this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
248 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3190 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
248
Google turns to regulators to make Apple open up iMessage (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google turns to regulators to make Apple open up iMessage::iMessage serves should be regulated under the EU’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA), Google and a group of major European telcos has told the European Commission.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] call_me_xale@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

RCS is an open standard, isn't it? Are you referring to the E2E encryption that Google added to Android?

[–] Venetas@discuss.tchncs.de 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Googles implementation of RCS, the one they are pushing as standard, is indeed proprietary

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh? GSMA created RCS and Google simply setup their own servers to run it. So I guess you could argue that Google's RCS network is proprietary, but RCS itself is most definitely not. There's technical documentation freely available for implementing your own RCS client/server, if you care to do so.

[–] ilickfrogs@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well didn't they initially want carriers implementing RCS with interoperability between each other to sunset sms? But that didn't quite pan out. IIRC there was a time when Verizon had a limited number of devices that supported RCS but only on their network, similar story with Bell in Canada. Hell at one point even Samsung had RCS but only with other Samsung phones. Fragmentation was rampant so Google took matters into their own hands. Not saying I'm happy Googles at the helm but they didn't start out with that intention.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah it’s unfortunate we weren’t able to get RCS everywhere, as an improvement over sms. I imagine the encryption to be a sticking point preventing ubiquity

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You got a source for that?

[–] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

So any RCS w/ Encryption that you see is referring to Google’s implementation that only runs on Google servers.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So their implementation is RCS standards with an added encryption layer. What's the issue?

[–] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have no dog in this race.

That being said, I guess it’s that it belongs to Google, is therefore propriety, and they have a less than stellar record with honoring privacy and/or keeping projects going.

Add on that telecoms didn’t want RCS to have encryption, which is why the default standard doesn’t have it, and you have a clusterfuck of privacy concerns, longevity concerns, and licensing concerns.

Then there’s the abuse factor: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/1/23150243/google-rcs-ads-india-spam-verified-business

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So, then the argument here is to just use standard RCS without encryption?