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

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.

I’ll take that as a win!

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.

Wow, I don’t see many Ray Stevens references. My brothers and I really enjoyed “the streak” growing up.

I appreciated your rant. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.

What you’re sort of describing sounds like a boycott of our capitalist system. In theory, if we all could be self-sustainable and didn’t need to participate in the current system just to survive, then I think it would collapse. How could it not? The billionaires are billionaires because we give up our time and labor for currency which we then reinvest in a system which transfers most of that currency to a select few at the top. If we all stopped participating where would the billionaires get their billions, and what would they even spend it on, if not our labor or products produced by our labor?

I can only speak for where I live but this kind of organizational boycott of the system isn’t really likely to happen anytime soon. It’s too difficult to organize that number of people into non-participation especially when there are not really any alternatives. It’s not even easy to get people to give up listening to a certain artist’s music if they’ve done a terrible thing. People are living shitty or difficult lives and need their creature comforts just to mentally get by. I don’t blame them. There would have to be a viable, functioning alternative already in place which could absorb the needs of a massive number of people. It would take cooperation and compassion, and I guess I just don’t see that in the cards.

Even if we did, how long would it last until the power hungry manipulated their way into building another version of the same system?

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.