[delta_p_delta_x]

The SMS/RCS/iMessage/blue bubble-green bubble debate is almost entirely exclusive to the strange market of the US.

Almost everywhere else in the world, users have simply adopted a variety of 3rd-party messaging apps that use the phone's Internet rather than GSM connection, like WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, Signal, WeChat, etc.

EDIT: While I understand the need for a 'universal E2EE messaging standard', we don't have one right now, and all three (SMS, RCS, iMessage) are poor stop-gaps. People need to send their texts, images, videos, and files to people without pain; that's all the average layperson cares about. What does fill this need are said 3rd-party apps, which claim to have E2EE messaging. Whether this is really true remains to be seen.

[minimaul]

The fragmentation of these third party apps gets frustrating very fast though.

I'm in the UK and my work uses Slack and also wants me to use WhatsApp for OOH contact. My friends are mostly on Discord. My family is mostly only available via iMessage. A few of the more privacy conscious use Telegram or Signal. A few of the more OSS conscious use Matrix. Some chat is still on IRC (actually I like that...).

Users relying on third party apps over the top has strong network effects for keeping people using services from Facebook et al, and I'm not too fond of that.

I'm vaguely optimistic about the EU's idea of forcing these apps to be able to federate in at least a basic sense, but we'll see.

[londons_explore]

> forcing these apps to be able to federate

I predict it'll 'work' so that the companies aren't fined by the EU, but the service will be atrocious.

You'll probably have to jump through a lot of hoops to make it work, and even then you'll probably have to wait 5 minutes for messages to be delivered, have to deal with bugs galore, and have most of the features not work.

"Warning: Sending an animated emoji will eject all non-iMessage users out of this group conversation".

[WastingMyTime89]

> You'll probably have to jump through a lot of hoops to make it work, and even then you'll probably have to wait 5 minutes for messages to be delivered, have to deal with bugs galore, and have most of the features not work.

Traditionally the EU is not amused by companies trying to cleverly work around its competition laws. I fully expect long trials with significant fines following the introduction of this law and hopefully things should settle for the better in a couple of years.

[vineyardmike]

Traditionally, the EU is eroding their market and terrible at writing laws. You can’t legislate product decisions. That’s not what people actually want.

As Facebook and their suits illustrate, you can’t always run an international and feature-full service with their laws. The requirements for federation will probably devolve to an email or SMS fallback or just a lack of service offered. Big companies that don’t want to retreat at the risk of market share will totally provide lip service to the rules and implement the exact letter of the law and nothing more.

I expect that the EU taking this and other action will be a lot like the GDPR: solving a problem and providing a few solutions but basically none of the vision. The GDPR mandates data-exporting out of a service with the idea of portability. Except no one offers imports so there’s no real portability gained, just auditability (which is nice).

I do agree that I expect long trials and significant fines. The EU will look good politically for taking a stand to those big American companies. Those big American companies will maybe write a big check but certainly appeal for a decade.

[Apocryphon]

Maybe it won't come down to legislation, but rather the threat of legislation. Maybe this is the sort of threat that will force companies to talk to one another and preemptively seek some sort of federation. Maybe they will be incentivized to do the right thing before it goes to court. At the very least, this is disruption of the status quo.

[Semaphor]

> A few of the more privacy conscious use Telegram or Signal.

Here in Germany, almost everyone I know is on Signal. That is not privacy conscious people or even tech-affine ones, almost everyone uses it in addition to WhatsApp. WA is mainly used when it works better (in bad connection situations, something that is embarrassingly relevant in Germany, Signal messages sometimes don’t work without an indication of it happening, WA messages just work) or a special feature is needed (live location sharing).

[kbelder]

I'll ask this here...

I haven't touched any 3rd party messaging app, and I'd like to have my family start using one. But I'd like one that works on desktop as well... windows and linux. Does Signal, Telegram, or the others let you do that without jumping through hoops?

[duskwuff]

Telegram works pretty smoothly in that regard. The desktop apps are fully featured; the only thing you have to use a phone for is the initial signup.

[416chad]

You just have to give up E2EE if you use telegram and want chats sync'd across your devices.

[delta_p_delta_x]

> The fragmentation of these third party apps gets frustrating very fast though.

Agreed, although where I live, most people have consolidated on Telegram. WhatsApp was popular about 5 years ago, but its popularity has quickly waned because of how difficult inter-device use is.

[Semaphor]

> because of how difficult inter-device use is.

Huh? What is difficult there?

[tmottabr]

several.. truth is that whatsapp was made to be used in one device only and is not frindly to be used in multiple devices at the same time.

Until recently (like days ago) you still needed the main device to be online and connected to their server to use the both the web or desktop apps, although for some time there was a beta going for the feature they released a few days ago where that is "no longer required".

Even so, i was on the beta of the new feature where you could use the web or desktop app without the phone since it started and it has its quirks.. Often it fail to load either the history or even new messages, messages sent on the main device often do not show in the web\desktop app and performance is overall terrible.

Also there is still no official way to have the same whatsapp across multiple phone\tablets devices.

[Semaphor]

Never had issues with the beta (before it, I simply did not use WA), but then I also never used it heavily.

> Also there is still no official way to have the same whatsapp across multiple phone\tablets devices.

That seems dumb. Luckily not an issue for me.

[tmottabr]

Yeah, it is completely dumb, but it is what it is..

The problem is that whastapp is old and it was first designed those decisions made sense..

the only other option around was SMS but it was expensive in many countries.. So now you had the option to pay a few dollars to buy the whatsapp (yeah, had to pay for it back then) and you could send SMS-like messages for free..

That is why it is so widespread in many countries, because it was a cheap alternative to SMS..

It was designed as a replacement for SMS and many of the early technical decisions that are limiting then today were made with that in mind..

One phone number = one phone = one whatsapp account

that is no longer the case today but they have to deal with the technical debts of those early decisions..

AFAIK all the other alternatives available today came much later with a completely different mind set, so they do not have those same limitations..

[WastingMyTime89]

WhatsApp was a pain to use on multiple devices. For a long time you needed the main phone to be connected nearby. I also lost my whole history when I went from Android to iOS for a silly technical reason. Really annoying.

[Nextgrid]

Nitpick - iMessage is also Internet-based. The phone number is only checked once when you first install the phone (by Apple sending an SMS that the OS intercepts) and is then registered with Apple so that other Apple phones with iMessage enabled know that this number can receive iMessage. The carrier is no longer involved beyond the initial verification step.

You can also use iMessage with an Apple ID, including to contact those who only have a phone number (and the reverse also works). This works on non-cellular devices as well such as iPod/iPad/Mac.

[quitit]

The blue bubble/green bubble thing is Google's iPhone is just "round corner" argument. They're very good at pushing the "our competitor is evil" style messages rather than being honest about the genuine reasons why others aren't embracing their various platforms. Google have repeatedly failed at making legitimate competitors to popular chat services such as Whatsapp, so Google is trying to sneak around the competition in their attempt to force Apple to bundle their technology with every device.

The real hesitation by Apple is obvious, RCS is half baked: it's not a true E2EE solution and in some scenarios encryption is simply not available at all. It is demonstrably worse than other chat technologies, doesn't solve the problems it sets out to fix and the only benefit to its existence is that it gives Google a way to control a competitor's platform.

Apple have already made the right kinds of concessions for chat apps on their platforms. All apps are able to hook into the native video/voice call, Contacts and instant-notification reply interfaces. Not only does this make each 3rd party app have the same feeling and level footing as Messages. It has the run on benefit of extending support for these services into devices where there isn't even an app available. E.g. one can reply to chat messages from their car or apple watch, even if there is no app on those platforms - this really goes a long way to helping 3rd parties establish themselves without having to build an app for every single one of Apple's hardware endeavours. Google could go this route with an RCS app, but it's clear that there is no end-user benefit here, especially when Whatsapp and others did the hard work in carving out the critical mass needed to exist as a standalone chat app.

[paulryanrogers]

iMessage is non-interoperable by design. RCS is at least a standard, and better than the existing SMS standard. So it's progress, even if E2EE isn't there yet.

[hendersoon]

That's a facile argument because nobody uses RCS. RCS failed to gain acceptance, so Google took RCS and built their own app with centralized servers and that's what everybody actually uses on Android. It's basically the same as iMessage, except it requires a phone number.

[webmobdev]

> All apps are able to hook into the native video/voice call, Contacts and instant-notification reply interfaces.

From a privacy perspective, I hate this - Apple did this only to access more of our data. E.g. if anyone voice or video calls me on one of these apps, Apple has access to that metadata because it will now be listed in the recent call list that is under Apple's control. If I am using (for e.g.) WhatsApp or Signal, it's partly because I want to avoid iMessage and ensure Apple doesn't have access to more of my personal data.

[quitit]

There's a few problems with this thinking.

First you need to distinguish between what your phone knows and what Apple knows. Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows. Through a judicial process of attaining access to your iCloud backup (should you opt into such a service) could law enforcement then have access to that data. This is a significantly different approach to Android, where Google actively collect and use that data in profile building - this is perhaps where the confusion might be coming from.

Secondly there is some naivety about using an Apple phone and believing that you're not sharing functonality-essential data with the manufacturer and author of the operating system. Your device basically will not function without Apple's service backend. There isn't any moral question here because you would be aware that by buying an Apple device and using Apple-fed services that you are in some way engaging in some kind of relationship with Apple. If you believe that these devices can function without such backends, you are grandly mistaken. Moral questions come about when you engage in a relationship with one tech company, only for that company to start on-selling your data through a variety of products based on your use of the device. I.E. What happens with Android.

Also I'm not going to even touch the absolute hilarity of using WhatsApp while having concerns about privacy/metadata collection.

[webmobdev]

> Most of what you've described are things that only your phone knows.

Not when your call list is automatically synced to the cloud (default settings), and all the BigTech reset your settings to default whenever you update to get more of your personal data.

> Secondly there is some naivety about using an Apple phone and believing that you're not sharing functonality-essential data with the manufacturer and author of the operating system.

That's exactly what I am complaining about - people like you think that is ok and normal, many of us don't and so we vocally complain out loud. My phone runs Sailfish OS, and I don't have to worry about these kind of bullshit with it.

> you would be aware that by buying an Apple device and using Apple-fed services that you are in some way engaging in some kind of relationship with Apple.

Making a voice or video call through a third-party app has nothing to do with Apple. Buying an Apple device doesn't imply that we have to accept servitude or an abusive one sided relationship with Apple, as most of you are proposing that we accept blindly.

> Moral questions come about when you engage in a relationship with one tech company, only for that company to start on-selling your data through a variety of products based on your use of the device.

And you are naive to believe Apple has not started doing that. As more and more regulation appear around the world that force Apple to open up their device, you will find Apple becoming more and more abusive with their user's data.

[quitit]

You being ignorant to how devices work isn't the same thing as your device secretly spying on you.

Your phone literally can't make a phone call without having initially shared data with Apple and your telco. This isn't some privacy-invading norm, it's the literal spec for cellular devices.

That's why when you go to Apple, give them your details and activate your phone - you are knowingly engaging in a relationship with them. This isn't some point of controversy - it is literally you making a choice about which phone you wanted to buy. You choosing to ignore Apple's and your telco's privacy policy which outline the types of data needed to operate the device really isn't something you can blame them for.

The point I'm making, which I think is lost here is that people like yourself are painfully unaware how dependent your device is on the manufacturer to function. It's a point of tedium because your type will rant on about privacy without having any understanding about what is privacy, what is essential data for the operation of the device - and then jump to literally absurd conclusions with the little information you have garnered.

Secondly you acknowledge that there are ways to limit the functionality of your device by providing less data to the manufacturer. So clearly something is working upstairs, but the compromise in that is you have limited functionality - in which case I question why you purchased that device to begin with.

Finally you are naively unaware about the differences in how your personal data is handled between Apple and Google. They are not in any way equivalent, and you've made many incorrect assumptions that Apple are doing things that Google do with Android, despite their public statements, privacy policy and 3rd party investigation that confirms otherwise.

In short you sound like a tinfoil idiot. You're not interested in facts, you're interested in mudslinging, and it's patently clear that you're happy to lie in order to do that.

[ale42]

I really hope that interoperability between (some of) these platforms, mandated by EU, will actually come true. Thing is, SMS is ancient technology, but it does work everywhere, on any kind of device, even on the dumbest one. All the other 3-rd party apps are (a) requiring an Internet connection to work, which most people have, but some don't, having limited data plans or prepaid accounts where data is way too expensive to use, and (b) they can only communicate with their own users, exactly like iMessage.

[threeseed]

> but some don't

The proportion of people with phone-only plans is very small and getting smaller by the year.

Let's just have an interoperability standard that is data based, encrypted and independent of carriers.

[klabb3]

> SMS is ancient technology, but it does work everywhere

Nowhere near true. As soon as you cross a geo boundary (ie travel) SMS is Russian roulette. It often doesn't go through at all. In the US, I've also seen carriers remove non-ascii characters.

[agluszak]

Now, the question is: is that a good thing? SMS is like e-mail - you can have many clients for the same protocol. Don't like your built-in SMS app? Install another one. You can't do that with 3rd-party proprietary siloed communication platforms.

[delta_p_delta_x]

> You can't do that with 3rd-party proprietary siloed communication platforms

I agree, and this is unfortunate. However, they're not going away at all, and the free alternatives (IRC?) are relegated to niche developer groups. For work communications, we have Slack, Discord, Teams, Zoom; for normal messaging, the apps I mentioned above (and more; Instagram/TikTok/etc have their own DM platforms).

It will take real concerted effort to fix this, and somehow I don't see it happening.

[riggsdk]

I get the feeling that it is highly subjective how widely adopted people seem to believe these are. It would be interesting to see some actual research on this. While many may have a whole bunch of those apps installed it says nothing about their actual usage.

My own personal view (Denmark based, age: mid thirties): In my group of extended friends and family almost everyone uses SMS/iMessage. SMS has been (basically) free to use here for many many years (or so many included in your basic plan you would never reach the limit). I believe this has slowed the adoption of the various chat apps here significantly - at least for people my age. Most of my friends share the same habit of calling each other if you want to know something that is time sensitive. If you don't need an answer right away you can text.

New acquaintances are first added on Facebook/Messenger since you can find people by their name and then if you actually communicate with them on a regular basis you eventually get their phone number to make it easier if you for example need to call them. Almost nobody I know use Messenger's voice calls. My family (and some friends) has resorted to sending SnapChat images instead. Sharing something without it ending up in a "permanent" chat history seems to be getting more common as it is somewhat informal. I never watch people's "stories/reels" in whatever format they might take as they are not sent directly to me and they seem to expire after a short while. I hate that pressure to constantly check in not to miss anything so now I ignore it completely and I'm happier for it. If anything I have a lot more to talk about with people when I finally meet them than if I already knew everything they had been doing.

I have a few WhatsApp groups going with my international friends and various local volunteer-based organizations.

[qubex]

I’ve often hoped that Apple would adapt the iMessages app to accept ‘plugins’ that would implement the various protocols (WhatsApp, Messenger, Telegram, Signal, & cetera) so that all messaging were located in a single location à la Blackberry circa 2008.

[amyjess]

I use Messenger and Discord to talk to all of my friends.

The only people I use SMS to talk to are my parents, who are too non-technical to install any apps that didn't come with their phones.

[elashri]

Part of reason in for many places outside US. There are no unlimited messages plan.

edit: people seems to miss that I said that this is only part of the reason not the reason. I also said many places outside the US (not all). So do people down vote because they think that there are only US and EU in the world? I am missing that point.

[minimaul]

FWIW, most monthly contract plans in the UK have unlimited calls & SMS. The main differentiator is the size of the data cap. There are charges for MMS etc though.

Even the cheapest of plans from the main networks (3, vodafone, EE, o2) - as low as £4/mo have unlimited calls & SMS now.

edit: this has been the case for quite a few years now, too.

[candiodari]

RCS is the successor/replacement of MMS. Carriers will charge for it and that will be the end of the protocol.

It is explicitly designed to give carriers back control of messaging.

Why am I even saying this? We all remember how much fun carriers control over SMS was. It killed sms. There were never any new features. Cost made lots of stuff, such as multi party chats effectively impossible for teenagers ... It was always very unclear how much everything cost. There were "traps" with premium services, often not advertised as such. Now there's fraud with international SMSes. And things have gotten worse' several states made clear they use phones to find abortions ... And RCS is designed to bring this back. No.

Just. NO.

[angio]

That's not true, unlimited SMS have been a thing for at least 15 years in Europe, well before WhatsApp became popular. In my experience, people switched to WhatsApp because of group chats and images (MMS were expensive).

[The_Colonel]

Depends on the country. In Czechia, unlimited SMS plans used to be expensive.

That changed, but e.g. with my pre-paid plan I still pay 12 cents per SMS.

Historically there was also a problem that unlimited SMS plans worked only within a country. Now it's a bit better being EU-wide, but still not worry free.

[elashri]

So you don't think that there no other places outside except Europe?

[dailykoder]

Atleast in germany (almost?) every plan has unlimited messages nowadays. Even the cheapest prepaid plan. People still use WhatsApp, Signal, etc., because of media sharing and easy group conversations

[Semaphor]

> Even the cheapest prepaid plan.

My 3.99€/month plan includes 100 SMS. Not that I ever use all of those, all of my 100 minutes, or all of my 1 GB of data.

[preisschild]

Not in austria

[donkeyd]

This may have caused WhatsApp to get big in much of the EU, but by now many European countries also have unlimited text, so it's not the case any longer.

[lotsofpulp]

I thought high costs for international SMS and MMS is what caused WhatsApp to explode. I remember it being the first app with great UX for sending and receiving pics/video/contacts, and then they added group messaging which worked great as well.

No spam because you needed SMS text verification, no ads, no login to remember, just all around amazing app at the right place at the right time.

[maw]

Yep, all this.

The only thing I'll add is that, ca 2012 which is when whatsapp started really taking off where I live, intercarrier SMS was slow and unreliable. WhatsApp was fast and reliable.