[lukeschlather]

I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard. Now don't get me wrong, SMS is a terrible standard in several ways, but they seem to have built a service where they pretend to fix SMS, and they do it in a way that makes it basically impossible to actually fix the SMS standard.

That said, I am beginning to think that companies of Apple's size should be required to offer interoperability with their network. I don't think they should be forced to do it for free, but Beeper charges $10/month and Apple's fee probably should be low enough that Beeper is only paying at most 10% to Apple. (Of course, Apple could offer their own third-party client if they want to compete.)

[mikhailt]

> I think the biggest issue here is that Apple seems to be deliberately undermining SMS, which is an open standard

Are you confusing SMS with RCS? Apple hasn't done anything to undermine SMS. Remember, bubbles is not part of SMS, so Apple choosing different colors for each service is not them undermining anything.

Apple has announced RCS support next year for iMessages.

[paulryanrogers]

Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%.

[mikhailt]

> Making Messages+iMessage the default on their platform whilst also prohibiting competitor apps to serve as the SMS/MMS/RCS client feels like anti-trust to me. Especially as their market share among some demographics approaches 90%.

I agree with that part, no company should be allowed to set defaults without the ability to change the defaults.

That's not related to SMS though, that's a much larger problem that Apple (and MS) should be forced to change. I also think platform vendors should not be allowed to spam users about the said defaults either like how MS is forcing users to go through ads and so on whenever they search for Chrome to install and change to it as default.

[temp0826]

Maybe I just don't understand (maybe it's purely about principles?) but I really can't understand the desire for a separate app for sms, without imessage. Maybe for sms+potentially with other integrations?

[paulryanrogers]

There is a world of possibilities. Signal's optimistic encryption over SMS was one nice enhancement, at least before they dropped SMS support.

[no_wizard]

Which demographics do they have 90% market share?

[Mountain_Skies]

Teenagers in the US are close to 90% Apple. While that doesn't mean they all must use iMessage but it comes bundled with their phone and is what the vast majority of fellow teens have access to so it naturally becomes what they use.

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023...

Intentional or not, Apple gets to ride off of the natural inclination of teens to conform to their peer group.

[mikhailt]

That's true for any default apps on any platforms though.

It's why Google pay Apple tens of billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine.

That's why there needs to be regulations that default apps must be optional and must be permitted to switch to any apps for open standards that are available.

Apple should not get to pick which services I want to use, that's my choice on a device that I own. If I want to use Google Messages as the default SMS/RCS client, that should be permitted and without any pushback from the platform vendors.

[lukeschlather]

Apple isn't implementing encryption in RCS. I don't really care about SMS. I just want it to be that when I send a text to someone on iOS it's encrypted. And it would be nice if it had good support for emojis and multimedia. This is partially on Google too but from the outside looking in, it seems like Google has been honestly trying and Apple has been deliberately sabotaging them. (Not that I'm on Google's side - I just want a good encrypted multimedia messaging standard.)

[throw0101b]

> Apple isn't implementing encryption in RCS.

There is no 'RCS encryption' as defined in the RCS standard(s) as published by GSMA. The encryption that is available on the Android platform is a Google extension: it has a Content-Type value of application/vnd.google.rcs.encrypted:

* https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf

[mikhailt]

How do you know what they're implementing and not, all we know is that they said they will implement RCS, nothing more than that. If they do not, they lose their main messaging that they care about privacy first (which is already bullshit I know).

The main issue here is that Apple is not permitting users from selecting a different SMS/RCS app on their devices. That needs to be addressed.

It should never be up to Apple (or any company in general) to regulate what open standards can be used nor what apps can be used as default for said open standards.

Apple should not be forced to support RCS but they should be forced to allow users to switch to Google Messages (or anyone else like Beeper, Insta, etc) as the default RCS client if they want.

[fh9302]

Even "open" Android doesn't have a third party API for RCS. Google wants to lock everyone into Google Messages. The only exception is Samsung, they got special permission from Google.

[mikhailt]

Yea, Android is not open, AOSP is.

Google is not immune to this either, all companies should be treated the same way IMO. Monopoly status should not be a factor when it comes to default apps and such.

[mdasen]

We don't know that Apple isn't supporting encryption. The rumors are that they're working with the GSM Association on an encryption spec for RCS.

Google has been pushing RCS as an open standard. In some ways it is. However, the encryption isn't. That's just Google Messages.

Google's strategy with RCS is to look like they're honestly trying to support an open standard - after trying to create a walled-garden with a half dozen proprietary messengers. However, I have a hard time trusting Google on this one. I remember Google pushing XMPP and federation with Google Talk. Lots of us gave them positive word of mouth because Google was offering us the open chat network we'd wanted. Once they got people to migrate off AIM and others, they closed it off.

In this case, is Google's RCS support even open? Can I create an RCS client? It looks like the answer is "no" (but I might be wrong). Reddit users are suggesting that you can only use Google Messages (or Samsung Messages on their devices). XDA Developers notes that Google made a special permission only available to Samsung for RCS. Even then, it looks like support for Samsung Messages might be dropped with Bell Mobility telling customers they'll have to use Google Messages for RCS.

Google has a history of shouting "we're the good guy with openness," while they plot how to close things off. Android was trumpeted as open and once Android was the only non-Apple option Google started putting everything into Google Play Services and using their essential apps to force phone makers into proprietary licensing agreements. They pushed XMPP just to burn it down. With RCS, it looks like they haven't even created something that works with third party apps from the start.

Plus, Google is controlling the RCS servers for a lot of carriers. The messages might be encrypted, but Google knows who is texting who with RCS.

If someone has better information on third-party access to RCS, I'd love to learn more. It seems like even Android fans are lamenting that RCS is restricted to the Google Messages app on Android. Maybe I'm missing something, but RCS seems like something Google co-opted because it was a "standard" and then decided that only they could build for that standard (at least on Android).

https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/znsrkz/an...

https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third...

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/

[Larrikin]

Why shouldn't interoperability be free for messages? It is free for email. AIM was free, IRC was free, MSN Messenger was free, Pidgin offered a free product for years that let me talk to everyone.

Then a bunch of assholes hired some awful people to make the world a worse place and constructed barriers to communication, so they could make money.

[mikhailt]

Nothing is for free.

Email is open standard, so it is designed to be interoperable from the start but services offering emails are not free by default. They're free up to a certain point, each email service has restrictions such as certain amount of email per day or size restrictions, or they offer ads (take a look at Outlook for an example).

Back then, Internet was free too, via NetZero with ads.

You get what you pay for.

In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans.

I would prefer Apple to open up and offer Messages for Android/Windows/Linux and the only way to use them is via paid iCloud plans.

[throwup238]

> In this case, Apple customers paid for Messages by buying their devices and/or iCloud plans.

I have an active iCloud subscription and I've spent at least ten grand on Apple products over the years. Why can't I see and send iMessages on my other devices?

[mikhailt]

Because there's no iMessage client for these devices, just as there is no iMessages for Windows or Linux either.

As long as iMessage is not an open standard, your access to your Messages is restricted to the platforms that Apple owns and/or have an app for.

As for iCloud plans, I was referring to the storage for Messages, as you need paid plans to host more than 5gb of content of messages such as all of the photos and videos and so on.

[throwup238]

Right because their anti-competitive practices prevent me from using the services I pay for the way I want to.

[throw0101b]

> Right because their anti-competitive practices prevent me from using the services I pay for the way I want to.

All services you use are subject to terms and conditions: Gmail, Netflix, watching a sports match at your local stadium. Read them before partaking instead of assuming you're entitled to everything just because you cut a cheque.

[greggsy]

Even SMS is a paid service in many markets. Very expensive too, when you consider the price per byte.

[mikhailt]

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for bringing that up.

[chongli]

It’s really a paid service in all markets. You can’t send SMS for free in any country. You need to at least be a subscriber to a cell network or some SMS only service. Whether individual providers decide to offer unlimited flat rate SMS or not is a pricing decision, but none of them offer free messaging to none-subscribers.

[mikhailt]

There are US services like Google's Voice, TextFree and TextPlus that has unlimited text messages, I used to use it before with friends without having cell networks for a few years.

[mdasen]

I think there are two forms of interoperability that you aren't breaking out.

1. Client to Service

2. Service to Service

With email, service to service is generally free. However, Client to Service (eg. IMAP) hasn't been guaranteed to be free in the same way. Many services offer it today for free, but that's after a sharp decline in desktop mail clients. I remember how hard it was to get free IMAP back in the day. Now that most people use webmail or the company's app, they're offering it without being worried about the few people using it. If 90% of people started using IMAP and bypassing Google/Yahoo/Microsoft's ads, we might see IMAP return to being a paid service.

> AIM was free

AIM was constantly trying to break third party clients. Pidgin was often good at keeping on top of changes AOL was making to break them, but AIM certainly wasn't an open network for third parties.

MSN Messenger originally included access to AIM, but AOL blocked them. I don't think MSN Messenger (and later Windows Live Messenger) ever welcomed third party clients. Microsoft tried various strategies to get MSN Messenger to take off, but none were really open. It's more that the MSNP protocol was relatively easy to reverse engineer and Microsoft didn't go overboard trying to block third parties.

I agree with you that companies are trying to make the world a worse place via barriers to communication so they can make money. However, we didn't have great interoperability in the past. Email was interoperable, but instant messengers weren't. Pidgin was just good at staying on top of things back then and was facing off against less competent foes. If AOL were more competent, they would have been better at keeping Pidgin off their network.

[paulmd]

If google was running a smtp server for google customers use, and you figured out how to spoof like you were a google relay so they’d carry messages for clients who were not customers, and then you tried to open up a service reselling this capability as a commercial offering, you’d absolutely be banned.

That’s what discord and signal and apple and Reddit do too. It’s your service, you are under no obligation to provide it for free to third parties. And this is true even if you are a gatekeeper - google is under no obligation to provide guaranteed open smtp or even open transit into their network (they block a lot of domains etc), even if that is cumbersome for you personally.

Forcing that would be bad for everyone because gmail would immediately devolve into a pit of spam. As would iMessage.

It’s silly to pretend otherwise and would be openly acknowledged as such in any other context other than apple-bashing.

[wutwutwat]

Wonderful open standard SMS is, we should keep using it forever

> Silent SMS

> In 2010 Germany, almost half a million "silent SMS" messages were sent by the federal police, customs and the secret service "Verfassungsschutz" (offices for protection of the constitution).[83][84] These silent messages, also known as "silent TMS", "stealth SMS", "stealth ping" or "Short Message Type 0",[85] are used to locate a person and thus to create a complete movement profile. They do not show up on a display, nor trigger any acoustical signal when received. Their primary purpose was to deliver special services of the network operator to any cell phone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Vulnerabilities

Let's not forget the messages sit unencrypted on your providers servers until they can be delivered. During such times, anyone with access who cares to look, can look, and it's very often looked at, if not always