464
Google and major mobile carriers want Europe to regulate Apple's iMessage platform
(www.engadget.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
464 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59424 readers
2961 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, because I can dig up official documentation for googles implementation. Where's Apples iMessage documentation?
RCS is a replacement for SMS, it was intended for carriers to implement it as is standard in the EU. In the US however, the carriers have infamously resisted calls to get off their ass and implement it. Even Google was calling on carriers to do it for years, they only came out with their Jibe platform because the carriers weren't doing their jobs
Does documentation matter if it’s still a closed platform? Imo it doesn’t.
RCS requiring 3rd party servers makes it not a replacement for sms. SMS is a very well thought out protocol that works exactly as intended, it just doesn’t have the bandwidth required for modern media.
Google can call on carriers all they want. It’s still a proprietary google implementation which is no better than Apple. And I trust Apple a hell of a lot more than google (which still isn’t a lot).
Yes, because documentation as I'm referencing it is for accessing the API. You can't access iMessages API (Well without serious reverse engineering effort) so therefore they have no documentation
RCS is a standard, Google has it's flavor and Apple could just as easily have their own or any other flavor.
SMS is antiquated and should be used for nothing more than a fallback at best. It's 30+ years old.
I still don’t see that as any different. Apple has a proprietary implementation, google has an proprietary implementation. You like google because they have documentation. Neither is an open platform, yet you seem to be pushing google like it’s the bastion of open communication.
RCS is not standard, will not be standard and should not be standard.
SMS works perfectly fine. So what if it’s 30 years old. It still works exactly as intended.
It doesn't have to be open, just provide publicly accessible APIs so that apps can interconnect with it. Google provides this, Apple does not.
To be clear IDGAF about Google. I promote RCS and you can say it's not a standard, but it is. It's maintained by the GSM Association and they put out a universal profile that anyone can implement and extend just like Google did and Apple could easily do. They're just extending an existing standard.
Even in the Google messages app I can change the RCS backend servers at any time, you don't have to use Googles RCS implementation
Doesn’t everyone hate it when google extends APIs? Think it’s called EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish). They have a history of killing standards as soon as they have enough market share.
If you change off of googles servers you lose features. I’d consider that no longer an open platform. So despite not needing to use their implementation, if you want the modern features RCS is often advertised as having, you have to go through google. That’s not an open standard.
The only 2 features I'm aware of the you lose are e2ee and those sticker things, all other modern features in RCS are present in the Universal Profile and there's no reason that e2ee won't come to the Universal Profile in time.
Like I said I'm not enthralled that Google is the one bringing RCS to the US, but I prefer Google over the carriers (Who were supposed to do it in the first place)