Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Microft | Hacker News Reader

I do more than enough tinkering but my phone‘s supposed to just work.

How is your tinkering enhanced by Apple making it difficult to communicate outside of their kingdom?

I don't see Google making it easier to communicate outside of their kingdom. AFAIK Google's RCS (with their encryption extensions) is not an industry standard or available for 3rd party apps to use. Why is the expectation only on Apple to make such changes?

Apple says they will implement RCS in 2024.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/16/23964171/apple-iphone-rc...

Without end to end encryption, because that is not part of the standard, as the grandparent comment said

IMO they should also be made to open up. As should whatsapp and facebook messenger.

My suspicion is that someone like the EU made it clear to Apple that they would either interop or the EU would make them do so. They have finally relented to support RCS in the coming year.

I'm glad it's happening. RCS finally got widespread carrier adoption (minus encryption) and it's a big improvement over SMS!

RCS is a spec ratified by the GSMA, the same standards body that specified things like SMS. Google tried to get Apple to do RCS, they refused, then Google tried to get a license to interop with iMessage and Apple refused again. Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.

> Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.

You're framing it in a nefarious way as if Apple is flat out denying it. They didn't. They would have to LOWER security in iPhones by implementing RCS because iMessages have E2EE but RCS doesn't. Which is something all you anti-Apple people seem to conveniently leave out, because you know nobody would take it seriously if you said it.

Well I guess then they should let other people interop with iMessage directly, so the E2EE can be kept.

In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it. If Apple wants to make their own encryption they can do it, nothing stops them. Interoperability would still be better, just like in the case of Google with other RCS solutions.

Please explain how interoperability between messaging apps is possible if two different, proprietary E2EE schemes are used atop RCS.

Google's interop "solution" with the Samsung messages app is by not using encryption. Apple has that same level of support coming to iOS next year, and has also announced plans to work with GSMA on adding standardized encryption to RCS.

I like that you put Google’s solution into apostrophes, while Apple’s current solution has the same problem, and even more. But I’m glad that we agree.

> In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it

Google made a copy of iMessage since it is closed source and can talk to only to the same app. How is that better?

I don’t know what you talk about, because both can talk to whatever they want, because both support SMS.

Then there isn’t issue with iMessage either?

But you know what I mean - E2EE of Google Messages is closed solution.

Both have issues. iMessage has problems with interoperability, RCS has problems with requirement of operator support.

Google is still working on the standard and adding features to it. If their previous statement is true, they will open source it after that.

the iPhone messages app already supports unencrypted SMS though

> One thing that isn’t part of the [RCS standard ratified by GSMA] is the encryption standard Google is adopting. It’s building it on top of RCS right into the Android Messages client.

> If you are texting with somebody who isn’t using Android Messages (say, somebody using Samsung Messages or an iPhone), the fallback to either less-encrypted RCS chat or SMS will still work just fine.

Sounds like Samsung users need to separately download Android Messages to get E2EE.

Quotes from https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21574451/android-rcs-enc... which is cited by Wikpedia on RCS.

the best part is that I, as a google voice user, still don't have RCS support even though it's a google product.

google implemented the exact minimum they'd need to give them a foot to cry on in the courts, and no further. and now that there is a mandate to implement RCS, they almost certainly will choose to kill google voice rather than implement it. I am already planning my exit strategy, because otherwise they'll take my phone number with it. and this is not trivial, we are talking about buying another phone (hopefully it will make it until the next-gen iphone with N3E) and paying for two lines for a couple of months. This is a pain in the ass for me.

and google has already embrace-extend-extinguished the standard - their encryption implementation is proprietary and they've refused to let anyone interop, so essentially they have put themselves as imessage 2.0 but with google as the man in the middle this time.

You seem to be mistaken: https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/

Because this story is about Apple ?

What is good about whataboutism again ?

> How is your tinkering enhanced by Apple making it difficult to communicate outside of their kingdom?

OP didn't say they tinkered on their phone - actually the total opposite. Read it again.

"I do more than enough tinkering but my phone‘s supposed to just work."

Anyway, you've missed the point that at the end of the day there's real-world benefits to many of the things people complain about. The FindMy lockout prevents phone theft (and has strong reductions in theft rates for these users). Serializing parts prevents thieves from stripping stolen phones and selling for parts. Having only one app store prevents large players with high network effect (tencent, facebook, etc) from demanding you install their app store to bypass the Apple's review/permissions process to spy on you (FB already got caught using dev credentials to do it anyway). Etc.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

I tend to agree, that a phone is not where I care to tinker in my life. Having it be secure and well-integrated is more important to me, I have a PC if I want to tinker. I can sign and sideload apps already if I want to try something (for 7 days), or getting an official dev credential extends this to 30 days. Android phones have a real problem with OS support lifespan and OEM parts availability, and I have no desire to install third-party ROMs and then spoof safetynet so I can run my bank app. Assuming that's even an option at all - Sony for example will wipe the camera's firmware when you unlock the bootloader, so it degrades a premium cameraphone to flip-phone levels.

"Not everyone wants to be stallman trying to figure out how to root their phone and spoof safetynet" is actually a great way to put it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com