile/

lots of parts work only by decree of each host (e.g. iOS won’t have E2EE with anyone not on iOS, because that requires every cell provider to agree to the config they’re going to use.

This is how distributed/federated systems work and this is one of their cons. They won't always be 100% compatible as each component is independent but the goal is to eventually reach feature parity. See Matrix chat clients that didn't all have encryption (or other features) on day 1 or XMPP which has lots of clients, none of which support all features.

This is the 21st century, and this is the best they can do - a protocol that fails with no notice? Without standardized encryption? That’s tied to hardware?

Please post evidence of this. Again, I've had zero issues and every Android user is using RCS by default now - have heard zero complaints.

I had a better experience in 2009 running Pidgin on my phone and my laptop using XMPP. That didn’t require a phone number - I could login and see my messages in both places simultaneously… 15 years ago.

Correct! XMPP is not an SMS replacement and thus it doesn't need a phone number. In fact, you can't "text" an XMPP user, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about here?

No, RCS is a way to make the plebes think they’ve got a new and better system while still delivering garbage.

RCS vastly improves over SMS with the following features:

  • High Quality Multimedia Messaging: Unlike SMS/MMS, which is limited to text and potato sized image/videos, RCS allows sending and receiving photos, videos, and other files at significantly higher quality.
  • Rich Content Sharing: RCS supports sharing richer content formats like GIFs, location sharing, and contact cards.
  • Improved Group Chatting: RCS provides a more feature-rich group chat experience with features like group chat names, adding/removing participants, and seeing who has read messages (with read receipts).
  • Typing Indicators: Similar to many messaging apps, RCS lets you see when someone is typing a message.
  • Improved Message Reliability: RCS messages are sent over data networks, so unlike SMS, they shouldn't get lost due to network congestion.
  • End-to-End Encryption: RCS can offer end-to-end encryption for chats, providing an extra layer of security for your messages (availability varies by carrier).

But keep spreading FUD and hating on something that actually moves the needle forward.

Love you downvoters that don’t know enough to argue, just drive by and downvote.

I think they're downvoting you because you're wrong - plainly wrong - and in this day and age its much easier to bury (downvote) blatantly wrong information than to reply to it. So I'm replying for everyone else but I will not be downvoting you. FUD should be fought back with evidence, but MAAN is it tiring.

ONE person had the guts to say why he disagreed with me.

It's not about guts, its about wasting time, effort, not giving a shit. I slightly give a shit and want people who are less educated on the subject to see the other side of it.

Nevermind that BorgDrone explained what’s wrong with RCS better than I care to. You drive-by downvoters can’t even be bothered to learn about RCS.

Nothing to comment on here.

RCS is garbage. Plain and simple. I will never allow it on my devices, ...

At the end of the day RCS is objectively better than what exists today in the world of carrier messenger services (SMS/MMS). Is it better than iMessage? I don't think anyone would agree, especially not if you only message other iPhone users. Is it a better out-of-the-box experience for interoperability? Absolutely! And you're being disingenuous if you disagree, but I'm happy to hear you out.

just like with Whatsapp, Facecrap, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

We can agree to these being garbage ✊

All that said, am I actively going to ask people to use RCS? Never! The same way I wouldn't ask someone to use iMessage if I had an iPhone. They're both products developed ultimately to push users into their respective ecosystem to the benefit of Google/Apple/Carriers.

I'll stick to Signal and Matrix until something better comes along.

JackGreenEarth ,
@JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee avatar

RCS is the wrong standard to use though, as there isn't a single FOSS Android RCS client. They should support something like Matrix.

brognak ,

Yea, like that would ever in literally any possible incarnation of any possible existence where Apple is a thing happen. Totally.

JackGreenEarth , (edited )
@JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee avatar

That wasn't what I was saying though. I was talking about what should happen, not what is likely to happen, and criticising the EU for pushing for the wrong thing.

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

I mean, in the Steve Jobs Apple it might have.

Steve originally pushed for web apps to dominate on the emerging open web standards.

Apple used to care about the customer more than they do now (IMO).

herrwoland ,
@herrwoland@lemmy.world avatar

If you do anything as merely speak the name of anything FOSS in Apple headquarters, they throw you in a deep dark well in the middle of the campus and remove your name from the world of the living.

dan , (edited )
@dan@upvote.au avatar

Apple have a surprising amount of open-source software. The OS that MacOS and iOS are built on top of (Darwin) is open-source, as is its kernel (XNU). The engine used by Safari (Webkit, forked from KDE's KHTML) is open-source too.

It's not really traditional open-source, though. It does use an OSS license, but they don't really accept public contributions, nor do they track bugs publicly or have a public roadmap.

herrwoland ,
@herrwoland@lemmy.world avatar

That is interesting actually, but compared to other companies I'd not say that's significant. Specially because I suspect they switched to WebKit because they had no other choice 🤷‍♂️

QuaternionsRock ,

Apple forked WebKit from KDE back in 2001. For all intents and purposes, they didn’t switch to it; they developed it.

Evilcoleslaw ,

And yet Google still hasn't rolled out RCS for Google Voice, and last I checked there was an issue with it and Google Fi as well. (It works but it precludes some advertised feature of Fi or something.)

CosmicTurtle0 ,

Honestly, it'd be a good retort from Apple if they ran a commercial that said, "We'll support RCS once all your products do" and then show a screenshot of Google Voice.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

But they're planning to support it

feannag ,

I've had no issues with Fi and RCS. Then again, maybe Fi on pixel is different.

Evilcoleslaw , (edited )

I think it was something to do with the Fi-specific syncing of messages to the web version.

GamingChairModel ,

Fi has two different, incompatible options for how to sync your messages to a computer or other device that isn't your primary phone with your SIM (or e-SIM): the so-called "option 1" is RCS compatible, but treats your phone as the canonical device that has the primary copy of all messages, voicemails, etc. "Option 2" is device agnostic, where all messages and voicemails live on the cloud, and your phone (and all other devices) merely syncs with that primary copy in the cloud.

If your phone breaks or dies or is lost/stolen, Option 2 keeps chugging along with all your logged in devices, but the dead phone is the single point of failure for Option 1.

Ideally there would be a device agnostic way to access RCS through your account, but every implementation seems to require a specific SIM.

TonyOstrich ,

Currently Google has bricked RCS for people with rooted phones in such a way that it fails silently for like the 4th time this year, and it's looking like the modders may not be able to keep getting around it.

BurningnnTree ,

Apple could easily do the bare minimum to keep regulators at bay while still keeping the experience as shitty as possible so that Android will continue to look bad. For example they could refuse to implement reactions or typing indicators, or they could even deliberately compress videos. I'm expecting the worst until we see otherwise.

atocci , (edited )

This is exactly what I'm expecting. The company of "buy your mom an iPhone" isn't going to be aiming for maximum interoperability.

4am ,

Yeah but the company of “wants to remain in the EU market” might

laurelraven ,

No, they'll aim for minimum interoperability that the EU will let them get away with, and they'll push that line every chance they get

TheGrandNagus ,

The EU is fine with iMessage shenanigans, because they're not a significant enough part of the market to matter. Nobody uses SMS either.

It's WhatsApp all the way here.

mark3748 ,

For example they could refuse to implement reactions or typing indicators

Reactions already work in MMS groups, use them every day.

or they could even deliberately compress videos

Except they’re already advertising improved quality of photos and video in non-iMessage chats. Doubt they would advertise a specific feature only to make it worse.

laurelraven ,

Doubt they would advertise a specific feature only to make it worse.

Not like companies have never done that...

JasonDJ ,

Disliked a message.

painfulasterisk1 ,

Apple will probably use white bubbles with yellow font.

BearOfaTime ,

Not to criticise apple too badly here, but that's what will happen, as the version of RCS they use won't have E2EE.

And... It'll still be tied to your phone number. Why would I want another shitty messaging system that's tied to my phone number?

RGB3x3 ,

It's the replacement for SMS... Are you upset that WiFi phone calls are tied to your phone number?

noisefree ,

Here me out, iMessage on any OS, wait, no, not just that, how about no hardware vendor is allowed to produce software that only runs on their hardware and for any given core function the hardware must prompt the end user with a competitive selection of capable apps to accomplish said function (to be downloaded and installed upon selection) instead of coming with a default option enabled. Let's get crazy and say that any hardware vendor must allow software they produce for their own hardware to be uninstalled and replaced by software of the end user's choosing.

I'm talking some "treating United States v. Microsoft" as legally binding precedent" shit.

Meanwhile, regulators be like...
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6f73199e-3bb7-4161-bccc-412304031906.gif.

(Side note: what's up with the bullshit where Apple makes an Android-native AppleTV app that will install on a phone fine but is blocked from running once it detects it's not an AndroidTV device? Apple acts like it would be an undue burden to make iMessage for Android (and pretends they didn't make the decision to not release an Android client with their hardware business in mind) but their Apple Music app somehow runs better on Android than it does on iOS...)

mriguy ,

“Why does this microwave oven cost $1500?”

“Two reasons. The first is that it has to have a full network stack to allow it to download software from competing appliance vendors. The second is the cost that the manufacturer had to bear to develop software for every single other microwave sold. There are some pretty weird architectures out there, and they had to hire a whole bunch of programmers.”

refurbishedrefurbisher , (edited )

Maybe don't make a network-enabled microwave, then. What an unnecessary IoT appliance.

mriguy ,

OP said “no hardware vendor”, not “ no networked hardware vendor”.

laurelraven ,

The exact quote was

how about no hardware vendor is allowed to produce software that only runs on their hardware

Why would this theoretical microwave vendor be making software for it in the first place to need to make it interoperate with other microwaves that inexplicably have software of their own?

noisefree ,

ding ding ding The microwave analogy they were going after makes no sense. I mean, there are semantics at play and I could have explicitly mentioned I wasn't talking about firmware in order to exclude things that are essentially calculators and clocks but I didn't anticipate someone going the direction of absurdist bespoke microwave OSes given that firmware alone is enough. Even at that level, you have examples like Seiko Epson inventing precision timed ticket printers for the 1964 Olympics - they're still dominant in the arena of commercial printers to this day, yet they have allowed other manufacturers to adopt their ESC/POS language as a standard that's still widely used across brands today, allowing for feature parity on the software functionality side from competing brands while Epson competes on the hardware reliability side. (This isn't an endorsement of Epson, their consumer printers are trash because they're not Brother laser printers lol.) Spoiler alert, the price tag of a commercial printer doesn't have much to do with it being compatible with network standards (???! - standards being the key word here) and has more to do with reliability and general feature sets (in that order once competition exists for a device, see Epson vs feature identical Beiyang (insert other generic clone brand here)) and the same would hold true even if we decided to network our microwaves in some scenario where we're also automating food going in and out of the microwave.

All of that said, if I were to modify what I was saying while keeping the sentiment the same, I would just simplify it by saying "no hardware vendor is allowed to lock their hardware to running specific software" (doesn't mean they have to provide technical support for errors in another vendor's software) since that gets at the root of the issue. But, going back to the original sentiment, open standards that have nothing to do with specific hardware are clearly better. Look at Apple vs x86 vs ARM, specifically Apple during the period between PowerPC (at least there were partners here, so the chips had lives outside of Apple hardware) and their M-Series - they wouldn't have had an excuse not to offer something like BootCamp during the x86 era given that their OS clearly was able to run on off the shelf PC components and the inverse with Windows and Linux being able to run on their hardware was also clearly true. Is it a good thing that Apple hardware is once again locked in to running only their software?

JeeBaiChow ,

Can't do that without industry standards or open protocols. The reason your mouse works with any Mac/ PC/ Linux/ etc is entirely because standards. Meanwhile we are arguing about encryption and the color of chat bubbles, yet losing the point of market fragmentation. It's dumb.

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

Has hell frozen over?

Jilanico ,
@Jilanico@lemmy.world avatar

What if they kept the green color just to troll...

extremeboredom , (edited )

They probably will. They're aware of and actively foster the "in-group" psychology that plays out in youth social circles. Anyone with a non-Apple phone is excluded as lower class, weird, or less-than. You don't get included in the group chats that are often the center of your peers' social lives because no one wants the annoyance of dealing with the limitations of conversing with a green bubble. You must conform, purchase the correct products, and sign over your life to the correct social media platforms if you want to participate in society.

LodeMike ,

They are we got confirmation months ago

cm0002 ,

Yea, but the real question is will the youth see through the BS or not? Before it wasn't just a color, green bubbles actively broke things in blue bubble group chats

But once that's gone with (hopefully) the rollout of RCS (which should fix most, if not all, the things that broke gcs) it really would be "just a color"

Ofc, Apple being Apple, I wouldn't put it past them to artificially "break" things or arbitrarily introduce limits between RCS and iMessage

extremeboredom ,

Ofc, Apple being Apple, I wouldn't put it past them to artificially "break" things or arbitrarily introduce limits between RCS and iMessage

That's where my money is

thehatfox ,
@thehatfox@lemmy.world avatar

Ofc, Apple being Apple, I wouldn’t put it past them to artificially “break” things or arbitrarily introduce limits between RCS and iMessage

I’m guessing RCS support will be as barebones as possible while still technically functioning. All of the fancy bells and whistles will remain exclusive to iMessage.

Some iMessage features might not be possible to implement with RCS I suppose. Maybe RCS messages will get a different colour. All Apple said in the WWDC keynote was RCS would be supported, they didn’t elaborate any further.

AbackDeckWARLORD ,

Apple is bringing RCS because China is requiring it, not because of what google has done. So I don’t expect it to be bare bones in that case since a huge market of theirs will be phasing out sms in the foreseeable future.

Mongostein ,

What kind of fancy bells and whistles does RCS have?

JasonDJ , (edited )

One of two things can happen...

Either Apple does the bare minimum to implement RCS, continuing to make interoperability a pain in the ass. Meanwhile, keep making improvements to iMessage.

Or Apple does it right, fully implements RCS, contributes back to the standard, and abandons iMessage as maintaining two separate platforms for the same function is a waste of resources.

I'll take a guess as to which it'll be.

Alternatively Americans just accept using 3rd party messengers. But that field is huge with big and small names competing, and ultimately anything that displaces FB messenger or WhatsApp will just get bought by Meta (or some other FAANG) and we're back at square-one.

Everybody just remember that Apple is the stubborn ones here, reluctantly adopting the standard that every other OEM has been using for a decade, and the reason they've been doing this was as a means to keep people in Apple's walled garden by "othering" people who don't have iMessage.

They knew exactly what they were doing. I got rid of my iPhone to go back to Android literally a week after the original announcement. Exchanging multimedia with my wife was literally the only thing holding me to iOS. The alternative, using third party messengers, is just plain cumbersome for one user (and likely means selling your soul to Meta nowadays, anyway).

I doubt I'm alone.

And RCS is a neutral standard, belonging to GSMA. Even though Google is a key player, they aren't the only ones. Any phone OS or OEM could always have implemented RCS. Apple has historically chosen not to, while also not reciprocating the openness with iMessage.

I guess there is one other possibility...Apple embraces RCS and, being keenly aware of its limitations and with Apple and Android cooperating, they collaborate to develop a new open standard that fully replaces both. That's probably the best outcome but also least likely to happen.

Stupidmanager ,

Next up, ios20 will let you change the color of your fried chat bubble in groups. And it’ll be the most innovative inclusion “evarrrhh”.

Repelle ,

It’s super useful to know instantly if the messages are encrypted or not.

Ghostalmedia ,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

Exactly. Encryption is coming later.

Also, there are iMessage specific features that are not part of RCS, so knowing what platform someone is on is still useful for cross platform communication.

errer ,

There’s a few things that are iOS device specific (like FaceTime) so I can see legit reasons to keep the different colors, if that’s what everyone is used to. Not that video calling should be a random proprietary tech, but that’s another battle…

kbotc ,

Apple wanted to open source FaceTime and destroy Skype. They got sued and were not allowed to open source their protocols. It’s real dumb that Apple didn’t get to drive the standards there.

MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown ,

It’s not just to troll. There are actual differences between the RCS and iMessage protocols and their capabilities.

atocci ,

Sure, but we all know what the real reason is...

ForgotAboutDre ,

It would be inappropriate to not make it clear what messaging protocol is being used.

Most RCS chats will be going through googles servers. A user might want to know that.

atocci , (edited )

I absolutely agree on that. It should be clear to the user what protocol is being used, but that isn't Apple's goal. If that was the case, the bubble for RCS messages would be something other than green since green currently indicates SMS. The way they're doing it, making RCS bubbles green too won't do anything to tell you what protocol you're using, but it will specifically reveal you aren't using iMessage, and continuing that in-group mentality is the goal.

Rai ,

ABSOLUTELY. I have way more trust in iMessage’s privacy than RCS. I am ELATED for this change, but I want the colors different. I wouldn’t be upset if it changed from green to something else like peach or something, though, to reflect at least there might be SOME encryption or something going on.

ozymandias117 ,

If you’re relying on iMessage for privacy, ensure you and everyone you’re messaging have gone to iCloud settings and enabled “Advanced Data Protection”

Rai , (edited )

Absolutely, and excellent advice. Most of my folks I talk about

pirated

Uhh

movies

…we’ll just say THC cuz it’s legal here

with, whether it enabled or not, we go through Signal iPhone or Android

edit: I read this again and it’s a terribly worded post but I think ya get it

thequantumcog ,
@thequantumcog@lemmy.world avatar

No, apple is not using Google's proprietary RCS they are using Open Source GSM RCS which doesn't go through Google's servers and it doesn't include end-to-end encryption.

Ashyr ,

They almost certainly will. That blue is a prestige feature for a lot of people.

I don’t really care, so long as I can easily send texts and pictures back and forth, I’ll be happy.

monoboy ,

On the iOS 18 preview page, they show RCS with green bubbles

https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-18-preview/

KLISHDFSDF ,
@KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml avatar

Image for the lazy (and yes, of course, Apple's breaking their own accessibility guideline of having text at least 3:1 contrast ratio for text to be readable and instead making it 2:1 by picking the lightest shade of green possible).

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/95985ddd-dc17-48ba-ab89-2312583f3ab4.jpeg

Ghostalmedia ,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

The bubbles will remain green. At the very least, it’s handy a hand way to tell if chat is unencrypted.

GeneralVincent ,

But rcs can be e2ee right?

c0smokram3r ,
@c0smokram3r@midwest.social avatar

That’s what I’m curious abt, as well. Will RCS to iMessage be e2ee?? 🧐

Ghostalmedia ,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

Encryption was never part of the RCS standard, and Google has been gatekeeping the encryption solution that they’ve been using… which is why there aren’t a lot of E2EE RCS clients floating around.

Google finally conceded several months ago, and now encryption will be part of RCS and managed by an independent working group that Google, Apple, and others can contribute to.

Phase 1 of RCS is about implementing the unencrypted foundation of the protocol. Encryption is supposed to come when the working group has aligned.

BorgDrone ,

Encryption is supposed to come when the working group has aligned.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

The whole RCS thing is a Bad Idea™ . It’s a standard by the GSM Association, which consists of over 1150 members (750 operators and 400 other companies). Getting all these companies to align will take forever.

To illustrate: the RCS initiative was started in 2007 and the steering committee was formed in early 2008. The first version of the Universal Profile, that would enable interoperability between different operators and networks was released in 2016. It took 8 f-ing years to come up with an interoperable messaging standard to replace SMS. It was intended to be implemented by operators, but since hardly any operator did Google had to run their own service, bypassing the network operators, just to get it off the ground. Operators are now slowly beginning to support it.

If Apple decides to add a feature to iMessage, they implement the feature, roll out an update to their servers and release it to a billion users in the next iOS update. If they want to add a feature to RCS, they first have to discuss it in the committee until they agree on a solution, this alone takes forever. Then every player needs to update their software to add support. This means potentially 750 operators who need to update their shit, and that is after their software suppliers add support for it. In the mean time, the new feature will work for some users when they communicate with some other users, depending on which phone and operator each party has. Rinse and repeat for every new feature you want to add.

This means RCS will at best only ever be a very basic messaging service. It’ll be an improvement over SMS and MMS, but that’s not saying much. It will be in no way a threat to Apple’s dominance in messaging.

BearOfaTime ,

Thank you for detailing what's wrong with RCS.

It's too little, too late, with major issues.

I was running XMPP on my phone in 2009...

BearOfaTime ,

Not across vendors it can't. Or at least isn't.

GeneralVincent ,

Well that sucks

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

Honestly that will be the least of your concerns. I will be very surprised if it's anything more than basic interoperability. Photos and videos and such. Probably not even group text. Apple will comply maliciously just like they are with app stores. You'll have to drag them kicking and screaming.

JeeBaiChow ,

Sounds like it just replaces sms as the default method to communicate with androids. So it's very likely the bubbles will remain differently colored.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •