SMS is hilariously insecure, and messaging is a critical piece of infrastructure. I’m shocked that the government has taken so long forcing Apple to play nicely with other platforms, considering international data security.
No, but API interoperability with literally anything else would be a damn good start. Right now Apple sues anyone who tries to make a bridge between iMessage and other standards.
Why? iMessage is a proprietary platform that Apple invested billions into. Expecting them to have API inter-op is idiotic. It’s not like you can’t text people outside of iMessage. There’s SMS, and people are free to use it. Expecting a “bridge” between two standards for the sake of having a bridge tells me people do not know how any of this works and are just parroting the same stupid arguments put forth by people that, again, do not understand how a technology is planned for, developed and maintained.
If there’s such an appetite, ask the fucking government to set a standard and ask every smartphone operating in the country to comply. It’s really that simple.
upvoted for you last paragraph. bingo. and i’d love that. all the basic functions should be done to a standard, and a good one to boot. save time, money, and bullshit baby games on all sides.
Don’t bother mate. Lemmy is a dumpster fire filled with angsty teenagers who hate their green bubble. It’ll be another couple decades before they understand how the world works.
True. I’m fine with the likes of Lemmy/Reddit users not getting it, but in this case, we have a DOJ that thinks this is somehow for them to solve. Law making via litigation is just lazy and moronic imo.
How would a third party client guarantee e2e encryption with iMessage?
And by what mechanism was that company enabling that bridge? Did that mechanism store iCloud credentials? Did it encrypt the drives the users iCloud data could have been downloaded to? Did they have access to iMessages in clear text before forwarding them?
I’m not a programmer, but this doesn’t seem hard. The API could specify a cryptographic standard. Third party clients don’t need access to iCloud data, just the API to pass message and attachment content in encrypted form with a standardized handshake.
The signal code is there for transparency and individual use, not for redistribution. Again, this is signal themselves discouraging users from third party apps for things that have and will happen.
All fine and dandy. Kudos to Apple for the innovation! But then they decided to keep it strictly inside Apple.
That’s not how communication works. Imagine if Bell kept the telephone to themselves… Oh wait… They tried… Got sued for it… Company broke up and the whole world got interoperable telephone system that is alive to this day.
Innovation is great, capitalizing on innovation is also great. But eventually it needs to reach everyone and the answer cannot be “then everyone should buy Apple”.
Imagine if DARPA kept the Internet as “Americans only”
You missed the entire point. Typical Apple fanboy.
The iphone isn’t at all important to humanity and that’s why it should be regulated. Especially when something so unimportant gets such a large market dominance.
Anyone should be able to buy anything and expect things to be interoperable.
I like the airpods. They don’t work properly on android. Why?
They could easily license out the tech and other companies will pay billions for it. and Apple will get their ROI.
Intel was forced to license x86.
Face it. Apple’s behavior is visibly monopolistic. It wouldn’t have landed on DOJ’s desk if there were no good reason.
SMS works. iMessage works. Both work in tandem on a device and there’s a distinction which is which, therefore you get full access to and from when communicating with a device. I’m shocked that there’s this lunacy around conflating the two or expecting two different standards to work because people want to.
I want to have flying cars and breathe underwater without any equipment next, guess lets file a lawsuit forcing sub makers and car makers to go make that happen.
Ah, I see a comment with downvotes here and I know it’s a rational one I should be paying attention to.
Things work, but they feel entitled to forcing Apple to dedicate their resources to offering the same experience to people who don’t do business with Apple.
Forcing a business to operate better with another competitor for no benefit of their own is a dangerous precedent to set.
SMS is hilariously insecure, and messaging is a critical piece of infrastructure. I’m shocked that the government has taken so long forcing Apple to play nicely with other platforms, considering international data security.
What are you asking for? For iMessage to become the standard for messaging?
It’s the telcos fault SMS sucks and it’s the telcos fault RCS is a joke unless you use Googles implementation on Android.
No, but API interoperability with literally anything else would be a damn good start. Right now Apple sues anyone who tries to make a bridge between iMessage and other standards.
Why? iMessage is a proprietary platform that Apple invested billions into. Expecting them to have API inter-op is idiotic. It’s not like you can’t text people outside of iMessage. There’s SMS, and people are free to use it. Expecting a “bridge” between two standards for the sake of having a bridge tells me people do not know how any of this works and are just parroting the same stupid arguments put forth by people that, again, do not understand how a technology is planned for, developed and maintained.
If there’s such an appetite, ask the fucking government to set a standard and ask every smartphone operating in the country to comply. It’s really that simple.
upvoted for you last paragraph. bingo. and i’d love that. all the basic functions should be done to a standard, and a good one to boot. save time, money, and bullshit baby games on all sides.
Don’t bother mate. Lemmy is a dumpster fire filled with angsty teenagers who hate their green bubble. It’ll be another couple decades before they understand how the world works.
True. I’m fine with the likes of Lemmy/Reddit users not getting it, but in this case, we have a DOJ that thinks this is somehow for them to solve. Law making via litigation is just lazy and moronic imo.
How would a third party client guarantee e2e encryption with iMessage?
And by what mechanism was that company enabling that bridge? Did that mechanism store iCloud credentials? Did it encrypt the drives the users iCloud data could have been downloaded to? Did they have access to iMessages in clear text before forwarding them?
The entire web is built on standardized e2e encryption schemes fought for by techie nerds so that we don’t have these problems there.
I’m not a programmer, but this doesn’t seem hard. The API could specify a cryptographic standard. Third party clients don’t need access to iCloud data, just the API to pass message and attachment content in encrypted form with a standardized handshake.
What am I missing?
And what data would this client be handling via the API?
Even Signal discourages third party apps for this reason you are indeed missing.
Signal is open source. That’s why they warn against using third party closed source apps which cannot be security audited.
iMessage is a proprietary app that cannot be security audited. An open source alternative would be more secure, not less.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/fake-signal-and-telegram-apps-sneak-malware-into-thousands-of-android-phones-delete-these-right-now
The signal code is there for transparency and individual use, not for redistribution. Again, this is signal themselves discouraging users from third party apps for things that have and will happen.
People forget the state of SMS before Apple decided to tell telcos to go fuck themselves and rolled out iMessage.
Americans would still be paying per-text message without Apple.
All fine and dandy. Kudos to Apple for the innovation! But then they decided to keep it strictly inside Apple.
That’s not how communication works. Imagine if Bell kept the telephone to themselves… Oh wait… They tried… Got sued for it… Company broke up and the whole world got interoperable telephone system that is alive to this day.
Innovation is great, capitalizing on innovation is also great. But eventually it needs to reach everyone and the answer cannot be “then everyone should buy Apple”.
Imagine if DARPA kept the Internet as “Americans only”
So you’re saying iPhones are as important to humanity as the internet and should be equally regulated as such?
You missed the entire point. Typical Apple fanboy.
The iphone isn’t at all important to humanity and that’s why it should be regulated. Especially when something so unimportant gets such a large market dominance.
Anyone should be able to buy anything and expect things to be interoperable.
I like the airpods. They don’t work properly on android. Why?
They could easily license out the tech and other companies will pay billions for it. and Apple will get their ROI.
Intel was forced to license x86.
Face it. Apple’s behavior is visibly monopolistic. It wouldn’t have landed on DOJ’s desk if there were no good reason.
Nothing is stopping people from downloading whatever chat app they want to use. EU has done that.
Something is stopping another messaging app to have sms fallback and be the default messaging app on iOS. It’s iOS.
But does it work? Can you, as an Android user, send text messages to and from people with iPhones?
I’m saying this is a national security issue. The government has a vested interest in killing off SMS as soon as possible.
SMS works. iMessage works. Both work in tandem on a device and there’s a distinction which is which, therefore you get full access to and from when communicating with a device. I’m shocked that there’s this lunacy around conflating the two or expecting two different standards to work because people want to.
I want to have flying cars and breathe underwater without any equipment next, guess lets file a lawsuit forcing sub makers and car makers to go make that happen.
Ah, I see a comment with downvotes here and I know it’s a rational one I should be paying attention to.
Things work, but they feel entitled to forcing Apple to dedicate their resources to offering the same experience to people who don’t do business with Apple.
Forcing a business to operate better with another competitor for no benefit of their own is a dangerous precedent to set.