Most active commenters
  • zie(5)

←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.619s | source | bottom
Show context
lordofgibbons ◴[] No.42939855[source]
I really hope this fails.

Apple will use it's dominant position to create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard.

Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.

replies(26): >>42939966 #>>42940020 #>>42940243 #>>42940281 #>>42940379 #>>42940471 #>>42940515 #>>42940596 #>>42941069 #>>42941479 #>>42941630 #>>42941758 #>>42942136 #>>42942213 #>>42942456 #>>42942901 #>>42942937 #>>42943397 #>>42943414 #>>42943895 #>>42944072 #>>42944475 #>>42944937 #>>42944944 #>>42947436 #>>42948271 #
canucker2016 ◴[] No.42940281[source]
Blame the telcos for the relative poor quality of text message multimedia (via MMS).

The telcos specify the size limits of MMS messages. iMessage has much higher limits in most cases, so iPhone has to use reduce the quality of the pics/videos to reach the lower size limits for sending to non-iMessage recipients.

For the telcos, why would they upgrade their size limits for MMS - it's just a cost centre for them. They probably make more by selling more iPhones as well.

replies(5): >>42940385 #>>42940390 #>>42940561 #>>42940605 #>>42943359 #
NoPicklez ◴[] No.42940561[source]
I'm an Apple guy and I have to disagree, it's not the Telco's.

Android implemented RCS and Apple dragged their feet in implementing the standardised platform such that high quality messaging was seamless and agnostic between brands

The iPhone needed to reduce the quality of pics/videos to non-iMessage recipients because Apple didn't support any other form of non-iMessage messaging.

replies(3): >>42940594 #>>42941216 #>>42942066 #
1. zie ◴[] No.42940594[source]
RCS is not really an open standard though. If you want encrypted RCS with android phones, you can't unless Google lets you. At least that was true last I checked. I'm guessing it hasn't changed.
replies(3): >>42940702 #>>42940764 #>>42940769 #
2. dimator ◴[] No.42940702[source]
Are you saying if Apple asked Google to sit down and come up with an encrypted RCS working group and get proper interop done, it would be _Google_ that would decline?
replies(2): >>42940942 #>>42942660 #
3. ChadNauseam ◴[] No.42940764[source]
It’s not as if SMS is e2e encrypted right? Is RCS worse in that dimension in some way?
replies(1): >>42945284 #
4. whimsicalism ◴[] No.42940769[source]
who are you trying to convince? nobody in the know thinks this is a google problem, the facts are pretty obvious
replies(1): >>42940897 #
5. zie ◴[] No.42940897[source]
Google totally controls that ability. Apple is not any better here, but it's weird to call out Apple as being the only meanie here, when both Apple and Google are equally terrible when it comes to cross-platform e2e messaging.

Thankfully we have Signal, which solves the problem better than either platform option.

replies(1): >>42941295 #
6. zie ◴[] No.42940942[source]
Why would Google say yes?
replies(1): >>42941572 #
7. saintfire ◴[] No.42941295{3}[source]
Not to say Signal is worse than either option, because it's not, but they really hampered adoption by removing SMS (at least in NA).

I have almost no way to convince anyone other than people very close to me to use it due to the (lack) of network effect. If they could just use it instead of the default messenger then it's a dramatically easier sell.

Obviously it's up to the Signal Foundation about the direction they take but I don't know if I've seen anyone agree with the justifications.

Google and Apple wrap up their locked down BS with SMS for the same reason. It's by default free of network effect but passively pulls people in.

8. chrismarlow9 ◴[] No.42941572{3}[source]
To have easy compatibility with other devices. Why wouldn't they say yes?
replies(1): >>42950994 #
9. oneplane ◴[] No.42942660[source]
Google was already asked and they said no. They want to keep their non-standard RCS, both server-side and client-side and will not share it.

Or more specifically: it's a different product ("Google Messages") that just happens to be based on RCS.

They do have some partnerships with hardware manufacturers that ship Play on their devices, and they will preload Google Messages in there as well.

In essence, it doesn't exist in AOSP, and doesn't really live side-by-side with a normal messaging app (i.e. one that only does baseband native messaging), I wouldn't be surprised if the partnerships and preloading conditions state the manufacturer can't ship their own version (I think at least Samsung had to drop their own "Samsung Messages" app as reported in one of the reviews of a foldable display phone).

In a way, RCS made no difference, and whatever Google did was mostly just to compete with Meta (both FB Messenger and WhatsApp). Fun fact: Google Messages is closer to Matrix than it is to iMessage in terms of comparable technical features.

10. gf000 ◴[] No.42945284[source]
RCS is supported by Apple for quite some time now, though?
replies(1): >>42975110 #
11. zie ◴[] No.42950994{4}[source]
That's not something they care about, as if they did, they would have already opened it.
12. zie ◴[] No.42975110{3}[source]
Apple's RCS is not encrypted, nobodies RCS is encrypted unless you happen to be Google.