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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
”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?”
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Whoa, if you’re saying that it’s okay for Google to try to publicly shame Apple after engaging in negotiations with Apple - that would make Google look even worse and even more unprofessional.
That would be like a middle schooler who gets rejected when asking someone they’re interested in to go to the dance posting disparaging comments about the person who rejected them on a bathroom stall wall, or today’s functional equivalent of a bathroom stall, Facebook.
I was cutting Google some slack, assuming simply bad/childish manners. Google not handling rejection well takes it down a few more grade levels. But again, if RCS was a real standard with widespread industry support and something Apple’a customers were asking for in lieu of SMS then Google might have a more attractive proposal to put forth when they show up to ask Apple out on a date. The ball is in Google’s court. As adults and professionals they also need to know how to handle rejection.
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.
Whoa, if you’re saying that it’s okay for Google to try to publicly shame Apple after engaging in negotiations with Apple - that would make Google look even worse and even more unprofessional.
That would be like a middle schooler who gets rejected when asking someone they’re interested in to go to the dance posting disparaging comments about the person who rejected them on a bathroom stall wall, or today’s functional equivalent of a bathroom stall, Facebook.
I was cutting Google some slack, assuming simply bad/childish manners. Google not handling rejection well takes it down a few more grade levels. But again, if RCS was a real standard with widespread industry support and something Apple’a customers were asking for in lieu of SMS then Google might have a more attractive proposal to put forth when they show up to ask Apple out on a date. The ball is in Google’s court. As adults and professionals they also need to know how to handle rejection.
Negotiating in public is not uncommon either in government or enterprise.
Companies always use public comments to sway opinion, even if there's also private negotiations. You can call it shaming, I call it normal corporate activity, but it's simply using public pressure to assist with attaining corporate goals. Apple is not above stooping to what you call "public shaming" of the same companies they contract with, for example Google. Or Samsung. It was used to good effect when pressuring Qualcomm, squeezing them for the best available agreement under the circumstances.
Google should at least get their own customers to adopt it before trying to push it on everyone else. Not to mention the spec is unfinished. Their E2EE support isn't even standardized yet. Since it continues the SMS tradition of support for big-brother monitoring by state actors, it is full of security and privacy issues. We've been stuck with SMS (and will continue to be) for ages, this would just push out an SMS-like technology that doesn't preserve privacy even further. The EU isn't even likely to approve RCS in it's current form due to privacy issues.
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.
Whoa, if you’re saying that it’s okay for Google to try to publicly shame Apple after engaging in negotiations with Apple - that would make Google look even worse and even more unprofessional.
That would be like a middle schooler who gets rejected when asking someone they’re interested in to go to the dance posting disparaging comments about the person who rejected them on a bathroom stall wall, or today’s functional equivalent of a bathroom stall, Facebook.
I was cutting Google some slack, assuming simply bad/childish manners. Google not handling rejection well takes it down a few more grade levels. But again, if RCS was a real standard with widespread industry support and something Apple’a customers were asking for in lieu of SMS then Google might have a more attractive proposal to put forth when they show up to ask Apple out on a date. The ball is in Google’s court. As adults and professionals they also need to know how to handle rejection.
Negotiating in public is not uncommon either in government or enterprise.
Companies always use public comments to sway opinion, even if there's also private negotiations. You can call it shaming, I call it normal corporate activity, but it's simply using public pressure to assist with attaining corporate goals. Apple is not above stooping to what you call "public shaming" of the same companies they contract with, for example Google. Or Samsung. It was used to good effect when pressuring Qualcomm, squeezing them for the best available agreement under the circumstances.
No problem. Call it trying to “sway public opinion” or shaming, I agree that it’s all part of business politicking and isn’t anything new or unique to Google or any other company.
I never implied that Apple was above engaging in the politics of shaming. The whole “you are the product” campaign that Apple wages against Facebook, Twitter, and pretty much all companies that monetize so-called free subscribers is based on shaming. In Apple’s case it’s done to differentiate their perceived differences, superiority implied, in how they view the relationship between businesses and customers, i.e, we wouldn’t stoop so low as to treat our customers like sliced cheese.
Google’s failed attempts to woo Apple to join a technical initiative that Google is trying to get everyone to play along with is a bit different in nature. They are seeking to sway public opinion because Apple doesn’t want to join Google’s cause, which I suppose is expressed as Google saving users from suffering from blue bubble envy (BBE). But yeah, it always boils down to the “we’re the good guys and they are the bad guys” politics.
For the most part there are very few Apple customers that have any concern or interest in RCS and actually don’t know what it is. They aren’t suffering from BBE and probably think RCS is a communicable disease rather than a communication protocol. At the same time I imagine there are a lot of Facebook and social media users who are perfectly content to be served up as “products” as long as they get to enjoy the benefits of what those platforms offer.
I’m simply calling as I see it and find it to be distasteful and unprofessional no matter who’s slinging it or which side of the argument you support. For things like technical claptrap, I’d expect the political card would be the card of last resort they would want to play.
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.
Mr. 9 post? iMessage is designed to support Apple products and to provide a coherent user experience with those products. Nothing else, the other messaging apps are designed for Windows and for Android.
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.
Whoa, if you’re saying that it’s okay for Google to try to publicly shame Apple after engaging in negotiations with Apple - that would make Google look even worse and even more unprofessional.
That would be like a middle schooler who gets rejected when asking someone they’re interested in to go to the dance posting disparaging comments about the person who rejected them on a bathroom stall wall, or today’s functional equivalent of a bathroom stall, Facebook.
I was cutting Google some slack, assuming simply bad/childish manners. Google not handling rejection well takes it down a few more grade levels. But again, if RCS was a real standard with widespread industry support and something Apple’a customers were asking for in lieu of SMS then Google might have a more attractive proposal to put forth when they show up to ask Apple out on a date. The ball is in Google’s court. As adults and professionals they also need to know how to handle rejection.
Negotiating in public is not uncommon either in government or enterprise.
Companies always use public comments to sway opinion, even if there's also private negotiations. You can call it shaming, I call it normal corporate activity, but it's simply using public pressure to assist with attaining corporate goals. Apple is not above stooping to what you call "public shaming" of the same companies they contract with, for example Google. Or Samsung. It was used to good effect when pressuring Qualcomm, squeezing them for the best available agreement under the circumstances.
Apple didn’t shame, Adobe or flash they just said no, and the answer is the same with iMessage no means no.
Comments
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.
A bandaid on whose implementation?
SMS/MMS is a barely functioning solution at this point. They need to be replaced.
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.
”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.
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?
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.
https://blog.google/products/messages/happy-birthday-sms/