Pressure grows on Apple to open up iMessage

Lakados said:
I’ve got one of those numbers that when you call it’s going to prompt you to press a random number to complete the call so auto dialers don’t work. So I get shockingly few of those.
Click to expand...
I did an edit that you got to before I could respond with the info for how filtering its implemented through iOS.

But I'll say that ever since they put in those tools, maybe 4 years ago, I never pickup a phone call from spam. It all just gets auto-ignored.
Text wise it's more, but now it's all I assume fishing attempts. People using random names and saying: "hey Steven did you see that new thing? This is Irena." or whatever, and I never respond and just block. It's tedious, but it's not "advertisements" as such.
 
DukenukemX said:
Looks like Google is trying.
https://gizmodo.com/google-regulators-liberate-apple-blue-text-bubbles-1851002440
Google sent a letter to European regulators asking them to free up Apple’s iMessage for all platforms, according to a report from the Financial Times Wednesday. The EU Commission said Apple is gatekeeping iMessage in September, and Google’s letter unnecessarily chimes in to say “we agree.”
Click to expand...
Make no mistake the only reason Google wants access to iMessage is so they can add Apple users to their advertising platform, Apple users open their wallets easier and more frequently than Android users, that is not a statistic that is lost on Google or the companies that use Google's advertising (RBM, MaaP) platform. Having the ability to reach Apple devices that way would be a large potential income source and that is the only reason Google wants it, it has absolutely nothing to do with open standards or ease of use, it is 100% because Google wants access to the Apple revenue stream.

Apple is completely gatekeeping it, but if the only thing they are keeping at bay is the advertisers and the spammers, and until that changes I am 100% in favor of this gate they have set up for themselves.
 
Lakados said:
Make no mistake the only reason Google wants access to iMessage is so they can add Apple users to their advertising platform
Click to expand...
I have never seen an ad from Google in my text message app, and I'm using Google's app, not Samsung's. That sounds more like an Indian regulation problem, which is where I hear people are getting app spammed.
 
1_rick said:
I have never seen an ad from Google in my text message app, and I'm using Google's app, not Samsung's. That sounds more like an Indian regulation problem, which is where I hear people are getting app spammed.
Click to expand...
That’s where Google rolled it out first, but also China and Korea.

Here’s their API so feel free to give it a look.

https://developers.google.com/busin...ess-messaging/guides/get-started/how-it-works

The big hole in the Google platform is this.

If the device doesn't support RCS, the RBM platform returns a 404 error, and the agent should fall back to another technology, such as SMS.

They almost never bother with SMS failover as there are potential carrier fees and they can’t brand it or integrate the Chat AI features easily as of the potential message fees.

And this is the infrastructure Google has in place for the telecoms to take advantage of so they can offload the RCS communication hardware.
https://jibe.google.com/jibe-platform/#jibe-hub
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
Make no mistake the only reason Google wants access to iMessage is so they can add Apple users to their advertising platform, Apple users open their wallets easier and more frequently than Android users, that is not a statistic that is lost on Google or the companies that use Google's advertising (RBM, MaaP) platform. Having the ability to reach Apple devices that way would be a large potential income source and that is the only reason Google wants it, it has absolutely nothing to do with open standards or ease of use, it is 100% because Google wants access to the Apple revenue stream.

Apple is completely gatekeeping it, but if the only thing they are keeping at bay is the advertisers and the spammers, and until that changes I am 100% in favor of this gate they have set up for themselves.
Click to expand...
Google is already on iPhones though isn't it? All of Apple's searching goes through Google already.
 
Mchart said:
No. Only if you choose google as the search, or you use gmail for mail, etc. I’m 100% off google for almost everything.
Click to expand...
Yea but how many people are actually going to do that? That's the problem with defaults in that people rarely ever change them, and it's usually hidden so people can't find out how to change it easily. The whole argument for Apple not to use RCS or for Apple not to allow Google to use iMessage is because Apple cares about your privacy and Google doesn't. Yet, Apple gladly got $20billion to make Google the default search engine. Time to start looking at Apple the way everyone looks at Google, in that they aren't working in your best interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
Hey look, Apple gets 36% of Google's Safari search revenue. How exactly is Apple on your side for privacy when Apple is banking from you iPhone owners watching ads and Google collecting your telemetry data? You guys make a terrible argument for why Apple doesn't adopt RCS or why Apple doesn't let everyone else adopt iMessage when they literally bank from Google.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
DukenukemX said:
Hey look, Apple gets 36% of Google's Safari search revenue. How exactly is Apple on your side for privacy when Apple is banking from you iPhone owners watching ads and Google collecting your telemetry data? You guys make a terrible argument for why Apple doesn't adopt RCS or why Apple doesn't let everyone else adopt iMessage when they literally bank from Google.
Click to expand...
So your argument for why we should want Apple to install something on our phone from somebody who wants to spy on our messages and use us as an advertising platform is, that the advertising platform is already paying Apple so that is the default choice in search engines?
How does that make the case for RCS better?
 
DukenukemX said:
Hey look, Apple gets 36% of Google's Safari search revenue. How exactly is Apple on your side for privacy when Apple is banking from you iPhone owners watching ads and Google collecting your telemetry data? You guys make a terrible argument for why Apple doesn't adopt RCS or why Apple doesn't let everyone else adopt iMessage when they literally bank from Google.
Click to expand...
That is because of Alphabet's stranglehold on the internet advertising market. It has nothing to do with Apple. There is an antitrust case in the US going on about this exact issue. Alphabet controls something like 90% of the internet advertising market, so it's hard to avoid them if you're browsing the internet on any device or browser without explicitly going to great lengths to block it all.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/12/1198558372/doj-google-monopoly-antitrust-trial-search-engine
 
Lakados said:
So your argument for why we should want Apple to install something on our phone from somebody who wants to spy on our messages and use us as an advertising platform is, that the advertising platform is already paying Apple so that is the default choice in search engines?
How does that make the case for RCS better?
Click to expand...
You're not installing anything from anyone but Apple. If Apple were to support RCS, then it would be incorporated into iMessage. Also, this proves that Apple doesn't care about your privacy if they just knowingly accept bribes from Google to collect data on you and show you ads. This information wasn't meant for the public. At no point was there ever a need to worry about Google's handling of RCS when Apple would probably let them for billions more dollars. Apple was already in total control of the iPhone and the apps installed. If Apple wanted to, they could support RCS and just block Google RCS servers to protect their users from unwanted data collection and ad spam. At this point, if Apple does incorporate RCS into iMessage then that's because Google paid them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
I lost that bet. Now grandmas everywhere will get better videos of their grandkids they never come see. And google will be happy. I hope they still have a different colored bubble, just so i know when i send a text message and its green i know its a poor.
 
Darunion said:
I lost that bet. Now grandmas everywhere will get better videos of their grandkids they never come see. And google will be happy. I hope they still have a different colored bubble, just so i know when i send a text message and its green i know its a poor.
Click to expand...
I dont care about any of that, I just want to stop getting texts from Apple users on how they "liked the message" then proceed to quote the whole message. I'm not blaming Apple either, just wonder why my message app translates it that way
 
Apple's adopting RCS, embracing USB-C on phones and endorses right to repair legislation... now, it's not doing all these things out of the goodness of its heart, but the usual critics are going to have to scrounge for talking points at this rate.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I dont care about any of that, I just want to stop getting texts from Apple users on how they "liked the message" then proceed to quote the whole message. I'm not blaming Apple either, just wonder why my message app translates it that way
Click to expand...
I can get behind that. Even as an apple user i hate when apple users like messages, i really dont need a notification for that, ever. But i can only imagine how much more annoying that is on the other side. I will never like a message if i see green bubbles from now on!
 
Randall Stephens said:
It'll still suck, and imessage won't have to be opened up. this is the least bad option for Apple.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm just hoping with Apple involved ... and the pull that they have ... that they'll somehow make it less terrible. Apple dictates a lot of things.
 
I hold my position that I don't really care about/for RCS either way. As long as it's not controlled by Google/companies that have a vested advertising/data selling position. Otherwise, then I'm actively against it.
 
Shoganai said:
I agree. I'm just hoping with Apple involved ... and the pull that they have ... that they'll somehow make it less terrible. Apple dictates a lot of things.
Click to expand...

I own as much fruit as anyone, but Apple doesn't tend to sweat anything too much unless it hurts their bottom line. RCS will still be hot garbage, I'll still keep using iMessage 90% of the time and not give a shit about bubble colours. The image quality upgrade would be nice, though.

The only people that obsess over bubble colours are teenage girls and the borg anyway.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I own as much fruit as anyone, but Apple doesn't tend to sweat anything too much unless it hurts their bottom line. RCS will still be hot garbage, I'll still keep using iMessage 90% of the time and not give a shit about bubble colours. The image quality upgrade would be nice, though.

The only people that obsess over bubble colours are teenage girls and the borg anyway.
Click to expand...
That's all I care about as well that images don't look like pixel vomit when I'm sending something to an Android user. For the most part, I use third-party apps with friends and family that are on Android, but every once in a while I have to send something over SMS and it's always terrible.
 
Aurelius said:
Apple's adopting RCS, embracing USB-C on phones and endorses right to repair legislation... now, it's not doing all these things out of the goodness of its heart,
Click to expand...
USB-C was because of the EU, and likely so is Apple's adoption of RCS. At some point if Apple didn't open up iMessage or adopt RCS, you know Europe would make them through the Digital Markets Act. Either that or that Google money was for more than just a search engine on iOS. Right to repair is still a big problem with Apple. Probably worse than before Apple's repair kits.
but the usual critics are going to have to scrounge for talking points at this rate.
Click to expand...
tj5y5dcpdwsgwbrc0oilspj&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif

Shoganai said:
I agree. I'm just hoping with Apple involved ... and the pull that they have ... that they'll somehow make it less terrible. Apple dictates a lot of things.
Click to expand...
kac77 and myself have been saying this the whole thread and now that Apple caved in, you guys now assume that Apple could make RCS better?

View: https://youtu.be/T4VWgcJW1tU?si=s3A2PWEexZ89kPth
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
DukenukemX said:
USB-C was because of the EU, and likely so is Apple's adoption of RCS. At some point if Apple didn't open up iMessage or adopt RCS, you know Europe would make them through the Digital Markets Act. Either that or that Google money was for more than just a search engine on iOS. Right to repair is still a big problem with Apple. Probably worse than before Apple's repair kits.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know, but it's still good and still takes away a few of the usual opportunities for potshots.

Right to repair is better, not worse... the company has reengineered the iPhone and at least the MacBook Air (not sure about other lines) to improve repairability. Still some definite quirks, and it's expensive, but that's something.
 
I have RCS turned off on my Android phone, and I don't plan on ever turning it on.
 
Just read that Apple doesn’t plan to push mandatory end to end encryption on RCS as of yet. If they don’t, then really what’s the point? This is something they could do and push all of Android to have to actually protect user messaging data. Really may as well stick to SMS.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Just read that Apple doesn’t plan to push mandatory end to end encryption on RCS as of yet. If they don’t, then really what’s the point? This is something they could do and push all of Android to have to actually protect user messaging data. Really may as well stick to SMS.
Click to expand...
The key is that Apple is adopting RCS Universal; to get E2E encryption now would require latching on to a company implementation like Google's. My guess is that Apple wants full encryption and is working with the GSMA on that front, but also doesn't want to tie its fate to someone else. It's the same reason Apple refused to bake Flash into its browsers.
 
UnknownSouljer
As I have previously posted in this thread RCS as a protocol only supports end-to-end encryption when the source and destination are communicating with an E.164 formatted address (aka a phone number), so RCS end-to-end could not work say between an iPad and a cellphone, or 2 iPads, or a phone and a watch or laptop.

So as Apple iMessage also works on iPads, Apple Watch, and MacOS, end-to-end encryption fails by default if you are sending or receiving messages from them.
Additionally, RCS as a protocol does not support "Group Chats", so you can only use it from a single E.164 address to a second E.164 address, the second there is an additional device included in the message conversation such as a tablet, or a watch, the RCS end to end encryption fails.
Google has circumvented this issue by placing their Jibe servers in the middle so the RCS message no longer goes end to end but is converted from an E.164 address to an email address and then the Jibe server establishes a secure connection with the recipient and the message is relayed accordingly.

So if Apple implements RCS encryption then it will be broken for the vast majority of Apple users as very few only have an iPhone, it would also be handing control of all those messages to Google as the Jibe server relay implementation and handoff is done on the Telecom level and exists outside of Apple's control.
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
UnknownSouljer
As I have previously posted in this thread RCS as a protocol only supports end-to-end encryption when the source and destination are communicating with an E.164 formatted address (aka a phone number), so RCS end-to-end could not work say between an iPad and a cellphone, or 2 iPads, or a phone and a watch or laptop.

So as Apple iMessage also works on iPads, Apple Watch, and MacOS, end-to-end encryption fails by default if you are sending or receiving messages from them.
Additionally, RCS as a protocol does not support "Group Chats", so you can only use it from a single E.164 address to a second E.164 address, the second there is an additional device included in the message conversation such as a tablet, or a watch, the RCS end to end encryption fails.
Google has circumvented this issue by placing their Jibe servers in the middle so the RCS message no longer goes end to end but is converted from an E.164 address to an email address and then the Jibe server establishes a secure connection with the recipient and the message is relayed accordingly.

So if Apple implements RCS encryption then it will be broken for the vast majority of Apple users as very few only have an iPhone, it would also be handing control of all those messages to Google as the Jibe server relay implementation and handoff is done on the Telecom level and exists outside of Apple's control.
Click to expand...
I won't claim to understand all of the tech here, on these boards I feel like you're in the top 1%, because you keep up on everything and you're actively working with a lot of this stuff first hand. Anyway, fluff comment aside:

The hope for me would be that Apple would actually invest the time and money into the tech in order to actively have an RCS implementation worth having. I noted earlier that Apple is probably one of the few companies in the world that could handle the RCS traffic and take Google's hands off of it. They could likely even charge cell providers money every month to maintain said servers if they don't want to spend time managing it. All in the name of getting encryption across everything and creating a standard of interoperability that Google cannot or will not do while keeping their data theft and advertisements off of it.

So to me, it feels like a very "un-Apple" move to go into half-baked into a format that's already fractured and pick an implementation that for lack of a better word: "sucks". They may as well have created their own fork, fixed the problems, and told Google, "hey if you want to communicate with Apple devices (and we know you do), here is the encryption protocol for end-to-end". Google might be "annoyed" but they'd like do it. The irony is they might strip that from other Android users (leaving end-to-end off by default and/or burying it), but take the net benefit everywhere else.

Granted I'm talking about doing everything to the greatest net benefit of the end user. I understand the purpose here is just to get the EU to stop annoying them. But again, if they're acquiescing, I would hope they would do it in the most privacy centric "Apple way". And Apple could easily present this to the EU; countries like France as an example that are very privacy focused would likely side with Apple in light of how not privacy centric Google is.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I won't claim to understand all of the tech here, on these boards I feel like you're in the top 1%, because you keep up on everything and you're actively working with a lot of this stuff first hand. Anyway, fluff comment aside:

The hope for me would be that Apple would actually invest the time and money into the tech in order to actively have an RCS implementation worth having. I noted earlier that Apple is probably one of the few companies in the world that could handle the RCS traffic and take Google's hands off of it. They could likely even charge cell providers money every month to maintain said servers if they don't want to spend time managing it. All in the name of getting encryption across everything and creating a standard of interoperability that Google cannot or will not do while keeping their data theft and advertisements off of it.

So to me, it feels like a very "un-Apple" move to go into half-baked into a format that's already fractured and pick an implementation that for lack of a better word: "sucks". They may as well have created their own fork, fixed the problems, and told Google, "hey if you want to communicate with Apple devices (and we know you do), here is the encryption protocol for end-to-end". Google might be "annoyed" but they'd like do it. The irony is they might strip that from other Android users (leaving end-to-end off by default and/or burying it), but take the net benefit everywhere else.

Granted I'm talking about doing everything to the greatest net benefit of the end user. I understand the purpose here is just to get the EU to stop annoying them. But again, if they're acquiescing, I would hope they would do it in the most privacy centric "Apple way". And Apple could easily present this to the EU; countries like France as an example that are very privacy focused would likely side with Apple in light of how not privacy centric Google is.
Click to expand...
This boils down to a fundamental problem with how RCS has been implemented and handled as a whole.
iMessage works by not associating the phone number with anything at all, iMessage works completely with the user's iCloud account (Originally using XMPP but migrating to APN) so it uses a username and password to connect back to a central message relay there.
RCS was primarily designed as a point-to-point messaging system using E.164, Google worked around this by implementing a system very similar to Apple's with their Jibe servers.
To end the fragmented implementation of RCS Google and the GSMA have been working hand in hand, and Google has been working with most of the Mobile Network Operators to have their Jibe servers take over the RCS traffic duties on their networks.
If you read up on the GSMA's RCS implementation guidelines: https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/RCC.71-v2.6-1.pdf
you will come across this little bit here.
2.2.3 Multiple RCS clients
US2-4 As a user, I want to download as many RCS applications (messaging clients and diallers) as I choose, and use them without any additional manual configuration
NOTE: It is up to the MNO to determine how to provision additional RCS applications/instances.

Multiple devices such as an iPad and iPhone fall under the additional RCS instances guidelines, which most MNOs have already handed over to Google for that job.

So Apple needs to convince Google to make the change, then Google needs to convince the MNOs it's in their best interest to accept the updates, and any changes to those would need a lot of signatures because there was a lot of paperwork involved with Google taking on those services from the MNOs and changes like that would need to be reapproved.

Beaurocratic nastiness aside, How do the device registrations get handled in a seamless way that doesn't require Apple users to register and approve using Google as a middleman for their encrypted traffic to Android users, or how do Android users get registered in the iCloud system for their encrypted traffic to Apple and similarly approved of Apple handling their encryption to iOS devices. Because there is no way that either Google or Apple will hand off unilateral control of their platform's encrypted traffic to the other. So then what is needed is a neutral third party to facilitate that service, which currently doesn't really exist outside of say WhatsApp, but I doubt that either Google or Apple really want their cross-messaging encryption to be handled by them either.

This all boils down to the simple problem that RCS does not have a good API, and while RCS is an open standard, virtually all its existing implementations are proprietary, this is why just about every other platform is using XMPP instead as that is both open and has a fantastic API. But Apple stopped working with XMPP in 2016 and migrated to their proprietary APN format, and they killed off XMPP support in 2018 completely. https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview/

RCS is fundamentally broken, not because it isn't a good protocol or a good standard, but because the use case for what it was designed to do is too narrow and no longer matches how users actually use their messaging services on a day-to-day basis.

RCS as a basic unencrypted alternative to SMS/MMS is perfectly fine and is better in every measurable way to SMS/MMS the ugly bits come in when you start trying to figure out the encryption, message handling between multiple devices, and moving messages across different carriers (ex AT&T to Verison) where incompatibilities in how they deal with it may cause RCS to fail back to SMS regardless. I honestly don't see a scenario where Apple and Google agree on an implementation of the RCS encryption protocols, and supporting it without encryption solves every technical complaint Android, the EU, and Google have about openness, image and video quality, and emoji delivery, while still keeping them in that green unencrypted bubble.

The dick move of not supporting encryption here actually puts the problem back on Google and the MNOs to facilitate delivery of the messages over the base RCS standard and not the Google-modified ones, and by then excluding device registration to the Google Jibe servers keeps the iOS users off their RBM and MaaP platforms as those require encryption and forces the traffic through the Google Jibe servers so that Google "can ensure the messages and conversations don't violate ToS".

So really supporting RCS is ultimately a net 0 move for Apple if they don't include encryption because ultimately nothing functionally changes but it legally keeps the EU off their back, but at least photos and videos will come through at a higher resolution than they could over a similarly unencrypted SMS/MMS.


Note:
After additional consideration at least with Apple implementing RCS in some way they can come to the table and throw their weight behind it with the GSMA and potentially work with them there to implement a standard of RCS that They and Google can be happy with and work to roll it out together and then phase out the proprietary APN format. But as it currently stands this is a battle between a closed-proprietary format and an open-proprietary format, and really both are shitty options, and I am instead hoping that they one day both abandon APN and RCS and go back to XMPP.
 
Last edited:
Aurelius said:
Right to repair is better, not worse... the company has reengineered the iPhone and at least the MacBook Air (not sure about other lines) to improve repairability. Still some definite quirks, and it's expensive, but that's something.
Click to expand...
You can't swap Apple parts with Apple parts without stuff being disabled. All the parts are still serialized and need special software that we don't have. But hey, the good news is the back glass is easier to replace. Before you were better off using liquid nitrogen instead of heat to remove it.

View: https://youtu.be/dbRKQ0OjQeE?si=s9gGwxLqOYWBvtrG
 
DukenukemX said:
You can't swap Apple parts with Apple parts without stuff being disabled. All the parts are still serialized and need special software that we don't have. But hey, the good news is the back glass is easier to replace. Before you were better off using liquid nitrogen instead of heat to remove it.

View: https://youtu.be/dbRKQ0OjQeE?si=s9gGwxLqOYWBvtrG
Click to expand...

They’ve been doing this since the XR and I get it, it’s a response to the fake iPhone problems they were having in China and India. But it’s a nasty kick to the dick, I stopped trying to fix them when they started gluing the batteries down think that was the 7??? Had one pop in my face while I was detaching it and got a lung full of burning Lithium, made for a bad week.
 
DukenukemX said:
Not a surprise that RCS will still be blue bubbles. Looks like more Android users aren't going on dates with iPhone users.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-confirms-rcs-messages-will-have-green-bubbles/
Click to expand...
How the telecoms and Google have set up device registration for multi device and group chat is ugly as sin. I can’t blame them for wanting no part of that, Apple is going to need to work with Google and the GSMA to modify how that is handled honestly it’s probably going to need enough of an overhaul to result in RCS Universal 3.0 and I’d bet when done it looks strikingly similar to XMPP hell might be easier if the EU sits the lot of them down and locks them in a room with nothing but some stale McD’s and tells them they can’t come out until the 3 of them agree on a single protocol and implementation.
 
Lakados said:
How the telecoms and Google have set up device registration for multi device and group chat is ugly as sin. I can’t blame them for wanting no part of that, Apple is going to need to work with Google and the GSMA to modify how that is handled honestly it’s probably going to need enough of an overhaul to result in RCS Universal 3.0 and I’d bet when done it looks strikingly similar to XMPP hell might be easier if the EU sits the lot of them down and locks them in a room with nothing but some stale McD’s and tells them they can’t come out until the 3 of them agree on a single protocol and implementation.
Click to expand...
RCS is a mess thanks to Google. If Apple can bring it together then so much the better. Google keeps dry humping Apple's leg for them to adopt RCS, so now they got their wish.
 
DukenukemX said:
RCS is a mess thanks to Google. If Apple can bring it together then so much the better. Google keeps dry humping Apple's leg for them to adopt RCS, so now they got their wish.
Click to expand...
Google took advantage of the fact the GSMA is a useless yes man for the telecoms and has no actual, power, authority, or brains behind their decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top