Google Offers to Help Apple Implement RCS Messaging on iOS

[sms]

It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
Google is offering to help:
<https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone

I don't use RCS on my Android and I don't even know what I'm missing.

What does RCS gain for the average Android or iPhone owner that they don't
already have?

Searching for what RCS could do for Android or iOS users...

<https://www.androidguys.com/tips-tools/how-use-rcs-messaging-on-android-phones/>
"In short, the RCS protocol gives Android Message users the
opportunity for more data packed messages between chats.
Think 'iMessage for Android'."

"If both parties have RCS, they can share larger groups, videos, and
pictures in conversations... [but] you have to use Android Messages
as your client"

I use PulseSMS (which is the best MMS/SMS client out there, by far, IMHO),
so let me see if Pulse is RCS enabled yet... (and the highest rated)...
But it was acquired by MapleMedia so who knows how long that will last.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
"Pulse is native for tablets, MacOS, Windows, Wear OS, Samsung Galaxy Gear
watches, Google Chrome, Firefox, Linux, and even Android TV."
"Pulse is the highest rated messaging app on the Play Store"
"Pulse SMS is completely free to use on your phone"
"We don't collect or sell your data, and there are no ads."
"All of your conversations are stored in end-to-end encryption.
You never have to worry about your data leaking out and no one can see
your messages except for you, not even the Pulse SMS Team."
"Pulse gives you the ability to sync your SMS and MMS messages across all
of your devices. Send and receive texts and pictures - seamlessly - from
your computer, tablet, watch, car, or any device with an internet
connection."

I don't see RCS mentioned, so I presume I don't have it with PulseSMS.
So what am I missing by not having RCS in my favorite SMS/MMS app?
*What is RCS messaging?*
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-rcs-messaging/>
"In the U.S., all of the major carriers support Chat"
"The protocol allows the exchange of group chats, video, audio, and
high-resolution images, plus read receipts and real-time viewing,
and looks and functions like iMessage and other rich messaging apps."
"Chat is available only on two apps: Android Messages and Samsung
Messages. Your recipient will need to have Chat too, otherwise,
Chat messages revert to SMS.
"In addition to read receipts, typing indicators, and sending and receiving
high-resolution photos and videos, RCS lets people chat over Wi-Fi or
mobile data, name group chats, and add and remove participants from group
chats."

AFAICT, I already have almost all of this already, with PulseSMS.
Don't I?

What does RCS give me of value on iOS or Android that I don't already have?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.10.21 um 00:49 schrieb sms:

> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
> Google is offering to help:
> <https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.

Apple has absolutely no interest that RCS is implemented.
This would open the door to their fenced garden where all this milk cows
are grazing.



--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.10.21 um 04:09 schrieb Robin Goodfellow:

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone
>
> I don't use RCS on my Android and I don't even know what I'm missing.

If you have a more recent version on your Android you are using it
without knowing it.

[sms]

On 10/8/2021 7:09 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

<snip>

> So what am I missing by not having RCS in my favorite SMS/MMS app?

You can't send or receive SMS over Wi-Fi, or with only LTE data, but no
cellular connection. With iMessage and RCS you can. This can be
exceptionally useful, especially when traveling. I.e., on an airplane
with Wi-Fi I can send and receive RCS and iMessage, but not SMS (there
are workarounds to send and receive SMS, like using Google Voice), if
you have the app, but many users don't have, or know how to use those apps.

While WhatsApp is the default messaging system used in much of Europe
and Asia, and WeChat in China, the outage earlier this week shows that
depending on Facebook for WhatsApp may not be the best idea.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 09/10/2021 04.09, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone
>
> I don't use RCS on my Android and I don't even know what I'm missing.

Basically it permits to send, with the same application used for SMS,
text messages to a destination without using the provider charge method,
by sending over Internet (like WiFi). Ok, this is mostly pointless to
north americans, but it is important in Europe (those without a plan
that includes SMSing), or those travelling to NA.

It also allow more complex messaging than plain SMS allows, somewhat
similar to whastapp.

In my phone, when I'm going to send an SMS it tells me whether it is
going to be SMS or RCS (rather says nothing if it is RCS). Your RCS
messages should display in dark blue box, SMS in light blue box.

It also offers cipher.


But messaging RCS to Apple is impossible.

Initially, this was intended to be provided directly by the providers.
But Google got tired of waiting and implemented it on its own instead.
So Apple to do it now has to talk with Google, and they don't like it :-p

Thus the offer from Google, I assume they also got tired of waiting again.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked

>> I don't use RCS on my Android and I don't even know what I'm missing.
>
> If you have a more recent version on your Android you are using it
> without knowing it.

I have lots of cellphones (most of which I get for free nowadays, as
electronics only gets better, faster, and cheaper over time).

This one is a Samsung Galaxy A32 5G from T-Mobile, which came with a default
messenger app, which I replace with PulseSMS the instant I populated it with
my hundreds of APKs from my other phones (the previous phone being a $100
Moto G7, and the one before that being a $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus, all of which
are the _same_ APKs since Android APKs basically work on any phone on the
planet, so there's no reason to download the APKs again and again).

Even my homescreen is just exported to a file from the old phone and
imported onto the new phone so that it's all the same folder hierarchy.

As for RCS... I don't see (yet) what RCS gives me that I would want, and
yet, that I don't already have with PulseSMS as my messenging app or as
iMessage on my iOS devices.

As you intimated, the articles said RCS is native on newer Google and
Samsung phones, so I'm sure that RCS is "there"... but I'm not yet aware of
what RCS does for me.

My iOS devices are the new iPhone 12 mini and a handful of older iPads, all
of which, of course, have iMessage (you know, with blue & green bubbles).

The person who uses the iPhone _loves_ Facetime & iMessage so there _must_
be something in iMessage that is keeping her so wedded to that specific app.

But what?

Every time I ask (she's _not_ technical in the least), she just tells me "it
works" (which is true, I'm sure, but that's not enough detail to compare).

Android messaging apps "just work" also, where they have so many options you
can't believe how many they have (and they give you end-to-end encryption).
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

I've tested _every_ free ad free GSF free google free messaging app that
exists on Android and in the end, the clear winner by far was PulseSMS.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>

I'm fine with the choice of standards; I just don't know what RCS gives me
(that I don't already have) on either platform, whether its iOS or Android.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

>> So what am I missing by not having RCS in my favorite SMS/MMS app?
>
> You can't send or receive SMS over Wi-Fi, or with only LTE data, but no
> cellular connection.

Are you _sure_ about that?
I seem to send and receive SMS/MMS with aplomb _without_ cellular data.

To be sure, I just ran a quick test, on my free Samsung Galaxy A32 5G phone,
with my cellular radio definitely turned off, with only the Wi-Fi radio
turned on, and the text still went to the person whom I sent it to.

I used text-to-speech and that worked (which only works when I'm on the
Internet), and the recipient responded that it was received. Even an MMS
picture worked as I asked them to describe it (I can autoset the PulseSMS
messenger app to shrink pictures & video to meet carrier limitations).

Taking a closer look at the types of files I can attach, apparently I can
attach nine (9) types of data based on the menu when I press the little
paperclip attachment icon (including a template, contacts, location, audio,
video, photo, stickers (which appear to be childishly silly animated gifs
apparently), and animated gifs (why are they separate from stickers?).

I have MMS groups, where I can easily add and subtract members from any
given named group, and I can add the group as a shortcut icon to my
homescreen. There's a "search conversation" option, and a "schedule message"
option, and a blocklist, and in the "group settings" I can set all sorts of
"pretty" things like colors and accents and background colors and mute
notifications.

There's also the option for "private conversation" (which I've never used),
which says it hides the conversation somehow, and another option to clean up
the old conversations (presumably based on a given date stamp).

I can even send & receive MMS/SMS from a PC according to the web site.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/platform-windows.html>
They say they also cover macOS (but I didn't test that out).

> With iMessage and RCS you can.

Unless I ran the test wrong, I easily send/received MMS/SMS over my Wi-Fi.

> This can be
> exceptionally useful, especially when traveling. I.e., on an airplane
> with Wi-Fi I can send and receive RCS and iMessage, but not SMS (there
> are workarounds to send and receive SMS, like using Google Voice), if
> you have the app, but many users don't have, or know how to use those apps.

I'm confused why you (and others) said I can't send/receive MMS/SMS without
a cellular data connection, where I think I just proved I don't need the
"cellular data" connection to send/receive MMS/SMS over Wi-Fi.

I proved I'm using the Internet (because the voice to text won't work
without the Internet) over Wi-Fi.

But of course I had the cellular (voice) connection on the whole time.
But why can I do it without even thinking - and yet others say they can't?

> While WhatsApp is the default messaging system used in much of Europe
> and Asia, and WeChat in China, the outage earlier this week shows that
> depending on Facebook for WhatsApp may not be the best idea.

My only problem with WhatsApp when I connect to my friends and family in
Munchen is that we both have to be on the same platform. With MMS/SMS
everyone can send/receive even if they're using Wi-Fi (although I don't know
how the charges work when they send/receive MMS/SMS over Wi-Fi like I do).

I'm still confused about what RCS gives me that I don't already have...

Can you explain what types of "rich data" I can send/receive on RCS that I
can't already do with my existing best-in-class free PulseSMS MMS/SMS app?

And can you explain why I can send/receive end-to-end encrypted MMS/SMS when
I turn off my cellular data radio and yet you (and others) say I can't?

[Robin Goodfellow]

> To be sure, I just ran a quick test, on my free Samsung Galaxy A32 5G phone,
> with my cellular radio definitely turned off, with only the Wi-Fi radio
> turned on, and the text still went to the person whom I sent it to.

I'm still trying to figure out what RCS gives me, that I want, that I don't
already have simply by using the best free messaging app that I could find.

I ran another test, this time by turning Airplane Mode on, and then turning
on _only_ the Wi-Fi connection (i.e., no cellular voice & no cellular data).

From my phone, using PulseSMS, I sent an SMS & an MMS picture separately.
Again, the recipient faithfully responded, describing what she received.

Unless that test was done wrong in some way, it sure seems to me that I can
send and receive MMS/SMS without cellular data (which was my first test).

And, this second test seems to show I can send/receive MMS/SMS without both
cellular data and without a cellular (voice) connection.

I doublechecked there was no cellular signal (voice & data) with Cellular-Z,
by JerseyHo (which is a free graphical cellular & WiFi signal debugger).
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

[Carlos E. R.]

On 09/10/2021 23.19, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>>> So what am I missing by not having RCS in my favorite SMS/MMS app?
>>
>> You can't send or receive SMS over Wi-Fi, or with only LTE data, but no
>> cellular connection.
>
> Are you _sure_ about that?
> I seem to send and receive SMS/MMS with aplomb _without_ cellular data.

He did not say "without cellular data", he said "cellular connection".
Plain cellular connection. Phone calls.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[nospam]

In article <0aj93ix...@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/10/2021 23.19, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> > sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> >> You can't send or receive SMS over Wi-Fi, or with only LTE data, but no
> >> cellular connection.
> >
> > Are you _sure_ about that?
> > I seem to send and receive SMS/MMS with aplomb _without_ cellular data.
>
> He did not say "without cellular data", he said "cellular connection".
> Plain cellular connection. Phone calls.

an lte 'cellular connection' *is* data. phone calls are volte, voice
over lte, aka voip. the cell carrier tracks voice/sms/data separately,
but that's only for billing.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

>> Are you _sure_ about that?
>> I seem to send and receive SMS/MMS with aplomb _without_ cellular data.
>
> He did not say "without cellular data", he said "cellular connection".
> Plain cellular connection. Phone calls.

Thank you Carlos for clarifying what Steve had said, as I'm struggling to
figure out what RCS gives me that I want that I don't already have on both
iOS and on Android.

On Android, I ran a subsequent test which sure seemed like it showed that I
can send/receive MMS/SMS without _both_ the cellular voice & cellular Wi-Fi.

Here's how I ran that test:
1. I turned on Airplane Mode (and I left it on).
2. Since that shut off all radios, I turned on _only_ the Wi-Fi radio.
3. I sent an SMS to someone well known to me using voice to text
(where the voice-to-text translation only works over the Internet).
4. I sent two photos using MMS (both messages were acknowledged as received.
5. I doublechecked that my cellular radio was off using Cellular-Z freeware.

Certainly, under the test sequence above, without any cellular radio
(neither the voice nor the data) being enabled, I was able to send/receive
both SMS and MMS over my Wi-Fi Internet connection (using PulseSMS anyway).

Therefore I'm still a bit confused what RCS adds that I don't already have.
a. I already can send/receive SMS/MMS without a cellular connection
b. I already can send/receive at least 9 types of "rich data" files

So what does RCS add that I don't already have?

I'm not doubting that RCS adds "some" value to the mix, but so far, using
only the best free apps on the Android phone, I haven't seen anything that
RCS supposedly provides that I don't have already.

Can you?

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

> an lte 'cellular connection' *is* data. phone calls are volte, voice
> over lte, aka voip. the cell carrier tracks voice/sms/data separately,
> but that's only for billing.

Hi nospam,

Can you advise what I may be missing about RCS advantages over MMS/SMS?

I'm still a bit confused what RCS adds that I haven't had for a long time.
a. I already can send/receive SMS/MMS without any cellular connection
b. I already can send/receive at least 9 types of MMS "rich data" files
c. I already can send/receive end-to-end encrypted messages over PulseSMS
d. I already can edit group chats to add & remove recipients as I deem fit
etc.

So what does RCS add that I don't already have by making wise app choices?

REFERENCES:
*I dumped all of Google's messaging apps for Pulse*
<https://www.greenbot.com/article/3192330/i-dumped-all-of-googles-messaging-apps-for-pulse-heres-how-and-why-i-did-it.html>

*How does Pulse compare to Android Messages?*
<https://home.pulsesms.app/android_messages.html>

*Pulse's End-to-End Encryption Technical Overview*
<https://home.pulsesms.app/encryption.html>

[Carlos E. R.]

On 10/10/2021 00.46, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> To be sure, I just ran a quick test, on my free Samsung Galaxy A32 5G phone,
>> with my cellular radio definitely turned off, with only the Wi-Fi radio
>> turned on, and the text still went to the person whom I sent it to.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what RCS gives me, that I want, that I don't
> already have simply by using the best free messaging app that I could find.
>
> I ran another test, this time by turning Airplane Mode on, and then turning
> on _only_ the Wi-Fi connection (i.e., no cellular voice & no cellular data).

And that can work precisely if you have RCS.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Your Name]

As if there isn't far too many messaging systems and apps already. :-\

[Heron]

On 10/10/2021 1:13 AM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> To be sure, I just ran a quick test, on my free Samsung Galaxy A32 5G
>>>> phone, with my cellular radio definitely turned off, with only the
>>>> Wi-Fi radio turned on, and the text still went to the person whom I
>>>> sent it to.
>>>
>>> I'm still trying to figure out what RCS gives me, that I want, that I don't
>>> already have simply by using the best free messaging app that I could find.
>>>
>>> I ran another test, this time by turning Airplane Mode on, and then turning
>>> on _only_ the Wi-Fi connection (i.e., no cellular voice & no cellular data).
>>
>> And that can work precisely if you have RCS.
>
> As if there isn't far too many messaging systems and apps already.

If your needs are simple then any messaging app will work for you.
Each messaging app usually does at least one thing the others don't do.
Which messaging app you choose is based on the complexity of your needs.

[Your Name]

The problem is that everyone uses a different one, so you often end up
having to install all the silly things anyway, and then try to remember
who uses what. In reality you only need the normal SMS one ... or
better yet, use the phone as an actual *phone* (rather than just a
glorified pager) and ring them!

[Carlos E. R.]

That's precissely what is different about RCS, on Android at least it
replaces the SMS application. If the other correspondent doesn't have
RCS, it sends as SMS, if it has it, then it sends via RCS. It is not
just another app. You can consider it SMS 2.0


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 10/10/2021 01.28, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> asked
>>> Are you _sure_ about that?
>>> I seem to send and receive SMS/MMS with aplomb _without_ cellular data.
>>
>> He did not say "without cellular data", he said "cellular connection".
>> Plain cellular connection. Phone calls.
>
> Thank you Carlos for clarifying what Steve had said, as I'm struggling to
> figure out what RCS gives me that I want that I don't already have on both
> iOS and on Android.

My guess is that your Pulse app has RCS support.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 10.10.21 um 09:01 schrieb Heron:

It only depends on the communication partner you want to reach and
his/her equipment and nothing else.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 10.10.21 um 09:38 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> You can consider it SMS 2.0

Exactely. And nothing else.

[Heron]

Ford, Model A, black.

[Rod Speed]

Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote

The other consideration is what app those you want to communicate with use.

[Rod Speed]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote
> Heron said

It isn't a gloried pager, it's a much better way of sending
something like and address or appointment details than
phoning the other party and writing the details down.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

>> Thank you Carlos for clarifying what Steve had said, as I'm struggling to
>> figure out what RCS gives me that I want that I don't already have on both
>> iOS and on Android.
>
> My guess is that your Pulse app has RCS support.

Thank you Carlos for that guess, which I would think would make sense given
I certainly can send/receive MMS/SMS over Wi-Fi with all my cellular radios
(voice/data) turned off.

However, I dug into how Pulse works and I never once saw the words RCS.

Besides, I'm almost certainly using an older version of PulseSMS because I
simply re-use the exact same APKs for all my phones; so it's likely the same
old APK as was on my prior few phones (Android APKs "just work" that way).

After reading these references, I think it might (maybe) be something else.

*I dumped all of Google's messaging apps for Pulse*
<https://www.greenbot.com/article/3192330/i-dumped-all-of-googles-messaging-apps-for-pulse-heres-how-and-why-i-did-it.html>

*How does Pulse compare to Android Messages?*
<https://home.pulsesms.app/android_messages.html>

*Pulse's End-to-End Encryption Technical Overview*
<https://home.pulsesms.app/encryption.html>

I suspect (maybe, perhaps) the Pulse app might be sending all the messages,
end-to-end encrypted, to the Pulse server first, and then (unencrypted) on
to the recipient via that Pulse server (which would send the message to the
recipients carrier first who would then send it to the recipient).

If that's the case, it tells me two things:
1. The messages aren't really end to end encrypted after all (no big deal),
2. The messages are 1st going to an Internet server & then to the recipient

I'm not saying that's it but I am saying that's perhaps (maybe) the case.

Given there is no mention (that I found anyway) of RCS in the PulseSMS app,
how else can I be sending/receiving MMS/SMS without any cellular radio on?

[Carlos E. R.]

RCS is not an app, it is a protocol; it is intended to be an addition or
improvement over SMS/MMS, ie, with the same application, and thus should
work with any phone by default. Except iphones.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

Could be.

> Given there is no mention (that I found anyway) of RCS in the PulseSMS app,
> how else can I be sending/receiving MMS/SMS without any cellular radio on?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Rod Speed]

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

I was commenting on his comment, not about RCS,

[sms]

On 10/10/2021 11:04 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

<snip>

> RCS is not an app, it is a protocol; it is intended to be an addition or
> improvement over SMS/MMS, ie, with the same application, and thus should
> work with any phone by default. Except iphones.

Correct.

Yesterday I was using iMessage to text my brother who was on an airplane
(Jet Blue, which has free Wi-Fi). SMS would not work unless he had a
third party app which supports SMS over Wi-Fi (like Google Voice). RCS
would work on a phone that supports it. iMessage will convert a text to
SMS if the recipient doesn't have an iPhone. I presume that this occurs
on Apple's servers, not on the iPhone itself, but I don't know. If
someone received an SMS that was converted from iMessage to an SMS, they
could not respond to a sender that was in Airplane Mode because
receiving SMS in Airplane Mode is not possible.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

>> I'm not saying that's it but I am saying that's perhaps (maybe) the case.
>
> Could be.

I think I figured out why I can Android SMS/MMS on Wi-Fi while others can't.

As I struggle to figure out what RCS gives me that I don't already have,
it's nice that most people seemed to say it's the ability to send/receive
MMS/SMS messages over pure Wi-Fi (i.e., not over any cellular voice/data).

I tested PulseSMS sending on pure Wi-Fi and was surprised it already worked.
Now I need to figure out how that can be when everyone says it can't be.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/help/>

This question asks specifically the Wi-Fi question I've been pondering:
Q: Can I text when I have a Wi-Fi connection?
(or do I need a connection to my carrier?)
A: At its core, Pulse SMS is just an normal SMS app.
If you have no signal on your phone (zero bars), the app will not be
able to send messages, regardless of what device you are trying to send
from. Your phone must also be turned on, for messages to be sent.

There is one exception to this, but your personal usage may vary.
Some carriers have WiFi Calling that you can enable/disable at the system
level. With some devices and carriers, enabling this will allow you to
send messages over WiFi alone. You will need to test this for yourself,
to see if this functionality works in your situation. I am not able to
provide a complete list of carriers or devices that this will work on.

Luckily, I had already created a one-tap shortcut to Wi-Fi calling settings:
TARGET = com.android.settings.Settings$WifiCallingSettingsActivity
(this is a hidden setting because the non-hidden setting is different)

Where, lo and behold, I happened to have Wi-Fi calling on, by default.
Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi Calling > {on, off} (set to on)
Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi Calling > {Wi-Fi or Cellular preferred}

When I turned Wi-Fi calling off, with both cellular radios off (data &
voice), the PulseSMS text messages failed to send even as the text to speech
worked so I knew I was on the Internet (they sent when I reconnected to
cellular data, so they weren't "lost" but just delayed in sending).

Hence I think I figured out why I can Android SMS/MMS on Wi-Fi.
Apparently Android sent those MMS/SMS texts over "Wi-Fi calling" protocols.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> receiving SMS in Airplane Mode is not possible

It might be possible if the carrier supports SMS/MMS on Wi-Fi calling.

Mine does (T-Mobile, USA), where the test I ran was simple:
a. Turn off all radios via Airplane Mode
b. Turn on _only_ the WiFi radio
c. Also turn on Wi-Fi calling

In my test, I was able to send MMS/SMS texts with Wi-Fi calling turned on.
It was unable to send MMS/SMS texts with Wi-Fi calling turned off.

REFERENCE:
<https://home.pulsesms.app/help/>

Q: Can I text when I have a Wi-Fi connection?
(or do I need a connection to my carrier?)
A: At its core, Pulse SMS is just an normal SMS app.
If you have no signal on your phone (zero bars), the app will not be
able to send messages, regardless of what device you are trying to send
from.

[sms]

On 10/10/2021 1:07 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

<snip>

> Hence I think I figured out why I can Android SMS/MMS on Wi-Fi.
> Apparently Android sent those MMS/SMS texts over "Wi-Fi calling" protocols.

Google Messages also does RCS, if you use that as your messaging app.

There are no messaging apps for iOS that support RCS. However it's
possible to use the web version (messages.google.com) from a browser on
the iPhone as long as you activate it by scanning the QR code from an
Android device.

Two years ago, RCS support was supposed to be added to iOS, but it still
isn't available yet. It's a marketing issue.

[JF Mezei]

Generic comment:

Offering cross platform RCS messaging is worthwile. But consider the
process:
when an IOS user send a message;
-check with Apple if user is an Apple user, if so send via iMessage
-check with Google is user is a Google users, if so, send via RCS/Google
-otherwise send via SMS.


And consider the reverse:
At one point a Android user will have to check with Apple if the
destination is an Apple user. And Apple may be reluctant to make that
info available outside its protected walled garden.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-10 15:03, sms wrote:

> SMS if the recipient doesn't have an iPhone. I presume that this occurs
> on Apple's servers, not on the iPhone itself,

Nop. Phone asks Apple "is this destination one that you can serve?". If
Apple responds with "NO", then the phone sends the message via SMS,
using your telephone number as stored in SIM card and using whatbere SMS
billing your mobile package offers. (especially true if sending SMS out
of country for instance).

[Carlos E. R.]

On 09/10/2021 00.49, sms wrote:
> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
> Google is offering to help:
> <https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.
>

I found this article referenced in the local Spanish media, but adding a
tiny bit of information that might be interesting:

<https://www.xatakamovil.com/aplicaciones/mensajes-rcs-importantes-para-google-que-ha-ofrecido-ayuda-a-apple-lleve-al-iphone>

I will translate some paragraphs using DeepL.

«The main requirement, of course, is that the app or operating system
supports them, and so do the operators. The reason for this is that here
the messages sent and received go directly through the operator's
servers using the current SMS channels, and from there they go to a
GSMA-certified server called Jibe Cloud. This server is the one that
functions as an organizer, forwarding each message to its correct
recipient, regardless of which operator you are using.»

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


So, it is not google servers, it is "a GSMA-certified server called Jibe
Cloud.", which could belong to the ISP. I don't know.

The article links to another, obviously in Spanish, which explains the
RCS system in more detail. You can read it with automatic translation here:

<https://www-xataka-com.translate.goog/basics/que-es-el-rcs?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=nui>

Unfortunately, Google Translate quality is much below that of DeepL, but
the later doesn't translate web pages.

Here goes the DeepL translation:

*What is RCS, the messaging protocol with which Google and operators
want to retire SMS?*

<https://i.blogs.es/acb9ee/sms/1366_2000.jpg>

20 May 2018 Yúbal Fernández

Today we are going to explain what RCS is, the technology that operators
want to succeed SMS as a standardized messaging system. It is a modern
successor to the classic text messages of a lifetime, but it will offer
many of the options that we already have available today in other
messaging applications over the Internet.

Let's start by explaining what exactly RCS is and who is behind this new
standard. Then we will tell you some of the things that it will offer
compared to SMS, and we will finish by talking about when we will start
to be able to use it massively as we do today with common text messages.


What is RCS or "Chat"?

<https://i.blogs.es/c14076/rcs/1366_2000.jpg>

After several years seeing how they were losing control over mobile
messaging because of the rise of WhatsApp and its alternatives, at MWC
2016 a larger group of operators announced an agreement with Google and
different manufacturers
(<https://www.xatakandroid.com/comunicacion-y-mensajeria/google-y-operadoras-se-unen-para-impulsar-el-estandar-rcs-sucesor-de-los-sms-y-rival-de-whatsapp>)
to implement the RCS or "Rich Communication Service" standard, of which
they wanted to make the successor to the "Short Messaging Service" or SMS.

The idea is that this standard will be able to offer the same functions
as instant messaging applications in the messaging or SMS application of
your cell phone. In this way, to send photos, videos or voice notes you
will no longer necessarily have to install other applications, since you
will be able to do so from any cell phone without registering anywhere.

As it is a standard and not a new application, operators and phone
manufacturers will be able to make their own applications to use this
technology, as well as third-party developers. The good news is that all
these applications using the same standard will be compatible with each
other, and messages will arrive seamlessly from one to another.

[graphic saying it involves 55 operators, 11 OEMs and 2 OS Providers
(Microsoft and Google)].
<https://i.blogs.es/898f1f/apoyos-rcs/1366_2000.png>

And in the event that you write one of these messages to someone who
does not yet have any application that can use them, the message will
reach them in SMS format. The downside is that these messages will not
be end-to-end encrypted, so they will not have a layer of protection
that prevents operators or governments from reading them.

This standard is already supported by Google, which is one of the
companies leading its development, as well as a total of 55 operators.
Microsoft is also on board for a possible implementation in Windows 10,
and a group of 11 mobile manufacturers, among which Apple is NOT
currently on board. Possibly because RCS messaging could be a competitor
to their iMessage.

[Graphic showing the Jibe Cloud]
<https://i.blogs.es/77189d/jibe/1366_2000.jpg>

As for how it works, when you send your message it will go to your
carrier's servers, and from there to a GSMA certified server called Jibe
Cloud. This will take care of getting your message to the recipient as
quickly as possible, regardless of the operator.


Who can use it

Chat or RCS is not going to be an application that you will have to
install on your phone. Instead, it's a technology that your phone's
operating system and your carrier have to support. In fact, many
carriers and phones already support it, even if only partially, although
so far it hasn't been publicized or given much hype.

Since Google is involved, we can almost certainly think that the vast
majority of Android phones should be able to use it as long as the
operator of each user allows it. With Microsoft involved, it is to be
expected that at some point Windows 10 will also have some kind of
application to be able to read messages on devices with a mobile connection.

Currently the deployment of this technology is a bit chaotic. There are
operators and manufacturers that only offer some of its features but not
others, which means that some functions are not compatible among all users.

However, Google has established a kind of standard within this new
standard, which they have called Chat
(<https://www.xataka.com/servicios/asi-es-chat-la-tecnologia-con-la-que-google-y-las-operadoras-quieren-competir-con-whatsapp-e-imessages>),
and which will end up being a common set of rules for all operators and
manufacturers to offer the same services. It will be when Chat is
officially presented that the RCS race to succeed SMS and compete with
WhatsApp will begin.


What it will offer

<https://i.blogs.es/823d12/envio/1366_2000.jpg>

This new standard will allow us to use the basic functions of any
messaging app today, such as alerts that the message has been read,
indications that someone is writing, group messages, the ability to
share your location or even video calls or voice notes.

It will also integrate with our contacts app so we can see who else has
support for this type of messaging, which in turn will allow us to share
these contacts with other users. It will also allow you to send high
quality images and videos with sizes up to 10 MB, so that any photo you
take with your mobile can be sent without any problem.

It will work through universal profiles that will be linked to our phone
number. This means that we will not have to register anywhere or install
any application, it will be enough to use the default text messaging app
on your cell phone and start writing.

<https://i.blogs.es/baa648/chat/1366_2000.jpg>

Google has abandoned its current instant messaging apps to focus on this
new standard, and will soon start implementing new options in the
Android Messages app, such as GIF search or Google Assistant. This means
that there is not yet a closed list of functions, so its uses could
expand between now and some sort of official launch.

As your messages will go from the carriers' servers to the
GSMA-certified server called Jibe Cloud, you won't need an Internet
connection to send these messages. This is a very important advantage
over WhatsApp and company, although the lack of end-to-end encryption
may be a downside for those more concerned about privacy.


When and how it will arrive

The RCS standard is already starting to be implemented by some
manufacturers. Samsung, for example, is already adding some of these
features to the messaging application of its latest high-end phones, and
Google itself is adding features to its messaging app. Some carriers are
also starting to support these features.

However, the universal profile system is not yet finished, and it was
only a few weeks ago that we learned that Google already had a
commercial name for this technology. What is needed is a sort of
"official launch", a kick-off for everyone to start using the same
features and advertising them.

This will happen when Google officially launches Chat, which is the
commercial name it is going to give to RCS. Its official implementation
will start with a new set of options for Android's Messages app,
although manufacturers like Samsung have already started to put features
of this standard into their messaging app. There is still no official
date for this launch, so it could be later this year or even next year.

In Xataka | This is Chat, the technology with which Google and operators
want to compete with WhatsApp and iMessages
(https://www.xataka.com/servicios/asi-es-chat-la-tecnologia-con-la-que-google-y-las-operadoras-quieren-competir-con-whatsapp-e-imessages)



Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[sms]

On 10/11/2021 4:19 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

<snip>

Interesting.

Last week we saw, first-hand, the peril of relying on WhatsApp for
messaging, though outages like that are rare.

Apple is in an awkward situation. They could have released a full
iMessage Android App but that would have eliminated one reason that
[some] users choose an iPhone over an Android phone. If they supported
RCS, that would have a similar, though smaller effect. Yet by not
supporting RCS they are losing [some] potential customers in countries
where Android dominates. Eventually they are likely to support RCS, but
it could take some time.

<https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/30/android-imessage-competitor-puts-pressure-on-apple/>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 iOS Features Some of Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had
117 Android Features Some of Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

<https://tinyurl.com/fzje7h9e> or
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

47 Pages of Extensively Referenced Information with Hundreds of
Citations

✓ 100% Fact Checked ✓
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 14.08, sms wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 4:19 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting.
>
> Last week we saw, first-hand, the peril of relying on WhatsApp for
> messaging, though outages like that are rare.
>
> Apple is in an awkward situation. They could have released a full
> iMessage Android App but that would have eliminated one reason that
> [some] users choose an iPhone over an Android phone. If they supported
> RCS, that would have a similar, though smaller effect. Yet by not
> supporting RCS they are losing [some] potential customers in countries
> where Android dominates. Eventually they are likely to support RCS, but
> it could take some time.

Outages are possible on any complex system. I have seen SMS outages
lasting a day, but not everybody noticed. I just knew there was no
reply; with whatsapp I knew instantly that my messages were not delivered.

On the other hand, the existence of a message system that is limited to
one brand only is absurd.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[sms]

True, but the Android device could just send RCS back, if it has RCS
capability, and if iMessage added support to receive RCS that would be
sufficient. Since iMessage can already send and receive SMS, it would
not be that difficult to add RCS capability, but of course there are
marketing issues that go beyond any technical issues.

RCS has end to end encryption (at least between two users) and Google is
unlikely to be willing to give the keys out, so RCS will likely not be
supported by carriers in China. With WeChat or iMessage the government
can look at the users' communications.

RCS might be too late to have much impact on messaging. WhatsApp has the
market fo cross-platform messaging locked up in most of the world, and
Signal is also gaining market share.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 15.45, sms wrote:
> On 10/10/2021 6:18 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

...

> RCS might be too late to have much impact on messaging. WhatsApp has the
> market fo cross-platform messaging locked up in most of the world, and
> Signal is also gaining market share.

Maybe not.

People here are starting to look with suspicion at WhatsApp (privacy
issues, Facebook, etc). Other apps like Signal or Telegram (rather the
later) are interesting, but don't gain traction. Here in Spain it is a
rare person who doesn't have whatsapp.

And here comes the beauty of RCS: Every phone comes with it installed
out of the box. It is the SMS app, so we know that the other person will
also have it. No registration needed. And with a fallback to plain SMS
if not available.

Caveat is that not everybody has it enabled yet, and sending a video by
mistake via SMS is expensive here.

Apparently, not every phone is capable or has it enabled. Will come with
time.

Of course, that iphones do not join is a problem. A stupid problem. I
can not message some of my relatives.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.10.21 um 14:08 schrieb sms:

Stop these Troll-posts.

BTW: I have already experience for more than 4 year with RCS. This is
old stuff and it already lost against the fullfeatured message services.

Thanks to the fact that Google tries to pretend it is its own standard
it meets stiff resistance in Europe. Only with its implementation in
"Messages" by Google in 2016 it is known to a broader public. The
standard was in fact initiated by the old Nokia back in 2008.

What you are discussing here is a decade old standard that already
failed in the market.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> If they supported
> RCS, that would have a similar, though smaller effect. Yet by not
> supporting RCS they are losing [some] potential customers in countries
> where Android dominates. Eventually they are likely to support RCS, but
> it could take some time.

I don't profess to understand RCS, but one sentence in Carlos' article
caught my eye, which was this, which implies that at least it works:
"Google's RCS end-to-end encryption only works between two individuals,
no groups, and only between one device per person."

At least end-to-end encryption works in _that_ circumstance, does it not?

According to Carlos' article, where RCS e2e encryption currently fails, it
seems, is in what they refer to as "chat", which, I think, is "group" MMS.
"This means that anyone trying to intercept messages between you and
Google would only be able to see encrypted, unreadable text.
Google, though, can see everything."

I'm a bit confused, where I ask, in that article, is "chat" group messages?

The article Carlos referenced went deeper into the e2e encryption details.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/02/27/google-android-messages-update-apple-iphone-ipad-imessage-security-versus-sms-rcs-and-whatsapp-encryption/
"if an app doesn't offer end-to-end encryption by default
that means they can read your messages"

Carlos' article clearly says the "app" can read your messages unless it says
your messages are end-to-end encrypted but we already know that Apple can
read all your supposedly encrypted messages if you turn on the iCloud backup
switch... so even that statement that the messages are end-to-end encrypted
is meaningless in the main.

Likewise, PulseSMS, for example, "says" it's "end to end encrypted", and yet
they only encrypt the first half that goes to the Pulse server. The other
half, which is what goes to the carriers, is _not_ end to end encrypted.

Unfortunately, Google can read "chat" messages, apparently, based on this:
"When messages travel across its RCS platform, they are encrypted between
your phone and Google, but not end-to-end. And Google has the key to that
encryption."

At least to Pulse's credit over Apple, Pulse says even they can't read the
messages even if they want to read them - which is not what Apple does.
Apple can read _all_ your messages if you back them up to the iCloud.

I'm still confused a bit because Carlos' article summarized that Google's
RCS end-to-end encryption is secure for 1:1 messaging, but not for "chat."

But at least RCS encryption is better than what Apple offers (given Apple
can read _all_ your backed up messages, not just the "chats"), is it not?

> Apple is in an awkward situation. They could have released a full
> iMessage Android App but that would have eliminated one reason that
> [some] users choose an iPhone over an Android phone.

Given nobody lies like Apple lies, at least Apple internal memos said the
actual truth about iMessaging in the Epic court case deposition material.

Given we know this truth (the truth is never what Apple says in public), I
don't blame Apple for holding dearly onto the few things (iMessage,
Facetime) that strongly glue non-technical people into their iOS platform
(particularly parents who buy these iPhones for their impressionable kids).

Hence, I don't consider that Apple is in an "awkward" position so much as in
a strong position that doesn't seem to _need_ the security value a secure
RCS could add. (Besides, Apple can read any iMessage it wants to that people
habitually back up to their iCloud - which means China likely can too.)

In summary, I'm still coming to grips what this RCS adds for me, a user of
both iOS and Android, that I don't already have on each platform.

Any purposefully helpful technical information you have to edify me as to
the advantages/disadvantages of RCS privacy will help me and others too.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

> Outages are possible on any complex system.

What is the path a 1:1 SMS and an MMS (group or 1:1) message takes anyway?

I openly admit I'm confused how SMS/MMS works in terms of the "path" that
the message takes (whether it's a group "chat" MMS or a 1:1 SMS message).

I had always just (ignorantly) blindly assumed the message was like a phone
call, which, no matter which "dialer" you use, goes (I think) in this path
(at least if we restrict the connection to a "cellular" connection for now).
1. From the phone
2. To the carrier's incoming tower
3. To the carrier's server
4. To the carrier's outgoing tower
5. To the recipient

But apparently with iMessage, Samsung RCS messaging, Google RCS messaging &
even with normal basic PulseSMS a "mother ship" server is involved (is it?).

Is this the path an "encrypted" message takes on your phone over cellular?
1. From the phone
2. To the carrier's incoming tower
3. To the carrier's server
4. To the "mother ship's" server (is this server based on the app we chose?)
5. To the carrier's server
6. To the carrier's outgoing tower
7. To the recipient

Certainly some of you must understand the path an RCS or iMessage or
PulseSMS message takes...

If you do, would you kindly purposefully helpfully correct the assumption I
made above (admittedly, I openly admit I had never thought about the path
before this brouhaha over RCS emerged).

What is the path a 1:1 SMS and an MMS (group or 1:1) message takes anyway?

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-10-08 3:49 p.m., sms wrote:
> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
> Google is offering to help:
> <https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.
>

And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?

'As Google says, “chat features by Google uses Transport Layer Security
(TLS) encryption to protect your messages. This means that anyone trying

to intercept messages between you and Google would only be able to see

encrypted, unreadable text.” Google, though, can see everything. This is
the main criticism levelled at Facebook Messenger. It’s no different here.'

'Google, though, can see everything.'

Apple users already have an end-to-end encrypted messaging service.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 18.58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.10.21 um 14:08 schrieb sms:
>> On 10/11/2021 4:19 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:


>
> BTW: I have already experience for more than 4 year with RCS. This is
> old stuff and it already lost against the fullfeatured message services.

I don't think so.

> Thanks to the fact that Google tries to pretend it is its own standard
> it meets stiff resistance in Europe.

Huh?

> Only with its implementation in
> "Messages" by Google in 2016 it is known to a broader public. The
> standard was in fact initiated by the old Nokia back in 2008.
>
> What you are discussing here is a decade old standard that already
> failed in the market.

That is an incorrect interpretation.

The protocol was intended to be implemented by service providers, but as
they dragged their feet Google stepped in instead. And I'm glad they did.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 19.01, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> If they supported
>> RCS, that would have a similar, though smaller effect. Yet by not
>> supporting RCS they are losing [some] potential customers in countries
>> where Android dominates. Eventually they are likely to support RCS, but
>> it could take some time.
>
> I don't profess to understand RCS, but one sentence in Carlos' article
> caught my eye, which was this, which implies that at least it works:
> "Google's RCS end-to-end encryption only works between two individuals,
> no groups, and only between one device per person."
>
> At least end-to-end encryption works in _that_ circumstance, does it not?
>
> According to Carlos' article, where RCS e2e encryption currently fails, it
> seems, is in what they refer to as "chat", which, I think, is "group" MMS.
> "This means that anyone trying to intercept messages between you and
> Google would only be able to see encrypted, unreadable text.
> Google, though, can see everything."
>
> I'm a bit confused, where I ask, in that article, is "chat" group messages?

The destination is a group, not a list of people, same as in WhatsApp,
different than in SMS.

>
> The article Carlos referenced went deeper into the e2e encryption details.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/02/27/google-android-messages-update-apple-iphone-ipad-imessage-security-versus-sms-rcs-and-whatsapp-encryption/
> "if an app doesn't offer end-to-end encryption by default
> that means they can read your messages"
>
> Carlos' article clearly says the "app" can read your messages unless it says
> your messages are end-to-end encrypted but we already know that Apple can
> read all your supposedly encrypted messages if you turn on the iCloud backup

The data I posted talks nothing about Apple, does not apply.

What is relevant is that on RCS, its method of e2e encryption means
google can not read your messages (person to person, not to group). At
least that is the claim. The message application would have to be
perverted to send a copy to a third party for interception.

> Likewise, PulseSMS, for example, "says" it's "end to end encrypted", and yet
> they only encrypt the first half that goes to the Pulse server. The other
> half, which is what goes to the carriers, is _not_ end to end encrypted.
>
> Unfortunately, Google can read "chat" messages, apparently, based on this:
> "When messages travel across its RCS platform, they are encrypted between
> your phone and Google, but not end-to-end. And Google has the key to that
> encryption."

I did not post that. In fact, it contradicts what I posted.

What I posted (from memory) is that chat messages, ie, GROUP messages,
are not encrypted at all.

>
> At least to Pulse's credit over Apple, Pulse says even they can't read the
> messages even if they want to read them - which is not what Apple does.
> Apple can read _all_ your messages if you back them up to the iCloud.
>
> I'm still confused a bit because Carlos' article summarized that Google's
> RCS end-to-end encryption is secure for 1:1 messaging, but not for "chat."

Obviously.
Same as whatsapp.

> But at least RCS encryption is better than what Apple offers (given Apple
> can read _all_ your backed up messages, not just the "chats"), is it not?

Depends on how the messages are filed inside your phone.

...

> In summary, I'm still coming to grips what this RCS adds for me, a user of
> both iOS and Android, that I don't already have on each platform.

For instance, it would permit _me_ to send messages to you with the
_default_ SMS applications gratis, including some photos and videos.

Currently to do that I need to agree with you first on what application
to use: whatsapp, signal, telegram... but never SMS or MMS. You can use
SMS or MMS, but for me they are not gratis, because you not having an EU
number there is a stiff charge.

>
> Any purposefully helpful technical information you have to edify me as to
> the advantages/disadvantages of RCS privacy will help me and others too.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.10.21 um 21:59 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> That is an incorrect interpretation.
>
> The protocol was intended to be implemented by service providers, but as
> they dragged their feet Google stepped in instead. And I'm glad they did.

That is wishful thinking. For those who are used to modern
messaging-applications things are clear.

And I strongly think Apple won't implement this already old and failed
standard anyway.

BTW: RCS is used by newer Android-devices with the "Messenger" if the
provider supports RCS. RCS is complicated at the backend and it is not
really secure. The centralised distribution structure of the service is
also very problematic.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

> The destination is a group, not a list of people, same as in WhatsApp,
> different than in SMS.

Thanks for that clarification Carlos that a group is not a list of people.

I'm used to PulseSMS which has the concept of a group chat where you simply
give it a list of people and that's the group (as far as I know).

You can add and subtract people of course, where what it does in practice,
is it will create a new "thread" (perhaps that's a new group too) when you
send the first message to that modified list of people.
Pulse:Select Group > Group Settings > Edit Recipients

There's an option somewhere in the PulseSMS settings to send individual SMS
messages when you send to the group - or send it as an MMS messages.
Pulse:Settings > MMS Configuration > Use Group MMS = (yes/no)
"When disabled, group messages will be sent out as
individual SMS, to each of the recipients."
Pulse:Settings > MMS Configuration > Convert to MMS = (a bunch of options)
{Never,After 1 msg, After 2, After 3, After 4, etc.}
"Long messages will be sent as MMS instead of
individual SMS."

> The data I posted talks nothing about Apple, does not apply.

Steve and others talked about Apple where I don't see why Apple would want
to implement RCS. If Apple actually cared about end to end encryption they
wouldn't set up iCloud backup so that they can read every iMessage anyway.

> What is relevant is that on RCS, its method of e2e encryption means
> google can not read your messages (person to person, not to group).

Thank you for clarifying as RCS is new to me as I had never cared to delve
into what it means, particularly since with PulseSMS I already have
encryption (at least halfway) and ability to edit groups and message
scheduling, and at least nine types of data (although not PDFs).

> At least that is the claim. The message application would have to be
> perverted to send a copy to a third party for interception.

I'm still trying to figure out the _path_ an RCS message takes, specifically
whether a "mother ship" is involved, or not, on a per-app basis.

>> Unfortunately, Google can read "chat" messages, apparently, based on this:
>> "When messages travel across its RCS platform, they are encrypted between
>> your phone and Google, but not end-to-end. And Google has the key to that
>> encryption."
>
> I did not post that. In fact, it contradicts what I posted.
>
> What I posted (from memory) is that chat messages, ie, GROUP messages,
> are not encrypted at all.

That was a direct quote, although I already openly admitted I am just now
starting to look at what RCS provides and what it doesn't provide so I'm in
no position to agree or disagree with what you claim about group chats.

>> I'm still confused a bit because Carlos' article summarized that Google's
>> RCS end-to-end encryption is secure for 1:1 messaging, but not for "chat."
>
> Obviously.
> Same as whatsapp.

Interesting. So when a company (like WhatsApp) "says" it's end to end
encrypted, we have to look more closely at what that really means outside of
the marketing assumptions they "want" you to make.

For example, Apple end to end encryption doesn't exist when you backup your
iMessages to the iCloud; the Google RCS end to end encryption doesn't exist
for "group chats"; the PulseSMS end to end encryption is only from you to
the Pulse server, etc., (although, unlike Apple, the Pulse SMS "mother ship"
says they cannot read your messages even if they wanted to).

>> In summary, I'm still coming to grips what this RCS adds for me, a user of
>> both iOS and Android, that I don't already have on each platform.
>
> For instance, it would permit _me_ to send messages to you with the
> _default_ SMS applications gratis, including some photos and videos.

The one thing that's nice about all iOS devices is they use the same
messenging app, while it's also nice that for Android, _most_ people use the
same messaging apps.

In _my_ situation, I use PulseSMS, so I wouldn't get the benefit of that RCS
encryption; but most people would on Android since they use the default app.

> Currently to do that I need to agree with you first on what application
> to use: whatsapp, signal, telegram... but never SMS or MMS. You can use
> SMS or MMS, but for me they are not gratis, because you not having an EU
> number there is a stiff charge.

Yes. I understand. I have WhatsApp to communicate with friends and family in
Munchen for example, so I'm well aware that in Europe, they mostly use that.

I'm still coming to grips with what RCS gets me on either Android or iOS, so
I appreciate your clarifications.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked

> BTW: RCS is used by newer Android-devices with the "Messenger" if the
> provider supports RCS. RCS is complicated at the backend and it is not
> really secure. The centralised distribution structure of the service is
> also very problematic.

The implementation of RCS may be "problematic" as you claim, but isn't RCS
at least already fully supported by all the major USA carriers to date?

And didn't Google make it trivial to update the messaging app on any
relatively recent Android phone (Android 6 and up) to RCS based messaging?

You do know Android can easily be updated without updating the operating
system, don't you Joerg?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.10.21 um 15:37 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> Outages are possible on any complex system. I have seen SMS outages
> lasting a day, but not everybody noticed. I just knew there was no
> reply; with whatsapp I knew instantly that my messages were not delivered.
>
> On the other hand, the existence of a message system that is limited to
> one brand only is absurd.

WhatsApp is one brand
Android is one brand/platform

iMsg is one brand
Apple iOS is one brand/platform

What do you want to tell us? It is undisputed that iMsg is/was one major
factor to use iOS and still is.

There are countries like Switzerland, France or the USA where the market
share is between 25% and 50%.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 21.42, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-10-08 3:49 p.m., sms wrote:
>> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
>> Google is offering to help:
>> <https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.
>>
>
> And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?

Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.

>
> 'As Google says, “chat features by Google uses Transport Layer Security
> (TLS) encryption to protect your messages. This means that anyone trying
> to intercept messages between you and Google would only be able to see
> encrypted, unreadable text.” Google, though, can see everything. This is
> the main criticism levelled at Facebook Messenger. It’s no different here.'
>
> 'Google, though, can see everything.'
>
> Apple users already have an end-to-end encrypted messaging service.

So do RCS users. No, Google can not read them.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 23.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.10.21 um 21:59 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> That is an incorrect interpretation.
>>
>> The protocol was intended to be implemented by service providers, but as
>> they dragged their feet Google stepped in instead. And I'm glad they did.
>
> That is wishful thinking. For those who are used to modern
> messaging-applications things are clear.

I am used to modern messaging applications, and I don't see the same as you.

>
> And I strongly think Apple won't implement this already old and failed
> standard anyway.
>

They want their walled garden. Failed? Not at all.

> BTW: RCS is used by newer Android-devices with the "Messenger" if the
> provider supports RCS. RCS is complicated at the backend and it is not
> really secure. The centralised distribution structure of the service is
> also very problematic.

There is always plain SMS backup.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

It is a cloud, the Jibe cloud, needs not be provided by google. So no,
not a mother ship, which is placed on Internet. So the path is the same
as used by any internet protocol.

>
>>> Unfortunately, Google can read "chat" messages, apparently, based on this:
>>> "When messages travel across its RCS platform, they are encrypted between
>>> your phone and Google, but not end-to-end. And Google has the key to that
>>> encryption."
>>
>> I did not post that. In fact, it contradicts what I posted.
>>
>> What I posted (from memory) is that chat messages, ie, GROUP messages,
>> are not encrypted at all.
>
> That was a direct quote, although I already openly admitted I am just now
> starting to look at what RCS provides and what it doesn't provide so I'm in
> no position to agree or disagree with what you claim about group chats.
>
>>> I'm still confused a bit because Carlos' article summarized that Google's
>>> RCS end-to-end encryption is secure for 1:1 messaging, but not for "chat."
>>
>> Obviously.
>> Same as whatsapp.
>
> Interesting. So when a company (like WhatsApp) "says" it's end to end
> encrypted, we have to look more closely at what that really means outside of
> the marketing assumptions they "want" you to make.
>
> For example, Apple end to end encryption doesn't exist when you backup your
> iMessages to the iCloud; the Google RCS end to end encryption doesn't exist
> for "group chats"; the PulseSMS end to end encryption is only from you to
> the Pulse server, etc., (although, unlike Apple, the Pulse SMS "mother ship"
> says they cannot read your messages even if they wanted to).

Basically, just look at whether the message database files are encrypted
inside your phone or not. A backup of that would typically be those same
files, so if they are encrypted so is the backup.

>>> In summary, I'm still coming to grips what this RCS adds for me, a user of
>>> both iOS and Android, that I don't already have on each platform.
>>
>> For instance, it would permit _me_ to send messages to you with the
>> _default_ SMS applications gratis, including some photos and videos.
>
> The one thing that's nice about all iOS devices is they use the same
> messenging app, while it's also nice that for Android, _most_ people use the
> same messaging apps.
>
> In _my_ situation, I use PulseSMS, so I wouldn't get the benefit of that RCS
> encryption; but most people would on Android since they use the default app.
>
>> Currently to do that I need to agree with you first on what application
>> to use: whatsapp, signal, telegram... but never SMS or MMS. You can use
>> SMS or MMS, but for me they are not gratis, because you not having an EU
>> number there is a stiff charge.
>
> Yes. I understand. I have WhatsApp to communicate with friends and family in
> Munchen for example, so I'm well aware that in Europe, they mostly use that.
>
> I'm still coming to grips with what RCS gets me on either Android or iOS, so
> I appreciate your clarifications.

Well, you could also communicate with those people in Munchen using RCS
instead of whatsap. In your case it is not a problem because you do have
whatsap, but I have relatives in Canada that don't.


Look at it as an universal app, installed by default on every phone
regardless of OS or brand, that permits rich text communication, gratis.
Except on the iphone walled garden.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 11/10/2021 19.10, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> asked
>> Outages are possible on any complex system.
>
> What is the path a 1:1 SMS and an MMS (group or 1:1) message takes anyway?

Don't forget
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>, it is a
good article.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[nospam]

In article <491g3ix...@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> > And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
>
> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.

yes you can.

[Frank Slootweg]

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

> On 11/10/2021 21.42, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2021-10-08 3:49 p.m., sms wrote:
> >> It would be wonderful if Apple added RCS capability to the iPhone, and
> >> Google is offering to help:
> >> <https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715696/svp-android-invitation-apple-rcs-texting-iphone>.
> >>
> >
> > And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
>
> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.

Be careful when responding to these clowns. By not debunking his BS,
you implicitly gave the impression that RCS allows Google to harvest
customer data, which is scare-mongering nonsense.

[...]

[Frank Slootweg]

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

[...]

[About RCS:]

> Look at it as an universal app, installed by default on every phone
> regardless of OS or brand, that permits rich text communication, gratis.
> Except on the iphone walled garden.

As you mentioned earlier, RCS not an app, but a protocol, much like we
have for e-mail, web, etc.. Where the protocol is platform independent
and can be implemented on multiple platforms.

As it is mostly useful on smartphones, there are effectively only two
smartphone platforms - Android and Apple - and Apple is - sofar -
unwilling to implement RCS, it currently, effectively, is a single
platform solution, but that doesn't mean that the protocol is limited to
a single platform.

FWIW, I'm not 'pro' or 'contra' RCS. IMO, it's just too little too
late and we're essentialy stuck with multiple IM platforms, like
WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.. 'We' could have standardized this
stuff in the 90s, but we didn't, so we're stuck with this mess.

[Rob]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
> [About RCS:]
>
>> Look at it as an universal app, installed by default on every phone
>> regardless of OS or brand, that permits rich text communication, gratis.
>> Except on the iphone walled garden.
>
> As you mentioned earlier, RCS not an app, but a protocol, much like we
> have for e-mail, web, etc.. Where the protocol is platform independent
> and can be implemented on multiple platforms.

I think a more characteristic difference is that contrary to e-mail
and web it is not stacked on TCP/IP and the internet, but is a native
protocol inside the cell communication (GSM etc), just like SMS.

So it does not require internet connectivity on the device or in
your cellphone subscription. It works for any subscription at a
provider that supports it (of which there are barely any...) just
like making calls, using SMS, MMS, cell broadcast and other native
features of the cell communication protocol in use.

That makes it usable on simple devices (of which there are barely
any left), keeps it in the domain and under the control of the cell
operator (both in availability and pricing), and keeps the internet
giants out of the loop.

If that is something we want or need, that is another matter.

[nospam]

In article <sk4g49...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
> >
> > Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.
>
> Be careful when responding to these clowns. By not debunking his BS,
> you implicitly gave the impression that RCS allows Google to harvest
> customer data, which is scare-mongering nonsense.

it's very much reality. google's entire business model is to harvest
customer data and sell ads based on it. thinking that rcs is the lone
exception is obliviousness.

[Frank Slootweg]

Thanks for your additions. Yes, those differences sets them apart from
WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc..

[Your Name]

On 2021-10-12 15:58:14 +0000, Rob said:
<snip>

> If that is something we want or need, that is another matter.

Most stuff these days is little more than gimmicks that the vast
majority of people never use. It's done simply to sell a slightly
updated version of an existing product to the morons who clamour to
have the latest toys they don't actually need.

There's an article today on the Jalopnik car website saying half of
Americans don't use the gimmicks in they cars (and that's probably a
survey of car fans, so will be far higher number of people not using
the gimmicks if you included "normal" people as well) ...

Half Of You Aren't Even Using The In-Car Tech You're Buying

<https://jalopnik.com/half-of-you-arent-even-using-the-in-car-tech-youre-buyi-1847844292>


Similar results would be found for people using their mobile phones
gimmicks, their computer OS's gimmicks, etc.

[Carlos E. R.]

There are things that google does and things that they don't. Looking
inside messages if they say the don't is not something they do. And
AFAIK they say that RCS is encrypted end to end in a manner that even
"we google" can not read.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

No, I can not. Gratis, that is.

I can wasap (if you have it), but not "message", that is, SMS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

>> Apple users already have an end-to-end encrypted messaging service.
>
> So do RCS users. No, Google can not read them.

Hi Carlos,

I appreciate that you understood that RCS with Google is completely 1:1 end
to end encrypted, even as, you well know, the group stuff is perhaps not.
*Messages End-to-End Encryption Overview*
<https://www.gstatic.com/messages/papers/messages_e2ee.pdf>
"The company uses the Signal protocol for encryption, just like Signal,
Whatsapp, and Facebook Messenger."

You're wasting your time responding to Alan Baker who is too stupid to
recognize the difference (all he does is quote stuff he hasn't read).

Back to the topic, we still may need to clarify whether the google group
messages are end to end encrypted but that Google has the key (which is what
the quotes I found seemed to be saying), or, if the group messages aren't
encrypted at all.

*Google enables end-to-end encryption for Android┬ default SMS/RCS app*
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/google-enables-end-to-end-encryption-for-androids-default-sms-rcs-app/>
"End-to-end encryption isn't part of the RCS spec. Since it's something
Google is adding on top of RCS, it's done in software"

"Even though the message text is encrypted, third parties can still see
metadata like sent and received phone numbers, timestamps, and
approximate message sizes."

Interestingly, to the point of the original thread's topic...
"Apple executives have also indicated internally that they view easy
messaging with Android as a threat to iOS ecosystem lock-in, so it would
take a significant change of heart for Apple to support RCS."

[Rob]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-12 15:58:14 +0000, Rob said:
> <snip>
>> If that is something we want or need, that is another matter.
>
> Most stuff these days is little more than gimmicks that the vast
> majority of people never use. It's done simply to sell a slightly
> updated version of an existing product to the morons who clamour to
> have the latest toys they don't actually need.

I do not mean the gimmicky character, but the fact it is layered
directly on the cell network and not a generic internet service that
can work over any connection and with any provider.

[nospam]

In article <kk8h3ix...@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >
> >>> And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
> >>
> >> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.
> >
> > yes you can.
> >
>
> No, I can not. Gratis, that is.

why not? rcs will automatically fall back to sms which works without
issue. other messaging apps (whatsapp, signal, etc.) are also
available.

[nospam]

In article <8o8h3ix...@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
> >>>
> >>> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.
> >>
> >> Be careful when responding to these clowns. By not debunking his BS,
> >> you implicitly gave the impression that RCS allows Google to harvest
> >> customer data, which is scare-mongering nonsense.
> >
> > it's very much reality. google's entire business model is to harvest
> > customer data and sell ads based on it. thinking that rcs is the lone
> > exception is obliviousness.
> >
>
> There are things that google does and things that they don't.

zen.

> Looking
> inside messages if they say the don't is not something they do.

that depends how it's worded and what's not said.

> And
> AFAIK they say that RCS is encrypted end to end in a manner that even
> "we google" can not read.

rcs is e2e between individuals if both sides are rcs. sms fallback and
group chats are not encrypted. in all cases, the metadata, such as with
whom you message and how often, is available and mineable. that, along
with other collected data, paints a very accurate picture and marketed
to advertisers.

[Rod Speed]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote
> Rob wrote

This is the fool so stupid that it hasn't even noticed that a mobile phone
isn't a gimmick.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>>>>> And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
>>>>
>>>> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.
>>>
>>> yes you can.
>>>
>>
>> No, I can not. Gratis, that is.
>
> why not? rcs will automatically fall back to sms which works without
> issue. other messaging apps (whatsapp, signal, etc.) are also
> available.

If I understand Carlos' needs correctly, his point is that without RCS, the
default texting app doesn't allow him to send over Wi-Fi (like RCS does).

So it costs him money.

If every default app used RCS, it wouldn't cost him that money because he
could then send/receive texts (SMS/MMS) to anyone over his Wi-Fi connection.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

> it's very much reality. google's entire business model is to harvest
> customer data and sell ads based on it. thinking that rcs is the lone
> exception is obliviousness.

Let's test your statement with respect to RCS for facts, shall we?

Google can't even _read_ your RCS 1:1 texts & attachments, right?
<https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10262381?hl=en>
"With end-to-end encryption, no one, including Google and third parties,
can read eligible messages as they travel between your phone and the
phone you message."

Compare that, for example, with iMessage messages backed up to the iCloud.

Apple can (and does) read anything you've backed up that they wish to read.
Google can't.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

> rcs is e2e between individuals if both sides are rcs. sms fallback and
> group chats are not encrypted. in all cases, the metadata, such as with
> whom you message and how often, is available and mineable. that, along
> with other collected data, paints a very accurate picture and marketed
> to advertisers.

On what facts are you claiming that Apple doesn't mine similar data?
Unlike apologists, intelligent adults own a belief system based on facts.

FACT:
*I asked Apple for all my data. Here's what was sent back*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>

"The zip file contained mostly Excel spreadsheets, packed with information
that Apple stores about me. None of the files contained content
information - like text messages and photos - but they do contain
metadata, like when and who I messaged or called on FaceTime."
--
AccountDetails.xlsx contains information about the account holder, including
name, address, phone number, and Apple ID information. It also includes when
an account was created and IP address of the Apple server used to open the
account.

iCloudLogs.xlsx keeps a note on every time one of your devices downloads
data from iCloud, including your photo library, contacts, and Safari
browsing history.

MailLogs.xlsx also keeps a record of each time something from your Apple
device interacts with your iCloud email account.

Two more files relate to Apple's flagship end-to-end encrypted messaging
apps, FaceTime and iMessage. Apple stores information on _all_ calls and
messages that are routed through its servers.

In both the FaceTime and IDS (iMessage) logs, notes read that the logs
indicate if there was an attempt to place a FaceTime call or to send an
iMessage, because both requests are sent through Apple's servers.

[Carlos E. R.]

I doubt it can be mineable and sold in the EU. Probably illegal.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[sms]

On 10/12/2021 3:00 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

<snip>

> If I understand Carlos' needs correctly, his point is that without RCS, the
> default texting app doesn't allow him to send over Wi-Fi (like RCS does).
>
> So it costs him money.
>
> If every default app used RCS, it wouldn't cost him that money because he
> could then send/receive texts (SMS/MMS) to anyone over his Wi-Fi connection.

Correct. Just as can now be done with third party messaging apps like
iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, WeChat, etc..

The advantage of SMS is that every phone supports it so many different
entities like to use it for 2FA. One thing I like about Google Voice is
that I can read my SMS in my e-mail app. However occasionally 2FA won't
work with a Google Voice number. They would be willing to also use RCS
for 2FA.

Eventually Apple will implement RCS, it's just a question of how long
they can put it off.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

>> I don't use RCS on my Android and I don't even know what I'm missing.
>
> Basically it permits to send, with the same application used for SMS,
> text messages to a destination without using the provider charge method,
> by sending over Internet (like WiFi). Ok, this is mostly pointless to
> north americans, but it is important in Europe (those without a plan
> that includes SMSing), or those travelling to NA.
>
> It also allow more complex messaging than plain SMS allows, somewhat
> similar to whastapp.
>
> In my phone, when I'm going to send an SMS it tells me whether it is
> going to be SMS or RCS (rather says nothing if it is RCS). Your RCS
> messages should display in dark blue box, SMS in light blue box.
>
> It also offers cipher.
>
> But messaging RCS to Apple is impossible.
>
> Initially, this was intended to be provided directly by the providers.
> But Google got tired of waiting and implemented it on its own instead.
> So Apple to do it now has to talk with Google, and they don't like it :-p
>
> Thus the offer from Google, I assume they also got tired of waiting again.

This was a good summary showing Carlos understood the facts as they stood.
1. Google independently implemented RCS on virtually all Android phones
(notice Google can update phones with OS components which are done
completely independently of the carrier & OEM, which Apple can't do,
of course, as Apple uses an archaic monolithic update mechanism).

2. RCS allows sending/receiving complex messaging encrypted over Wi-Fi
3. Apple now needs to work with Google if they want RCS capabilities.

Until Apple modernizes its messaging system, their iOS users will suffer.

[nospam]

In article <sk51t8$14qk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow

<Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:


> intelligent adults own a belief system based on facts.

then by your own metric, you confirm what everyone knows.

[nospam]

In article <sk52fr$6rh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The advantage of SMS is that every phone supports it so many different
> entities like to use it for 2FA.

only because it's easy and has minimal customer pushback. it's actually
*less* secure than without.

> One thing I like about Google Voice is
> that I can read my SMS in my e-mail app. However occasionally 2FA won't
> work with a Google Voice number. They would be willing to also use RCS
> for 2FA.

the reason some companies don't use gv for sms (or other verification)
is because of fraud risks. the same risks would apply regardless of
protocol.

> Eventually Apple will implement RCS, it's just a question of how long
> they can put it off.

you don't know whether they will or won't.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 12/10/2021 23.01, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> asked

...

> Back to the topic, we still may need to clarify whether the google group
> messages are end to end encrypted

Certainly not.

> but that Google has the key (which is what
> the quotes I found seemed to be saying), or, if the group messages aren't
> encrypted at all.

AFAIK they are not encrypted at all, except that the transport may be
encrypted.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

> I doubt it can be mineable and sold in the EU. Probably illegal.

It always turns out nospam's imaginary belief system is fabricated.

FACT:
"The company does admit that it freely collects information about what
music we listen to, what movies, books and apps we download"

"Apple sells ads based on your history in its News app and App Store."

"Apple allows advertisers to target users based on their history
in the App Store and News app."

"Apple hides how to make a data request deep inside the privacy section of
the website. To get there, it's four clicks from the main page and buried
in the 11th subhead on the page."

"Apple also does sells ads as well. These appear in the News app and App
Store, based on your interests. By default, on the iPhone you've allowed
Apple to serve you ads based on what it thinks are your interests."
--
*Is Apple really better about privacy?*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>

[Carlos E. R.]

Correct.

Or the internet plan on the phone, which is effectively gratis for me,
but not everybody.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 13/10/2021 00.33, sms wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 3:00 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If I understand Carlos' needs correctly, his point is that without
>> RCS, the
>> default texting app doesn't allow him to send over Wi-Fi (like RCS does).
>>
>> So it costs him money.
>>
>> If every default app used RCS, it wouldn't cost him that money because he
>> could then send/receive texts (SMS/MMS) to anyone over his Wi-Fi
>> connection.
>
> Correct. Just as can now be done with third party messaging apps like
> iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, WeChat, etc..

Exactly.

Currently, sending an SMS (for example, to an iphone user at the other
side of the Atlantic) would cost me about one dollar. Even more if I
make the mistake of using extra chars that need it to be send as MMS.

Consider that several of the people I would like to message at that side
of the ocean don't have whatsapp, and some have iphones, so RCS is out
of the question for a number of them.

> The advantage of SMS is that every phone supports it so many different
> entities like to use it for 2FA.

Correct. And needs no registration, just the phone number. It is there
by default.

> One thing I like about Google Voice is
> that I can read my SMS in my e-mail app. However occasionally 2FA won't
> work with a Google Voice number. They would be willing to also use RCS
> for 2FA.
>
> Eventually Apple will implement RCS, it's just a question of how long
> they can put it off.

I hope so.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>> intelligent adults own a belief system based on facts.
>
> then by your own metric, you confirm what everyone knows.

*What's revealing is apologists don't have any _adult_ response to facts.*

FACT:
<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-id/>
<https://www.apple.com/privacy>

"Certain data you store on your device will be automatically sent to
and stored by Apple. This data will include:
Contacts, Bookmarks, Calendars, Data from third-party apps that use
iCloud, Device and account settings, Documents, Health data, Home data,
Keychain and passwords, Notes, Photos, Reminders, Safari tabs
& Wallet data."

"Apple may obtain this information from your financial institution or
payment network, and also use it for fraud prevention and verification."

"Apple will collect certain data about your interactions, including your
clicks and taps, with your Apple ID account payment settings."

"We will use your IP address to determine the city and country from which
you are accessing the service."

"In some cases, your iCloud data may be stored using third-party partners'
servers. iCloud Keychain keeps your Safari website usernames and
passwords, credit card information, and Wi-Fi network information up to
date and available across all your devices. It can also store the account
information you use for Mail, Contacts, Calendar, Messages, Facebook,
Twitter, LinkedIn, and other internet accounts and automatically add this
information to all of your devices.

"If you use iCloud to share files either publicly or privately in Notes,
Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and certain third-party apps, Apple will store
and have access to the shared file. Your first and last name associated
with your account and the file name will be available to anyone who has
access to the sharing link, regardless of whether your share is private
or public."

"When you use Find My, your device's location, as well as information
about your device and your account will be sent to and retained by
Apple."

"When you sign in with your Apple ID on your iPhone, you will be signed in
to the iTunes Store, App Store, and Apple Music automatically.
Any purchases you choose to make will be recorded in our systems.
Your Apple Music listening history may be retained and used to help
provide personalized recommendations in Listen Now.".

When you sign in with your Apple ID on your iPhone, you will be signed in
to the iTunes Store, App Store, and Apple Music automatically. Any
purchases you choose to make will be recorded in our systems.

We will retain your Apple Music listening history which may be used to
help provide personalized recommendations in Listen Now.

If iTunes Match is available in your region and you use iTunes Match,
iCloud will collect information about media in your iTunes library,
and either match media to songs currently available in the iTunes Store
or upload songs that cannot be matched. If iTunes Match is available in
your region and you use iTunes Match, iCloud will collect information
about media in your iTunes library, and either match media to songs
currently available in the iTunes Store or upload songs that cannot be
matched."

[sms]

On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 13/10/2021 00.33, sms wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 3:00 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If I understand Carlos' needs correctly, his point is that without
>>> RCS, the
>>> default texting app doesn't allow him to send over Wi-Fi (like RCS does).
>>>
>>> So it costs him money.
>>>
>>> If every default app used RCS, it wouldn't cost him that money because he
>>> could then send/receive texts (SMS/MMS) to anyone over his Wi-Fi
>>> connection.
>>
>> Correct. Just as can now be done with third party messaging apps like
>> iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, WeChat, etc..
>
> Exactly.
>
> Currently, sending an SMS (for example, to an iphone user at the other
> side of the Atlantic) would cost me about one dollar. Even more if I
> make the mistake of using extra chars that need it to be send as MMS.

That's one advantage of Google Voice, which is difficult for non-U.S.
residents to obtain. You can send SMS and MMS to U.S. and Canadian
numbers for free with Google Voice.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.10.21 um 11:34 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 11/10/2021 23.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> BTW: RCS is used by newer Android-devices with the "Messenger" if the
>> provider supports RCS. RCS is complicated at the backend and it is not
>> really secure. The centralised distribution structure of the service is
>> also very problematic.
>
> There is always plain SMS backup.
>
That applies also to non-RCS-Androids and iPhones.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Carlos E. R.]

All those things are hacks, instead of seamlessly messaging. I have my
own hacks, like using email instead.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

Nope.

On non-RCS-Androids, SMS is not a backup to RCS, as there is no RCS.
There is SMS, but it is not the backup of anything. It is THE service.

There is of course Whatsap, Signal, Telegram... but then again, SMS is
not the backup to those services, but a different service with a
different application.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 12/10/2021 19.39, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> [About RCS:]
>>>
>>>> Look at it as an universal app, installed by default on every phone
>>>> regardless of OS or brand, that permits rich text communication, gratis.
>>>> Except on the iphone walled garden.
>>>
>>> As you mentioned earlier, RCS not an app, but a protocol, much like we
>>> have for e-mail, web, etc.. Where the protocol is platform independent
>>> and can be implemented on multiple platforms.
>>
>> I think a more characteristic difference is that contrary to e-mail
>> and web it is not stacked on TCP/IP and the internet, but is a native
>> protocol inside the cell communication (GSM etc), just like SMS.
>>
>> So it does not require internet connectivity on the device or in
>> your cellphone subscription. It works for any subscription at a
>> provider that supports it (of which there are barely any...) just
>> like making calls, using SMS, MMS, cell broadcast and other native
>> features of the cell communication protocol in use.
>>
>> That makes it usable on simple devices (of which there are barely
>> any left), keeps it in the domain and under the control of the cell
>> operator (both in availability and pricing), and keeps the internet
>> giants out of the loop.

>>
>> If that is something we want or need, that is another matter.
>

> Thanks for your additions. Yes, those differences sets them apart from
> WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc..
>

I don't have it clear that RCS does not use internet - specially with
Google involved. Maybe the original implementation did not, but Google
implementation?


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

*Rich Communication Services*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rich Communication Services (RCS)[1] is a communication protocol between
mobile telephone carriers and between phone and carrier, aiming at
replacing SMS messages with a text-message system that is richer,
provides phonebook polling (for service discovery), and can transmit
in-call multimedia. It is part of broader IP Multimedia Subsystem.
Google added support for end-to-end encryption for one-on-one
conversations in their own extension.[2]

It is also marketed as Advanced Messaging,[3] Chat, joyn, SMSoIP,[4]
Message+, and SMS+.[5]

In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88 operators
in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per month.[6]



Notice "IP Multimedia Subsystem"

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

*IP Multimedia Subsystem*

The IP Multimedia Subsystem or IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem
(IMS) is a standardised architectural framework for delivering IP
multimedia services. Historically, mobile phones have provided voice
call services over a circuit-switched-style network, rather than
strictly over an IP packet-switched network. Alternative methods of
delivering voice (VoIP) or other multimedia services have become
available on smartphones, but they have not become standardized across
the industry.[citation needed] IMS is an architectural framework that
provides such standardization.

IMS was originally designed by the wireless standards body 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), as a part of the vision for
evolving mobile networks beyond GSM. Its original formulation (3GPP
Rel-5) represented an approach for delivering Internet services over
GPRS. This vision was later updated by 3GPP, 3GPP2 and ETSI TISPAN by
requiring support of networks other than GPRS, such as Wireless LAN,
CDMA2000 and fixed lines.

IMS uses IETF protocols wherever possible, e.g., the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP). According to the 3GPP, IMS is not intended to
standardize applications, but rather to aid the access of multimedia and
voice applications from wireless and wireline terminals, i.e., to create
a form of fixed-mobile convergence (FMC).[1] This is done by having a
horizontal control layer that isolates the access network from the
service layer. From a logical architecture perspective, services need
not have their own control functions, as the control layer is a common
horizontal layer. However, in implementation this does not necessarily
map into greater reduced cost and complexity.

Alternative and overlapping technologies for access and provisioning of
services across wired and wireless networks include combinations of
Generic Access Network, softswitches and "naked" SIP.

Since it is becoming increasingly easier to access content and contacts
using mechanisms outside the control of traditional wireless/fixed
operators, the interest of IMS is being challenged.[2]

Examples of global standards based on IMS are MMTel which is the basis
for Voice over LTE (VoLTE), Wi-Fi Calling (VoWIFI), Video over LTE
(ViLTE), SMS/MMS over WiFi and LTE, USSD over LTE, and Rich
Communication Services (RCS), which is also known as joyn or Advanced
Messaging, and now RCS is operator's implementation. RCS also further
added Presence/EAB (enhanced address book) functionality.[3]

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.10.21 um 07:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

*LOL*
That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has SMS/MMS as
backup.

[Rob]

Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> I don't have it clear that RCS does not use internet - specially with
> Google involved. Maybe the original implementation did not, but Google
> implementation?

Well, this says it all:

> In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88 operators
> in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per month.[6]

When it would work over internet, there would be no reason why it
would not be available from ALL operators in ALL countries.
But the operator has to support it in their network, and so it isn't.

(there is not one local operator here that supports it)

[Carlos E. R.]

And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

But that is not the whole picture. Look at this other phrase from wikipedia:

"It is part of broader IP Multimedia Subsystem."

That "IP" is the same as in "TCP/IP", ie, one of the Internet layers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

You state is a fact but it is simply a personal opinion.

All these ways of communication like WhatsApp, Telegram etc. that are
closed source are absolutely useless as well and thy cannot be trusted
at all.

iMsg is by far the messenger of minimal distrust among the closed source
messengers.

The only messenger that can be trusted is Signal.

[Rob]

I think "IP Multimedia Subsystem" is a cell provider implementation
of a kind of "intranet" (not internet-connected IP network) used to
deliver services that are built on top of IP but not requiring internet
access. They use that e.g. for VoIP to their own exchanges and other
proprietary services.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> *LOL*
>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has SMS/MMS as
>> backup.
>
> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.

What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my communication
even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than Facebook
and all related companies.

[Carlos E. R.]

LOL!


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...

[Frank Slootweg]

There's no indication - let alone proof - that anything *can* be
mined, i.e. is "mineable".

The likes of (attribution-snipped Alan Baker and) nospam try to let
others fall for this kind of (non-)'reasoning:

RCS -> Google is 'involved' in RCS -> Google is bad -> Google mines
data -> Google is 'involved' in RCS -> 'so' Google mines data from RCS
use.

Of course they will continue their endless footstamping. That's all
they ever do/have, no substance.

[Frank Slootweg]

[lots deleted]

As Rob also mentioned, RCS uses *an* *IP* network, not the IP part of
a normal TCP/IP 'Internet' network. I.e. much like VoIP and (AFAIK)
VoLTE [1].

As has been described, RCS is part of the voice/SMS/MMS part of the
services, not part of the 'Internet'/'mobile data' part of the services.

Specifically: For one of my mobile providers, I can turn off Internet
access, i.e. no Internet, no mbile data. If that provider has RCS, I
could still use it, because it's not part of the 'Internet'/'mobile
data' service, but of the voice/SMS/MMS/RCS services.

[...]

[1] Of course some VoIP services *can* use 'the Internet', but the point
is that not all IP-oriented services *have_to*/*do* use 'the Internet'.

[nospam]

In article <sk72m5...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> There's no indication - let alone proof - that anything *can* be
> mined, i.e. is "mineable".

it's trivial to mine all sorts of data.

claims that it cannot are simply denial.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>> Eventually Apple will implement RCS, it's just a question of how long
>> they can put it off.
>
> you don't know whether they will or won't.

While it's true we don't know what Apple will do (and, likely Apple doesn't
know everything it will do, as the unplanned throttling of billions of
iPhones proved already), what Apple will always do is this:

1. Whatever Apple does, it will "claim" they did it to "protect you."
2. Whatever that is, it almost always will _fuck_ you (for Apple profit).

Take the throttling fuck-you from Apple as a classic example.
Same as the battery-charger fuck-you from Apple.
Same as the aux-jack fuck-you from Apple.

Every time Apple fucks you, Apple presents it as if they're protecting you.
This Apple fuck-you works rather well on the apologists (who eat it up).

Why would Apple change its stripes when it comes to RCS protocols?

[Robin Goodfellow]

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

> All those things are hacks, instead of seamlessly messaging. I have my
> own hacks, like using email instead.

Carlos brings up another good point, as he's impacted by Apple's lack of
acceptance of RCS standards more so than we in the USA are affected.

He can find a hack (such as the one I had accidentally found which is "my
carrier" allows my Wi-Fi calling to supersede MMS (as far as I can tell).

But why shouldn't people in Europe be able to just text over Wi-Fi naturally
(to anyone, on either Android or in the iOS walled prison garden ecosystem)?

Lack of RCS is, perhaps, just the latest wall in the existing prison garden.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> asked

> *What's revealing is apologists don't have any _adult_ response to facts.*
>
> FACT:
> <https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-id/>
> <https://www.apple.com/privacy>

It's interesting how nospam never has any _adult_ response to actual facts.

It's as if he's used to dealing only with children who implicitly believe
what he says even as almost everything nospam claims is fabricated nonsense.

The fact is Apple mines plenty of your data, and the fact is you can't avoid
it because you need to log into the mother ship every moment of the day with
iOS (whereas, with Android, you don't need any login to the mother ship).
--
If you don't log into Apple, you can't download iOS apps sans jailbreaking.