You make it sound like anyone can just snoop in on the texts (SMS) your neighbour or people on the other table in Starbucks sent/receive as they are being transmitted/received. That is simply not the case at all. Unless you compromise their device, someone has a much bigger issue then than just SMS, it requires a significant effort in a localised area with perfect timing. It is not impossible, as no system is, but it really isn't as simple and compromised as you suggest it is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sarcastic Android 'Lyric Explainer Video' Urges Apple to Adopt RCS in Messages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is just one way of looking at what end-to-end encryption could mean and not a universal definition or explanation. It is end-to-end encrypted in transit, heck one could even argue that it is encrypted at rest. Just because some party may have legitimate access to the key doesn't mean it isn't encrypted
RCS is carrier based, so you need a phone number. That makes it a non-starter for non-mobile users. And if it needs an actual cellular connection it's also not great.
I mean it is what it is, but the world has sort of moved on from SMS and its ilk.
I mean it is what it is, but the world has sort of moved on from SMS and its ilk.
That is just one way of looking at what end-to-end encryption could mean and not a universal definition or explanation. It is end-to-end encrypted in transit, heck one could even argue that it is encrypted at rest. Just because some party may have legitimate access to the key doesn't mean it isn't encrypted
End-to-end encryption has a pretty clear definition and it's key aspect is that no third-party has the means to decrypt the messages, which stops to be true for iMessages if you use iCloud Backup.
Apple's own explanation basically agrees with what I stated above:
If you notice in that document they claim iMessages uses end-to-end encryption, but with a caveat that iCloud Backup, if enabled, contains the key... which is exactly the point I was talking about.
The EU should force the messenger companies to adopt to a common standard. If Apple fails, there needs to be a force-apple-to-play-nice-with-other-kids law 😂😂😂😂
No, just kidding. But honestly. Apple became such a pain in the a** over the last years. Tim is in fear of standards, he believes in proprietary Apple stuff only. While all the other companies adopt to standards and cloud (and there wouldn't be cloud without standards), Apple seems to dig a deep hole and wants to hide in it.
This is the same story with all the other Apple stuff as well. Imagine you buy a Garmin watch to track your sports activity. Or do you like the Apple Watch more (like I do)?
But there is a huge difference. Both Garmin and Apple watches act as a heart rate monitor. If you have a Garmin watch, you can use it as a heart rate monitor, just like this. So if you have e.g. a bicycle computer, like a Wahoo, just connect the Garmin watch as a heart rate monitor and you're good to go.
And now the Apple Watch. Apple doesn't want to use a standard BLE GATT protocol, to transfer heart rate. Apple wants all other devices to be part of MFI, include a special chip, bla bla yada yada. Without implementing GymKit, there is no way to use the heart rate monitor of Apples Watch outside of the Apple planet.
Apple will tell you, that is is necessary to improve user experience. But this is not true. It would greatly improve the user experience, if one could use the Apple Watch as a heart rate monitor. Just works!! Anyone heart of that? (Tim did not ...).
Apple needs to be split into many different companies.
No, just kidding. But honestly. Apple became such a pain in the a** over the last years. Tim is in fear of standards, he believes in proprietary Apple stuff only. While all the other companies adopt to standards and cloud (and there wouldn't be cloud without standards), Apple seems to dig a deep hole and wants to hide in it.
This is the same story with all the other Apple stuff as well. Imagine you buy a Garmin watch to track your sports activity. Or do you like the Apple Watch more (like I do)?
But there is a huge difference. Both Garmin and Apple watches act as a heart rate monitor. If you have a Garmin watch, you can use it as a heart rate monitor, just like this. So if you have e.g. a bicycle computer, like a Wahoo, just connect the Garmin watch as a heart rate monitor and you're good to go.
And now the Apple Watch. Apple doesn't want to use a standard BLE GATT protocol, to transfer heart rate. Apple wants all other devices to be part of MFI, include a special chip, bla bla yada yada. Without implementing GymKit, there is no way to use the heart rate monitor of Apples Watch outside of the Apple planet.
Apple will tell you, that is is necessary to improve user experience. But this is not true. It would greatly improve the user experience, if one could use the Apple Watch as a heart rate monitor. Just works!! Anyone heart of that? (Tim did not ...).
Apple needs to be split into many different companies.
This RCS campaign is getting sadder and sadder
A relic but still works regardless! An industry standard that’s survived countless mobile platform generations.
Show me how it’s been hacked without a SIM card and only direct access to the providers switch?
False!
If an iMessage user is blocked they can immediately unblock themselves by sending you an iMessage or an email to the same address used for iCloud and bam they’re unblocked.
This hasn’t changed since 2019 as I had blocked an ex whom kept doing this.
At least with SMS most people know it's not secure. Worse to have a pseudo-encrypted message service that people think is safe to send confidential data.
To me, industry standards mean things like MS DOS. Can't buy an Apple computer because it's not industry standard. Thank god those days are long gone.
I'm sure Apple's competition would love for them to be split into many different companies - and we would all lose out in the process (I mean those of us that actually enjoy using Apple products).
SIM swapping/cloning attacks do exist.
But that was not my point, I'm fine with SMS for backward compatibility and last resort lightweight text connectivity, I'm skeptical about embarking on a new carrier-based messaging journey with RCS.
Yes, let's adopt a standard where all messages go through Google servers and about to be injected with ads... Said no one ever. (Google backed off temporarily because adoption is not wide enough)
Oh really? What about eMail, Html, Postscript, Pdf, Json, Xml?
Apple doesn't vote for better - it just votes for proprietary. But I forgot to mention, that there is already a law being created that addresses exactly this scenario. So Signal/WhatsApp/Younameit but be able to communicate with each other.
Btw - MS DOS was never a standard, it was just an OS ...
I suspect the carriers want in on this because it makes them relevant. They don't want to be like the cable company in a few years and their services are no longer needed.
Apple might adopt RCS sometime. Might not be immediately. Maybe Apple will be forced to do it.
The only way Apple adopts RCS is if carriers adopt it (like they did SMS/MMS) and provide it as a feature of the network. That’s what SMS is now, a feature of the network that Apple displays alongside iMessage. Maybe carriers will be forced to spend the money to adopt RCS as a feature of their networks? They haven’t seen any big desire to so far, maybe that will change?
Carriers have wholly been uninterested. They’re making an enormous amount of money on what’s essentially a leftover bit of infrastructure (SMS) that they don’t have to pay a lot to support. Customers that really want to communicate with each other in a richer way do so via other means already, and it’s not like they could offer it as a feature worth customers switching to if all the other carriers aren’t already supporting it. There’s no money in it for carriers to support RCS and they’d actually lose money as they build out the infrastructure.
Those who would trade security for compatibility will soon learn they have neither.
iMessage would still default for iPhone users, just like current SMS messaging.
It's actually worse to have a messaging service in which you can't send high-resolution photos, videos, and audio but okay.