If iMessages is so great why can't Android Messages just copy its functionality?

[Almeuit]

RCS is a joke and won’t catch on at all. First of all, any messages sent on that standard are completely unencrypted. And secondly, it looks like Google is pushing the standard for that exact reason - that way, the company will be able to steal even more user data. Distrust of google is what’s keeping the standard from being deployed in Europe and elsewhere.

Do you have evidence for that? Because uh ... Google can already just look at SMS messages so I don't see how RCS would be a "Google is evil" thing since it would be carrier side.

 

[Mojofilter9]

A messaging platform is only as good as the number of people who you want to message that have it installed.
In the UK, that makes WhatsApp better than iMessage but I understand that in the US it's a very different picture.

 

[zipro]

@Almeuit: It's the only explanation why Google is pushing the standard all of a sudden. RCS has been around for a while now and everyone pretty much ignored it. Compared to SMS, Google also gets ahold of pictures and videos sent, as well as document attachments, group chat information etc.

 

[PsychDoc]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does RCS (when and if it's widely rolled out) bring to the table that SMS doesn't?

 

[zipro]

Firstly, one has to say that RCS is very old already. It was conjured up in 2007 but nobody ever used it.

2018, Google announced that they're now actively working with carriers around the world to make it work. As Google never does anything except to expand their business model (which is to sell data collected from its customers, either directly or through tailored advertising), it should be pretty clear why they're pushing the standard all of a sudden.

RCS is different from SMS as it's not a carrier service in the strictest sense. Instead, it makes use of data services offered by your carrier. It's also an Android-only thing - Apple has so far refused to support it, as it would undermine its own iMessages service (and it would make the latter less secure).

Overall, it's an extension of the SMS standard - one that allows for file / attachment transmission, for group chats, read receipts, notifies when someone else is typing a message, video transfer etc. etc. Overall it'd be a great tool - EXCEPT that nothing on RCS is encrypted. The initial standard allowed for client-server encryption (still not as secure as end-to-end) but the current, watered down version has no encryption whatsoever, making the entire thing vastly inferior to pretty much any other messenger out there. Nobody in his right mind would use that in times where wide-spread snooping is the norm and not the exception.

 

[Almeuit]

@Almeuit: It's the only explanation why Google is pushing the standard all of a sudden. RCS has been around for a while now and everyone pretty much ignored it. Compared to SMS, Google also gets ahold of pictures and videos sent, as well as document attachments, group chat information etc.

Actually that isn't the only reason. Google is now pushing it because Google has a MVNO (basically a mini-carrier piggy backing). Before they didn't so they didn't push it as hard.

Again your reason makes zero sense that they want to push RCS to "read our messages!!!" -- because they can literally already do that. So why would they push something so hard to gain something they already have access to via Android having access to texts?

Overall it'd be a great tool - EXCEPT that nothing on RCS is encrypted.

Texts aren't secure/encrypted at all now -- so why are you hung up on that as if texts/SMS are encrypted now but RCS isn't?

 

[zipro]

Actually that isn't the only reason. Google is now pushing it because Google has a MVNO (basically a mini-carrier piggy backing). Before they didn't so they didn't push it as hard.

Again your reason makes zero sense that they want to push RCS to "read our messages!!!" -- because they can literally already do that. So why would they push something so hard to gain something they already have access to via Android having access to texts?



Texts aren't secure/encrypted at all now -- so why are you hung up on that as if texts/SMS are encrypted now but RCS isn't?

I'm not, I never said SMS is. But all other messengers are and Google and the providers who already implemented the protocol are marketing RCS as an alternative. And again: Google so far only had access to 160 character texts. Now they'll have access to multi-participant conversations, video materials and attached documents. What I'm saying here is essentially what two out of three Swiss network providers give as their main reason why they don't want anything to do with RCS until encryption has been implemented. RCS is NOT an alternative to a secure messenger, yet people believe it is.

Google's MVNO endeavours are limited to the US (and to US customers who are roaming abroad). Their market share is tiny even in the US. That's definitely not a reason why they'd push RCS so hard all over the world now. Plus they don't need to act as an MVNO in order to syphon the data of all Samsung and Pixel customers (or those who install Google's vendor-ignorant text app).

 

[Almeuit]

I'm not, I never said SMS is. But all other messengers are and Google and the providers who already implemented the protocol are marketing RCS as an alternative. And again: Google so far only had access to 160 character texts. Now they'll have access to multi-participant conversations, video materials and attached documents. What I'm saying here is essentially what two out of three Swiss network providers give as their main reason why they don't want anything to do with RCS until encryption has been implemented. RCS is NOT an alternative to a secure messenger, yet people believe it is.

Google's MVNO endeavours are limited to the US (and to US customers who are roaming abroad). Their market share is tiny even in the US. That's definitely not a reason why they'd push RCS so hard all over the world now. Plus they don't need to act as a MVNO in order to syphon the data of all Samsung and Pixel customers (or those who install Google's vendor-ignorant text app).

I def. wouldn't say "all others are" because that isn't true. Some definitely aren't end-to-end encrypted.

 

[zipro]

I def. wouldn't say "all others are" because that isn't true. Some definitely aren't end-to-end encrypted.

I can't think of any popular ones that aren't at least client -> server encrypted. Facebook messenger isn't per default but encrypted chats are possible. Same goes for Skype. WhatsApp is completely encrypted, so is Signal (which pretty much offers the same degree of convenience as RCS but with end-to-end encryption). WeChat offers client -> server encryption, so do QQ mobile (albeit with numerous points of attack for the Chinese government to listen in), Snapchat, Viber (end-to-end), Telegram and Line. Plus the built-for-security ones like Threema etc.

If Google really wanted a universally accepted and compatible, secure SMS replacement, they could have gone with Signal and modified the OpenSource code for optimal Android integration. Instead, they're picking an already dated standard that is completely insecure.

 

[Almeuit]

I can't think of any popular ones that aren't at least client -> server encrypted. Facebook messenger isn't per default but encrypted chats are possible. Same goes for Skype. WhatsApp is completely encrypted, so is Signal (which pretty much offers the same degree of convenience as RCS but with end-to-end encryption). WeChat offers client -> server encryption, so do QQ mobile (albeit with numerous points of attack for the Chinese government to listen in), Snapchat, Viber (end-to-end), Telegram and Line. Plus the built-for-security ones like Threema etc.

If Google really wanted a universally accepted and compatible, secure SMS replacement, they could have gone with Signal and modified the OpenSource code for optimal Android integration. Instead, they're picking an already dated standard that is completely insecure.

Okay honest questions real quick.

1) Why do you use Google if you are so worried about them?

2) What does RCS have to do with other messengers? This is to replace SMS. If people are already using SMS and get RCS from Google + their carrier flipping the switch they gain more abilities with their SMS, right? In addition Google has access to SMS messages so those people using SMS already would get RCS and therefore be in the same boat, right?

I am missing your point. You are comparing RCS to other messengers as if people are going to insta swap to RCS after it comes out but if they were already using an encrypted / more secure messenger why would they? You seem to think that will happen but I fail to see how since people usually stick with what works with them. Google would only gain access to messages on RCS for people that were most likely doing SMS anyway.

 

[Almeuit]

Signal (which pretty much offers the same degree of convenience as RCS but with end-to-end encryption). WeChat offers client -> server encryption, so do QQ mobile (albeit with numerous points of attack for the Chinese government to listen in), Snapchat, Viber (end-to-end), Telegram and Line. Plus the built-for-security ones like Threema etc.

Signal -- people using that would most likely not swap to RCS since they have knowledge on what they want.

WeChat -- Uh a Chinese messenger? Yeah no thanks. Encryption doesn't mean anything if they have the keys and can just decrypt on demand.

Snapchat -- only good for quick messages not really a chat history (or groups)

Telegram -- Probably the only one I would say worth it but it isn't true end-to-end unless you are strictly doing 1-to-1 conversations as group convos are client to server.

 

[zipro]

Okay honest questions real quick.

1) Why do you use Google if you are so worried about them?

2) What does RCS have to do with other messengers? This is to replace SMS. If people are already using SMS and get RCS from Google + their carrier flipping the switch they gain more abilities with their SMS, right? In addition Google has access to SMS messages so those people using SMS already would get RCS and therefore be in the same boat, right?

I am missing your point. You are comparing RCS to other messengers as if people are going to insta swap to RCS after it comes out but if they were already using an encrypted / more secure messenger why would they? You seem to think that will happen but I fail to see how since people usually stick with what works with them. Google would only gain access to messages on RCS for people that were most likely doing SMS anyway.

Google is worried that they don't have an iMessage competitor. As you can see here and elsewhere, people are reluctant to switch to Android from iOS devices because Android doesn't offer any comparable functionality that's built in the OS.

I've always been a privacy advocate - and it's very easily possible to use Android without using Google services, or at least with staying in control of what data you're sharing with them (and other companies).

My problem with RCS is that it's baked into a standard app and that it's promoting a false sense of security to non-techy users who don't know what's going on in the background. It's also a standard - soon all texting apps will use it. I simply think it's irresponsible by Google to push technology that is insecure. Seamless technology for the masses should be as safe and secure as humanly possible.

And because they are trying to push an insecure standard (and one that used to be substantially more secure in the past, before Google had its way with it), you really have to ask yourself what their ulterior motive is here - if they didn't think they could profit from it, why would they put millions of dollars and a huge number of man hours into this? They're not a non-profit organisation.

 

[zipro]

Signal -- people using that would most likely not swap to RCS since they have knowledge on what they want.

WeChat -- Uh a Chinese messenger? Yeah no thanks. Encryption doesn't mean anything if they have the keys and can just decrypt on demand.

Snapchat -- only good for quick messages not really a chat history (or groups)

Telegram -- Probably the only one I would say worth it but it isn't true end-to-end unless you are strictly doing 1-to-1 conversations as group convos are client to server.

ok, so now I have an honest question to you:

Why are you defending insecure standards just because Google likes them? Would you do the same if, say, Facebook were getting rid of all encryption features in Whatsapp?

 

[Almeuit]

Google is worried that they don't have an iMessage competitor. As you can see here and elsewhere, people are reluctant to switch to Android from iOS devices because Android doesn't offer any comparable functionality that's built in the OS.

I've always been a privacy advocate - and it's very easily possible to use Android without using Google services, or at least with staying in control of what data you're sharing with them (and other companies).

My problem with RCS is that it's baked into a standard app and that it's promoting a false sense of security to non-techy users who don't know what's going on in the background. It's also a standard - soon all texting apps will use it. I simply think it's irresponsible by Google to push technology that is insecure. Seamless technology for the masses should be as safe and secure as humanly possible.

And because they are trying to push an insecure standard (and one that used to be substantially more secure in the past, before Google had its way with it), you really have to ask yourself what their ulterior motive is here - if they didn't think they could profit from it, why would they put millions of dollars and a huge number of man hours into this? They're not a non-profit organisation.

Fair enough.

 

[Almeuit]

ok, so now I have an honest question to you:

Why are you defending insecure standards just because Google likes them? Would you do the same if, say, Facebook were getting rid of all encryption features in Whatsapp?

Oh no I am a huge fan of security -- I just fail to see the panic in people who use SMS like crazy getting RCS as if Google didn't have access to their stuff when they already do. It is the same thing.

People that care about encryption and the likes will know better and move elsewhere. I hate FB but I applaud them possibly merging their messaging apps into one and forcing encryption on them. That is not bad for anyone (if done as they say they want to do). I use iMessage and like that it also has encryption by default as well.

So I am not really defending it -- more so saying it is already insecure so adding additional features to the same insecure thing is no big deal. It would be completely 110% different if SMS was encrypted and then RCS wasn't but that isn't the case.

 

[ahaxton]

Speaking for myself, I don't care about security that much. I use SMS and Facebook Messenger now. Messenger has the capability for encryption, but I don't use it. Security has zero relevance to me in my selection of a messenger app. I have looked into why people care about iMessage so much (as an Android user, I just don't understand why people are so afraid to give it up) and the primary feature everyone mentions is either the ability to easily send uncompressed video or the extensions it offers (filters, games, stickers and the like). No one has ever mentioned security as a reason.

It's great that security is YOUR number one feature, but don't assume that other people have the same needs or wants as you do, or that you are even in the majority.

 

[Almeuit]

Speaking for myself, I don't care about security that much. I use SMS and Facebook Messenger now. Messenger has the capability for encryption, but I don't use it. Security has zero relevance to me in my selection of a messenger app. I have looked into why people care about iMessage so much (as an Android user, I just don't understand why people are so afraid to give it up) and the primary feature everyone mentions is either the ability to easily send uncompressed video or the extensions it offers (filters, games, stickers and the like). No one has ever mentioned security as a reason.

It's great that security is YOUR number one feature, but don't assume that other people have the same needs or wants as you do, or that you are even in the majority.

That is because most users don't understand encryption and such -- but on that note iMessage does provide end-to-end encryption as well by default.

I think you missed the main point here. If Android had an app like iMessage do it by default then that would be a good thing. Having security for users is a good thing not a bad thing -- ever really. I can't see anyone saying "No no please don't secure that I would rather it be insecure" because it wouldn't make sense. The key is to making it easy to use / transparent to the user then they are good.

 

[Almeuit]

My problem with RCS is that it's baked into a standard app and that it's promoting a false sense of security to non-techy users who don't know what's going on in the background. It's also a standard - soon all texting apps will use it. I simply think it's irresponsible by Google to push technology that is insecure. Seamless technology for the masses should be as safe and secure as humanly possible.

In addition to this -- does the RCS standard (universal profile) provide encryption by default and Google is removing it? Or does it simply just provide the extra features? That part I can say I don't know 100% on.

 

[zipro]

Oh no I am a huge fan of security -- I just fail to see the panic in people who use SMS like crazy getting RCS as if Google didn't have access to their stuff when they already do. It is the same thing.

People that care about encryption and the likes will know better and move elsewhere. I hate FB but I applaud them possibly merging their messaging apps into one and forcing encryption on them. That is not bad for anyone (if done as they say they want to do). I use iMessage and like that it also has encryption by default as well.

So I am not really defending it -- more so saying it is already insecure so adding additional features to the same insecure thing is no big deal. It would be completely 110% different if SMS was encrypted and then RCS wasn't but that isn't the case.

It’s not panic - I simply think it’s a missed chance to make something great here, but instead it’s just lipstick on the pig.

 

[zipro]

In addition to this -- does the RCS standard (universal profile) provide encryption by default and Google is removing it? Or does it simply just provide the extra features? That part I can say I don't know 100% on.

Well, 1.0 had client-server encryption. In the latest version of the standard, the one that’s being pushed now, this has been removed, for whatever reason.