brandocorp

I think you might be thinking of Cruise?

https://gizmodo.com/cruise-robotaxi-human-assistance-kyle-vogt-1850997279

I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?

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.

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 was my interpretation as well. I frequently have weird abstract dreams, where I'm often not present or not involved, and the dreams sometimes don't involve people at all. The ones without people are weird and hard to explain. I assumed that's what the lower left panel is trying to show.

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.

What have you explained? That RCS is not stewarded by the IETF? That's not the crux of the issue. My original claim was that RCS was more open than iMessage and that RCS is not owned or controlled by Google. Tell me where I'm wrong, and back it up with good sources. Or not. Whatever you're feeling like.

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RCC.07-v11.0.pdf

The specification exists. It's not free as in beer. This is really beside the point. Google implemented an RCS messaging client. Your cellular carriers implement the RCS endpoints the clients use.

No. I'm sorry. You can't just say it and make it true. Please show me how Google owns RCS or prevents other developers from implementing it within their own apps.