Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Puts a Stop to Beeper Mini's iMessage for Android Feature

DMG35 said:
Why? What possible harm is it causing you to allow Android users to use iMessage? Or did you just say that because anything non Apple = bad.
Click to expand...
Legally you can not use service from other company without permission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I also just don’t understand the interest when WhatsApp exists.

iMessage is S tier and everyone else is b or C. But options do exist. Apple understands how important messaging was while Google did…ewww. But WhatsApp does exist and is at least B tier and allows you to message everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Juraj22 said:
and then they became irrelevant..why to buy BB if you have same service elsewhere? and cheaper? this is not how market works. If you do have an advantage, you have to keep it. Giving it await for nothing is just pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

Opening up BBM had exactly zero to do with them becoming irrelevant. It was an attempt to try and make themselves relevant again but by then most people had moved on.
 
DMG35 said:
Opening up BBM had exactly zero to do with them becoming irrelevant. It was an attempt to try and make themselves relevant again but by then most people had moved on.
Click to expand...
Agree, and we may also agree that opening BBM had zero effect to became relevant again.
 
CarAnalogy said:
Honestly I agree with you. They have no good reason to. Most Android users wouldn't use it anyway. And RCS is a fine compromise they should have already made.

It's just that reading the technical details of it makes it clear that of course they so easily could.
Click to expand...
Actually most android users would. If going off the fact that so many are desperate for beeper and the fact that the kids are being bullied and the girls are turning down the guys for not having blue bubbles, they I. Fact woild
Use iMessage lmao.

The only ones who wouldn’t are the ones who are anti apple lmao
 
DMG35 said:
Opening up BBM had exactly zero to do with them becoming irrelevant. It was an attempt to try and make themselves relevant again but by then most people had moved on.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that opening bbm had anything to don with them being irrelevant. They already were.

They had to in a half ditch effort open it.

Apple does not. That’s the key difference
 
Exile714 said:
This whole debacle reminds me of that Pebble Watch CEO downplaying the threat posed by the Apple Watch. Maybe these two should become friends?
Click to expand...
The Pebble CEO was the very same Eric Migicovsky, funnily enough.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wargasm
toobravetosave said:
Lmao what? There a bajillion cross platform apps that are free Apple would look ridiculous charging for this

Why so desperate to give Apple everything jeez
Click to expand...
It's much easier for myself to pay than to have 4 people in the family use a chatting app like Signal. They all just want to use iMessage and so we all get crappy images and videos.
 
This was another perfect job for the apple cleaning cloth. It wiped out the app in no time. Clearly beeper was not compatible with the cloth.
 
Radon87000 said:
This is exactly my point. In 2023, Apple has made it impossible for Android and iPhones to communicate with each other.

It's time the EU took Apple to task for this mess they have created on purpose.
Click to expand...
yeah so impossible that theirs several other messengers out their that the rest of the world use especially Europe lol
 
aibloop said:
Stop protecting them, they are not on your side, they are only on the side of eternally rising profi
Click to expand...


Who do you think I’m protecting.

You seem to think I’m on both sides when really I don’t care one way or another
 
victorvictoria said:
So I guess Apple's existing iMessage encryption isn't strong enough for what you're texting…but it's fine for those of us not engaged in hacking, dark web commerce or spycraft.
Click to expand...
Huh? They didnt break the encryption, they implemented it…

That’s like saying signal isnt secure because whatsapp uses the protocol too…
 
CyberGene said:
I’m not sure that’s entirely correct because the max size of data you can encrypt with an RSA key (public/private key) is less than the key-size (for instance with a 128-bit key i.e. 16 bytes, you can encrypt 11 bytes) , so it’s not used for regular data encryption. The RSA public/private key is used to exchange a symmetric (e.g. AES) key which is then used by both parties for the actual communication encryption.

With the above in mind, I highly doubt it there are separate public/private keys (and then symmetric AES keys) for each registered device under the same Apple ID since it would be an overkill. Unless you’ve read Apple doing it but I am not aware of such a document.

I’d rather say there’s only one public/private key per Apple ID and the private key stored on one device would securely be shared to any new device (without the server being able to decrypt it, so it still stays E2E) and consequently the clients would also exchange the session AES keys with the server relaying one and same encrypted data to all of them instead of expecting for each of them to establish a connection with the rest. That would be an overkill, again.
Click to expand...
My explanation was rather high-level, much abbreviated for brevity's sake.

They've written a couple of white papers on it, as well as the process of adding devices to the trusted circle.

Here’s a relatively simple, still high-level, explanation of the part about message delivery to multiple devices: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-and-receives-messages-sec70e68c949/web
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back