Quick Links
Rich Communication Services (RCS) is meant to bridge the gap between traditional SMS and modern chat apps. But a few key reasons are holding me back from embracing it on my iPhone.
It’s Redundant on iOS
One of RCS’s selling points is that it bridges the gap between iPhone and Android users by enabling richer communication features directly in the default messaging app. Unlike iMessage, which only works between Apple devices, RCS can enhance the experience of texting Android users with perks like better media sharing, typing indicators, and read receipts—all without needing a third-party app. On paper, that sounds promising.
But here’s the reality: apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram already solve this problem far better than RCS does. These apps are free, widely available, and offer far more than RCS ever could. Whether it’s end-to-end encryption, group video calls, or cross-platform support that doesn’t depend on carrier implementation, these apps make texting and sharing media with non-iOS users seamless.
Take WhatsApp, for instance. It’s as simple as downloading the app and syncing your contacts—no worrying about whether your carrier supports a specific standard or if the other person’s device is RCS-compatible. When the solution already exists and works perfectly, RCS feels like it’s trying to reinvent the wheel.
Its Encryption Is Conditional
Another glaring shortcoming of RCS is its lack of universalend-to-end encryption. While Google has made strides to introduce encryption for RCS chats, it’s not consistently available across all carriers or regions. In contrast, platforms like WhatsApp and Signal offer end-to-end encryption as a standard feature, ensuring that only you and the person you’re communicating with can read the messages.
When privacy is a priority, RCS falls short. Even with encryption enabled in some cases, it’s dependent on both users having compatible devices, supported carriers, and updated software. If any link in that chain is missing, your conversations revert to plain SMS-level security, which is essentially no security at all.
Compare this toSignal’s uncompromising security model, where encryption is always guaranteed. Every message, call, or media file is encrypted—no exceptions. Even iMessage, despite its limitations across platforms, ensures encryption within the Apple ecosystem.
If I’m going to trust a messaging system, security needs to be non-negotiable. RCS simply doesn’t deliver the same level of assurance as the alternatives already available.
Over-Reliance on Carriers
Another drawback of RCS is its heavy dependence on carriers for implementation and support. Unlikeinstant messaging appsthat operate independently of mobile networks, RCS requires carriers to adopt the protocol, configure their systems, and maintain compatibility. This reliance introduces unnecessary complexity and inconsistency.
The rollout of RCS has been anything but smooth. Some carriers fully support it, while others don’t. Even when RCS is available, features like encryption or high-quality media sharing might vary depending on your carrier’s implementation. This patchwork approach creates a fragmented experience, the exact opposite of what modern communication tools should aim for.
If RCS had been built with the same universal accessibility and independence as other instant messaging apps, it might have been worth using. But as it stands, its carrier reliance undermines its potential and adds another layer of inconsistency to an already fragmented system.
It Feels Like an Unneeded SMS Comeback
RCS may be marketed as the next evolution of SMS, but it feels like a step backward disguised as progress. Sure, it adds modern features like high-quality image sharing and typing indicators, but these are things we’ve had for years with instant messaging apps. Why attempt to revive SMS when it’s already been overtaken by better solutions?
SMS is an outdated technology. It served its purpose in the early days of mobile communication, but messaging has evolved far beyond plain text and basic media attachments. RCS, for all its improvements, still operates within the framework of carriers and phone numbers, which feels restrictive today.
Compare this to apps like Telegram or Messenger, where your account isn’t tied to a single device or carrier. You can seamlessly switch devices, sync your messages, and enjoy features like stickers, polls, and advanced group management. RCS can’t compete with that level of flexibility. It’s stuck trying to enhance a system that’s already been left behind.
Instead of breathing new life into SMS, RCS feels like an attempt to keep carrier-based messaging relevant in an era where apps have already won the battle. It’s hard to get excited about “modern SMS” when we’ve lived with far better alternatives for years.
What Would Change My Mind
RCS has potential, but it needs to overcome several shortcomings before I consider adopting it. First and foremost, security is a dealbreaker. Universal end-to-end encryption—guaranteed for every message, regardless of carrier, device, or region—is essential. Without it, RCS can’t compete with the privacy standards set by apps like Signal or even iMessage.
Another major improvement would be seamless cross-platform integration. Right now, RCS feels fragmented, with its functionality varying depending on whether the recipient has RCS enabled or if their carrier supports it. For RCS to win me over, it should work effortlessly, like WhatsApp or iMessage. I shouldn’t have to wonder whether my messages will go through as intended.
RCS also needs to shed its dependence on carriers. This reliance creates unnecessary delays and inconsistencies, making the service feel outdated in a world where messaging apps operate independently of phone plans. A centralized, carrier-agnostic system would make RCS far more appealing and reliable.
Beyond these foundational fixes, RCS needs to go beyond playing catch-up. Right now, it mimics the features of existing apps without offering anything innovative. To stand out, it must introduce capabilities that go above and beyond. If it wants to replace SMS, it should leap ahead of the competition, not merely attempt to match them.
Finally, the experience on iOS would need to be seamless. If Apple were to fully embrace RCS and integrate it smoothly into the Messages app, it might be worth reconsidering. It shouldn’t feel like a clunky add-on or a downgrade from iMessage. For RCS to succeed, it needs to feel as natural and user-friendly as Apple’s ecosystem demands.
Until RCS can address these gaps, it’s hard to see it as a viable alternative to the robust messaging options already available. The concept is promising, but it still has a long way to go to meet modern expectations.
