[luma]

RCS is a spec ratified by the GSMA, the same standards body that specified things like SMS. Google tried to get Apple to do RCS, they refused, then Google tried to get a license to interop with iMessage and Apple refused again. Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.

[paulmd]

the best part is that I, as a google voice user, still don't have RCS support even though it's a google product.

google implemented the exact minimum they'd need to give them a foot to cry on in the courts, and no further. and now that there is a mandate to implement RCS, they almost certainly will choose to kill google voice rather than implement it. I am already planning my exit strategy, because otherwise they'll take my phone number with it. and this is not trivial, we are talking about buying another phone (hopefully it will make it until the next-gen iphone with N3E) and paying for two lines for a couple of months. This is a pain in the ass for me.

and google has already embrace-extend-extinguished the standard - their encryption implementation is proprietary and they've refused to let anyone interop, so essentially they have put themselves as imessage 2.0 but with google as the man in the middle this time.

[riscy]

> One thing that isn’t part of the [RCS standard ratified by GSMA] is the encryption standard Google is adopting. It’s building it on top of RCS right into the Android Messages client.

> If you are texting with somebody who isn’t using Android Messages (say, somebody using Samsung Messages or an iPhone), the fallback to either less-encrypted RCS chat or SMS will still work just fine.

Sounds like Samsung users need to separately download Android Messages to get E2EE.

Quotes from https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21574451/android-rcs-enc... which is cited by Wikpedia on RCS.

[joshmanders]

> Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.

You're framing it in a nefarious way as if Apple is flat out denying it. They didn't. They would have to LOWER security in iPhones by implementing RCS because iMessages have E2EE but RCS doesn't. Which is something all you anti-Apple people seem to conveniently leave out, because you know nobody would take it seriously if you said it.

[ruszki]

In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it. If Apple wants to make their own encryption they can do it, nothing stops them. Interoperability would still be better, just like in the case of Google with other RCS solutions.

[riscy]

Please explain how interoperability between messaging apps is possible if two different, proprietary E2EE schemes are used atop RCS.

Google's interop "solution" with the Samsung messages app is by not using encryption. Apple has that same level of support coming to iOS next year, and has also announced plans to work with GSMA on adding standardized encryption to RCS.

[ruszki]

I like that you put Google’s solution into apostrophes, while Apple’s current solution has the same problem, and even more. But I’m glad that we agree.

[nicce]

> In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it

Google made a copy of iMessage since it is closed source and can talk to only to the same app. How is that better?

[ruszki]

I don’t know what you talk about, because both can talk to whatever they want, because both support SMS.

[nicce]

Then there isn’t issue with iMessage either?

But you know what I mean - E2EE of Google Messages is closed solution.

[ruszki]

Both have issues. iMessage has problems with interoperability, RCS has problems with requirement of operator support.

[xg15]

Well I guess then they should let other people interop with iMessage directly, so the E2EE can be kept.

[shawnz]

the iPhone messages app already supports unencrypted SMS though