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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
>Chat will be integrated with the default messages app on Android phones.
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.
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.
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.
No but it requires a data plan!
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 ).