RCS chats

[Stan Brown]

Samsung Galaxy A54, Android 13

I use the Google Messaging app. It's started nagging me
to enable RCS Chats. I did some googling, but the
articles all seem to be either the nuts and bolts of
enabling/disabling, or glowing but vague praises of how
wonderful RCS Chats is.

Potential cons:

1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
frequently text with all have iPhones.)

2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.

Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
to?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[Andy Burns]

Stan Brown wrote:

> 1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
> frequently text with all have iPhones.)

Just reverts to SMS (or MMS I guess, I never send those due to £££)

> 2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
> videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.

You can turn off read receipt (and typing indicators)

> Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
> could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
> to?

Yes, my network used to provide RCS via their own servers, they have
recently bounced users over to Google/jibe's servers, can't comment yet
if the reliability has changed.

I don't do WhatsApp (and trying to convince friends to use
Signal/Telegram would be an uphill struggle) so the ability to sent free
picture messages to at least my android-using contacts is handy.

[Bob Henson]

Stan Brown wrote:

> Samsung Galaxy A54, Android 13
>
> I use the Google Messaging app. It's started nagging me
> to enable RCS Chats. I did some googling, but the
> articles all seem to be either the nuts and bolts of
> enabling/disabling, or glowing but vague praises of how
> wonderful RCS Chats is.
>
> Potential cons:
>
> 1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
> frequently text with all have iPhones.)
>
> 2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
> videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.
>
> Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
> could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
> to?

If it is enabled and you accidentally go over the SMS limit, or add
something that isn't allowed in SMS, it sends it as an MMS and costs a
mint. There may be a way to prevent that now, but I couldn't find one at
the time it first appeared. I found another app that only does SMS
(Spamhound) and which enables blocking of commercial and other spam. I'm
sure there are others which are SMS only.


--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Can you be a closet claustrophobic?

[KenW]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:10:28 -0700, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Samsung Galaxy A54, Android 13
>
>I use the Google Messaging app. It's started nagging me
>to enable RCS Chats. I did some googling, but the
>articles all seem to be either the nuts and bolts of
>enabling/disabling, or glowing but vague praises of how
>wonderful RCS Chats is.
>
>Potential cons:
>
>1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
>frequently text with all have iPhones.)
>
>2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
>videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.
>
>Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
>could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
>to?

Don't forget Google saves every message. That is why I went back to
original messaging app.


KenW

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-10-28 20:10, Stan Brown wrote:
> Samsung Galaxy A54, Android 13
>
> I use the Google Messaging app. It's started nagging me
> to enable RCS Chats. I did some googling, but the
> articles all seem to be either the nuts and bolts of
> enabling/disabling, or glowing but vague praises of how
> wonderful RCS Chats is.
>
> Potential cons:
>
> 1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
> frequently text with all have iPhones.)

Doesn't matter. If RCS is not available, the tool will use the previous
method.

> 2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
> videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.

I've never been sent anything "big". I don't know about they knowing if
you opened the message or files. I'll have to find out about that.

The feature exists in email since decades, but many clients ask you
before sending that information back (configurable). Windows perhaps
sends it silently.

WhatsApp, for instance, behaves by default that way (for every message).
No big deal, you can disable it.

>
> Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
> could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
> to?

I enabled it soon after I learned about it.

It has features that have been there since ages for other messaging
apps, like WhatsApp. I have not seen anything bad about it. The worst
that I heard is that it will not get enough users to matter.

For me, it has one very important feature: sending a message to my
relatives across the pond costs me money, as much as an euro per
message. But sending via RCS is free. If you live in NA and only message
people in NA, it will not matter to you.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

It was common for apps to tell you when the current message would be
sent as MMS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 28.10.23 um 20:10 schrieb Stan Brown:

> Samsung Galaxy A54, Android 13
>
> I use the Google Messaging app. It's started nagging me
> to enable RCS Chats. I did some googling, but the
> articles all seem to be either the nuts and bolts of
> enabling/disabling, or glowing but vague praises of how
> wonderful RCS Chats is.
>
> Potential cons:
>
> 1. Doesn't work for iPhones. (The family and friends I
> frequently text with all have iPhones.)
>
> 2. Businesses can send long messages, big files, and
> videos, and learn whether I ever opened them.
>
> Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
> could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
> to?

You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.

It is so simple: Nobody needs it.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Andy Burns]

Carlos E. R. wrote:

> It was common for apps to tell you when the current message would be
> sent as MMS.

I do remember an issue around the android 4.x era where the stock
messaging app would 'promote' an SMS message sent to multiple recipients
into an MMS message for group chat.

But google hadn't realised that SMS and MMS were/are charged very
differently in some countries (e.g. the UK) they must have got plenty of
complaints as it was soon reversed.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 08:04 schrieb Andy Burns:

Because of cost and quality issues MMS never reached a relevant market
share in Europe. In some countries like Switzerland for instance
MMS-services were ceased a while ago.

[Carlos E. R.]

Stan: don't listen to him.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

Carlos: Learn to face the facts! Nobody needs RCS.
*RCS is a gimp*. If someone wants to enjoy privacy RCS is the hell. And
if someone wants to chat even WhatsApp is the better solution.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

I use RCS on my Pixel 7: Nobody needs that. Got max. 6 RCS-messages
since I activated it years back.

iOS users laugh themselves to death. Google clearly missed out and RCS
is not the solution for Android and its users.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 2023-10-29 08:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>>
>
>
> Stan: don't listen to him.

Google supports RCS on Android devices with its Android SMS app
Messages. In April 2018, it was reported that Google would be
transferring the team that was working on its Google Allo messaging
service to work on a wider RCS implementation.[19][20][21] In June 2019,
Google announced that it would begin to deploy RCS on an opt-in basis
via the Messages app, with service compliant with the Universal Profile
and hosted by Google rather than the user's carrier. The rollout of this
functionality began in France and the United Kingdom.[19][20] Google
initially branded RCS functionality under the generic term "chat
features"; in February 2023 Google began to replace references to "chat"
with "RCS".[7]

In response to concerns over the lack of end-to-end encryption in RCS,
Google stated that it would only retain message data in transit until it
is delivered to the recipient.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

*Nobody needs it*!

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:10:28 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> Has anyone here actually enabled RCS Chats, and if so
> could you mention one or two reasons why I might want
> to?

Thanks to all who responded. It sounds like RCS Chats has advantages
for some people, but those don't apply to how I use messaging. I'm in
the US and only message people in the US, and both data and messaging
are free and unlimited with my plan. (If you're curious, check out
<Visible.com>, a subsidiary of Verizon.) I've already sent the
occasional image or video to family via Messaging, so I know that
works without RCS Chats. Being a dinosaur, I don't use any social
media apps or websites, so being able to do the equivalent in
Messaging doesn't attract me.

Somebody mentioned "read receipts" in email. It's a long time since I
used any other mail client, but in Thunderbird, which I've been
using for years I have both receipts and viewing of remote images
disabled. My email provider doesn't even have a setting: it never
responds to read-receipt requests.

After reading what everyone wrote, I have dismissed the Google
prompt. Hopefully it won't reappear every time I open Messages!

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-10-29 16:05, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 2023-10-29 08:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
>>> Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
>>> send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
>>> Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.
>>>
>>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stan: don't listen to him.
>
> Carlos: Learn to face the facts! Nobody needs RCS.

I do, that's a fact, so you got your facts wrong.

You have claimed that many times, your ideas were debunked by several
posters, but you insist in your false claims.

So your facts are just your personal opinions.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

Activating it doesn't harm you in anyway. You simply have some more
features, and maybe some of your correspondents do need it.

I have relatives in Canada. RCS doesn't directly benefit them, but it
does benefit me, a lot, if they activate it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 20:09 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

Google supports RCS on Android devices with its Android SMS app
Messages. In April 2018, it was reported that Google would be
transferring the team that was working on its Google Allo messaging
service to work on a wider RCS implementation.[19][20][21] In June 2019,
Google announced that it would begin to deploy RCS on an opt-in basis
via the Messages app, with service compliant with the Universal Profile
and hosted by Google rather than the user's carrier. The rollout of this
functionality began in France and the United Kingdom.[19][20] Google
initially branded RCS functionality under the generic term "chat
features"; in February 2023 Google began to replace references to "chat"
with "RCS".[7]

In response to concerns over the lack of end-to-end encryption in RCS,
Google stated that it would only retain message data in transit until it
is delivered to the recipient.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

*Nobody needs it*!

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 29.10.23 um 20:14 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> Activating it doesn't harm you in anyway. You simply have some more
> features, and maybe some of your correspondents do need it.

Nobody needs a man in the middle (=Google).

> I have relatives in Canada. RCS doesn't directly benefit them, but it
> does benefit me, a lot, if they activate it.

My friends and relatives in the US all use either iMessage (majority) or
WA, Signal, Telegram or other instant messengers (minority).

Nobody uses RCS.

[Frank Slootweg]

Don't be so hard on poor Jörg! He can't help it that he has no display
or/and no eyes or/and no <deleted>, can he!?

[Carlos E. R.]

So what? :-D

Without RCS, the default messaging app doesn't ever encrypt anything.
SMSs are sent in the clear.

And we are talking of the default messaging application.

>
> Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
>
> *Nobody needs it*!
>
>

--

Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

:-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Dave Royal]

"Never argue with a fool, for he is doing the same."
(Les Barker.)


--
(Remove numerics from email address)

[Wally J]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote

> Thanks to all who responded. It sounds like RCS Chats has advantages
> for some people, but those don't apply to how I use messaging. I'm in
> the US and only message people in the US, and both data and messaging
> are free and unlimited with my plan.

Hi Stan,

This is an FYI to let you know of another possible similar solution...
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

I'm NOT suggesting you install this program, but I am letting you know that
it seems to be trying to do what RCS does for Android & Messages for iOS.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>

BTW, I'm well aware the Klinker brothers sold to Maple Media, so I use the
last known good version of the app - which still does the same things well.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/OO-0G-_1qeU/m/dmDU_yaVBAAJ>

Just to repeat - I'm not suggesting you install it - but I am saying that I
tested every free adfree messaging app ever suggested on this newsgroup (at
least as of about two years ago when I ran those tests) and I found it the
best (and it still works fine even though my version is frozen in time).
<https://support.pulsesms.app/hc/en-us/articles/15528018713499-Pulse-SMS-What-is-Pulse-SMS->

a. The entire iOS newsgroup couldn't find anything that the default Apple
iOS messaging app does that PulseSMS didn't already do (plus things).
b. And as far as I can tell, I don't know if there's anything that RCS
does that PulseSMS doesn't already do (although at cost as Andy noted).

But I could be wrong because I don't use RCS and in fact, I don't know why
anyone in the USA does given our MMS messages are usually free & unlimited.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 30.10.23 um 19:12 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

That is OT and everybody knows it.

> And we are talking of the default messaging application.

Who cares? RCS is a gimp.

[Jörg Lorenz]

On 30.10.23 19:34, Dave Royal wrote:
> "Never argue with a fool, for he is doing the same."
> (Les Barker.)

That's why I can easily abstain from talking to you, Troll.

[Carlos E. R.]

LOL! That's a new one. Not accepted :-P

>
>> And we are talking of the default messaging application.
>
> Who cares? RCS is a gimp.
>

--

Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 31.10.23 um 14:49 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 2023-10-31 02:51, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 30.10.23 um 19:12 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

>>> And we are talking of the default messaging application.
>>
>> Who cares? RCS is a gimp.

And one day you will be alone and lonely in your RCS-bubble.

--
Alea icacta est

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:49:33 -0400, Wally J wrote:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>
> > Thanks to all who responded. It sounds like RCS Chats has advantages
> > for some people, but those don't apply to how I use messaging. I'm in
> > the US and only message people in the US, and both data and messaging
> > are free and unlimited with my plan.
>
> Hi Stan,
>
> This is an FYI to let you know of another possible similar solution...
> <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
>

Thank you for the information. But since nobody has mentioned any
feature of RCS Chats that I would actually use, I don't think I need
to try out alternative ways of getting similar functionality. :-)

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-10-31 20:12, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:49:33 -0400, Wally J wrote:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>
>>> Thanks to all who responded. It sounds like RCS Chats has advantages
>>> for some people, but those don't apply to how I use messaging. I'm in
>>> the US and only message people in the US, and both data and messaging
>>> are free and unlimited with my plan.
>>
>> Hi Stan,
>>
>> This is an FYI to let you know of another possible similar solution...
>> <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
>>
>
> Thank you for the information. But since nobody has mentioned any
> feature of RCS Chats that I would actually use, I don't think I need
> to try out alternative ways of getting similar functionality. :-)

I understand that new Android phones ship with RCS activated by default.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-10-29 08:00:

More detailed:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>

And Nokia was not the developer but only the initiator of that standard
in 2008. But multiple companies got involved and it is maintained by the
GSMA.

Some providers also tried to market RCS with the "Joyn" app which
totally failed.

Compared to messengers like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc. RCS is more
or less meaningless.


--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-10-29 20:09:

> On 2023-10-29 16:05, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>> On 2023-10-29 08:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
>>>> Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
>>>> send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
>>>> Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.
>>>>
>>>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stan: don't listen to him.
>>
>> Carlos: Learn to face the facts! Nobody needs RCS.
>
> I do, that's a fact, so you got your facts wrong.

How many people do you know who use RCS? Can you send messages using RCS
to people with an Apple iPhone?

[Stan Brown]

Not just new phones. After I dismissed Google's nag to
enable RCS chats, I got a notification that RCS Chats
enabled is now the default. Fortunately the
notification linked to the appropriate setting, so I
was able to turn it off.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
make money off of it?

[Andy Burns]

Stan Brown wrote:

> does anyone know why Google is being so aggressive about promoting
> RCS Chats?

They acquired Jibe Mobile for their RCS platform, presumably so that
Android has an equivalent to Apple's iMessage.

Everyone seems to fawn over iMessage but be critical of RCS ...

> How will they make money off of it?

Maybe they don't see it as a specific service to make money from, but
just one part of the overall android phones offer?

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.11.23 um 08:40 schrieb Arno Welzel:

He can but the message will never arrive as RCS. In North America that
would be over 50% of the installed base.

--
Alea icacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.11.23 um 08:37 schrieb Arno Welzel:

> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-10-29 08:00:

>> You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
>> Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
>> send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
>> Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.
>>
>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>
> More detailed:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>

I posted this link a couple of times in the past. No news.

> And Nokia was not the developer but only the initiator of that standard
> in 2008. But multiple companies got involved and it is maintained by the
> GSMA.
>
> Some providers also tried to market RCS with the "Joyn" app which
> totally failed.

This is quite obvious.

> Compared to messengers like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc. RCS is more
> or less meaningless.

My words exactly for months.

--
Alea icacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 30.10.23 um 16:26 schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> Don't be so hard on poor Jörg! He can't help it that he has no display
> or/and no eyes or/and no <deleted>, can he!?

Poor Dutchie. No arguments.
The market share of RCS is not materially different from zero.

--
Alea icacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 31.10.23 um 21:44 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

So what! That does not change anything.

--
Alea icacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.11.23 um 09:22 schrieb Stan Brown:

> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
> so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
> make money off of it?

Google is frustrated because they never got a foothold in the
messenger/social media market the fastest growing market. Every attempt
failed.

And the worst is that Apple has iMessage which is the Gold Standard and
Android users have to use third party apps like Whats App, Signal,
Telegram or Threema. Google is missing a lot of money.

--
Alea icacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.11.23 um 09:42 schrieb Andy Burns:

> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> does anyone know why Google is being so aggressive about promoting
>> RCS Chats?
>
> They acquired Jibe Mobile for their RCS platform, presumably so that
> Android has an equivalent to Apple's iMessage.
>
> Everyone seems to fawn over iMessage but be critical of RCS ...

Reasons being quit simple: RCS is a privacy nightmare compared to the
end-to-end encryption of iMessage and it is lacking a couple of
functionalities iMessage has for years.


--
Alea icacta est

[Dave Royal]

On 1 Nov 2023 01:22:18 -0700 Stan Brown wrote:

>Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
>so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
>make money off of it?

The unavailability of iMessages on Android prevents iOS users switching to
Android devices. Peer pressure among children makes Android phones less
attractive - search for 'iphone blue bubbles' if you don't know about
that.

Google want to persuade, if posible, or force - using anti-monolopy
legislation - Apple to allow iMessage to interwork with Android devices.
They therefore need to establish a similar messaging facility among
Android users so that Apple's refusal to cooperate is seen as
anti-competitive.

There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS facility
with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-11-01 09:50:

> Am 01.11.23 um 08:37 schrieb Arno Welzel:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-10-29 08:00:
>>> You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
>>> Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
>>> send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
>>> Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.
>>>
>>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>>
>> More detailed:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
>
> I posted this link a couple of times in the past. No news.

Your comment is no news either.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-10-29 20:09:
>
>> On 2023-10-29 16:05, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.10.23 um 12:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 2023-10-29 08:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> You summarize it: RCS is a very old Nokia development.
>>>>> Nobody needs it and almost 50% of mobiles in the field cannot receive or
>>>>> send it. Privacy is abusive and it is a project of a frustrated
>>>>> Google-company that missed out the instant messaging market completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is so simple: Nobody needs it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stan: don't listen to him.
>>>
>>> Carlos: Learn to face the facts! Nobody needs RCS.
>>
>> I do, that's a fact, so you got your facts wrong.
>
> How many people do you know who use RCS?

Several.

> Can you send messages using RCS
> to people with an Apple iPhone?

I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-01 09:22, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:44:47 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-10-31 20:12, Stan Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:49:33 -0400, Wally J wrote:
>>>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to all who responded. It sounds like RCS Chats has advantages
>>>>> for some people, but those don't apply to how I use messaging. I'm in
>>>>> the US and only message people in the US, and both data and messaging
>>>>> are free and unlimited with my plan.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stan,
>>>>
>>>> This is an FYI to let you know of another possible similar solution...
>>>> <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the information. But since nobody has mentioned any
>>> feature of RCS Chats that I would actually use, I don't think I need
>>> to try out alternative ways of getting similar functionality. :-)
>>
>> I understand that new Android phones ship with RCS activated by default.
>
> Not just new phones. After I dismissed Google's nag to
> enable RCS chats, I got a notification that RCS Chats
> enabled is now the default. Fortunately the
> notification linked to the appropriate setting, so I
> was able to turn it off.

Why? It will not hurt leaving it on.

> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
> so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
> make money off of it?

Because it improves "the android experience".

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

<whoosh!>

Because you don't have the mentioned equipment - or at least clearly
don't use it -, you *still* don't get Carlos' argument why it is
beneficial to *him* (and probably others). *Nobody* - except you with
your silly footstamping - is talking about market share.

[Frank Slootweg]

Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2023 01:22:18 -0700 Stan Brown wrote:
>
> >Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
> >so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
> >make money off of it?
>
> The unavailability of iMessages on Android prevents iOS users switching to
> Android devices. Peer pressure among children makes Android phones less
> attractive - search for 'iphone blue bubbles' if you don't know about
> that.
>
> Google want to persuade, if posible, or force - using anti-monolopy
> legislation - Apple to allow iMessage to interwork with Android devices.
> They therefore need to establish a similar messaging facility among
> Android users so that Apple's refusal to cooperate is seen as
> anti-competitive.

In the EU, such legislation is already in the making. Not only for
Apple (iMessage), but also for WhatsApp and other commercial IM
platforms, i.e. also for Google.

> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS facility
> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.

Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 01:22:18 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
> so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
> make money off of it?

Thanks to those who gave various reasons or possible reasons, and
satisfied my curiosity!

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-01 17:54, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2023 01:22:18 -0700 Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Google is being
>>> so aggressive about promoting RCS Chats? How will they
>>> make money off of it?
>>
>> The unavailability of iMessages on Android prevents iOS users switching to
>> Android devices. Peer pressure among children makes Android phones less
>> attractive - search for 'iphone blue bubbles' if you don't know about
>> that.
>>
>> Google want to persuade, if posible, or force - using anti-monolopy
>> legislation - Apple to allow iMessage to interwork with Android devices.
>> They therefore need to establish a similar messaging facility among
>> Android users so that Apple's refusal to cooperate is seen as
>> anti-competitive.
>
> In the EU, such legislation is already in the making. Not only for
> Apple (iMessage), but also for WhatsApp and other commercial IM
> platforms, i.e. also for Google.
>

Interesting.

>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS facility
>> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
>
> Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
> functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
> compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.

Yes, that's the whole point.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:

> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:

[...]

>> Can you send messages using RCS
>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>
> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.

Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
RCS in general is not very widespread.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-01 20:46, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>
>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> Can you send messages using RCS
>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>>
>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>
> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
> RCS in general is not very widespread.

That's not a problem, as long as the people I connect to activate it.
And it is gaining users, anyway. WhatsApp didn't have many users at the
start, either.

I don't see why some people are against it and get kind of angry about
it. Why does it matter to them to want it to fail? Perhaps these people
have Apple shares?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-01 17:54:

> Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
[...]>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS

facility
>> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
>
> Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
> functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
> compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.

Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?

Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.

XMPP with OMEMO is an open standard and does not rely on the
infrastructure of one single provider.

But unfortunately there no mandatory set of XMPP extension protocols
(XEP) which clients must implement - so you never now, which of the
extended features of your client will be supported by others.

Also XMPP requires a user account (JID) and you can not just use your
phone number to set it up. Some see this as a privacy measure, but this
also keeps many people from using it, as they already are used to much
simpler setup like WhatsApp or Signal: just install it, confirm the
account creation and you are ready to go. And even better: you will see
all your contacts immediately and don't have to ask everybody about his
or her JID before you can contact them.

Therefore XMPP also sticks with a small group of ethusiasts who do not
need more than more or less plain text messaging and it will never get
as popular as WhatsApp, Signal etc..

[Andy Burns]

Arno Welzel wrote:

> Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
> Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?

There's no compatibility as such, but RCS-capable messaging apps will
send over RCS by preference, and fall back to SMS when recipients aren't
reachable on RCS

> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.

There's a recent standard for that
<https://messaginglayersecurity.rocks>

if it takes off, it could get imessage/telegram/signal/whatsapp speaking
to each other

> XMPP with OMEMO is an open standard and does not rely on the
> infrastructure of one single provider.
>
> But unfortunately there no mandatory set of XMPP extension protocols
> (XEP) which clients must implement - so you never now, which of the
> extended features of your client will be supported by others.

Google have killed several XMPP products, probably not keen to put a toe
back in that water

[Dave Royal]

On 1 Nov 2023 21:04:29 +0100 Arno Welzel wrote:
>Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-01 17:54:
>
>> Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>[...]>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS
>facility
>>> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
>>
>> Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
>> functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
>> compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.
>
>Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
>Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?
>

The protocols are not compatible. AIUI the Android messaging app will use
RCS if it can, and fall back to SMS (while it exists) for plain text
messages. Much like iMessage. I don't see any disadvantage in anyone (who
usually has mobile data) enabling it unless they have a particular reason
to use SMS.

>Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
>not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
>features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
>like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.
>
>XMPP with OMEMO is an open standard and does not rely on the
>infrastructure of one single provider.
>
>But unfortunately there no mandatory set of XMPP extension protocols
>(XEP) which clients must implement - so you never now, which of the
>extended features of your client will be supported by others.
>
>Also XMPP requires a user account (JID) and you can not just use your
>phone number to set it up. Some see this as a privacy measure, but this
>also keeps many people from using it, as they already are used to much
>simpler setup like WhatsApp or Signal: just install it, confirm the
>account creation and you are ready to go. And even better: you will see
>all your contacts immediately and don't have to ask everybody about his
>or her JID before you can contact them.
>
>Therefore XMPP also sticks with a small group of ethusiasts who do not
>need more than more or less plain text messaging and it will never get
>as popular as WhatsApp, Signal etc..
>

Yes, XMPP and its later extensions could have developed into a messaging
standard. But neither Apple nor Google were or are interested in
cross-platform standards - unless perhaps it's their own. Google's current
enthusiam for RCS isn't for the benefit of mankind.

In fact Google sabotaged XMPP by adopting the Jabber IM protocol in Google
Chat as a way of gaining users, and then dropping it
https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=90116

Much as they did with Google Reader and RSS.

XMPP was built into the Sailfish mobile OS which I used until a couple of
years ago. I have an account, er, somewhere.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-01 21:56, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2023 21:04:29 +0100 Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-01 17:54:
>>
>>> Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>> [...]>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS
>> facility
>>>> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
>>>
>>> Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
>>> functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
>>> compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.
>>
>> Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
>> Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?
>>
> The protocols are not compatible. AIUI the Android messaging app will use
> RCS if it can, and fall back to SMS (while it exists) for plain text
> messages. Much like iMessage. I don't see any disadvantage in anyone (who
> usually has mobile data) enabling it unless they have a particular reason
> to use SMS.

AFAIK, all apps doing RCS fall back to SMS transparently when RCS is not
available. There must be some design for this in the RCS protocol.

>
>> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
>> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
>> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
>> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.

Well, AFAIK SMS has no encryption at all. It is a design from the 90's.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.11.23 um 20:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

The issue being functionality and privacy.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Bob Henson]

In my case, unless Google messages has been altered, because it can send
expensive MMS messages without telling me.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

In a democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count
that votes.

[Carlos E. R.]

Functionality? What functionality problem has it?

Privacy? It replaces SMS, which has none.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 10:16, Bob Henson wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-01 20:46, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Can you send messages using RCS
>>>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>>>
>>> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
>>> RCS in general is not very widespread.
>>
>> That's not a problem, as long as the people I connect to activate it.
>> And it is gaining users, anyway. WhatsApp didn't have many users at the
>> start, either.
>>
>> I don't see why some people are against it and get kind of angry about
>> it. Why does it matter to them to want it to fail? Perhaps these people
>> have Apple shares?
>
> In my case, unless Google messages has been altered, because it can send
> expensive MMS messages without telling me.

It tells me.

It tells me when it is going to be RCS or SMS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Dave Royal]

On 2 Nov 2023 09:16:19 +0000 Bob Henson wrote:
>Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-01 20:46, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Can you send messages using RCS
>>>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>>>
>>> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
>>> RCS in general is not very widespread.
>>
>> That's not a problem, as long as the people I connect to activate it.
>> And it is gaining users, anyway. WhatsApp didn't have many users at the
>> start, either.
>>
>> I don't see why some people are against it and get kind of angry about
>> it. Why does it matter to them to want it to fail? Perhaps these people
>> have Apple shares?
>
>In my case, unless Google messages has been altered, because it can send
>expensive MMS messages without telling me.

You said upthread that the Google messaging app does that so you use
another SMS-only app. Fair enough. Does the Google app only do it if RCS
is enabled, or did it always do that and still do it with RCS enabled?

This is clearly an important point - to avoid inadvertant sending of MMS.

[Carlos E. R.]

I just tested. With RCS disabled, it says SMS or MMS.

With RCS enabled, it says SMS or RCS, it seems not to indicate MMS when
adding a photo. However, the internal help clearly says it indicates any
of the three methods when going to send. I did not go that far as
actually sending.

In any case, when I enter an SMS I am aware of what I should not do.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 20:53:

Why do you think I am against it or even angry?

I just said, that RCS has certain limitations compared to SMS or
messengers like WhtsApp and it is therefore not very widespread. But if
people want to use - fine.

[Frank Slootweg]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>
> > On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
> >> Can you send messages using RCS
> >> to people with an Apple iPhone?
> >
> > I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>
> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
> RCS in general is not very widespread.

Well, according to the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots, RCS use in North
America could be well over 50%!

How's that!? Well, they claim iPhone penetration is about 50%, so
Android is about 50%. They also claim that nobody uses WhatsApp in NA,
so the Android users use RCS (because it's enabled by default) and at
least some iPhone users will communicate with Android users, so all in
all it could be well over 50%!

See, Android users can also come up with silly, meaningless, 'data'
without really trying! :-)

[Frank Slootweg]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-01 17:54:
>
> > Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
> [...]>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS
> facility
> >> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
> >
> > Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
> > functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
> > compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.
>
> Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
> Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?

If a messaging app supports RCS, it will use RCS if the other side
also supports RCS. If not, it will fallback to SMS/MMS (and can/will
give a warning before doing so).

> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.

Yes, that would be nice, but is outside the scope of this thread and
neither SMS/MMS nor RCS have end-to-end-encryption.

Those who need/want end-to-end-encryption have to use some other IM
platform, until a standard comes along. I don't know if the upcoming EU
legislation for IM interoperation between IM platforms will include
end-to-end-encryption as a requirement.

[...]

[Andy Burns]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> neither SMS/MMS nor RCS have end-to-end-encryption.

RCS does have E2EE for private chats (I'm not sure about group chats)

<http://andyburns.uk/misc/rcs-e2ee.png>

[Frank Slootweg]

Thanks! I didn't know/realize that. Shows that I/we should pay even
less attention to our Swiss 'friend'! :-)

[Adrian]

In message <kqha4e...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_...@es.invalid> writes

I don't have a dog in this fight.

There are two sides to privacy. One is being unable to read a message,
the other is who can see who is communicating with who. With SMS, who
apart from the Telcos can see who is sending/receiving ? With other
services, who can see who is sending/receiving ? Some may (rightly or
wrongly), trust the Telco, but may not trust that messaging services
operator (e.g. some won't touch whatsapp with a barge pole).

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[Frank Slootweg]

Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> In message <kqha4e...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> writes
> >On 2023-11-02 07:47, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >> Am 01.11.23 um 20:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

[...]

> >>> I don't see why some people are against it and get kind of angry about
> >>> it. Why does it matter to them to want it to fail? Perhaps these people
> >>> have Apple shares?
> >>
> >> The issue being functionality and privacy.
> >
> >Functionality? What functionality problem has it?
> >
> >Privacy? It replaces SMS, which has none.
>
> I don't have a dog in this fight.
>
> There are two sides to privacy. One is being unable to read a message,
> the other is who can see who is communicating with who. With SMS, who
> apart from the Telcos can see who is sending/receiving ? With other
> services, who can see who is sending/receiving ? Some may (rightly or
> wrongly), trust the Telco, but may not trust that messaging services
> operator (e.g. some won't touch whatsapp with a barge pole).

I don't know where you live, but in our country (NL) and AFAIK in the
whole EU, both 'Telco's and ISP have to keep traffic information, i.e.
'who' is communicating with 'who', which websites you visit, etc. for
extended periods of time (months to years). So yes, one has to trust the
'Telco's and ISPs. That's independent from (not) trusting WhatsApp et
al..

[Arno Welzel]

Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-02 14:21:

> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>
>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Can you send messages using RCS
>>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>>>
>>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>>
>> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
>> RCS in general is not very widespread.
>
> Well, according to the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots, RCS use in North
> America could be well over 50%!

Well - North America is not the world. WhatsApp alone is used by about 2
billion people [1] followed by Weixon/Wechat with 1.3 billion. iMessage
is estimated to have around 1.3 billion users [2]. Even if half of all
people in North America would use RCS this would be just about 290 million.

But according to Juniper Research the world wide use of RCS may surpass
1 billion users in 2024:
<https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/rcs-active-users-to-surpass-1bn-2024>

So in the end RCS may not be that unimportant at all despite its lack of
end-to-end-encryption and at least one should know about it.

> How's that!? Well, they claim iPhone penetration is about 50%, so
> Android is about 50%. They also claim that nobody uses WhatsApp in NA,
> so the Android users use RCS (because it's enabled by default) and at
> least some iPhone users will communicate with Android users, so all in
> all it could be well over 50%!

Yes, and Apples market share will increase in the future.

[1]
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/>
[2] <https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/imessage-stats>

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 23:09:

> On 2023-11-01 21:56, Dave Royal wrote:

[...]

>> The protocols are not compatible. AIUI the Android messaging app will use
>> RCS if it can, and fall back to SMS (while it exists) for plain text
>> messages. Much like iMessage. I don't see any disadvantage in anyone (who
>> usually has mobile data) enabling it unless they have a particular reason
>> to use SMS.
>
> AFAIK, all apps doing RCS fall back to SMS transparently when RCS is not
> available. There must be some design for this in the RCS protocol.

Well - if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
delivered or not. And if the server denies the delivery, because there
is no RCS client for the given target number available, then the sender
knows, that he has to use SMS.

>>> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
>>> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
>>> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
>>> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.
>
> Well, AFAIK SMS has no encryption at all. It is a design from the 90's.

Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
children" or to "watch criminals".

[Frank Slootweg]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-02 14:21:
>
> > Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> >> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Can you send messages using RCS
> >>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
> >>>
> >>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
> >>
> >> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
> >> RCS in general is not very widespread.
> >
> > Well, according to the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots, RCS use in North
> > America could be well over 50%!
>
> Well - North America is not the world. WhatsApp alone is used by about 2
> billion people [1] followed by Weixon/Wechat with 1.3 billion. iMessage
> is estimated to have around 1.3 billion users [2]. Even if half of all
> people in North America would use RCS this would be just about 290 million.

Yes, I/we know/realize all this. It was just tongue-in-cheek towards
the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots who pretend that Apple/iMessage rules
the world or/and RCS has 'zero' use. (And to be [f|F]rank, also to put
your comments on the (very) limted use of RCS into perspective.)

> But according to Juniper Research the world wide use of RCS may surpass
> 1 billion users in 2024:
> <https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/rcs-active-users-to-surpass-1bn-2024>

Wow! If they're not careful, it might even surpass iMessage! :-)

> So in the end RCS may not be that unimportant at all despite its lack of
> end-to-end-encryption and at least one should know about it.

See Andy's response. Apparently RCS *does* have end-to-end-encryption
for one-to-one chats (unknow for group chats). That in contrast to what
our Swiss 'friend' is constantly claiming.

> > How's that!? Well, they claim iPhone penetration is about 50%, so
> > Android is about 50%. They also claim that nobody uses WhatsApp in NA,
> > so the Android users use RCS (because it's enabled by default) and at
> > least some iPhone users will communicate with Android users, so all in
> > all it could be well over 50%!
>
> Yes, and Apples market share will increase in the future.

Not if we can help it! :-)

[Carlos E. R.]

The protocol was broken way long ago. It is radio, so with the right
equipment you can tune in and capture the bits. And then read it. IIRC,
there is some encryption for the radio part, but telcos "forgot" about
it and left the demo mode on. Or used the demo key, they didn't create
their own key. Then, IIRC, the rest of the path is not encrypted. In
theory, only telco staff could read it.

Aside from that, others can subvert the system and send you an SMS
claiming it is from your bank, and no way to know.

RCS is better. I'm not saying perfect, I haven't that kind of knowledge,
I just say better.

<https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=is+RCs+encrypted%3F>

About 436,000 results (0.33 seconds)
RCS is the modern industry standard for dynamic and secure messaging.
And now, all of your RCS conversations in Messages by Google are
end-to-end encrypted, including group chats, which keeps them private
between you and the people you're messaging.Aug 8, 2023

Your RCS conversations are now fully end-to-end encrypted
Google Support
https://support.google.com › messages › thread › your-rc...
<https://support.google.com/messages/thread/229405182/your-rcs-conversations-are-now-fully-end-to-end-encrypted?hl=en>

> With other
> services, who can see who is sending/receiving ?  Some may (rightly or
> wrongly), trust the Telco, but may not trust that messaging services
> operator (e.g. some won't touch whatsapp with a barge pole).

If I had industrial secrets at the job, I would not wasap about the job
things :-D

Not because the Chinese would see it, but because the USAians would see
it :-p


But for the common Joe Public, it doesn't matter.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 14:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 20:53:
>
>> On 2023-11-01 20:46, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Can you send messages using RCS
>>>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
>>>
>>> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
>>> RCS in general is not very widespread.
>>
>> That's not a problem, as long as the people I connect to activate it.
>> And it is gaining users, anyway. WhatsApp didn't have many users at the
>> start, either.
>>
>> I don't see why some people are against it and get kind of angry about
>> it. Why does it matter to them to want it to fail? Perhaps these people
>> have Apple shares?
>
> Why do you think I am against it or even angry?

Sorry, I did not mean you in particular.

> I just said, that RCS has certain limitations compared to SMS or
> messengers like WhtsApp and it is therefore not very widespread. But if
> people want to use - fine.

RCS has limitations compared to SMS? Like what? :-?

IMO, it is not widespread because it is the latecomer. In my country,
Spain, people chose wasap long ago, it is the dominant player. Most
people don't need anything else. Few years ago there was a scare or two
about privacy, and some people migrated to Signal or Telegram. I have
the three programs, but wasap is the only one that moves messages. In
that context, I also have RCS and use it sometimes. I don't object to
it. It is simply the evolution of SMS, and those people still using SMS
can now use RCS instead, transparently. Nothing changes for them.

The other hurdle of RCS (not in my country) is that Apple refuses to
support it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

:-D

<https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market>

Rich Communication Services Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends
& Forecasts (2023 - 2028)

Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Size

Study Period 2018 - 2028
Market Size (2023) USD 1.83 Billion
Market Size (2028) USD 5.68 Billion
CAGR (2023 - 2028) 25.37 %
Fastest Growing Market Asia Pacific
Largest Market North America
Major Players

*Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Analysis*

The Rich Communication Services Market size is expected to grow from USD
1.83 billion in 2023 to USD 5.68 billion by 2028, at a CAGR of 25.37%
during the forecast period (2023-2028).

A2P communication channels have become critical to assure business
continuity during COVID-19 lockdowns since the number of in-person
interactions has been dramatically reduced. The economy has started to
adapt to the new conditions created by the pandemic, and as a result,
the demand for A2P services has also changed.

* Text messaging is still the most direct and widely used form of
communication. As a result, two-way automated enterprise-to-person text
messaging, known as A2P mobile messaging, has become essential for
businesses.

* Rich Communication Services (RCS) is a successor to SMS that
supports read receipts, typing indicators, improved group chats, and
high-quality images. RCS relies on a standard called Universal Profile,
which defines a way to tell other phones that it can spend and receive
RCS. Various prominent smartphone vendors and telecom operators are
increasingly developing, investing, and offering RCS platforms.

* For instance, in November 2019, Google rolled out RCS in the United
Kingdom and France. In addition to this, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and
Verizon announced that they are also looking to replace SMS with RCS by
2020, and technology will be built on an RCS implementation for Android
under the Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative (CCMI) where Google will
not be involved.

* Despite the growing popularity of OTT messaging apps, SMS is still
prevalent amongst the population. Even though a significant number of
users have been declining since the last few years due to various other
messaging apps, but SMS remains one of the prominent sources of
messaging, information sharing, advertising, and CRM tool. According to
Salesforce, text messages have a 98% open rate, and about 90% of the
recipients open SMS messages within three minutes.

* Moreover, text messages are nearly 56 times more affordable compared
to cost-per-click advertising such as Adwords, according to Burst SMS.
Also, text messages command a 10% click-through rate; owing to such
cost-effective means, the demand for SMS in terms of information
dissemination is significantly high.

{... continues at the link}

Source:
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market

With a grain of salt :-D


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 17:44, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-02 14:21:
>>
>>> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:

...

>> So in the end RCS may not be that unimportant at all despite its lack of
>> end-to-end-encryption and at least one should know about it.
>
> See Andy's response. Apparently RCS *does* have end-to-end-encryption
> for one-to-one chats (unknow for group chats). That in contrast to what
> our Swiss 'friend' is constantly claiming.

I posted minutes ago a text from August this year that says it has end
to end encryption for one to one and for group chats.

<https://support.google.com/messages/thread/229405182/your-rcs-conversations-are-now-fully-end-to-end-encrypted?hl=en>

RCS is the modern industry standard for dynamic and secure messaging.
And now, all of your RCS conversations in Messages by Google are
end-to-end encrypted, including group chats, which keeps them private
between you and the people you're messaging. Aug 8, 2023

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 17:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 23:09:
>
>> On 2023-11-01 21:56, Dave Royal wrote:
> [...]
>>> The protocols are not compatible. AIUI the Android messaging app will use
>>> RCS if it can, and fall back to SMS (while it exists) for plain text
>>> messages. Much like iMessage. I don't see any disadvantage in anyone (who
>>> usually has mobile data) enabling it unless they have a particular reason
>>> to use SMS.
>>
>> AFAIK, all apps doing RCS fall back to SMS transparently when RCS is not
>> available. There must be some design for this in the RCS protocol.
>
> Well - if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
> delivered or not. And if the server denies the delivery, because there
> is no RCS client for the given target number available, then the sender
> knows, that he has to use SMS.

Yes.

In fact, the tool tells before sending whether RCS is available.

>
>>>> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
>>>> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
>>>> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
>>>> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.
>>
>> Well, AFAIK SMS has no encryption at all. It is a design from the 90's.
>
> Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
> of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
> read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
> children" or to "watch criminals".

And that standard is RCS :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 14:32, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-01 17:54:
>>
>>> Dave Royal <da...@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>> [...]>> There is also the reasonable goal of replacing the ancient SMS
>> facility
>>>> with a more capable and reliable IP-based one.
>>>
>>> Exactly! With all its limitations, RCS provides some additional
>>> functionality compared to the ancient SMS/MMS system, while maintaining
>>> compatibility with it. That's all. Nothing to get worked up about.
>>
>> Is RCS really compatible in the way, the SMS can use the same protocol?
>> Or is it just the messaging apps which support both SMS as well as RCS?
>
> If a messaging app supports RCS, it will use RCS if the other side
> also supports RCS. If not, it will fallback to SMS/MMS (and can/will
> give a warning before doing so).
>
>> Having a universal standard for end-to-end-encrypted messaging which is
>> not controlled by a single company and which defines a minimum set of
>> features like groups or sending text with formatting and attachments
>> like images, audio and video, would be much more useful.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but is outside the scope of this thread and
> neither SMS/MMS nor RCS have end-to-end-encryption.

RCS has end to end encryption.

<https://support.google.com/messages/thread/229405182/your-rcs-conversations-are-now-fully-end-to-end-encrypted?hl=en>

RCS is the modern industry standard for dynamic and secure messaging.
And now, all of your RCS conversations in Messages by Google are
end-to-end encrypted, including group chats, which keeps them private

between you and the people you're messaging.Aug 8, 2023


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Andy Burns]

Arno Welzel wrote:

> if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
> delivered or not.

RCS server must have a yes/no lookup by phone number.

[Frank Slootweg]

[...]

> With a grain of salt :-D

Nah, let's *start* with a kilogram! :-)

This 'world wide' report has a very strong US/NA smell. There are so
many idiotic aspects, irrelevancies, etc. that it's hard to take the
rest of the report serious. So I don't think I'm going to spend $4750 to
buy my copy of the report.

Anyway, here in Europe, we can just sit back and watch the show! :-)

[Carlos E. R.]

I just disabled RCS on my second phone, then started typing a text to
send to it on my first phone. Instantly it said it was going to use SMS.

Then I activated RCS again. In the first phone, I had to close the
editing an go back to the list of chats, then try to post a new text,
and it then said it was going to use RCS. It took more time to recognize
the change, but not more than 30 seconds.

If it is a database, it is pretty fast.

Both phones are on the same provider (and same WiFi).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-02 19:18, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-02 14:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> [...]

>>> See, Android users can also come up with silly, meaningless, 'data'
>>> without really trying! :-)
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> <https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market>
>>
>> Rich Communication Services Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends
>> & Forecasts (2023 - 2028)
>>
>> Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Size
>>
>> Study Period 2018 - 2028
>> Market Size (2023) USD 1.83 Billion
>> Market Size (2028) USD 5.68 Billion
>> CAGR (2023 - 2028) 25.37 %
>> Fastest Growing Market Asia Pacific
>> Largest Market North America
>> Major Players
>>
>> *Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Analysis*
> [...]
>
>> With a grain of salt :-D
>
> Nah, let's *start* with a kilogram! :-)
>
> This 'world wide' report has a very strong US/NA smell. There are so
> many idiotic aspects, irrelevancies, etc. that it's hard to take the
> rest of the report serious. So I don't think I'm going to spend $4750 to
> buy my copy of the report.

That expensive? Wow, I had no idea. :-O

>
> Anyway, here in Europe, we can just sit back and watch the show! :-)

:-)

I find interesting one item: the growth in the Asia Pacific area (see
the map on the link). I have no idea about the figures, I just find
curious that bit; If the growth there is true (billion more or less),
then why?

But if it is faintly true, it explains the interest by Google.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

It's full of weird/unbelievable stuff. On the same map, see the Growth
rate for Europe. It's in the same 'Mid' Growth Rate as the US/NA. Yeah,
*right*! :-( They probably never heard of WhatsApp (the word 'WhatsApp'
is nowhere to be found).

And look about their rambling on and on about 5G, as if that is - in
context - that important (compared to 4G or even 3G).

> But if it is faintly true, it explains the interest by Google.

Of course Google is interested, it's the only (IM) thing they have.

[Arno Welzel]

Dave Royal, 2023-11-02 11:05:

> On 2 Nov 2023 09:16:19 +0000 Bob Henson wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. wrote:

[...]

>> In my case, unless Google messages has been altered, because it can send
>> expensive MMS messages without telling me.
>
> You said upthread that the Google messaging app does that so you use
> another SMS-only app. Fair enough. Does the Google app only do it if RCS
> is enabled, or did it always do that and still do it with RCS enabled?
>
> This is clearly an important point - to avoid inadvertant sending of MMS.

No, it does not send MMS/SMS automatically when RCS is not available.
This is an option in the "RCS Chats" settings:

"Automatically resend as text (SMS/MMS)"

And by default this seems to be disabled, at least on my Google Pixel 6a
with Version 20231017_00_RC02 of Google Messages

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:32:

> On 2023-11-02 14:15, Arno Welzel wrote:

[...]

>> I just said, that RCS has certain limitations compared to SMS or
>> messengers like WhtsApp and it is therefore not very widespread. But if
>> people want to use - fine.
>
> RCS has limitations compared to SMS? Like what? :-?

That it needs a working internet connection which may not always be the
case. But I admit, this is not really important in most cases.

[Arno Welzel]

Arno Welzel, 2023-11-02 17:21:

[...]

> But according to Juniper Research the world wide use of RCS may surpass
> 1 billion users in 2024:
> <https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/rcs-active-users-to-surpass-1bn-2024>
>
> So in the end RCS may not be that unimportant at all despite its lack of
> end-to-end-encryption and at least one should know about it.

I stand corrected - RCS indeed *has* end-to-end-encryption in certain
situations.

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:53:

> On 2023-11-02 17:30, Arno Welzel wrote:

[...]

>> Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
>> of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
>> read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
>> children" or to "watch criminals".
>
> And that standard is RCS :-D

Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
government officials?

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 19:24:

> On 2023-11-02 19:14, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>>> if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
>>> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
>>> delivered or not.
>>
>> RCS server must have a yes/no lookup by phone number.
>
> I just disabled RCS on my second phone, then started typing a text to
> send to it on my first phone. Instantly it said it was going to use SMS.
>
> Then I activated RCS again. In the first phone, I had to close the
> editing an go back to the list of chats, then try to post a new text,
> and it then said it was going to use RCS. It took more time to recognize
> the change, but not more than 30 seconds.
>
> If it is a database, it is pretty fast.

Well - the RCS client has to connect to the server to be able to recieve
messages. As soon as the connection is lost, the server of course knows
immediately that the client is offline.

[Andy Burns]

Arno Welzel wrote:

> Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
> government officials?

In order to answer that, first provide a list of the types of encryption
your government can crack ...

[Carlos E. R.]

Ah, yes true.

I suppose if you start typing a message, the app will tell you it is
going to do SMS if you don't have internet.

I was in that exact situation this summer when crossing the pond, before
I could activate a local SIM. I had to pay an expensive SMS.

But it is worse for tools like wasap, they will simply not send at all.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Andy Burns, 2023-11-03 19:54:

This is not needed if there is an interface to intercept on the devices
or a second key which allows to decrypt the traffic.

[Carlos E. R.]

Is there any messaging _service_ that can not be intercepted by governments?


Possibly PGP email.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-03 23:01:

Signal, Threema

[Dave Royal]

On 1 Nov 2023 09:12:02 -0000 (UTC) Dave Royal wrote:
>
>The unavailability of iMessages on Android prevents iOS users switching to
>Android devices. Peer pressure among children makes Android phones less
>attractive - search for 'iphone blue bubbles' if you don't know about
>that.
>
>Google want to persuade, if posible, or force - using anti-monolopy
>legislation - Apple to allow iMessage to interwork with Android devices.
>They therefore need to establish a similar messaging facility among
>Android users so that Apple's refusal to cooperate is seen as
>anti-competitive.
>
Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
<https://m.slashdot.org/story/421201>

Among the usual ill-informed and US-centric comments under that /. piece
are some interesting ones about (a) e2ee (b) the difference between RCS as
standardised by GSMA and RCS as promoted by Google.


--
(Remove numerics from email address)

[Andy Burns]

Dave Royal wrote:

> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:

The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
ball ...

[Dave Royal]

The DMA - Digital Markets Act - is in force, yes, but the details are yet
to be agreed. Hence Google's latest initiative to get Europarl to
interpret it the way Google want. There isn't an agreed message protocol
yet, or even agreement of what features will be 'core': presence/status?
encryption (& backdoors)? colour of message bubbles? ...

See "What changes will it make for interoperability of messenger
services?" in the link.
<https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349>

[Andy Burns]

Dave Royal wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2023 09:57:56 +0000 Andy Burns wrote:
>> Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>>> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
>>
>> The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
>> ball ...
>
> The DMA - Digital Markets Act - is in force, yes, but the details are yet
> to be agreed. Hence Google's latest initiative to get Europarl to
> interpret it the way Google want.

The way I read it, Meta has already been determined to be a "gatekeeper"
regarding instant messaging, apple are claiming they shouldn't be?

But that's only from a quick read of this ...

<https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328>

> There isn't an agreed message protocol
> yet

There's a proposal that seems feasible and has all sorts of "relevant"
names attached

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9420/>

> or even agreement of what features will be 'core': presence/status?
> encryption (& backdoors)? colour of message bubbles? ...
>
> See "What changes will it make for interoperability of messenger
> services?" in the link.
> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349>

I'll have a read, I though there were some defined features
(cross-platform text within 6 months, group chats within 2 years, 4
years for voice/video calling)

[Carlos E. R.]

<https://www.xataka.com/aplicaciones/google-lleva-anos-esperando-a-que-imessage-llegue-a-android-apple-no-quiere-solucion-tiene-europa>

Automated translation by DeepL.


Google tired of waiting for Apple: asks Europe to force iMessage to come
to Android

* Google and major European operators send letter to the European
Commission to designate iMessage as a "core" service.
* This would force Apple to extend the interoperability of its
messaging service.

Enrique Perez
8 November 2023Updated 8 November 2023, 15:46

Apple even considered having iMessage on Android a decade ago, but
decided to keep it exclusive to the iPhone in order to retain users.
It's not a technical problem, as iMessage could work on Google's
operating system and all other manufacturers without any problems. It is
simply another strategy in the long-running battle between the big tech
companies.


Google asks Europe for help. Tired of waiting for Apple to take the
plunge, Google has asked Brussels to help it act. A letter to which the
Financial Times has had access states that Google has asked the European
Commission to designate iMessage as a "core" service under the Digital
Markets Act (DMA).


It is not alone in this request, as representatives from Vodafone,
Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica and Orange have also signed the petition.
The major European operators also believe that the expansion of Apple's
messaging service would be beneficial.

The inclusion of iMessage is up in the air. Last September the
Commission designated the 22 services that were covered by the DMA. In
total six "gatekeepers" and their respective systems. Apple is one of
them, but the chosen services include the App Store, Safari and iOS. But
iMessage was not included in principle.

But the door was left open. The Commission gave itself five months to
decide on iMessage.

The argument is that almost nobody uses iMessage here. Apple's
justification is that the use of iMessage in Europe is residual, unlike
in the United States. Because of these low numbers, they justify not
including it as a "core" service and therefore avoid the obligation to
open up their ecosystem.


Another argument put forward by Apple is that of privacy and security,
which would supposedly be affected if it were forced to make iMessage
compatible with Android phones.


Tightening the rope for Europe to be more forceful. The letter sent by
Google and the operators is a move to pressure the European Commission
to act more forcefully.


"Consumers using an Apple iPhone should be able to benefit from
competitive services from a variety of providers," explained Thierry
Breton, the European Internal Market Commissioner. A declaration of
intent that remains to be seen to what extent it materialises into
obligations.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.