Arno Welzel wrote:

> if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
> delivered or not.

RCS server must have a yes/no lookup by phone number.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-02 14:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> >> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Can you send messages using RCS
> >>>> to people with an Apple iPhone?
> >>>
> >>> I don't care, I don't have many people in my circle with those.
> >>
> >> Ok - then go ahead an just use it. But this won't change the fact, that
> >> RCS in general is not very widespread.
> >
> > Well, according to the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots, RCS use in North
> > America could be well over 50%!
> >
> > How's that!? Well, they claim iPhone penetration is about 50%, so
> > Android is about 50%. They also claim that nobody uses WhatsApp in NA,
> > so the Android users use RCS (because it's enabled by default) and at
> > least some iPhone users will communicate with Android users, so all in
> > all it could be well over 50%!
> >
> > See, Android users can also come up with silly, meaningless, 'data'
> > without really trying! :-)
>
> :-D
>
> <https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market>
>
> Rich Communication Services Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends
> & Forecasts (2023 - 2028)
>
> Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Size
>
> Study Period 2018 - 2028
> Market Size (2023) USD 1.83 Billion
> Market Size (2028) USD 5.68 Billion
> CAGR (2023 - 2028) 25.37 %
> Fastest Growing Market Asia Pacific
> Largest Market North America
> Major Players
>
> *Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Analysis*
[...]

> With a grain of salt :-D

Nah, let's *start* with a kilogram! :-)

This 'world wide' report has a very strong US/NA smell. There are so
many idiotic aspects, irrelevancies, etc. that it's hard to take the
rest of the report serious. So I don't think I'm going to spend $4750 to
buy my copy of the report.

Anyway, here in Europe, we can just sit back and watch the show! :-)

On 2023-11-02 19:14, Andy Burns wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
>> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
>> delivered or not.
>
> RCS server must have a yes/no lookup by phone number.

I just disabled RCS on my second phone, then started typing a text to
send to it on my first phone. Instantly it said it was going to use SMS.

Then I activated RCS again. In the first phone, I had to close the
editing an go back to the list of chats, then try to post a new text,
and it then said it was going to use RCS. It took more time to recognize
the change, but not more than 30 seconds.

If it is a database, it is pretty fast.

Both phones are on the same provider (and same WiFi).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-02 19:18, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-02 14:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
>>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> [...]

>>> See, Android users can also come up with silly, meaningless, 'data'
>>> without really trying! :-)
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> <https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market>
>>
>> Rich Communication Services Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends
>> & Forecasts (2023 - 2028)
>>
>> Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Size
>>
>> Study Period 2018 - 2028
>> Market Size (2023) USD 1.83 Billion
>> Market Size (2028) USD 5.68 Billion
>> CAGR (2023 - 2028) 25.37 %
>> Fastest Growing Market Asia Pacific
>> Largest Market North America
>> Major Players
>>
>> *Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Analysis*
> [...]
>
>> With a grain of salt :-D
>
> Nah, let's *start* with a kilogram! :-)
>
> This 'world wide' report has a very strong US/NA smell. There are so
> many idiotic aspects, irrelevancies, etc. that it's hard to take the
> rest of the report serious. So I don't think I'm going to spend $4750 to
> buy my copy of the report.

That expensive? Wow, I had no idea. :-O

>
> Anyway, here in Europe, we can just sit back and watch the show! :-)

:-)

I find interesting one item: the growth in the Asia Pacific area (see
the map on the link). I have no idea about the figures, I just find
curious that bit; If the growth there is true (billion more or less),
then why?

But if it is faintly true, it explains the interest by Google.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-02 19:18, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-02 14:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> >>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-01 14:11:
> >>>>> On 2023-11-01 08:40, Arno Welzel wrote:
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>> See, Android users can also come up with silly, meaningless, 'data'
> >>> without really trying! :-)
> >>
> >> :-D
> >>
> >> <https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/rich-communications-service-market>
> >>
> >> Rich Communication Services Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends
> >> & Forecasts (2023 - 2028)
> >>
> >> Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Size
> >>
> >> Study Period 2018 - 2028
> >> Market Size (2023) USD 1.83 Billion
> >> Market Size (2028) USD 5.68 Billion
> >> CAGR (2023 - 2028) 25.37 %
> >> Fastest Growing Market Asia Pacific
> >> Largest Market North America
> >> Major Players
> >>
> >> *Rich Communication Services (RCS) Market Analysis*
> > [...]
> >
> >> With a grain of salt :-D
> >
> > Nah, let's *start* with a kilogram! :-)
> >
> > This 'world wide' report has a very strong US/NA smell. There are so
> > many idiotic aspects, irrelevancies, etc. that it's hard to take the
> > rest of the report serious. So I don't think I'm going to spend $4750 to
> > buy my copy of the report.
>
> That expensive? Wow, I had no idea. :-O
>
> > Anyway, here in Europe, we can just sit back and watch the show! :-)
>
> :-)
>
> I find interesting one item: the growth in the Asia Pacific area (see
> the map on the link). I have no idea about the figures, I just find
> curious that bit; If the growth there is true (billion more or less),
> then why?

It's full of weird/unbelievable stuff. On the same map, see the Growth
rate for Europe. It's in the same 'Mid' Growth Rate as the US/NA. Yeah,
*right*! :-( They probably never heard of WhatsApp (the word 'WhatsApp'
is nowhere to be found).

And look about their rambling on and on about 5G, as if that is - in
context - that important (compared to 4G or even 3G).

> But if it is faintly true, it explains the interest by Google.

Of course Google is interested, it's the only (IM) thing they have.

Dave Royal, 2023-11-02 11:05:

> On 2 Nov 2023 09:16:19 +0000 Bob Henson wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
[...]
>> In my case, unless Google messages has been altered, because it can send
>> expensive MMS messages without telling me.
>
> You said upthread that the Google messaging app does that so you use
> another SMS-only app. Fair enough. Does the Google app only do it if RCS
> is enabled, or did it always do that and still do it with RCS enabled?
>
> This is clearly an important point - to avoid inadvertant sending of MMS.

No, it does not send MMS/SMS automatically when RCS is not available.
This is an option in the "RCS Chats" settings:

"Automatically resend as text (SMS/MMS)"

And by default this seems to be disabled, at least on my Google Pixel 6a
with Version 20231017_00_RC02 of Google Messages

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:32:

> On 2023-11-02 14:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> I just said, that RCS has certain limitations compared to SMS or
>> messengers like WhtsApp and it is therefore not very widespread. But if
>> people want to use - fine.
>
> RCS has limitations compared to SMS? Like what? :-?

That it needs a working internet connection which may not always be the
case. But I admit, this is not really important in most cases.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel, 2023-11-02 17:21:

[...]
> But according to Juniper Research the world wide use of RCS may surpass
> 1 billion users in 2024:
> <https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/rcs-active-users-to-surpass-1bn-2024>
>
> So in the end RCS may not be that unimportant at all despite its lack of
> end-to-end-encryption and at least one should know about it.

I stand corrected - RCS indeed *has* end-to-end-encryption in certain
situations.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:53:

> On 2023-11-02 17:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
>> of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
>> read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
>> children" or to "watch criminals".
>
> And that standard is RCS :-D

Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
government officials?

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 19:24:

> On 2023-11-02 19:14, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>>> if a client does not have RCS it may just not be reachable this
>>> way. At least a RCS server needs to confirm it a message can be
>>> delivered or not.
>>
>> RCS server must have a yes/no lookup by phone number.
>
> I just disabled RCS on my second phone, then started typing a text to
> send to it on my first phone. Instantly it said it was going to use SMS.
>
> Then I activated RCS again. In the first phone, I had to close the
> editing an go back to the list of chats, then try to post a new text,
> and it then said it was going to use RCS. It took more time to recognize
> the change, but not more than 30 seconds.
>
> If it is a database, it is pretty fast.

Well - the RCS client has to connect to the server to be able to recieve
messages. As soon as the connection is lost, the server of course knows
immediately that the client is offline.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel wrote:

> Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
> government officials?

In order to answer that, first provide a list of the types of encryption
your government can crack ...

On 2023-11-03 19:20, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:32:
>
>> On 2023-11-02 14:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> I just said, that RCS has certain limitations compared to SMS or
>>> messengers like WhtsApp and it is therefore not very widespread. But if
>>> people want to use - fine.
>>
>> RCS has limitations compared to SMS? Like what? :-?
>
> That it needs a working internet connection which may not always be the
> case. But I admit, this is not really important in most cases.

Ah, yes true.

I suppose if you start typing a message, the app will tell you it is
going to do SMS if you don't have internet.

I was in that exact situation this summer when crossing the pond, before
I could activate a local SIM. I had to pay an expensive SMS.

But it is worse for tools like wasap, they will simply not send at all.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Andy Burns, 2023-11-03 19:54:

> Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
>> government officials?
>
> In order to answer that, first provide a list of the types of encryption
> your government can crack ...

This is not needed if there is an interface to intercept on the devices
or a second key which allows to decrypt the traffic.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2023-11-03 19:24, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:53:
>
>> On 2023-11-02 17:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
>>> of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
>>> read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
>>> children" or to "watch criminals".
>>
>> And that standard is RCS :-D
>
> Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
> government officials?

Is there any messaging _service_ that can not be intercepted by governments?

Possibly PGP email.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-03 23:01:

> On 2023-11-03 19:24, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Carlos E. R., 2023-11-02 18:53:
>>
>>> On 2023-11-02 17:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Exactly. Therefore we should implement this in a current standard. But
>>>> of course governments don't want an offical standard where they can not
>>>> read the messages of the users if they want to - either to "protect the
>>>> children" or to "watch criminals".
>>>
>>> And that standard is RCS :-D
>>
>> Is the encryption really end-to-end without any way to intercept by any
>> government officials?
>
>
> Is there any messaging _service_ that can not be intercepted by governments?

Signal, Threema

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 1 Nov 2023 09:12:02 -0000 (UTC) Dave Royal wrote:
>
>The unavailability of iMessages on Android prevents iOS users switching to
>Android devices. Peer pressure among children makes Android phones less
>attractive - search for 'iphone blue bubbles' if you don't know about
>that.
>
>Google want to persuade, if posible, or force - using anti-monolopy
>legislation - Apple to allow iMessage to interwork with Android devices.
>They therefore need to establish a similar messaging facility among
>Android users so that Apple's refusal to cooperate is seen as
>anti-competitive.
>
Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
<https://m.slashdot.org/story/421201>

Among the usual ill-informed and US-centric comments under that /. piece
are some interesting ones about (a) e2ee (b) the difference between RCS as
standardised by GSMA and RCS as promoted by Google.

--
(Remove numerics from email address)

Dave Royal wrote:

> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:

The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
ball ...

On 9 Nov 2023 09:57:56 +0000 Andy Burns wrote:
>Dave Royal wrote:
>
>> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
>
>The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
>ball ...

The DMA - Digital Markets Act - is in force, yes, but the details are yet
to be agreed. Hence Google's latest initiative to get Europarl to
interpret it the way Google want. There isn't an agreed message protocol
yet, or even agreement of what features will be 'core': presence/status?
encryption (& backdoors)? colour of message bubbles? ...

See "What changes will it make for interoperability of messenger
services?" in the link.
<https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349>
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

Dave Royal wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2023 09:57:56 +0000 Andy Burns wrote:
>> Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>>> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
>>
>> The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
>> ball ...
>
> The DMA - Digital Markets Act - is in force, yes, but the details are yet
> to be agreed. Hence Google's latest initiative to get Europarl to
> interpret it the way Google want.

The way I read it, Meta has already been determined to be a "gatekeeper"
regarding instant messaging, apple are claiming they shouldn't be?

But that's only from a quick read of this ...

<https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328>

> There isn't an agreed message protocol
> yet

There's a proposal that seems feasible and has all sorts of "relevant"
names attached

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9420/>

> or even agreement of what features will be 'core': presence/status?
> encryption (& backdoors)? colour of message bubbles? ...
>
> See "What changes will it make for interoperability of messenger
> services?" in the link.
> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349>

I'll have a read, I though there were some defined features
(cross-platform text within 6 months, group chats within 2 years, 4
years for voice/video calling)

On 2023-11-09 16:48, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2023 09:57:56 +0000 Andy Burns wrote:
>> Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>>> Google Turns To Regulators To Make Apple Open Up iMessage:
>>
>> The EU has already decided that WhatsApp and Messenger will have to play
>> ball ...
>
> The DMA - Digital Markets Act - is in force, yes, but the details are yet
> to be agreed. Hence Google's latest initiative to get Europarl to
> interpret it the way Google want. There isn't an agreed message protocol
> yet, or even agreement of what features will be 'core': presence/status?
> encryption (& backdoors)? colour of message bubbles? ...
>
> See "What changes will it make for interoperability of messenger
> services?" in the link.
> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349>

<https://www.xataka.com/aplicaciones/google-lleva-anos-esperando-a-que-imessage-llegue-a-android-apple-no-quiere-solucion-tiene-europa>

Automated translation by DeepL.

Google tired of waiting for Apple: asks Europe to force iMessage to come
to Android

* Google and major European operators send letter to the European
Commission to designate iMessage as a "core" service.
* This would force Apple to extend the interoperability of its
messaging service.

Enrique Perez
8 November 2023Updated 8 November 2023, 15:46

Apple even considered having iMessage on Android a decade ago, but
decided to keep it exclusive to the iPhone in order to retain users.
It's not a technical problem, as iMessage could work on Google's
operating system and all other manufacturers without any problems. It is
simply another strategy in the long-running battle between the big tech
companies.

Google asks Europe for help. Tired of waiting for Apple to take the
plunge, Google has asked Brussels to help it act. A letter to which the
Financial Times has had access states that Google has asked the European
Commission to designate iMessage as a "core" service under the Digital
Markets Act (DMA).

It is not alone in this request, as representatives from Vodafone,
Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica and Orange have also signed the petition.
The major European operators also believe that the expansion of Apple's
messaging service would be beneficial.

The inclusion of iMessage is up in the air. Last September the
Commission designated the 22 services that were covered by the DMA. In
total six "gatekeepers" and their respective systems. Apple is one of
them, but the chosen services include the App Store, Safari and iOS. But
iMessage was not included in principle.

But the door was left open. The Commission gave itself five months to
decide on iMessage.

The argument is that almost nobody uses iMessage here. Apple's
justification is that the use of iMessage in Europe is residual, unlike
in the United States. Because of these low numbers, they justify not
including it as a "core" service and therefore avoid the obligation to
open up their ecosystem.

Another argument put forward by Apple is that of privacy and security,
which would supposedly be affected if it were forced to make iMessage
compatible with Android phones.

Tightening the rope for Europe to be more forceful. The letter sent by
Google and the operators is a move to pressure the European Commission
to act more forcefully.

"Consumers using an Apple iPhone should be able to benefit from
competitive services from a variety of providers," explained Thierry
Breton, the European Internal Market Commissioner. A declaration of
intent that remains to be seen to what extent it materialises into
obligations.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.