• Irdial@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I believe that RCS is a specification maintained by the GSM Association. That’s not to say Google is not a member (they are) and has a strong influence, but Google doesn’t own the standard either

    • tentacles9999@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Last I had looked into it, although the standard exists, they use their own servers and are not compatible with other rcs implementations

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        They are also the only RCS supplier on Android. A random messaging app can’t simply add RCS messaging functionality.

        It’s not really much of an open standard at all, in practice.

        • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          They are also the only RCS supplier on Android. A random messaging app can’t simply add RCS messaging functionality.

          You are correct that an app can’t directly implement RCS but it can support it. RCS is implemented by the carrier, not by Google or any other text application.

          RCS is an open standard that any carrier can implement to replace SMS/MMS. The only thing special that Google does is on top of RCS is provides E2E via its own servers for handling messaging. The E2E isn’t a part of RCS, though it should be IMO. Regardless, Google doesn’t ‘own’ the Android implementation because it isn’t a part of Android, other than it can support the carrier’s implementation of RCS.

            • ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              If you didn’t create private and exchange public keys with the other party, you aren’t fully in control. I’m not saying that as some kind of righteous purist, just a technical point of note.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Samsung had to sign a deal with Google with unknown terms and is Google messages underneath.

                Verizon idk, I’m not American.

                • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Samsung signed a deal so that they can use the Jibe API to be a part of E2E when using RCS.

                  Since I’m sure there’s Internet where you’re at, you can take a look from Verizon’s RCS roll out on messages+ in 2021 to Samsung’s S9, prior to relying on Google Jibe. Verizon did eventually switch to use Jibe for their entire RCS implementation now instead of relying on their own infrastructure as did T-Mobile.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      The E2EE element of RCS has basically been a property Google thing, despite all their marketing BS about RCS seeming like some sort of open universal career messaging platform.

      Although, allegedly they’ve finally relented and a universal encryption solution is now in the works.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      They don’t own the standard, but they own the Android implementation of it. Other RCS implantations are hardcoded to not be supported on Android, with the exception of Samsung’s - and they had to enter an agreement with Google (that we don’t know the terms for) to do that, and even then it’s just the Google implementation under the skin.

      It’s not open unless you create your own new operating system and implement it that way.

      Google’s implementation also adds a bunch of closed-source extensions on top of the standard.