Google improves Google Messages

[Carlos E. R.]

<https://www.xatakandroid.com/aplicaciones-android/que-tiemble-whatsapp-estas-novedades-mensajes-google-van-a-hacer-que-app-sms-suba-nivel>

*Let WhatsApp tremble: these new features in Google Messages are going
to take the SMS app to the next level*
Iván Ramírez
3-4 minutes

Google has spent the last few months promoting the use of RCS,
especially to Apple. Now that it looks like prayers have been answered
and Apple has promised to jump on the bandwagon, they need to get ready
for phase B: bringing Google Messages into the new millennium so it can
compete head-to-head with apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal or iMessage.

Google wants you to use Google Messages to communicate with RCS. After
all, that's why they abandoned Google Allo, their last attempt at
messaging, to its fate. To convince you, several interesting new
features are coming to Google Messages that will distance the app from
the SMS of yesteryear and bring it closer to WhatsApp and co.


Message formatting with markdown
...

Noise cancellation in voice messages
...

Animated reactions
...

Interface changes
...



More, in English: <https://thespandroid.blogspot.com/>


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> Google wants you to use Google Messages to communicate with RCS.

Thanks for letting us know (there's a name change in the app also, but
Google does that a lot, as do many highly marketed companies).

For others seeking RCS, these are all the known RCS apps I could find.
*What RCS messaging chat (MMS/SMS/RCS) apps do you know of for Android?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/YQNFQmXJjIo/>

I'm told, if I understand what I'm told, the "main" advantage to RCS for
many Europeans is that they pay for MMS images (sent? received?) without
RCS but with RCS, since it can send MMS images over Wi-Wi, they're free.

BTW, is it only sent MMS images that become free with RCS for them?
Or received MMS images also?

[Joerg Lorenz]

On 04.12.23 00:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> <https://www.xatakandroid.com/aplicaciones-android/que-tiemble-whatsapp-estas-novedades-mensajes-google-van-a-hacer-que-app-sms-suba-nivel>
>
> *Let WhatsApp tremble: these new features in Google Messages are going
> to take the SMS app to the next level*
> Iván Ramírez
> 3-4 minutes

RCS is a loser's game.

> Google has spent the last few months promoting the use of RCS,
> especially to Apple. Now that it looks like prayers have been answered
> and Apple has promised to jump on the bandwagon, they need to get ready
> for phase B: bringing Google Messages into the new millennium so it can
> compete head-to-head with apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal or iMessage.

RCS is redundant. Nobody needs it and nobody is waiting for it.
And you act again as little fanboy.


--
Sent with Betterbird by a Penguin.
Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-04 20:25, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> Google wants you to use Google Messages to communicate with RCS.
>
> Thanks for letting us know (there's a name change in the app also, but
> Google does that a lot, as do many highly marketed companies).
>
> For others seeking RCS, these are all the known RCS apps I could find.
> *What RCS messaging chat (MMS/SMS/RCS) apps do you know of for Android?*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/YQNFQmXJjIo/>
>
> I'm told, if I understand what I'm told, the "main" advantage to RCS for
> many Europeans is that they pay for MMS images (sent? received?) without
> RCS but with RCS, since it can send MMS images over Wi-Wi, they're free.

WiFi or provider internet network. We pay to the internet provider
according to the contract. Aside that, RCS is gratis, no matter what we
send or receive.

>
> BTW, is it only sent MMS images that become free with RCS for them?
> Or received MMS images also?

We don't pay for receiving anything. Not even phone calls (except on
roaming).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

To tease you, who acts as a hateboy. :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> He would have to pay on internet, he would be identified, oh the horror!

Hi Carlos,

It seems you need some heart-felt basic advice...

First of all, privacy isn't something an intelligent person makes fun of.
Secondly, if you're an adult, your arguments should be somewhat consistent.

For example, these are your own words just today to Jeorg about RCS:

"We don't pay for receiving anything.
Not even phone calls (except on roaming)."

Please be consistent next time.
If you're going to make fun of me for doing what you're doing, then at
least put a signature in that says you're appling rules only to others.

Not to yourself.
--
The problem with Usenet, as opposed to working in the Silicon Valley, is
everyone in teh Silicon Valley is extremely smart and very well educated.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> On 2023-12-04 20:25, Wally J wrote:

>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>>

>>> Google wants you to use Google Messages to communicate with RCS.
>>

>> Thanks for letting us know (there's a name change in the app also, but
>> Google does that a lot, as do many highly marketed companies).
>>
>> For others seeking RCS, these are all the known RCS apps I could find.
>> *What RCS messaging chat (MMS/SMS/RCS) apps do you know of for Android?*
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/YQNFQmXJjIo/>
>>
>> I'm told, if I understand what I'm told, the "main" advantage to RCS for
>> many Europeans is that they pay for MMS images (sent? received?) without
>> RCS but with RCS, since it can send MMS images over Wi-Wi, they're free.
>
> WiFi or provider internet network. We pay to the internet provider
> according to the contract. Aside that, RCS is gratis, no matter what we
> send or receive.
>
>>
>> BTW, is it only sent MMS images that become free with RCS for them?
>> Or received MMS images also?
>

> We don't pay for receiving anything. Not even phone calls (except on
> roaming).

Hi Carlos,

I'm not sure why anyone responds to Joerg simply because there are only two
or three posters to this newsgroup who _never_ can add any on-topic value,
where Joerg is soundly in that short list (as is Alan Baker).

Anyway, back to the topic, I appreciate that both you & Andy Burns
described why you use RCS, as most of us in the states get that for free -
but if I were in your shoes, I'd look for a way to do it for free also.

Being consistent is what I'm all about, so I commend you (and Andy Burns)
for finding a way to get "things" for free that you'd otherwise pay for.

I think in your response, that you mixed your Internet provider costs with
your cellular provider costs, so I'm still a tiny bit confused becasue you
didn't answer the question that I asked, but you answered a bigger one.

I'm trying to understand _what exactly_ is it about RCS that you need.

Keeping the question to just RCS alone, and ignoring what you pay for phone
calls and for Internet service, am I correct in my understanding that the
only thing RCS gives you that you don't have already, is _free_ MMS?

Is that correct?
Is that free MMS in both directions (send & receive)?
--
Sorry for asking the question twice but you mixed in a bunch of other
things which confused me.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-05 06:47, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> He would have to pay on internet, he would be identified, oh the horror!
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> It seems you need some heart-felt basic advice...
>
> First of all, privacy isn't something an intelligent person makes fun of.
> Secondly, if you're an adult, your arguments should be somewhat consistent.
>
> For example, these are your own words just today to Jeorg about RCS:
> "We don't pay for receiving anything.
> Not even phone calls (except on roaming)."

Arlen,

it is not that we do not want to pay for those services. Nothing related
to privacy here.

It is that mobile companies do not charge us for receiving calls or
receiving MMS or receiving SMS. The concept of charging for receiving
calls or messages is ridiculous here, it is an American thing.

The sender or caller pays it all.

The only exception is when roaming.

> Please be consistent next time.
> If you're going to make fun of me for doing what you're doing, then at
> least put a signature in that says you're appling rules only to others.
>
> Not to yourself.

I am consistent, but you read things with your coloured glasses.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

I'm telling you that the only cost with RCS for us is the internet cost.
It is very clear.

> I'm trying to understand _what exactly_ is it about RCS that you need.
>
> Keeping the question to just RCS alone, and ignoring what you pay for phone
> calls and for Internet service, am I correct in my understanding that the
> only thing RCS gives you that you don't have already, is _free_ MMS?
>
> Is that correct?
> Is that free MMS in both directions (send & receive)?

Yes, it is gratis, and it is available in any (android) phone. No need
to install anything.

It is also an improved SMS system, with features similar to other
messaging platform. And it comes installed by default, nothing to do.

During transition time we have to watch out that the correspondent has
it enabled.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> it is not that we do not want to pay for those services.
> Nothing related to privacy here.

The problem about paying for Usenet services is it's a PITA to do so
without losing your privacy. Some people do it, I'm sure. And that's OK.

Most of them might not even have the intelligence to do it otherwise.
The more ignorant people are, the easier it is to sell them things.

But for you to deprecate intelligent people who don't do it is a problem.

> It is that mobile companies do not charge us for receiving calls or
> receiving MMS or receiving SMS.

Thanks for answering the question as I was faithfully trying to understand
_why_ you and Andy wanted RCS whereas nobody I know here cares for it.

Apparently it's only the _sending_ of MMS that they charge you for.
And, apparently, with RCS, you can use your Wi-Fi to send those MMS images.

If that's the case, then I'm in agreement with you that RCS is good for
you. All I was ever trying to do was _understand_ what RCS did for you.

> The concept of charging for receiving
> calls or messages is ridiculous here, it is an American thing.

I agree with you that it's ridiculous for charging for receiving anything.
My plan doesn't charge for anything (unlimited everything).
But I'm sure some do charge for receiving data and/or calls and/or MMS.

> The sender or caller pays it all.

Thank you for clarifying the answer.
It should always be the recipient isn't charged.

> The only exception is when roaming.

Luckily my plan has unlimited free roaming in the USA & Europe.
But it costs $25/month per line.

Which I think is typical in the USA.
How much do they charge you guys for unlimited everything?

> I am consistent, but you read things with your coloured glasses.

Well, I apologize if I thought you were making fun of me for privacy.
Even if you were making fun of me for not paying for stuff it's OK.

Usenet is water under the bridge.
If you act civilly to me, I'll act civilly to you.

I'm a fair deal.

The only people I don't like are the iKooks because they're truly deceitful
unprepossessingly horrid people who have no good intentions in their lives.
--
I worked in the Silicon Valley for decades, where the people are all
intelligent & extremely well educated, unlike most people on Usenet.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> I'm telling you that the only cost with RCS for us is the internet cost.
> It is very clear.

All I want to do is understand why you and Andy prefer RCS.

Thank you for clarifying, where you have to understand there is a pond
between us where your "norms" are different from our cellular norms.

For most of us on the states, everything is free, whether that's data, or
MMS or SMS or phone calls (within the country) or roaming, etc. Both ways.

That's why we don't need RCS as much as people like you and Andy need it.
And that's the only thing I was trying to understand. Why you need RCS.

I think I have it now.
Thanks.

Sorry for taking so long to understand.

>> Is that free MMS in both directions (send & receive)?
>
> Yes, it is gratis, and it is available in any (android) phone.
> No need to install anything.

While I think "installing anything" isn't any big deal, I do agree that
having to _create an account_ is a big deal (in terms of privacy loss).

That RCS gives you free outgoing MMS _without_ having to pay for any other
account but your data or Wi-Fi plans, is, I agree, a good use of RCS.

Thanks for explaining how RCS helps those of you who can't send MMS
messages for free (because it sends the MMS over Wi-Fi or data).

> It is also an improved SMS system, with features similar to other
> messaging platform. And it comes installed by default, nothing to do.

You have mentioned this "installed by default" issue so many times that I
get it that, to you, installing a piece of software is apparently huge.

But please don't tell _me_ that, as I've installed more software probably
in the past week on my Android than you've installed in your entire life.

It's pitifully trivial to complain that you have to "install something".

I understand you, but when communicating to me, you only need to tell me
that once as you seem to think it's a huge deal to tap on an APK file.

It's not.

Making an account _is_ a bigger deal - but not because it's difficult.
Making an account is an instant loss of privacy - which is important.

> During transition time we have to watch out that the correspondent has
> it enabled.

Interesting. Very interesting. But is that the case for free MMS?
I hope not.

That is, I get it that for you to take advantage of _all_ the features of
RCS, the recipient would need to have RCS enabled - but - for _you_ to be
able to _send free MMS_ messages, I would hope the recipient can be anyone.

Is that correct?

For just the free MMS sending, the recipient can be on _any_ phone.
Right?

All I want to do is understand why you and Andy prefer RCS.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-05 20:06, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> it is not that we do not want to pay for those services.
>> Nothing related to privacy here.
>
> The problem about paying for Usenet services is it's a PITA to do so
> without losing your privacy. Some people do it, I'm sure. And that's OK.

We are not talking of Usenet services in this thread. Don't attempt to
mix up things.


(erasing unrelated stuff)

>
>> It is that mobile companies do not charge us for receiving calls or
>> receiving MMS or receiving SMS.
>
> Thanks for answering the question as I was faithfully trying to understand
> _why_ you and Andy wanted RCS whereas nobody I know here cares for it.
>
> Apparently it's only the _sending_ of MMS that they charge you for.
> And, apparently, with RCS, you can use your Wi-Fi to send those MMS images.

No.

I repeat: We can use our internet provider, which can be via WiFi, or
can be via mobile network provider, to send RCS messages, which can of
course contain multimedia content.

>
> If that's the case, then I'm in agreement with you that RCS is good for
> you. All I was ever trying to do was _understand_ what RCS did for you.
>
>> The concept of charging for receiving
>> calls or messages is ridiculous here, it is an American thing.
>
> I agree with you that it's ridiculous for charging for receiving anything.
> My plan doesn't charge for anything (unlimited everything).
> But I'm sure some do charge for receiving data and/or calls and/or MMS.
>
>> The sender or caller pays it all.
>
> Thank you for clarifying the answer.
> It should always be the recipient isn't charged.
>
>> The only exception is when roaming.
>
> Luckily my plan has unlimited free roaming in the USA & Europe.
> But it costs $25/month per line.
>
> Which I think is typical in the USA.
> How much do they charge you guys for unlimited everything?

I don't get free roaming in the USA or Canada, it is expensive. Even
more expensive for internet.

We get free roaming in the European Union.

>
>> I am consistent, but you read things with your coloured glasses.
>
> Well, I apologize if I thought you were making fun of me for privacy.
> Even if you were making fun of me for not paying for stuff it's OK.
>
> Usenet is water under the bridge.
> If you act civilly to me, I'll act civilly to you.
>
> I'm a fair deal.
>
> The only people I don't like are the iKooks because they're truly deceitful
> unprepossessingly horrid people who have no good intentions in their lives.

--

Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-05 20:16, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

...

>> It is also an improved SMS system, with features similar to other
>> messaging platform. And it comes installed by default, nothing to do.
>
> You have mentioned this "installed by default" issue so many times that I
> get it that, to you, installing a piece of software is apparently huge.
>

It is not an issue to me.

But it is an issue to a significant amount of people. I had, over time,
been asked to install WhatsApp on other people phones, for instance.

You also don't realize that other people make the decision to not
install WhatsApp, but Signal, or Telegram, or Threema, or whatever. Or none.

Or they have iphones.


This is significant to many companies here sending messages to people on
their mobile phone. They do not use WhatsApp, they use plain SMS, and
sometimes MMS, because they know that it will be installed by default on
all phones they send to. They don't have to check what each recipient
has and then choose a technology. They just use a single messaging app
and send the message, being sure that it will work.


That is the significance of "installed by default".

> But please don't tell _me_ that, as I've installed more software probably
> in the past week on my Android than you've installed in your entire life.
>
> It's pitifully trivial to complain that you have to "install something".
>
> I understand you, but when communicating to me, you only need to tell me
> that once as you seem to think it's a huge deal to tap on an APK file.
>
> It's not.
>
> Making an account _is_ a bigger deal - but not because it's difficult.
> Making an account is an instant loss of privacy - which is important.

You don't realize that most people do not consider this to be loss of
privacy. It is not important to us at all. It is you who are different.

>
>
>> During transition time we have to watch out that the correspondent has
>> it enabled.
>
> Interesting. Very interesting. But is that the case for free MMS?
> I hope not.
>
> That is, I get it that for you to take advantage of _all_ the features of
> RCS, the recipient would need to have RCS enabled - but - for _you_ to be
> able to _send free MMS_ messages, I would hope the recipient can be anyone.
>
> Is that correct?

No, we don't have free MMS. Never.

We have free RCS only if the other party has enabled RCS.

It is not RCS sending free MMS. No, RCS sends RCS messages, with
multimedia content.

MMMS is a service that is being disabled in some countries; where
available, it is expensive.

>
> For just the free MMS sending, the recipient can be on _any_ phone.
> Right?
>
> All I want to do is understand why you and Andy prefer RCS.

I did not say "I prefer RCS". Actually, currently I prefer WhatsApp. I
want to have RCS available. Different thing.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

[About RCS:]

> Yes, it is gratis, and it is available in any (android) phone. No need
> to install anything.
>
> It is also an improved SMS system, with features similar to other
> messaging platform. And it comes installed by default, nothing to do.

Minor nit: It's available on any Android phone which uses the Google
Messages app.

Several brands - for example Samsung - use their own Messages app, so
these phones *would* have to install the Google Messages app and change
the default to it, to get RCS functionality.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-06 17:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
> [About RCS:]
>
>> Yes, it is gratis, and it is available in any (android) phone. No need
>> to install anything.
>>
>> It is also an improved SMS system, with features similar to other
>> messaging platform. And it comes installed by default, nothing to do.
>
> Minor nit: It's available on any Android phone which uses the Google
> Messages app.
>
> Several brands - for example Samsung - use their own Messages app, so
> these phones *would* have to install the Google Messages app and change
> the default to it, to get RCS functionality.

That's interesting.

I know that I can RCS with a correspondent that uses a Samsung phone and
I know is unable to install anything. Somebody else might have done the
app change, but I doubt it.

So I assume that (some?) Samsung phones have an RCS capable app by
default. Maybe not with all the google features.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Minor nit: It's available on any Android phone which uses the Google
> Messages app.
>
> Several brands - for example Samsung - use their own Messages app, so
> these phones *would* have to install the Google Messages app and change
> the default to it, to get RCS functionality.

Double minor nit... to add value to the thread in terms of RCS solutions.

*There are other messaging apps other than Google's which support RCS*

So if someone doesn't like Google apps (who does?), they have options.

[Frank Slootweg]

Perhaps other Samsung users (AJL?) can post which Messages app their
phone has (Samsung's or Google's).

If Google's Messages app: If they installed that themselves or it came
with the phone or a phone-software update.

If Samsung's Messages app: If that can do RCS or/and has settings for
RCS.

As to my Samsung Messages app: I can't prove that it can't do RCS, but
it does not have any RCS related setting, while I understand the Google
Messages app has a switch to turn RCS on/off.

N.B. My phone is a three year old Samsung Galaxy A51, Android 13 and
fully updated, also the Google Play system update(s).

[Phil]

Google Messages has been the default messaging app on Samsung phones for
a couple of years now.

[AJL]

On 12/7/23 10:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>Perhaps other Samsung users (AJL?) can post which Messages app their
>phone has (Samsung's or Google's).

My Galaxy S10+ came with (and I still use) the Samsung app...

[Carlos E. R.]

You can open a conversation, and tap in the compose box. A little icon
or label should tell you if it will use SMS or RCS (and maybe MMS). If
you try several conversations (private people, not organizations) and
none says RCS, there are chances your app doesn't support RCS.

My guess is, it does RCS.

> N.B. My phone is a three year old Samsung Galaxy A51, Android 13 and
> fully updated, also the Google Play system update(s).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

If you say so. But as I said, it did *not* come on my three year old
Samsung Galaxy A51 and did *not* come in any Samsung or Google automatic
update. See also AJL's post which says the same for his Samsung Galaxy
S10+.

So the point remains that one can *not* assume that one's
correspondent's phone has the Google Messages app and hence one can
*not* assume that one can use RCS when messaging someone.

[Frank Slootweg]

Thanks for the confirmation. So one can not assume that one's
correspondent's phone is RCS capable. It might be, but it needs to be
tested to make sure.

BTW, IIRC the Google Messages app was at some time offered by the Play
Store, but only offered, not force installed.

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-07 18:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[...]

> > Perhaps other Samsung users (AJL?) can post which Messages app their
> > phone has (Samsung's or Google's).
> >
> > If Google's Messages app: If they installed that themselves or it came
> > with the phone or a phone-software update.
> >
> > If Samsung's Messages app: If that can do RCS or/and has settings for
> > RCS.
> >
> > As to my Samsung Messages app: I can't prove that it can't do RCS, but
> > it does not have any RCS related setting, while I understand the Google
> > Messages app has a switch to turn RCS on/off.
>
> You can open a conversation, and tap in the compose box. A little icon
> or label should tell you if it will use SMS or RCS (and maybe MMS). If
> you try several conversations (private people, not organizations) and
> none says RCS, there are chances your app doesn't support RCS.
>
> My guess is, it does RCS.

In the compose box of my Samsung Messages app, there is no such icon,
label or anything.

The only things are recipient box (with a '+' to select recipients),
message box (with a '+' to select immediate or scheduled sending) and
the arrow-in-green-circle to send the message.

So I can not select RCS and have no idea if the recipient can handle
RCS or not.

So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.

[Carlos E. R.]

Well, your phone is three years old, I think you said, and Samsung
switched to the google app 2 years ago.

> So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
> capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.

The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if it is RCS.

>>> N.B. My phone is a three year old Samsung Galaxy A51, Android 13 and
>>> fully updated, also the Google Play system update(s).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

Phil said "a couple of years", not two, and without a reference, so
for the time being we have to take his word for it, together with the
vague period.

Anyway, as I said, my phone is fully updated with Samsung 'Software
update's (now Android 13) and 'Google Play system update's, but the
Messages app is *still* Samsung's not Google's. So there for no *forced*
update/switch from Samsung Messages to Google Messages. AJL reported the
same for his Samsung Galaxy S10+ phone.

> > So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
> > capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.
>
> The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if it is RCS.

But what if the recipients phone is RCS-*capable*, but the recipient
has not *enabled* RCS? Does the sender then get any kind of yes/no (RCS)
indication, *before* sending the message,

[AJL]

On 12/8/23 6:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 12/7/23 10:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps other Samsung users (AJL?) can post which Messages app their
>> >phone has (Samsung's or Google's).
>>
>> My Galaxy S10+ came with (and I still use) the Samsung app...
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. So one can not assume that one's
>correspondent's phone is RCS capable. It might be, but it needs to be
>tested to make sure.

RCS doesn't appear to be on my S10+. But it's 4+ years old now so it might
be outside the posted "couple of years" quoted by the earlier poster in my
snip. (This PhoNews is such a PITA to use I don't want to try to go back
and make things right... :-\

> BTW, IIRC the Google Messages app was at some time offered by the Play
>Store, but only offered, not force installed.

Just checked and Google Messages IS availible to be installed on my S10+.
Should I? Nah...

[Richmond]

When I got my Samsung A14 (Android 13) it had Google Messages as the
default app. I experimented with Samsung Messages, I think the only clue
that RCS was happening was the colour of the send button (Green for SMS,
blue for RCS) but I cannot verify that now, it doesn't appear to
work. RCS is working with the Google Messages app.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 05.12.23 um 06:58 schrieb Wally J:

> Keeping the question to just RCS alone, and ignoring what you pay for phone
> calls and for Internet service, am I correct in my understanding that the

> only thing RCS gives you that you don't have already, is_free_ MMS?

>
> Is that correct?
> Is that free MMS in both directions (send & receive)?

MMS? Does not exist in most European markets anymore.

RCS has no added value for iPhone users and even for most Android users
who belong to the digital proletarians anyway.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

[Carlos E. R.]

A couple of years is two years :-)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/couple

Noun

couple (plural couples)

1 Two of the same kind connected or considered together.

A couple of police officers appeared at the door.

2 Two partners in a romantic or sexual relationship.
3 (informal) A small number.
4 One of the pairs of plates of two metals which compose a voltaic
battery, called a voltaic couple or galvanic couple.
5 (physics) A turning effect created by forces that produce a non-zero
external torque.
6 (architecture) A couple-close.
7 That which joins or links two things together; a bond or tie; a coupler.

> Anyway, as I said, my phone is fully updated with Samsung 'Software
> update's (now Android 13) and 'Google Play system update's, but the
> Messages app is *still* Samsung's not Google's. So there for no *forced*
> update/switch from Samsung Messages to Google Messages. AJL reported the
> same for his Samsung Galaxy S10+ phone.

I never mentioned a forced update, not to a different app.

I talked about google updating its own app, and having a default of
"enabled".

>>> So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
>>> capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.
>>
>> The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if it is RCS.
>
> But what if the recipients phone is RCS-*capable*, but the recipient
> has not *enabled* RCS? Does the sender then get any kind of yes/no (RCS)
> indication, *before* sending the message,

We get "SMS".



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[AJL]

On 12/8/2023 10:07 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> A couple of years is two years :-)
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/couple
>
> Noun
>
> couple (plural couples)
>
> 1 Two of the same kind connected or considered together.
>
> A couple of police officers appeared at the door.
>
> 2 Two partners in a romantic or sexual relationship.
> 3 (informal) A small number.
> 4 One of the pairs of plates of two metals which compose a voltaic
> battery, called a voltaic couple or galvanic couple.
> 5 (physics) A turning effect created by forces that produce a non-zero
> external torque.
> 6 (architecture) A couple-close.
> 7 That which joins or links two things together; a bond or tie; a coupler.

Apparently depends on the dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple

4: an indefinite small number : few : a couple of days ago

Notice the word "indefinite"...

[Frank Slootweg]

[...]

> 2 Two partners in a romantic or sexual relationship.

If that's not thread drift, I don't know *what* is! :-)

[...]

> > Anyway, as I said, my phone is fully updated with Samsung 'Software
> > update's (now Android 13) and 'Google Play system update's, but the
> > Messages app is *still* Samsung's not Google's. So there for no *forced*
> > update/switch from Samsung Messages to Google Messages. AJL reported the
> > same for his Samsung Galaxy S10+ phone.
>
> I never mentioned a forced update, not to a different app.
>
> I talked about google updating its own app, and having a default of
> "enabled".

No, of course you didn't a forced update, but not being forced, means
the proliferation will be (more) limited.

> >>> So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
> >>> capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.
> >>
> >> The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if it is RCS.
> >
> > But what if the recipients phone is RCS-*capable*, but the recipient
> > has not *enabled* RCS? Does the sender then get any kind of yes/no (RCS)
> > indication, *before* sending the message,
>
> We get "SMS".

It would be nice if the sender's app could/would determine that the
recipients app is RCS-able but not RCS-enabled, but perhaps that's not
tecnically possible or allowed.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-08 19:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-08 16:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-08 15:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-12-07 18:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:

...

>>>>> So I can not select RCS and have no idea if the recipient can handle
>>>>> RCS or not.
>>>>
>>>> Well, your phone is three years old, I think you said, and Samsung
>>>> switched to the google app 2 years ago.
>>>
>>> Phil said "a couple of years", not two, and without a reference, so
>>> for the time being we have to take his word for it, together with the
>>> vague period.
>>
>> A couple of years is two years :-)
>
> [...]
>
>> 2 Two partners in a romantic or sexual relationship.
>
> If that's not thread drift, I don't know *what* is! :-)

:-)

>
> [...]
>
>>> Anyway, as I said, my phone is fully updated with Samsung 'Software
>>> update's (now Android 13) and 'Google Play system update's, but the
>>> Messages app is *still* Samsung's not Google's. So there for no *forced*
>>> update/switch from Samsung Messages to Google Messages. AJL reported the
>>> same for his Samsung Galaxy S10+ phone.
>>
>> I never mentioned a forced update, not to a different app.
>>
>> I talked about google updating its own app, and having a default of
>> "enabled".
>
> No, of course you didn't a forced update, but not being forced, means
> the proliferation will be (more) limited.

Probably all new phones come with the Google Messages tool, including
big vendors like Samsung.

Google did not make RCS active by default, they waited, to see how
things went. Now they are pushing harder. So it will gain traction even
in the USA :-)

>>>>> So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a sender with RCS
>>>>> capability can always *try* if the recipient can handle RCS.
>>>>
>>>> The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if it is RCS.
>>>
>>> But what if the recipients phone is RCS-*capable*, but the recipient
>>> has not *enabled* RCS? Does the sender then get any kind of yes/no (RCS)
>>> indication, *before* sending the message,
>>
>> We get "SMS".
>
> It would be nice if the sender's app could/would determine that the
> recipients app is RCS-able but not RCS-enabled, but perhaps that's not
> tecnically possible or allowed.

There is no much point, except to nag the other party to activate RCS :-D

Maybe not even possible by the protocol used. It is an almost real time
query, I tested it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Phil]

Indeed. Your phone is slightly older. I know someone with the A52s 5G
and that came with Google messages as the default.

You don't really need to assume anything though. When sending a message
from Google messages it tells you if the recipient uses RCS or not.

[Phil]

The Google messages app basically tells you if the recipient's app is
connected to a RCS server. So you can tell if they have it enabled or
not. If they disable RCS it will tell you that the message is going to
be sent as a SMS (labelled as 'Text' in Google messages).

Also in your conversations list, everyone who has RCS enabled has a
little blue Google Messages icon next to their name.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-12-09 14:58, Phil wrote:
> On 08/12/2023 18:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-08 16:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-08 15:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:

...

>>>>>> So things are not as ideal as we would like. OTOH, a
>>>>>> sender with RCS capability can always *try* if the
>>>>>> recipient can handle RCS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The google messages tool tells instantly, before typing, if
>>>>> it is RCS.
>>>>
>>>> But what if the recipients phone is RCS-*capable*, but the
>>>> recipient has not *enabled* RCS? Does the sender then get any
>>>> kind of yes/no (RCS) indication, *before* sending the message,
>>>
>>> We get "SMS".
>>
>>    It would be nice if the sender's app could/would determine that the
>> recipients app is RCS-able but not RCS-enabled, but perhaps that's not
>> tecnically possible or allowed.
> The Google messages app basically tells you if the recipient's app is
> connected to a RCS server. So you can tell if they have it enabled or
> not. If they disable RCS it will tell you that the message is going to
> be sent as a SMS (labelled as 'Text' in Google messages).
>
> Also in your conversations list, everyone who has RCS enabled has a
> little blue Google Messages icon next to their name.

The last, not always.

It does with my second phone of mine, but not with my relatives over the
pond (probably using Samsung phones).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.