Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#941

Post by Vicinity9635 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #940

"If it's Apple, then I think the biggest question is - if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they try to kill a service that enables iPhones to send encrypted chats to Android users?" "Why force iPhone users back to sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?," he asked." Thought experiment: What if Apple trains an "AI" on peoples' text messages.…

I was under the impression iMessage is e2e encrypted, meaning Apple doesn't have access to them.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#942

Post by jetpackjoe »

Vicinity9635 wrote: post #941
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #940

"If it's Apple, then I think the biggest question is - if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they try to kill a service that enables iPhones to send encrypted chats to Android users?" "Why force iPhone users back to sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?," he asked." Thought experiment: What if Apple trains an "AI" on peoples' text messages.…

I was under the impression iMessage is e2e encrypted, meaning Apple doesn't have access to them.

Yes, but messages from iPhones *to* androids is not encrypted.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#943

Post by idle_zealot »

paulmd wrote: post #933
shultays wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are people that buys iphone just to get a blue bubble, why would Apple want to stop that?

you’re talking to a forum that is probably 50% iPhone and has very good technical reasons to do so, this is insulting and it’s absurd that it’s so casually normalized to directly insult people in this fashion

How did you manage to take this as a personal insult? Some people buy an iPhone for the blue bubble, some have what they believe to be good technical reasons to buy one, some people like the aesthetics, some people buy one out of habit. Stating that each category exists is not an insult to those who fall outside it.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#944

Post by pcwalton »

7e wrote: post #248
LordDragonfang wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) is exactly what that quote is pointing out. If Apple actually cared about its users' security, they would see this as a gap, and would have addressed it already. The fact that they haven't means that, despite all their posturing about being a security-first platform, they care more about lock-in and marketing than they do about user security.

A third party client in iMessage allows for spam attacks, and (worse) malicious payload attacks. It’s very much in the interests of security that Apple fence them out.

On macOS iMessage is scriptable in various ways (both officially supported and unsupported), so the security argument doesn't hold water to me. It's a business decision.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#945

Post by StressedDev »

Banditoz wrote: post #69
mh8h wrote: post #49

An open source client for iMessage is going to be used for fraud and spam. Before this, a device being blocked by Apple because it was used for fraud or spam would increase the cost of business for fraudsters and spammers. But now it's a matter of picking a new phone number. Of course Apple would try hard to stop this.

Is spam a good reason for Apple to keep their iMessage garden exclusive? SMS is also widely used for spam.

Yes - As an iPhone users, I am not really interested in getting more SPAM.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#946

Post by paulmd »

idle_zealot wrote: post #943
paulmd wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you’re talking to a forum that is probably 50% iPhone and has very good technical reasons to do so, this is insulting and it’s absurd that it’s so casually normalized to directly insult people in this fashion

How did you manage to take this as a personal insult? Some people buy an iPhone for the blue bubble, some have what they believe to be good technical reasons to buy one, some people like the aesthetics, some people buy one out of habit. Stating that each category exists is not an insult to those who fall outside it.

> How did you manage to take this as a personal insult?

years and years of "apple sheeple" variants tend to take their toll, you're just the latest in an endless parade of microaggressions even if you don't think your particular case was notable.

why is it so important for you to push on the idea apple users being thoughtless trend-followers? just don't do that, be better. you can do it. the next time you feel like posting that, simply take a deep breath and don't post it.

there is just no reason to go around posting that "[device that 50% of people own] users are all doing it for [trite/dismissive reason]" in the first place, let alone on a tech forum where everyone has very specific reasons for their tech purchases. and it's so completely normalized, android users do it so routinely and don't even think that what they are saying is offensive. it's literally the classic microaggression problem.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#947

Post by jethro_tell »

mixdup wrote: post #517
treyd wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s untenable that there’s unsanctioned client software for a messaging platform for which privacy and security are a primary feature. I don't follow this logic at all. Shouldn't supporting thirdparty clients be desirable if security is a primary feature in the interest of transparency? Especially if the reference client is proprietary and undocumented.

What's untenable is that the third party software is unsanctioned. You can make the argument that it would be a good or better system with third party clients, or that Apple should open the system up, but it is ridiculous that anyone would trust a client/integration that depended on some kind of hack (regardless of the nature of that hack--such as whether it's decrypting and proxying or getting into the ecosystem in…

It's planning to make RCS blue bubble in 24.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#948

Post by diebeforei485 »

chatmasta wrote: post #538
diebeforei485 wrote: post #503

Of all the text message spam I receive, 100% of them has been green bubbles. I don't want spam in my blue bubbles.

I get a fair amount of iMessage spam, which always disturbs me because does the sender get a confirmation it was delivered to an iMessage account such that I'm tagged as an Apple user?

I disabled the setting where people can send me iMessages using my email address.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#949

Post by paulmd »

mission_failed wrote: post #688
StressedDev wrote: post #143

One thing which is really confusing is why are Android users obsessed with iMessage? Android users can send text messages to iPhones, the can call iPhone users, and they can use third party messaging apps to communicate with iPhone users. It really isn’t clear to me why so many people are so angry they cannot use iMessage on Android.

Because Apple deliberately screws with messages to non Apple users. Every video my family sends to me is low res heavily pixelated trash, to the point that you can't even recognise faces.

have them send an icloud link

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#950

Post by paulmd »

jetpackjoe wrote: post #942
Vicinity9635 wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression iMessage is e2e encrypted, meaning Apple doesn't have access to them.

Yes, but messages from iPhones *to* androids is not encrypted.

of course they can't be, because google's RCS encryption extensions are proprietary and they've refused interop.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/google-enables-end-t...

people forget that google has every interest in playing up the situation, and perversely this incentivizes them to refuse compromise or half-measures that might actually improve user experience. It's in google's interest for your applegoogle experience to be as poor as possible too, not just apple.

Post reply on HN