Apple To Add RCS Support To iPhone Next Year (9to5mac.com) 160
9to5Mac: In a surprising move, Apple has announced today that it will adopt the RCS (Rich Communication Services) messaging standard. The feature will launch via a software update "later next year" and bring a wide range of iMessage-style features to messaging between iPhone and Android users. Apple's decision comes amid pressure from regulators and competitors like Google and Samsung. It also comes as RCS has continued to develop and become a more mature platform than it once was.
In a statement to 9to5Mac, an Apple spokesperson said that the company believes RCS will offer better interoperability for cross-platform messages. "Later next year, we will be adding support for RCS Universal Profile, the standard as currently published by the GSM Association. We believe RCS Universal Profile will offer a better interoperability experience when compared to SMS or MMS. This will work alongside iMessage, which will continue to be the best and most secure messaging experience for Apple users."
In a statement to 9to5Mac, an Apple spokesperson said that the company believes RCS will offer better interoperability for cross-platform messages. "Later next year, we will be adding support for RCS Universal Profile, the standard as currently published by the GSM Association. We believe RCS Universal Profile will offer a better interoperability experience when compared to SMS or MMS. This will work alongside iMessage, which will continue to be the best and most secure messaging experience for Apple users."
Counterpoint.. (Score:3, Funny)
Apple has decided to FIX the buggy RCS standard.
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it's the other way around if they implement it to Google's standards for e2ee. iMessage has many well known security flaws to the point that iMessage is only as private as Apple wants it to be in that their protocol basically enables them to MitM your chats without your knowledge.
Goggles RCS implementation uses the signal protocol, which has no such weakness. And based on Apple's comments, they won't be implementing that. Their comments are particularly interesting here:
This will work alongside iMessage, which will continue to be the best and most secure messaging experience for Apple users
In other words, Apple has a pretty low opinion of how much security their users should have.
Re: (Score:3)
iMessage has many well known security flaws to the point that iMessage is only as private as Apple wants it to be in that their protocol basically enables them to MitM your chats without your knowledge.
*Citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't use a search engine?
Some well-known security flaws: here's one [forbes.com] here's another [wired.com].
The thing about Apple being able to read iMessage messages: link [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The context here was security vulnerabilities in the protocol and e2ee of iMessage.
What do you give us? An example of the risks of the application parsing the message having flaws (signal/Google RCS e2ee aren't somwhow magically invulnerable to this), and a setting which provides an unencrypted backup of your phone to Apple, which. has fucking nothing to do with iMessage's e2ee.
Fuck man, back in the kitchen. Someone's burger is ge
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... I see you're still having trouble reading. Do you really need me to explain simple things to you again? I'll give you hint this time, but try to remember that your illiteracy is not my responsibility.
Go read the thread again. Slow down and pay very close attention. Find an adult to help you with the 'big' words.
The hint I promised:
iMessage has many well known security flaws to the point that iMessage is only as private as Apple wants it to be in that their protocol basically enables them to MitM your chats without your knowledge.
There are two claims being here. See if you can figure out what they are. Now, on the second claim, what do you think he was referring to? Remember that he's about
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Tldr summary, by default your iPhone backsup your private keys and messages to iCloud, FBI can easily apply for a warrant then read you private msgs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Giving apple your keys is still opt-out. Sure, iMessage is technically e2ee in-flight, but not at-rest on Apple's servers. Even if you opt-out, everybody you talk to effectively has to as well for it to be of any use. And yes, Apple does provide the means to figure out who that might be.
Re: (Score:2)
The iCloud backup problem is the only exception.
That's a problem on any device that does full backups.
I'll happily grant you that this should be made clear via opt-in and warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Tldr summary, by default your iPhone backsup your private keys to iCloud, FBI can easily apply for a warrant
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL - you're worried about Apple exploiting weaknesses in their protocol while using requires exclusively closed source Apple software. They don't need to make the protocol defective, they can just backdoor the app on your phone or Mac - if they were so inclined
The same applies to Alphabet, even though it is OSS, 90% of users are running binaries they just their vendors did nothing to compromise, and if Google itself wanted to leak stuff into their telemetry i doubt the messaging app gets enough eyes on it that it would be noticed for years, assuming they made any real effort to conceal it and appear accidental.
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Well there's always this:
https://github.com/signalapp [github.com]
I don't know about you, but all of the components I need are written in rust and java, two languages I'm quite fluent in, and they use libraries that I'm also already familiar with, especially rustcrypto and boringssl, both of which I've used in many projects and -- oh...silly me. This is all moot. Almost forgot...You're an iDerp. Even if you could understand everything there or at least figure out how to build it, it's not as if Tim Cock would allow you
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
It always amazes me how many people uncritically accept Apple's "privacy" advertising when it falls apart the instant you look at it.
Do people forget "the Fappening" when people were able to just access celebrity iCloud photo albums because Apple didn't properly secure them? The recent news that Apple's "MAC address randomization," designed to "protect against tracking," didn't bother with the "randomization" part?
Apple has made it quite clear, if you bother to listen: they don't care about your privacy. In
Re: (Score:2)
Do people forget "the Fappening" when people were able to just access celebrity iCloud photo albums because Apple didn't properly secure them?
How did Apple fail to properly secure them?
Re: (Score:2)
If you opted into the iCloud photo sync then yes they are.
If you dont, they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "fappening" was a result of phishing e-mails sent to the victims which they were dumb enough to fall victim to. If you want to talk about Apple security problems take a look at how the device password (entered all the time) is used as a backdoor key to the icloud account which can cause victims to lose everything including money in bank accounts. [youtube.com] THAT is fucking retarded -- why the fuck would a device key ever be allowed to compromise a service??
That's one reason my passcode is alphanumeric, with a long word and special characters. Holding my hand over it helps avoid filming. Yes, I am paranoid about security.
The device key is a poor solution to allowing Apple ID unlocking; and some method is needed given how often people forget passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
A big flaw in iMessage is that it, by default, reverts to SMS if the recipient's phone is turned off. Yes, there's a way to change that .. but most people keep defaults on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, doesn't work that way. If someone is going to claim something that should be easy to back up with evidence via Google search, that someone should include that evidence in their assertion of that claim if they want to convince anyone at all.
That's called argumentative writing, and is available as a course through your local community college.
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you even try googling?
If you tried and didn't find anything with obvious search terms then by all means demand a citation.
But no one should coddle you, so if it is easy to find a citation and you don't even try then why should anyone care about your opinion?
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
The burden of proof should always lie on the person making the claim, otherwise everyone could just say anything without anything backing their claims, and it would fall on the other person wasting their time to find whether what was said is true or not, while the first person makes more and more unsupported claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if you want to continue being stupid or not. I accept no burden for your education.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Just adding this at the top:
https://www.macworld.com/artic... [macworld.com]
The "what remains to be fixed" subheading still remains relevant. Forward secrecy will likely never be fixed, nor will the problem of giving Apple the ability to decrypt your imessages any time they want (ergo, as can governments) by default. And of course, even if you do opt out, pretty good chance the other parties haven't, and Apple still has your older keys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just this morning I was thinking about Pascal and Objective C, and said to myself "Apple is where computer languages go to die".
Well, that *probably* isn't fair. Objective-C was spinning slowly before Apple ever touched it. But not all the documentation is for abandoned dialects.
Re: (Score:2)
Objective C concepts got liberally borrowed from for LPC, the mud language. Also mostly dead now. Other than that...yeah, dead.
Pascal has had several flowerings associated with Turbo Pascal and its descendants. Apple is not the only place it existed or exists.
Re: (Score:2)
It pretty much killed off Delphi. FreePascal still exists, but so does objc ... both are, umm, on life-support. Objc was a bit healthier (the last time I checked), but the documentation all kept referring to Apple only extensions...which have been dropped. I don't even have NSObject installed anymore.
Wow. (Score:3)
You did it. You crazy son of a bitch you did it.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The answer is obviously that we just need another RCS standard. Then we'll have $numStandards++;
Re: Wow. (Score:2)
For me RCS is Revision Control System, which was killed by CVS, which in turn is taken down by Git.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used RCS for my school projects and also did a double take the first time I saw it used as a chat protocol but I'm over it. :-)
Re: Wow. (Score:2)
Jargon and abbreviations always amuse me. Hearing a trucker mention a "hot load" without batting an eye is always impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
And Mercurial goes between Subversion and Git.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RCS is not a standard, it's yet another useless proprietary implementation. Sure you'll now be able to talk to Androids with slightly better results when they send you a video or picture but it's derived from MMS which is derived from SMS and offers zero security except for what someone like Google or Apple bolts on top.
As far as interoperability, you can't build an open source RCS server as the GSMA won't license them out to anyone.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Lol. Yes, Apple decided to do exactly what Google demanded: implement RCS. They notably did not implement Google's proprietary "RCS", and I bet they're going to connect you to your carrier's RCS system, not Google's.
Regulators: Apple, you must adhere to standards and implement RCS!
Apple: We did.
Regulators: Google, WTF?
Google: But they implemented standard RCS! Yeah that's what the commercials said, but that's not what we meant!
Carriers: goody, money!
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't have an RCS system. That's not how it works.
E2EE is negotiated over the standard RCS protocol, i.e. it works transparently on carrier RCS systems and does not require any special support from the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Encryption is pointless when the program (Google Chat) is proprietary. I do not know what are "reactions" but as that should be user visible it matters.
RCS is not Google Chat. There is no relationship between the two. Reactions are the way you can respond to another person's message with an emoji, not as a separate message, but in a way that the emoji is displayed attached to their message.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah true, Google Chat is XMPP. But Google Messages is RCS. But it is true both Chat and Messages are not proprietary in AOSP. OTOH I do not think the few AOSP users matter here. In Google Android both apps are proprietary.
Re: (Score:3)
Reactions are meh but people care about E2EE.
I care about E2EE, and you care about E2EE, but I'd bet if you polled users there are far more that care about reactions.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple doesn't implement E2EE then they will have to show that communications with non-Apple users are insecure in some way. Maybe the infamous green bubble. But that would make doing this for anti-trust reasons kinda pointless, since the main thing people focus on is that green bubble.
If they want to avoid being regulated, they will need to add E2EE support and get rid of the green bubbles.
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple doesn't implement E2EE then they will have to show that communications with non-Apple users are insecure in some way. Maybe the infamous green bubble. But that would make doing this for anti-trust reasons kinda pointless, since the main thing people focus on is that green bubble.
That would be the whole point. Google is complaining heavily that Apple is not "following a standard" if they do not implement RCS. Google however is not being entirely honest in their argument. They mean to say Apple is not adopting their non-standard implementation of RCS. I guess to shut them up, Apple will implement standard RCS to show there is very little to be gained when it comes to security. RCS Universal Profile is basically SMS++. Also, if the EU complains about Apple, what is the complaint? That
Hopefully there will be a way to block advertising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope thereâ(TM)s either a way to disable ads or disable support for the protocol.
All of the spam texts I receive come through as SMS. If a spammer has your number and wants to spam you, this changes absolutely nothing.
Also, on the subject of settings to disable on your phone, you might want to look into turning smart punctuation off.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS ads are something different. They can be triggered by where you are, for example. So you're texting someone than walk by a restaurant. The restaurant could pop up an ad in the middle of your conversation for that restaurant.
No phone number needed - it can be pushed to people in a geographic region or otherwise.
It's not SMS people who text you, it's ads just popping up
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that iOS added an option to block all unknown callers, I'd assume Apple wouldn't let such an obnoxious form of advertising fly in one of their default applications. We'll obviously have to wait and see, but my money's on Apple blocking the spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution. Go to the restaurant and throw a brick through the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you can disable text messaging at the carrier level (which is what I do). No text messages at all, only iMessages.
Re: Hopefully there will be a way to block adverti (Score:2)
Re: Hopefully there will be a way to block advert (Score:2)
You can turn it off on Android, so no problem here. Apple will probably give you the option as well, but if not, you can always switch to Android.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not look forward to unsolicited, multimedia ads playing in my messaging system.
Re: (Score:3)
Big fat grin (Score:2)
Not only is this great news for interoperability, but it's gonna really piss off all the people from the previous story who were defending lowest-common-denominator SMS as "good enough" because "it even works on flip phones*", as if there really were anyone still grinding out messages in T9.
* Referring specifically to the old school dumbphones which are probably not even a thing anymore due to modern US cell networks requiring a phone that has VoLTE support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, really it seems like the lack of standard RCS encryption is on Google if it's on anyone.
Also, it's not like SMS will go away - RCS will just be a new, additional protocol that's available. Time will tell if it actually takes off, now that Apple will support it.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep making stuff up and then being outraged over your own claim.
SMS is a basic but very reliable standard that works as a fallback, but nobody claimed it was sufficient for everything.
But will Android messages be blue (Score:2)
Sounds like another bubble color is coming (Score:2)
It sounds to me like they plan to add support for it ALONGSIDE IMessage and SMS - which may indicate a third bubble color being created.
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for purple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red, since it's already just like arguing over politics.
Color? (Score:2)
But only the "universal profile" (Score:2, Insightful)
But Apple is yet again refusing to implement the standards that make RCS functional as a messaging platform, and implementing only the very base features. So it'll "support RCS" but you still won't be able to do any of the useful things you can do between Android phones when messaging an iPhone from Android.
Apple routines does the opposite of "embrace, extend, extinguish" where they "embrace" a standard, implement only the very bare minimums, point to that as a reason why you shouldn't use the standard, and
Re:But only the "universal profile" (Score:5, Insightful)
But Apple is yet again refusing to implement the standards that make RCS functional as a messaging platform, and implementing only the very base features.
And what standard is that? If you mean Google's version of RCS, that is not the standard. RCS Universal Profile is the standard. That's like saying a writing app is not following the standard if it adopts OpenDocument format (ODF ISO 26300) but not Microsoft's Word because Word has more features.
Apple routines does the opposite of "embrace, extend, extinguish" where they "embrace" a standard, implement only the very bare minimums, point to that as a reason why you shouldn't use the standard, and then points everyone to their own walled garden as the solution to the problems they created in the first place.
You just said Apple is following a standard. They are not extending it. They are following the standard. They are not following the standard you want them to follow but they are following a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying a writing app is not following the standard if it adopts OpenDocument format (ODF ISO 26300) but not Microsoft's Word because Word has more features.
That's an interesting comparison considering that Microsoft Word's format is also an open standard at this point [officeopenxml.com]. If what you want to do is interoperate with people using Microsoft Word, and you do it by implementing a standard Microsoft Word doesn't use instead of the one it does, you're not really interoperating, are you?
There are a bunch of additional standards - fully open, published standards - on top of the base RCS standard required to make it a useful messaging platform. Apple isn't implementing the
Re: (Score:3)
No. Open Office XML is not Word. OOXML was MS trying to mess with standards. How do you know? Try to open a Word document with anything that works with OOXML. Does not work well. Also open OOXML document with Word. Also does not work well.
There are a bunch of additional standards - fully open, published standards - on top of the base RCS standard required to make it a useful messaging platform.
Please cite the fully open published standard that adds E2EE into RCS. It should be sufficiently specific as to what algorithms are allowed and how to use them.
Apple isn't implementing them. Just the bare minimum required to be "compatible."
So Apple is following the bare minimum but according to you they are also not following the standard. At best App
Re: (Score:2)
This word "standard" does not mean what you seem to,think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is implementing the standard. They are not implementing Google's proprietary extensions. Yes, RCS is kind of crap, but that's what Google demanded because "hey, Apple, implement proprietary Google chat protocol #17 plz" doesn't play as well in a commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is implementing the standard. They are not implementing Google's proprietary extensions. Yes, RCS is kind of crap, but that's what Google demanded because "hey, Apple, implement proprietary Google chat protocol #17 plz" doesn't play as well in a commercial.
Nah, it's fine. The next iteration of the RCS Universal Profile will include E2EE and reactions, and Apple will eventually have to comply. It may take a few years, but this is a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
"any of the useful things you can do between Android phones "
How many useful things can you name that are a) possible between Android phones right now, b) part of RCS but not part of RCS Universal Profile, and c) not proprietary extensions?
What color ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain why do they do that? I cannot imagine a message board displaying comments in a different color based on what network protocol was used to post the comment.
Re: (Score:3)
iMessage has additional features which SMS/RCS lacks. So the blue bubbles are to signal to the user that those features (Such as sending money person-to-person via ApplePay.) are available in that conversation. I would also point out that contrary to Google's narrative Apple did not, in fact, create the green bubbles for the purpose of bullying or stigmatizing Android users. When the iPhone launched, a number of years prior to iMessage, *ALL* text bubbles were green, iPhone, Android, or old-school dumb p
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Any allegations beyond that are purely the invention of Google.
Actually, they were the invention of iPhone users. Apple didn't use blue bubbles to create the stigma, but it was created nevertheless, and Google obviously couldn't (and wouldn't) have done it.
Re: (Score:3)
Can someone explain why do they do that? I cannot imagine a message board displaying comments in a different color based on what network protocol was used to post the comment.
It's not about the protocol, it's about which features the user can expect, the most important of which is end-to-end encryption.
Blue = iMessage = end-to-end encrypted (E2EE, including group messages), multiple devices per user, delivery receipts, (optional) read receipts, typing response indicators, tapbacks, message effects, stickers, app integrations (e.g. Venmo, Apple Pay, etc.), support for editing and recalling messages, and more
Green = SMS/MMS = unencrypted messaging with none of the above
RCS support
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Okay, so Google added extensions to an open standard, and Apple made their own protocol instead. I can definitely see that one of these approaches is much more open than the other. But LOL, I had no idea it was "uncool" to be one color or the other. The whole E2EE thing is new to me -- I just assume anything I do on my phone is 100% known to Apple, Google, my phone carrier, the other person's phone carrier, and every government agency on earth. I wouldn't trust E2EE offered by any of the aforem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, who the fuck would want most of that? When Google pushed RCS, first thing I did was turn off everything except the encryption. Who wants to advertise that you received a message? A reply works, and if you want to react, reply with a smiley or whatever.
Text notifications? I get notified if I get a text as it is.
I understand it is popular with the kids, but aren't most of us grown up now?
RCS? (Score:2)
Next up, CVS, then Subversion and finally git.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Mercurial.
This Should Be Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction is that their RCS integration will be a half-assed solution that doesn't run nearly as well as it does among Android users
No need to predict; that what it is already like for Android users. Look on forums and there are many questions why one Android user texting another Android user does not have [feature]? The answer almost always is that feature is optional in RCS Universal Profile thus it is up to manufacturers and carriers to all agree to implement it.
Surely they could at least support CVS (Score:2)
Oh, come on RCS was old in the 90s, surely they should at least support CVS. Or more realistically, SVN or git.
You mean that thing that never works? (Score:2)
All I know is I have unreliability that was fixed when I disabled RCS.
Finally! No more green bubbles. (Score:2)
Apple have also announced that RCS messages will no longer appear in green bubbles, as this is reserved for SMS. Instead, RCS messages will be brown bubbles. /s