Skip to main content

Edge's News: Google Exec wants Apple to adopt Rich Command Services (RCS) for messaging

This time Google Senior Vice President Hiroshi Lockheimer, who oversees Android, is taking Apple to task over the green bubble struggle and urging the company to embrace a new text messaging standard that will make cross-platform communication easier.

On Saturday, Lockheimer tweeted that Apple’s walled garden around iMessage is a “documented strategy,” adding that the company uses peer pressure and bullying to sell its products despite its marketing centered around “humanity and equity.”


Lockheimer specifically called out how Apple could support Rich Communication Services, or RCS, but choose not to. The messaging standard has effectively united all Android devices on one texting platform after a years-long crusade. The three major U.S. carriers all support RCS. 


It’s available by default through the Google Messages app, which comes standard on all Android devices—just like Apple Messages is standard is on all Apple devices. In fact, the last holdout to getting RCS standardised across mobile platforms is Apple.


Today Lockheimer denied that his tweets were a critique of Apple’s refusal to bring iMessage to Android. Instead, he wants Apple to support RCS in iMessage, just as the company supports older SMS/MMS standards. He even offered to help Apple implement RCS, doubling down on a plea made late last year.


Lockheimer insists that Apple adopting RCS would also help more folks connect. “Phone number-based messaging is the fallback,” Lockheimer tweeted. “If you want to reach someone and you don’t know whether they use app x y or z, you have high confidence that sending them a text (SMS) will work.” 


It’s a standard that has long been supported by mobile devices, which Lockheimer suggests is “probably why Apple supported SMS to begin with.”


Lockheimer is right. Supporting RCS would improve the experience for both iOS and Android users. Speaking as a longtime Android user, it means I could have encrypted conversations with my loved ones who use iPhones without having to use a third-party app, and I could finally receive video clips as intended from my Apple-using friends.


But Google is also to blame for its disorganized messaging strategy over the years, which it still hasn’t figured out and whittled down. Google currently runs a handful of messaging services, including Google Messages, Google Chat/Hangouts (depending on if you flipped the switch or not), and Google Voice. 


There’s also messaging and chat functionality baked into other Google apps, including Google Photos and Google Maps Business Messages, letting you chat with restaurant and shop owners.




Lockheimer was on the money about one thing: Phone numbers are a universal way to discover if someone’s on a messaging platform. Apps like Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp serve as second- and third-tier messaging platforms for the same people I communicate with through text messaging. 


And when Google Messages can’t perform a task—like a large video file or end-to-end encryption—because of platform differences, my loved ones and I default to one of the backups mentioned above.


I’m not holding out hope that Apple will adopt RCS, because the company is little incentive to—its customers don’t mind being locked in, as annoying as it might be for their Android friends.


Google would be better off making a universal messaging solution that unites them all—third-party and first-party—making it easier for its users to flip back and forth between conversations. 


We already heard of some of this universal usage coming to Chrome OS’s phone app later this year. Google could make Android better by simplifying its own messaging apps and enabling one-click access to every option so Apple’s decisions don’t matter.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...