Apple Says RCS Messages Will Have Green Bubbles (9to5mac.com) 182
Apple announced on Thursday its plans to bring RCS support to the iPhone in 2024. But some things are not going to change, sadly. 9to5Mac reports: Since I published my story on the news this morning, there's one thing everyone wants to know: is the blue bubbles vs green bubbles debate coming to an end? I'm happy to say I now have an official answer: nope. RCS will use green bubbles just like SMS. [...] Apple has confirmed to me that blue bubbles will still be used to represent iMessages, while green bubbles will represent RCS messages. The company uses blue bubbles to denote what it believes is the best and most secure way for iPhone users to communicate, which is iMessage.
I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no one but Google cares. This minor interoperability quirk interferes with their advertising business. That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no one but Google cares. This minor interoperability quirk interferes with their advertising business. That is all.
I wish that were true, and far be it from me to suggest that Apple users are shallow and cliquish, but: Why Apple’s iMessage Is Winning: Teens Dread the Green Text Bubble [archive.ph].
What's extra pathetic is that Apple itself is partially to blame for the continued absurd sectarianism of "herp derp I use Z brand phone!"
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no one but Google cares. This minor interoperability quirk interferes with their advertising business. That is all.
I wish that were true, and far be it from me to suggest that Apple users are shallow and cliquish, but: Why Apple’s iMessage Is Winning: Teens Dread the Green Text Bubble [archive.ph].
What's extra pathetic is that Apple itself is partially to blame for the continued absurd sectarianism of "herp derp I use Z brand phone!"
Bullshit.
People need to police their own behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
My 13 year old kid gets bullied on the regular because of this.
I would not be surprised if this lead to a few suicides.
Back in my day, bullying was about real issues, like wearing glasses or using big words.
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe 13yrs old is a bit too young to have a smartphone?
Maybe they aren't ready for a phone at all....or at most, something extremely basic...do they still have flip phones?
Re: (Score:2)
91% of American 13 year olds have or have access to a smart phone.
Smartphones are becoming the primary method of communication for this new generation. For those without it, they are effectively cut off from their peers and ostracized. They cease to matter, because the entire conversation is taking place on those smartphones.
Ever see a car load of teenagers all texting on their phones? They're texting each other. They don't talk to each other. Actual conversations are secondary.
Re: (Score:2)
Green bubble crybabies have low self esteem and want to be raised up to the blue bubble stratosphere without paying the entrance fee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am blissfully #childfree, however, if I had kids...
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you would do if you had kids, because it's one of the most life altering experiences you can have. All your preconceived notions about what you would and would not do go out the window the moment to strap the kid into the car seat and drive them home wondering why those idiots at the hospital just gave you a baby when you have no idea what you're doing.
While your armchair parenting might be fascinating to you, you seem to forget you grew up i
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
RCS is not end to end encrypted.
RCS can be end-to-end encrypted. Google's implementation is. Apple is choosing to ignore Google's extensions to the standard. Maybe eventually Apple will manage to get the standard changed to support end-to-end encryption as part of the spec, but maybe they won't.
By insisting that they'll only support end-to-end encryption in RCS if it is part of the official standard, Apple gets to claim that they "support" RCS while continue to shame Android users for another few years.
I believe the term is "malicious compliance". Apple gets to say that they're "supporting" RCS while still keeping an iron grip on their customer lock-in. This is, of course, clearly not what anyone meant when they asked Apple to support RCS, but it's not about doing what's best for Apple's customers or what's best for people in general; it's about protecting Apple's sales. [rolls eyes]
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly looks like they're trying to undermine Google's position and their attacks on Apple. Presumably, there will be an improvement in functionality when messaging between Android and an Apple device, which will leave Google with a technical point that will be lost on most people, or most people won't care. Google won't really get what they wanted.
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Apple could make messages end-to-end secure for their users, but they choose not to. Google chooses to make messages to/from their users as secure as the other end permits.
Please cite the E2EE standard that Apple should follow that is part of RCS? There is none. Remember Google has done security their own way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you care about privacy and security, Apple is provably terrible and insecure (for both their own users and for anyone their users communicate with), and Google is demonstrably trying to make things private and secure for both their own users and all other users. Apple fans, please explain why Apple is not a shitty insecure company, because this seems really damn clear.
Are you talking about the same Google that tracks you everywhere you go on the web and will gladly sell that data for ads? I am not sure we are talking about the same companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Please cite the E2EE standard that Apple should follow that is part of RCS? There is none. Remember Google has done security their own way.
"That is part of RCS" - ah, weasel words.
RCS is, at its core, a system for routing arbitrary binary messages between phones. It provides a standard baseline set of unencrypted messages that enable basic core behavior, but ultimately, it's like HTTP.
What you're saying is basically "what part of the HTTP protocol supports encryption" and then answer is, technically, none of it, because HTTPS is HTTP over TLS. It would be like refusing to implement HTTPS because it's "not part of the HTTP standard" which is, t
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
"That is part of RCS" - ah, weasel words.,
I take it that you cannot cite the part of the specification that details E2EE then. That means anyone can create their own incompatible implementation (which is the exact situation now). I also take it you do not understand why standards exist. Interoperability would be the main reason.
RCS is, at its core, a system for routing arbitrary binary messages between phones. It provides a standard baseline set of unencrypted messages that enable basic core behavior, but ultimately, it's like HTTP.
And AGAIN the specifics of the encrypted part must be specified if two users are to exchange encrypted messages. There are many, many encryptions schemes. Having agreement on specifics is the only way encryption works.
What you're saying is basically "what part of the HTTP protocol supports encryption" and then answer is, technically, none of it, because HTTPS is HTTP over TLS. It would be like refusing to implement HTTPS because it's "not part of the HTTP standard" which is, technically, true. But it is a standard and it is part of the wider set of standards that make up "the web."
No. I do not think you understand encryption at all. It does not matter what transports the message in E2EE. You could print out the message on paper and send it snail mail. What matters is there is agreement on the specifics of what algorithms are used. Zero part of RCS spells out specifics like AES 256 must be used. Therefore someone can use Twofish. Someone can use a different key exchange other than plain Diffie-Helman. Someone can use RSA.
Google uses the Signal Protocol to implement E2EE over RCS. Apple can too, it's an open protocol. It's just not, technically, "part of RCS," because it's outside the scope of RCS.
1) So you do understand that Signal being OUTSIDE RCS. 2) No Google uses THEIR version of Signal. It is not compatible with Signal itself. Otherwise you could use Signal to send messages to Google Messages. Do you know why? Google has tweaked their version for their own use and can modify whenever they want. 3) The problem again is there is no AGREEMENT on what is to used. By your logic I can create my own web certificates using my own encryption algorithm. Why doesn't everyone accept my certificates that I own Google's web servers? Because there are standard algorithms for certificates and agreement on what is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
2) No Google uses THEIR version of Signal. It is not compatible with Signal itself. Otherwise you could use Signal to send messages to Google Messages. Do you know why?
Is the Signal app built around RCS? If not, there's your first problem.
The Signal protocol, AFAIK, is about sharing keys for encryption, not about the contents of the messages themselves or how those messages are exchanged. Even if Google uses a bog-standard Signal protocol implementation, if they use it to negotiate keys and send RCS-formatted messages over an RCS-protocol session layer, then they won't be compatible with the Signal app if it sends plain text (for example) over some completely unrelated
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the same Google that tracks you everywhere you go on the web and will gladly sell that data for ads? I am not sure we are talking about the same companies.
So, I think you are saying "wow, you're right, my company is being shitty. I could admit it, but that would involve admitting to being wrong, which is uncomfortable. Instead, I'll just swap topics and spew out a bunch of random bile unconnected with the previous technical discussion, and assume that everyone is too stupid to realize this".
Are you a politician? Because you sound like a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a politician? Because you sound like a politician.
Well if we are exchanging ad hominen attacks: Are you a serial murderer? Because you sound like a serial murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apple could make messages end-to-end secure for their users, but they choose not to. Google chooses to make messages to/from their users as secure as the other end permits.
Please cite the E2EE standard that Apple should follow that is part of RCS?
Signal [wikipedia.org]. There's even a reference implementation, though I'm sure Apple won't look at it, because AGPLv3 is toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signal is not part of the GSMA specification of Universal Profile [gsma.com]. So it is not PART of RCS.
Are there other widely used RCS implementations that *don't* support the Signal protocol for key exchange? If not, then it is de facto part of RCS even if it isn't part of the protocol specification, in much the same way that TLS is a de facto part of any usable networking stack even though it isn't part of the TCP specification or the HTTP specification.
Re: (Score:2)
Signal is not part of the GSMA specification of Universal Profile [gsma.com]. So it is not PART of RCS.
Are there other widely used RCS implementations that *don't* support the Signal protocol for key exchange? If not, then it is de facto part of RCS even if it isn't part of the protocol specification, in much the same way that TLS is a de facto part of any usable networking stack even though it isn't part of the TCP specification or the HTTP specification.
But we don't have a Google Version of https, and a Apple Version of https, and a Microsoft Version of https, and. . .
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apple could make messages end-to-end secure for their users, but they choose not to. Google chooses to make messages to/from their users as secure as the other end permits.
Please cite the E2EE standard that Apple should follow that is part of RCS?
Signal [wikipedia.org]. There's even a reference implementation, though I'm sure Apple won't look at it, because AGPLv3 is toxic.
Wrong.
As UnknowingFool so Knowingly Stated:
Google uses THEIR version of Signal. It is not compatible with Signal itself. Otherwise you could use Signal to send messages to Google Messages.
Do you know why? Google has tweaked their version for their own use and can modify whenever they want. The problem again is there is no AGREEMENT on what is to used.
By your logic I can create my own web certificates using my own encryption algorithm. Why doesn't everyone accept my certificates that I own Google's web ser
Re: (Score:2)
Are they able to cherry-pick encryption on top of the RCS universal profile without implementing the whole of Google's RCS (whatever that is)?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they able to cherry-pick encryption on top of the RCS universal profile without implementing the whole of Google's RCS (whatever that is)?
Trivially, because Google didn't make up a new standard. They used the Signal Protocol to implement E2EE over RCS. RCS is, in a way, "email but for phone numbers," it's just a method of sending a message to a phone and having the phone receive it immediately.
Nothing prevents Apple from using any of the numerous Signal Protocol libraries out there to implement E2EE over RCS themselves.
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:3)
Bingo.
Well, except for one thing: iMessage is fundamentally incompatible with signal. One of the bigger changes Apple would have to make to iMessage is to drop their "one weak rsa key for all messages to all people" approach and use ephemeral message keys. But that would break their current icloud backup scheme and provide forward secrecy...what a dreadful thought...
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you say "Google's RCS" shows that you have no clue what is going on but want to feel special by talking with the adults.
The only "Google's RCS" is a client which Google write which follows the RCS standards and adds an open e2e encryption protocol on top, and a server which follows the RCS protocol. All of this is readily available standards which anyone who cares about security and privacy can follow (or not, if they don't). People use Google's RCS client because their cell phone manufactur
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to be a rude arsehole. I will freely admit to being naive on the topic, hence my questions. There were people upvoted in yesterday's story on this talking of "Google's RCS", so either they were clueless too or the people moderating them up were.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RCS is not end to end encrypted. It also doesn't support reactions.
Google's Jibe protocol, which is based on RCS and Google has a habit of calling RCS, has those things. Google went their own way because they couldn't get the GSMA and carriers to do what they wanted. Shocking.
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Google went their own way because they couldn't get the GSMA and carriers to do what they wanted.
The problem was to involve the carriers to begin with. Why should carriers have a say in how messages are sent? They should be treated as dumb pipes.
They have no say in how Email works. They have no say in how Signal/Whatsapp/Facebook Messenger/Whatever works. I can't find any reason why someone would want them involved in a messaging protocol in 2023.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. RCS is a terrible idea, and Apple was right to oppose implementing it. Google eventually agreed, and Android now defaults to using Google's servers rather than the carriers'.
Basically, Google wants Apple to give their proprietary chat protocol first class status in iMessage. But then what about WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram, the chat app I wrote last weekend, Instagram, etc? Google seems to have been working on the principle that RCS is SMS, and is therefore special because it's a
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may have been right to oppose crappy things such as RCS, but they were even wronger designing their own proprietary, single-platform alternative called iMessage.
No messaging protocol compatible with devices from only one vendor should ever have a right to exist. When it already does, it should be killed by fire, along with anybody who contributed to its development. Mankind would be far better off.
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:2)
Disagreement here.
Having one messaging system that just one entity controls has long been a problem. For those who don't recall, we had a similar thing going on with AIM.
Ideally you have an open protocol more like email with pgp. In fact, a protocol to the effect of "markup language inside gzip inside pgp over rcs" would be nice. Have somebody like the W3C maintain it, and individual apps implement however they choose.
Phone providers then become dumb pipes that have no control over how it is used, you get t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes RCS CAN use E2EE. The problem is that there must be agreement in the standard if it is to be interoperable. And that agreement rests with all the industry players in the GSMA which includes the phone manufacturers and the carriers. I suspect the reason E2EE has not been added to RCS is getting those companies to agree would be like herding rabid cats. I suppose that is why Apple created iMessage on their own. Since they control the stack, it was far easier than dealing with carriers and other manufacturers.
But unless I'm missing something, there's exactly no reason for Apple not to implement Google's end-to-end extensions and using blue bubbles when talking to devices that support those extensions other than spite and lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No reason other than implementing something controlled by rival that is not a standard?
When a specification is formalized enough for multiple companies to implement a technology independently, that is pretty much the definition of a standard. Now if Apple wants to insist that some standards body be in charge of that specification, fine, but it doesn't have to be a standards body made up of telcos, and it doesn't have to be part of the RCS specification for that to happen.
By that logic there is no reason why Chrome does not open and save webpages as Microsoft HTML (MHTML) instead of regular HTML. There is no reason why Sun did not adopt MS Java when they added their extensions to Java. Other than those reasons I suppose you could say "no reason".
In both of those cases, you're talking about standards that those companies already actively supported and contributed to
Re: (Score:2)
When a specification is formalized enough for multiple companies to implement a technology independently, that is pretty much the definition of a standard.
And what specification are you talking about that multiple companies implement? If you mean, Signal, Google's implementation of it for Messages is not compatible with Signal's implementation. How is that a "standard"?
Now if Apple wants to insist that some standards body be in charge of that specification, fine, but it doesn't have to be a standards body made up of telcos, and it doesn't have to be part of the RCS specification for that to happen.
RCS is being transported through the telcos networks so they have agree. RCS can be transported through their data network but part of RCS is using the radio network. That is the fundamental nature of RCS.
In both of those cases, you're talking about standards that those companies already actively supported and contributed to (and in the case of Sun, owned), where the companies merely chose not to implement someone else's extensions.
And how is that different than Apple not choosing to follow Google's implementations?
In this case, you're talking about standards that Apple refused to implement for years, and when they finally did implement them, they refused to implement the extensions necessary to make it compatible. These are not really similar situations at all.
What
Re: (Score:2)
No reason other than implementing something controlled by rival that is not a standard?
Is the Google E2EE setup a closed-source, proprietary implementation? That's the pertinent question.
If that is the case then, yeah, no reason for Apple to support and many reasons to not.
If it is an open, published specification then Apple has can still choose not to implement it or specify what about it they think is broken and/or insecure but it's fair to say they are acting in a protectionist manner, which they are free to do but just the same they can be called out on it.
It's like saying no other compan
Re: (Score:2)
Is the Google E2EE setup a closed-source, proprietary implementation? That's the pertinent question.
Again the issue is that no specifics are tied to any standard when it comes to messaging. The underlying technology might be open source. The implementation is not open.
If that is the case then, yeah, no reason for Apple to support and many reasons to not.
Since it is not part of RCS, Google can change whenever they want for any reason they want. That is the disadvantage of not using a standard. For example, Google can decide that their next version will not use the Signal protocol and their own.
It's like saying no other companies should use WebKit since it was developed by Apple.
That is not the same. Apple developed WebKit for their own use and it is still open source. They di
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the term is "malicious compliance". Apple gets to say that they're "supporting" RCS while still keeping an iron grip on their customer lock-in. This is, of course, clearly not what anyone meant when they asked Apple to support RCS, but it's not about doing what's best for Apple's customers or what's best for people in general; it's about protecting Apple's sales. [rolls eyes]
You did see the part where Android colors SMS and RCS differently, did you not? Of course Apple is going to color code the different kinds of messages, it tells the users useful information. If a message came by SMS then the user knows that the other user and/or connection is restricted to SMS so using RCS-only features could be lost, that means they should keep things simple or the message might not get through. I'd be a bit upset if Apple removed this feature, not to the point I'd buy a different phone
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the term is "malicious compliance". Apple gets to say that they're "supporting" RCS while still keeping an iron grip on their customer lock-in. This is, of course, clearly not what anyone meant when they asked Apple to support RCS, but it's not about doing what's best for Apple's customers or what's best for people in general; it's about protecting Apple's sales. [rolls eyes]
You did see the part where Android colors SMS and RCS differently, did you not?
SMS and RCS are very different from one another. SMS provides zero security, and I do mean zero. As implemented by Android, RCS is quite full-featured, fully supporting reactions, images, video clips, end-to-end encryption, etc. So of course Android gives SMS and RCS different colors.
The problem is that iOS isn't going to use different colors for SMS and RCS. They're going to treat RCS as if it were equivalent to SMS, which is outright disingenuous, because it is really approximately equivalent to iMess
Re: (Score:2)
would a slightly different color of green make you less offended? jesus fucking christ you cry baby bitches.
No. It's not that easy being green.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS is not end to end encrypted.
RCS can be end-to-end encrypted. Google's implementation is. Apple is choosing to ignore Google's extensions to the standard. Maybe eventually Apple will manage to get the standard changed to support end-to-end encryption as part of the spec, but maybe they won't.
By insisting that they'll only support end-to-end encryption in RCS if it is part of the official standard, Apple gets to claim that they "support" RCS while continue to shame Android users for another few years.
I believe the term is "malicious compliance". Apple gets to say that they're "supporting" RCS while still keeping an iron grip on their customer lock-in. This is, of course, clearly not what anyone meant when they asked Apple to support RCS, but it's not about doing what's best for Apple's customers or what's best for people in general; it's about protecting Apple's sales. [rolls eyes]
There's no "lock-in"!
I text with my Android-afflicted friends every single day; just like I do with my Apple-Owning ones.
The problem lies with the Green color of the Android Users (Petty Jealousy); not the Green color of Chat Bubbles they will never see!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple and Google implementations of RCS are realistically the only two that will matter on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...well, not that shocked.
But because the bluegreen backgrounds has been cited as ableist by color-blind users, in iOS 18 the green background will be replaced by the derisive "Womp-womp!" sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like how in fortnite (Score:3)
Re: Kinda like how in fortnite (Score:2)
Well yeah, a lot of people are like you in that they place a needlessly high emphasis on putting other people into social ladders and then defining them by it.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (Score:2)
Here's another fun on: “There's class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
Just because you've got your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears doesn't mean all of us do.
Re: (Score:2)
Call the Federal Trade Commission! (Score:2)
Drag Tim Cook in front of congress! The scourge of green bubbles demands immediate federal action!
I just want customizable contact colors! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow - like, is it really so hard for a multi-billion$ company, with "thousands of engineers" and with enough money to waste on $6B+ campus, to implement a basic ease-of-use feature that other manufacturers have implemented years ago??
Seems to me like Apple loves to build in exclusivity (as in: to exclude groups of people, based on tech preferences) into their products!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow - like, is it really so hard for a multi-billion$ company, with "thousands of engineers" and with enough money to waste on $6B+ campus, to implement a basic ease-of-use feature that other manufacturers have implemented years ago??
You realize you're talking about Apple, here? The company that has no calculator app on the ipad and prevents you from installing the iphone version because reasons?
Green bubbles (Score:2)
Just like snot.
Legal discrimination (Score:2)
Being concerned about your bubble color is dumb (Score:3)
It's dumb to be concerned what you bubble color is on someone else's phone.
I just want to be able to leave a friggin over-chatty group txt message thread.
Not that anybody should care (Score:4)
If blue is meant to indicate that the conversation is via iMessage, then why would anybody expect anything different for RCS?
Holy War (Score:2)
Green versus Blue bubbles has to be the ultimate nerdy holy war.
Re: (Score:2)
Revision Control System (Score:3)
Somebody at Google... (Score:2)
... is seeing red!
iMessage is the only platform they can guarantuee (Score:2)
iMessage is the only platform where they can guarantee privacy. So obviously they will indicate that to the users. This is ultimately the issue of ecosystem, they are a natural monopoly. There is no nefarious intent, it just is what it is.
Of course by the same measure, that just means government has to do what it has to do.
Re: (Score:2)
People naturally want to minimize the number of parties they want to put faith in. This naturally confers a massive advantage for a first party owner of an ecosystem for any service or product requiring trust. Communication, cloud storage, supply chain integrity of replacement parts (for which their economy of scale already provides them massive advantage). On top of that the first party has natural advantages for integration. Altogether, within an ecosystem it's almost impossible to compete with first part
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was, they have no control over the platform the remote client is running on, which can spy on messages regardless. They would still have a perfectly good reason to distinguish iMessage clients.
CVS, SVN and Git? (Score:2)
I didnâ(TM)t know that anyone was using RCS these days. I thought everyone had moved on to SVN or Git (never mind CVS, which I was using 20 years ago).
Re: (Score:2)
Since there are approximately four nerds left on this site, I'll slap you on your back and congratulate you loudly for this quality humour. Don't forget Mercurial.
Meh (Score:2)
Teenage cliques rejoice (Score:2)
The pointless judgement will continue. Sneers and bullying for everybody! Why can't those losers "think different" like everybody else?
I do not understand the commotion (Score:2)
I don't understand all the "ink" devoted to this. I don't know anyone who does not own an iPhone.
Magenta (Score:2)
WOW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally just like to be able to play mega drive games on my phone but sadly the iphones lack the blast processing needed to pull it off.
Re: (Score:3)
Green bubbles are a standards-compliant badge of honor.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that you can get a green bubble when messaging an iPhone, right?
Re: (Score:2)
you children are just so funny :D
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you could flip the little switch that tells iMessage not to fall back to SMS. I think the GUI people call that a "control."
Re: (Score:2)
Do people still use SMS? I never use it unless I'm travelling and don't have a data connection. I thought WhatsApp was the defacto messaging app. All my friends and family are on WhatsApp (both droids and sheeples)
Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're right. But WhatsApp won't let Google spam their users.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a regional thing? I don't know anyone using WhatsApp (or at least using it to the extent they're not reachable in more common ways), and I deleted my account years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I wrong?
Yes. Whatsapp and SMS both suck, for some different and some common reasons. Relying on a mobile phone number as the identifier, and the necessity to having one being one of the major reason common to both.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people still use SMS?
I didn't think people used SMS still until I did a bit of looking into the issue. It appears that cell phone service providers are dropping support for MMS, but retaining support for SMS. MMS allows for photos to be embedded while SMS does not. I noticed after a big storm caused power outages and damage to land lines that with everyone using cell phones to call that only SMS was reliable, making a phone call was difficult because of the load and sending a photo in a message often meant the send failed si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually find the green bubbles helpful:
* If I'm travelling, it means I might have accidentally triggered the cost of a day's international roaming because it's just fallen back to SMS (I actually normally turn this feature off, but occasionally re-enable it and might forget to disable it again)
* It might mean I've got some other issue that I should check, such as data being off
* When I'm group message people, e.g. my family where my mother doesn't even have a smart phone, that some people won't see group
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's especially funny when you realize RCS supports end-to-end encryption (via the Signal protocol),
Please cite the part of the RCS Universal Profile that explicitly says this. It does not. RCS does not disallow E2EE but does not specify it either. That is not the meaning of the word "support". With encryption, specifics matter. Until there are specifics, everyone is free to implement E2EE whatever they want. That does not make interoperability easy.
while iMessage "supports" end-to-end encryption but does it by having Apple hold on to the keys. You can find entire iMessage dumps in court cases all the time, because all the police have to do is ask Apple for a copy and Apple will happily provide them.
Ummm. No. If the police have an unlocked iPhone, they can access the messages. Apple will also provide backups of iCloud when given a court order, however, i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean because people haven't turned on encryption on their iCloud backups? It's a choice.