Google has started the global roll-out of its new Chat messaging service
bbc.com
bbc.com
Does it use IP and carrier as a fallback (to protect against data retention/archiving text messages): NOPE
Apple made it with first approach. Google:chat app, sms app, allo, duo, hangount
This will be next on the list.
Google can't make good message app - it's against their business model. You can't make targeted ads when you can't read user messages.
>Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
What you done here is lazy. Some further explanation about your view would probably be interesting. Otherwise, please don't comment at al.
"No thanks, we are too busy":
https://jugad2.blogspot.in/2015/07/no-thanks-we-are-too-busy...
Check the image (in the post) and the labels below the post.
It's a GSMA spec, and according to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSMA) the GSMA like 800 operators as members so pretty good chance this is going to get implemented (apparently Sprint already has?).
Sounds like this is a carrier lead charge, most likely in response to folks ditching SMS for more flexible/featured alternatives.
But from every move Google has made recently, it seems to think that people have forgotten about the Snowden stories. So they now have ZERO interest in anything that is end-to-end encrypted, because they think they can now get away with it.
They threw an option in there for Allo, but it was never meant to be used by users anyway, and now they're killing Allo, too. I don't think they'll ever talk about end-to-end encryption again because they want all of that data for themselves.
Now, the very least Google could do for its users is encrypt the RCS messages between its Android Chat users with some kind of Noise/HTTPS encryption. That would still give them all the user data, but at least they'd be protecting users against the carriers exploiting all of that data, too. So it would be very similar to them using HTTPS for websites or for DNS, and I see no reason why Google wouldn't do this.
I still wouldn't use Android Chat because I don't trust Google at all anymore, especially after their recent interest in working with the Pentagon for developing autonomous military drones, but at least it would benefit everyone else.
Also, there was a recent thread on /r/Android, and it seems nobody outside of US cares about SMS anymore (which means they don't care about RCS either, which is basically SMS+):
https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8dvm9x/nonus_based...
As for a reddit discussion... that is such a poor indicator of use of a service. I don't see any statistics gathered there about usage by country. That is such a tiny sample set, it is basically useless. There are groups out there that gather SMS (and chat app) usage by country, but I think all those reports are paywalled.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-en...
I think that last argument doesn't float for me.
Facebook chat is very popular and has remained the same since launch, I assume. I don't actually have it myself but I see people use it all the time.
And I do know that you're able to setup Facebook chat in 3rd party clients with OTR/omemo support. But that's besides the point because it's only done by a very small minority.
My point is that Facebook is a major player in targeted ads and their chat system is also unencrypted and resembles what google has tried to develop.
So I think google's issue is not with the ads but something else. I agree that they've taken a few too many stabs at trying to develop a chat system. But I can't see how they're failing because of their ad business.
No, they added the compulsory Snapchat features (smart filters, 3D masks, I don't know how they named it: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-... )
And it went through a few changes, that made it ... more irritating, as usual for apps that want more attention.
There's also this Secret Conversations thing: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-... ... I haven't enable it, because .. please, like it matters, our collective OPSEC is so bad, even using the term makes me cringe .. :| But usually people don't plan ahead with the intent to have successfully deniable communications, otherwise we'd use something self-hosted.
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/04/facebook-chat-api-empath...
I also don't understand your point as a whole.
Facebook and Google both aim to target ads accurately; Facebook also has unencrypted messages by default; therefore "google's issue [with adding encryption] is not with the ads but something else"?
I don't see how those connect.
edit: ah, your real conclusion was "google's issue [with creating a successful chat app] is not with ads but something else". I didn't think GP was purporting the unencrypted chat application wouldn't be adopted, just that it wouldn't be "good for the world", or somesuch.
Here's what would work. Chat that just works with gmail. Not another chat app. Chat with gmail. Is the other person online? Message is immediately delivered. Is the other person not online? Message is queued. ID of another person? Their email address or a phone number. That's it. Just
(a) make it actually work
(b) make it not lose messages
With instant messaging I tend to not leave long messages until I’m in contact with someone, and in messaging it’s more kosher to send quick one 1-word responses, even breaking replies into several messages to have some “timing” to my communications, similar to speech.
With emails I assume the person may not get them for a while, and I tend to leave longer paragraphs, and assume a response timeline of a few hours or even days.
Messages “falling back” to email, or emails turning into messages doesn’t seem like it would work to well with most people’s communication expectations IME.
It makes no sense to have to run another application to communicate with someone just because it is on a phone. Think of it as the hangout in Gmail on the web, except if Hangout actually just worked ( such as not said the message was delivered when it was not or said the message has not been delivered yet when it was ).
And yeah, it doesn't support encryption so it's clearly inferior to something like Signal, but open standards that don't live in a silo are still important. For instance, I have friends that almost exclusively chat through Facebook Messenger. Since I won't install Facebook Messenger, I chat with them over SMS. A "better SMS" would be nice, and might help ease people out of the FB Messenger silo.
Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.
Maybe with a data via wifi fallback?
It works fine without "everyone" using it. It can be used as best-effort security rather than a complete blanket.
> Yes, I'd much prefer that Google and the carriers both have the opportunity to read all my communications instead of one or the other.
And I'm saying, regardless of the current implementation, just because it's an open standard, doesn't mean it can't be encrypted -- either in-transit or end-to-end.
Asymmetric cryptography, e.g. the TLS standard, is an open standard but secure (re: encrypted).
It's taken a decade to get everyone on board so they could innovate on SMS. Since the carriers don't have the leverage that they had pre-iPhone and Apple is not supporting RCS, the positioning paints RCS as an Android/(non-iphone) messenger.
It's an amazingly fragmented space.
I disagree. Despite the hopes of the tech community, I think RCS will only really benefit people currently using SMS. Which is great; they need an upgrade. But products like FBM, Signal, iMessage, etc do so much more than even what RCS is capable of, and those feature are often important to its users.
RCS will raise the least common denominator of mobile communication. Very important nonetheless.
It was started way back when, when end-to-end encryption wasn't on anyone's minds and as with everything in the carrier world, it's adoption was/is molasses slow. Google jumped on the bandwagon, implemented it for Android, and made some appliance boxes that they're selling(?) to willing operators. But it's an open standard and no one has to use the Google RCS box, and some operators actually don't.
In 10-15 years there will probably be a new messaging standard that's been started work on today, with end to end encryption and other missing features, and people will be decrying that it's missing some 2028 feature.
Yes, it could be better but it's pretty good for raising the baseline. Now if only all operators and devices would support it, it'd be just great.
There is notechnical reason we couldn't have e2ee in rcs as far as I know
Google could. They have entire Google Accounts profiled. If a Google account is required to use the app, they can use information gathered outside of it.
Sure you can. You can target ads based purely on the rate and timing of messages. If you are sending 100 messages an hour, starting at exactly 3:30 every day. You are probably a highschool kid with a smartphone. If you are only sending one or two a week, always during lunch hour, then you are an adult with a 9-5 job. At a minimum, they can estimate your sleep cycle.
The opportunity cost of screwing up something as basic as messaging experience on a phone is enormous.
Additionally with Android I still can’t send/receive sms via my computer like I can with my iPhone using 1st party tools (yes sms, in addition to iMessage work with my iPhone). I’d like to use android but this sort of messaging experience is table stakes.
What the heck is Google doing? I’d want to work there just to fix this because they are blowing it.
According to The Verge, a web interface is coming soon (presumably as a result of development effort being redirected from Allo to Messages)
> So expect a couple things to happen on the app front. First, Google will finally make a desktop web interface for texting
There's a screenshot in this article (about half-way down; if you're lucky this link will take you to it):
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17252486/google-android-m...
They had one in Google Talk. Then they killed it.
No but it requires a data plan!
Of course there is no real benefit for them in doing so though. They have no interest in being the dominant messaging platform. So it will almost certainly never happen :(
For now it seems the best option is Signal as it falls back to standard SMS if it cannot send via IP. Of course you lose the advantages of E2EE and all the other lovely features of Signal but is it at least graceful for the user experience. Wire appears to be just as good as Signal with the exception of it not falling back to SMS. If you don't want that though I seems to be down to personal preference.
No thanks. We should push toward services which offer end-to-end encryption.
The question at hand is whether any major company would allow consumers to send messages the company can’t harvest for data. The answer is yes. Apple does.
Are you saying they don’t? —That they actually have backdoored their E2E messaging app already?
If you are just saying that it’s not entirely impossible for them to do backdoor, I don’t see what bearing that has on the discussion.
Apple does, but as far as trust goes, they are on the same level as WhatsApp (also E2E).
You’ve actually got one set of keys for each device you add to iCloud, and each iMessage is encrypted independently for each device. So if you have two devices — say, an iPad and an iPhone — each message sent to you is actually encrypted (AES-128) and stored on Apple’s servers twice. Once for each device. When you pull down a message, it’s specifically encrypted for the device you’re on.
The thing is: it is valid to trust a company to keep their explicit word. That’s a different issue from trusting a company who never explicitly said they wouldn’t listen to your data: companies can be held liable for these sorts of public statements. If Facebook silently (knowingly) subverts Whatsapp E2E, they’re in trouble. But reading regular Facebook messages for ads? Storing them plain text? They never said they wouldn’t.
This is why Apple explicitly stating they E2E iMessage is a data point with value. It is valid to trust Apple more now, simply because they’ve upped the stakes for themselves.
Compare this to a bar bet: someone makes a claim, I am sceptical. They say, honest! Still sceptical. They say ok, bet you £300. I suddenly am much more inclined to believe them. No money changed hands :)
Before you start downvoting spree, read this:
For Apple: https://mashable.com/2013/10/17/apple-nsa-imessage
http://bgr.com/2015/08/06/iphone-fbi-imessage-facetime-backd...
https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-n...
For WhatsApp: https://tobi.rocks/
(encrypt data with random key with symmetric encryption algorythm (AES,...), which is then encrypted and stored with the mesage twice. Once encrypted with recipient public key (asymmetric: RSA,ECC) and once encrypted with apple public key. This way you can say that you are having end to end encryption while you can still read everything and you can also use all the nice words in marketing material, AES, end2end, RSA/ECC,...).
I will tell you another case: Skype. It had a p2p protocol, highly encrypted and obfuscated, also the application was armored. The communication wasn't going through Skype servers but directly between devices. Once Microsoft bought it, the next version was using Microsoft servers and p2p was gone. Interesting, right?
Open source. And for really impossible also open hardware.
But they don't federate. Which I think is a pretty clear example of why not having one true solution isn't a technical problem, it's a political problem. Companies don't want to make it easy to compete with their products.
That's a well developed thing already:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO
Common OMEMO supporting XMPP clients are Conversations[1] for Android, ChatSecure[2] for iOS and Gajim[3] for the desktop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_(software)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatSecure
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajim
You can see the OMEMO status of the various XMPP clients here:
Look at what's happening to Telegram with Russia; I don't think Google is interested in participating in such a battle. They want just to have a simple messaging app and to have a compelling competitive messaging app to WhatsApp et. al. (They don't care about Messages since it's locked to iOS devices)
But to do Encryption, that means taking a stand against many big governments controlling some big markets. I don't see Google as ready to fight with the likes of Russia, China, Turkey, etc. If they just hand over the keys, what good is the E2E encryption?
I don't want my chat messages routed through some foreign jurisdiction, encrypted or not, so carrier-owned sounds good to me.
Though it will feature client-server encryption, so at least in this respect it's more secure than SMS.
That's the difference between this being a SERVICE and STANDARD.
The RCS standard has to work even in those countries that forbid e2e encryption for this sort of comms. Even if it's a minority of countries, I think it would be very difficult to convince carriers in more liberal societies to adopt the standard if it means they won't be able to interoperate with carriers in those more restricted countries.
Progress is incremental; the RCS standard, while imperfect, adds a bunch of really desirable features that will help interoperability between platforms and services globally.
Apps that integrate with RCS could still offer e2e within their applications; think how iOS does both iMessage (encrypted) and SMS (unencrypted) within the same app. It's just a major improvement to SMS.
Agreed but I feel like there is some confusion here - this sounds more like a extension to SMS to make it less crummy.
Good secure solutions already exist, we should push for people to actually use them.
Open, secure, usable by ordinary people: choose two.
Insecure, open, usable: Google Chat
Secure, centralised, usable: WhatsApp
Secure, open, poor UX: PGP.
If you're building a consumer-grade service, rather than a niche service usable only by security geeks, and you're arguing for end-to-end encryption, then you're knowingly or unknowingly arguing for centralisation and against interoperability.
Just in time to kill it off!
Why? This is a proposal for a protocol that works over the internet. What do networks and hardware makers have to do with this?
In practice the only entity they would have to talk to for a SMS replacement would be Apple. The world does not actually need a universal SMS replacement however. The world needs a universal instant message protocol that works everywhere; not just on phones.
But that's only if networks don't charge as much as they charge for SMS and I'm not holding my breath.
This whole initiative is about extending the base-protocol (SMS) which everyone is currently limited by.
While not universally good (carriers are still given too much power, w.r.t. billing, etc), it's main advantage over any other platform currently available is that this is a protocol-standard suggestion.
It's not a walled garden like iMessage or any of those other IM services (which is why no banks or similar use these services, but still use SMS).
This is something completely different, and I honestly wish more tech-startups would think in terms of standardized protocols instead of closed services.
Creating and developing standardized protocols is what once made the internet great and infinitely innovative. Recently the rise of closed services is what has caused this innovation-curve to almost completely drop down to zero.
Basically we need more protocol-development. EOT.
Maybe next time we can draft a standardized protocol which wont give or even include carriers. But for now this is a good start for creating a standard IM platform available for everyone to replace SMS.
Apple should have done this ages ago with iMessage, but didn't. Props to Google for actually putting in the effort this time around!
Or it's just a bandaid on a hobbling, old protocol that we should move past. I think Google errs here in being too concerned about backwards compatibility. That there are so many alternatives (WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal) shows there's demand to move on from SMS. And Google of all companies should know how crappy it is to have to rely on carriers (look at the years-long Android updates debacle).
I hear what you're saying about standards being helpful on the Internet, but SMS is a shitty standard from 1984 that even then was built on compromises and hacks (basically fudging things by using an area of GSM that was never designed for messaging):
* "The GSM is optimized for telephony, since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Initial_concept
Was setting up an account in India (Yes Bank, I believe). Banker messaged me on WhatsApp.
WeChat != WhatsApp but it is as close as it gets to the 'Messaging Service as an OS/platform' paradigm as it gets
I would much prefer if they used WhatsApp, because then it would not be ridiculously insecure.
I totally agree - but this is about replacing/improving SMS where you already need a carrier.
Google is making it difficult to keep track...
https://support.google.com/chat/?hl=en
"Goodbye Google Chat
Google Chat was officially shut down on June 26, 2017. To continue chatting and video calling, try Hangouts. Learn more about Hangouts.
Google Chat, the simple Google Talk chat experience in Gmail, launched in 2005. In 2013, we began replacing Google Chat with Hangouts, while still giving users the option to continue using Google Chat.
Hangouts offers advanced improvements over Google Chat such as group chat, Android and iOS apps, group video calling, and integration with other Google products."
But seriously - Is 'SMS replacement' even a thing now? I think I only ever chat to my wife via SMS these days because she won't install third party apps on her phone and has no social media accounts. All my friends, colleagues and kids send messages to each other via about 3 different chat apps depending on age (kids) and context.
I do recall that my doctors office did offer the option of Snapchat recently, I believe, for appointment alerts. Also, the voice to text thing, I have been thinking of writing my own little app connected to my SIP phone system and Amazon AWS to try and achieve the same thing, just as a little programming exercise.
If I have to be honest, if my SMS was turned off tomorrow, there would be very little impact on my life (as long as I installed Telegram or Snapchat on my wife's phone).
SMS has already been replaced by far more secure and mature apps. It's good to have it there as a primitive option though.
What, which part? Over here SMS is used only as a last resort: interoperability when people aren't using the same set of messaging apps, or no data due to bad network conditions. Everyone is using Messenger (when mutually added), WhatsApp, Telegram, or iMessage, the latter three automatically populating when phone numbers are added to contact lists, which people happily upload.
I don't personally know anybody who still uses SMS to communicate directly with friends or frequent real-world contacts. But I also don't know anybody who still watches real-time broadcast TV with ads. I assume there are still a lot of both out there in the world, however.
Basic landlines are still a thing, and cannot, even in theory, recieve SMS.
This isn't something I ever signed up for explicitly. But maybe it's just my provider?
Oh yeah, LOL, I quite honestly forgot about the existence of those haha
Google Notebook
Google Reader
Google Buzz
Google Wave
Google Plus
Google Health
Google Knol
Google SearchWiki
Google Allo
I'm not really sure if I want to get onboard with this new thing.
[0] techies exempt.
It used to be called Urchin I think.
a. Some of these hark back to the 90's so they were superseded than discontinued b. Some are actually comparable to Google's discontinuations
"Google has stressed that Chat is not a new Google app. Since RCS is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and phone-makers to switch on the functionality."
The title should be something like: Google has started the global roll-out to support a new messaging standard.
To me it reads like "Google has stressed that Chrome is not a new Google app. Since HTTP is a communications standard, it is up to individual mobile networks and website-makers to switch on the functionality."
Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run. Even if they can't, a better default messaging experience will take business away from competitors like WhatsApp and Messenger.
It's neither like iMessage nor specifically for Android.
> Google can snoop on Chats directly if the web service backing them is Google run.
It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
It will provide a similar experience, a default messaging client that gracefully enhances the SMS experience we're used to.
> nor specifically for Android
It's a standard, but considering Android is the biggest mobile operating system and the second biggest has it's own version of this, and the protocol is being pushed by the Android's creators, it's fair to say this is "for Android", at least at first.
> It's not, it's (like SMS) carrier infrastructure. Chat is just an RCS client app, RCS is the SMS replacement technology.
It's possible that Google would provide services to support it, the same way Apple provides the service for push notifications.
I'm eagerly awaiting the gracefully enhanced experience of receiving unsolicited rich-content spam.
EDIT: Just realised this abbreviates to RCS. Pure luck.
I think it's really being pushed by the carriers who want people to use it. Google is just implementing it.
An not even encrypted "on the surface" (as Facebook's WhatsApp):
> it does not offer encrypted messages
Not in this life.
As a Telegram user who feel betrayed by and doesn't like WhatsApp, -can we try to keep this sane?
Unless you have extraordinary proofs then WhatsApp is effectively E2E encrypted as verified by multiple industry experts.
The current problem is not message encryption but metadata leaking to an owner that is known to "move fast and break things", and is considered untrustworthy by many of us.
- that is, again, unless you have proof that their encryption is broken.
I do not recommend WhatsApp as long as they are owned by Facebook and don't have a business model that is compatible with putting users first, I just think we should be careful about throwing around accusations.
The carriers shouldn't be involved in messaging at all, sigh. SMS was a downgrade from AIM and ICQ.
How Standards Proliferate
(See: A/C chargers, character encodings, instant messaging, etc.)
Situation:
There are 14 competing standards.
Cueball: 14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
Ponytail: Yeah!
Soon:
Situation: There are 15 competing standards.
Perhaps in some utopia, where we could force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and have it be managed instead as a non-profit sponsored by our benevolent world government...
We have better alternatives (Signal, WhatsApp...) for those who care. Those who don't will continue using SMS, and for those, RCS is a good step forward.
Back when RCS (under the name of Joyn) was about to be released everybody dreamt of switching to it, thinking that maybe, just maybe, telcos would make RCS free, so you wouldn't have to buy data to chat, like you have to do with whatsapp (back then many people didn't have data). That never happened evidently, and now most people have data because it's gotten much cheaper. So there's no way we will leave whatsapp, and yes RCS is dead.
It'd be cool if we had a standard that everyone could use, like SMS, just that supported larger messages. Oh wait...
I know like 4 big Google projects and all seem to be failures (Kubernetes being the most successful, but still in hype so nobody realizes yet how mediocre it is). Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
> Right now it seems a good time to start working on a Google killer.
If all Google had was the handful of failures you claim to be (rather selectively) aware of, there'd be no need for a Google killer.
You can easily see that a solution is mediocre if you see that it doesn't attempt to solve any of the hard problems (in this case networking, network debugging, storage, performance) while requiring lots of overhead to do a trivial thing (e.g. here are my static html files, no go and host these).
It works okay on AWS/GoogleCloud but at least on AWS you already have all the features of k8s on IaaS level. On everything else it runs shitty and you spend more human resources on getting it to work / keeping it working than when you do the scheduling yourself.
> However, it will be up to mobile operators to enable the service and it does not offer encrypted messages.
Yep this will kill it off in short order.
RCS may have it’s flawa but this is not one of them. It isn’t an Android-specific protocol.
If big G really thinks it's going to "replace SMS" ( and they can leverage their platform to roll it out / lock in ) then good luck to them, maybe they can replace SMS.
But so what?
SMS was not the killer messaging app.
Those things are elsewhere.
Why does big G have an aversion to big acquisitions?
FB buys WhatsApp & IG -- Great moves
MS has made some big purchases
But the big G seems to purchase, but only for small dollar amounts (relatively). Same with Apple.
Even tho these two corps have (don't they?) big loads of cash.
I think it's technical arrogance. Big G and Apple are used to being revered as King S&&t of their tech.
So they think they can build it themselves. Ahahaha, sure, you can BUILD it...but can you get product/market fit to where it matters as a replacement?
I feel sorry for them. I think Big G and Apple obviously do great, but couldn't they do better to just narrow their focus. Even tho FB is f^&&d up in a lot of ways, one thing to really admire about their business is their narrow narrow focus. Even Oculus makes sense because Zuck sees a "Ready Player 1" world as the future ( with him as God Emperor, of course..heh ).
And that's why I like apps like signal that will fallback to SMS but make it trivial to use the secure protocol if it happens that the person you're talking to also uses signal.
Absolutely.
Why? Because I simply do not want to install 7 different chat apps.
This is Nonsense, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, Nest, DoubleClick, YouTube, Waze, DeepMind and lastly the HTC phone division.
This is more true of Apple, but they did buy Beats for 3bn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
So if this uses Data, how will this be advantageous for US users who have plans with limited data, but unlimited SMS?