[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.