Google gives up on Google Allo
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16881497
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...
[1]Mostly when a company does exclusive interviews with a site, you should be very skeptical of anything that site says on the matter. Especially if they have a design team making custom animations and such for said exclusive article.
I hate that they dropped support for it, choosing to go with a proprietary protocol without any public APIs.
Which means that third-parties can easily capture large parts of the "friends" graph with just a small number of users consenting to give them data.
You're also now entrusting your communications to whatever clients other people are using without any chance/need for you to consent to their privacy policies.
But because the service and application are reliable and consistent and because upgrading between iPhones is also mostly seamless and carries those settings forwards between device upgrades, it just fades into the background as something you did 5 years ago and don't need to think about again.
Uhh, that's kind of what I pay my service providers to do though; deliver services through their "dumb pipes" and infrastructure. There's not a lot of differentiation in internet or phone services from provider to provider for consumers. The biggest difference I can find is price and network availability. Your job as a provider is to give me access to "dumb pipes".
The thing is, with general-purpose computing devices in our pockets we can run just about anything. We don't need special carrier features, and in fact those are anti-features: why would I want something I can only use with those of my friends on the same carrier?
Ultimately, of course, this also applies to OSes: why would I use something Android- or iOS-specific when I could use something universal instead? Right now, there are plenty of iPhone users using iCloud services which lock out their Android-using friends & family, but over time social pressure will lead the to find more platform-neutral ways to share.
The web is eating the world, and that means being in the ISP or OS space is a losing game (in the long term: in the short term, of course, there's plenty of profit to be had).
If there's anyone who I have to chat with in the Google world, it's likely they still use or have Hangouts, because, including Talk, it's been around for a long time. As soon as Google decided to abandon it's existing, sizeable user base, it basically left the market.
Being able to use it from any device, or even a browser while at work makes a big difference.
In my hubris, I wonder how hard it would be to create an NxN group video chat app with OpenCV, some ffmpeg, and a lot of my own ignorance.
With the greatest talents working in tandem, I fail to comprehend how they can ever create something that is less than perfect? A great product failing due to market dynamics is one thing, but releasing a half-baked product is something that leaves me bewildered.
Why on Earth would anyone write a message system that wasn't based on dumb-pipe internet? What can RCS do for an end user that IP can't?
Nobody likes being tied to their carrier. I have been using Google Voice for 5 years now and love that I am not tied to my carrier.
Yes I am tied to Google, but so is any other messaging system from Google.
This may just be a political move. "Hey carriers! Look? See? We're on your side!"
Since we didn't all decide to send Google our chat conversations, Google has decided to start convincing carriers to hand over our chat conversations in bulk without our permission.
I hoped Google became self-conscious with their image on messaging services.
I hoped they had changed.
Time to check if Signal's desktop client sync speed improved and start the move for them.
Yes, I'd rather have a standard that isn't tied to carriers and supported encryption, but this is still a massive step forward IMO.