Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone Android Encryption Apple

Apple Blocks 'Beeper Mini', Citing Security Concerns. But Beeper Keeps Trying (engadget.com) 90

Posted by EditorDavid from the unMessage dept.
A 16-year-old high school student reverse engineered Apple's messaging protocol, leading to the launch of an interoperable Android app called "Beeper Mini".

But on Friday the Verge reported that "less than a week after its launch, the app started experiencing technical issues when users were suddenly unable to send and receive blue bubble messages." Reached for comment, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky did not deny that Apple has successfully blocked Beeper Mini. "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 stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS...? Beeper Mini is here today and works great. Why force iPhone users back to sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?"
Apple says they're unable to verify that end-to-end encryption is maintained when messages are sent through unauthorized channels, according to a statement quoted by TechCrunch: "At Apple, we build our products and services with industry-leading privacy and security technologies designed to give users control of their data and keep personal information safe. We took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage. These techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure and enabling unwanted messages, spam, and phishing attacks. We will continue to make updates in the future to protect our users."
Beeper responded on X: We stand behind what we've built. Beeper Mini is keeps your messages private, and boosts security compared to unencrypted SMS. For anyone who claims otherwise, we'd be happy to give our entire source code to mutually agreed upon third party to evaluate the security of our app.
Ars Technica adds: On Saturday, Migicovsky notified Beeper Cloud (desktop) users that iMessage was working again for them, after a long night of fixes. "Work continues on Beeper Mini," Migicovsky wrote shortly after noon Eastern time.
Engadget notes: The Beeper Mini team has apparently been working around the clock to resolve the outage affecting the new "iMessage on Android" app, and says a fix is "very close." And once the fix rolls out, users' seven-day free trials will be reset so they can start over fresh.
Meanwhile, at around 9 p.m. EST, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky posted on X that "For 3 blissful days this week, iPhone and Android users enjoyed high quality encrypted chats. We're working hard to return to that state."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Blocks 'Beeper Mini', Citing Security Concerns. But Beeper Keeps Trying More

Apple Blocks 'Beeper Mini', Citing Security Concerns. But Beeper Keeps Trying

Comments Filter:

  • Industry-leading alright (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @05:28AM (#64070175)

    At Apple, we build our products and services with industry-leading privacy

    Oh yeah, totally [reuters.com]!

    I'll take my insecure unverified end-to-end encrypted channels thank you very much.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      If you're so stupid that you can't tell the difference between subpoena'ed data related to messages and end-to-end encryption OF those messages, you deserve what you get. You just take your "insecure unverified end-to-end encrypted channels", no one cares, just don't expect Apple to provide them for you.

      Oh, and "thank you very much" for making it clear to /. once again what a moron you are.

      • Re:Industry-leading alright (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @06:08AM (#64070237)

        If you're so stupid that

        Firstly: Ad-hominen. You lose.

        you can't tell the difference between subpoena'ed data related to messages and end-to-end encryption OF those messages, you deserve what you get.

        Secondly: if they wanted true security, the notifications would be encrypted server-side by whichever server registered with APN, and decrypted client-side by the app to which the notifications are destined, which would have the private key, and Apple itself would only ferry the encrypted notifications across.

        THAT is true end-to-end encryption. If they had done that, they could have been subpoenaed all they want, all they could have supplied it encrypted messages.

        Encrypting message from the server to Apple, and then from Apple to the client is not end-to-end encryption. That's just privacy-posturing.

        Thirdly: I can't help but notice that Apple is committed to privacy as much as the fascist government of the country they operate on - be it the USA or China - will allow them. Industry-leading my ass. What a fucking joke.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Gleenie ( 412916 ) *

          Thirdly: I can't help but notice that Apple is committed to privacy as much as the fascist government of the country they operate on - be it the USA or China - will allow them. Industry-leading my ass. What a fucking joke.

          Yes, Apple has to obey the law in whatever jurisdictions they operate in. The alternatives are to either not operate in any jurisdiction with laws they don't agree with, or to openly defy the law.

          The former would leave people worse off than compliance, and I don't think anyone really wants corporations openly refusing to obey the law, do they? It doesn't take a genius to know where *that* ends - or how fast we will get there once it is obvious you can get away with it.

          • So are you saying Signal, Telegram, and Whatsapp are all operating illegally and they're the only ones following the law?

            • Apple innovated by first INVENTING the law, what are you saying?

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Gleenie ( 412916 ) *

              No, I'm saying they are small enough that either they *do* just pull out of a country that makes demands they can't agree to, or they haven't yet attracted such attention from authorities.

              Signal is a non-profit who answers to nobody except itself - Apple is a publicly listed company that would be torn to shreds by shareholders if it, say, sacrificed profit by out of the US market merely for principles. You're a fool if you think anything owned by Facebook won't roll over on you - and don't @ me with "end to

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TwistedGreen ( 80055 )

        Here come the Apple fanbois, foaming at the mouth for their beloved captors.

        • Here come the Apple fanbois, foaming at the mouth for their beloved captors.

          Since the Apple Haters started Their Foaming First, don'tcha think that is a Ridiculous "Prediction"?

  • You too apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tiananmen tank man ( 979067 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @05:37AM (#64070187)

    "Apple says they're unable to verify that end-to-end encryption is maintained when messages are sent through unauthorized channels"
    Same can be said of iMessage, how can anyone verify messages sent over iMessage are end to end encrypted.

    • Re:You too apple (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @05:47AM (#64070201)

      how can anyone verify messages sent over iMessage are end to end encrypted.

      It's got a "i" in the name, silly. That means it's industry-leading secure!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "Same can be said of iMessage..."

      No it can't. iMessage itself is an "authorized channel".

      "...how can anyone verify messages sent over iMessage are end to end encrypted."

      Notice that your quote is "Apple says", not "Anyone says". Apple certain CAN verify that messages it sends are end to end encrypted. You can trust Apple or not, it's your choice. Unless you write all the software yourself along the entire path, you cannot personally verify anything. Apple does, however.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by v1 ( 525388 )

      This is definitely a bit of FUD from Apple, but it's their house, their rules. If you want to use their service, you have to respect their rules. If you don't like their rules, you're free to build your own house.

      As for "Appe broke xyz", I can definitely tell you from a programmer's point of view, we don't even need to TRY to break your app. Protocols change. NEW protocols change FREQUENTLY. Every time Apple needs to make a change to the protocol, it WILL break everyone else's client. They're not doin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        As for "Appe broke xyz", I can definitely tell you from a programmer's point of view, we don't even need to TRY to break your app. Protocols change. NEW protocols change FREQUENTLY. Every time Apple needs to make a change to the protocol, it WILL break everyone else's client.

        There's only so much Apple can do, though. They presumably added some kind of server-side fingerprinting. The client side is part of the operating system, and unless they are sending down chunks of Javascript code from the server, it can’t be changed after the OS ships. Changing the protocol means digging decade-old hardware out of the garbage dump to build a new iOS 5 update. Infeasible doesn’t quite cover it.

        • As for "Appe broke xyz", I can definitely tell you from a programmer's point of view, we don't even need to TRY to break your app. Protocols change. NEW protocols change FREQUENTLY. Every time Apple needs to make a change to the protocol, it WILL break everyone else's client.

          There's only so much Apple can do, though. They presumably added some kind of server-side fingerprinting. The client side is part of the operating system, and unless they are sending down chunks of Javascript code from the server, it can’t be changed after the OS ships. Changing the protocol means digging decade-old hardware out of the garbage dump to build a new iOS 5 update. Infeasible doesn’t quite cover it.

          I have a feeling that Apple could issue a fix for the Apple 1's Monitor ROM if they so chose.

          I think it's like Abbey Road Studios; where they maintain working systems for all of the legacy DAW hardware and software they have used over the years; Justin Case...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            As for "Appe broke xyz", I can definitely tell you from a programmer's point of view, we don't even need to TRY to break your app. Protocols change. NEW protocols change FREQUENTLY. Every time Apple needs to make a change to the protocol, it WILL break everyone else's client.

            There's only so much Apple can do, though. They presumably added some kind of server-side fingerprinting. The client side is part of the operating system, and unless they are sending down chunks of Javascript code from the server, it can’t be changed after the OS ships. Changing the protocol means digging decade-old hardware out of the garbage dump to build a new iOS 5 update. Infeasible doesn’t quite cover it.

            I have a feeling that Apple could issue a fix for the Apple 1's Monitor ROM if they so chose.

            Technically, I think Steve Wozniak is still considered an employee, so that would in many respects arguably be easier than releasing a software update for iOS 5. :-D

            I think it's like Abbey Road Studios; where they maintain working systems for all of the legacy DAW hardware and software they have used over the years; Justin Case...

            Apple can definitely build updates back to iOS 15. Odds are pretty good that they can build iOS 14. The farther back you go, though, the more effort it requires. For something as old as iOS 5, it seems likely to be infeasible.

            Yes, Apple might keep some of their old build machines around for a while. I can't be certain how long. But I would

            • As for "Appe broke xyz", I can definitely tell you from a programmer's point of view, we don't even need to TRY to break your app. Protocols change. NEW protocols change FREQUENTLY. Every time Apple needs to make a change to the protocol, it WILL break everyone else's client.

              There's only so much Apple can do, though. They presumably added some kind of server-side fingerprinting. The client side is part of the operating system, and unless they are sending down chunks of Javascript code from the server, it can’t be changed after the OS ships. Changing the protocol means digging decade-old hardware out of the garbage dump to build a new iOS 5 update. Infeasible doesn’t quite cover it.

              I have a feeling that Apple could issue a fix for the Apple 1's Monitor ROM if they so chose.

              Technically, I think Steve Wozniak is still considered an employee, so that would in many respects arguably be easier than releasing a software update for iOS 5. :-D

              Considering it's only 256 bytes of 6502 Code, I daresay the main issues to modifying the code in Woz's Monitor would be finding space for a Patch, and finding the completely Unobtainable TTL Fusible-Link PROMs!

              So, all in all, it might not be harder than Patching and Distributing iOS 5.

              I think it's like Abbey Road Studios; where they maintain working systems for all of the legacy DAW hardware and software they have used over the years; Justin Case...

              Apple can definitely build updates back to iOS 15. Odds are pretty good that they can build iOS 14. The farther back you go, though, the more effort it requires. For something as old as iOS 5, it seems likely to be infeasible.

              Yes, Apple might keep some of their old build machines around for a while. I can't be certain how long. But I would be surprised if they still had any left from twelve years ago, and even if they did, there's only a 50/50 chance that the hard drives would even spin up after so long. So you'd probably be talking about trying to build one project in isolation without the official build infrastructure. So you might end up with different flags than it was originally built with, etc.

              Why wouldn't the Build Flags part of the XCode Project?

              We're not talking about firing-up Macintosh Programmer's Workbench and whipping out a Patch for MacOS 9.2. We're still on the OS X side of the line

              There's no guarantee that anything will work like you expect, so everything you rebuild will have to be thoroughly retested as though you just released the OS for the first time.

              And once you get it built, the job still isn't done. The device also has to be able to validate the signature on any software update, and after so many years without any updates, there's a decent chance that it may not even be possible to ship an update, because it may not still be possible to issue a signing certificate with the ciphers supported on those old devices, not to mention that all of the valid root certs may have expired, etc. So you would have to convince the certificate authority to let you retroactively sign a new chained root cert in the past. Good luck with that.

              And assuming they managed to get the devices to accept the update, they would then have to reach out to all of their employees and ask them to dig around in their closets for devices old enough to test the changes. After all, iMessage won't run in the simulator, so it would have to be tested on actual hardware.

              I don't think you realize just how hard that would be. I mean yes, in the strictest sense, Apple technically could do that if they really wanted to, but in much the same way that I could, in the strictest sense, become President of the United States.

              I give you that Code Sig

      • That's a really long wall of text, and while you're technically right... you don't think beeper mini - the guys who successfully clean-room reverse engineered the Imsg protocol didn't think of that? If sonething breaks entirely because of a new feature, then there was massive change to the entire messaging protocol... or they could grab a copy of beeper and intentionally / otherwise needlessly change things just enough to break things. Considering their stance on everything, you'd be hard pressed to fi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by v1 ( 525388 )

          Unless you some careful design and code well, binary communications protocols are INCREDIBLY fragile and break at the drop of a hat. You only have to lose one byte position to break.

          In my example above, simply changing an indicator from 16 to 32 bit is more than enough to break the receiver. Once you fall out of sync, you're probably not getting back into sync. Parameters become data and data become parameters and it all just flies right out the window.

          Think of it this way: it's like a train going down

        • That's a really long wall of text, and while you're technically right... you don't think beeper mini - the guys who successfully clean-room reverse engineered the Imsg protocol didn't think of that? If sonething breaks entirely because of a new feature, then there was massive change to the entire messaging protocol... or they could grab a copy of beeper and intentionally / otherwise needlessly change things just enough to break things. Considering their stance on everything, you'd be hard pressed to find an unbiased observer to believe what you say.

          He's not only "Technically Right" (which simply means "Right"; since Protocol Encoding/Decoding is obviously a "Technical" Subject); but he has the Resume to back it up!

          And you have. . .?

      • And I've personally written 3rd party clients for closed-api software that I had to black-box the protocl for, so I have actual experience on both sides of this particular fence, unlike all the armchair quarterbacks out here. Every time they made an addition or change to their protocol, I had to update my client. That's not a dastardly move by the devs, it's not malice, that's just how it works.

        THIS. Every word of the Parent's Post.

        +100 Insightful!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        At the same time there is a history in software of deliberately breaking other people's competing software "It's not done until XYZ won't run" was a mantra some time ago?

  • Us and them (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slaker ( 53818 )

    Fuck them.

    Apple is utterly hostile to anyone outside The Cult. The deepest proof of that is white text on a green background for members of the herd who do want to communicate. It literally wants the process of communication to be worse, and it stands as an impediment to the one thing to expect from a communication device.

    I don't even use SMS, but in knowing how much Apple fucks something fundamental, the important thing to understand that its tech is not worthwhile. It is a barrier, and the best thing to d

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by slaker ( 53818 )

      Also, to every European about to bring up Whatsapp:
      You've given every detail of your life to Meta. That is not better. It's just awful in a different way.

      Real time chat has been a war since the internet was commercialized in the early 90s. It's not going to get better unless a government entity puts the good of citizens ahead of a profit motive. Otherwise, we're all going to live in our messaging holes forever, or have 11 different applications we need to use, understanding that not every user will tolerat

      • I am in Europe. I choose to bring up Signal.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by slaker ( 53818 )

          I bring it up, too. I'd consider it, if I could find even one other person willing to use yet another messaging app. The response is usually "It's OK, we'll just text." And then I have to explain that I have SMS blocked and no, we can't. I really don't want people to have my phone number... which is another problem with Signal, although I do understand they are working on that.

          The fallback for me almost always winds up being email.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        You don't need a Meta account to use WhatsApp, just a phone number. The shitty thing is that WhatsApp needs access to your contacts if you want names by people you are chatting with, otherwise it just shows a phone number.

        There are better options, but no really good ones. Signal could be good if they federated or at least allowed third party clients to connect.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by slaker ( 53818 )

          You have to agree to a Meta Terms of Service and that is already a bridge too far.

        • You can use androids multiuser (i.e. samsung secure folder) to create a secondary contact list... but it doesn't really matter as long as the other person has you in their contacts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unami ( 1042872 )
        Whatsapp - that's the software senior citizens and technophobes use. I wished I could dump it, but there's 2-3 work/kid related groups that force me to use it. Apart from that, everybody is already on signa. iMessage and RCS are virtually non-existent over here.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Also, to every European about to bring up Whatsapp:

        Sigh, then use one of the myriad of other services if you don't like it.

        The point is, this is a complete non-issue for everyone outside the US.

        Also the GDPR applies to Meta whether they like it or not.

    • Messages are green so you know they don't have the same features as iMessage. Like working over wifi, sending large attachments, message acknowledgement, etc etc. I at least know if an iMessage has actually been sent compared to an SMS that might have gotten lost into the ether.

      • Every 5G lte smartphone is capable of seamless wifi routing of text messages and voice calls. The vast majority of other telcos and cell manufactures use rcs, which offers very similar if not identical security and convenience features

        • Every 5G lte smartphone is capable of seamless wifi routing of text messages and voice calls. The vast majority of other telcos and cell manufactures use rcs, which offers very similar if not identical security and convenience features

          Not Google's RCS. Not even close.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Fuck them.

      Apple is utterly hostile to anyone outside The Cult. The deepest proof of that is white text on a green background for members of the herd who do want to communicate. It literally wants the process of communication to be worse, and it stands as an impediment to the one thing to expect from a communication device.

      I don't even use SMS, but in knowing how much Apple fucks something fundamental, the important thing to understand that its tech is not worthwhile. It is a barrier, and the best thing to do is to remove it from the equation, not to wallow in the ghetto it created for its herd.

      This is exclusively an American problem, here in the UK (one of Apple's biggest markets outside the US) no-one gives a shit which phone a message comes from. Hell, most of us don't use texts any more, everything from Whatsapp to Zoom and Discord gets used as it actually does more. A text (SMS) is text only, to use multimedia services you end up having to pay so people just started using other services, the only people who text me are businesses like a bank or telco and my doctor.

      The last text I sent was

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        >This is exclusively an American problem, here in the UK (one of Apple's biggest markets outside the US) no-one gives a shit which phone a message comes from.
        >The last text I sent was to my boss (erm, two bosses ago actually)

        And this is your sample bias. You are no longer in the group that cares, mostly. Now if you were a teenager you most certainly have a different take, I would bet, even in the UK.

  • Whenever somebody sends me a picture from an Apple phone it arrives blurry and so heavily downsampled that it's unusable. Apple phones don't work properly.

    • You can blame the cellphone providers for restricting the mms attachment size limits, and even less if sender and receiver are on different networks. It's been this way for around 20 years.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        You can blame the cellphone providers for restricting the mms attachment size limits

        Huh? What's an MMS? Is that one of those outdated standards used by Apple because they don't implement RCS?

        • Just b/c it's an old standard doesn't mean it cannot be tweaked. For example, Verizon's MMS limit within network is 3.5 megs for videos, but intercarrier file size is limited to 300-600 kb. The networks have the ability to increase the limits but don't. Instead, they push the user to send the messages as internet traffic and get third party apps (iMessage, whatsapp, signal) to handle it.
      • It's possible(likely) that the cellular network supports a higher file size but changing the setting requires knowing it exists, finding the appropriate support page, and then actually changing it on the iPhone.
        • Not possible. iPhone auto populates the settings and will encode the files to fit the limits.

    • That's because your phone is trying to cram data through channels that were never meant for it. I can send 4k videos to other iPhone users without issues.

      • And that's useless in the highly likely possibility that not everyone you might want to communicate with has an iPhone.

        But I have literally observed groups of people, full blown adult humans with jobs and potential value to society, shun people with disfavored devices because they won't join the cult. I also know many grandparents, aunts and uncles forced into the land of blue bubbles because access to someone's kids is held hostage because "you can't FaceTime" and/or "you mess up the group chat."

  • Doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday December 10, 2023 @06:37AM (#64070267)

    "Why force iPhone users back to sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?"

    Because iPhone users do not HAVE friends with Android.

  • Personally, I find myself conflicted on this one.

    In principle, I'm all for open cross-platform messaging. If it were up to me, I'd love to go back to the days of Trillian where you could interface with all of the major chat networks using a single client. As much of a pain as multiple networks is, it stops mattering when everything is accessible in the same client. Beeper Mini doesn't go that far, of course, but it would be one step closer. And as an added bonus, this is easy E2EE, which is always great to

  • Apple, Google, Verizon, Tmobile, AT&T, all the mobile providers. Everyone needs to be submitted to the rubber-glove treatment. When you can list 99.9% of the players in the US mobile market in just five brands...something needs to be done.

  • At Apple, we build our products and services with industry-leading privacy and security technologies designed to give users control of their data and keep personal information safe.

    That's total BS. If their goal was to provide security, they would provide it when you communicate with people on other platforms. They don't, so someone else had to step in and provide it instead. And Apple tries to block it with the excuse, "We can't be certain their solution is really secure." Instead they want you to use the solution they provide, which is 100% guaranteed NOT secure.

    Their goal is not to provide security. Their goal is to sell iPhones by making sure the experience is worse whenever

  • Apple is just about as unsecure and non-private trash you can possibly get. Apple's cybersecurity division is essentially nonexistent.

    • Apple is just about as unsecure and non-private trash you can possibly get. Apple's cybersecurity division is essentially nonexistent.

      Citation, or STFU.

  • ... you shouldn't have any friends using Android.

  • apple said, We took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage. These techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure and enabling unwanted messages, spam, and phishing attacks.

    what they really mean, we were not making any money off of it so we cannot allow it

    • apple said, We took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage. These techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure and enabling unwanted messages, spam, and phishing attacks.

      what they really mean, we were not making any money off of it so we cannot allow it

      WTF money does Apple make off of the Messages App or the Traffic it Carries?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        >WTF money does Apple make off of the Messages App

        It's the vendor lock in. If no one knows you have an iPhone then your status cannot go up by having one. If no one knows you don't have an iPhone, your status doesn't go down by not having one.

        Now, one may say that this applies to only a subset of the population, but it appears to be a rather large subset, don't you think?

        By preventing other types of phones from showing up as using iMessage, they prevent other types of phones from being seen the same as a

        • >WTF money does Apple make off of the Messages App

          It's the vendor lock in. If no one knows you have an iPhone then your status cannot go up by having one. If no one knows you don't have an iPhone, your status doesn't go down by not having one.

          Now, one may say that this applies to only a subset of the population, but it appears to be a rather large subset, don't you think?

          By preventing other types of phones from showing up as using iMessage, they prevent other types of phones from being seen the same as apple phones.

          Grow up.

          You're saying Apple shouldn't make the Experience for their Users the best they can?

          BTW, Considering that Apple intends to Support Standard RCS, Google could contribute Encryption and their other "Enhancements" to the RCS Standard and stop all this. But they choose not to. Yet nobody seems to want to Excoriate Google over their anti-Privacy Decisions.

          Why?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

            >Grow up.

            Fuck off. Nothing I said warranted that response.

            >You're saying Apple shouldn't make the Experience for their Users the best they can?

            If that's what you got out of what I said, then you lack reading comprehension and are probably quite stupid.

            >BTW, Considering that Apple intends to Support Standard RCS,

            As a secondary protocol, a stray dog taken in from the cold.

            >Google could contribute Encryption and their other "Enhancements" to the RCS Standard and stop all this.

            What makes you think t

            • >Grow up.

              Fuck off. Nothing I said warranted that response.

              >You're saying Apple shouldn't make the Experience for their Users the best they can?

              If that's what you got out of what I said, then you lack reading comprehension and are probably quite stupid.

              >BTW, Considering that Apple intends to Support Standard RCS,

              As a secondary protocol, a stray dog taken in from the cold.

              >Google could contribute Encryption and their other "Enhancements" to the RCS Standard and stop all this.

              What makes you think that Apple would adopt it? RCS appears to be a basket you can pick and choose from. I doubt that Apple would want Android messages appearing the same as iPhone messages, ever.

              Apple already said STANDARD RCS was being Adopted.

              Therefore, if E2EE becomes part of STANDARD RCS, it pretty much follows that Apple would let it in.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

                >Therefore, if E2EE becomes part of STANDARD RCS, it pretty much follows that Apple would let it in.

                Sorry, but no:

                "Apple stated it will not support Google's end-to-end encryption extension over RCS, but would work with GSMA to create a RCS encryption standard." wikipedia.org

                Now if somehow Apple doesn't do that add simply adopts Google's protocol then you would be right but that's not what they are talking about doing.

                • >Therefore, if E2EE becomes part of STANDARD RCS, it pretty much follows that Apple would let it in.

                  Sorry, but no:

                  "Apple stated it will not support Google's end-to-end encryption extension over RCS, but would work with GSMA to create a RCS encryption standard." wikipedia.org

                  Now if somehow Apple doesn't do that add simply adopts Google's protocol then you would be right but that's not what they are talking about doing.

                  Ok, well, I hadn't seen that statement.

                  So, Apple obviously doesn't want to chase Google (who has a history of being quite Capricious) around as they decide to change things when and how they wish. I can understand that. But I think that is quite different than if Google Submitted their Encryption to the RCS Maintaners. Then, it is kind of out of Google's hands. I don't think Apple would object to incorporating that.

                  So actually, we're back to the original impasse: Apple isn't interested in Vendor-Proprietary

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

                    Right. Chasing google's additions to the extension would be the issue, that and the NIH syndrome.

                    • Right. Chasing google's additions to the extension would be the issue, that and the NIH syndrome.

                      Chasing Google, along with NIH and NVH (Not Verified Here); which are all valid points.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by larwe ( 858929 )
      Except that it won't, because Apple has made it clear that RCS will not have first citizen status on their platform. Firstly, it will not support E2EE. Secondly, it will still show up as "alien non-Apple user" colored text messages in threads.
      • 1. Google's E2EE is proprietary to the Google Messages app, it's not an open standard. Apple may want to support an open, standardized encryption standard for RCS like the one used by Signal or WhatsApp. Will Google go along with that?
        2. Who cares if their text bubbles aren't blue? Isn't this all about the message content? As long as the content comes across consistently between messaging clients I consider the color of the message bubbles irrelevant marketing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Except that what Apple is adopting is not the version of RCS Google has on Android but instead the version of RCS that has been standardized by the GSM Association (a version that does not include end-to-end encryption at all).

      Apple COULD adopt the Google version of RCS (which I am sure Google would happily share all the specs for) but they choose not to. (although I do wonder why Google hasn't tried to get their end-to-end encryption stuff and other improvements to RCS incorporated into the official GSM As

      • Except that what Apple is adopting is not the version of RCS Google has on Android but instead the version of RCS that has been standardized by the GSM Association (a version that does not include end-to-end encryption at all).

        Apple COULD adopt the Google version of RCS (which I am sure Google would happily share all the specs for) but they choose not to. (although I do wonder why Google hasn't tried to get their end-to-end encryption stuff and other improvements to RCS incorporated into the official GSM Association standard..)

        Ok, so let me get this straight:

        Apple is getting Excoriated because they are being more Standards-Compliant; rather than implementing some $RANDOM_VENDOR's "Enhanced" version of that Standard (rather than $RANDOM_VENDOR contributing those "Enhancements" back into the Standard?

        Is that really what you are arguing?

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Close