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

“It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

android.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#941

Post by thomasahle »

KaiserPro wrote: post #855
thomasahle wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to use yet another messaging service that they've built. You literally wouldn't be. You would keep using iMessage. All that would be different is that you could now send images and videos to Android users. Right now you have to switch to another app to do that. This is not a '"standard" they've created', this is a GSM Association standard, and it would be Apple, not Google, implementing it.

Are you saying that Apple doesn't send MMS? because from my experience, it totally can. I know because I've got the bill for it. But to go back to the original point, I don't want google near my chat history. I don't really like Apple having it either.

> Are you saying that Apple doesn't send MMS? because from my experience, it totally can.

I'm saying you should currently use another app if you want to send images or movies, because MMS compresses media beyond recognition.

I don't understand why Apple users are against a simple fix that would let them send these things from inside iMessesage instead?

Why do you think this would let Google have more of your chat history?

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#942

Post by dcow »

execveat wrote: post #865
dcow wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean Android doesn't have an analog? It has both secure boot and device attestation. It has multiple APIs that can be used to design applications requiring varying levels of trusted computing context. There's the high-level SafeyNet API which essentially lets you assert that you're running on a non-modified device running non-modified software in the context of a verified boot: * https://developer.android…

There are multiple public bypasses for SafetyNet. Many 3rd party roms provide them out-of-the-box. Granted, Apple's attestation is bypassable as well. Furthermore, others mentioned that a large portion of SMS-spam originates from the FluBot infected Android devices. Well, the only reason FluBot does not infect iPhones is laziness - it is perfectly doable at scale using custom configuration profiles.

Yep good point. Are there bypasses for the hsm-backed signed attestation?

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#943

Post by tadfisher »

altairprime wrote: post #706
tadfisher wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Android wants to join the party, then Android phone builders need to implement secure boot with hardware-signed attestation of non-rooted-ness, in the style of Apple T2 + macOS or Microsoft Pluton + Secure Boot. Until then, Apple iMessage will remain single platform. This exists and has existed for years, via the SafetyNet Attestation API [1]. [1]: https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation

As indicated elsethread, that API doc expressly declares near the top that it is not usable for device identifiers. Without device identifiers, there is no way to stop spammers.

I was replying to this assertion:

> If Android wants to join the party, then Android phone builders need to implement secure boot with hardware-signed attestation of non-rooted-ness, in the style of Apple T2 + macOS or Microsoft Pluton + Secure Boot.

You didn't mention device IDs.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#944

Post by anifru »

simonh wrote: post #849
int_19h wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, what we need is interop, so Apple should be forced to either open the protocol, or adopt something that is already open. But either option is strictly better than the existing mess.

>or adopt something that is already open Like SMS?

Obviously we're talking about something more modern than SMS here.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#945

Post by egwynn »

Anunayj wrote: post #698
egwynn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious about how this works, can you link me someplace where I can read more about it? I tried searching for “cellular over wifi” but wasn’t about to find anything promising. EDIT: I searched harder and found “VoWiFi”. It looks like this can support SMS and is supported by iOS. TIL.

For someone more curious, I tried to learn more about this tech, and this [1] is the best resource I found about someone explaining how it works. Essentially VoWifi connects to your ISP via a IPSec VPN using secrets derived using your sim card as a smart card, then connects to a internal SIP server and voila. I spent a lot of time trying to connect to the IPSec server from a computer, but couldn't figure out how to g…

Thanks for this link! This is a great explanation which clears a lot of things up to me.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#946

Post by elondaits »

RussianCow wrote: post #237
ivoras wrote: post #205

This is a US thing, right? Haven't received an SMS from a real person (in other words, all SMSes I get are 2FA etc) for, at least 5 years, maybe 10. Even people who use iPhones don't send SMSes, MMSes or anything as obsolete (including RCS). Everyone just seems to use WhatsApp and Telegram (or if they don't know any better, Viber). Locale: Central Europe. So, why would anyone stick to the obsolete stuff? Are there re…

The US market standardized on mobile plans with unlimited texting a long, long time ago, so I think this caused people to mostly stick to SMS/MMS for communication since it was the path of least resistance. I don't know what the situation in Europe is like now, but in the past I remember it being difficult to find plans without very small SMS caps when traveling. That could be why Europeans naturally gravitated towar…

In Argentina WhatsApp became the de-facto standard definitely because it was “free” messaging compared to the expensive SMS. The carriers ruined it for all of us.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#947

Post by dcow »

tadfisher wrote: post #943
altairprime wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As indicated elsethread, that API doc expressly declares near the top that it is not usable for device identifiers. Without device identifiers, there is no way to stop spammers.

I was replying to this assertion: > If Android wants to join the party, then Android phone builders need to implement secure boot with hardware-signed attestation of non-rooted-ness, in the style of Apple T2 + macOS or Microsoft Pluton + Secure Boot. You didn't mention device IDs.

OP clearly doesn't know what they're talking about either, because Android supports signed hardware ID attestation too.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#948

Post by dcow »

gandalfff wrote: post #667
altairprime wrote: post #59

Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform, rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is: Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam, supported by a fully-authenticated hardware and software stack that does not allow user modification. This permits Apple to simply “console ban” any Apple device that spams on iMessage. Th…

Would it be possible to have Android devices that have attestation, but with a one-way switch to disable attestation and allow users to root?

Android does have it. OP is making ridiculously false claims to support some incredibly speculative spam prevention narrative that simply isn't true.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#949

Post by dcow »

altairprime wrote: post #696
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about adopting RCS, NOT about pushing iMessage to other platforms.

This post is about Google pushing RCS to other platforms. I’m pointing out why their competitor, Apple, has not done the same with RCS’s competitor, iMessage. It’s an apples-to-apples comparison, and I consider it relevant to be mindful of this particular difference when considering RCS. Google could have implemented crypto-signed device identifier attestation as a mandatory requirement for RCS, which would have give…

> which would have given them considerable leverage against iMessage.

Citation needed.

Re: “It’s time for Apple to fix texting”

#950

Post by 015a »

mlyle wrote: post #651
015a wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a product development org, refusing to prioritize something is identical to deprioritizing it. @Time0 -> Priority1=X, Priority2=Y @Time1 -> Priority1=X, Priority2=Z, Priority3=Y Across this timeframe, Y's priority was lowered from P2 to P3, because the org intentionally decided to make Z a higher priority. One could argue that improving this experience was never in their priority list; but as long as product leade…

I think you're misreading the above comment. He's pointing out that Apple considered green originally the best background color for texting, and then added their own protocol with a blue background. So it's not like they deliberately relegated SMS to green because they were certain blue was better; if they believed blue was superior, they'd have used it from the beginning.

Yes, and then Time Happened, and every other part of iOS was updated; including, by the way, THE GREEN BUBBLES, to make them less readable, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills and no one else remembers that they used to be a different shade of green, with black text, which has significantly more contrast [1].

Regardless, they could improve it at any time, yet its been like this for... a decade now? Cognizant Inaction Is Intention. It doesn't matter why it is how it is; they can make it whateverthehell they want, they run the code, they run the org, they got the keys to production, so: fix it!

The original color may not have been malicious, but it WAS DELIBERATE. Every design decision at Apple is deliberate; to assert otherwise is to be revisionist. Cognizant Inaction Is Intention. Its color was deliberately chosen originally; its color was deliberately changed; their inaction in fixing the accessibility issues that change created is Deliberate, because Cognizant Inaction is Intention.

[1] https://d2bs8hqp6qvsw6.cloudfront.net/article/images/750x750...

Post reply on HN