Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Finish rewriting RCS post
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@s7uck
s7uck committed Jul 30, 2024
1 parent 3cb24d4 commit 8c21282
Showing 1 changed file with 99 additions and 72 deletions.
171 changes: 99 additions & 72 deletions _posts/2022-9-21-Use-RCS-instead-of-messaging-apps.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
---
layout: post
title: "Why Messaging Apps are Stupid"
title: "Messaging Apps Aren't a Good Idea"
date: 2022-09-21 23:05:24 +0200
categories: thoughts tech
---
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -92,15 +92,16 @@ two reasons:
people won't go to the extra mile to do it themselves, because 90% of
people have no idea about anything I just said.

And worst of all, messaging apps are a **redundancy**. We already have
texing protocols that every phone supports. We already have a texting app on
our phone. Rather than creating more and more of these apps looking to
"solve every problem with messaging" (see [xkcd 927](https://xkcd.com/927)),
we should look to improve and extend the systems already in place, to ensure
that we get to have the new features, without cutting off everyone who doesn't
have a certain device with a certain app installed. Communication should allow
everyone to talk seamlessly, not **requiring** a certain technology, which
average people shouldn't, and don't want to have to think about.
Plus, messaging apps are just a redundancy. We already have texing protocols
that every phone supports and already have a texting app on our phones . Rather
than creating more and more of these apps looking to "solve every problem with
messaging" (see [xkcd 927](https://xkcd.com/927)), we should look to improve and
extend the systems already in place, to ensure that we get to have the new features,
without cutting off everyone who doesn't have a certain device with a certain app
installed. Instant messaging should allow everyone to talk seamlessly, not
**requiring** a certain technology, or branching off in a whole lot of different
technologies that in principle attempt to do the same thing yet are incompatible
with each other.

The thing that saddens me most is that this *was* the standard, 15 years ago.
I remember when we didn't have to think about "what app you use", Internet
Expand All @@ -109,20 +110,20 @@ what phone you or your recipient had. It all just worked, like phone calls do.

The same can't be said today. Have you ever read some news headline that
WhatsApp or some other popular app is going to drop support for a whole stack
of old Android versions? You look at them and think "cool, I'm not affected."
"Was anyone even still using that version"? But when you come to think about
it, it's actually a very big deal. Sure, Android 4.4 is a very old version.
But (unsupported)software and hardware don't age the same way. A 10 year old
OS sounds old, but a 10 year old phone is still capable. Not everybody needs
or has the ability to upgrade their device. I can guarantee you that an
Android 4.4 phone can fulfill the needs of someone who's just looking to call
and text, and take the odd photo. But because "texting" now means "to use a
proprietary messaging app", if the company decides you're cut off, *you're cut
off*. And everyone around you **will** still expect to reach you through it.
In other words, that perfectly good phone (think Galaxy S2 or Nexus 4) will
now get thrown away and become e-waste, because a messaging app no longer
works. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of people can't tell apart
their hardware and the operating system.)
of old Android versions? It might seem like it's reasonable. But when you come
to think about it it's actually a very big deal. Due to the nature of messaging
apps, the client not being supported means no way to communicate through it.

Sure, Android 4.4 is a very old version, but not everybody needs or has the ability
to upgrade their device. I can guarantee you that an Android 4.4 phone can fulfill
the needs of someone who's just looking to call and text, and take the odd photo.
But because "texting" now means "to use a proprietary messaging app", if the company
decides you're cut off, *you're cut off*. And everyone around you **will** still
expect to reach you through it. In other words, that perfectly good phone (think
Galaxy S2 or Nexus 4) will now get thrown away and become e-waste, because a
messaging app no longer works.
Since the rise of proprietary messaging apps the bar for compatibility has dropped
from 20+ years of support to just over 10.

This level of control over compatibility means that essentially, a piece of
hardware, or a software platform, has no hopes of establishing itself until
Expand All @@ -132,55 +133,81 @@ This severely cripples innovation, strengthens the duopoly of the mobile
space, and it's already happened so many times. Yes, I'm thinking of you,
Windows Phone. And meego, Symbian, Firefox OS, Ubuntu touch, you name it.

I know, there are a lot of systems that are too old to keep supporting.
And from a developer or a company's point of view, that makes sense. But in
actuality, there's no reason why someone stuck on an older hardware or
software shouldn't be able to keep communicating with other people. We've
been giving that for granted for a long time, and now that planned
obsolescence is becoming more and more stringent, the effects of this have
become noticeable. Do you know how many Android 5 users there are today?
215 million. 215 million, seemingly unable to talk to their contacts
anymore, because the silo messaging app that's so widely used now stopped
supporting it.

These messaging apps are the reason why someone can't just go and buy a
€24 Nokia 110 if they don't have a use for a smartphone, because texting
in the eyes of most consumers has been replaced by the need of a
messaging app. Think of everyone that is used to old cell phones, who now
struggles using a smartphone that's not designed for them while using 0.2%
of its feature set just because it needs to run WhatsApp.

Compatibility is not the only way these messaging apps can just screw a
bunch of people over. Think now of security. What if the messaging app
bunch of people over. Think now of *security* What if the messaging app
that you use for all your communications, and is also used by 3 billion
people, suddenly has a data breach? Well, now you're screwed because all
your messages go through that company's service. Yeah, sure, the company
says they're using encryption, but realistically, end to end encryption
is useless if a fault is found on the client side, and we're not even
going to tackle government requests because you can leave that discussion
people, suddenly has a data breach? Well, now you're fucked because all of
your private messages go through that company's service. Yeah, sure, the
company says they're using encryption, but realistically, end to end
encryption is useless if a fault is found on the client side, and we're not
even going to tackle government requests because you can leave that discussion
to other people.

This lets me briefly mention terms of service. When you use WhatsApp or
whatever other messaging app on the planet that uses a proprietary
client and a proprietary protocol, you're essentially signing a contract
agreeing to a whole bunch of conditions that you didn't read (neither did
I or anyone else really). But this entails a huge level of control on
the company side, because if they decide that you've broken their terms
of service, they can just ban you, and just like that you're cut off.
Gotta get a new number or try to negotiate. All of this to access a
service that shouldn't be behind closed walls anyway. Before you write
this off as unlikely, this has happened to a friend of mine. twice.

<h3 class="faded"><pre># to be finished</pre></h3>

<!--
TODO:
Write about alternate client support.
Segway into the need for an open protocol, that falls back to established
standards and is able to be used on any app.
(Mention IM like XMPP, Matrix, etc in the process, because they're the best
example).
Then talk about RCS, what it solves and how to use it, and how it's better
than using messaging apps. (The focus of the article has shifted quite a lot
from the original, but should still mention RCS)
-->
In short, the nature of these messaging apps involves a lot of incompatibility
by design. No compatibility with older devices, no compatibility with
unsupported systems, no compatibility with each other even. The issue is tied
to the closed nature of these apps, in contrast to open protocols, which over
the years have proven to work across a moltitude of different devices and
configurations, because the **standard**, the **servers** and **clients** are
all separate.

With open protocols, an operating system's support for the protocol is
dependent only on the OS itself, which can just include its own client, if
none is available. Compare that to the silo-messaging apps, and there it's a
whole different story: *the server, client and protocol spec are all in the
hands of one company*, and even if they do provide an API, it's not a spec,
and the servers are still theirs. In other words support is never guaranteed
and is fully dependant on whatever company is behind the walled garden.

When it comes to instant messaging there are loads of examples of standard
protocols, which have worked across a load of different systems over tens
of years. Think xmpp, IRC, email, and recently, Matrix and Fediverse. I'm
well aware that not all of these are appropriate for today or evolved in
an adequate way, but they're built to be **interoperable** or can at least
be **bridged** together, especially more recent standards.

Alright, it's time for me to talk about the alternative to all of this mess.
It's not perfect either, but it checks all the boxes of a good solution: it's
a) a **standard**, b) designed for the **default messaging** clients of
phones, c) **interoperable** across servers and d) **supports fallback to an
established protocol**, in this case **SMS**. I'm, of course, talking about
iMessage. Nah, just kidding, I'm talking about **RCS**. You may have heard of
it: Google is pushing hard for its adoption and has its own in house client
for it, Google Messages, which just so happens to be Android's default
messaging app. But RCS is not Google, it was started and developed by the
GSMA and designed for adoption by carriers, because RCS is thought of as a
more modern revision of SMS.

Essentially, RCS provides all the features of a messaging app, minus all the
"walls". RCS support is not dependent on the type of device, rather it's the
duty of OS developers to write a compatible stack, and if not, third party
clients can be written. Ideally, all of these clients should be able
to talk to each other, and all RCS servers should too.

RCS runs over IP, so it requires an internet connection, but the good thing
about it is that it's built to allow a fallback to SMS messages, which ensures
that not only will text messages get across even without a stable connection,
but also if either party doesn't support RCS. And all of this is done
seamlessly by the client. Carriers typically also allow this happening on the
server side, since they also have access to SMS infrastructure, which allows
them to directly route RCS and SMS traffic together.

Yes, RCS is not without its disadvantages. For one, the indisputed big player
in the RCS space is Google, who provide both the most popular client as well
as the most used server (see [Google Jibe](https://jibe.google.com)). This
doesn't sound much better than proprietary messaging apps, but in this case
we're at least still dealing with a standard, that technically anyone can
implement. There's also plenty of existing carrier servers alongside Google's,
so we can rest assured that they're not going to monopolize this space too.
But the concern is still there and it might not be long before we're dealing
with a Chromium-like situation.

Anyways, the GSMA's [official FAQ](https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/technologies/networks/rcs-frequently-asked-questions/)
actually explains a lot of my points quite well. So if you haven't been
convinced yet, go and check that out, and then open your phone's default
texting app and write to someone. And by someone I mean anyone, because
you won't have to worry about what they're running ;)


<i class="faded">Fun fact: Windows Phone was one of the first OS to include
support for RCS and it still works fine. Name me something else that does.</i>

0 comments on commit 8c21282

Please sign in to comment.