The long fight to make Apple’s iMessage compatible with all devices has raged with little to show for it. But Google (de facto leader of the charge) and other mobile operators are now leveraging the European Union’s Digital Market Act (DMA), according to the Financial Times. The law, which goes into effect in 2024, requires that “gatekeepers” not favor their own systems or limit third parties from interoperating within them. Gatekeepers are any company that meets specific financial and usage qualifications, including Google’s parent company Alphabet, Apple, Samsung and others.

  • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Google is pushing RMS, which they would control, and is designed to push you ads and usage metrics back to them.

    I haven’t seen a valid reason to get rid of SMS though.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s RCS not RMS and Google didnt even want control of it in the first place, it’s well documented Google has been trying to get US carriers to stop dragging their feet on RCS for a long time. They never did until Google literally went “Fine, I’ll do it myself then”

      AND RCS is an open protocol, nobody really has “control” over it, Google runs some RCS servers but if it disappeared tomorrow (Or you changed the defaults) RCS itself would run just fine on whatever including if Apple supports RCS

      ETA: Also SMS is absolute trash, it’s from the early 90’s (it’s older than me FFS) it doesn’t really support what we want out of it media wise today, and what it does support it was forced to. It’ll send “video” but it’ll be completely unrecognizable. It needs to be put to pasture already.

      • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It will be an easier sell if Google manages to get their proprietary extensions to RCS into RCS version 10, rather than only being supported in Google Messenger

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        SMS takes less bandwidth and is perfect for large broadcast messages and works perfectly fine for text based messaging. The only major problems it has are security and media, which while are valid needs, are not a reason to get rid of one of the few universally accepted standards

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          SMS should have been a fallback years ago and nothing more, it’s absolutely asinine that it’s still in as much use as it is today

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t need to be a fallback. It’s still perfect for text messages, government alerts, mass notification of customers, etc.

            It’s barely used today anyways. The only time it’s used on iPhone is if you’re messaging someone outside the iMessage ecosystem, which really isn’t a problem for 95% of Apple users.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know why you insist on holding onto a 30+ year old protocol. It’s not perfect and at times it can be downright unreliable. Once it’s left your phone you have no idea if it was successfully delivered or not, there’s no acknowledgement no retrys no retransmits. It just shoots it off and hopes for the best.

              Group chats are laughably broken even among all SMS recipients (It was never intended for it anyway) and frankly the bandwidth required for text regardless of if it’s over SMS or RCS is inconsequential, who cares if RCS messages need a bit more bandwidth to send text. The difference is negligible.

              • BURN@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s why it works so well. What you see as problems with SMS I see as good design decisions. It’s an incredibly simple implementation that does exactly what it’s supposed to. You just want it to do more than it needs to.

                Something will eventually replace it, but it sure as hell won’t be RCS. RCS is a defacto google standard now. Many features are locked out if you don’t use google servers. It’s not an open standard and it’s disingenuous to portray it as one.

                • cm0002@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Uh yea, because we do so much more on our phones, it might be well designed, but it was well designed for the 90s. That’s why it makes a good fallback protocol, but by no means should it be the go-to.

                  RCS is the replacement, it’s been the replacement for a long time in the EU. In fact, if the US carriers just implemented it when the EU did, this entire thread wouldn’t even exist.

                  It’s a standard until Google takes control of the GSM Association.

                  Here’s a Wikipedia article on RCS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

                  Even has this blurb:

                  The Verge in 2019 criticized the inconsistent support of RCS in the United States, with carriers not supporting RCS in all markets, not certifying service on all phones, or not yet supporting the Universal Profile. Concerns were shown over Google’s decision to run its own RCS service due to the possibility of antitrust scrutiny, but it was acknowledged that Google had to do so in order to bypass the carriers’ inconsistent support of RCS, as it wanted to have a service more comparable to Apple’s iMessage service available on Android.

                  • BURN@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s still not a standard as long as you’re relying on google for the majority of features.

    • kaitco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google is pushing RMS, which they would control

      Hardest of hard passes, even if I were on Android.

      Again, Google don’t have their own iMessage that is widely used, so instead of compete on that level, they want to own the whole system.

      • bkk_beaucoup@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anybody remember Hangouts? Google’s iMessage that was better in every conceivable way than its Apple analog, integrated with Google voice, could be accessed anywhere you could get on Gmail etc? Dropping the ball on Hangouts to favor carrier pre-installed messaging Apps was such an incredible and short-sighted blunder. I concede that exactly like their many app deprecations/cut-and-runs that did not take the long-term sentiment of the end user into account and damaged their reputation and adoption. And now here we are… trying to grovel back into iMessage’s purview.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          When they killed hangouts was when I think everyone stopped trying to adopt google products. What’s the point, it will be killed.

        • snowe@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait you thought hangouts was good? Holy shit would that be one of the worst Google offerings of the decade if it wasn’t for the ten other Google chat and video systems they have made. My god I can’t think of a worse communication platform than hangouts. You might be the first person I’ve heard of liking it.

          • bkk_beaucoup@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t want to make assumptions, but your reply makes me think you arrived at Hangouts once it was already being deprecated by Google. Granted, being US based I didn’t need the coverage of WhatsApp (limited as they was even then to phone # accounts), the scant usage of Viber or the other innumerable messaging apps I touched in that time period. Hangouts integrated seamlessly with SMS, let me send media/stickers/map embeds to mixed-platform groups never worrying about quality downgrade. And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail? iMessage makes you jump hoops to do that shit today.

            • snowe@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And did I mention that one could access Hangouts (and its SMS pass through server) from any machine in the world through Gmail?

              this was actually one of the things I hated the most about it. It doesn’t really matter what features you provide when the product is so bad it can’t even make up for it. I had no clue it had sms passthrough, it was just a shitty chat/voice client integrated into my email client, slowly making things slower and slower the more they added.

    • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bingo. This whole case is designed to make Apple look like the bad guy whilst Google hides their real agenda of forcing Apple to use a protocol Google controls and thus stamp out Google’s competition.

      • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what I’ve read, Google just owns the reference implementation. Apple could implement it themselves, but then lose out on certain non-cross-platform features, like e2e encryption.

        • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ve read the specification. Google’s implementation is the only real implementation (raw RCS is basically a dead project) as Google have added a load of custom extensions to RCS that means, to be interoperable, you’d need to use Google’s (which I imagine requires licensing since it doesn’t appear to be open source).

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re like a lot of people on Lemmy: so eager to paint everything even tangentially connected to Google as some kind of grand conspiracy that you can’t even get the most basic facts right.