321–330 of 902 posts
Whenever this issue of iMessage crops up on HN, I’ve come to expect the usual points from both sides. However, the one thing that’s never addressed is the “why” of it all. For a group that ostensibly values openness and interoperability, why spend so much effort and energy to climb into a walled garden?
This seems like it won't last, but it's AWESOME and I really hope you survive Apple's inevitable attempts to kill this. A universal chat application would be amazing, and will maybe help bring attention to the value of standards and interoperability (hopefully by governments/regulators).
I saw an article on the topic where the reporter spoke with Beeper's CEO, Eric Migicovsky. He seems to believe that blocking Beeper might cause problems for legitimate Apple user's. Obviously that outcome is something he wants, but I still think its interesting. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/5/23987817/beeper-mini-imes...
They would need to accept and verify a flag from messages that the copycats can't reproduce. At the very least that would require a client update from anyone using official iMessage clients, which covers many millions of devices.
Unless they're able to hook into already existing flags/keys on the devices since they already verify application signatures and a whole other host of things.
Apple can probably do it, but much like jailbreaking how fast can they release breaking changes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn't have to ban it, they could just alter the protocol to make it impossible. iMessage is designed to only work on devices manufactured by a single company. All of those devices have secure cryptographic elements built into them. It's not a stretch to think Apple could lock down iMessage under the guise of security.
The only way I could see this happening is if they have all of the public keys of the secure cryptographic elements in a database of all Apple devices ever created. Because otherwise, it would just be trivial to emulate a "secure cryptographic element" if it's just a public/private key. They aren't running a client by Apple. A glance at other posts seems they are using Apple code, but that would just be a matter of r…
This seems like it won't last, but it's AWESOME and I really hope you survive Apple's inevitable attempts to kill this. A universal chat application would be amazing, and will maybe help bring attention to the value of standards and interoperability (hopefully by governments/regulators).
I saw an article on the topic where the reporter spoke with Beeper's CEO, Eric Migicovsky. He seems to believe that blocking Beeper might cause problems for legitimate Apple user's. Obviously that outcome is something he wants, but I still think its interesting. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/5/23987817/beeper-mini-imes...
No matter the method it would be a scorched earth approach. I suspect the number of people actually using Beeper will be far below a rounding error for Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This didn’t really say much. Apple definitely knows about Hackintosh users, they mostly just don’t care. The question is whether they will actually do something if made to care.
This is too high profile. Apple is absolutely, 100% going to kill this and it’s gonna screw this over for those of us who leverage iMessage in Hackintosh environments.
I am typing this on an iPhone 15 pro max and I have several MacBook pros (M3 Max on the way) and everyone in my family has their own iPad.
I hate that Apple has created this thing where some folks ostracize others because they can taint your group chat with ugly green.
Fortunately, I think this is going to be a forcing function for the RCS conversation. Unfortunately, I'll be waiting for the data loss post coming in the near future. As some one who had to deal with a stuck iMessage validation with Apple support on a genuine iPhone a few years back this can get sticky.
RCS is not an iMessage replacement though? it's not encrypted, it doesn't support a single identity for multiple devices, it requires cell service and a phone number
Fortunately, I think this is going to be a forcing function for the RCS conversation. Unfortunately, I'll be waiting for the data loss post coming in the near future. As some one who had to deal with a stuck iMessage validation with Apple support on a genuine iPhone a few years back this can get sticky.
RCS is not an iMessage replacement though? it's not encrypted, it doesn't support a single identity for multiple devices, it requires cell service and a phone number