RCS is in theory and intended to be a carrier service. From what Apple announced, all we know of what they are doing is is 1) adding RCS protocol support to Messages and 2) working with the GSM Association to beef up security, somehow.
In reality, RCS is practically a Google service at this point, and we don’t know a damn thing about how that is going to affect interoperability since the carriers have more or less outsourced the service to Google.
Yes, I think RCS will be supported free of charge similar to SMS and MMS today. I also suspect that Apple will reserve blue bubbles for native iMessage and use green bubbles for RCS.
Does RCS rely on Apple servers? If it just goes through the same carrier network the way SMS does, why would Apple need to be compensated for the use of their cloud infrastructure?
Yes, as a non-standard google extension that is not guaranteed to be present.
To illustrate the issue, imagine apple added support for "encrypted RCS" that was just iMessage's message blob stuck in an RCS blob (this is essentially how google's encrypted messaging solution works). Would you be ok with that being presented as "encrypted RCS"?
If only there was an encrypted chat service, that works on multiple devices, has a single identity across all of them, etc. Oh well, guess we'll all have to buy iPhones to use iMessage.
Correct! There are numerous options available across a wide variety of platforms, and yet people obsess specifically over iMessage because of perceived (and seemingly US only?) obsession with blue bubbles.
The only "ethics" problem I see is a company using it's considerable weight to deliberately segregate users of different platforms, resulting in discrimination and bullying. I understand a lot of people here may not understand this, on account of not being a teenager or young adult, but it is a very real phenomenon.
Not even young at this point. I overheard two grown men talking about how much they hate people with green bubbles and purposely skip inviting them into group chats because of it.
I have been a grown man on both sides of that conversation: left out of group chats due to being a green bubble, and now tacitly approving of not including green bubbles in otherwise pristine-seas-of-blue chats.
It's less about the background color and more about the endless series of interoperability paper cuts that exist with green bubbles. Will my reaction emoji come through as intended? Will my shared media get downsampled to feature phone quality? Will referencing the person's name in chat work the same? etc etc etc.
Interop is always a pain, but the sooner Apple can be forced into making any concessions the better.
It would help if Google wasn't a complete joke in the messaging space though. As much as I want iMessage interop with Android users, I have no faith or trust in any Google-based messaging app or initiative. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me dozens of times ... well I'd be an idiot to trust Google messaging again.
The fact that a huge number of perfectly good third party chat apps exist and yet most Apple users prefer iMessage is a huge testament to iMessage just being a really well made product. I wouldn't put up with the obnoxious interop and lockin issues if it weren't!
As an Android user who texts with other Android users, RCS works just fine. Automatic e2e encryption whenever it's available, reactions work (and support every unicode emoji, not just the 6 Apple supports), threading works perfectly, photos and videos come through in full quality.
Recently Google Messages started automatically translating the shitty little 'So-and-so hearted "<previous message>"' SMS messages Apple sends out from iMessage into reactions as well.
It's genuinely quite good. I prefer it over Signal when I know the other person has an Android too.
To be clear, I don’t think people actually look down on green bubbles vs. blue ones, it’s just that the presence of a green bubble in a Messages chat leads to numerous issues with threading, reactions, etc. (which is also something we can blame Apple for, but different than disliking a person for using an Android phone).
If I were a profitable company and I knew I could end bullying resulting from my product without significantly harming my business, and I chose not too, would I be acting ethically?
Apple could also end bullying by giving their phones away for free so every kid in high school could use iMessage. Is it acting ethically if they don't do that? Exactly how much of Apple's products and services should be made available to everyone, and where/how do you draw the line?
To be clear, I don't have a dog in this race. I have an iPhone but barely use iMessages.
> At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won't last.
I wish companies wouldn't see it like this. I'm not going to speak on this one specifically, but the other one (Beeper Cloud) "makes Apple money" in that i'm more likely to buy into the Apple ecosystem. Ie normally i'm wanting to get out, because Apple likes to play all-or-nothing with the features that i buy from them. As someone who has an Apple watch, phone, laptop, tv, tv+, airpods.. yet works on Linux & PC, it makes me want to switch away from Apple if i can find better hardware.
Beeper lets me get _some of the features i pay for_, which makes me not want to switch.
Makes me sad that so many companies have this view of direct income or piss off. Secondary benefits are real imo, and it's what i personally want to buy. Apple feels actively hostile to me, and it makes me want to leave.
OTOH this software existing does change the conversation, especially if the solution gains significant media attention or becomes popular. Hopefully this solution passes muster and does effect some kind of change.
Remember when Apple promised that Facetime would be based on SIP and would be interoperable? Neither does anyone. I hope that someone opens this Pandora's box also and gives it to every grandma on the planet before Apple has a chance to ban it.
This indeed changes a lot. If this gets enough traction to be visible and Apple blocks it, it’ll further complicate their relations with the European Commission, who are currently investigating whether iMessage should be regulated under the Digital Markets Act.
There's probably indeed a pragmatic issue with the service not lasting, but it is not an ethics problem. If anything, it's unethical for Apple to be so damn proprietary.
That’s a positive way to formulate it. The more cynical formulation is that it is a way to lock people into the Apple ecosystem and (especially in the US) to apply social pressure to people to buy an iPhone.
Apple isn’t in the business of offering anything to Android users without getting anything in return. A value-add is something you offer only your existing or prospective customers, and that can have a lock-in effect, but only if you value it a lot. Keep in mind when iMessage launched, that it only worked with other iPhone users was a much heftier limitation because the smartphone market still had Symbian, BlackBerries, Windows Mobile, and Palm in it in addition to some very early Android models, and not everybody buying cellphones was buying smartphones yet.
> Do we provide recompense to YCombinator for using hackernews?
Yes. Asking this question is original content. My reply is additional. Those reading this thread are community members.
All of this drives the visibility of new YC batch application kickoffs. Ultimately, YC founders, and some of these early leads result in big investment returns.
Apple's "free" services are all dependent on you having bought apple products. When you buy a device, the "profit" on the hardware (the oft reference BoM only cost) also pays for the software development, the services, etc.
Claiming that anyone should be able to use those services because they're "free" is like saying anyone should be able to get free service at Toyota garages because Toyota does free service for people who bought a Toyota vehicle.
I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. Should we, as a society, allow companies to lock people into platforms, and discriminate against those who have decided not to fall prey to that lock-in? Especially when avoiding that lock-in (which is often a passive financial/economic choice, not an active rights/freedom one) actually causes social and emotional harm (the whole "green bubble bullying" is a real thing; yes, I think it's dumb too, but what we think is irrelevant).
Personally, I think the answer is "no", we should not allow that sort of thing. Profit is not the most important thing in the world, by far.
Your car analogy falls flat, as is the case with most car analogies. No one would expect to get free service at any garage, and that is unrelated to the topic at hand. You can go to any garage, and they're mostly not model specific; even when they are, there are plenty of third-party alternatives. (And this is why locking down car hardware/software such that only the manufacturer can provide service is a garbage practice that we should legally disallow.)
Google makes that money by spying on people and using that for ads.
Apple makes that money by selling hardware.
You're saying that both companies should be required to provide the services they render, but apple's model of paying for it by selling hardware should be banned.
Also, go talk to someone who has bought a new car, and ask them how much their servicing costs. If they go to their manufacturer's service centers the regular services are free for the first few years, but if they go to an unrelated mechanic it costs money.
I do have a spare iPhone in a drawer, still works and can message on iMessage. There, I have purchased Apple hardware, now can I use iMessage on my Android phone?
For the same reason that if you buy a game for xbox, and then when you later buy a playstation you can't turn around and demand that MS port the various xbox services to the playstation, or a publisher port an xbox game to playstation.
One of the ways they got to having billions in the bank is by selling things for money at a profit. If Apple ever offers iMessage to Android users directly, Apple is going to get paid somehow.
At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won't last.
Apple should have added an iMessage client to Android (and charged for it) long, long, long ago, but it doesn't change the ethics problem here.
(This is the downside to the "just pay for it with hardware" model people always love rather than paying subscription fees.)