auxio

thadec said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

nubus said:

Google asked EU to open iMessages. That won't happen. Android users are now stuck with RCS while iPhone users get the best of both worlds. And Google... from "only Android supports Flash" to "only Android supports RCS". This is just another USP being taken away from Android. Smart move by Apple.

Google doesn't want the job of securing RCS and it's privacy. They HAD to because the carriers and the GSMA refused to accept the responsibility. They'll dance in the rain when they no longer have to spend money and resources on RCS things that should not have had to. 

I agree with you here. The carriers are dog slow at moving anything forward. They're happy to just sit back and make money off the cellular infrastructure they own/lease/had created for them by governments. They typically get forced to move forward by tech companies who need new infrastructure for their devices. So in that sense, I'm happy that Google (and now Apple) are pushing them forward on this.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Google isn't interested since, if the carriers go with their RCS server/router technology (Jibe), that'll at least give them information about who's connected to who in the world with the knowledge of user/customer IDs and who is messaging who (even if they can't see the content of those messages). I'm fairly certain this is why Apple is pushing back on the E2EE side of things and working with GSMA.

So I don't get people who attribute nefarious intent on Google's part here. Was Google supposed to stick with a 1980s messaging protocol just to maintain Apple's advantage? Or is adopting rich text support, group chat support and end-to-end encryption somehow bad? You have some desire to punish people for choosing not to buy iPhones by forcing outdated insecure tech on them or something? Yes, Google maintains the servers but what choice did they have? The mobile carriers could have but refused. Google solved a real problem for their users that no one - the carriers, regulators, Apple - was going to lift a finger to. I don't see how this makes them the bad guy.

Of course. I completely understand that Google wants to ensure their Android phones have secure messaging. And they didn't need to create RCS to do that, just have messages encrypted on the sending device, sent over the cellular network as data, and decrypted on the receiving device (as they do). Obviously the problem is interoperability with devices which don't know the protocol, but then that really isn't Google's problem since they're not making money from those devices (just as it isn't Apple's problem).

Apple isn't going to use Google's encryption? You know who is happy about that? Google. Google has been trying to get GSMA to adopt encryption for years. Whether Apple gets GSMA to adopt it or implements their own solution, it benefits Apple. So long as Apple handles the messages properly it doesn't matter. So no, it isn't some scheme to invade iPhone user's privacy. Google was already perfectly capable of doing that already with SMS/MMS and so was everybody else. That's why Apple's refusal to adopt RCS so long never made sense. To put it another way, it proves that Apple's alleged focus on privacy was just marketing. Apple knew that its consumers were communicating with Android device owners using very insecure SMS/MMS and didn't lift a finger. 

And so we get to the crux of your argument: that Google created RCS + encryption because they truly care about privacy for everyone (unlike Apple). If that's the case, then why are they using a proprietary, closed source technology for the encryption part? Thus locking out other phone manufacturers who use Linux or Android, but aren't GMS-certified. Why not make that part of the standard and open up the server-side technology for everyone to use if it's truly being done as a good will gesture?

thadec said:

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

nubus said:

Google asked EU to open iMessages. That won't happen. Android users are now stuck with RCS while iPhone users get the best of both worlds. And Google... from "only Android supports Flash" to "only Android supports RCS". This is just another USP being taken away from Android. Smart move by Apple.

Google doesn't want the job of securing RCS and it's privacy. They HAD to because the carriers and the GSMA refused to accept the responsibility. They'll dance in the rain when they no longer have to spend money and resources on RCS things that should not have had to. 

I agree with you here. The carriers are dog slow at moving anything forward. They're happy to just sit back and make money off the cellular infrastructure they own/lease/had created for them by governments. They typically get forced to move forward by tech companies who need new infrastructure for their devices. So in that sense, I'm happy that Google (and now Apple) are pushing them forward on this.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Google isn't interested since, if the carriers go with their RCS server/router technology (Jibe), that'll at least give them information about who's connected to who in the world with the knowledge of user/customer IDs and who is messaging who (even if they can't see the content of those messages). I'm fairly certain this is why Apple is pushing back on the E2EE side of things and working with GSMA.

Nah, that isn't the reason. It is nuts how certain Apple fans have convinced themselves that everyone who competes with Apple is bad, including even companies that were once major Apple partners and suppliers. 

You clearly don't understand my position. I'm on the side of technology creators being able to create and sell technology products without having to monetize them via data harvesting and advertising. Which, not only being an industry/business practice I despise, also happens to be the industry that Google and Meta have fully locked up.

Just think about it: say I create some amazing new technology that allows people to instantly communicate with each other just by thinking. Now, as a technology creator, I'd like to just sell my product directly to people (or perhaps license it to companies who want to integrate it into their products) and be able to focus solely on making it better because that's what I'm good at. But a year down the road, Google has cloned my technology and is giving their clone version away for free since they're using the data they harvest from people's thoughts to increase the value of their advertising business (which is where they're making money). What do you think happens to my product and what I need to do with my company if I want to survive?

By cloning and owning technology products (like Java, H.264, and others), then giving them away for free, and not facing any repercussions for it, they've essentially forced technology creators to have to rethink their business strategy. Apple is lucky because they already have a strong foundation as a technology company, not to mention that Google needs the platforms they've built to acquire much of their data, but smaller tech companies (and even not so small ones like Sun Microsystems) really have to think about this happening to them. And most are forced to follow the same path as Google, like it or not.

So yes, I've thought about this much deeper than simple fanboyism. I know that's difficult to understand when the internet is filled with people who don't know anything about the industry and have turned it into the new "Ford vs Chevy" fight.

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

Anilu_777 said:

I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google. 

Oh, let me clarify that for you. Google wants to a) collect data from messages, and b) push rich advertising into messages, which of course they would benefit from.

I didn’t make this up — it’s been referred to in previous articles talking about Google’s version of RCS. Apple would never allow crap like that, so Google was never going to get Apple to adopt their version of RCS.

I am actually starting to feel bad for Android users, because if Google gets its way their experience in messaging is about to get a lot crappier.

Google cannot collect user data from Google Messages RCS. End of story. So yeah, you made that part up.

They know who is messaging who, which is still worth something since it builds knowledge of connections between people.

gatorguy said:

nubus said:

Google asked EU to open iMessages. That won't happen. Android users are now stuck with RCS while iPhone users get the best of both worlds. And Google... from "only Android supports Flash" to "only Android supports RCS". This is just another USP being taken away from Android. Smart move by Apple.

Google doesn't want the job of securing RCS and it's privacy. They HAD to because the carriers and the GSMA refused to accept the responsibility. They'll dance in the rain when they no longer have to spend money and resources on RCS things that should not have had to. 

I agree with you here. The carriers are dog slow at moving anything forward. They're happy to just sit back and make money off the cellular infrastructure they own/lease/had created for them by governments. They typically get forced to move forward by tech companies who need new infrastructure for their devices. So in that sense, I'm happy that Google (and now Apple) are pushing them forward on this.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Google isn't interested since, if the carriers go with their RCS server/router technology (Jibe), that'll at least give them information about who's connected to who in the world with the knowledge of user/customer IDs and who is messaging who (even if they can't see the content of those messages). I'm fairly certain this is why Apple is pushing back on the E2EE side of things and working with GSMA.

anonymouse said:

auxio said:

anonymouse said:

auxio said:

Anilu_777 said:

I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google. 

Marketing? So that they look like the hero fighting against big bad Apple and winning. GG also mentioned in the other thread that carriers might be turning to them for the server requirements of E2EE, so that'd be worth a fair bit.

The "server requirements of E2EE" are basically to route messages. If the devices sending and receiving aren't handling all the encryption/decryption themselves, it's not E2EE.

So I guess all devices are online and available to receive a message at all times? No? Then you need a server to store those encrypted messages, images, videos, etc until the device is available. Maybe even know how to route them to multiple recipients and on different carriers. Oh, and look, Google has a solution for you.

That's all part of routing messages. 

And speaking the RCS protocol? I suppose carriers already have that all working perfectly on their existing servers? I'm surprised they haven't rolled out all these new features to customers if they already had all this infrastructure in place (sarcasm).