• theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    50·
    9 months ago

    Yeah, but I got absolutely roasted in YouTube comments for pointing out some potential shortcomings in the architecture. I’m not about to claim a high level of authority on the topic, though I’m an old man who has been in the game for a while, but the people that were totally confident really just seemed very eager to accept the passing of their credentials in a very sketchy way to get a slightly different messaging experience.

    Just use signal folks.

    • noodlejetski@lemm.eeEnglish
      14·
      9 months ago

      my guy, there are much more pleasant ways of getting cancer than visiting Youtube’s comment section

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      9 months ago

      Right? I feel like people here are on even more crazy pills + copium than I am lol.

      Edit: Take me to ur dealer(s) 👾

      • drudoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        9 months ago

        If everyone you text with are on iPhone anyway, there’s no logical reason to switch iMessage off and use SMS.

        Never personally had any issues with iMessage (not sure which parts you think “suck” and are “unstable”).

        80% of my contacts use iMessage, the rest use Signal.

      • Altomes@lemm.eeEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        I mean I’m a firm FOSS guy, I love Lineage and Signal and all of it, but you’re factually just wrong my guy

  • Snazzy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    19·
    9 months ago

    I don’t get the buzz around this. It’s a really ugly hack, it’s costing someone money to run those mac servers, and the longevity of the service is questionable.

    • hh93@lemm.eeEnglish
      81·
      9 months ago

      If only there was a law forcing messaging services to open an API for free choice of 3rd party apps…

  • Pratai@lemmy.caEnglish
    194·
    9 months ago

    Why does iMessage need a solution? Solutions indicate problems. The only problem I can see is elitist kids and people whining about bubble colors.

    • hh93@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      The problem is breaking up the network effect from messaging apps.

      Noone is uninstalling WhatsApp since there’s always that one guy you need to keep in contact with that refuses to change.

      Having aggregators like this is helping break up this

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        91·
        9 months ago

        Your security is actually worse than a pinky promise in that case because you also have to consider that they could be hacked.

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        Beeper is pretty good with it, as they make it clear that it’s insecure and use an encrypted protocol to get the messages to the server. Still, it’s better to host your own (which Beeper lets you do, as it’s just Matrix) or not use it.

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        82·
        9 months ago

        Due to complexity and limited auditing a number of vulnerabilites have slipped through again & again, like zero-click exploits for example. Take a look at the sear volume of CVEs and more importantly what they entail. While they do eventually get found & patched, its not ideal compared to other messaging apps like signal that are very much security first, features 2nd.
        A lot of people(normies), especially Apple users tend to think it’s super secure virtually impenetrable technology.

        • PlexSheep@feddit.deEnglish
          5·
          9 months ago

          The sheer volume of cves is not necessarily an indicator for insecurity. The CVE system is pretty bad and rulings are mostly arbitrary. For example, there was a recent curl “CVE”, where an overflow happened in some part of the app which was not relevant to security. I don’t remember the details, but the only solution to this apperent mess was that the main contributor of curl is becoming one of the guys that evaluate CVEs.

          CVE is a measure for the US government, and always assumes the worst in any case.

          That being said, I agree with you.

          • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            I know what curl CVE you’re referring too.
            Yeah, that was pretty stupid, they marked it high severity when 1 It was already patched like a year prior and 2 it was a complete non-issue in the first place.
            Then some fuckin AI put forth another bogus CVE based on the one you’re referring.
            The curl dev was pissed, and rightfully so.

            And You’re right, it’s more so the details of the CVEs that’s important then the actual CVEs themselves.