It’s happening!!!

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    What do you think Apple will do? 😁

    Cue several years of Google and Apple pointing at each other and shouting “see, they don’t want to be compatible with us!”

    RCS was an idiotic take from the start. It should’ve been a layer of encryption over SMS and remain otherwise stateless and platform agnostic.

    But of course companies and governments don’t really want encryption. So it became something that’s trivially easy to subvert by each company that implements it, because it needs to pass through servers, and who controls the servers gets to be an ass about it.

    • skuzz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      RCS was an idiotic take from the start.

      It’s origin came from a good place. The wireless industry, not Google, started driving the standard to retire/replace SMS/MMS. However, then the wireless industry was reduced to a duo-culture and Google decided to drive RCS after many years of carriers/manufacturers trying to do their own thing to little success.

      Another route: MMS could be enhanced to have some modern features while still being backwards-compatible. The datagrams are just XML and the syntax is akin to E-Mail. Larger message sizes could be supported, while the gateways still handle resize/reformat for older device backwards compatibility. There was even a format for a few minutes in the early aughts called EMS that had some promise but it died from disuse. Message delivery confirmation has existed since GSM and CDMA.

      There’s even a standard for IMS video calls that has been in the 3GPP stack since the 1999 release that would’ve allowed universal standard video calls. Since carriers hated building data networks and consumers weren’t ready for video calls, it just sat stagnant until iChat AV/FaceTime came along and popularized video calls. It’s still there, it could still be used.

      Somewhere along the way, standards-based universal calls, video, and messaging took a back seat to tech bros and their proprietary stacks, and governments (at least the US) were too stupid and incompetent to understand what regulation was necessary to correct this path we are now on. Hopefully the EU can continue to help fix this.

    • 𝕽𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖙@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It should’ve been a layer of encryption over SMS and remain otherwise stateless and platform agnostic.

      Umm what?

      SMS has a very short size limit. Implementing RCS as an encryption layer on top of it would require devices to send several messages just to cover a short one-word reply. They also often come out of order so they would need to include a numbering system so the client could piece them back together.

      Granted that is already how SMS works on modern devices, but the underlying protocol is woefully inept at modern messaging and completely unviable for what you’re proposing.

      How should media attachments work? I assume you expect that to just use encryption built on MMS? So media can come through even more compressed than basic MMS? None of the actual benefits of RCS would be possible if it was built on top of the existing ancient standards.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Encrypting doesn’t necessarily boost the size of the message. You can also use compression very effectively since it’s mostly text.

        You don’t need to also solve media hosting, you can just leave it be links like it is now. Just adding encryption would be an amazing improvement.

        There are no additional changes needed to the transport layer, it would be transparent for telcos. It can be an OTG encryption layer.

        Initial key exchange would be the only part that would require a couple of additional one-time messages but it would be automated. And not all messages need to be encrypted, nobody cares that my package has been shipped. And it would be an improvement anyway from having zero encryption to being able to have encryption

        The whole thing is so simple that it could be implemented today by all the SMS apps without missing a beat. The only thing missing is the willingness to do so.

        In fact it could be added as an option in any SMS app very easily — only for people who are both on the same app of course.