Google wanted the carriers to all host their own servers. They refused, so Google took it on. Agreed that there are going to be interop issues with Google's RCS implementation, but let's not place all the blame at Google's feet, here.
> I think this is basically Apple calling their bluff and telling them that they need to actually release their proprietary work as open standards. I’m sure that will be their argument to regulators.
Which would be a great outcome!
The idea was for every carrier to be the gatekeeper of his subscribers, so no one was giving up anything and everyone wins. The strongest carriers in the working group rolled out their own servers in the initial stage of development, a total of five only IIRC. No one else followed because there was no visibility on return of investment.
At that time, major device vendors maintained their own SMS-app to navigate all the custom requirements of the carriers in the world. Google aimed to standardise the client and include all these carrier-specific customizations, but RCS was about to fragment this space even further, as every vendor was expected to integrate his own client.
Google then stepped in in 2015 by acquiring Jibe, a main supplier of RCS servers and the developer of a vendor-agnostic RCS-client. At this point only ONE carrier still considered to buy a own server.
Google continues maintaining the existing servers and also offers to host RCS as a service for carriers. Overall goal was to defragment both the server and the client area, as this was the only way to scale.
It's time for others to step in and balance the playing field again, Apple is the best candidate for that.
I have no love for the carriers but to me open would sound like things Google could do unilaterally:
* Android developers can now use the RCS APIs, not just our own app
* Our extensions are released as an open standard waiving any IP litigation except in self-defense
* Our E2EE key server is open to users of other apps and/or supports this federation protocol
It's funny to read this criticism, when comments in another thread are criticizing Google for running an RCS implementation as a service for carriers.
RCS is an open standard, and Google does let others use it. However, other carriers didn't adopt it themselves, so Google set up a service that carriers can use and is running it themselves to ensure compatibility. There is no API for Android apps to use, yes, and that is a problem they should fix, but it's not exactly a self-serving decision, especially because it hampers Google's own products as well. The reason for the lack of the app API is likely because RCS hasn't been widely adopted enough to warrant it.
Android also has APIs to register another RCS client to the OS.
What's missing are open APIs for apps to control Google's RCS-client. Indeed this would be convenient, but considering the potential for misuse there, Google would probably need a separate certification process for each app, which is quite a scale for something that didn't scale yet...
A own RCS-client still requires accreditation to ensure interoperability with the RCS-service. API-access to Google's client would either require accreditation of the app using the client, or would need to be limited so dramatically that it's probably of no use...
Nah gov doesn't give a shit they just see the incapable outcome and the rest of Apple's behavior.
I think that point would be stronger if anyone else was open. Google used to run an open messaging service but shut it down as part of their failed attempt to compete with Facebook, and their current professed love of open RCS hasn’t extended to allowing anyone else to use their implementation. Android developers aren’t given access the way they were to SMS, and nobody except Samsung is allowed to use their proprietary E2EE servers.
I think this is basically Apple calling their bluff and telling them that they need to actually release their proprietary work as open standards. I’m sure that will be their argument to regulators.