Comment by grapheneos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grapheneos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's important for us to provide out-of-the-box end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging for contacts on Google Messages and iOS. Both Google Messages and iOS provide RCS with end-to-end encryption via Messaging Layer Security (MLS). Google Messages is the standard text messaging app on Google Mobile Services Android and iOS now also supports RCS with MLS. The vast majority of people have an E2EE messaging app on their smartphone and it's important for us to provide compatibility with it. Currently, a growing number of our users are installing Google Messages to have better usability and privacy for texting with contacts on Google Messages and iOS.

People can already install the messaging apps of their choice on GrapheneOS. It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. We need a messaging app to handle carrier-based messaging in the OS including providing end-to-end encryption for it and the rest is up to other open source developers.

It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide.

I disagree with this somewhat. Apple and Google make these sweeping decisions for their users and in effect promote one tech over another. Adopting RCS and integrating it natively, but shunning open protocols and leaving them for third party apps (with probably worse OS integration) means you are following, not leading.

I would at least consider shifting approaches somewhere down the line. Yes, there are a plethora of open messaging protocols out there, but adopting one for first party integration doesn't prevent the others from being used.

I agree. The OS maker has a ton of power with the default apps and putting SMS and phone calls as the default communication platform of the OS is contrary to the goals of giving people more privacy.

And the OS should come with a GrapheneOS Monero wallet to compete with Google Wallet/Apple Pay.

> And the OS should come with a GrapheneOS Monero wallet to compete with Google Wallet/Apple Pay.

This makes no sense especially when you’re comparing it against Apple Pay and Google Wallet. They shouldn’t waste resources on something so pointless. The only exception is if they can actually make an NFC capable app that can handle cards.

A FOSS, private, uncensorable way to pay people instantly anywhere with effectively zero fees is not pointless.

Obviously it isn't a direct substitute for Apple pay but it would be more functionality than we have now.

RCS is a modern replacement for SMS/MMS with end-to-end encryption (E2EE) support via MLS. We have SMS/MMS so we need RCS to replace those. Similarly, carrier-based calls are there and should get replaced with a newer standard with E2EE.

RCS is what GMS Android and iOS provide so that's what people need to talk to non-GrapheneOS users.

Which non-carrier-based messaging app or protocol do you think we should include and why? What happens if we decide that's no longer the best one wand want to get rid of it? Apps included in the OS cannot be easily removed but rather only disabled by default for new installs and phased out for new devices. Otherwise, users would have their working setup break.

Yes I understand your point re: interoperability, and I think you've made a convincing case for RCS.

I think in the short term, you should take a look at e.g. Cheogram, Conversations, and Element and consider ways to enhance integration. Address book integration, automatically extending contact do not disturb exceptions, and maybe even dialer integration.

In the long term, it would be best to try to guage antitrust regulator attitudes wrt to protocols like XMPP and Matrix. In the end, they are the only ones who can really force mass adoption of an open protocol. But alternative OSs having native support and integration for such messaging protocols can tip the scales and be used as evidence of the protocol's viability and legitimacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com