A Guide to RCS, and Why It Makes Texting So Much Better | Hacker News Reader

A Guide to RCS, and Why It Makes Texting So Much Better

wired.com

38 pointstodsacerdoti45 comments

To my knowledge, no open source implimentation of RCS exists. On Android, the AOSP messaging app does not allow for RCS, only the proprietary Google version of Messaging does. This instantly excludes anyone who wants to use RCS but does not want to get tangled up with Google.

Very frankly, I am very very wary of any app that claims E2EE without source code. How are my private keys made and handled? How can I verify others keys? This says nothing to verifying that the encryption inplimentation is actually correct.

There's a decent amount of money to be made selling a RCS/IMS implementation.

There is some IMS stuff in this repo, not sure about RCS though.

https://github.com/DoubangoTelecom/doubango

> There's a decent amount of money to be made selling a RCS/IMS implementation.

That doesn't preclude open-source implementations - dual-licensing is still a viable business-model.

Why does my telco need to be involved in my messaging app at all? I think we’ve proven over the last decade that numerous third parties do it better, with more innovation, and better security.

And terrible interop. SMS may be trash, but it’s always there as a fallback. It would be great to see improvements to that fallback that didn’t fracture communications like imessage, whatsapp, signal, etc have all done

Ironically there was already an interoperable over the top messaging protocol – and Google pretty much killed it when the broke compatibility and abandoned it.

"What no other major player did, and what Google is now abandoning, is XMPP server-to-server federation. The Google representative said "XMPP was designed over a decade ago to provide a way for chat networks to interoperate, known as federation. Google Talk was the only major network to support federation, and after seven years, it’s evident that the rest of the industry is not moving to embrace this open system. If, at some point in the future, the industry shows interest, then we would then be open to discussions about developing an interface that's designed for modern needs.""

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-moves-away-from-the-xmp...

Then then spent the next decade trying to create a viable chat platform before handing the task over to the telecoms of all people.

Just. Brutal.

It's not ideal and pisses me off it took this long, but the technical implementation and UX is not at all bad now that we're here. The big 3 American carriers are in on this standard now, and Ma Bell's RCS-capable messaging app that is preinstalled on Android phones is basically indistinguishable from Google Messages even down to the logo. What I mean is that the UX isn't that "carrier-y" and more dumb-utility esque. Lastly, Google may not install their APK version as default on OEM phones- but the binary is readily available on the Play Store and Android has a myriad default app settings, including for messaging.

Look, Google fucked up for years and it's actually my biggest gripe with them (ceding messaging to the loonies in Cupertino in the US) but at least we're now at the point where all American Android users will have an interoperable standard, and since iMessage is a cancer in America particularly, well, it's okay if RCS takes longer to reach critical mass elsewhere.

IIRC the carriers abandoned the idea of being involved in RCS and left it entirely to Google.

Ah that's kinda what I meant but incidentally elided that they had convened on Google's implementation in particular.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

There are parts of making a chat platform that are hard. Want to support end to end encryption? Very hard. But google doesn't give a shit. They're going to warehouse all messages in plaintext in a forever database that they'll use to train NLP models anyway.

Interop between a dozen different providers is hard. But google isn't doing interop with a dozen different providers. They're doing interop with themselves. They can say "oops this API sucks" every four months and that's fine.

How Google can make Docs a thing and make it work well but can't figure out chat is bananas. Or gmail. What is chat but email with message size limits and the explicit removal of interop as a feature?

I have been wondering why they haven't improved / enhanced / evolved SMS and MMS, and instead they adopt something totally new created by Google.

Have we proven that? SMS is still the only surefire messaging system, despite the flaws.

No, it really isn't a 'surefire' messaging system if it doesn't work on any device without a SIM card and a carrier subscription...

I see what you did there :P

the horror of RCS (and being forced to implement it) was what drove the Matrix team over the edge to create Matrix, fwiw. Rather than trying to layer interoperable messaging on the PSTN, we should build open comms on the internet.

I had never heard of RCS but as soon as I read "RCS requires carrier cooperation" I thought "They're doing it wrong." This sounds like they're taking the worst misfeature of MMS and doubling down on it.

What happens when you take an application and specify its protocol too low in the 7-layer stack? RCS, apparently.

I find it ironic that everything listed on that options screen of "features" that RCS enables are things I'd turn off

- Read receipts - no thank you

- Typing indicators - no thank you

When I want the person I'm txting with to know something, I'll send a reply txt.

Sounds like you'd be the type of person that would want to use e-mail instead. You'd get benefits for switching too -- e.g. not exposing your phone number to the person, increasing your privacy, and ensuring that they cannot prank call you in the middle of the night, etc.

Email has read receipts, too, and I turn them off there, too. When I send a message to someone, it's none of my business when/if they've read it, or when/if they're replying to it; they'll respond when they choose to respond. That it generally orthogonal to the actual medium for any asynchronous medium.

Team messaging (like irc, Slack, etc), txt, and email each have their own use case and fill different roles.

For me, texting is a more immediate medium than say, email.

I keep read receipts and typing indicators turned on by default. I think it's a personal preference but for me it shifts the tone of the medium in a way I find valuable and honest.

The only thing that interests me is end to end encryption, but if it's not free and open source software then I'm not interested.

I wish someone would write a good article, not US centric, about the current state of RCS but I haven't found any so far.

From what I understand, Google has gone from pushing an open standard to carriers, to pretty much steamrolling their own (Jibe) infrastructure.

Some carriers implemented Universal Profile on their own, probably a bit too late to Google's taste, and are now completely left out as they cannot interconnect to a federated RCS network.

And I know from personal sources that FB is currently working on integrating RCS into FB messenger (I'm not sure about target markets though).

I own a Pixel and I don't mind using Google's Messages app, but if the goal is avoiding Whatsapp (or whatever local competitor) to become the de facto messaging platform, RCS doesn't look much better.

And a big question remains: who's going to force Apple to support RCS?

I think the play to forcing Apple to support RCS is the privacy angle. E2E encryption on regular text messages? That should be what Apple is about. If Apple answers that the solution for privacy is for your friend to buy an iPhone, they need to be called out.

> If Apple answers that the solution for privacy is for your friend to buy an iPhone, they need to be called out.

People have been trying to call them out for this for quite a while. Apple hasn't created an iMessage app for Android because a large part of their business relies on ecosystem lock-in, and they won't implement RCS for the same reason.

You may have missed the latest news. They’ve walked back from privacy, if not yet explicitly in their advertising.

Sadly it feels like yet another way that telcos will try to distinguish themselves and end up breaking interoperability in subtle ways. Let's just call them dumb pipes and run a messaging service over-the-top, shall we?

Every internet plumbing company wants to be a content provider. And if they can't do that, they want to at least be in a position where they can fiddle with your bits.

On one hand I agree with the sentiment that involving telcos is a terrible idea, on the other hand I really dislike iMessage and the way it shuts people out if they aren’t on an iPhone so I‘d be pretty happy if this would „kill“ iMessage (disclaimer: I’m an iPhone user)

>As of June 2021, the standard also now brings with it end-to-end encryption for one-to-one chats as well. You should see a small lock symbol next to the Send button in Messages (and a small padlock next to sent messages) confirming this. The feature should be enabled by default if you're chatting with someone using Messages with RCS enabled.

They have figured out how to do E2EE without the hassle of identity verification? I am a bit skeptical...

If the carriers are pushing it, it's probably backdoored to hell and back. E2E doesn't mean anything if the carriers have access to the keys.

SMS being low tech is what I like about them. No read indicators, no "x is typing", no reaction gifs (I wish we would just ban those), few images. I really don't "get" modern instant messaging.

Quick question: besides being part of Android (and thus immediately available with a brand new phone), what advantage would this have over an already established app like Signal, that works on Android, IOS, Windows etc?

Being installed as default on every device.

Signal is awesome but I don’t know many people that use it. Right now I can SMS absolutely everyone I have a phone number for, no other service can say that. RCS is aiming to become the new SMS.

There are few cases where there could be some advantages:

1. Whoever you're trying to message doesn't have Signal.

2. Signal takes a wrong turn and perhaps starts doing something you don't like as a user and now you gotta find a new app to trust (see "Whatsapp").

> Whoever you're trying to message doesn't have Signal. True, but the solution to this situation is quite easy (install Signal). What if Apple refuses to support RCS, you have Google's Messenger/RCS and your correspondent has an iPhone?

> Signal takes a wrong turn and perhaps starts doing something you don't like That's a concern.

> True, but the solution to this situation is quite easy (install Signal).

Perhaps for you, but definitely not easy for everyone. There's also the case where you don't really know the person you're messaging.

edit: Re Apple, I agree, if they don't implement it then we probably won't see a change. But IMO, the government should play a role here by enforcing a better open standard.

It seems like this will just further fragment the messaging app space.

Also, at this point, you’ve got to wonder about how long Google’s commitment to this messaging protocol will last.

I saw the demise of RCS (branded as joyn) in South Korea [1] and back then I was hardly surprised. I don't think it will be different this time.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/south-korean-telcos-to-shutter...

As an user, you would be really stupid to use RCS. It is like giving control to Google over your messages that are usually handled directly by your Telco.

Also, currently sms is the fallback that works without internet and connectivity. But if you want a real feature full efficient and encrypted messenger, use a dedicated one that has no "relation" with your Telco (and eventually google).

I'll keep using an OTT app such as WhatsApp, thanks.

Don’t you see some major risks in choosing a Facebook product as your main messaging app?

I do, but the good thing about OTT apps is that I can switch to another every time I want :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com