• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Part of the reason I refuse to use RCS.

    The primary reason is its a shit protocol - they’ve had 20 years to make a protocol that competes with existing protocols, it’s still problematic, and it’s still dependent on a phone number/SIM.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was designed as a replacement for SMS, just bringing some of the features from SMS alternatives like iMessage. It was never designed to compete with alternatives.

    • thericofactor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The problem with rcs is that it needs to work without a data connection like sms. For that to work, every single mobile operator needs to support it and route it. For that to work they need to work together. The problem is they don’t and there are different implementations, some don’t support it at all. Even when they do, the phone needs to support it. Google is now at a point where they have rcs capable messaging on every recent Android version. Apple is now also integrating rcs into iOS. They are circumventing the operator problem by enabling rcs over wifi or your subscription data. But that’s a workaround, because it requires data, while sms just requires a cellphone signal. Until operators start working together to enable and relay rcs messages, Google and Apple habe the monopoly by having rcs routed directly to their messaging apps over the internet instead of directly to the device like sms does.