[KishanBagaria]

Yes, with a catch: it requires an always on Mac (which can be in the cloud) or a jailbroken iOS device. We plan to make it work without the catch.

I've worked with 10+ messaging platforms so far and Apple's protocol is the most obfuscated and complicated to reverse engineer. Apple has invested millions of dollars to make the iMessage protocol super hard to reverse engineer. It's how they sell tons of iPhones after all:

> However, Craig Federighi, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Software Engineering and the executive in charge of iOS, feared that “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones”. (https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/04/28/apple-admits-that-i...)

[xoa]

Looks like a super cool project. I'm always happy to see new client-side software for communication protocols written that aims to improve upon built-in! And iMessages in particular could certainly use it. With the demise of iTunes, it now feels like iMessages is probably one of the most crufty-but-heavily-utilized user facing pieces of software Apple puts out. Maybe they have some long term plans to refactor it ala iTunes but yeesh.

This bit did make me wonder though:

>We plan to make it work without the catch.

Out of curiosity, do really think that's realistic, or even desirable long term? iMessage is ultimately an Apple service that runs heavily on Apple's infrastructure, and is directly subsidized by sales of their highly vertically integrated hardware platforms. If it turns into a cat-and-mouse fight it seems like they're always going to have the eternal upper hand, which in turn seems like it'd make for a subpar user experience (ie., breaks randomly which for an instant messaging service would be pretty bad). Also seems like they might actually be motivated to respond rather than ignore it since it'd actually be directly leeching their infra if it will work on PCs/Android without a Mac/iDevice purchase in the equation (unlike hackintoshes for example, where whatever debate there is to be had about probably very low "lost sales" it doesn't actually cost them anything).

Obviously you've probably thought this all through, but seems like just requiring an old cheap Mac or old jb'd idevice and thus avoiding Apple might be an easier path. Or alternately just stick to offering a flat out better client with the iMessage bit being Mac-only. Will be interested to see how it goes though!

[b3morales]

> one of the most crufty-but-heavily-utilized user facing pieces of software Apple puts out. Maybe they have some long term plans to refactor it ala iTunes but yeesh.

The Messages app on Mac was rewritten for Big Sur (last year). It gained some features but also some bugs in the process.

[saagarjha]

iMessage is backwards compatible with older devices. This means Apple can’t stop supporting old versions of the protocol, even as they are “cracked”.

[account42]

They could release updates for those older devices to unbreak them after protocol changes.

[saagarjha]

They could, but it seems like a lot of work for them. I am not sure they even have the pipeline to build old OSes anymore…

[ComputerGuru]

Agreed on intentional obfuscation. It even has booby traps. https://neosmart.net/blog/2018/imessage-for-windows/

[cle]

I know it's a long-shot, but do you plan on documenting the protocol?

[interactivecode]

Wasn’t it also that they had a great distributed way of doing messages but got sued to changes their implementation?

[hboon]

FaceTime was. Not sure if it happened to iMessage

[KoftaBob]

> We plan to make it work without the catch.

Interesting, how do you plan to do that?

[codetrotter]

> it requires an always on Mac (which can be in the cloud)

That’s surprising. How come?

[ArchOversight]

Likely because each iMessage receiving device has a private key to decrypt the messages, and senders encrypt the iMessage against all the keys in your key bag.

To access iCloud and or services you also need to have a device security key that is tied to genuine hardware.