RCS makes everything better by forcing us to add a second proprietary communication standard to our phone that is advertised by Google and required by Chinese law regulations. And is also know for bad security…. What could possibly go wrong.
I still don’t get what’s so great about RCS over SMS/MMS? There’s E2EE but that won’t be in this implementation apparently.
Being able to send pictures and videos without SMS/MMS downscaling them to like 144p (hell I’ve had it be even worse than that for videos sometimes) is incredibly handy. That’s the main benefit for me. Others have commented about the other features. And I’m fairly certain the article did state E2EE will be implemented.
A variety of small but useful features. Typing indicator, reactions, read receipts, and larger media limits. I’m sure there’s more, that’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
You can send rcs messages over Wifi even if you don’t have a cell signal, like iMessage. You can also get iPhone emoji reactions to messages instead of getting a text message saying “X hearted this,” or w/e
SMS has read receipts too. I’m not sure I care about any of the others.
Okay.
okay, so, the idea was initially to build something akin to SMS/MMS in the way it’s used but make it more ready for the modern age
just a couple of problems:
- End-To-End-Encryption isn’t officially a part of RCS itself thanks to Telcom companies in the US not being allowed to add that
- Google Messages is literally the only way to use RCS right now.
- It’s “open”-ness is quite disputed due to Google’s control over it
really, we should either be using Matrix, or at the very least build out XMPP into something more modern.
what do you mean Telecoms companies aren’t allowed to add E2EE? there is no such regulation I’m aware of.
besides, how would Apple have been supporting E2EE in iMessage for so long if Telecoms companies weren’t allowed?
could be a motivation issue, but not a regulation issue.
Well for one, iMessage runs over the internet and Apple isn’t a telecom company (Verizon, etc)
Either way, the TL;DR is that either there must be a backdoor or something else to allow law enforcement to access communications that run over telecom companies. This doesn’t apply when a user does it, but definitely when telecom companies design a messaging protocol.
yes I know Apple isn’t a Telecoms company but you need a SIM from a Telecoms company to use iMessage. RCS runs over the Internet too, yet you also need a SIM card for that. Also Telecoms companies aren’t designing message protocols anymore. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
iMessage can also run over e-mail.
And RCS was designed by the GSMA which is effectively a bunch if telecommunications companies.
Blue bubbles.
(I’m half joking)
Videos that don’t compress to hell when there’s both iOS and Android in a chat, that’s the main feature.
It only has E2EE if you use Google’s proprietary implementation. And even then it’s not the best implementation of E2EE.
There has been some chatter of adding it to the RCS spec, though.
Not that it matters that much, on Android you’re still locked to Google’s RCS API and the same will be true to iOS with Apple’s.
One feature I found extremely useful is that you can now quote previous texts. Less useful is the ability to react to texts with emojis. But it’s good for letting someone know that you saw/liked their message by reacting with a thumbs up.
Let’s use a protocol that shadily blocks everything google doesn’t like. Yeah, fuck that.
Right? Google cries about how Apple is so exclusive with their messaging and still pulls the same draconian shit. What a joke
What is this about?
The main RCS benefit is sharing videos between Apple and Android that don’t look like potatoes. Can’t imagine what is being shadily blocked there.
Try using a custom ROM on Android and you’ll quickly see.
Does it have end to end encryption like iMessage or WhatsApp? No. The winners and the losers are clear to me.
more like Signal, which is superior to Whatsapp snd iMessage
Isn’t WhatsApp using Signal protocol? Isn’t also iMessage using post quantum computing cryptography like Signal?
I know Signal is superior privacy wise, but is not that used
Public-private key signing, using up to date cryptography. That’s it. It’s also “quantum safe”, because all cryptography used by the public goes through peer review processes.
Microsoft as well as Meta have contracted Whisper Systems, but there’s no way of guaranteeing that the signing process is functionally working or if it’s been broken. If it’s run server side, you have no clue. If it’s run client side, there’s still a question if the process hasn’t been tampered with in some way.
Remember: there is no such thing as cryptography with a backdoor. At that point, it’s just a secrets system.
WhatsApp does use the Signal protocol, but unlike Signal only applies it to Messages, Calls and Status.
Your profile info, who you’re talking to, when you’re using the service, groups you’re in, channels you’re following and much more is left unprotected intentionally.
For instance, Signal sends your profile end-to-end-encrypted instead of leaving it freely accessible on servers.
And then there’s Outlook just being its ancient self.
