521–530 of 1001 posts
As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?
As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?
As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best case outcome is to get publicity leading to US and EU antitrust regulators to file a lawsuit against Apple, both of which Apple loses. The conclusion of this lawsuit is that not only must Apple allow access to iMessage, they also must allow changing the default for every component of iOS - messaging app, browser, app store, let you replace Siri with other voice assistants - and to lower the 30% app store fee…
Let's say that Apple is forced to allow third parties to use iMessage. Can't Apple just make the cost prohibitively high?
> Messages will be sent and received via your email address rather than phone number. [...] Even worse, when iPhone customers added an Android phone number to an existing iMessage secure encrypted group chat, the Messages app would by default switch the entire group chat to using unencrypted, unsecure SMS. These two Messages features combine to create a terrible UX. When someone starts a group chat in Messages and in…
As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?
AFAIK they are using a reverse-engineered Apple binary that does the real iMessage - and since Apple doesn't update apps outside of iOS updates, Apple can't, in theory, patch it without also breaking iMessage on older iPhones.
I'm just speculating on what would have made sense, but I'm guessing that's not how it's working since Beeper Mini exists. It begs the question: why isn't that the way they do it?
Apple/Google/Microsoft/Amazon do a lot of extremely petty things that should disgust us and give us a glimpse at how this pettiness and adversarial conduct might escalate in a GAI world: - Amazon does not carry Google branded products. ([edit] they do now once again, whew!) - Search in GMail is nearly completely broken when you have too many messages, yet Google (ostensibly a search company) can't deliver good email…
How can this be taken seriously when basic facts are wrong. Go on Amazon and check for Google products. Apple has no way of telling you what an advertisement or promotion is, and it’s inherently subjective.
From (section 4.5.4 of) the App Store Review Guidelines. GP is incorrect on many points.
This project is fantastic. The hacker spirit is in full force, and I love a good David and Goliath story. However, all the comments about demanding interoperability and protocols keep confusing me -- I don't consider APNS a protocol (like TCP anyways), it's also not incidental, extra header space to stuff data into in an existing message being transported (ala early SMS), and it's not an open relay for everybody to use. It's Apple's private message delivery system!
Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products?
I'm not licking boots over here, just genuinely curious. I wouldn't want to set up a mail server and then foot the bill and assume liability for whatever the hell goes through it from random people on the internet.
And trust me, I'm all for civil disobedience and sticking it to the man with clever technical solutions, but given the (probable) massive costs of operating APNS, Apple's got every right in the world to close any gaps in their system and keep kicking Beeper out.. and Beeper can keep trying to get back in.. but I just can't wrap my head around making the assumption that APNS access is somehow a fundamental right that we're all being denied.
Maybe this came up in the earlier threads (announcement, outage) so I apologize if it's been discussed ... This project is fantastic. The hacker spirit is in full force, and I love a good David and Goliath story. However, all the comments about demanding interoperability and protocols keep confusing me -- I don't consider APNS a protocol (like TCP anyways), it's also not incidental, extra header space to stuff data i…
Network effects.
I’m really curious how this is possible. Why wouldn’t every iMessage sent be tied to an Apple ID? If Beeper can do this, wouldn’t that mean anyone else with the same technique could basically spam iMessage users across the world?
A friend of mine got her Apple ID compromised years ago and cloud sync brought back the spam that the attacker was sending. iMessage spam is not new - whether it will increase remains to be seen.