---

@marcus@ wrote:

[…] What Swisscom wants to do is basically the same. But the interface to Google is probably missing?

---

In contrast to WhatsApp & Co., RCS is a mobile communications standard that must be adhered to equally by everyone involved, i.e. There is no need for an interface between Swisscom and Google or anyone else - everyone speaks the same language. Actually great. The problem with this is that E2E encryption is deliberately not implemented. Not only Amnesty International finds this worrying. If the customer’s need for confidential communication were taken into account, I might even become one of RCS’s most ardent supporters. Otherwise, I wish with the deepest fervor that the technology becomes a terrible failure. The history of the standard makes the latter seem entirely possible.

T-Mobile USA and Sprint also offer it: [https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/30/t-mobile-universal-rcs-support/](https://www.engadget.com/ 2018/06/30/t-mobile-universal-rcs-support/)

Honestly, what interests a normal customer?

He inevitably compares it with the existing one, especially with WhatsAPP.

Advantage of RSC, it is a standard and no app is needed, everyone can be reached. Unfortunately, this is only theoretical, because Apple doesn’t have it as standard and then requires an app. In addition, not all mobile providers are participating.

Conclusion Given Whatsapp’s market-dominating position, less can be achieved with RSC than with Whatsapp.

Disadvantage of RSC it is not encrypted, I think that is already death. Who will switch who already has an app that is encrypted and that almost everyone has on their cell phone. Another disadvantage: the possibilities of RSC lag far behind what WhatApp offers.

Now it is known that it takes a lot more to switch to something else than it does to retain existing users. This means everyone can estimate the chances for themselves.

Hello @SamuelD

When will RCS be introduced at Swisscom? Fall or rather winter 2018? I hope you are already testing it diligently.

Here are my 2 cents on the criticisms of encryption and iOS:

Encryption:

Of course, it’s a shame that there is no end-to-end encryption. But the topic is greatly overrated. As mentioned above, the data between device and provider is encrypted. Who among the users is disadvantaged by the lack of end-to-end encryption? If we’re honest, practically no one! You are less interesting to the state than you think. In addition, WhatsApp messages were not end-to-end encrypted for years and practically everyone still diligently sent messages back and forth. Well, it’s clear to me that people who value end-to-end encryption extremely, really extremely highly cannot be convinced. I’m just wondering whether a Facebook Konzern service is the right solution.

iOS:

Apple will support RCS for several reasons:

1. They do not have a relatively high market share in all countries.

2. Once RCS is established on practically all Android devices, the telcos will maintain the relatively expensive SMS system as a fall back system practically exclusively for Apple.

3. It’s not Apple vs. other smartphone manufacturers but Apple+Google+Microsoft vs. Facebook.

4. In the USA, SMS is used significantly more often than WhatsApp.

5. Apple never said they wouldn’t support RCS. If we’re honest, they’re not under any pressure to introduce RCS just yet. I guess late 2019 or early 2020, which in the smartphone world is ages.

6. Apple has dozens of other and better moats than iMessage and can still advertise the “advantage” that messages are end-to-end encrypted between Apple devices.

I’m sorry if I broke 1 million community rules with this post. I am a novice.

LG Rex

Hello Rextado, unfortunately we cannot currently provide any information about the potential introduction of RCS. We’ll let you know as soon as we know more. Kind regards, Nina

Speaking of WhatsApp and from Facebook.

Encryption. As pleasing as the WhatsApp encryption initiative is in principle, one should not forget that it is still a chat app from Facebook, which is now free again and has always been ad-free. The operators certainly have an interest in user data.

Specifically, WhatsApp reads the numbers of your contacts on the phone and automatically adds them to the WhatsApp contact list. In addition, the app must be granted extensive rights on the smartphone during installation.

The encryption that WhatsApp now uses is considered secure - it comes from Open Whisper Systems, the company that is also responsible for the chat app Signal, recommended by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Unlike Signal, WhatsApp is not open source software. This means: Not everyone can view the code and look for backdoors or cryptography errors. To a certain extent, you have to trust that WhatsApp and its parent company Facebook use encryption correctly and without exceptions and that there are no security gaps that can be used to circumvent it.

For secret services, metadata is often the more valuable data anyway: it can be used, for example, to uncover communication networks - and WhatsApp groups make it particularly easy to find out who is connected to whom.

@Chrisiboy

On the subject of “There are a few errors in the whole thing.”:

The biggest mistake in thinking lies with the stingy-is-horny consumers who want more and more performance for less and less money, but still demand more and more wages.

However, this calculation does not work in the long term, i.e. sooner or later the providers will have to increase prices again and save on performance, quality, service and investments and lay off people, which will then again be at the expense of the general public.

True, but it doesn’t just originate with consumers. The two largest landline carriers in Switzerland helped a lot. Let’s briefly remember that in the past the business model was to sell bandwidth for Internet access at high prices and at the same time to offer its customers the application. At that time, very good money was earned. In order to be able to meet the increasing demand, investments were made in new technologies and with them This could then be financed for new subscribers with good margins. At some point it became clear that as the availability of bandwidth increased and more network providers increased, the price had to fall, although the case should work as the number of customers increased because everyone should be getting more and more bandwidth. Unfortunately that didn’t work, at 20-40 Mbps all customers could watch their TV in HD and surf the Internet at the same time and that’s still enough for 98% of users today. The misjudgment is based on the fact that carriers have continued to invest in the network in order to achieve ever higher bandwidths, which in fact no one needs. Swisscom’s FTTH program is a good example of this. In 2010 it was said that every building in Switzerland would be connected to fiber optics, that the customer needed the bandwidth and would pay for it. But the fact is that 98% of all households use the offer with the lowest available bandwidth and only 1% of customers who have 1Gbps available via a fiber optic connection in their home actually use it.

It is absolutely clear to me that it is a difficult situation for carriers, but such unsuitable attempts such as establishing RSC do not help the providers because no customer will buy a service if they have been able to use an established “free service” for a long time. The future will look like this: you either provide the infrastructure or you have a good application that you can sell as an OTT service.

The topic is in all media. I very much hope that this will now become established and that all providers, and especially Apple, will implement this standard.

It’s about time there is an alternative to Facebook Konzern.

I’m curious to see whether Apple will communicate anything at WWDC.

---

@mitsui1 wrote:

The topic is in all media. […]

---

Which one, for example? The last news reports I found about this are almost a year old. So I actually have the impression that my hopes that this data protection disaster will fail miserably have just been completely fulfilled…

There are already various alternatives to Facebook products, but unfortunately these are not popular either. For me, the only option would be for the carriers to offer RCS completely free of charge and ad-free.

Here is an article from the Tagesanzeiger.

https://m.tagesanzeiger.ch/articles/5cba1ac7ab5c377bdd000001

Swisscom still has to provide proof of whether the service will be free for private customers. I don’t see a market for Geschäftskunden if nothing smarter than Visilab’s pilot project comes along and it has to run on all carriers and on every smartphone.

In any case, the helplessness is noticeable when large telcos like Swisscom rely on such a RCS service…let’s take a look.

Let’s wait and see if Apple introduces RCS this summer. As long as RCS is not implemented as standard in the messaging app (analogous to iMessage with fallback SMS) and then works on all devices (iPad, Mac), there is no chance anyway. I want to be able to chat on all of these devices and not have to download a new app again.

But there are rumors that this will happen:

Apple may build the SMS successor RCS into iMessage

[https://www.iphone-blog.ch/2019/01/09/apple-baut-den-sms-nachfollowers-rcs-moeglichlichen-in-imessage-ein/](https://www.iphone-blog .ch/2019/01/09/apple-builds-the-sms-successor-rcs-possibly-in-imessage-a/)

Apple will probably adapt/change the protocol so that it only works on iOS.

Otherwise Apple wouldn’t be Apple.