Comment by stevewillows | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevewillows | Hacker News Reader

After all of these years, I'm surprised that Google hasn't just made their own clone of iMessage and called it a day.

iMessage (being an SMS / chat system with a native desktop client) is the only reason I went back to iOS. As much as I miss and android community, my top priority is avoiding the physical use of my phone whenever possible.

So while this is on the right track, its still not there. Leaving encryption off the table, at least to me, doesn't make a lick of sense.

Combining Google Voice and an iMessage-like service would have been closer to the game-changer they keep marketing their chat apps as... but it looks like we're still going to wait.

A BGR article [1] is assuming that they'll use a browser extension for the desktop client, which is good for cross-platform work, but the ones I've tried in the past (PushBullet, MightyText, etc) all fell short.

Long story short, its a shame to see someone as big and powerful as Google struggle with something as seemingly simple as a good SMS / RCS client to properly compete in the space.

[1] http://bgr.com/2018/02/09/imessage-vs-android-messages-sms-t...

Seems like the article offers a pretty clear explanation for why they haven't:

> Though Google won’t say so, I think that road is fundamentally too dangerous for the company. One would think that Google has more than enough leverage to simply create something that the carriers would have to accept whether they like it or not. What are Verizon and Deutsche Telecom and all the rest going to do, switch to Tizen in protest? Please.

> But the truth is that these carriers have points of leverage over Google that go beyond choosing to sell Android phones. Android is, after all, open source. And though Google can (and does) dictate some requirements in order to include Google services, it can’t dictate them all. A carrier could set Bing as the default search, for example, or set up its own RCS client as the default texting app.

> Perhaps Google could have gotten away with a proprietary, baked-in messaging protocol back in 2011 when iMessage launched. But in 2018, carriers aren’t fond of iMessage, and they aren’t going to take kindly to a similar service acting as the default, especially on Android, the globally dominant operating system.

If it's true that Google was prevented from making a good iMessage-type service by pressure from the carriers, it seems like a market failure. If Google was actually willing to build something and users wanted it, but some third party had leverage to prevent Google from doing that, it seems like the market is broken.

I don't know if this actually happened (obviously), but it really bothers me if it did. It makes me want to boycott RCS and the carriers somehow. I don't want to reward them for winning the battle to make my Android phone less useful, less encrypted, and easier to toll.

One fun fact I have heard is that the Android Messages app did not receive updates through the play store because carriers wanted to retain control.

If you're in the US, you could switch to Project Fi.

I think the crypto thing is less about carriers own opinions and more about the regulation that carrier provided services face. Hopefully it will at least have an encrypted OTT mode the same way that Allo does.

Let's also not forget how carriers have hampered Android updates.

I can't imagine that this is actually the reason. SMS has long been replaced by iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram and similar services. Nobody uses or values SMS these days and the carriers know it, which is why the service comes free with pretty much any (european) contract.

So if messaging already happens outside of the carriers' reach, why would those carriers be upset if Google added another entry to the list of services that have replaced SMS?

He mentions in the video that when he asked Google reps why they didn't just do iMessage, they claimed it was because of anti competition fears if they forced their own proprietary message platform on everyone's device, including those from partners like Samsung which already have their own messaging apps. That sounds plausible.

Disclosure: I work at Google but not on anything related to messaging.

That does make sense.

Its actually something that plays against the overall Android experience, for me. Its either: get a phone that has been rooted and has decent ROM support, or live with a bunch of crapware I can't remove, but might be able to disable.

Its unfortunate.

Why not use Hangouts? Seems like it meets all the requirements you've listed (desktop client, sync with email account messaging, video chat, phone calls.)

I'm not trying to promote the product so much as wondering what I'm missing out on, if anything.

Hangouts is ok, but as far as I recall, its either a Hangouts message or SMS. For my contacts, very few use Hangouts on a regular basis. SMS is still king around these parts.

RCS was extremely complicated. It needed cross-collaboration from carriers and Qualcomm.

Signal has a desktop app that syncs with your phone, and if you use Facebook messenger, caprine is a great desktop version.

If messages are end to end encrypted, Google cannot use them to target ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com