you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Not according to the leaked emails... https://x.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?s=20

Also, the secure enclave wasn't added until the iPhone 5s in 2013, whereas iMessage had already existed as of 2011.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Clearly they also saw the benefits of keeping it to Apples platforms, but that doesn’t remove the technical limitations, at least, early on.

    Like I said, I don’t know if those limitations still exist. Clearly, the profit motive would if it weren’t for all of the legal and regulatory liabilities that exist abroad. This is why I suggested in another comment that purchasing and integrating this compatibility layer would be a good workaround for them in that regard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The limitation was added after the fact anyway, like I mentioned in my edit, secure enclave wasn't added until the A7 chip, which was first used in the iPhone 5S in 2013, two years after iMessage became available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Although true, it was added to make iMessage (and every other service) more secure, not just as some sneaky way to keep iMessages off android devices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    It's really not necessary though, it's just a justification after the fact. There are several secure e2e apps available without utilizing a special chip to house that data, even Google has e2e with their RCS implementation

  • source
  • parent