Google Blocking RCS on rooted Droids

Well earlier they blocked access to their service signin on pages from “unauthorized” devices, so it would track they would block access to their messaging network as well.
 
I wouldn't have believed that anybody rooting their phone would want to willingly enable RCS, anyway.
 
Armenius said:
I wouldn't have believed that anybody rooting their phone would want to willingly enable RCS, anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you'd think that, but that really isn't the point. The point is Google intentionally stifling the experience of users that want more out of their phones by rooting them.
 
I thought google was all in on nearly singlehandedly forcing everyone to replace SMS with RCS (once they figure out how to get Apple to capitulate). How does that work if they exclude users?

(I should disclose that I work for a messaging service now, and used to work at a different one)
 
toast0 said:
I thought google was all in on nearly singlehandedly forcing everyone to replace SMS with RCS (once they figure out how to get Apple to capitulate). How does that work if they exclude users?

(I should disclose that I work for a messaging service now, and used to work at a different one)
Click to expand...
They are, and Google is the owner and operator of the servers that handle all the message encryption as well as mass message delivery as well as group chat communications.
They push it as the "open standard" which RCS is technically an open standard if you want single point-to-point messaging with no encryption with the only devices being capable of sending or receiving messages having a direct phone number associated with them. Every function over top of that is a Google owned plugin.
So to piss Google off, Apple is incorporating the RCS base standard, but they will not implement any Google-controlled plugins which means no encryption, no access to the Google Business Messaging Services, and no ability for Google to directly parse the RCS traffic for actionable keywords. Because yes that is something Google does, even when you are using "secure" RCS.
 
Its bad enough the last few years where some apps would fail to function or there would be other issues thanks to even unlocking your bootloader or rooting, but this is preposterous. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the check should note to the user that their bootloader has been unlocked or that the phone is rooted or whatever other thing that would be bad if it was done unknowingly by a third party, but when it comes to enthusiasts modifying their own device function it should not come with a penalty. Its even worse that, should this article prove accurate, not only does RCS not work if rooted or even just bootloader unlocked, but it doen't report this to the user who may think everything is fine but mysteriously not see any responses to their messages?!

While users can probably get around a lot of this with the arms race of "systemless" Rooting and relockable bootloaders (to say nothing for more security vulnerable issues like sig spoofing etc), it should not necessary. RCS is an enormous pain in the ass for many reasons, mosty thanks to mobile carriers and tech companies making parts of it only available to proprietary approved applications, but it was at least SUPPOSED to be the e2e encrpted successor to SMS that was interoperable. Without an open standard that was interoperable, there's no real clear pathway from the outdated SMS/MMS parameters except a litany of messengers that are all competing for users and not interoperable. While I'd suggest that anyone who wants a drop-in SMS/MMS + RCS + "MobileMessenger" features to choose Signal as a better drop in open-source replacement than many (mostly) proprietary alternatives such as WhatsApp, LINE, Kakao, WeChat, Telegram and the like even Signal dropped its basic SMS/MMS support despite huge outcry, partially because Google et al would not give a 3rd party access to RCS and they didn't want to support both encrypted Signal messages with all their features between users of the app, and unencrypted baseline MMS/SMS anymore as it would be "confusing" security-wise for many. I and many others disagreed with this change but this event with Google suggests that someone' working at cross purposes if they want people to adopt Google's new RCS and yet are making it hostile to technically adept users most likely to do so.

SMS/MMS were relics of their time but they were at least nearly universally interoperable when it came to mobile messaging. What we're going forward into is a hostile group of of mostly proprietary, incompatible fiefdoms where you always have to ask someone if the have an account on whatever application; Google seems to be even restricting Android users at a time they should be trying to expand RCS users...and I haven't even gotten into the doing-it-my-way disaster that is Apple's iMessage or for that matter, the ubiquity to near monopoly of WeChat in China, and other circumstances making things messier.
 
RanceJustice said:
Its bad enough the last few years where some apps would fail to function or there would be other issues thanks to even unlocking your bootloader or rooting, but this is preposterous. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the check should note to the user that their bootloader has been unlocked or that the phone is rooted or whatever other thing that would be bad if it was done unknowingly by a third party, but when it comes to enthusiasts modifying their own device function it should not come with a penalty. Its even worse that, should this article prove accurate, not only does RCS not work if rooted or even just bootloader unlocked, but it doen't report this to the user who may think everything is fine but mysteriously not see any responses to their messages?!

While users can probably get around a lot of this with the arms race of "systemless" Rooting and relockable bootloaders (to say nothing for more security vulnerable issues like sig spoofing etc), it should not necessary. RCS is an enormous pain in the ass for many reasons, mosty thanks to mobile carriers and tech companies making parts of it only available to proprietary approved applications, but it was at least SUPPOSED to be the e2e encrpted successor to SMS that was interoperable. Without an open standard that was interoperable, there's no real clear pathway from the outdated SMS/MMS parameters except a litany of messengers that are all competing for users and not interoperable. While I'd suggest that anyone who wants a drop-in SMS/MMS + RCS + "MobileMessenger" features to choose Signal as a better drop in open-source replacement than many (mostly) proprietary alternatives such as WhatsApp, LINE, Kakao, WeChat, Telegram and the like even Signal dropped its basic SMS/MMS support despite huge outcry, partially because Google et al would not give a 3rd party access to RCS and they didn't want to support both encrypted Signal messages with all their features between users of the app, and unencrypted baseline MMS/SMS anymore as it would be "confusing" security-wise for many. I and many others disagreed with this change but this event with Google suggests that someone' working at cross purposes if they want people to adopt Google's new RCS and yet are making it hostile to technically adept users most likely to do so.

SMS/MMS were relics of their time but they were at least nearly universally interoperable when it came to mobile messaging. What we're going forward into is a hostile group of of mostly proprietary, incompatible fiefdoms where you always have to ask someone if the have an account on whatever application; Google seems to be even restricting Android users at a time they should be trying to expand RCS users...and I haven't even gotten into the doing-it-my-way disaster that is Apple's iMessage or for that matter, the ubiquity to near monopoly of WeChat in China, and other circumstances making things messier.
Click to expand...
RCS as a base standard does not natively support E2E encryption and only supports the delivery of messages between devices directly addressed by an E.164 address, E2E, group messaging, etc, are add-on protocols and Google owns and operates most of those add-ons.

It is not helped that the RCS "Standard" has 4 different major versions, each with at least 7 different sub-revisions, with varying compatibility between them ranging from full to non-existent with everything in between, like why do I not get pictures from you when you text them to me sort of things. It was on the carriers to pick and choose which RCS version they were implementing with which features, and which they could choose from was also dependent on what hardware they were purchasing for their own towers and service hubs.

RCS is 5 Racoons in a Trenchcoat pretending to be a service.
 
Lakados said:
RCS as a base standard does not natively support E2E encryption and only supports the delivery of messages between devices directly addressed by an E.164 address, E2E, group messaging, etc, are add-on protocols and Google owns and operates most of those add-ons.

It is not helped that the RCS "Standard" has 4 different major versions, each with at least 7 different sub-revisions, with varying compatibility between them ranging from full to non-existent with everything in between, like why do I not get pictures from you when you text them to me sort of things. It was on the carriers to pick and choose which RCS version they were implementing with which features, and which they could choose from was also dependent on what hardware they were purchasing for their own towers and service hubs.

RCS is 5 Racoons in a Trenchcoat pretending to be a service.
Click to expand...
Exactly, this is the problem that the "base" standard is a mess an the add-ons for useful functionality seem to be developed by Google and handed out in a proprietary manner (ie I remember reading they granted whatever built in Samsung messenger application e2e encryption support, but denied it to Signal and also refused to open the code or the licensing sufficiently). It was upheld as the next big thing and the standard to replace SMS/MMS (which admittedly need replacing for modern functionality, network capacity, and features that modern users apparently seem to expect) but I can't understand why both carriers and especially Google make it functionally a cumbersome, non-interoperating mess.

Its not like Google doesn't have experience in basically setting the tone for a de-facto standard, despite it being openly available from both a licensing and technical standpoint (ie Android itself, Chromium etc). Though of course, even with regards to those Google seems to be screwing up for some reason in favor of greater proprietary lockdown, such as the divergence between "Android, as in AOSP codebase and how the Nexus phones were the developer standard using GApps that only slightly varied from the AOSP in branding" and "Android by way of Pixel, with proprietary Pixel only applications and features" or how "Chromium" based browsers used to be not that different from Chrome except a handful of built ins, but now they're pushing things like the ManifestV3 for addons and the like.
 
RanceJustice said:
Exactly, this is the problem that the "base" standard is a mess an the add-ons for useful functionality seem to be developed by Google and handed out in a proprietary manner (ie I remember reading they granted whatever built in Samsung messenger application e2e encryption support, but denied it to Signal and also refused to open the code or the licensing sufficiently). It was upheld as the next big thing and the standard to replace SMS/MMS (which admittedly need replacing for modern functionality, network capacity, and features that modern users apparently seem to expect) but I can't understand why both carriers and especially Google make it functionally a cumbersome, non-interoperating mess.

Its not like Google doesn't have experience in basically setting the tone for a de-facto standard, despite it being openly available from both a licensing and technical standpoint (ie Android itself, Chromium etc). Though of course, even with regards to those Google seems to be screwing up for some reason in favor of greater proprietary lockdown, such as the divergence between "Android, as in AOSP codebase and how the Nexus phones were the developer standard using GApps that only slightly varied from the AOSP in branding" and "Android by way of Pixel, with proprietary Pixel only applications and features" or how "Chromium" based browsers used to be not that different from Chrome except a handful of built ins, but now they're pushing things like the ManifestV3 for addons and the like.
Click to expand...
This is why Apple reluctantly agreed to add RCS base support, but under the conditions that the EU oversee a joint effort with the GSMA to revamp and update the RCS protocols as a base and not rely on proprietary and problematic 3'rd third-party plugins for functionality.
It shouldn't take Apple too long, I mean they ripped off XMPP to build APN in a few months which is what became the base for iMessage, so I am sure they can combine the newer XMPP versions and RCS to make some new bastard protocol they can convince GSMA to adopt as their new standard.

Remember, RCS was never meant for you and me, it was always meant for the Telecoms to use to get our data and to sell us stuff, it was designed so 3'rd parties could customize it and mine it for data.
Don't take my word for it though take theirs.
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/rcs-brand-communications/

Now a commercial reality, RCS is the future of brand communications, and offers exciting opportunities for brands to create richer conversations with their customers, not to mention the huge economic benefits this platform will bring.

Take a look at the figures to see why so many brands are already bringing this new platform to life: SMS campaigns continue to enjoy an average open rate of 98%, and an average response rate of 90 seconds. In contrast, the average app campaign loses 77% of its users in the first three days, and 95% after 90 days. As the evolution of texting, RCS offers the eye-catching functions of OTT apps, with the unbeatable reach of SMS.
 
Does RCS still work if you take the proper measures to hide root? There are instructions here (like using Magisk Hide and a Play Integrity module) and as of last year when I had a rooted stock Pixel 7 Pro (or even custom ROM) - I saw no degradation in what I was able to do. If you actually expose you have root you automatically can't use many apps since so many won't work if they detect root. It's a cat and mouse game but as of right now you can still pass safety net and not lose access to your banking apps, etc... but I wonder if Google is taking things a step further and still blocking RCS in this scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top