[HN Gopher] Google says iMessage is too powerful
___________________________________________________________________
Google says iMessage is too powerful
Author : ryan_j_naughton
Score : 170 points
Date : 2022-01-11 09:52 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| qalmakka wrote:
| I'm so glad this is chiefly an American problem, as I wrote
| previously in another post about iMessage. Outside the USA and
| maybe some CANZUK countries, SMS are dead, iMessage is irrelevant
| and chat apps such as WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Telegram, Viber,
| KakaoTalk and LINE dominate the market - I live in Italy and I
| haven't received a single SMS from an actual human being in
| several years.
|
| In those countries where Apple didn't have a > 50% market share
| in the early '10s, people simply couldn't use iMessage. For
| instance, this is a summary of how things went in Italy. I think
| something along these line could have happened in most other
| countries where prepaid traffic was the norm though:
|
| 1. In Italy, basically the entirety of mobile plans were and
| still are prepaid, which meant you charged your account with
| money which you then used to pay for your traffic. Most people
| also had plans you could easily change, which gave you stuff such
| as SMS and phone calls minutes for a fixed fee, and you paid for
| them using prepaid credit. More "serious" contracts were heavily
| taxed, and thus only make sense for corporate phones or if you
| have a VAT account to deduct some of the taxes (and even them
| they were not the cheapest option).
|
| 2. No prepaid plan included unlimited SMS until around 2015, when
| they had already become largely irrelevant to most people. Before
| then, you generally got a very limited amount of SMS per month or
| day, and those were often tied to numbers belonging to the same
| carrier.
|
| This meant that most people in a certain area were basically
| forced to stick with a certain MVO for most of the '00s. For
| instance, a very popular 2007 Vodafone prepaid plan in Italy
| costed EUR6 per month, and included 100 SMS a day towards all
| Vodafone numbers (99 actually, you had to pay the first one).
| Having the "wrong" carrier in that time period meant that people
| had to pay a lot of extra credit to have a proper conversation
| with you - this was often a deal breaker for romantic
| relationships among teenagers, or led to people not contacting
| you at all. A very interesting time indeed.
|
| 3. MMS were basically never included in any plan ever, and when
| they did, they had the same limitations as SMS. Often, if your
| plan followed the "pay the first message, get 99 free" clause
| this was also true for MMS, meaning you had to pay for the first
| SMS AND the first MMS. If People were so wary of them that they
| actually deleted the MMS APN from their phones to avoid sending
| one of them by mistake - if you wanted to send a photo to someone
| you simply waited until you got home, in order to use MSN
| Messenger or email. The only usage of MMS I remember of in the
| '00s was sexting.
|
| 3. When iPhones and Android came out in the late '00s, data packs
| suddenly became a necessity to most early adopters. The iPhone
| heavily pushed its Internet capabilities a lot, and you often had
| just spent a hefty sum (remember: prepaid meant you had to pay
| the whole phone cost upfront) so you wanted to squeeze value out
| of it. Carriers at the time came out with the idea of selling
| extra prepaid packs with a limited amount of data (i.e. 50 MB a
| day, or 500 MB a month), which was not an awful lot but it was
| enough for maps and some light browsing.
|
| 4. I actually bought an iPhone 3G back in 2008, and it was truly
| amazing for its time. I paid around EUR550 for it, which was
| quite a lot for a teenager - I had to sink a lot of the money I
| had earned from my summer job in order to buy that. Most people
| around me were very against the idea of spending so much money on
| a phone - after all they could get by by simply buying a random
| Nokia 6610i or whatever for EUR100 and pay your 10 euros a month
| in prepaid credit and do whatever you needed to do. The fact that
| carriers in countries like the USA basically forced you into 2
| year plans meant that you often got iPhones for cheap, which
| helped get a foothold in the market.
|
| 5. When people started to actually switch to smartphones around
| ~2011, most people picked up shitty EUR200 Android phones which
| utterly sucked, and the higher end saw a lot of fierce
| competition between the iPhone, Samsung Galaxy and the likes.
| Still, you could expect at most 1/5 of your contacts to have an
| iPhone, and still people were locked in those carrier walled
| gardens when sending SMS. If they had an iPhone you could send
| them iMessages, but that was not the case. The fact iMessage was
| integrated in the SMS app didn't help either: people back then
| had to actually _count_ how many SMS they had sent a day to stay
| under their daily caps, and mixing in special messages you didn't
| have to pay was actually pretty confusing. I think most people in
| Italy today still don't really know what iMessage is actually.
|
| 6. Data is carrier agnostic - as soon as true chat apps with push
| notifications such as WhatsApp and FB Messenger came out, people
| started using them as a loophole to avoid paying for MMS and SMS.
| Group chats, which were really not feasible before (remember: SMS
| caps), suddenly became popular. Feeling left out, most people
| left feature phones in order to use chat apps, causing SMS to
| quickly disappear in less than a year. As an example, I went from
| sending 100 SMS a day in 2012 to 20 a YEAR in 2013.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Group chats, which were really not feasible before (remember:
| SMS caps), suddenly became popular.
|
| Good point. Messaging apps enabled group chats for real this
| time. SMS was something like proto/quasi messaging app.
|
| >I live in Italy and I haven't received a single SMS from an
| actual human being in several years.
|
| Btw spammers still use SMS. But spamming bots are not humans
| tho ;)
| 1cvmask wrote:
| I could never figure out why Android did not copy iMessage and
| offer the same within the Android ecosystem. The Android
| equivalent of the green and blue bubbles. No one is interested in
| a carrier driven initiative like RCS at scale.
| dmak wrote:
| More RCS opinions on author's Twitter:
| https://twitter.com/RonAmadeo/status/1480679515298934786?ref...
| jcranberry wrote:
| So RCS is bad because it's messaging based on phone number
| rather than email address? Why isn't SMS bad?
| not2b wrote:
| Both companies are in the wrong: Google for its half-assed and
| broken messaging solutions and its current claims that RCS will
| suffice, and Apple for promoting lock-in by only supporting
| iMessage and SMS and nothing else and being quite clear that they
| consider this a competitive advantage.
|
| There needs to be an interoperable, highly functional solution
| that doesn't depend on wireless carriers.
| wvenable wrote:
| > There needs to be an interoperable, highly functional
| solution that doesn't depend on wireless carriers.
|
| Carriers have a lot of control over Android and they simply
| didn't want to be cut out. Google could have just copied
| iMessage from the start if it wasn't for carriers not wanting
| to be cut out of messaging.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Why should Apple need to "support" anything else?
|
| You can download WhatsApp or Signal or Facebook Messenger or
| whatever else you might want, and have those work fine.
| iMessage works really well, and Apple enjoys some network
| effects here, but you say "they consider this a competitive
| advantage" like that's a bad thing.
|
| They made a better mousetrap here. Bully for them!
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Apple for promoting lock-in by only supporting iMessage and
| SMS
|
| In Europe I see people using anything but iMessage, so...
| SquirrelOnFire wrote:
| Like Signal?
| XorNot wrote:
| I mean yes, but Signal needs to grow up and decide if it's
| going to find a way to play ball with business, or stick to
| it's ideological purity and weird cryptocurrency experiments
| (I use Signal solely for all my messaging now).
| flubflub wrote:
| What do you mean by play ball with business?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Supposedly Signal received ~$600k in donations in 2018
| while spending ~4M in infrastructure costs[0], so OP is
| suggestion they do regular revenue generation via in-app
| features and whatnot instead of cryptocurrency stuff.
|
| 0: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-
| statistics/#:~:te...
| fsflover wrote:
| Like Matrix. Signal can't even be installed without Apple or
| Google.
| Sunspark wrote:
| It can be, only for Android.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Spot on.
|
| iMessage took over because iPhone users could no longer send
| group SMS. Apple killed group SMS. Google never did this. Only
| tried to change Sms and enhance it.
| webkike wrote:
| What are you talking about? It's possible to send group SMS
| messages on iPhone.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Can you do this if all of the recipients have iPhone? Or do
| they automatically get switched to Imessage?
| reaperducer wrote:
| Apple killed group SMS?
|
| One of the group chats my wife uses for work is all SMS users
| except for her.
|
| Or am I misreading your comment?
| wnoise wrote:
| ... I have sent group SMS (MMS) with an iPhone.
| qeternity wrote:
| Why does Apple need to do anything at all? It's not like there
| aren't a gazillion iMessage alternatives, so you can't argue
| monopoly. There is no lock-in, there is just lock-out. The
| lock-in that is being described is literally the result of
| building a good product that people don't want to get rid of
| (for whatever reason, including social pressure). But there is
| nothing actually locking people in to iMessage from a
| technological perspective.
|
| Apple built a superior service, and the price of using that
| service is an iPhone. Does it suck for Google and Android
| users? Yes. Is that the whole point? Yes. Is there anything
| wrong with that? I don't think so.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Apple stands between me and my carrier's sms service, and
| then layers it's own service on top of that. There is no API
| messaging app developers can use to do the same thing. It's
| clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your service with
| a basic infrastructure service. It doesn't matter to me if a
| company achieves a monopoly - what matters to me is them
| seeking one in a way that harms users. Google is guilty of
| this, apple is guilty of this, hell - since there's money to
| be made and no good enforcement of this - most large
| companies are guilty of this.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Most countries use WhatsApp, WeChat, etc and don't use SMS.
| You can turn iMessages off easily if you want the shitty
| carrier experience.
| kennywinker wrote:
| You're not suggesting a non-monopolist solution, you're
| just suggesting we give a monopoly to someone else
| (facebook) and abandon the idea a non-proprietary
| standard that could allow me to have the non-shitty
| experience with everyone (not just users of my platform)
| and degrade to sms if needed.
| qeternity wrote:
| American living in London - I rarely use iMessage. Almost
| 100% WhatsApp which is a much worse product than
| iMessage.
|
| The only time I use iMessage is when I speak to friends
| and family back home.
| gwright wrote:
| > It's clearly monopolistic behavior to interlink your
| service with a basic infrastructure service
|
| Not very clear at all, IMHO. Would you prefer that iMessage
| conversations didn't "interlink" with SMS recipients? Is
| that a better outcome?
|
| This is yet another example of the power of the "network
| affect" and the difficulty of crafting a reasonable
| regulatory framework.
|
| I'm just pushing back at your assertion about "monopolistic
| behavior" but not at the general difficulty of regulating
| these sorts of ecosystems.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > Not very clear at all, IMHO. Would you prefer that
| iMessage conversations didn't "interlink" with SMS
| recipients? Is that a better outcome?
|
| Possible non-monopolistic solutions:
|
| - an open standard for phone-number linked messaging.
|
| - Allow any messaging app to assume imessage's role and
| send/receive sms messages instead of the imessage app.
|
| - separate imessage and sms into separate apps. As you
| pointed out, this is probably the worst option since
| nobody really wants this experience.
|
| As for regulation:
|
| "All general-purpose communications platforms with over
| 10mil users must allow and enable open access to 3rd
| party client developers and inter-platform communications
| gateways" - problem solved
| [deleted]
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Apple is a MINORITY player in the phone market by an absurd
| margin. They can't do anything "monopolistic" because they
| do not control the market.
|
| They do control their PLATFORM, but that's within their
| legal rights.
|
| If you don't like how iMessages work, you can absolutely
| choose another phone platform, or another messaging tool on
| iOS. Since you have this choice, there is no "monopolistic
| behavior" here. Apple are not obliged to allow all comers
| to use their systems.
| FanaHOVA wrote:
| > Apple stands between me and my carrier's sms service
|
| Because you chose to buy their phone. Just buy a non-Apple
| phone, plenty of them.
| uncomputation wrote:
| > Apple stands between me and my carrier's sms service
|
| You can turn it off at any time. Settings > Messages >
| iMessage off
|
| How does this "harm users"? If anything it provides a
| service that most users appreciate heavily: read receipts,
| typing indicators, flexible group chats. If you want to use
| SMS, you can. If you want to use WhatsApp, you can. All
| this talk about Apple having a "monopoly" over its own
| ecosystem is not only incorrect but just tiresome.
|
| Apple isn't "guilty" of anything here.
| extropy wrote:
| Can I have WhatsApp that fallbacks to SMS though?
| Genuinely curious.
| soperj wrote:
| On android you can do this with Signal, not sure about
| IOS.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > How does this "harm users"?
|
| I get those extras you refer to (read receipts etc) only
| if i have an iphone and so does the other user. Yet with
| an open standard i could have those with everyone.
|
| Other apps have features imessage does not - yet i can't
| intermix whatsapp/snapchat/vibr/telegram etc with my sms
| messages - apple is holding my sms' hostage in the
| imessage app when i might prefer to send sms' and
| whatsapp messages from a single app
|
| Apple knows the lock-in increases the value of their
| devices. That's harm - my iphone costs more.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| These complaints seem really entitled to me.
|
| You can download and use something else if you don't want
| to use Apple's Messages app.
|
| You can configure Messages to use only SMS and not do
| iMessage.
|
| You seem to be saying that Apple should provide a
| multiprotocol tool that supports a bunch of platforms and
| allow you to intermingle them, which is a fine thing to
| want, but if it's not in Apple's interest to build such a
| thing I don't know how you can describe their choice as
| "wrong" or "harmful".
| qeternity wrote:
| > Apple stands between me and my carrier's sms service
|
| No, you chose to put Apple between you and your carrier.
|
| Make a different choice. Apple isn't imposing itself on
| you.
|
| > monopolistic behavior
|
| > It doesn't matter to me if a company achieves a monopoly
|
| Ok, so you don't actually care what the meaning of these
| words are, you just want to throw them around when someone
| does something that you don't like.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > No, you chose to put Apple between you and your
| carrier.
|
| Right, because the other option was to put google between
| me and my carrier - which comes with a ton of stuff i'd
| be upset about (e.g. terrible privacy protections) but
| you'd blame me for "choosing" because you don't actually
| care if I have a choice you just want to blame me _eye
| rolls_
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _Apple stands between me and my carrier's sms service_
|
| In complete fairness, Apple doesn't stand between you and
| your sms carrier. I can't think of any company that does
| that actually?
|
| All companies that I am aware of pass through sms messages
| to the carrier sms service, and deliver messages from the
| carrier sms service. Most companies layer a service on top
| of the sms, but sms itself is meticulously unmolested in
| every system I'm aware of.
|
| Finally, giving devs an api to intercept and process sms
| messages would be naivete in the extreme. With so much
| sensitive data coming through sms, it just would open too
| many holes. A random dev could intercept passwords, 2
| Factor information, account balances, and on and on.
|
| For my part, I would be entirely against hackers having
| that access.
| readams wrote:
| That actually isn't what iMessage does. iMessage
| maintains a database of phone numbers that are iMessage,
| and then intercepts and routes the messages through Apple
| and not through SMS.
|
| You can see this since if you switch away from Apple
| after using iMessage, anyone using iPhones will not be
| able to message you unless you go through a procedure to
| remove your phone number from iMessage.
| theta_d wrote:
| I think OPs point is that Android allows you to use an
| app other than the stock app to send SMS, Apple does not.
| uncomputation wrote:
| I think people strangely confuse competition with monopoly
| nowadays. The point of competition is to drive people to use
| your product because it's superior. That's the whole benefit.
| Apple provides a competitive messaging service and others can
| provide alternatives if they think they can do better in some
| way. The point of monopoly is to crush competition. Apple
| isn't stopping Google from developing a better messaging
| service. Honestly, they should put more thought into
| developing features than bashing competition on Twitter.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Except Apple is highjacking your phone number and won't let
| it go without a fight. Is it also how competition works to
| you ?
| ubermonkey wrote:
| You're going to need a cite here. This WAS an issue, but
| articles abound today from carriers and Apple on how to
| remove a phone number from the iMessage service.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| How soon we have forgotten the lessons of the browser wars..
| qeternity wrote:
| How wilfully we ignore that iOS has 25% market share...
| makeitdouble wrote:
| You haven't tried getting rid of iMessage after embracing it:
| it's a nightmare.
|
| It's like a zombie dog that will follow you whatever you do,
| and will keep eating messages sent to you again and again.
| There's an ecosystem of tutorials online to go the right step
| to minimize the effect (e.g.
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/three-
| steps-...)
|
| That doesn't look like a "Apple did no wrong" situation from
| any angle we look at it.
| easton wrote:
| It isn't that bad in my experience, type "disable iMessage"
| into Google and this is the first result:
| https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/ (which
| offers a way to deregister your phone number if you don't
| have an iPhone anymore).
|
| It definitely was bad when iMessage first launched, but
| they probably made that site five years ago and it works to
| get rid of it.
| decafninja wrote:
| Completely agree.
|
| I'm an iPhone user, but rarely use iMessage. Most of my
| instant messaging actually happens on some combination of
| Google Chat! (or whatever they call it these days), KakaoTalk
| (I'm Korean) and WhatsApp. Plenty of other alternatives out
| there too.
|
| I think I have just one friend who I use iMessage with
| regularly.
| bogidon wrote:
| I still have an iPhone for now (am waiting for mobile Linux to
| become just a little more mature) but I've turned off iMessage.
| When I get asked about how I can be reached by IM I tell people
| they can find me on Signal.
|
| Been doing this for about two years and now ~80% of my personal
| conversations are over Signal. And most of these friends are not
| very technical.
|
| I love my little successful rebellion against the walled garden.
| And it will make my eventual transition away from iOS much
| easier.
|
| Just a somewhat related personal anecdote, sorry to deviate a bit
| from topic.
|
| EDIT: Yes, Signal is centralized and I would have loved to use
| Matrix. But the clients are bad. Email me if you want to build a
| better one
| xmly wrote:
| iMessage for Android, please!
| deadmutex wrote:
| FYI: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-
| an...
| llampx wrote:
| I fully agree with the article. Google shot their own foot in
| many many things and is now slowly reaping the rewards. They had
| complete carte blanche to do as they wished on Android in terms
| of messaging, and they chose to run around like a chicken with
| its head cut off. RCS is a non-starter, no one outside of the US
| is eager to go back to an SMS-like protocol.
|
| HN opinion has been negative on Google for a while, and this is
| filtering into the consumer landscape.
|
| It doesn't mean they are going out of business tomorrow or at
| all, but I see a period of MSFT-like regression, reflection and
| then a Nadella to bring them out of their malaise.
|
| On the other hand, the US is unique for this because iMessage is
| not as popular outside the US.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| After reading the story about Google taking away a feature from
| their speakers, due to a patent dispute with Sonos, I can't
| help but wonder if the reason Google does such a terrible job
| at messaging has something to do with patents. Maybe they know
| they need to compete with iMessage but just can't because some
| patent farm or other company got there first?
| llampx wrote:
| Surely between one of their 8 messaging apps/teams they have
| the required expertise and patents? I'm not particularly keen
| on giving them any benefit of the doubt. They're one of the
| biggest, richest companies in the world.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Their products in this space really do just suck and
| Google's ability to do good consumer facing products is
| questionable and the ones that are good get killed off
| before they even have a chance to get off the ground.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I see a period of MSFT-like regression_
|
| I've always seen it this way:
|
| Facebook is trying to be the new Google.
|
| Google is trying to be the new Microsoft.
|
| Microsoft is trying to be the new IBM.
|
| IBM is trying to be the new Oracle.
|
| Meanwhile, Apple is trying to be the new Sony.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Whatsapp works for us.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| iMessage is indeed way too powerful, but RCS is nowhere near as
| good. Even basic things like fast high quality photo/video
| sharing, reactions, and apps like in-chat games.
|
| I suspect Apple will eventually support RCS as a strong
| improvement over SMS. This will help a lot with bridging the gap,
| but Apple will still use iMessage as a differentiator.
| sylens wrote:
| People forget that Google had a perfectly good messaging service
| called Google Talk that lived inside Gmail (the biggest product
| besides the iPhone at that point), interoperated with XMPP and
| AIM back in 2007, and threw it all away in 2011 as part of their
| mad dash to make a Facebook competitor in Google+. With Google+,
| we got Hangouts, which later became a standalone product in 2013
| so that they could sunset Google Talk.
|
| If they had just kept iterating on Google Talk and made it
| similar in functionality to iMessage, they would be in such
| better shape today. Instead, they've thrown away the last ten
| years on messaging.
| obert wrote:
| and they were quite quick to drop federated XMPP, because.
| kotaKat wrote:
| ... even though Google locked-in the entire Android ecosystem by
| forcing people onto Google's RCS servers because they couldn't
| wait for carrier implementation?
| pjmlp wrote:
| From European point of view and our SMS infrastructure, I find
| really funny this kind of discussion.
|
| Besides, almost everyone uses Whatsapp, regardless of the phone
| brand.
| Jyaif wrote:
| Not just from a European POV, but also from Eastern-Asian and
| South-American POV. I don't know the rest of the world.
|
| For me and my peers, SMS is for 2 factor auth, spammy
| advertising, and the occasional parent that mistakenly sends a
| SMS instead of a WhatsApp message.
| jdlyga wrote:
| If you're outside of Europe, it really depends on the country.
| Some countries it might be Telegram, Whatsapp, Line, WeChat,
| etc. There's no real universal standard.
| pier25 wrote:
| Nobody outside the US uses iMessage or SMS.
| pjmlp wrote:
| I can guarantee that plenty of people use SMS in Europe.
|
| In fact, here is a small taste only with French data, which I
| guess is still an European country.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1188330/sms-traffic-
| volu...
| mrkramer wrote:
| SMS is legacy tech and way of communication in EU. In the
| near future it won't probably be used at all anymore.
| hyperman1 wrote:
| I wouldn't count on it. SMS is available on any
| cellphone. If you don't know what chat apps the other
| side has, it's still the trustworthy if clunky baseline.
|
| For more than 10 years, SMS and a chat ap have lived side
| by side. The favorite chat app changed a few times, but
| SMS just plods along, never really gaining or losing
| market share.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >SMS just plods along, never really gaining or losing
| market share
|
| SMS lost huge market share to messaging mobile apps so EU
| telecoms changed their business model from selling SMS
| messages and/or calls plans to selling GBs data plans.
| For example you can buy unlimited daily, weekly or
| monthly data plan or x amount of GBs data plan. Some EU
| telecoms went so far to sell bundled apps data plans like
| this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/
| %2B_Smar...
| hulitu wrote:
| Taken into account that mobile data is not always
| available it will take some time until SMS will be
| extinct. And this in a central european country who just
| upgraded phone numbers for fax machines.
| nradov wrote:
| SMS is still more reliable because it doesn't rely on
| cellular data service. In emergency situations when
| cellular networks are overloaded or with a weak
| connection it's more likely to get through.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Only on 2G/3G networks. 4G+ is an IP network.
|
| Don't forget - SMS was a hack in the system messages:
|
| > The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-
| optimized system, and to transport messages on the
| signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic
| during periods when no signalling traffic existed.
| mrkramer wrote:
| In the absence of internet connection yea SMS is still
| useful but it has nowhere near the quality of UX and
| features of mobile messaging apps. It is just
| communication protocol after all.
| candiodari wrote:
| Plus SMS uses phone signalling, like 2G does, and 3G data
| a bit. It needs a _lot_ of signalling bandwidth where
| data and voice, ironically, do not need as much. SMS will
| fail long before data or voice on cellular networks
| fails. It has retry, which is famous for sometimes taking
| actual days to deliver a message.
|
| Doesn't apply from 4G onwards, where everything is IP,
| but still.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Legacy to whom?
| mrkramer wrote:
| To young people who never used SMS and will grow up only
| on WhatsApp, FB messenger, Viber, Snapchat etc.
|
| Snapchat is basically MMS with rich user experience and
| advanced features. Is anybody still using MMS when you
| have something like WhatsApp and Snapchat?
| btgeekboy wrote:
| Snapchat? All the kids are on Discord now.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Yes, all those people that don't have phones running
| them.
| mrkramer wrote:
| SMS and MMS are still useful as communicating protocols
| and communication services when you don't have internet
| access but you can think of SMS as something like XMPP.
| Why would you use bare bone XMPP when you can use
| WhatsApp running on XMPP with 99 useful features that
| XMPP doesn't originally have and support.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Plenty of people don't care about sending images over
| messages with phones, they use email and facebook for
| that.
|
| Plus in many pre-paid plans the amount of SMS is almost
| unlimited, or with packages like 5 000 per month, which
| hardly anyone ever consumes half of it.
| newsclues wrote:
| Canada still uses it. As data is expensive
| xnx wrote:
| The state of chat shows just how much of a miracle the federated
| interoperability of email is.
| awelxtr wrote:
| I guess that business were never built upon chats, while email
| (and conventional mail) is really the backbone of the
| enterprise world
| iqanq wrote:
| I have read many comments here and in other places saying that
| Apple makes the green SMS bubbles annoying and hard to read. But
| from looking at this screenshot, I don't get that vibe at all.
| They don't look more annoying than the blue ones. In fact, I'd
| say in the top part of both screenshots, the blue ones look like
| they have less contrast than the green ones.
|
| https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/scree...
| artursapek wrote:
| The blue ones have _more_ contrast than the green ones, making
| them easier to read.
|
| Convert that screenshot to grayscale in Photoshop to see
|
| https://i.imgur.com/U8mEB93.png
|
| This has always bothered me. Apple definitely knows this and is
| doing it on purpose. The color green they chose is just hard on
| the eyes. They don't think it's a good color.
| collegeburner wrote:
| That color was used for all messages before imessage was a
| thing. Blue was added later.
| webmaven wrote:
| It will look different depending on your settings[0] and the
| type of screen, affecting the gamma and gamut.
|
| On mine, that screenshot looks like the green has an
| unpleasantly high saturation compared to the blue. The higher
| saturation increases the perceived value/lightness, lowering
| contrast.
|
| [0] On my phone (a Pixel5a running Android 12), Display >
| Colors is set to Adaptive, rather than Natural or Boosted.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| The color isn't the problem, never was. The color simply
| indicates that the person is using basic SMS, and that has an
| effect on all members of the conversation.
| MBCook wrote:
| There was an article making the rounds the other day that
| argued that Apple had changed the green bubbles to have less
| contrast and thus be harder to read that they were in
| previous releases.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| Ah, I missed that. I haven't found it in my searches, just
| articles about accessibility settings that can be used to
| adjust the colors.
| MBCook wrote:
| Honestly I'm not sure if it made it to HN. I saw it
| somehow (don't remember how I came across it) and the
| title was kind of generic about the blue vs green bubble
| thing. It was only if you actually went in and read it
| you saw it was making a pointer other than "shunning and
| network effects".
| m3kw9 wrote:
| iMessage is built in to every iPhone so that's 70% there, and has
| a free vs paid indicator(blue/green), Us vs Them, private vs not
| private.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > and has a free vs paid indicator(blue/green), Us vs Them,
| private vs not private.
|
| Or, in less loaded and hyperbolic terms, a visual indicator of
| the medium used for the conversation.
| fundad wrote:
| Us (iMessage) vs Them (Those without iOS or macOS) vs Those
| without smartphones (Mail) vs Those without internet (Phone) vs
| Those without phone or internet (Maps)
| dgudkov wrote:
| Heh, now Google feels the pain of proprietary protocols. Had
| Google pushed for XMPP and RSS odds are they wouldn't lose so
| miserably to Apple and Facebook on the social side.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Jony Ive fancies himself a wizard of design. Well, he dropped the
| ball when he decided to go with white text on a light green
| background. This is called low-contrast visibility and reduces
| accessibility for those with visual impairments.
|
| Jony and Apple could have left a switch setting for black letters
| instead, but no, the Apple way is read white letters on a mid-
| tone gradient.
|
| My last iPhone, I never upgraded it from iOS 6 because I didn't
| agree with this design direction, and I have to say it's a breath
| of fresh air using Android because you don't have to deal with a
| single guy making all the decisions for you.
| snazz wrote:
| Settings>Accessibility>Display & Text Size>Increase Contrast
| takes care of that across all Apple apps and most third-party
| ones.
| willis936 wrote:
| Imagine if Google had implemented the small feature set of
| iMessage and supported it on all OSes. Imagine how much market
| share they could have captured.
| deschutes wrote:
| What you're describing is WhatsApp. So we don't need to
| speculate.
|
| iMessage benefited tremendously from being the default. Combine
| that with Apple's mobile market share in the US and you get the
| present situation.
|
| My gripe isn't really that it won in the US. Its that you need
| Apple hardware to participate.
|
| Google may be self interested but they're right about one
| thing: knowingly allowing and fueling this social dynamic is
| inconsistent with Apple's brand. But it was never really about
| values, just making consumers feel good about their purchases.
| willis936 wrote:
| I also described signal and a dozen other competitors. None
| of those apps are made by Google. Google ships Android. I
| don't think my point should have been missed.
| nomel wrote:
| > What you're describing is WhatsApp.
|
| Can WhatsApp do sms/mms now?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| iMessage cannot do SMS/MMS either.
|
| Their point is Google should have stuffed their iMessage
| equivalent )such as Hangouts) inside of a generic texting
| app that also handled SMS/MMS by default, and then enabled
| all the same features that Apple did and released it for
| iOS.
| fundad wrote:
| Exactly it's the iOS app called "Messages" that is too
| powerful for Google's liking. Google uses an article
| about iMessage as a social network to make it seem like
| they are the victims for not out-competing the "Messages"
| app.
|
| It's been said here already that gchat had the features
| that could be been integrated into Android's SMS app, add
| end-to-end encryption and they would have crushed the
| iPhone.
| nomel wrote:
| > iMessage cannot do SMS/MMS either.
|
| From a user perspective, the Messages app can. I want
| SMS/MMS seamlessly integrated (like when my cellular data
| connection dies, the bubbles go green), like the Messages
| app does. If WhatsApp cannot, then it's definitely
| missing a huge piece of usability.
| parkingrift wrote:
| The thing about iMessage is that you don't need a separate app.
| You can have iMessage and SMS right next to each other.
|
| Google never seemed to understand this convenience. They released
| Allo without any SMS support and were hostile so suggestions that
| it was a gating feature to adoption. Allo predictably failed as
| it offered no benefits over competing services, and no SMS
| fallback so that it could be the single messaging app.
|
| If Google wants to level the playing field they should do it by
| competing and innovating. I suggest they start that endeavor by
| better understanding why people actually use iMessage in the
| first place.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| The really sad thing is that they actually had this.
|
| Hangouts on a Google Fi phone used to let you consolidate
| everything to hangouts - SMS, Chats, Calls, etc. It was a pain
| it was limited to Fi, but it worked just fine. You could also
| pop open Hangouts in Gmail in your browser and there all your
| sms messages were, nicely grouped and tracked.
|
| Then apparently hangouts stopped being cool enough - so Google
| decided to shutter it in favor of "Google Messages".
| Technically - "Messages for web" also supports the same feature
| set as the integrated hangouts, but it FUCKING SUCKS.
|
| The phone/browser syncing is bad, the UI is a complete
| regression. Just the process of enabling it required me to
| actually contact support at google fi (you have to open
| settings, disable previous sms settings for fi, stop hangouts,
| update your google account, and then opt into a beta).
|
| Basically - Hangouts did exactly this, but Google continues to
| act like Google, and shutter any product that might actually be
| a good foundation to build/maintain, since Google has shown
| AGAIN AND AGAIN that it can't actually maintain any product.
|
| Google can innovate just fine - it's the follow through that
| they lack.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Yes I used Hangouts and Google Fi for this exact reason. It
| was perfect. If they would have just rolled this out globally
| to all Android users I believe Google would have won the
| messaging battle with Apple.
|
| I've since switched from Android to iOS, but Fi+Hangouts was
| amazing at the time. Too bad Google seemingly abandoned both
| projects.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Strong agree, and here's my anecdote:
|
| Around the time that they started f-ing around with 15
| different chat apps and killing off products, and
| integrations with other products, was when a Google account
| with "integration" started to become more of a hassle than
| worthwhile to me, personally. I used to use gChat, Hangouts,
| etc. but now I just use iPhone stuff since everyone I know
| has iPhone stuff. Apple hasn't deprecated anything since at
| least 5 years ago (the last time I had a work iPhone) so to
| me that signals that I can keep iPhones and not have to
| continually figure out what the "new way to chat" is, like I
| had to with Google. I've almost completely migrated from
| Google, except for Photos (which is superior to alternatives,
| IMO; I can actually backup my Google Photos from my Linux CLI
| whereas I couldn't figure out how to reliably do that with
| Apple Photos) and Google Search usage. I have had my Gmail
| account since ~2004 and I basically killed/deleted all of the
| services in my Google account now (even Google Voice sucks
| now, so I basically abandoned my phone number I used from
| ~2001 that I ported into it) except for forwarding email to
| my new email address and using Photos. I used to be "all in"
| with Google, but they made it too hard to keep using stuff
| that kept being killed off, so they dug their own grave.
| silisili wrote:
| This is what annoyed me the most. Google was there, they had
| an awesome solution. Then they just abandoned it. Even in its
| old, clunky state, it was still immensely useful, and user
| feedback was -very- vocal about its utility. They just don't
| care.
| Grumbledour wrote:
| I also had the Hangouts/sms combined app on my Google Nexus.
| But as you said, after annoying everyone because the sms app
| was suddenly gone, they annoyed everyone again because it was
| suddenly back. And then the annoyed everyone with several new
| messengers, though I am not sure who still payed attention at
| that time. Leaving out how annoying the death of google talk
| before all that was.
|
| Google has messengers on every android phone preinstalled and
| nobody uses them, because they create them, never
| significantly update them and then abandon them. It's
| completely their fault they don't even get a mention when
| people talk about messaging apps.
| jsight wrote:
| I remember being baffled by the introduction of duo and allo
| when they already had both messaging and video solutions in
| other apps.
|
| Network effects are big and they were intentionally reducing
| theirs! Shockingly it hasn't gone well since then.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > The thing about iMessage is that you don't need a separate
| app.
|
| Given iMessage basically has no base outside of the US because
| everyone uses Whatsapp or Line I'm not convinced this is
| terribly neccessary.
| parkingrift wrote:
| This comment is in response to Google complaining
| specifically amount iMessage usage in the US.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Yes, but it does suggest that converting any given market
| doesn't require there to be a singular combined app. I
| think it might not have been a terrible idea, but probably
| not a terrible idea.
| criddell wrote:
| I don't think they even need to innovate much.
|
| I never understood why Google didn't just clone Apple's app
| many years ago. Hangouts was pretty close - take that, add e2e
| encryption for in-app threads (like iMessage) and make sure SMS
| is there as a peer. Make a client for the major platforms and
| then let the project slip into maintenance mode.
|
| Instead, they championed RCS which (last time I checked) isn't
| encrypted which is borderline unethical IMHO.
| jaeming wrote:
| When I lived overseas several years ago, and was on an ancient
| plan that only allowed 200 free SMS messages, the blue vs green
| was a critical distinction. After my free SMS allotment, it
| indicated whether I was being charged or not.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| in other news, pot calls kettle black
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Back in the original Palm Pre days, webOS had the best messenger
| app.
|
| Would do regular SMS messages but you could configure your AOL,
| MSN, and even Facebook messaging at one point IIRC all inside of
| the same interface. It's too bad it lost out compared to Android.
| Was so far ahead in so many areas.
| tw04 wrote:
| Right, it had a jabber/XMPP client for that brief window when
| everyone was pretending to try to standardize. Google, AOL,
| MSN, Facebook, they were all (mostly) interoperable. Now we're
| back to all walled gardens.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| What a sad place we've arrived compared to where we started
| garrickvanburen wrote:
| That feeling when iPhone finally gets a feature I had on my
| TouchPad.
| gertrunde wrote:
| I always considered RCS to be raising the lowest common
| denominator up a bit from SMS, not really a replacement for any
| of the various data-based messaging services.
| leoh wrote:
| It doesn't matter if Google ruined android messaging. The point
| is, tons of people use android and google is trying to make it
| better. The title of this article suggests an orientation towards
| google of contempt, as opposed to showing that google is trying
| to do right by its former mistakes. And does not point out that
| apple has not been nice in the past either.
|
| The article promotes a zero sum mentality. That only apple should
| win because iMessage is better and because google already messed
| up.
|
| As opposed to a value oriented mentality that a new standard,
| RCS, could be better for android and iOS users alike.
|
| Google hasn't always been a great company. I don't understand why
| we can't celebrate wins, especially those that would benefit
| others, such as rcs.
|
| To do otherwise is to indefinitely call some parties good and
| some parties bad, to engage in black and white thinking. Which is
| more harmful for ourselves and says more about ourselves than the
| individuals and corporations of the world.
| dagmx wrote:
| I don't think the article is promoting a zero sum game.
|
| It's rightfully calling out Google for calling out Apple when
| both companies are to blame for this.
| gnabgib wrote:
| What was posted by the official Android account ("Message
| should not benefit from bullying. Texting should bring us
| together, and the solution exists. Let's fix this as one
| industry."), and the opinion of the article's author ("Google
| took to Twitter this weekend to complain that iMessage is
| just too darn influential with today's kids") bare no
| relation.
|
| The author clearly doesn't like RCS, which is an opinion he's
| entitled to.. but Google's approach to try and get multiple
| vendors to adopt an open standard (RCS), instead of creating
| a walled garden seems like the better path.
| dmak wrote:
| RCS just seems like an improvement over a legacy
| infrastructure. Why do we need it at all?
| fundad wrote:
| The truth is Google could introduce an app today, and if it was
| good enough and outdid iMessage, and people would start
| switching over within a few years. They could make it part of
| Chrome to supercharge adoption but nope.
|
| Google sounds like dudes who whine about cancellation.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Larry Page wanted to buy WhatsApp so Google can compete in IM app
| business but WhatsApp sold to Facebook. I think Google had Gmail
| chat called Gchat, that thing could've been successful idk how it
| failed tbh.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Google infighting plus a bit of a complete failure to push back
| against American carriers.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Yea but it doesn't make sense since they were already
| partnered with carriers who were offering Android phones to
| their customers.
| thevagrant wrote:
| Google don't let Google Apps accounts convert/migrate to Gmail or
| migrate purchases between Google accounts when I last checked.
|
| It makes it very difficult to exit the Google system when I tried
| to migrate to Fastmail.
|
| I don't really trust Google to manage messaging long term. Their
| messaging products have changed so often, I gave up trying to use
| them.
| Nelkins wrote:
| Semi-related: Does anybody know of a way to export iMessages from
| your iPhone?
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| You can extract them from an iTunes backup using iMazing or
| Reincubate Backup Extractor, though both are paid.
| meepmorp wrote:
| They're stored in a sqlite database on your phone. If you make
| an unencrypted backup of your device, you can find the db file
| in the output. The filenames are all mangled, but there's a
| manifest database at the root of the dump that has a mapping to
| the source file metadata.
|
| From there, you just need to export the data you want from the
| messages db. The schema is kind of amazing, but not in a good
| way.
|
| You don't need to buy a tool - you can write a
| python/ruby/whatever script.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Before Google complains about Apple holding back interoperable
| rich texting with RCS, Google should make RCS work with Google
| Voice. The people in charge of product at Google remain utterly
| incompetent. Get your house in order.
| Closi wrote:
| Yep, and before Google complain that Apple doesn't allow
| iMessage on Android, maybe they should make sure their closest
| product (Messages by Google) is available on iOS?
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| How do you expect that to work? Apple doesn't allow third-
| party SMS apps, and as far as I understand RCS is also pretty
| closely tied in with carriers so it probably wouldn't work
| without official support from Apple either.
| Closi wrote:
| To be honest I didn't realise it was based around RCS (or
| really what RCS was!)
|
| I thought Google had their own thing, but I think I was
| getting confused between Messages by Google and Hangouts
| (or one of their other apps).
|
| Can you do a hangouts chat within messages by google? (The
| whole Android messaging ecosystem is so confusing to me!)
| ianburrell wrote:
| Messages on Android is just SMS and RCS.
|
| Hangouts is dead, replaced by Google Chat.
|
| On Google Fi, Messages can sync messages with web app. I
| wish there was a Messages for iOS for reading Google Fi
| messages on my iPad. But that would be a pretty niche use
| and they would have to call it something less confusing.
|
| Hangouts used to have the ability to do both Hangouts and
| SMS. But it didn't have the ability to automatically
| switch like iMessage. They could have also rolled out the
| ability to sync SMS to more carriers instead of just
| Sprint and Google Fi.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Can't they ship a whatsup style client and then proxy it
| onto RCS or whatever they need to use on the backend?
|
| The reality is a google is a total mess. We couldn't get
| their speakers to work with their calendars on paid
| accounts for the longest time (think 5+ years).
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > Google once had a functional competitor to iMessage called
| Google Hangouts. Circa 2015, Hangouts was a messaging powerhouse
|
| Is it still a powerhouse if no one uses it?
| partiallypro wrote:
| My problem with Apple's approach is they have essentially
| hijacked the SMS protocol and put a layer on top of it. Then they
| actively push against anything that would endanger that,
| including moving on to better standard protocols because it would
| eliminate some of the "prestige" or "status" that now comes with
| the bubble colors, reactions, etc. In the end that hurts not just
| Android users, but also Apple users.
|
| I'm honestly surprised more people don't complain about it...and
| given Google is really the only other big phone software maker
| now, it is their role to try to say something imo. "You reap what
| you sow" (as this article says) honestly sounds ignorant (or just
| pro-Apple) and really ignores the major problem here. Google has
| been bad at messaging apps, that doesn't mean this concern isn't
| real or a fairly big problem. Especially when the stats show that
| this is creating a hardware monopoly for Apple (look at the stats
| for young people,) in 10-15 years this creates a much bigger
| hardware market share for Apple. That is not a desirable outcome.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| I don't know what you'd have them do that doesn't result in
| them giving up a competitive advantage.
|
| They're a minority phone player. They have their own messaging
| platform as a feature of their mobile OS, so making it
| available to other platforms is anathema to their own business
| goals and success of their own platform.
|
| I don't feel hurt or victimized by their choices here. It's not
| in my way at all.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Minority phone maker? Apple is the biggest corporation on
| earth...and make up the majority of smart phone sales in the
| US. Yes they would have to give up a competitive advantage.
| That's the point.
| mindfulmore wrote:
| Pretty sure OP meant that they're a minority in terms of
| market share. The number of Android phones being used is
| probably 5x that of iPhones.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Yes. They are, by the plain meaning of the words, a
| minority player in mobile phone sales globally by a HUGE
| margin. The most recent data for 2021 suggest that sales
| for last were split pretty evenly in the US, but overall
| usage still heavily favors Android.
|
| They DO have a much bigger footprint in some desirable
| segments of that market, but overall they're a minority
| player. By definition, minority players do not enjoy any
| monopolistic power. They are under no obligation to give up
| any competitive advantage until and unless they exhibit
| true, market-manipulating monopolistic behavior.
| jacob019 wrote:
| There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They
| can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and
| support RCS for interop with non-Apple devices and for users
| who would rather not route their messaging through Apple.
|
| That they choose not to support a standard protocol as a
| competitive advantage is exactly the problem.
|
| Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built
| in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only
| available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI
| is limited to 1080P.
|
| There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive
| behavior is illegal.
| iamtheworstdev wrote:
| what's the better standard? RCS is trash. Google is literally
| pulling a "think of the children" campaign when the children
| don't even care what anyone is using because they're all on
| snapchat, whatsapp, and everything else.
| cwkoss wrote:
| An open standard would be better. Google should be able to
| follow apple's specification to add the additional features,
| and when apple updates the standard, Android texts turn green
| until the update is pushed.
| partiallypro wrote:
| > Google is literally pulling a "think of the children"
| campaign when the children don't even care what anyone is
| using because they're all on snapchat, whatsapp, and
| everything else.
|
| Except stats don't back up what you are saying, at least not
| in the US. RCS is no less trash than SMS, it's actually an
| improvement over SMS. They could come together, along with
| carriers, to create an even better standard but one party is
| holding out...and blocking any innovation (hint, it's Apple.)
| I don't get how people are ok with them hijacking an open
| standard.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Apple's approach is they have essentially hijacked the SMS
| protocol
|
| This is supposed to be a technical community so can we stop
| with this lazy abuse of terminology.
|
| Apple has not hijacked the SMS protocol in any way, shape or
| form.
|
| They've simply created an app that supports two protocols: SMS
| and iMessage with a UI that abstracts the difference.
| truantbuick wrote:
| They held my number hostage for a while after I switched off
| iPhone. I think it took months for iPhone users to be able to
| message my number before it actually started reaching me
| again.
|
| I think there's a lot of truth to the word "hijacking" here.
| dewey wrote:
| Did you deregister your number?
|
| https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/
| robflynn wrote:
| How long ago was that? There used to be a bug related to
| that, but disabling iMessage on your device before you
| switch off would resolve it. Not obvious, I know. I'm
| unsure if that's still a thing or if I'm even remembering
| it correctly.
| ctvo wrote:
| > This is supposed to be a technical community so can we stop
| with this lazy abuse of terminology.
|
| Since this is a technical community, and you're a technical
| person who presumably knows how iMessage / Apple's
| infrastructure works, can you explain if this is correct:
|
| - I'm an iPhone user with phone number N. In Apple's system,
| I'm flagged as supporting the iMessage protocol. Presumably
| Apple has some gateway that routes messages, and this flags
| me down the iMessage route.
|
| - I swap phones. I now own an Android device. I have the same
| phone number N.
|
| - Apple's system is slow to update, and its gateway still
| sees me as an iPhone user supporting the iMessage protocol.
|
| - All messages from other iPhone users to my phone number are
| routed incorrectly and I don't receive them until Apple
| updates its gateway to use SMS for my phone number.
|
| If the above is correct, what would you call that?
| partiallypro wrote:
| They have created an environment that takes an SMS protocol
| that users think is standard across all cellular devices, and
| is apart of their monthly phone plan, and instead uses their
| own protocol (but only for their own devices.) That is
| hijacking. What other word is there? The average user has no
| idea that their SMS is actually being rerouted by Apple into
| their own system, they just know the bubble color is
| different. Some often assume that because their desktop
| iMessage doesn't always recieve messages from Android phones
| that the Android system is broken, when in fact it's not. So
| you are rerouting an open standard to your own platform, and
| you are giving users a false impression on reliability of
| your competition...how is that not hijacking?
| dymk wrote:
| They have their own messaging service, and their client
| supports two protocols - iMessage and SMS as a fallback in
| the event the recipient doesn't use iMessage.
|
| iMessage isn't hijacking anything, as it's _not involved
| with SMS_. It's an entirely separate system from SMS. If
| you can't use iMessage, then the client uses plain old, non
| hijacked, non augmented SMS.
|
| The word "hijacking" is being used because it's an
| aggressive sounding term that makes Apple sound like a bad
| guy. It's propaganda.
| threeseed wrote:
| I think you really need to stop speaking on behalf of
| average users.
|
| Because all of the reports over the many years show that
| users know that a blue bubble indicates that this message
| is only going to be readable by other iPhones. And that a
| green bubble indicates it has fallen back to SMS and will
| incur a cost.
|
| This whole blue message bullying narrative is because users
| very much are knowledgable into what is happening at a
| technical level.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _so it lacks many of the features you would want from a modern
| messaging service, like end-to-end encryption_
|
| This bit annoyed me; while the base RCS spec does not include E2E
| encryption, Google implements it as an extension. Now, I don't
| know _how_ their implementation works (is it the Signal protocol?
| is it some homegrown thing? haven 't looked into this), and it
| absolutely _should_ be in the base RCS spec as something that 's
| required to implement, but saying it lacks E2E encryption is not
| quite correct.
| grandpoobah wrote:
| All Google had to do was to keep improving on their original
| messaging software, Google Talk.
|
| Similarly, Microsoft would likely be a dominant player in the
| chat space today if they hadn't rebranded and renamed MSN
| Messenger several times and then abandoned it altogether.
|
| MSN Messenger was frickin awesome. You could draw pictures into
| the chat window. You could play a game of checkers while you
| chatted. It had a thriving ecosystem of apps and plugins.
| Everyone I knew used MSN Messenger... and then one day, Microsoft
| just said screw it, everyone can move to slow and clunky Skype...
| and that was the end of it.
|
| Hell, ICQ might still be around if AOL had put more development
| resources into it.
|
| The chat space is so bloody fragmented now, but it has nothing to
| do with Apple. Any one of the above mentioned companies could be
| killing it in this space if they hadn't pissed away what they
| had.
| chrisjc wrote:
| I guess you might be able to say that ICQ is still around? And
| one of the largest messaging platforms around, if not the
| largest?
|
| Of course I'm talking about the QQ variant, which is probably
| so far from the original ICQ that I have no leg to stand on
| making the above claim. Still, a very interesting story to
| follow.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent_QQ
|
| Acquired did a fantastic episode on Tencent (owner of
| QQ/WeChat)
|
| https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/season-3-episode-10-tencent
| akoster wrote:
| And another far-from-original variant is still kicking, aptly
| named 'ICQ' [1]. AOL sold off its ICQ assets to Digital Sky
| Technologies (now Mail.ru) group [2] which continues to
| develop and invest in it to this day. From what I understand,
| like LiveJournal (acquired similarly by a Russian company
| Rambler [3], ICQ continues to have a sizable user base in
| Eastern Europe from what I gather.
|
| [1] https://icq.com [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveJournal
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's a generic problem that there is something like AOL,
| ICQ, Paltalk, Skype, etc. that is pretty good. The company
| behind it lets it rot, and then there is WebEx or Facebook
| Messenger or Slack or Discord or Zoom which is good for a
| while but it will rot too...
|
| Firms that make messaging products say they need to control
| the system for quality, innovation, spam control, etc. Yet,
| nobody questions that a Verizon customer can call a
| T-Mobile customer and vice versa. If all chat clients
| interoperated than there would be real competition to
| create the best client. As it is we have the pernicious
| pseudo-competition of two-sided markets where you install
| client X not because you want it or because it is good but
| because the person you want to talk to insists you install
| client X.
|
| If the European Union wanted to make the internet better
| they should mandate that chat clients be interoperable the
| same way that telephone services are interoperable.
| jerf wrote:
| The conclusion I come to is that it is unsustainable to
| offer IM for free.
|
| Perhaps some of the things like Slack that make money at
| the enterprise level can afford to keep free around and
| working well enough to function for longer.
|
| One of the subtle problems with offering a traditional IM
| service is that there are some scaling aspects that are
| super-linear with the number of users. For instance, as
| the average number of users on your subscription list
| increases, more of them have status changes per unit
| time, and each of those status changes must also go out
| to more users on average. The scaling issues aren't
| necessarily a full O(n^2) but they're often larger than
| simply O(n log n). Even after a many-times-over drop in
| the price of computing power it's still pretty expensive
| to offer something like that for free.
|
| If you look around, you can see how current solutions
| often work around that. For instance, Slack shards
| everyone simply by the nature of how it works, there
| isn't just a "Slack handle" that anyone can ping me at.
| We're not all in one big namespace. There's many fewer
| status updates it does, too, it's a lot more selective
| about what statuses you get.
|
| Another solution is Matrix; with how cheap computing
| power is, if a few hundred people bring their own to the
| party it's no big deal anymore to run a server like that,
| and no one person necessarily has to bring the big bucks.
| But if one entity tried to run the whole network, they'd
| certainly notice the bill.
| reincarnate0x14 wrote:
| It's been a persistent source of black comedy that basic
| messaging across almost every platform with even some
| encryption, mixed media, workable audio and some experimental
| video chat was like a solved problem in 2008 and seemed like it
| would be totally in the bag and then a complete dumpster fire
| again by about 2016.
|
| Even people like me that hated MS and AOL had chat clients that
| could communicate with their networks and Google Talk/Hangouts
| and MSN Messenger were both great for what they were. At the
| time I felt like we had lost something important by moving to
| "push" networks versus e-mail but I'd take those days now in a
| heartbeat. Maybe by 2030, something like Matrix will have us
| back to what XMPP was doing and I'll be able to send a message
| to someone's shitty Teams from whatever Google's fifth chat
| replacement is by then.
|
| It's even worse when I'm traveling in east Asia and there are
| like 5 different Korean and several Chinese chat networks in
| addition to WhatsApp trying to be the next LINE and becoming
| the one-stop access point for nearly everything. I'm honestly
| expecting to see a 7-11 integrated messaging network at some
| point.
| icedchai wrote:
| Even AOL Instant Messenger was awesome! I used it for almost 20
| years. AOL could've turned it into Slack back in the 2000's. I
| used to work for startups that used private AIM chat rooms for
| ops issues, deployments, etc.
| decafninja wrote:
| I believe it's fragmented by country too.
|
| Despite living in the US, I actually don't know what's dominant
| here...is it iMessage? WhatsApp?
|
| Korea is dominated by KakaoTalk. I believe Japan is Line. China
| I believe has their own walled garden app ecosystems (WeChat &
| co.?)
|
| Judging from what all my European friends use, WhatsApp
| dominates at least the UK and Western Europe?
| afkqs wrote:
| Also Viber that used to be the main contender of WhatsApp in
| Western Europe up until a couple of years ago. I believe it's
| still beating WhatsApp on market share in a couple of markets
| like Israel iirc.
| doom2 wrote:
| China has WeChat and QQ (though WeChat is way more popular).
| Both are basically mini OSes at this point, with apps and
| other third party functionality able to be built on top of
| them. I'm not Chinese, but use both of these apps to stay in
| touch with Chinese friends and family.
| Narretz wrote:
| And now it seem Microsoft is pushing Teams instead of Skype.
| There are even two different Teams Apps in Windows 11, one for
| personal use, one for work.
| [deleted]
| mrkramer wrote:
| It's funny how Google Talk and MSN were so much popular but
| weren't able to successfully transition to mobile and capture
| that market. WhatsApp is number one messaging app in the world
| right now and probably will stay for some time.
| ugjka wrote:
| What I like about whatsapp is that they don't do any
| bullshit. Unlike Viber, when they tried to pivot into some
| sort of social network for celebs and what not.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I used to think that, until I realised it's impossible
| (well difficult, and not officially supported) to export
| your messages from WhatsApp. That's pretty bullshit.
| financetechbro wrote:
| WhatsApp is very much a social network
| ugjka wrote:
| Then SMS is too, right?
| mrkramer wrote:
| SMS is communication protocol; you can only send text
| messages or reply to text messages, nothing beyond that.
| No profiles, status updates, friends etc.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| No. Hard to do group threads. Not encrypted end to end
| (but WhatsApp is owned by FB so moot point).
|
| Even iMessage seems very much like a 1-1 messaging
| system.
| dagmx wrote:
| They did try and tie into FB more in India with disastrous
| results, and had to backtrack hard
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| Honestly, Google has spent far too long creating and throwing
| away messaging applications. This is almost entirely their fault
| for not enabling an easily cross-platform method years ago.
|
| I've made the switch to Signal, my girlfriend uses it on her
| iPhone to replace iMessage since I made the switch to Android
| last month. She can also use it on her Windows laptop unlike
| iMessage. My family members who are tech-y enough use Signal with
| me, and when they're not, I can still send standard SMS through
| the app. Signal even implements responses similar to iMessage
| 'likes' and 'hearts'. I don't think I could praise Signal enough
| for the great implementation they've built. Their crypto-
| enterprise this past year did make me feel a bit slighted, but as
| I don't use that feature, I can't comment on it.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Can I log into the same Signal account on two mobile devices
| yet? That's the showstopper for me.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Nope, and it is a completely artificial restriction. For
| example:
|
| - iPhone + iPad? Supported.
|
| - Android Phone + Android Tablet? Supported.
|
| - iPhone + iPhone (no SIM card/no phone number)? Not
| supported.
|
| - Android Phone + Android Phone (no SIM card)? Not supported.
|
| This, according to them, because they want to simplify the
| setup experience. But in reality adding a bypass option to
| the onboarding process to provide the tablet setup experience
| would be trivial and should have happened three years ago.
|
| You can add this to the "list" like no Gifs on PC even though
| the code exists for mobile clients, and they share a lot of
| source code already.
| chenxiaolong wrote:
| > - Android Phone + Android Tablet? Supported.
|
| Unfortunately, I don't think even this is supported. The
| Android app can't seem to act as a secondary device in any
| configuration.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Not exactly mobile, they have an iPad app that'll let you
| login into the same account. But not available on Android
| tablets. Or on other phones, but clearly the technology is
| there.
| branon wrote:
| You can send SMS through the [Signal] app?! Been using it for a
| few weeks now but haven't figured this out. Or do you mean send
| SMS through the stock SMS app?
| lgats wrote:
| [android only]
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| Aye, you can send SMS messages through the Signal app itself.
|
| To do so, you have to go into your default apps, set the
| default messaging app to Signal (factory default is Messages
| for Pixel devices, likely whatever Samsung uses for Samsung
| devices). I just checked to see if there were any extra
| settings you have to enable in the Signal app, but it doesn't
| appear to be so. If a user uses both SMS or encrypted chat,
| you can long press the send button and decide between which
| it will use.
|
| Do note, that any previous messages sent via SMS from other
| apps won't show up in Signal for message history. Likewise
| the same if/when you switch to another SMS app.
| flubflub wrote:
| When I used this feature it made my battery life worse,
| just something to test if using.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| I don't believe you can do this on iOS.
| ljm wrote:
| It almost seems like launching a messaging app is some sort of
| rite of passage for a certain kind of PM or engineer at Google.
|
| I'm sure there will be more attempts to come.
| flubflub wrote:
| I only use Signal over SMS because Signal is encrypted and has
| groupchats. Those are the only features I would need in an SMS
| replacement.
| onion2k wrote:
| Surely at least one of Google's 87 different chat platforms can
| compete.
| everdrive wrote:
| I don't really understand why people keep referring to the text
| bubble color here.
|
| "Teens and college students said they dread the ostracism that
| comes with a green text. The social pressure is palpable, with
| some reporting being ostracized or singled out after switching
| away from iPhones."
|
| Why is text color an issue? Or, is it just a stand in for
| referring to the different apps?
| sylens wrote:
| It's more about the what the color of the bubble symbolizes.
| When you see a green bubble, you know you are losing features
| when communicating with this person - the nice link previews,
| the reactions to individual messages, threading, mentions, and
| various other iMessage tie-ins that people have.
|
| In a one-on-one conversation, it's not the biggest deal...but
| in a group text it is a massive loss of functionality, enough
| to make people set up separate group texts with only iPhone
| users to restore the lost functionality when they don't need to
| message the non-iPhone users.
| syspec wrote:
| > the company [Google] has released 13 half-hearted messaging
| products since iMessage launched in 2011.
| olliej wrote:
| Google did this to themselves, and now are crying that the law
| should protect them, despite them having larger market share than
| iOS.
|
| RCS would be a regression for people who /do/ use iMessage, as
| RCS can randomly drop encryption, does not support multiple
| devices per account, and does not support group messaging. In
| addition to that, RCS's feature set is defined by carrier groups,
| who like to charge extra for "value add"/new features, and who
| don't move at the speed of tech release schedules.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| But it would be a step up for people who use SMS on iPhone,
| which is everybody who texts a non-iPhone user, which is
| everybody. It would also be a step up for every Android user
| who texts an iPhone user that doesn't support rich texting.
| Apple is wrong not to support an interoperable rich text
| protocol, and Google is also wrong not to support it in Google
| Voice.
| [deleted]
| smm11 wrote:
| Google is just complaining that they're too dumb to make
| something, improve on it, and keep it around.
|
| The only bad part here is that YouTube's days are numbered. The
| other stuff doesn't matter. I suspect that worldwide iMessage and
| whatever Google is pushing on a given day is a rounding error.
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| Google isn't dumb. They are an advertising company that creates
| hype with other experimental products (to increase stock
| prices) they fully intend to dismantle, and buys out functional
| tech companies.
|
| They are using hype to increase their stock and axe them later
| to show a better earnings report further increasing stock
| prices.
|
| They are intelligent and runs on innovative hype but at their
| heart they're an advertising company.
| partiallypro wrote:
| How are YouTube's day numbered? I see no competitor in the
| space at all.
| dublinben wrote:
| By some measures, they've already been overtaken by
| TikTok.[0] That's what a YouTube competitor looks like.
|
| [0]https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/7/22660516/tiktok-average-
| wa...
| johnsolo1701 wrote:
| This is like suggesting cars' days are numbered because
| skateboards have become extremely popular. Sure they
| technically are competitors in some extremely narrow ways,
| but suggesting so belies a misunderstanding of the
| underlying uses of each.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Tiktok is not a competitor to YouTube. Long form vs short
| form. It's like comparing tweetes to long form articles.
| I've actually seen Tiktoks promote YouTube videos.
| blunte wrote:
| With all the lock-in and connectedness of Google owned systems,
| they cannot complain. And it's not Apple's fault that Google
| can't build long term successes in most products it creates.
| That's a management/strategy problem.
|
| How many messaging systems has Google had over the years?
|
| Their shotgun approach works financially, but it means that only
| a few of their projects really stick (win). The rest just trundle
| along until they get discontinued.
|
| The hypocricy is tiresome. When there's a regulation that
| threatens them, they make a lot of noise about "free market", and
| "let the market decide". But when the market decides against
| them, they want some government intervention.
| msoad wrote:
| Yes, Google's most popular service Google Search has no open
| API if you are willing to pay for it. Why they don't open it up
| so others can integrate?
| readams wrote:
| Apple does an awful lot of this as well, working to make things
| harder for businesses supported by ads and easier for walled
| gardens.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > How many messaging systems has Google had over the years?
|
| About 20: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-
| a-half-...
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > Google once had a functional competitor to iMessage called
| Google Hangouts.
|
| Circa 2015, Hangouts was a messaging powerhouse Is it still a
| powerhouse if no one uses it?
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, who else is
| going to make this kind of noise? It's not like we can rely on
| the US DoJ to investigate these things and find solutions,
| despite all their noise about "policing big tech".
|
| I personally think the current situation with iMessage is
| garbage. Even if Apple doesn't care about Android users, they
| are hurting their own users: every time an iPhone user has to
| send a text to an Android user, they degrade the security and
| privacy of _their own_ users.
|
| (It's telling to see where Apple draws the line: being anti-
| competitive around messaging is more important to them than
| their customers' privacy and security.)
|
| Even if Google had their shit together when it comes to
| messaging, there's always the "default install" problem:
| iMessage is on every iPhone, from the factory. That creates a
| barrier for any competitor to gain market share with an
| alternative messenger. Sure, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc. have been
| pretty successful, but they're not the default install.
| (Remember when Microsoft got in trouble in the 90s for bundling
| IE, at the expense of Netscape?)
|
| As an Android user, all I really want is a secure way to
| communicate with others _by default_ , without having to figure
| out which secure messaging app I have in common with each of my
| peers. Apple has made that impossible, and should be required
| to allow Google to integrate iMessage support into the stock
| Android Messages app. Or they should be required to support RCS
| (with E2E encryption compatible with Google's extension) on
| iPhones. I'll accept either option, though I'd probably prefer
| RCS rather than an Apple-proprietary protocol.
| threeseed wrote:
| RCS doesn't support E2E encryption out of the box.
|
| So for me it seems like a far worse solution than the status
| quo.
| ddek wrote:
| I don't see how you're not suggesting yet another competing
| platform (insert xkcd here). SMS is the default, and iMessage
| is an elevation of SMS; in the same way FaceTime elevates
| it's respective default (phone calls). If iMessage was cross
| platform, it's just another messaging app. We have that. If
| you want secure cross platform messaging, use any of the
| other platforms built around that feature.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > yet another competing platform
|
| People are advocating for the opposite. Make apple open up
| their messaging monopoly.
|
| > If iMessage was cross platform, it's just another
| messaging app.
|
| No, it is just as good, and better if it is forced to be
| cross platform.
|
| You lose nothing, and everyone else gains, when monopolies
| are made to support alternatives.
|
| > If you want secure cross platform messaging
|
| Or, instead of that, we could use anti-trust law, against
| Apple to force them to be less anti-competitive, and allow
| other people to integrate with it. Problem solved.
| cheschire wrote:
| > When there's a regulation that threatens them, they make a
| lot of noise about "free market", and "let the market decide".
| But when the market decides against them, they want some
| government intervention.
|
| I'm pretty sure this is taught as a 200-level concept in
| business administration right?
| nathanyz wrote:
| Yep, they replaced the Business Ethics course with this one
| covering advanced business administration tactics as everyone
| said the ethics class was incredibly not useful in today's
| world. /s
| judge2020 wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure this is taught as a 200-level concept in
| business administration right?
|
| Only after you manage to recite "short-term profit over long-
| term success" 500 times in an hour.
| N1H1L wrote:
| The reason for their shotgun approach is because Google is
| still too academia adjacent. Which is why a cash blow-up like
| DeepMind that publishes a _Nature_ or a _Science_ paper is the
| perfect Google company.
|
| In academia, you get kudos for starting something, while there
| are zero incentives for maintaining something - same at Google
| with just a tiny bit less hyperbole.
| michael1999 wrote:
| This was a great line, and sums up Google's chat history:
|
| "If the company really wants to do something about iMessage, it
| should try competing with it."
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Completely misses the point with their claim: "Google is just
| promoting carrier lock-in as a solution to Apple lock-in."
|
| That's not what RCS is.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Can you have the same identity if you change your
| number/carrier?
|
| Can you use it not on the smartphone?
|
| Can you use it without cellular data Eg with Wi-Fi only?
|
| Can you throw out the SIM card and still send/receive messages?
|
| If the answers is 'no' then it is a carrier lock-in.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Whatsapp is also bound to a phone number ...? Is that carrier
| bound?
|
| RCS works through QR code outside, just like you can end
| text-messages.
|
| Why throw out a sim card? You can use RCS with ANY carrier.
| If you can use it with ANY carrier, it's not carrier-lock in.
|
| In Belgium, the number is personal and not from someone else.
| If you transfer carrier, you are allowed by law to take the
| number with you.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Whatsapp is also bound to a phone number ...? Is that
| carrier bound?
|
| In the world with NMP - it is 'carriers' bound, but still -
| good luck moving to another country and preserving your
| number.
|
| > Why throw out a sim card?
|
| There can be any reasons.. but the most common one is
| someone 'liberate' you of your phone and other belongings
| (sometimes including documents). So now you want to talk to
| your family, you get a phone, login with your Google
| account... and now you are required the same phone number
| to work it back. So off you go to your telco office to
| restore the SIM. Oh. It is 3:00 AM and you don't have any
| documents/ID to prove what you are the someone you claim.
| And imagine if this would happen not in your backyard, but
| on the other side of the planet.
|
| > In Belgium, the number is personal and not from someone
| else
|
| MNP. But still you are tied to your /number/.
| Unknown number: "Hey mom! It's me, your son NicoJuicy! I
| was robbed tonight, can you send $100 so I could get home?"
|
| Yes, for me WhatsApp is similar with proposed RCS
| implementation - it is too 'carriers' bound. I hate what I
| need to throw my /phone/ number around to everyone to just
| be able to receive some text from them.
|
| I would really prefer some identificator not tied to a
| local provider of a completely irrelevant service.
|
| Telegram, at least, allows you to use a nickname, though it
| still requires '2FA' through the SMS for the registration.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Move out to another country and keeping the number is not
| about the carrier, which a country has multiple of.
|
| It's because of the countrycode in your number. Which
| indicates... The country it of from... This is literally
| how the routing works in the network...
|
| What an idiot example fyi. That's not even about vendor
| lock-in, it's about stupidity.
|
| You can restore documents at the city hall or at the
| embassy abroad.
|
| Ps. I'm more tied to an email. But still doesn't make it
| carrier lock-in. I also can't use my email when I'm not
| on the internet...
| webmaven wrote:
| _> Can you have the same identity if you change your number
| /carrier?_
|
| Identity seems to be tied to a number (not carrier), but
| Messages uses Google Contacts as an optional layer of
| indirection.
|
| So, if you change your number, and the other person changes
| (or adds) the number to your existing contact, your identity
| is preserved (for them). If the other person creates a new
| contact for your new number (or doesn't associate the new
| number with any contact), identity is not preserved.
|
| _> Can you use it not on the smartphone?_
|
| Yes, you can use Google Messages for Web on a computer, but
| the authentication is still tied to the phone via a QR code,
| and I think that communication actually is relayed through
| the phone if the conversation is via SMS rather than RCS.
|
| _> Can you use it without cellular data Eg with Wi-Fi only?_
|
| Yes.
|
| _> Can you throw out the SIM card and still send /receive
| messages?_
|
| I think that the answer is generally 'no', but there are a
| few edge cases (eg. I'm not sure what happens if you auth
| Google Messages for Web on a computer, set it to remember the
| device auth indefinitely, and then remove the SIM or turn off
| the phone).
|
| _> If the answers is 'no' then it is a carrier lock-in._
|
| As you can see, the answer isn't quite so black and white.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Can I use RCS to chat from my laptop signed in with an email?
| webmaven wrote:
| My understanding is that Google Messages for Web
| authentication is linked to your phone (using a QR code).
| sbuk wrote:
| That's _exactly_ what RCS is about - except it 's the Telcos
| that went to wrest control back. No thanks.
| skarz wrote:
| While I'm not a proponent of Apple's walled garden approach, I
| think this stuff about bullying over the blue indicator is just
| Google using something to shame Apple so that Google can get what
| they want. Even if Apple introduced RCS to their phones to give
| better compatibility to Android features, the blue indicator
| would still show that the message was sent with end-to-end
| encryption which is something RCS doesn't do according to this
| article. In my mind, a better solution for Apple would be to
| release an iMessage app on the Play Store or to work with Google
| on building a better messaging service that includes those
| features. But Apple probably won't do that because it's actually
| better for sales if they do have features that allow their users
| to feel superior to others, as cynical as that sounds.
| thesausageking wrote:
| I'd have more sympathy for Google if they hadn't spent the last
| 20 years creating and killing messaging apps: Google Talk,
| Plus, Buzz, Wave, Hangouts, Allo, ... And, instead of fixing
| it, the VP in charge is blaming 12 year old "bullies".
|
| iMessage is really good because Apple focused on making a great
| product.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| Of note is Google never took the plunge on any of these the
| way Apple did. Which one of those products failed back to SMS
| messenger for compatibility and provided a default rich
| communication option like iMessage? They've never tried
| anything like iMessage, no idea why. It would be a different
| story if they were goading Apple in public to interoperate
| with their version of iMessage, beloved and used by all
| Android users. But this position they're taking here just
| looks kind of lame.
| fundad wrote:
| It's fitting that Google seized on this article that completely
| ignores that some kids don't have a smartphone at all, the
| article's author didn't even ask the interviewees about kids
| without phones being ostracized . This was probably placed by
| Google's PR dept.
|
| Kids without phones may even, gasp, be bullied over it.
| Wouldn't that mean that Google, Apple and all handset vendors
| benefit from fear of bullying over not having a phone at all?
| kelnos wrote:
| > _end-to-end encryption which is something RCS doesn't do
| according to this article_
|
| The article is not quite correct. The base RCS standard does
| not include E2E encryption, but at least Google's
| implementation includes it as an extension. Not an ideal
| situation -- IMO it should be a required-to-implement part of
| the base -- but it's definitely there for those of us using
| Google's infra, at least.
| lgats wrote:
| A very brief history of every Google messaging app
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/21/22538240/google-chat-allo...
| onion2k wrote:
| That article misses Google Currents
| (https://currents.google.com/), which is what Google+ became.
| Animats wrote:
| List of discontinued Google products.[1]
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discon...
| khana wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-11 23:00 UTC)