1125
Samsung joins Google in RCS shaming Apple
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
1125 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3090 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course the idea wasn't new. That's very nearly Apple's business model - they're rarely first to market with a technology. I'm sure if I go look, AIM was probably in there pretty close the App Store launch. But Apple's implementation was quite new. Everyone in the US at least was texting with the phone number as the identifier. Apple made it so that no one had to change any habits, use the same method for texting you have been literally in the same app you always have, and if you text another iPhone it just works better. They didn't make it worse on Android.
I'm not sure how this is "lockout." I already made the argument it's a lock-in tactic, but like when Tesla came out with the supercharger network, should I be mad that it doesn't gas up my Honda? Why would we expect that Apple is going to develop and maintain an app for Android for free and the massive amount of infrastructure that goes with it any more than I would expect Tesla to have added a gas pump to the supercharger network? And similar, it's not like superchargers existing means all of the gas stations are gone.
It's also worth noting that RCS functionally didn't exist during development of iMessage (I think they were forming a committee to decide which committee will implement committee structure votes or something) and that even now RCS implementation is questionable at best between not having E2E as a requirement and the fragmentation that exists even across Android and most especially carriers (lots of examples of RCS being iffy in this thread alone) so it wasn't like Apple looked at a fully-formed SMS/MMS replacement and chose to do their own thing.
Then you tack on 10 years of Google absolutely fumbling the bag with their messaging strategy (everyone reading is thinking of a different one - you're all correct) and now we end up in the situation we're in where not only did iMessage lock-in work for Apple, it worked better than they hoped and it's not just keeping people on iPhone, it's actively attracting people.
My optimistic take on this is that I hope they decide the lock-in isn't worth it in favor of the type of model where they monetize through Apple Pay and stuff and build an Android app because I sincerely doubt there is any other way toward unified messaging, in much the same as Tesla now licensing superchargers to other EV makers. As it stands, Apple could give a shit about Samsung's ads, and aside from the lock-in, a core of their brand is privacy/security so RCS as-is will be a non-starter. Well covered in this thread, but the EU isn't coming to save us and the US has congress that can't even regulate it's own bowel movements, so
The Tesla comparison would work better this way: while you're driving to another Tesla owner's place, you're having a smooth ride, no bumps, car works as expected. Then you put your other friends address into into the navigation and the radio switches to noisy FM and one of the headlights starts to flicker. It's lock-out because no non-iphone user can join that club. It's not lock-in, because every iphone user could easily switch to one of the "cross-platform" messangers. Not that I like Google. They're both sh*t. But just opening up your infrastructure for others doesn't mean you have to develop and maintain apps for other OSes.
SMS works the same as it ever has. Apple hasn't broken anything, they're not polluting SMS, it's always been shit. The Tesla (probably touching a little more on real life) shipped with shitty QA that gave you a crap light and bad stereo. If you take Apple completely out of the equation and just process standard SMS between two Android phones, it's still going to be garbage. If you add an iPhone, nothing changes. When you add iMessage into the mix, it's still not breaking anything, only adding a shim on top of SMS, which admittedly sucks, but I think users would rather see "float liked your message" rather than no acknowledgement. This is also what's happening on Android (and also iOS) a lot of the time.
"Just" is doing a frick-ton of work in that sentence. At a minimum, they would have had to build and maintain data centers, or at the very least add a lot of capacity to existing centers to support potentially quite likely a few hundred million to a billion Android users. Now you have to design and document APIs for other people's use. This alone is why I said just build the app themselves, believe it or not it's probably easier/less headache in the long term. And then there is supporting the API, the users on non-Apple platforms...
And why do they want to do that? We're talking about many millions in expenditure per year for Apple for which they get nothing except less competitive advantage.
I can only tell you about Europe, because nobody here seems to use imessage. SMS are basically dead since the first generation of smartphones came out. They are used for OTP codes from banks sometimes but that's it. The only reason why people use SMS in the US seems to be Apple. They didn't make SMS worse than they were (which would be hard to achieve), but they basically force people to keep using them. Well, or abandon their apple friends. For the API, I think Apple could afford that, honestly. They don't have to handle the data between Android phones if they support some form of federation. Only between Apple and Apple, and Apple and Android. Your operator also handles SMS when they go to or come from other operators. I think Apple just likes the peer pressure they seem to create with that app in the US. From a business perspective that might be smart, sure. Still, very malicious behavior. I'm glad there's more and more regulation coming up (at least in the EU). If imessage wasn't a niche here, they'd have to comply.
I can't explain why, but the default in the US is still to exchange phone numbers, and that means SMS. We have all of the same options, but moving to another messaging service just didn't happen here. Even adjusting for time frame - iMessage had little power until at least 2013-14, which I'm by that time was probably long enough to move on in the EU and quite a lot of the rest of the world, and we were still using phone numbers.
This isn't a standard that can be enshrined in law. I want to create NightOS on the NightPhone (which honestly sounds rad) this basically locks me out of doing that.
Again, "support" doing a lot of work. You don't just "support" a billion users. Huge time, attention, cost, even if you're not storing the data.
"Malicious" implies intent. You can not like it, my post doesn't even indicate that I like it (back to the original, I highlight a business case that makes sense for Apple to open this up) but just saying "I don't feel like supporting your OS" is not malicious. Companies do it all. the. time. Any modern iOS device is many times more powerful than a Nintendo Switch or a Playstation 4, is every developer that doesn't support iOS "malicious?" Even just regular people do this all of the time - me being on some social media but not others is not malicious, it's just because I decide where my attention goes. We're all making trade offs. The game companies don't support Apple because the effort to profit ratio is too low. I don't go on Facebook or reddit because as trivial, my ad impressions are actual money and I don't want to support those companies. Apple so far hasn't put iMessage on Android because it just doesn't make sense for them to do it.
Your basic supposition comes down to "Apple should do a lot of work for less than free."
It doesn't make sense for them to do because their customers don't seem to care.
It's just a guess but all of Googles failed messengers were probably available for iOS, too. Apple on the other hand is known to intentionally make things incompatible with other brands.
Right, the customers who pay them to make the products they buy don't care. Why would they put the immense amount of effort and money into building something for people who are not their customers? Apple isn't a non-profit or a government program paid for by taxes.
Yes, Google's messengers were available everywhere because that's their business model. Google sells your eyeballs and is an advertising company. They're not messaging, they're not video, they're not even search - those are just products to support their actual business which is to sell ads. Ad companies by default benefit from being anywhere that people who have eyes are.
Apple is not an ad company, they sell hardware. They gain nothing from making something for free for other platforms. They make stuff that enhances their products and provide them a competitive advantage. Like, basically every company ever. They do make things occasionally for other platforms, but only when it actually makes sense. The iPod, for example, launched as a Mac-only product, because at launch they thought this was an accessory that would sell Macs. When it turned out the iPod was a runaway success, they built iTunes and the iTunes Store for Windows and opened up compatibility. In modern times, AppleTV+ or Apple Music launched as Apple-only services. Then they decided to move to other things, so you can now watch AppleTV+ on a Fire Stick or Vizio TV, and Music is on Android...
This is simply false. Not making something for everyone is not the same as making it deliberately incompatible. Even the only actual examples of Apple choosing something deliberately incompatible is often a trade-off that where Apple (and usually their customers) decide the trade-off is worth losing compatibility. The largest example is Lightning, and when it was invented it was the best connector available. Even now, I'd make a lot of argument it's the best connector available, but the drop off to USB-C is no longer worth the trade-off of incompatibility. MagSafe (the MacBook kind) is another such, where Apple tried to drop their proprietary charger early in favor of USB-C and there was enough customer outcry they had to bring it back because it offers something USB-C does not.
Outside of these few rare examples, Apple actually has had to put in a large amount of effort in order to ensure compatibility. Most obvious example is things like working with Microsoft so Office would run on Macs, who actually do a lot of the things you claim about Apple. Through the 90s-2000s, MS couldn't even be counted on to keep compatibility between it's own Office versions so you'd be forced into buying a new license.
More relevant to today, Apple is the major reason why the web hasn't developed into just Google Chrome, and other standards-based browsers like Firefox can still exist. Fortunately Apple is large enough that as long as they continue to run their own browser and engine (Webkit, which they contribute heavily to open-source) the web can't simply fall into Google's hands. Which, is another example of actual deliberate incompatibility, as Chrome/Chromium tends to only follow standards when it feels like it. Or even more simply, just run Firefox and see how Google's products perform compared to just changing your user-agent. Or many other "chrome only" web apps. MS gave up and now runs Chromium, pretty much every other goddamn browser is Chromium based (Brave, Vivaldi, Arc, etc) and Firefox is now not relevant enough to stem the tide of Google. It's just Apple and the few billion iOS devices that are keeping the open web, well, open. Because as previously described, Apple is not an ad company, and their benefit comes in continuing to sell devices that their customers like, which means a good web browser that isn't spying on them.
Anyway, I'm out after this one. You can not like Apple or Google or whoever all you want, but best to stick to factual reasons that kind of make sense, at least. It's like, I have another tab open where people are trying to argue with a straight face that Google should basically just make Youtube, which costs billions a year to operate, totally free with no ads and no fees. I obviously am not a fan of Google (I actually kinda hope they took the advice, Google dying would be a good thing for the web and privacy in general) but do people not understand that companies exist to make money and are by definition not charities?