Google keeps trying to hammer on Apple for not adopting RCS

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,501member
    RCS is now the standard for all Android phones, so it's wrong to say that Android users can't share high-res images by default.

    Sure, RCS isn't perfect and is still mid-adoption, but you say it's not the solution to fixing cross-platform messaging without offering any other options. What would you rather see happen to improve how iOS and Android communicate? It's easy to criticize, but you don't seem to have a better solution to offer.
    One thing in the article could be made more clear. FTA:
    Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.

    I don't want to speak for the author, but from the above, it appears that the author did not mean to say Android users can't share high-res images by default at all, but rather it is the combination of multiple features that represents the "same benefit" that other platforms have that Android users don't have.

    Also, it's not the author's responsibility to offer a better solution. Reporting the facts are, which I believe has been done in this article.

    If the author is going to state, as a fact, that RCS isn't the answer, then he should tell us what the answer is. Otherwise it's just his opinion.
    Pointing out why something doesn't work does not require saying what does work. End of story.

    He never points out why RCS wouldn't work.

    His argument is that Apple shouldn't adopt RCS because Google has made their own extensions to the Universal Profile, other apps have similar features (???),  and because it's not on every Android phone yet or integrated into every Google service.

    None of those are actually reasons why Apple shouldn't adopt RCS, especially since Google has offered to help Apple get feature parity between Google's extensions and a possible Apple implementation.

    Mister 5 post don’t trust you or Google, RCS like Flash is something Apple doesn’t need. Enjoy Android…..
    JaiOh81tmaykillroywilliamlondonwatto_cobralolliver
  • Reply 22 of 45
    65c81665c816 Posts: 134member
    One of the subheadings in the article is "RCS isn't the answer". I'm pointing out that if you're going to say that RCS isn't the answer, it's useful to say what is.
    I disagree.  I can say death isn't the answer to life, but it doesn't mean I have any alternative.  There is always the possibility that there is no useful answer.  Sometimes, life sucks, and that's all there is to it.
    JaiOh81tmaykillroywatto_cobrawilliamlondonroundaboutnow
  • Reply 23 of 45
    Xed said:
    Xed said:
    RCS is now the standard for all Android phones, so it's wrong to say that Android users can't share high-res images by default.

    Sure, RCS isn't perfect and is still mid-adoption, but you say it's not the solution to fixing cross-platform messaging without offering any other options. What would you rather see happen to improve how iOS and Android communicate? It's easy to criticize, but you don't seem to have a better solution to offer.
    One thing in the article could be made more clear. FTA:
    Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.

    I don't want to speak for the author, but from the above, it appears that the author did not mean to say Android users can't share high-res images by default at all, but rather it is the combination of multiple features that represents the "same benefit" that other platforms have that Android users don't have.

    Also, it's not the author's responsibility to offer a better solution. Reporting the facts are, which I believe has been done in this article.

    If the author is going to state, as a fact, that RCS isn't the answer, then he should tell us what the answer is. Otherwise it's just his opinion.
    Pointing out why something doesn't work does not require saying what does work. End of story.

    He never points out why RCS wouldn't work.

    His argument is that Apple shouldn't adopt RCS because Google has made their own extensions to the Universal Profile, other apps have similar features (???),  and because it's not on every Android phone yet or integrated into every Google service.

    None of those are actually reasons why Apple shouldn't adopt RCS, especially since Google has offered to help Apple get feature parity between Google's extensions and a possible Apple implementation.
    I'd say that a current lack of end-to-end (E2E) encryption is one reason why Apple should include RCS into their Messages app. You might want to respond saying that it already exists—which is does if you look at specific RCS profiles and without looking at group chat features or whether someone has that disabled. I think that E2E encryption is a necessary attribute for modern messaging, not simply an option feature.

    Would there be benefits to  Apple's customer base if RCS was adopted instead of just SMS? Of course, as most of us do interact with people with green bubbles. but there are definitely downfalls, as well as many difficult pitfalls for Apple for trying to shoehorn many competing and half-baked standards into a single something that just works.

    Have you asked yourself why Google wants Apple to support this? At the very least they want Apple to support it so that it becomes popular. Do you think it's fair for Google to pressure another company into paying a lot of money writing and testing code so that another can benefit off their branding? Why not first make RCS good, safe, and popular amongst Android users. If that happens, then I think Apple will have no choice but to adopt it, but not the other way around. If you build it, they will come.

    There's the Universal Profile and Google's extensions that's build on top of that. There aren't conflicting profiles, at least not ones that matter. 
    So you want Apple to support one profile because Google says so while also saying "fuck you" to supporting RCS profiles for the plethora of carriers and phones that don't support it.  You honestly don't see a problem with that?

    Again, get it working the same on all Android devices and Apple very likely have to support it just like they support SMS.

    You don't seem to understand what the concept of an extension is.

    Google's extensions are built on top of the Universal Profile and don't conflict with the profiles that the carriers implement.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 45
    65c816 said:
    One of the subheadings in the article is "RCS isn't the answer". I'm pointing out that if you're going to say that RCS isn't the answer, it's useful to say what is.
    I disagree.  I can say death isn't the answer to life, but it doesn't mean I have any alternative.  There is always the possibility that there is no useful answer.  Sometimes, life sucks, and that's all there is to it.

    What? Are you saying there's just no way that iOS and Android users could possibly communicate better? MMS is peak technology? Pack it in and shut it down because there's no way to improve the current situation!
    muthuk_vanalingamkillroywilliamlondon
  • Reply 25 of 45
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 453member
    No I reason to sign up for a standard that is controlled by others when you have a working solution. All my friends have iPhones and the last thing I want is spam from other compatible services. iMessage is a competitive advantage for Apple. 
    killroywatto_cobralolliver
  • Reply 26 of 45
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    Xed said:
    Xed said:
    RCS is now the standard for all Android phones, so it's wrong to say that Android users can't share high-res images by default.

    Sure, RCS isn't perfect and is still mid-adoption, but you say it's not the solution to fixing cross-platform messaging without offering any other options. What would you rather see happen to improve how iOS and Android communicate? It's easy to criticize, but you don't seem to have a better solution to offer.
    One thing in the article could be made more clear. FTA:
    Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.

    I don't want to speak for the author, but from the above, it appears that the author did not mean to say Android users can't share high-res images by default at all, but rather it is the combination of multiple features that represents the "same benefit" that other platforms have that Android users don't have.

    Also, it's not the author's responsibility to offer a better solution. Reporting the facts are, which I believe has been done in this article.

    If the author is going to state, as a fact, that RCS isn't the answer, then he should tell us what the answer is. Otherwise it's just his opinion.
    Pointing out why something doesn't work does not require saying what does work. End of story.

    He never points out why RCS wouldn't work.

    His argument is that Apple shouldn't adopt RCS because Google has made their own extensions to the Universal Profile, other apps have similar features (???),  and because it's not on every Android phone yet or integrated into every Google service.

    None of those are actually reasons why Apple shouldn't adopt RCS, especially since Google has offered to help Apple get feature parity between Google's extensions and a possible Apple implementation.
    I'd say that a current lack of end-to-end (E2E) encryption is one reason why Apple should include RCS into their Messages app. You might want to respond saying that it already exists—which is does if you look at specific RCS profiles and without looking at group chat features or whether someone has that disabled. I think that E2E encryption is a necessary attribute for modern messaging, not simply an option feature.

    Would there be benefits to  Apple's customer base if RCS was adopted instead of just SMS? Of course, as most of us do interact with people with green bubbles. but there are definitely downfalls, as well as many difficult pitfalls for Apple for trying to shoehorn many competing and half-baked standards into a single something that just works.

    Have you asked yourself why Google wants Apple to support this? At the very least they want Apple to support it so that it becomes popular. Do you think it's fair for Google to pressure another company into paying a lot of money writing and testing code so that another can benefit off their branding? Why not first make RCS good, safe, and popular amongst Android users. If that happens, then I think Apple will have no choice but to adopt it, but not the other way around. If you build it, they will come.

    There's the Universal Profile and Google's extensions that's build on top of that. There aren't conflicting profiles, at least not ones that matter. 
    So you want Apple to support one profile because Google says so while also saying "fuck you" to supporting RCS profiles for the plethora of carriers and phones that don't support it.  You honestly don't see a problem with that?

    Again, get it working the same on all Android devices and Apple very likely have to support it just like they support SMS.

    You don't seem to understand what the concept of an extension is.

    Google's extensions are built on top of the Universal Profile and don't conflict with the profiles that the carriers implement.
    You don't seem to understand that Google' extensions are a bandaid for a poor implementation. For the last time, make something that works and that people are universally using and Apple will have no choice to adopt it, but don't try to force Apple to adopt it to make it seem more credible than it is.
    williamlondonwatto_cobradewmelolliverroundaboutnow
  • Reply 27 of 45
    Google didn't give Apple full access to the Google Maps API so Apple users could do routing - because Google realized that having full access to the complete API was a competitive advantage for Android.

    Because of this, Apple eventually created their own mapping initiative costing zillions of dollars spanning all these many years with surveyors mapping the entire planet.

    Recently, I noticed that the Apple Maps driving instructions while taking my daughter to work at a Panera Bread included routing through the parking lot of the mall which contains the Panera. I don't remember this happening before - this would indicate to me that Apple is silently improving the smarts of Apple Maps to this day.

    I find Google caterwauling about fixing Android messaging using an incomplete semi-standard with end-to-end encryption which exists only on Google servers quite humorous; while end-to-end encryption works for two clients, it doesn't even support group messaging even on Google's servers.

    That Apple should put time and money into supporting Google's efforts - especially considering how Google drops initiatives it grows bored with - is ludicrous. How many messaging apps has Google made, only to drop each one?

    The iMessage implementation is complete and is a competitive advantage for Apple.

    I'm sure Google is familiar with the concept.
    edited December 2022 tmaykillroyJinTechwatto_cobradewmelolliver
  • Reply 28 of 45
    The point, however, is that SMS needs to go away completely, not be a fallback at all, it sucks.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 45
    Xed said:
    Xed said:
    Xed said:
    RCS is now the standard for all Android phones, so it's wrong to say that Android users can't share high-res images by default.

    Sure, RCS isn't perfect and is still mid-adoption, but you say it's not the solution to fixing cross-platform messaging without offering any other options. What would you rather see happen to improve how iOS and Android communicate? It's easy to criticize, but you don't seem to have a better solution to offer.
    One thing in the article could be made more clear. FTA:
    Google says RCS enables higher-resolution images, video, and more things like emoji reactions. However, other messaging services like Signal, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and even iMessage already have these improvements. It is Google's problem that Android users don't have the same benefit by default.

    I don't want to speak for the author, but from the above, it appears that the author did not mean to say Android users can't share high-res images by default at all, but rather it is the combination of multiple features that represents the "same benefit" that other platforms have that Android users don't have.

    Also, it's not the author's responsibility to offer a better solution. Reporting the facts are, which I believe has been done in this article.

    If the author is going to state, as a fact, that RCS isn't the answer, then he should tell us what the answer is. Otherwise it's just his opinion.
    Pointing out why something doesn't work does not require saying what does work. End of story.

    He never points out why RCS wouldn't work.

    His argument is that Apple shouldn't adopt RCS because Google has made their own extensions to the Universal Profile, other apps have similar features (???),  and because it's not on every Android phone yet or integrated into every Google service.

    None of those are actually reasons why Apple shouldn't adopt RCS, especially since Google has offered to help Apple get feature parity between Google's extensions and a possible Apple implementation.
    I'd say that a current lack of end-to-end (E2E) encryption is one reason why Apple should include RCS into their Messages app. You might want to respond saying that it already exists—which is does if you look at specific RCS profiles and without looking at group chat features or whether someone has that disabled. I think that E2E encryption is a necessary attribute for modern messaging, not simply an option feature.

    Would there be benefits to  Apple's customer base if RCS was adopted instead of just SMS? Of course, as most of us do interact with people with green bubbles. but there are definitely downfalls, as well as many difficult pitfalls for Apple for trying to shoehorn many competing and half-baked standards into a single something that just works.

    Have you asked yourself why Google wants Apple to support this? At the very least they want Apple to support it so that it becomes popular. Do you think it's fair for Google to pressure another company into paying a lot of money writing and testing code so that another can benefit off their branding? Why not first make RCS good, safe, and popular amongst Android users. If that happens, then I think Apple will have no choice but to adopt it, but not the other way around. If you build it, they will come.

    There's the Universal Profile and Google's extensions that's build on top of that. There aren't conflicting profiles, at least not ones that matter. 
    So you want Apple to support one profile because Google says so while also saying "fuck you" to supporting RCS profiles for the plethora of carriers and phones that don't support it.  You honestly don't see a problem with that?

    Again, get it working the same on all Android devices and Apple very likely have to support it just like they support SMS.

    You don't seem to understand what the concept of an extension is.

    Google's extensions are built on top of the Universal Profile and don't conflict with the profiles that the carriers implement.
    You don't seem to understand that Google' extensions are a bandaid for a poor implementation. For the last time, make something that works and that people are universally using and Apple will have no choice to adopt it, but don't try to force Apple to adopt it to make it seem more credible than it is.

    A bandaid on whose implementation?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 45
    jimh2 said:
    No I reason to sign up for a standard that is controlled by others when you have a working solution. All my friends have iPhones and the last thing I want is spam from other compatible services. iMessage is a competitive advantage for Apple. 

    SMS/MMS is a barely functioning solution at this point. They need to be replaced.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 45
    65c816 said:
    One of the subheadings in the article is "RCS isn't the answer". I'm pointing out that if you're going to say that RCS isn't the answer, it's useful to say what is.
    I disagree.  I can say death isn't the answer to life, but it doesn't mean I have any alternative.  There is always the possibility that there is no useful answer.  Sometimes, life sucks, and that's all there is to it.

    What? Are you saying there's just no way that iOS and Android users could possibly communicate better? MMS is peak technology? Pack it in and shut it down because there's no way to improve the current situation!
    ios and android users already communicate with each other with multiple apps like WhatsApp, telegram, line, wechat… why are you asking if there’s no way for iOS and android to communicate with each other when all these options are already available??
    lolliver
  • Reply 32 of 45
    The point, however, is that SMS needs to go away completely, not be a fallback at all, it sucks.
    SMS absolutely needs to stay mostly as is as the simple messaging system that works for 99.99% of all carriers. 

    MMS which currently works by using SMS and essentially adding or storing a link to photos, videos, or groups of phone numbers for group messaging, is what needs to be replaced by RCS/Chat. 
  • Reply 33 of 45
    This IS Apple's fault.

    When iMessage was introduced, Apple promised to open source it as a standard.

    Apple failed to ever do so.  Had they done what they promised, RCS would never have existed.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 45
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    darkvader said:
    This IS Apple's fault.

    When iMessage was introduced, Apple promised to open source it as a standard.

    Apple failed to ever do so.  Had they done what they promised, RCS would never have existed.
    No, they didn't.

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt—which I probably shouldn't as I've seen your other posts—you might be confusing iMessage with FaceTime. At the 2010 WWDC Steve Jobs did say that FaceTime would be open. That never happened, and it can't since it uses protocols owned by the patent troll VirnetX, a court case from the Eastern District of Texas.
    williamlondontmaydewmewatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingamlolliverroundaboutnow
  • Reply 35 of 45
    LOL

    ”Hey Apple, we see you’ve made a killer product thst everyone loves and is a driver of customers to your platform. How about you send some customers our way for an inferior platform? Eh? Eh?”

    google sucks. 
    Xedwatto_cobradanox
  • Reply 36 of 45
    JP234JP234 Posts: 761member
    chadbag said:

    Kinda like when Trump suggest injecting bleach into your veins to cure Covid 

    Trump never said this.  He used it as a metaphor for something that could be used to clean out the body of the virus.  

    It doesn’t matter what you think of Trump: misrepresenting what was said does no one any favors.  

    I actually HEARD and SAW him look directly at Doctor Birx and suggest injecting it (he used the word "disinfectant") at the daily COVID briefing. He also suggested that shining an ultraviolet light internally could kill the virus. I also SAW Dr. Birx sitting there, eyes down, holding her lips together, looking like she wanted to drop through the floor. I also SAW the COVID team leader, Mike Pence, looking at Trump the way a cop looks at a doughnut. And DJT never claimed it to be a metaphor (not sure he's capable of metaphor, although he's good a simile). After the entire world saw him for the fool he is, he pretended that he'd meant it as a joke. I can link you, but you don't want that, do you?

    When someone pisses on your leg and tells you it's kool-aid, don't get on your knees and ask for more. Punch him in the face.
    tmayXedwatto_cobrathtlolliverroundaboutnow
  • Reply 37 of 45
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    darkvader said:
    This IS Apple's fault.

    When iMessage was introduced, Apple promised to open source it as a standard.

    Apple failed to ever do so.  Had they done what they promised, RCS would never have existed.
    Even if Apple were to offer iMessage as an open standard (which they never did), there is  no way that the mobile carriers were ever going to use iMessage as their standard texting/messaging protocol. At the time, the carriers were still making money with SMS. They were charging like $.05 to send and another $.05 to receive a text message. They were offing a certain amount of free texting with their mobile plans, to compete with others. They were selling texting plans with a certain amount of texting or unlimited texting. iMessage is free for its users.

    Plus, iMessage do not require a mobile phone number. It is web base and can use an email address. I can use my iPad or Mac or iPod Touch to send and receive iMessages when connected to the internet. You actually think the mobile carriers are going to adapt iMessage as their standard texting protocol, when it doesn't even require its users to subscribe to a mobile plan?

    RCS is the open standard that was suppose to replace SMS. Like SMS, RSC requires a mobile phone number and can only be used on devices supported by the carriers, with a  mobile plan. (But Google version of RCS only requires WiFi internet, if both the sender and receiver are using Google Message App. And it is only then, that there is end to end encryption.)  But even though RCS been around for over 10 years, the carriers saw no benefit in investing the money to adapt it, as by then, (as it is now), they were no longer making money with texting. It's now costing the carriers nearly nothing to keep SMS as their standard and the carriers sees no reason to invest the money to compete with free messaging apps like  iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Messenger, Message, WeChat, etc..

    This is where Google stepped in and offered the carriers to host the RCS texting on Google servers, if the carriers were to use Google Message as their default RCS client. How nice of Google. No other motive except to see that all mobile consumers have a better and more secure way to text message between them, even across platforms. They have no interest in trying to make Google Message the most popular and default texting protocol on Android. ... Right?  
      
    edited December 2022 lolliverroundaboutnow
  • Reply 38 of 45
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,637member
    If Google wants Apple to consider adopting RCS, assuming it actually becomes an IEEE, IEC, or some other internationally recognized standard, they need to engage in direct talks with Apple rather than shouting off their back porch into the wilderness. 

    Apple’s not listening because that’s not a professional way to communicate with peers with whom you seek to achieve a relationship based on mutual respect. It’s childish and demeaning to you and the organization you speak for. 

    Did these Googlies not observe what went down after the Chief Twit tried to “publicly shame” and declare war on Apple last week based on a one-sided fabrication of a supposed grievance? The missiles were put into launch standby mode and the silo doors were opened. 

    Then two men, not two boys, got together and talked and came to a mutual understanding that they both have a lot of common ground and a shared responsibility to move forward based on facts rather than speculation, innuendo, and beating of drums. 

    Duh, shut the silo doors and power down the missiles. Time to step back from the BS and quit with the stupidity. It solves nothing. 
    roundaboutnow
  • Reply 39 of 45
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,509member
    dewme said:
    If Google wants Apple to consider adopting RCS, assuming it actually becomes an IEEE, IEC, or some other internationally recognized standard, they need to engage in direct talks with Apple rather than shouting off their back porch into the wilderness. 

    Apple’s not listening because that’s not a professional way to communicate with peers with whom you seek to achieve a relationship based on mutual respect. It’s childish and demeaning to you and the organization you speak for. 

    Did these Googlies not observe what went down after the Chief Twit tried to “publicly shame” and declare war on Apple last week based on a one-sided fabrication of a supposed grievance? The missiles were put into launch standby mode and the silo doors were opened. 

    Then two men, not two boys, got together and talked and came to a mutual understanding that they both have a lot of common ground and a shared responsibility to move forward based on facts rather than speculation, innuendo, and beating of drums. 

    Duh, shut the silo doors and power down the missiles. Time to step back from the BS and quit with the stupidity. It solves nothing. 
    IMHO there should be zero doubt that Google and Apple have regular contact on several levels, including in-person executive-level meetings over various issues and topics that affect both companies. You assume there haven't had private discussions around RCS. Is that because it hasn't been publicized because if so that's a horribly misguided assumption.  
    edited December 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 40 of 45
    XedXed Posts: 1,583member
    gatorguy said:
    dewme said:
    If Google wants Apple to consider adopting RCS, assuming it actually becomes an IEEE, IEC, or some other internationally recognized standard, they need to engage in direct talks with Apple rather than shouting off their back porch into the wilderness. 

    Apple’s not listening because that’s not a professional way to communicate with peers with whom you seek to achieve a relationship based on mutual respect. It’s childish and demeaning to you and the organization you speak for. 

    Did these Googlies not observe what went down after the Chief Twit tried to “publicly shame” and declare war on Apple last week based on a one-sided fabrication of a supposed grievance? The missiles were put into launch standby mode and the silo doors were opened. 

    Then two men, not two boys, got together and talked and came to a mutual understanding that they both have a lot of common ground and a shared responsibility to move forward based on facts rather than speculation, innuendo, and beating of drums. 

    Duh, shut the silo doors and power down the missiles. Time to step back from the BS and quit with the stupidity. It solves nothing. 
    IMHO there should be zero doubt that Google and Apple have regular contact on several levels, including in-person executive-level meetings over various issues and topics that affect both companies. You assume there haven't had private discussions around RCS. Is that because it hasn't been publicized because if so that's a horribly misguided assumption.  
    If that's the case—and I agree that is it—then this blog post from Google is really in bad taste.

    https://blog.google/products/messages/happy-birthday-sms/
Sign In or Register to comment.