RCS is an inferior anti-user unencrypted "standard" to iMessage; too little, too late, and driven by Google who effectively bribes carriers to get behind it by providing backend servers to them and sell out the user. No user wants additional say from carrier and potential opportunity for billing. The only reason RCS has even become a thing and Android is playing that game is Google intended to force Apple's hand by ganging up on them with carriers. They failed and now they whine. What they are asking iMessage is to basically fold their pocket ace hand and join and be a lower-class participant in a Google-controlled messaging world. No wonder Apple will always say fuck you.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Considering there are dozens of other chat apps with huge market shares on both platforms, is it inconceivable that they had a better product than most chat apps? (Until quite recently iMessage was the only widely distributed and usable end to end encrypted messaging platform out there, for example.) It is Google who controls the majority of smartphones, not Apple, yet they have not been able to effectively "abuse" their market position, mind you.
Personally, whenever I carry an Android, I'd very much prefer Signal or WhatsApp than Google Messages app.
Bundling and control of defaults are powerful levers. If users were presented a ballot on first use then perhaps these incumbents would have to compete on an even playing field.
Oh I agree completely. Not only should there a regulated standard for texts placed upon any company with 5% marketshare, there should be a similar standard places upon social media over 5% marketshare.
Ah yes the "standard" that the carriers have slow rolled, rolled out only partially, or rolled out in certain regions. Such a great standard Google themselves have proprietary extensions only available in their Messages app and only when using their back end.
Apple and Google don't want to play nice with one another. That's on both of them. The carriers are a third pole that don't want to play nice with each other or Google or Apple.
Google and Apple want value-add features on their platforms. Carriers don't want E2EE so they can mine text messages for advertisers.
You're not going to legislate or regulate a platform into existence. Apple and Google didn't appear on the scene yesterday. They both started at zero users amid a market full of competitors. They are the competitive upstarts that actually competed and and were successful.
Before the iPhone and Android there were a number of mobile platforms that all sucked in their own special ways. The mobile market was the incumbents' market to lose and they then lost of their own accord.
IMO Windows Phone was a superior alternative yet could not complete because the two incumbents were too entrenched. Network effects don't impact only users but developers as well.
> IMO Windows Phone was a superior alternative yet could not complete because the two incumbents were too entrenched.
Seriously? Windows Phone flopped because Microsoft couldn't get its act together. IE sucked and couldn't handle even mobile sites that iOS and Android had no problem with. The messaging and e-mail had anemic features. And Microsoft simply couldn't execute on a third party developer strategy.
For whatever interesting ideas the OS had it was a dumpster fire of execution. It didn't help them at all that Windows Phone 7 had no backwards compatibility with Windows Mobile so they burned anyone invested in that platform. They repeated the trick with Windows Phone 8 where Windows Phone 7 devices couldn't run 8. Being the third place platform and repeatedly burning your customers was just an asinine choice for Microsoft.
Windows Phone had interesting features and UI concepts. What killed it was Microsoft's absolutely terrible execution. It had little to do with Apple and Google being "entrenched". Microsoft wrapped a handful of interesting features or good hardware (Nokia phones) in layers of crap.
