brandocorp

joined 10 months ago
[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah, this really all feels like the carriers have dropped the ball.

[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

Google is the only one that allows “End to end” encryption.

Allowing and implementing are not the same things. They implemented encryption in their RCS services. They don't allow everyone to use their service, but they built and own it so that's their right, I guess.

And practically speaking google controls the standard, they have over 800 million users out of the total possible 1.2 billion.

Can you elaborate here? How do they control the standard? Specifically, I'm not asking about their implementation of RCS, because of course they control that, but their implementation is not the same thing as the standard itself.

It might not be a monopolistic standard in theory but it is in practice

It's widely understood that it's difficult to implement a competent web browser. That's why there are only a handful of browser choices. This doesn't make HTTP a monopolistic protocol.

Saying the RCS standard is a monopolistic standard makes zero sense to me, even in practice. We are quite literally discussing another vendor entering the market. If you run a telecom and want to implement RCS, you are able to do so. If you are a phone manufacturer you are free to implement RCS in your software stack. None of this is easy, but it's possible and so this isn't a monopoly situation as far as I understand it. Google wanted to compete with iMessage so they built a competitor on a proprietary but open global standard, the standard which is meant to replace SMS and MMS messaging.

[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

I'll take that as a win!

[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

RCS is a proprietary standard, but it is not owned or controlled by Google. They just happen to be one of the first major corporations to embrace and implement the standard.

[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This would be awesome, but I just don't see it happening this way. They have to work with the copyright holders who set those kinds of terms and who have the majority of the leverage in negotiating those terms. Unfortunately, I don't see any reason this kind of deal would be made.

The business model is to force consumers to purchase and repurchase the same content over and over. Changing only the format, or distribution method, or platform of consumption. This kind of deal would undercut that business model.