John Gruber joining two unconnected things together and predictably developing from it a pro apple stance (via Birchtree):

But the argument against RCS is strong and simple: it doesn’t support end-to-end encryption. The only new messaging platforms that should gain any traction are those that not only support E2EE, but that require it. Messaging and audio/video calls should only work through E2EE. That’s true for iMessage and FaceTime.

I try not to read, nor comment on, Daring Fireball things any more because the take from them is so clouded in pro-Apple rhetoric that it’s often difficult to see the wood for the trees. However, after Matts post about the article, I decided to read it for myself and boy what a weird take.

RCS is merely a step forward for SMS and MMS, it never promised encryption, and I have my doubts that any carrier would support it even if it did. Apple presently sticks to routing RCS through carrier defaults. Google offers encryption over RCS by turning them into Google Messages, meaning “your chat conversations automatically upgrade to end-to-end encryption”. I am sure that Apple could offer something similar, but considering their RCS implementation is essentially an FU to the EU, they chose not to.

However, we are going off-topic a little. Whilst I agree with John’s opinion that any new implementation of messaging should be e2e encrypted, he completely skirts around the fact that Apple could offer this because it doesn’t fit into his narrative. Instead, he suggests sending all of your messaging through a third-party close system — mentioning WhatsApp specifically. Taking such a positive stance on privacy and then suggesting the use of Meta products is more than a little strange.