6 ms·

Apple is such a shitty organization. They make excellent hardware, but everything they do is just an attack on its customers. They want to keep people in their

by m00x 3y ago

Apple is such a shitty organization. They make excellent hardware, but everything they do is just an attack on its customers. They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad, that they'll transparently attack attempts to make things better for everyone.

graftak 3y ago
Google is doing the exact same with RCS that has their proprietary e2ee layer on top that no one is allowed to use besides Samsung and themselves. On top of that they’re acting like spoiled children used to getting their way, pointing fingers, because they ‘lost’ the instant messaging war.
- m00x 3y ago
  Google has tried to get everyone on board with RCS for years https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-message-apple-iphone-ipager-ad https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-messa...
  - graftak 3y ago
    Google made a e2ee extension on top the standard that deviates from the RCS spec thus it might as well be considered another spec all-together as it’s no longer able to communicate with adopters of the plain RCS protocol in a meaningful way. Their extension is proprietary and unavailable to anyone except themselves and Samsung. This means that Google is making a bad faith argument as they’re not advocating for RCS, but their own incompatible version of it. https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-does-this-mean-for-you_id153093 https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-...
    - jvolkman 3y ago
      RCS is extensible and allows for capability discovery. Adding an E2EE extension doesn't really "deviate" from the spec but rather builds on top of it. Google's client can still communicate with other Universal Profile clients; the messages just aren't end-to-end encrypted. And Google has said that they plan to switch to MLS [1]. Releasing their own E2EE spec more widely at this point would be pointless. [1] https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-towards-secure-and.html https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-to...
davidcollantes 3y ago
I am an Apple customer. I don’t feel attacked. In this case, specifically, I feel protected. Using an analogy from a person I follow on Mastodon: “For $1.99 per month, I will give you a QR code that tells 24 Hour Fitness that you are their customer when you really aren't. You can work out for free whenever you want.” And: “The Department of Justice is investigating 24 Hour Fitness for banning the people I charge $1.99 per month for access to all 24 Hour Fitness locations without actually being a member. What a world!” Thread: https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp
- real0mar 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  That's a terrible analogy. Per the OP, Beeper users are Apple customers: > Beeper uses real registration data from real Macs and iPhones. These credentials are being used by real people, with real Apple accounts, to send real iMessages.
  - selykg 3y ago
    To be fair, that was JUST added in the most recent change. It has _not_ been like that the whole time, and it's a bit disingenuous to imply that it has. I doubt it'll have an impact though, and this will likely get shut down just as other methods have been.
  - Grustaf 3y ago
    This only changes today. Until now they have used various workarounds to avoid this.
- badrequest 3y ago
  Protected from what, end-to-end encryption?
stainablesteel 3y ago
to be fair they have their upsides, security and encryption, refusal to hand over customer info to government agencies that ask, refusal to comply with built-in back doors this hasn't changed, has it?
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  We are literally talking about Apple removing a system that allows seamless E2E encrypted chat with Android users. The result is less security and encryption for iMessage users!
  - selykg 3y ago
    Not necessarily, and I see this from Apple's perspective though. When iMessage is under their control (it is their creation after all), they (Apple) can be sure that what is happening is exactly what users expect. We can know that the messages are encrypted E2E without someone in the middle. With Beeper, there are no guarantees of that anymore. I could be messaging a person that is using Beeper, or some other tool, and the messages are being intercepted by that other tool's server and decrypted there. I'd be _expecting_ E2EE but not getting it. Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is. When I see a blue message, or know I'm in an iMessage chat I have certain expectations. If you allow outside apps to interface with it like Beeper is doing then my expectations would need to be adjusted and I would no longer be able to trust that what I expect to be happening is always happening.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      Did you even read the post? Beeper's integration is open-source. Anyone can audit it. That means that Beeper requires less trust from its users than iMessage does! Nobody gets to audit iMessage. > Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is. And if iMessage's protocol is E2E encrypted, then that is already guaranteed to be secure from MITM. The only new attack surface would be the endpoint, AKA the messaging app itself. The only way to guarantee coverage for that attack surface is to audit every messaging app, including iMessage. That is not the case, so there is no change in expectation. --- Your entire argument boils down to this: You trust Apple, and distrust everyone else: therefore, as an iMessage user, you should just throw E2E encryption out the window, and use unencrypted SMS instead!
esskay 3y ago
> They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad Many of us willingly pay a premium for that. It has its benefits and nobody forces you to lock yourself into their ecosystem. Crying about it when you willingly pick something outside of their defined ecosystem and have some weird expectation of access is baffling.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  > Many of us willingly pay a premium for that Cool, stay in the walled garden if you want to. That doesn't mean other users need to be forced within in it with you, too.
  - esskay 3y ago
    And I never asked or made any indication anyone should, or would be forced into the walled garden...it's bizzare how out of touch and disconnected from the reality of using a modern computer people are.
  - Grustaf 3y ago
    That’s the thing, nobody is forced to buy an iphone.
    - heavyset_go 3y ago
      99% of people buy hardware unaware of the how the software locks them into a walled garden. The vast majority of people aren't thinking "Wow, I love how Apple takes away my freedom and forces me to use apps even if I might want to use something else", they're buying an iPhone because it's shiny and is what they're familiar with. Those people deserve to be afforded user freedom and to own the devices they purchased.
      - esskay 3y ago
        You're in the minority. A tiny minority at that. Of all the 'normal' people I know that own iPhones I can tell you now that not a single one of them thinks "gee if only I could <do thing you seem to imagine they cant do>". The average user doesn't give a crap if you can sideload some random app that is only needing to be sideloaded because its likely dodgy as hell. Also if someones using an iOS device and is skilled enough to need to sideload then they'll know full well they CAN sideload by deploying an app from xcode.
heavyset_go 3y ago
In my opinion, it was the App Store and iCloud services era of Apple that made the company so user hostile to Mac users. One of the things I liked about earlier OS X and Macs was the potential to do hacky things, and the plethora of tools to accomplish just that on your Mac. Turns out hacking and tinkering has the potential to impact their bottom line, so no more of that without Apple getting in the way to make it inconvenient to impossible.
sotix 3y ago
Apple was founded by members of the Homebrew Computer Club[0]. They had a different philosophy and outlook on their products. As they gained more money, their image started warp. By the time the founders were out of the picture, we're left with people that joined Apple primarily for monetary gain. That's the current Apple under Tim Cook. It's a shame to see such a decline because they absolutely have room to be wildly profitable while bucking the greedy ethos of other corporations, but they have settled down that path and implemented numerous decisions that are hostile to their own users. There are too many hardware and software decisions they have made in recent years to list, but one decision I think representative of the company's pursuit of profit in spite of its users interests is the fact that iPhone cases do not fit models from year-to-year, even for the small refreshes. [0] https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-silicon-valleys-homebrew-computer-club-reconvenes/ https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-sili...
speedylight 3y ago
One of the benefits of iOS locked down is that all of your app subscriptions are in one easy to find to place, no dark patterns, no tell us why you canceled questions, etc etc. If an app doesn’t let me subscribe through the App Store I just won’t do it regardless of how much I want to. And this is just one of the many benefits. There’s no reason to turn iOS into Android. Apple worries about their users, not everyone.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by m00x 3y ago

graftak 3y ago

Google is doing the exact same with RCS that has their proprietary e2ee layer on top that no one is allowed to use besides Samsung and themselves. On top of that they’re acting like spoiled children used to getting their way, pointing fingers, because they ‘lost’ the instant messaging war.

m00x 3y ago
Google has tried to get everyone on board with RCS for years https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-message-apple-iphone-ipager-ad https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-messa...
- graftak 3y ago
  Google made a e2ee extension on top the standard that deviates from the RCS spec thus it might as well be considered another spec all-together as it’s no longer able to communicate with adopters of the plain RCS protocol in a meaningful way. Their extension is proprietary and unavailable to anyone except themselves and Samsung. This means that Google is making a bad faith argument as they’re not advocating for RCS, but their own incompatible version of it. https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-does-this-mean-for-you_id153093 https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-...
  - jvolkman 3y ago
    RCS is extensible and allows for capability discovery. Adding an E2EE extension doesn't really "deviate" from the spec but rather builds on top of it. Google's client can still communicate with other Universal Profile clients; the messages just aren't end-to-end encrypted. And Google has said that they plan to switch to MLS [1]. Releasing their own E2EE spec more widely at this point would be pointless. [1] https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-towards-secure-and.html https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-to...

davidcollantes 3y ago

I am an Apple customer. I don’t feel attacked. In this case, specifically, I feel protected. Using an analogy from a person I follow on Mastodon: “For $1.99 per month, I will give you a QR code that tells 24 Hour Fitness that you are their customer when you really aren't. You can work out for free whenever you want.” And: “The Department of Justice is investigating 24 Hour Fitness for banning the people I charge $1.99 per month for access to all 24 Hour Fitness locations without actually being a member. What a world!” Thread: https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp

real0mar 3y ago
[flagged]
Ajedi32 3y ago
That's a terrible analogy. Per the OP, Beeper users are Apple customers: > Beeper uses real registration data from real Macs and iPhones. These credentials are being used by real people, with real Apple accounts, to send real iMessages.
- selykg 3y ago
  To be fair, that was JUST added in the most recent change. It has _not_ been like that the whole time, and it's a bit disingenuous to imply that it has. I doubt it'll have an impact though, and this will likely get shut down just as other methods have been.
- Grustaf 3y ago
  This only changes today. Until now they have used various workarounds to avoid this.
badrequest 3y ago
Protected from what, end-to-end encryption?

stainablesteel 3y ago

to be fair they have their upsides, security and encryption, refusal to hand over customer info to government agencies that ask, refusal to comply with built-in back doors this hasn't changed, has it?

thomastjeffery 3y ago
We are literally talking about Apple removing a system that allows seamless E2E encrypted chat with Android users. The result is less security and encryption for iMessage users!
- selykg 3y ago
  Not necessarily, and I see this from Apple's perspective though. When iMessage is under their control (it is their creation after all), they (Apple) can be sure that what is happening is exactly what users expect. We can know that the messages are encrypted E2E without someone in the middle. With Beeper, there are no guarantees of that anymore. I could be messaging a person that is using Beeper, or some other tool, and the messages are being intercepted by that other tool's server and decrypted there. I'd be _expecting_ E2EE but not getting it. Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is. When I see a blue message, or know I'm in an iMessage chat I have certain expectations. If you allow outside apps to interface with it like Beeper is doing then my expectations would need to be adjusted and I would no longer be able to trust that what I expect to be happening is always happening.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Did you even read the post? Beeper's integration is open-source. Anyone can audit it. That means that Beeper requires less trust from its users than iMessage does! Nobody gets to audit iMessage. > Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is. And if iMessage's protocol is E2E encrypted, then that is already guaranteed to be secure from MITM. The only new attack surface would be the endpoint, AKA the messaging app itself. The only way to guarantee coverage for that attack surface is to audit every messaging app, including iMessage. That is not the case, so there is no change in expectation. --- Your entire argument boils down to this: You trust Apple, and distrust everyone else: therefore, as an iMessage user, you should just throw E2E encryption out the window, and use unencrypted SMS instead!

esskay 3y ago

> They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad Many of us willingly pay a premium for that. It has its benefits and nobody forces you to lock yourself into their ecosystem. Crying about it when you willingly pick something outside of their defined ecosystem and have some weird expectation of access is baffling.

heavyset_go 3y ago
> Many of us willingly pay a premium for that Cool, stay in the walled garden if you want to. That doesn't mean other users need to be forced within in it with you, too.
- esskay 3y ago
  And I never asked or made any indication anyone should, or would be forced into the walled garden...it's bizzare how out of touch and disconnected from the reality of using a modern computer people are.
- Grustaf 3y ago
  That’s the thing, nobody is forced to buy an iphone.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    99% of people buy hardware unaware of the how the software locks them into a walled garden. The vast majority of people aren't thinking "Wow, I love how Apple takes away my freedom and forces me to use apps even if I might want to use something else", they're buying an iPhone because it's shiny and is what they're familiar with. Those people deserve to be afforded user freedom and to own the devices they purchased.
    - esskay 3y ago
      You're in the minority. A tiny minority at that. Of all the 'normal' people I know that own iPhones I can tell you now that not a single one of them thinks "gee if only I could <do thing you seem to imagine they cant do>". The average user doesn't give a crap if you can sideload some random app that is only needing to be sideloaded because its likely dodgy as hell. Also if someones using an iOS device and is skilled enough to need to sideload then they'll know full well they CAN sideload by deploying an app from xcode.

heavyset_go 3y ago

In my opinion, it was the App Store and iCloud services era of Apple that made the company so user hostile to Mac users. One of the things I liked about earlier OS X and Macs was the potential to do hacky things, and the plethora of tools to accomplish just that on your Mac. Turns out hacking and tinkering has the potential to impact their bottom line, so no more of that without Apple getting in the way to make it inconvenient to impossible.

sotix 3y ago

Apple was founded by members of the Homebrew Computer Club[0]. They had a different philosophy and outlook on their products. As they gained more money, their image started warp. By the time the founders were out of the picture, we're left with people that joined Apple primarily for monetary gain. That's the current Apple under Tim Cook. It's a shame to see such a decline because they absolutely have room to be wildly profitable while bucking the greedy ethos of other corporations, but they have settled down that path and implemented numerous decisions that are hostile to their own users. There are too many hardware and software decisions they have made in recent years to list, but one decision I think representative of the company's pursuit of profit in spite of its users interests is the fact that iPhone cases do not fit models from year-to-year, even for the small refreshes. [0] https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-silicon-valleys-homebrew-computer-club-reconvenes/ https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-sili...

speedylight 3y ago

One of the benefits of iOS locked down is that all of your app subscriptions are in one easy to find to place, no dark patterns, no tell us why you canceled questions, etc etc. If an app doesn’t let me subscribe through the App Store I just won’t do it regardless of how much I want to. And this is just one of the many benefits. There’s no reason to turn iOS into Android. Apple worries about their users, not everyone.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]