> "Even if Google could magically roll out RCS everywhere, it's a poor standard to build a messaging platform on because it is dependent on a carrier phone bill. It's anti-Internet and can't natively work on webpages, PCs, smartwatches, and tablets, because those things don't have SIM cards. The carriers designed RCS, so RCS puts your carrier bill at the center of your online identity, even when free identification methods like email exist and work on more devices. Google is just promoting carrier lock-in as a solution to Apple lock-in."
But, there is no "carrier lock-in" (at least not in the USA). In the USA, carriers are legally required to allow users to port numbers to and from any carrier thus creating competition rather than lock-in.
There's no carrier required at all with iMessage. With RCS you HAVE to have a carrier.
On the flip side, most people using RCS would otherwise be using an @gmail.com address as their identity if that was how it worked. I'd say that's probably better than the carrier owning the identity, but it's still not ideal.
There is a publicly-facing Google site to enter an RCS enabled cellphone number, in order to disable Chat features… including end-to-end encryption.[0] This feature should only be configurable on-device, ideally, or at least be behind a login and 2fa. It’s just there on a public site. This is basically asking for sim-swapping attacks. And you’d never notice, only wonder why your RCS e2e keeps turning itself off. I wonder which individuals and agencies may benefit from that…
Even with the Chat features enabled, RCS doesn’t not support e2e on group texts[1], unlike iMessage, which does[2]. Google is just playing dirty pool and calling Apple users bullies by proxy, and I’m calling them on it.
Edit: Apple has a similar site to disable iMessage. This setting should only be available on-device, or if it has to have an online workaround, behind a login with 2fa. If you no longer have access to your phone, you should have to contact Apple support or go to an Apple store. The status quo benefits bad actors and intelligence agencies more than it improves the experience for end users IMO.
[0] https://messages.google.com/disable-chat
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724
[2] https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10262381?hl=en
You copied this one 4 times—that's egregious! No more, please.
This is _really_ misleadingly worded. The website asks for a confirmation code, which you presumably need access to the device in order to obtain, right?
Requiring users to visit an Apple store to leave Apple's messaging ecosystem doesn't seem like an ideal solution, to put it lightly.
I think the status quo is actually not terrible, and with a simple modification (making any externally-triggered deactivation very visible on the logged-out device) it could be secure as well as being usable.
Regardless, I don't see this as a big deal. The site will send a verification code to the phone before allowing anyone to disable it. If someone has cloned/swapped/stolen my SIM card and can intercept and use that verification code, then I have many many many more things to worry about before I worry about someone disabling RCS for my number.
But, as you point out in your edit, iMessage has the same issue. Potato, potahto.
I would guess that your devices will notify you if someone maliciously disables iMessage for you phone#, and maybe google does the same?
It's interesting that both sites are very similar. Maybe Google copied Apple's site.
So for me it seems like a far worse solution than the status quo.
Any other features that are missing or sub-par in the RCS vs. iMessage equation is IMO trivial compared to the harm we have now of the lack of interoperability.
That is by every definition worse than what we have today.
Look, I'm not asking for the perfect messaging system here. Because we're never going to get that. I just want something secure and private, and that works by default. Agreed that other client implementors don't have to support E2EE, but Google does, and Apple certainly would, and that covers enough cases right now to make me happy.
I'd grudgingly accept an iMessage app for Android, or (better) iMessage integration with the stock Android app. But I'd much prefer a standard that isn't controlled by a single company's goodwill... goodwill that they have already shown is in short supply.
And you want instead to move the world towards a single, insecure standard, dictated by carriers who have decades long history of (a) supplying data to governments, (b) selling data to random third parties, (c) intercepting messages for their own nefarious purposes e.g. advertising and (d) doing very little to secure and protect their platforms from abuse.
No thanks.
There already is a standard, one which Apple falls-back to when messaging Android: SMS.
The would-be-dystopia you describe well in your second paragraph is not a hypothetical: that is the world as it is today with SMS; Apple could change that by switching to RCS + encryption extension and protect their users' privacy, but they won't because they view it as a competitive wedge (we know this due to the Epic lawsuit, as mentioned in TFA)
This is a pretty literal description of how iMessage interfaces with non-iPhones today though, so not worse.
iMessage is tied to your Apple ID, not your phone number or IMEI.
Group RCS isn’t e2e, unlike iMessage. That’s the main point.
But security is besides the point: Google doesn't want RCS support for security, it wants people not to know they're communicating with a non-apple device because they're afraid of the peer pressure.
Given that android has a huge marketshare lead, and google definitely knows how to make chat apps, they just never made one and stuck with it. Instead they kept continuously shipping new, incompatible, disconnected, chat apps and services. Because of that no one really trusts Google when it says "use this chat app, this time we'll keep it around". Meanwhile a person with a first gen iPhone or iPad (or a Mac from that era) can still use iMessage to talk to someone using the latest generation software. I would guess there's a loss of feature set, but it should theoretically still work.
Google could have avoided this by not continuously releasing and killing chat services. If they’d stuck to one they would have a much bigger number of users - people complain about iOS, but lets be real: android is a much bigger market. Google allowing both the hardware and software to fragment in basic functionality is a questionable decision.
And now we are back to Google Chat again!
What you want is for everyone to support whatever messaging protocol Google is pushing today. There have been a lot over the years and it seems like RCS won’t be the last (it has its flaws — serious, fatal ones, IMO).
Nearly a decade and a dozen failed messaging products later, now they are shaming others for not being interoperable with their preferred spec?
I don't think that's the way the world is.
I'd prefer the opposite: an OS with _no_ messaging app, and let users pick their own (both for Android and iOS). Expecting OS vendors to ship one out of the box is asking for a new IE-like scenario where whatever big tech companies pick becomes the standard, no matter how good or bad it may be.
I'm not suggesting another competing platform. I'm suggesting an already-widely-deployed platform (RCS) that is standardized, has been around since 2008 or so (older than iMessage!), and is the actual real elevation of SMS, not an Apple-proprietary protocol.
> If iMessage was cross platform
It's not, and that's the problem! Making it cross-platform would at least partially solve the problem, though it does mean Yet Another Messaging App I have to install.
> If you want secure cross platform messaging, use any of the other platforms built around that feature.
That's a huge pain in the ass. Not all of my friends have Signal, and I'm tired of evangelizing. Not all of my friends have WhatsApp, and I'm not interested in evangelizing a Facebook property. I don't use Telegram, and very few of my friends do, and I'm also wary of evangelizing a messenger that is not secure by default, and that has what is IMO a sketchy, secretive history around its cryptography.
Looking through my Messages history, there are 27 people I communicated with over unencrypted SMS/MMS over the past month. Only one of those people has Signal (not sure why they SMS'd me, but that just further illustrates the problem of how it's difficult to remember to contact people using the "correct" means), and maybe 6 or 8 of them have WhatsApp (for whatever reason, they/I don't really use WhatsApp often).
Why is this so hard? Apple! If Apple supported RCS (with the E2EE extension), literally every single one of those 27 conversations would have been encrypted, without me (or, critically, the other party, whom I have no control over) having to do anything special. As much as I love blaming Google for many things, they cannot solve this, because iMessage is a closed protocol that they are not permitted to implement, and the messenger app that is in the default install (the iMessage-supporting Messages app on iOS, and the RCS-supporting Messages app on Android) has a huge easy-adoption advantage that third-party messengers will never be able to match.
You can argue a bunch of "shoulds" here, but I'm talking about what the reality actually is.
The RCS Universal Profile is the first standardized version by the GSMA and came out in late 2016.
Google's RCS usage has primarily been via Google's own hosted implementations because of poor carrier adoption. Verizon AFAIK is planning to have RCS deployed this year.
Also AFAICT the e2e extension is not a standard but is Google-specific and currently exclusive to their Messages app. It also has several inferior technological, privacy, and UX impacts to other systems (such as only working for 1-to-1 chat, or requiring out-of-band verification code comparisons to guarantee the encryption isn't compromised).
It also is not a protocol evolution of SMS - its similarity is mostly that it like SMS was standardized through the GSMA. I also do not believe that the GSMA mandates its usage "instead of" SMS - it is meant to sit alongside SMS.
> That's a huge pain in the ass. Not all of my friends have Signal, and I'm tired of evangelizing. Not all of my friends have WhatsApp, and I'm not interested in evangelizing a Facebook property.
There's zero chance that RCS will replace Signal or WhatsApp or Telegram. It also won't replace SMS, at least this decade. It's just going to be Yet Another Option.
They are likely using an Apple device, so they can't use Signal as the default SMS/messenger app and have to remember to use it for the right contracts.
Android allows you to choose the default messenger app, and setting up Signal this way gives you an experience very similar to the iMessage one on Apple devices - messages to non-Signal-using contacts go over SMS/MMS, messages to contacts with Signal go over the Signal protocol.
Signal supports SMS on Android because Android has API for apps to actually interact with the underlying phone SMS capability (because Android is a platform customized by OEMs).
Apple does not have public API to interact with the hardware to send/receive SMS, although there's no limitation on using SMS in other apps.
There are two messaging limitations in the platform:
1. The sms: url scheme can only go to the built-in app. Since this does not let you pre-compose messages, I've actually never seen it used in production.
2. The MFMessageComposeViewController is used to overlay iMessage with your application to send a chat message. Generally I've only seen this used in lousy applications (admittedly including Twitter and various Google applications in that list) - the modern approach is to use the Share and Action sheet functionality, which presents first and third party apps via equal heuristics.
There's no point in arguing about the technical aspect of this anyways. It's purely a social manipulation campaign by their marketing department, they as much as admit to it in their advertising.
Because it's the right thing to do. They are intentionally degrading the privacy and security of their own users every time an iPhone user opens the Messages app and sends a message to an Android user. They do this because they want a competitive edge, and value that over the privacy and security of their users. They're contributing to the problem of proliferation of various messaging apps, which makes it harder to contact people, and harder to evaluate what method of contact gives the most security and privacy.
I'm not claiming Google is any kind of saint here. They are the definition of message app proliferation (and message app graveyarding). But at least Google, with RCS, is finally trying to do messaging in a way that's open to interoperability.
I'm also not claiming that Apple "must" open things up. As you say, it's their prerogative not to. But I am also free to judge that decision as a net negative for society, and demonize them for it.
Your argument isn’t really very compelling to me, and as another poster mentioned, iMessage may be patent encumbered and not able to be interoperable or offered on other devices. What if Google is choosing not to license the relevant patents to score some points against Apple and take the heat off themselves, as they have potential antitrust cases pending due to their ad sales model.
To me, Google is the monopolist trying to force the issue in their favor. It seems like your argument is that users of Google products deserve the benefit of Apple services without being customers of Apple. Just like Google benefits from ad auctions on their ad sales channels even if they don’t ultimately serve the ads, as they have collaborated with Facebook to not outbid each other. The track record of Apple and Google suggests that while Apple has always been somewhat proprietary, and hasn’t ever suggested otherwise, Google presents itself as open while pulling shenanigans behind the scenes to their own benefit, and their openness is mostly marketing. The existence of projects to remove Google services and difficulty in rooting many Android phones further illustrates this point. If Google were open, we wouldn’t need Microsoft to implement running native Android apps on Windows 11. They’re trying to recreate what Apple already has with the macOS and iOS unified experience, and they’re further trying to erode any advantage Apple has in the market by conflating what kids do to each other with what Apple does in the market and for its users, who buy Apple products because they are Apple products and function the way they do, including iMessage.
I just don’t see how any of this calls for demonizing Apple. Any attempt at interoperability would reduce the security guarantees of iMessage, as they don’t have a Secure Enclave in the way that Apple devices do. Low end Android devices are not the target market for Apple products and services, and neither are high end ones. You say that interoperability would improve the security of messages sent from Apple devices to Google devices, but it’s also likely to lead to bugs and a degraded experience for users who rely on blue bubbles to know that their messages are secure and end-to-end encrypted, and on an app, service and protocol, that they know won’t just be canceled and forgotten about in a year or two.
iMessage on Android dilutes the value of the Apple brand and the Apple experience. You may not agree, and that’s okay. I won’t demonize you.
Are you sure you're not thinking of FaceTime? Apple was planning on opening it, but was forced to change plans due to patents.
People are advocating for the opposite. Make apple stop using their anti-competitive market to harm alternative messaging apps.
> If iMessage was cross platform, it’s just another messaging app.
No, it is just as good, and better if it is forced to be cross platform.
You lose nothing, and everyone else gains, when anti-competitive markets are made to support alternatives.
> If you want secure cross platform messaging
Or, instead of that, we could use anti-trust law, against Apple to force them to be less anti-competitive, and allow other people to integrate with it. Problem solved.
I love how it's such an anti-competitive market that in many countries Apple isn't even close to being a popular service. WhatsApp, WeChat, Kakao, Line etc dominate in non-Western countries.
Messaging is easily a more competitive market than search.
I personally think the current situation with iMessage is garbage. Even if Apple doesn't care about Android users, they are hurting their own users: every time an iPhone user has to send a text to an Android user, they degrade the security and privacy of their own users.
(It's telling to see where Apple draws the line: being anti-competitive around messaging is more important to them than their customers' privacy and security.)
Even if Google had their shit together when it comes to messaging, there's always the "default install" problem: iMessage is on every iPhone, from the factory. That creates a barrier for any competitor to gain market share with an alternative messenger. Sure, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc. have been pretty successful, but they're not the default install. (Remember when Microsoft got in trouble in the 90s for bundling IE, at the expense of Netscape?)
As an Android user, all I really want is a secure way to communicate with others by default, without having to figure out which secure messaging app I have in common with each of my peers. Apple has made that impossible, and should be required to allow Google to integrate iMessage support into the stock Android Messages app. Or they should be required to support RCS (with E2E encryption compatible with Google's extension) on iPhones. I'll accept either option, though I'd probably prefer RCS rather than an Apple-proprietary protocol.