[Pharylon]

First, this isn't a Google app. Google is pushing the RCS standard, a standard that some carriers already support.

And yeah, it doesn't support encryption so it's clearly inferior to something like Signal, but open standards that don't live in a silo are still important. For instance, I have friends that almost exclusively chat through Facebook Messenger. Since I won't install Facebook Messenger, I chat with them over SMS. A "better SMS" would be nice, and might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.

[mikesabat]

The carriers have been working on RCS Messaging since 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

It's taken a decade to get everyone on board so they could innovate on SMS. Since the carriers don't have the leverage that they had pre-iPhone and Apple is not supporting RCS, the positioning paints RCS as an Android/(non-iphone) messenger.

It's an amazingly fragmented space.

[dv_dt]

Looking at the objectives of the spec from a 10k level, it feels like it's hard mixing network quality with application layer logic in a way that's just going to be messy, hard to maintain, and calcifying of applications. I know the OSI layer model seems out of fashion now, but RCS feels like a lot of lat-80's/early-90's interconnect protocols that were killed by faster moving, more layer-isolated approaches using plain HTTP or applications over fairly direct TCP/IP.

[JumpCrisscross]

> open standards that don't live in a silo are still important

Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.

[Someone1234]

While the standard itself doesn't enforce any encryption, you could write an RCS based app that encrypts messages between endpoints. There are SMS apps that do exactly that, you just have the other contact install the same app and scan a QR code.

[lawnchair_larry]

No you can’t. Unless you want to chat with yourself. These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort. That’s the point.

[Someone1234]

> These things only work if everyone is using them without extra effort.

It works fine without "everyone" using it. It can be used as best-effort security rather than a complete blanket.

[wu_tang_chris]

i'll have one iphone, please

[manigandham]

If you have to build it yourself then why even use it when there are existing options?

[chiefalchemist]

Is there one (or two) you'd recommend or suggest?

Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?

[Someone1234]

For RCS? I've not seen any yet, but the protocol is just getting off the ground.

[davvolun]

I could be wrong re: what OP intended, but "open standard" doesn't imply non-encrypted.

[pilsetnieks]

It's encrypted in transit but not end-to-end encrypted.

[davvolun]

Obviously responding to:

> Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.

And I'm saying, regardless of the current implementation, just because it's an open standard, doesn't mean it can't be encrypted -- either in-transit or end-to-end.

Asymmetric cryptography, e.g. the TLS standard, is an open standard but secure (re: encrypted).

[iClaudiusX]

SMS has the advantage of being accessible from a cell tower without a separate data connection. RCS does not. It's like they took all the worst parts of other messaging protocols and put it into one product.

[jjrh]

My understanding is if RCS doesn't work for whatever reason it's just regular SMS.

[013a]

> might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.

I disagree. Despite the hopes of the tech community, I think RCS will only really benefit people currently using SMS. Which is great; they need an upgrade. But products like FBM, Signal, iMessage, etc do so much more than even what RCS is capable of, and those feature are often important to its users.

RCS will raise the least common denominator of mobile communication. Very important nonetheless.

[pilsetnieks]

Exacty. This is a GSMA standard, I don't get why suddenly everyone's lumping it together with Google - perhaps they pushed a well-timed press release.

It was started way back when, when end-to-end encryption wasn't on anyone's minds and as with everything in the carrier world, it's adoption was/is molasses slow. Google jumped on the bandwagon, implemented it for Android, and made some appliance boxes that they're selling(?) to willing operators. But it's an open standard and no one has to use the Google RCS box, and some operators actually don't.

In 10-15 years there will probably be a new messaging standard that's been started work on today, with end to end encryption and other missing features, and people will be decrying that it's missing some 2028 feature.

Yes, it could be better but it's pretty good for raising the baseline. Now if only all operators and devices would support it, it'd be just great.

[mcny]

> This is a GSMA standard

There is notechnical reason we couldn't have e2ee in rcs as far as I know

[pilsetnieks]

I basically said just that. There may eventually be a new standard that's RCS with E2EE and some new features but it's going to take a lot of time.

[gordon_freeman]

So my specific question is how would Google make money out of it? And more generic question would be what's Google's long term strategy with messaging apps? And whether they plan to grow users and ultimately monetize this segment of their business? If Google pushes RCS based SMS app so harder than it seems that even if this app picks up usage, It'd be harder for Google to monetize it as Google doesn't have any control on the app.

[crowbahr]

Google is competing with Apple for mobile phone market share. Apple kicks their ass at messaging but RCS could help narrow the gap.

[jhasse]

There already is an open standard: XMPP