this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
464 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59669 readers
3525 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The long fight to make Apple's iMessage compatible with all devices has raged with little to show for it. But Google (de facto leader of the charge) and other mobile operators are now leveraging the European Union's Digital Market Act (DMA), according to the Financial Times. The law, which goes into effect in 2024, requires that "gatekeepers" not favor their own systems or limit third parties from interoperating within them. Gatekeepers are any company that meets specific financial and usage qualifications, including Google's parent company Alphabet, Apple, Samsung and others.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This feels a bit like asking MS Teams to play nice with Google Meet, or demanding that Apple’s office suite (Pages, Numbers, etc.) deliver the exact same product when files are saved in an OpenOffice format. This doesn’t seem to be an issue with any other products…

Apple have designed their product to work well with their devices. The Messages app still functions with non-Apple devices. SMS messages can be sent and received to anyone. The fact that pictures and whatever come through like crap is more an issue with the SMS platform than it is with Apple’s app.

Ultimately, Google dislikes the fact that there is a “green bubble” stigma (for lack of a better word) on Apple devices that encourages those who care about such things to prefer Apple devices. Because Google doesn’t have their own widely used iMessage equivalent, they can’t turn around and make messages outside their platform appear as red bubbles or something, so they are attacking from this angle instead.

Sent from my iPhone

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sent from my iPhone

That's hilarious

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They're not joking. They use iPhone.

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yes but there is no green bubble stigma in Europe... We all use whatsapp and signal.

[–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, fuck, there's no green bubble stigma in the US either. I have never once heard people complain about it in the real world

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

You're lucky then, I hear people complain about it all the time

[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. It’s a complete non-issue in Europe.

Google are attempting to start this fight in Europe in hopes that they can push Apple to change in the US as well. The whole green bubble thing is US-only, but Google haven’t been even remotely successful in trying to force Apple to change, and Apple’s “remedy” to the issue is “Get an iPhone”.

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Google is pushing RMS, which they would control, and is designed to push you ads and usage metrics back to them.

I haven't seen a valid reason to get rid of SMS though.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's RCS not RMS and Google didnt even want control of it in the first place, it's well documented Google has been trying to get US carriers to stop dragging their feet on RCS for a long time. They never did until Google literally went "Fine, I'll do it myself then"

AND RCS is an open protocol, nobody really has "control" over it, Google runs some RCS servers but if it disappeared tomorrow (Or you changed the defaults) RCS itself would run just fine on whatever including if Apple supports RCS

ETA: Also SMS is absolute trash, it's from the early 90's (it's older than me FFS) it doesn't really support what we want out of it media wise today, and what it does support it was forced to. It'll send "video" but it'll be completely unrecognizable. It needs to be put to pasture already.

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It will be an easier sell if Google manages to get their proprietary extensions to RCS into RCS version 10, rather than only being supported in Google Messenger

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SMS takes less bandwidth and is perfect for large broadcast messages and works perfectly fine for text based messaging. The only major problems it has are security and media, which while are valid needs, are not a reason to get rid of one of the few universally accepted standards

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SMS should have been a fallback years ago and nothing more, it's absolutely asinine that it's still in as much use as it is today

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn’t need to be a fallback. It’s still perfect for text messages, government alerts, mass notification of customers, etc.

It’s barely used today anyways. The only time it’s used on iPhone is if you’re messaging someone outside the iMessage ecosystem, which really isn’t a problem for 95% of Apple users.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know why you insist on holding onto a 30+ year old protocol. It's not perfect and at times it can be downright unreliable. Once it's left your phone you have no idea if it was successfully delivered or not, there's no acknowledgement no retrys no retransmits. It just shoots it off and hopes for the best.

Group chats are laughably broken even among all SMS recipients (It was never intended for it anyway) and frankly the bandwidth required for text regardless of if it's over SMS or RCS is inconsequential, who cares if RCS messages need a bit more bandwidth to send text. The difference is negligible.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s why it works so well. What you see as problems with SMS I see as good design decisions. It’s an incredibly simple implementation that does exactly what it’s supposed to. You just want it to do more than it needs to.

Something will eventually replace it, but it sure as hell won’t be RCS. RCS is a defacto google standard now. Many features are locked out if you don’t use google servers. It’s not an open standard and it’s disingenuous to portray it as one.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh yea, because we do so much more on our phones, it might be well designed, but it was well designed for the 90s. That's why it makes a good fallback protocol, but by no means should it be the go-to.

RCS is the replacement, it's been the replacement for a long time in the EU. In fact, if the US carriers just implemented it when the EU did, this entire thread wouldn't even exist.

It's a standard until Google takes control of the GSM Association.

Here's a Wikipedia article on RCS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

Even has this blurb:

The Verge in 2019 criticized the inconsistent support of RCS in the United States, with carriers not supporting RCS in all markets, not certifying service on all phones, or not yet supporting the Universal Profile. Concerns were shown over Google's decision to run its own RCS service due to the possibility of antitrust scrutiny, but it was acknowledged that Google had to do so in order to bypass the carriers' inconsistent support of RCS, as it wanted to have a service more comparable to Apple's iMessage service available on Android.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s still not a standard as long as you’re relying on google for the majority of features.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Like I said in the other comment, those features are all present in the Universal Profile which only lacks e2ee and those weird sticker things.

All the things we would want, file transfers, video, high quality pictures, real group chats etc are all present

[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google is pushing RMS, which they would control

Hardest of hard passes, even if I were on Android.

Again, Google don’t have their own iMessage that is widely used, so instead of compete on that level, they want to own the whole system.

[–] bkk_beaucoup@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Anybody remember Hangouts? Google’s iMessage that was better in every conceivable way than its Apple analog, integrated with Google voice, could be accessed anywhere you could get on Gmail etc? Dropping the ball on Hangouts to favor carrier pre-installed messaging Apps was such an incredible and short-sighted blunder. I concede that exactly like their many app deprecations/cut-and-runs that did not take the long-term sentiment of the end user into account and damaged their reputation and adoption. And now here we are… trying to grovel back into iMessage’s purview.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Name a better duo than Google and killing off products

https://killedbygoogle.com/

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Name a better duo than Google and killing off products

Yes, duo is on that list.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

*EA enters the chat

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When they killed hangouts was when I think everyone stopped trying to adopt google products. What's the point, it will be killed.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I think you're right. I got some people to start using Hangouts and then Google killed it. I don't even bother to learn what Google has available now for chats because I know now there's no point to trying to get people to switch, no matter how good/bad it may be.

[–] snowe@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait you thought hangouts was good? Holy shit would that be one of the worst Google offerings of the decade if it wasn’t for the ten other Google chat and video systems they have made. My god I can’t think of a worse communication platform than hangouts. You might be the first person I’ve heard of liking it.

[–] bkk_beaucoup@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t want to make assumptions, but your reply makes me think you arrived at Hangouts once it was already being deprecated by Google. Granted, being US based I didn’t need the coverage of WhatsApp (limited as they was even then to phone # accounts), the scant usage of Viber or the other innumerable messaging apps I touched in that time period. Hangouts integrated seamlessly with SMS, let me send media/stickers/map embeds to mixed-platform groups never worrying about quality downgrade. And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail? iMessage makes you jump hoops to do that shit today.

[–] snowe@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail?

this was actually one of the things I hated the most about it. It doesn't really matter what features you provide when the product is so bad it can't even make up for it. I had no clue it had sms passthrough, it was just a shitty chat/voice client integrated into my email client, slowly making things slower and slower the more they added.

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bingo. This whole case is designed to make Apple look like the bad guy whilst Google hides their real agenda of forcing Apple to use a protocol Google controls and thus stamp out Google’s competition.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I've read, Google just owns the reference implementation. Apple could implement it themselves, but then lose out on certain non-cross-platform features, like e2e encryption.

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’ve read the specification. Google’s implementation is the only real implementation (raw RCS is basically a dead project) as Google have added a load of custom extensions to RCS that means, to be interoperable, you’d need to use Google’s (which I imagine requires licensing since it doesn’t appear to be open source).

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's basically what I said, but better.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

You're like a lot of people on Lemmy: so eager to paint everything even tangentially connected to Google as some kind of grand conspiracy that you can't even get the most basic facts right.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's quite literally well documented that Apple doesn't want to support RCS because it pressures people to get iPhones. SMS is an ancient garbage protocol, what Google is trying to do is get Apple to support SMSs 21st century replacement and RCS support will fix literally every issue iPhone users have texting Android users. Broken group chats, trash quality videos, ultra compressed images, no reactions or stickers, threaded chats etc etc

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google wants Apple to use Google’s proprietary extension of RCS, which runs on Google’s own servers as is precisely as open as iMessage. Effectively nobody uses the industry-standard version of it.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where's the source for that? Last I read, Google was using the GSMA Universal RCS profile

Google does own and run the Jibe platform as an RCS vendor, but Apple doesn't need to use it. They can go with a different vendor or run their own RCS servers just as easily

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google's astroturf campaign for "RCS" promotes encrypted messages but RCS has no support for this. Google wants to force people to use its proprietary extension, which runs exclusively on Google's servers.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And absolutely nothing is stopping Apple from rolling its own RCS extensions that apps can support as well

[–] MDZA@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what’s the idea here? Apple rolls out another extended version of RCS that’s proprietary as well?

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It might be proprietary, but at least any messaging app Android, iOS or some future third competitor will be able to implement it.

Unlike iMessage which is both proprietary and closed off from third party use

[–] MDZA@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And yet, no developer other than Samsung has been granted access to Google’s version of RCS.

I’d love to see a truly standard, rich, secure messaging service, but I’m not convinced what Google is doing here is any better than Apple.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is, you can choose not to use Googles RCS extension and opt for the Universal Profile standard instead and it will interop with people on other RCS profiles, even Googles, just fine.

iMessage doesn't do any of that, your choice is iMessage with other Apple users or a 30+ year old protocol. That's it.

[–] MDZA@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Except that’s not what happened in reality before Google started rolling out their version of RCS.

The carriers implemented their own versions that didn’t weren’t interoperable with each other, and that was for the ones that even bothered with it at all.

And now they have even less incentive to try.

RCS is nice in theory, but no one is serious about implementing the universal profile.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

SMS is like the minimum though, and not supporting all features that could be supported by the major ones somewhat counts as gatekeeping.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Legitimately can't tell if you're joking or not.