this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
342 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
59088 readers
4680 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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'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.