Makes sense because they were spoofing real machine IDs. People want to shit on apple for shutting it down, but I would be fucking pissed if I started getting other people’s messages and notifications while having mine go to someone else.
Trying to build a business off of someone else’s services is scummy and Apple did the right thing. If they weren’t charging for it I might feel differently.
My understanding of it (and I could be wrong I’m not that invested in this) is that the first iteration used their Mac fleet, while the second iteration was spoofing IDs. This would be the third iteration.
It was a few days ago I read this, I’d have to look up the source again
I have no problem with this third iteration. There’s plenty of Mac users with android phones. If you’re using your own machine ID, have at ‘er.
i really just do not get it, nor the fascination with it here of all places-- for a community that's so focused and energized by FOSS and FOSS platforms and FOSS projects, why does this community want to break into Apple's closed-source, walled-garden, proprietary ecosystem so badly, especially after maligning it every chance you people get? Practically every post about Apple here just trashes Apple for how terrible they are for being closed-source and proprietary with their ecosystem-- except when it comes to iMessage and their precious "blue bubbles" which, apparently, nobody can live without and must be accessed at all costs.
why not just make your own FOSS "blue bubble" chat app, but with blackjack and hookers that doesn't use Apple's servers or ecosystem? Why is iMessage the one white whale that the Android community (and people here on Lemmy) simply can't seem to get over?
iMessage being closed down is a fantastic reason to push people to use Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp/Viber/etc. The excuse to get anyone to try anything else is "hey I have an android, can we use something else"
If iMessage integration ends up happening from a proprietary service like Beeper, now the argument becomes "well, just download Beeper, you can talk to us from there".
Its an entertaining chickens-coming-home-to-roost situation for Apple's skeleton key service and I'm glad for it to be getting some much deserved scrutiny.
On the other hand, its another distraction in the same way that "you need to update to our new iOS yeaterday spiel" is a distraction from the fact that
LockDown mode > new update/patch that doesn't address all the main attack surface vulns
Yeah, tho, I would never recommend iMessage to anyone I cared about and thats only one of the many reasons I would never give it the time of day. Signal is superior in basically every way except its not as ubiquitous but its also not a default opt-out first-party thing like iMessage.
ok, i get that android users want to use iMessage, but that seems fundamentally incompatible (or at least paradoxical) with the constant Apple-hate and closed-source-hate that is rampant here and with android users in general.
I can tell all my friends to use the open source replacement, but network effects entrench a monopoly and Grandma is only going to use the stuff that’s preinstalled.
if your argument is that FOSS alternative aren't worth pursuing because it's difficult, that's not a great argument. if i had to choose fighting a stubborn grandma or Apple's lawyer's, i'd choose the stubborn grandma-- but i've never met your grandma, lol!
Fine, you are not personally affected by it, but the social disparity that is highlighted by people's need to feel exclusive and yet part of a tribe is the reason.
So, essentially, it's just a shitty company-operated clone of BlueBubbles now? What does Beeper offer now that a BlueBubbles solution doesn't?
For example, it's possible to self host and proxy BlueBubbles through an Nginx server on a VPS, which, when combined with connectivity to a Mac through local network/VPN handwavium, and proper security/authentication, allows you to securely access your iMessages on a public Internet domain through a web browser. Why should I trust some company's band-aided implementation of that over rolling my own community-backed solution, especially if that company's business model revolved around charging for exploitative access to a closed, proprietary protocol?