Beeper Mini is now open-source(github.com)
github.com
Beeper Mini is now open-source
https://github.com/beeper/imessage
142 comments
I don’t think any business is obliged to make their products/services interoperable. It’s their business and their decision.
At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
Our monopoly laws are indeed outdated. But I don't think adoption is the right metric; adoption without alternatives is much closer to a reasonable consumer protection.
I don't think iMessage is in a position of "adoption without alternatives."
I don't think iMessage is in a position of "adoption without alternatives."
> Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
What do you mean by this? Don't most lines of business naturally trend towards monopolies and captive markets...? Railroads, newspapers, grocery stores, utilities, cloud services...?
What do you mean by this? Don't most lines of business naturally trend towards monopolies and captive markets...? Railroads, newspapers, grocery stores, utilities, cloud services...?
[deleted]
I think the government should not force Apple to route customer data (messages) to third-party services.
What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue.
Devil's advocate...
Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good.
If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good.
If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
So you see iMessage as the only available option for people to use in order to obtain open messaging? Worth violating society's understanding of ownership and property (you may think corporations aren't people, but people do own corporations, and those people have property rights).
And how far does "most people want <X>" go? If "most people want" to prevent people from being married, is that justifiable?
And how far does "most people want <X>" go? If "most people want" to prevent people from being married, is that justifiable?
People are not granted limited liability like corporations are. The original intention was not that corporations are given permission to pursue profits without regard to any other factors.
What would be so wrong with the people mandating a next generation messaging standard and requiring all cell phone manufacturers add support for the new standard? Kind of like Europe did with charging cables. Would that make the world a better or a worse place?
I never said anything about making iMessage the only available option. Apple users could keep iMessage, too. Worst case their users have more options.
I agree that it is an interesting question on how far the will of the people goes, i.e. democracy vs mob rule. But I wouldn't put corporate profits on a pedestal over all other considerations.
What would be so wrong with the people mandating a next generation messaging standard and requiring all cell phone manufacturers add support for the new standard? Kind of like Europe did with charging cables. Would that make the world a better or a worse place?
I never said anything about making iMessage the only available option. Apple users could keep iMessage, too. Worst case their users have more options.
I agree that it is an interesting question on how far the will of the people goes, i.e. democracy vs mob rule. But I wouldn't put corporate profits on a pedestal over all other considerations.
We're not discussing "the people mandating a next-generation messaging standard." We're discussing the suggestion that the US government nationalize iMessage.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations as people" or "corporate greed." iMessage is not critical to living life in the United States or globally, so the notion that a government ought to take it from Apple anyway seems to be completely unjustified.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations as people" or "corporate greed." iMessage is not critical to living life in the United States or globally, so the notion that a government ought to take it from Apple anyway seems to be completely unjustified.
But I never said anything about nationalizing iMessage. Maybe someone else said that, or there's some other misunderstanding?
I mentioned that mandated support on phones for a new and better messaging standard seems like a reasonable idea. There's even precedent for such things - the European Universal Charger Mandate.
How is that taking iMessage from Apple? They can still run their own separate messenger, like they do now. Are you worried about them loosing the advantage they have by using their market size to keep users on their proprietary messaging system and not wanting more competition? Is that kind of like how they used to make extra money selling proprietary charging cables?
I mentioned that mandated support on phones for a new and better messaging standard seems like a reasonable idea. There's even precedent for such things - the European Universal Charger Mandate.
How is that taking iMessage from Apple? They can still run their own separate messenger, like they do now. Are you worried about them loosing the advantage they have by using their market size to keep users on their proprietary messaging system and not wanting more competition? Is that kind of like how they used to make extra money selling proprietary charging cables?
I think you’re forgetting who you responded to. My question was how nationalizing iMessage is a justified position, because that’s what the person I replied to said. That’s the topic, that’s what I was discussing.
Ah, I see where someone mentioned "obliged to make their products/services interoperable".
By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates that Apple servers be required to support third-party iMessage clients, or that the government takes over Apple's iMessage servers. I don't like these ideas, either.
But I think there are a lot of other possibilities, and precedents. The U.S. regulates and imposes on carriers to handle wiretaps and spam, Europe mandates that phone manufacturers use interoperable power adapters, baseband chips in phones are heavily regulated, etc. Other industries like banking and mining and construction are steeped in regulation. Justified as being for the public good.
Perhaps a better interoperable messaging standard could be implemented as a mandated replacement for sms and mms. The goal is better baseline messaging for all users. Companies can still do their own thing besides that, like they do now.
What do you think of such an idea?
By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates that Apple servers be required to support third-party iMessage clients, or that the government takes over Apple's iMessage servers. I don't like these ideas, either.
But I think there are a lot of other possibilities, and precedents. The U.S. regulates and imposes on carriers to handle wiretaps and spam, Europe mandates that phone manufacturers use interoperable power adapters, baseband chips in phones are heavily regulated, etc. Other industries like banking and mining and construction are steeped in regulation. Justified as being for the public good.
Perhaps a better interoperable messaging standard could be implemented as a mandated replacement for sms and mms. The goal is better baseline messaging for all users. Companies can still do their own thing besides that, like they do now.
What do you think of such an idea?
I replied to this comment:
> At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
with this comment:
> What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue.
You then said:
> Devil's advocate...
> Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good.
> If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
> Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
When one says "[To play] Devil's advocate", one is taking on the position opposite of the person they're speaking with. My position is, "What is the justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage?" That means you're taking the position of, "There is justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage." You then do this by saying your third line, that if a democracy has a majority of people wanting something, you see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
Intentional or not, you took on the position that iMessage should be taken from Apple by the US government and forcibly open-sourced because that's the will of the people. When I responded, I was responding to the comments you had made in this direction, which you continued to make.
What I think is that iMessage is owned by Apple, and since it doesn't provide any critical and otherwise unobtainable service, it should not be nationalized. That was what we were discussing. I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.
> At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
with this comment:
> What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue.
You then said:
> Devil's advocate...
> Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good.
> If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
> Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
When one says "[To play] Devil's advocate", one is taking on the position opposite of the person they're speaking with. My position is, "What is the justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage?" That means you're taking the position of, "There is justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage." You then do this by saying your third line, that if a democracy has a majority of people wanting something, you see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
Intentional or not, you took on the position that iMessage should be taken from Apple by the US government and forcibly open-sourced because that's the will of the people. When I responded, I was responding to the comments you had made in this direction, which you continued to make.
What I think is that iMessage is owned by Apple, and since it doesn't provide any critical and otherwise unobtainable service, it should not be nationalized. That was what we were discussing. I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.
So if a company is large enough it should be forced to provide free use of its infrastructure?
Can I also demand google provide me with free use of their infrastructure?
Can I also demand google provide me with free use of their infrastructure?
If it's the only way to achieve interoperability with a communication protocol, then yes.
Core infrastructure like this should be treated and regulated more like a utility.
Core infrastructure like this should be treated and regulated more like a utility.
Suggesting that iMessage, and not SMS/data connectivity, is “core infrastructure” is bizarre, especially given that no one else in the world uses it or cares about it - essentially proving that it’s not.
Welcome to Europe, that's exactly how the new Digital Markets act works. And Apple would have to open up iMessage if only they were actually popular outside of the US
Welcome to the EU, where Apple and a bunch of others at the top are legally mandated to make their messaging interoperable.
[deleted]
I'll try phrasing this differently: should any company be required to provide free use of their infrastructure to non-customers?
Wouldn't even have to be free. But currently there is no option.
It would have to be free, otherwise they become customers. The current option is to pay for an apple device.
Ok, should Sony be _required_ to support playing playstation games on an Xbox if people are willing to pay?
Communication protocols and interactive 3D software applications are not at all equivalent.
Going down the protocol route here - this would be more like Sony blocking game developers from allowing interoperability between Playstations and Xboxes. Crossplay is most definitely a thing - without requiring Xbox versions of games running on Sony hardware.
I'll respond to your question with a question: Why don't you have to pay to send e-mail to GMail users from a non-GMail host?
Because email is a decentralized network! iMessage isn't! iMessage isn't email! It's nothing like email! Also if an email provider wanted to charge other email providers to federate with them, they can. No one would pay it because there's too much competition for email services - it's hard to compete with free - but nothing is stopping anyone from charging for e-mail peering the same way ISPs do for regular internet currently.
Because google is an advertising company, and makes money by spying on users.
Google being found to scan emails received in gmail and advertise on that basis is why amazon receipt/invoice emails no longer include details inline.
GMail is not a free product. You are paying google with incredible amounts of your "private" information.
Google being found to scan emails received in gmail and advertise on that basis is why amazon receipt/invoice emails no longer include details inline.
GMail is not a free product. You are paying google with incredible amounts of your "private" information.
Because Google chose to implement an open protocol and to operate their email service as part of the broader email network. Apple chose a different path with their iMessage system, and that's fine too.
Why Gmail users don't have to pay to send e-mail to your mail host?
Honestly I just want an Android iMessage app. If this forces Apple's hand that would be awesome.
Is that really a thing? Do Android users en mass want an additional app specifically to chat with iPhone users? There are so many alternative messaging apps that work fantastically. iPhone users aren’t really clamoring for a Google RCS app. This feels like one of those things that everyone would lose interest in as soon as they got it; it’s just the denial of it that works them up, like not being invited to a party they didn’t really want to go to. I think if Apple had organically offered iMessage for Android, it would largely be either neglected or actively boycotted by Android users.
As a lone data point, I'm an Android user and I really don't know what iMessage is, why it exists, and why I should care at all.
I've never met anyone whose choice of instant text app is conditioned by the hardware they use.
I've never met anyone whose choice of instant text app is conditioned by the hardware they use.
At this point I wish people from the EU would just understand "Congrats, this doesn't apply to you." The messaging preferences in the EU are totally different due to historical reasons, primarily the high cost of SMSes at the end of the aughts. In the US, the iMessage is by far the dominant, default messaging system for iPhone users. And iPhone market share is much higher in the US than the EU.
To be honest this is mainly a US thing, and only because iPhone penetration is such a high percentage. Outside of US, Whatsapp and other apps are king
I don't think anyone wants an iMessage specific messaging app. But if it works on Android like iMessage does on iPhone, I bet people would use it. On iPhone iMessage isn't a specific app, the single app just communicates via iMessage or SMS depending on the participants.
In my circle in the US I don't know anyone that uses a 3rd party messaging app on either platform because that really only works if everyone you want to talk to also uses that specific messaging app. Switching depending on who you're talking to is annoying, so (people I know) don't.
In my circle in the US I don't know anyone that uses a 3rd party messaging app on either platform because that really only works if everyone you want to talk to also uses that specific messaging app. Switching depending on who you're talking to is annoying, so (people I know) don't.
> Do Android users en mass want an additional app specifically to chat with iPhone users?
Sure. I already have a different app to chat with WhatsApp users, Facebook messenger users, Discord users, Reddit users, etc.
Sure. I already have a different app to chat with WhatsApp users, Facebook messenger users, Discord users, Reddit users, etc.
As a former android user, yes this is something I wanted badly.
It is much less convenient to be in a group chat with an android user.
It is much less convenient to be in a group chat with an android user.
Even if it's a slightly lesser version of their Messages app, that would be ideal. Just like their Apple Music and Apple TV apps.
As a non-North-American, Beeper mini keeps me thinking if the whole point of this feud is about the colour of the bubble surrounding a message. Of, course, I know there is more than that, I mean, there must be... but so far, the debate of whether or or not the common user cares about the cryptographic security of their conversations online does not seem to strike me as the selling point for this type of implementation.
There’s been too much focus on the color of the bubble, or security, or specific features.
But the real issue boils down to human in/out group dynamics. Being excluded from group chats or having people get frustrated by the lone Android user in the group are powerful forms of peer pressure. And that pressure exists because Apple has pretty clearly made the experience intentionally frustrating.
That said, in the specific feature category: lacking the ability to send a reasonable quality photo or video is also a pretty big issue in 2023.
But the real issue boils down to human in/out group dynamics. Being excluded from group chats or having people get frustrated by the lone Android user in the group are powerful forms of peer pressure. And that pressure exists because Apple has pretty clearly made the experience intentionally frustrating.
That said, in the specific feature category: lacking the ability to send a reasonable quality photo or video is also a pretty big issue in 2023.
> But the real issue boils down to human in/out group dynamics. Being excluded from group chats or having people get frustrated by the lone Android user in the group are powerful forms of peer pressure.
This reminds me of the Don Draper "I don't think about you at all" scene from Mad Men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlOSdRMSG_k
There is an odd coincidence/overlap with friend groups and overall lifestyle/ideology and imessage vs android or blue vs green bubbles. I have like a few obscure friends who use android and they are all maga or counterculture weirdos. Meanwhile everyone else that I know (literally everyone, including a huge group chat for my gym weightlifting group, all close and extended family) uses an iPhone and iMessage.
Back to don draper: Android users cry about being excluded, but the rest of us don't even think about android users.
It's not Apple's responsibility or obligation to fix this.
This reminds me of the Don Draper "I don't think about you at all" scene from Mad Men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlOSdRMSG_k
There is an odd coincidence/overlap with friend groups and overall lifestyle/ideology and imessage vs android or blue vs green bubbles. I have like a few obscure friends who use android and they are all maga or counterculture weirdos. Meanwhile everyone else that I know (literally everyone, including a huge group chat for my gym weightlifting group, all close and extended family) uses an iPhone and iMessage.
Back to don draper: Android users cry about being excluded, but the rest of us don't even think about android users.
It's not Apple's responsibility or obligation to fix this.
This comment right there is why I will always believe that people will trade convenience over freedom the first chance they get. I've somewhat made my peace with it, because I don't even know if it really matters anymore.
If you, as an individual, really wanna be free and make real choices, you'll have to be willing to be a loner, and risk being considered by the groupthink a "counterculture weirdo", as this comment put it. Otherwise your choices are dictated by those who belong. You may screams your lungs out about all the dangers of going left and all the benefits of going right, if your social circle says it's left, it's going to be left.
Better get comfortable with that reality and plan accordingly.
If you, as an individual, really wanna be free and make real choices, you'll have to be willing to be a loner, and risk being considered by the groupthink a "counterculture weirdo", as this comment put it. Otherwise your choices are dictated by those who belong. You may screams your lungs out about all the dangers of going left and all the benefits of going right, if your social circle says it's left, it's going to be left.
Better get comfortable with that reality and plan accordingly.
> Android users cry about being excluded, but the rest of us don't even think about android users.
While I think you’ve illustrated the point that the issue is not just a technical one, I’d rather not be counted in that group. I’m deeply in the Apple ecosystem, but I do think about my Android friends. When possible, I use chat clients that work well for them, because otherwise we can’t share quality photos with each other. I don’t shun people for their technology choices, just as I’d hope they wouldn’t shun me for mine.
> It's not Apple's responsibility or obligation to fix this.
Do you believe that companies have any responsibilities to their customers? Especially when the nature of the relationship is one of directly exchanging money for hardware and services, it seems reasonable to expect Apple to listen to me as a customer and to build capabilities that solve the problems I think are important as a user.
As an Apple customer, I am deeply unhappy with their iMessage stance. In 2023, I want to be able to take a photo with the much-vaunted camera built into the device (one of the reasons we feel justified in spending $800-$1200+ on a “phone”) and I want my device to have the ability to send that photo to other modern devices out of the box. And if that capability doesn’t exist, I’d like a company of Apple’s size/stature to use their position to push forward new industry standards, as have the many companies that built up the modern web over the years. I’m not naive enough to think they’ll do this - they’ve shown us how they operate - but I think it’s reasonable to want this as someone who believes current tech giants owe their existence to this kind of leadership from companies in years past.
I’ve been a product manager. My customers reasonably expected me to listen to their requests, if for no other reason because they were willing to continue spending significant yearly $$$ for the ability to use my product. That doesn’t mean I could always say yes to every request, and I agree I wasn’t obligated to to implement every request, but I did have a responsibility to listen and to try to build a product that my customers would find valuable.
We don’t have to speculate about why Apple is doing this. It’s a matter of public record now from those emails revealed in discovery during a recent trial. The stance is pro-Apple at best, and arguably anti-customer. Given Apples profitability and market position, it’s hard to feel that Apple’s behavior here is really justifiable, even if it’s understandable. And by “understandable” I mean we’ve come to expect anti-consumer behavior and so it’s not surprising that Apple is perpetrating more of it. But I think they should be criticized soundly for it, even if it is their right to not give a shit.
While I think you’ve illustrated the point that the issue is not just a technical one, I’d rather not be counted in that group. I’m deeply in the Apple ecosystem, but I do think about my Android friends. When possible, I use chat clients that work well for them, because otherwise we can’t share quality photos with each other. I don’t shun people for their technology choices, just as I’d hope they wouldn’t shun me for mine.
> It's not Apple's responsibility or obligation to fix this.
Do you believe that companies have any responsibilities to their customers? Especially when the nature of the relationship is one of directly exchanging money for hardware and services, it seems reasonable to expect Apple to listen to me as a customer and to build capabilities that solve the problems I think are important as a user.
As an Apple customer, I am deeply unhappy with their iMessage stance. In 2023, I want to be able to take a photo with the much-vaunted camera built into the device (one of the reasons we feel justified in spending $800-$1200+ on a “phone”) and I want my device to have the ability to send that photo to other modern devices out of the box. And if that capability doesn’t exist, I’d like a company of Apple’s size/stature to use their position to push forward new industry standards, as have the many companies that built up the modern web over the years. I’m not naive enough to think they’ll do this - they’ve shown us how they operate - but I think it’s reasonable to want this as someone who believes current tech giants owe their existence to this kind of leadership from companies in years past.
I’ve been a product manager. My customers reasonably expected me to listen to their requests, if for no other reason because they were willing to continue spending significant yearly $$$ for the ability to use my product. That doesn’t mean I could always say yes to every request, and I agree I wasn’t obligated to to implement every request, but I did have a responsibility to listen and to try to build a product that my customers would find valuable.
We don’t have to speculate about why Apple is doing this. It’s a matter of public record now from those emails revealed in discovery during a recent trial. The stance is pro-Apple at best, and arguably anti-customer. Given Apples profitability and market position, it’s hard to feel that Apple’s behavior here is really justifiable, even if it’s understandable. And by “understandable” I mean we’ve come to expect anti-consumer behavior and so it’s not surprising that Apple is perpetrating more of it. But I think they should be criticized soundly for it, even if it is their right to not give a shit.
> And that pressure exists because Apple has pretty clearly made the experience intentionally frustrating.
That pressure exists because the individuals involved in those group settings choose to exert such pressure. It’s not on Apple…just like my getting bullied three decades ago for not having a pair of Pumps was never on Reebok.
That pressure exists because the individuals involved in those group settings choose to exert such pressure. It’s not on Apple…just like my getting bullied three decades ago for not having a pair of Pumps was never on Reebok.
Apple has explicitly chosen to keep this feature gap for the purpose of locking customers into the ecosystem and forcing people to switch. This is well documented.
I agree that users are exerting pressure. But those users don’t exist in a vacuum, and Apple knowingly made the decision to force the kinds of social dynamics we’re describing, making them as much a part of this as the users themselves.
I think in a world where we didn’t have the emails between Federighi and Cue, maybe someone can more convincingly argue that this is just bad behavior by users. But all of this has to be taken together. The dynamics exist based on the interactions of all involved players, and I think it displays poor behavior by both users and Apple. And when a lot of that poor behavior is playing out in the halls of schools, I think it highlights Apple’s role even more.
I agree that users are exerting pressure. But those users don’t exist in a vacuum, and Apple knowingly made the decision to force the kinds of social dynamics we’re describing, making them as much a part of this as the users themselves.
I think in a world where we didn’t have the emails between Federighi and Cue, maybe someone can more convincingly argue that this is just bad behavior by users. But all of this has to be taken together. The dynamics exist based on the interactions of all involved players, and I think it displays poor behavior by both users and Apple. And when a lot of that poor behavior is playing out in the halls of schools, I think it highlights Apple’s role even more.
bigger than that:
- iMessage works on wifi without a cell connection
- green txts constantly break group messaging to the point where I refuse to add my friends partners who dont have iOS
- there are no abilities to admin group messaging with green txts (change the name, add/remove people, etc.)
It's not just about the color.
- iMessage works on wifi without a cell connection
- green txts constantly break group messaging to the point where I refuse to add my friends partners who dont have iOS
- there are no abilities to admin group messaging with green txts (change the name, add/remove people, etc.)
It's not just about the color.
Yeah, that's Apple actively degrading the user experience on both sides specifically because one side isn't their customer. To the point that the color itself violates their own accessibility guidelines.
This effectively attempts to lock people into their ecosystem, including their App Store, and it's... honestly kind of wild to me (as an American, for GP's reference) that we've been allowing this to continue, in a country with a specific history of using antitrust law to go after phone companies for abusing their network effect to create monopolies.
This effectively attempts to lock people into their ecosystem, including their App Store, and it's... honestly kind of wild to me (as an American, for GP's reference) that we've been allowing this to continue, in a country with a specific history of using antitrust law to go after phone companies for abusing their network effect to create monopolies.
That makes it sound like android phones are at fault. It's an iOS problem where they refuse to be compatible. People who use iOS should be asking Apple to fix it if they cared about this problem at all.
Not Android, but SMS. SMS is a terrible messaging layer; Apple is not going to sink (very expensive) engineer time into papering over its badness when they already have a working alternative that their customers use.
> Apple is not going to sink (very expensive) engineer time into papering over its badness
Upcoming support for RCS is arguably doing exactly that. They didn’t seem interested until they started receiving regulatory pressure, though.
Upcoming support for RCS is arguably doing exactly that. They didn’t seem interested until they started receiving regulatory pressure, though.
RCS is not SMS; it’s a significantly easier protocol to build a smooth UX around.
I’m not claiming Apple is beyond criticism here; they absolutely treat iMessage as a moat. But RCS also clearly burdened by competitive interests, including the unclear state of E2EE in RCS.
I’m not claiming Apple is beyond criticism here; they absolutely treat iMessage as a moat. But RCS also clearly burdened by competitive interests, including the unclear state of E2EE in RCS.
My point is that RCS exists essentially to “paper over the badness” of SMS. So does iMessage. And implementing support for RCS at this stage of the game is Apple investing resources in fixing their SMS problem, using an imperfect solution that was introduced to paper over the issues with SMS.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by papering over the badness.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by papering over the badness.
As a dumb question, how does Apple make a change that would allow android messaging to work without a cellphone? How does apple make a change so that android's messaging system isn't unencrypted by default? RCS is not encrypted, google has an extension that makes it encrypted that only recently supported encrypting beyond 1:1 chats.
It's not Apple's fault google half assed messaging on android for a decade+.
It's not Apple's fault google half assed messaging on android for a decade+.
> It's not Apple's fault google half assed messaging on android for a decade+.
It’s also clear that Apple was never interested in pushing for an industry solution to this problem either. These two companies are in the unique position to provide leadership in this category, and they haven’t.
In the earlier days of the web and in other areas of innovation, the companies at the forefront of their respective industries industry champion new standards to support their broader goals. This was a use case ripe for better standards, but all parties involved are more motivated by greed than interoperability/supporting the consumer.
It’s also clear that Apple was never interested in pushing for an industry solution to this problem either. These two companies are in the unique position to provide leadership in this category, and they haven’t.
In the earlier days of the web and in other areas of innovation, the companies at the forefront of their respective industries industry champion new standards to support their broader goals. This was a use case ripe for better standards, but all parties involved are more motivated by greed than interoperability/supporting the consumer.
> It’s also clear that Apple was never interested in pushing for an industry solution to this problem either.
The industry (cell carriers) don't want a solution, at least not one that interests non-carriers. It's almost a rehash of the Netheads vs Bellheads fight.
Carriers want a messaging system that requires a SIM and thus a paid subscription to their services. They own network infrastructure and want end users beholden to them to access services. Cell carriers loved the days of WAP and MMS where anything done on a phone was a for-pay service from the carriers. They resent anything that bypasses their ability to nickel and dime people.
Neither Apple nor Google (or WhatsApp or Signal) want a messaging system that requires a SIM and any dependence on carriers' infrastructure. They want an entirely over the top service that transits a completely agnostic Internet layer. Just in practical terms they don't want to only be able to provide service to devices with cellular radios.
RCS is top to bottom a protocol designed by carriers. It requires a SIM for access and hasn't included E2EE because carriers love their data mining. It's a capable replacement for SMS/MMS but it's still tied to carriers. Google and Apple have provided leadership with messaging but carriers are not interested in the direction they're leading. WhatsApp grew primarily because of carriers charging stupid texting rates, especially international rates.
The core problem is groups wanting Internet based messaging get no buy-in from carriers. Even though smartphones are an overwhelming majority of the messaging landscape they're not the only devices used. If the carriers had their way you'd never be able to send a message from your laptop to my phone unless the laptop had a cellular radio and a service plan.
The industry (cell carriers) don't want a solution, at least not one that interests non-carriers. It's almost a rehash of the Netheads vs Bellheads fight.
Carriers want a messaging system that requires a SIM and thus a paid subscription to their services. They own network infrastructure and want end users beholden to them to access services. Cell carriers loved the days of WAP and MMS where anything done on a phone was a for-pay service from the carriers. They resent anything that bypasses their ability to nickel and dime people.
Neither Apple nor Google (or WhatsApp or Signal) want a messaging system that requires a SIM and any dependence on carriers' infrastructure. They want an entirely over the top service that transits a completely agnostic Internet layer. Just in practical terms they don't want to only be able to provide service to devices with cellular radios.
RCS is top to bottom a protocol designed by carriers. It requires a SIM for access and hasn't included E2EE because carriers love their data mining. It's a capable replacement for SMS/MMS but it's still tied to carriers. Google and Apple have provided leadership with messaging but carriers are not interested in the direction they're leading. WhatsApp grew primarily because of carriers charging stupid texting rates, especially international rates.
The core problem is groups wanting Internet based messaging get no buy-in from carriers. Even though smartphones are an overwhelming majority of the messaging landscape they're not the only devices used. If the carriers had their way you'd never be able to send a message from your laptop to my phone unless the laptop had a cellular radio and a service plan.
These issues existed before Google started pushing RCS.
On a side note, I still believe iMessage was in response to Google Talk, whose protocol was both open-source and interoperable with platforms outside of Google.
Google should have never abandoned Google Talk.
On a side note, I still believe iMessage was in response to Google Talk, whose protocol was both open-source and interoperable with platforms outside of Google.
Google should have never abandoned Google Talk.
> That makes it sound like android phones are at fault.
The experience is the same coming from an Android perspective.
> People who use iOS should be asking Apple to fix it if they cared about this problem at all.
We do, thanks.
The experience is the same coming from an Android perspective.
> People who use iOS should be asking Apple to fix it if they cared about this problem at all.
We do, thanks.
> iMessage works on wifi without a cell connection
How often are you in a situation where you do have WiFi but don't have a cellular connection? In my experience, the opposite is much more common--not having WiFi but having reliable cellular data.
In any case, WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, and open source solutions/protocols like Signal also work on WiFi without a cellular connection.
> green txts constantly break group messaging to the point where I refuse to add my friends partners who dont have iOS
Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
> there are no abilities to admin group messaging with green txts (change the name, add/remove people, etc.)
Who cares? In more than two decades I have never once felt compelled to change the title of a group text, of all things. How often do you need to add and remove people from an existing group text anyways? Group texts, at least for me, have always been ephemeral--for example, a few messages exchanged to coordinate a date and time for dinner plans, and that's it. If I need to add someone, I'll just make a new group text or relay the information independently, it's not that hard.
How often are you in a situation where you do have WiFi but don't have a cellular connection? In my experience, the opposite is much more common--not having WiFi but having reliable cellular data.
In any case, WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, and open source solutions/protocols like Signal also work on WiFi without a cellular connection.
> green txts constantly break group messaging to the point where I refuse to add my friends partners who dont have iOS
Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
> there are no abilities to admin group messaging with green txts (change the name, add/remove people, etc.)
Who cares? In more than two decades I have never once felt compelled to change the title of a group text, of all things. How often do you need to add and remove people from an existing group text anyways? Group texts, at least for me, have always been ephemeral--for example, a few messages exchanged to coordinate a date and time for dinner plans, and that's it. If I need to add someone, I'll just make a new group text or relay the information independently, it's not that hard.
How often are you in a situation where you do have WiFi but don't have a cellular connection? In my experience, the opposite is much more common--not having WiFi but having reliable cellular data.
Your experience is only your experience. It is not the only experience. Off the top of my head in the last year: Cruise ships, hunting lodges, rural restaurants, in tall buildings, a factory, various places underground like hotel laundry facilities.
Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
Wow. I feel sorry for you not having a job that entails using a phone. But many other people do, and are in department-wide our team group chats. Again, your experience is not the only experience.
In more than two decades I have never once felt compelled to change the title of a group text
Congratulations. I envy your simple, orderly, uncomplicated life.
Your experience is only your experience. It is not the only experience. Off the top of my head in the last year: Cruise ships, hunting lodges, rural restaurants, in tall buildings, a factory, various places underground like hotel laundry facilities.
Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
Wow. I feel sorry for you not having a job that entails using a phone. But many other people do, and are in department-wide our team group chats. Again, your experience is not the only experience.
In more than two decades I have never once felt compelled to change the title of a group text
Congratulations. I envy your simple, orderly, uncomplicated life.
> How often are you in a situation where you do have WiFi but don't have a cellular connection?
Whenever travelling to a foreign country without paying for expensive roaming.
Happens all the time.. or at least as often as myself or family members travel.
Whenever travelling to a foreign country without paying for expensive roaming.
Happens all the time.. or at least as often as myself or family members travel.
> How often are you in a situation where you do have WiFi but don't have a cellular connection?
Ummm, all of the time. Traveling, on a plane, etc.
> Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
Huh? When your group message constantly breaks so you can't communicate properly its far more respectful to make sure the couple gets the message than not.
> How often do you need to add and remove people from an existing group text anyways?
I get added to group chats all of the time that I want to leave (due to spamming stuff) but can't because ONE person has an android phone.
Ummm, all of the time. Traveling, on a plane, etc.
> Wow. I feel sorry, not for you, but for your friends who chose to be friends with someone so shallow.
Huh? When your group message constantly breaks so you can't communicate properly its far more respectful to make sure the couple gets the message than not.
> How often do you need to add and remove people from an existing group text anyways?
I get added to group chats all of the time that I want to leave (due to spamming stuff) but can't because ONE person has an android phone.
I think we’re saying the same thing re: your 2nd and 3rd points.
WiFi is an interesting one, and some providers already provide SMS over WiFi via the “WiFi calling” feature. It’s certainly more convenient (or at least involves less setup) when iMessage is involved, but I suspect this isn’t the top reason people are clamoring for iMessage.
WiFi is an interesting one, and some providers already provide SMS over WiFi via the “WiFi calling” feature. It’s certainly more convenient (or at least involves less setup) when iMessage is involved, but I suspect this isn’t the top reason people are clamoring for iMessage.
Can you elaborate on how group messaging gets broken (assuming your third point is not the elaboration)?
Example - I start a group message with 1 android user (droid) and 3 iOS users (foo, bar, and doof). `doof` sends a message to the group and it shows up as a group txt. `bar` sends a message and it now shows up as a direct message. I don't know whether `bar`'s message was a group message or a DM.
RCS works over wi-fi too.
For me, the big selling point is better quality photos/videos. Whether I get a video from a non-RCS user it looks like a VHS rip. Sure there's other apps you can use, but realistically I'm not going to convince my friend's grandma to install Signal so she can send me a 10 second cat video
I like that iMessage lets me know if a message was delivered, and also if it was read.
A lot of iMessage user angst around this boils down to "how dare other folks have the privilege of blue bubbles without paying for them"
No it’s because I’m not sure if the messages I send to them can be easily harvested. Same goes for photos I have shared. Maybe it’s naked photos. Maybe they are photos which show me doing something considered illegal. Idk let’s say I’m speeding on my private road and I send the video which seen out of context is damaging to me.
When the user uses iMessage I can be sure if it leaks - he was either hacked or shared the photo. If he uses a 3rd party client MY data can now be harvested by the 3rd party without my consent or knowledge. The knowledge is the key here because apart from the original 2 reasons for a leak now it’s also the other option of 3rd party app harvesting data.
Get China as an investor is a year or two and… now my data 100% will be harvested.
When the user uses iMessage I can be sure if it leaks - he was either hacked or shared the photo. If he uses a 3rd party client MY data can now be harvested by the 3rd party without my consent or knowledge. The knowledge is the key here because apart from the original 2 reasons for a leak now it’s also the other option of 3rd party app harvesting data.
Get China as an investor is a year or two and… now my data 100% will be harvested.
Yes, because there are no zero-click attacks known for iMessage...
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apple-zero-cl...
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apple-zero-cl...
OP said:
> When the user uses iMessage I can be sure if it leaks - he was either hacked or shared the photo
I would call that a hack.
I would call that a hack.
Don't worry, Apple's harvesting your data these days as well. More importantly though, end to end encryption means Beepers servers never see the videos of you breaking the law, but if you're truly paranoid, the closed nature of iMessage should scare you because we don't know that the NSA doesn't have decryption keys - iMessage in China is not run by Apple, which means the CCP has decryption keys for messages sent in China; who's to say theres not a similar arrangement with the US intelligence community. I'm not remotely Edward Snowden but if that's your worry, I wouldn't trust iMessage either.
My worry in this case is not the government it’s the unsecured rooted Android devices will malware.
When I want to have secure conversations I either do IRL or Signal on iOS devices.
When I want to have secure conversations I either do IRL or Signal on iOS devices.
[deleted]
I already get increasing iMessage spam (e.g. random “hello”). I don’t love the idea of opening the door to a large population of additional users unless they are subjected to equivalent abuse controls. And I can’t tell from the discussion so far whether that’d be true or not.
Having worked on large scale fraud systems before, the only controls that work are those where users are risking something of value when they commit abuse. A paid account with a lot of valuable history is great. Banning a free and easy to replace/farm account is useless.
Having worked on large scale fraud systems before, the only controls that work are those where users are risking something of value when they commit abuse. A paid account with a lot of valuable history is great. Banning a free and easy to replace/farm account is useless.
[deleted]
16 year old dude reverse engineers iMessages AND writes a better messaging app than google with their 99 attempts over 20 years.
Google Messages (the current RCS client) is very good. It's far from the first good messaging app they've built. The 99 messaging apps meme is about Google just making another one for no reason. Kind of like "that's enough slices"
Apple has done a good job of making it feel exclusive. It’s like the Berghain of message apps. I wish more friends would move to WhatsApp.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
While true, at least there isn't a hardware lock-in.
Bold move! Can Apple just acquire the Beeper Mini team to stop this move? Or they could acquire them to make an official Android iMessaging app.
If code has been released as open source then the code is out there now. Seems too late to stop. I would also question if apple has any benefit in launching an android app. iMessage is interesting to apple as long as it forces people to buy apple products.
rglullis(9)
Something worth noting: unless I'm missing something, this isn't Beeper Mini (the Android app) but the iMessage-Matrix bridge Beeper created. However, this is still handy if you have a Mac or jailbroken iPhone (edit: for registration, seems like it's not required after the initial setup) as you can self-host it.
I got an iPhone 15 Pro Max last month. It's great, I dig it. I'm a case-free dude and there are zero scratches on the screen or titanium, the industrial design is tight and amazing. There's finally USB-C, and the camera is great. This was an expensive phone, but it's a timeless design and unless something crazy happens, I strongly suspect it's actually going to take me into 2030.
But I have to tell you. Not a single friend has commented that I'm now on an iPhone. I asked my elderly mom - yes, I previously got her an iPhone before I did, I'm a good son - if I had obtained the magic blue bubbles. She was like "oh yes, I thought something had changed." I am not sexier, thinner or more popular since I suddenly appeared with blue bubbles on iMessage. My own (iPhone-toting) adult daughter didn't mention it. IMO, nobody outside of teenagers care.
But I have to tell you. Not a single friend has commented that I'm now on an iPhone. I asked my elderly mom - yes, I previously got her an iPhone before I did, I'm a good son - if I had obtained the magic blue bubbles. She was like "oh yes, I thought something had changed." I am not sexier, thinner or more popular since I suddenly appeared with blue bubbles on iMessage. My own (iPhone-toting) adult daughter didn't mention it. IMO, nobody outside of teenagers care.
This is fundamentally the wrong analysis. The idea that people care about being "cool" to get blue bubbles or whatever is not what this is about.
This is about the fact that messaging between an iOS device and Android just sucks at present if the iOS user is on iMessage. I won't hash over all the details, but Google's site trying to convince iMessage to support RCS (which Apple has said they will do in 2024) gives a good overview of the problems: https://www.android.com/get-the-message/
I'm not a teenager, but I certainly care. I'm the only Android user in my family, and I'm sick of getting pixelated videos from my parents. I'm sick of the "Bob liked an image" messages. I'm sick of random messages not showing up in group chats. And while it's not a huge everyday concern, it sucks that there is no secure encryption when I message my family, and worse, all of the group chats that I'm part of result in nobody, even all the other iOS users, getting encryption in those chats.
This is about the fact that messaging between an iOS device and Android just sucks at present if the iOS user is on iMessage. I won't hash over all the details, but Google's site trying to convince iMessage to support RCS (which Apple has said they will do in 2024) gives a good overview of the problems: https://www.android.com/get-the-message/
I'm not a teenager, but I certainly care. I'm the only Android user in my family, and I'm sick of getting pixelated videos from my parents. I'm sick of the "Bob liked an image" messages. I'm sick of random messages not showing up in group chats. And while it's not a huge everyday concern, it sucks that there is no secure encryption when I message my family, and worse, all of the group chats that I'm part of result in nobody, even all the other iOS users, getting encryption in those chats.
So, Google resolved the interop issue with "liked an image" and similar reactions back in 2020. I can't remember that being an issue for years with reasonably modern Android phones.
Yeah, I've had some isues in the past with pixelated videos but again, almost zero in the past few years. But there are ten billion better places to post videos than via group chats, especially to conserve memory on people's devices, and pretty much everyone knows it at this point. Literally everyone I know has been posting videos via Youtube or Facebook or Instagram or Whatsapp or Discord or Slack or Google Drive or Dropbox for years at this point.
But yes, Apple should absolutely support RCS for encrypted messaging in group chats with other devices. 100% with you on that one.
Yeah, I've had some isues in the past with pixelated videos but again, almost zero in the past few years. But there are ten billion better places to post videos than via group chats, especially to conserve memory on people's devices, and pretty much everyone knows it at this point. Literally everyone I know has been posting videos via Youtube or Facebook or Instagram or Whatsapp or Discord or Slack or Google Drive or Dropbox for years at this point.
But yes, Apple should absolutely support RCS for encrypted messaging in group chats with other devices. 100% with you on that one.
These types of responses are so aggravating. Congrats, it's not an issue for you. But it is for tons of other people, and your response is the equivalent of "well, works on my machine." Just sick of this borderline gaslighting where people are basically unable to imagine this is a significant issue just because it doesn't affect them personally.
> So, Google resolved the interop issue with "liked an image" and similar reactions back in 2020.
Except they didn't. I'm looking at a group chat from 2 days ago on a Pixel 7 that has a "Loved an image" response on it. About 90% of the emoji responses are "correctly reinterpreted", but I still often get the text printed out like that for whatever reason.
> Literally everyone I know has been posting videos...
Congrats, again, so this issue doesn't affect you. But literally whenever I go on a vacation with a group everyone posts pictures and videos in the chat. And they're barely viewable if I'm in the chat.
> So, Google resolved the interop issue with "liked an image" and similar reactions back in 2020.
Except they didn't. I'm looking at a group chat from 2 days ago on a Pixel 7 that has a "Loved an image" response on it. About 90% of the emoji responses are "correctly reinterpreted", but I still often get the text printed out like that for whatever reason.
> Literally everyone I know has been posting videos...
Congrats, again, so this issue doesn't affect you. But literally whenever I go on a vacation with a group everyone posts pictures and videos in the chat. And they're barely viewable if I'm in the chat.
It's not like Google is unbiased here, especially with their ownership of Jibe. Most RCS messages in the US are/will be going through Google...
I don't doubt at all that Google is biased, but I don't care. Their bias in this instance, which is that users on different platforms should be able to have a good messaging experience between each other, is the correct one IMO.
All I want is to be able to have a good messaging experience with my friends and family without trying the useless push of "Let's all use WhatsApp" or whatever (it's a losing battle when there are 10 other iMessage users and you're the only Android one), or worse, have people complain about your presence in a group chat because now all the videos look awful.
All I want is to be able to have a good messaging experience with my friends and family without trying the useless push of "Let's all use WhatsApp" or whatever (it's a losing battle when there are 10 other iMessage users and you're the only Android one), or worse, have people complain about your presence in a group chat because now all the videos look awful.
People say only teenagers are keyed into it, but I’ve gotten comments from people in their 40s that my Android phone was lame or “I don’t know why you bought that thing”. Not to the extent that it affected my relationships with them though.
Sounds like a good way to suss out the materialistic people in your life to be honest.
It’s not because they thought my Samsung was cheap, rather they believed Android is inelegant or tacky compared to iOS. Another part of it was the lack of interoperability with FaceTime and iMessage.
Honestly, it's probably just small talk. Normal people tend to try to have opinions on things to signal worldliness to other people. It's akin to when a coworker mentions hating a teenage pop star, or a sport. The vast majority of the time, they aren't expressing deeply-held conviction: They're just trying to fill the air with noise in a way that provokes a sense of comradery.
I don't have an iPhone and I don't really use text messages with anyone that does, so I can't speak first hand. But teenage bullying and status symbols / materialistic people aside, my understanding is that the big blue bubble / green bubble thing is group chats and photos and videos. Group chats "just work" via iMessage where as they can be strange via SMS, and photos and videos end up compressed and ugly via SMS.
If you don't group chat or send and receive photos or videos, then yeah, it probably makes zero difference. But e.g. for a family with a new baby, I think I'd be pretty upset if I was the Android user in the sea of iPhones and the baby photos group chat was janky and gave me 10x10 pixel photos.
If you don't group chat or send and receive photos or videos, then yeah, it probably makes zero difference. But e.g. for a family with a new baby, I think I'd be pretty upset if I was the Android user in the sea of iPhones and the baby photos group chat was janky and gave me 10x10 pixel photos.
As a professional adult I have never come across anyone who has ever commented on someone else’s phone positive or negative or neutral except once in a while someone gets the just released latest and greatest Y and someone may say “oh you got the latest and greatest Y phone, cool, how do you like it?” and that’s it.
I can’t imagine interacting with someone professionally who even thinks for one second positively or negatively about someone based on their phone choice, from five year old Androids to yesterday’s iPhone pro.
I can’t imagine interacting with someone professionally who even thinks for one second positively or negatively about someone based on their phone choice, from five year old Androids to yesterday’s iPhone pro.
Usually the problem I run into is iPhone users can't be bothered to install other messaging apps so it's either MMS, email, or iMessage. MMS ruins picture quality so is pretty useless
Attaching pictures to email is pretty crappy as well
Attaching pictures to email is pretty crappy as well
Status symbol products don't make you a more loved or more valuable person? What a concept.
This isn't meant to be condescending to you, I have just gotten SO MUCH CRAP from friends, coworkers, and the like for using a sort-of-old Android phone. We shouldn't be praising Apple for switching to USB-C, we should be asking why they didn't do it 9 years ago.
This isn't meant to be condescending to you, I have just gotten SO MUCH CRAP from friends, coworkers, and the like for using a sort-of-old Android phone. We shouldn't be praising Apple for switching to USB-C, we should be asking why they didn't do it 9 years ago.
This link is to the iMessage bridge that they open sourced 10 (edit: 2) days ago. Has anything changed since then, or is this a duplicate of this?
Edit: 700+ comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
Edit: correct link: https://blog.beeper.com/p/imessage-and-phone-registration-ar...
Edit: 700+ comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
Edit: correct link: https://blog.beeper.com/p/imessage-and-phone-registration-ar...
Beeper open sourced the iMessage bridge about 2 days ago: https://blog.beeper.com/p/imessage-and-phone-registration-ar... (although I realized one hour ago, that's why I posted it!)
Oops, you're right, I mixed up the posts. This is the actual duplicate, still has 700 plus comments so I was correct that this is a duplicate of a story that has already been covered extensively:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
Just based on the most cursory look, which took less time than it took you to write your comment (considering the links you added taking more time than typing…), they are different repositories by different people for different things.
I mixed up the posts. There have been a lot of high ranking Beeper posts lately. The one I was thinking of only had 700 comments, but I think it's fair to say that this is a duplicate:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722246
Can we get a title fix?
This whole debate seems asinine to me. Erik must know he's in the wrong here. The idea that we can force any company to allow third party clients to their service by regulation is an obviously bad idea. Just because Beeper (probably) isn't doing something shady with user data doesn't mean Apple must be required to trust them.
What if I make a 3rd party client that actively records my users' iMessages and sells them to Facebook? Should Apple be required to support my app too? If not, are they expected to audit and vouch for every third party client? If yes, how is Apple supposed to make any claims about the security of iMessage if I have no control over the client my recipient might be using?
The whole interoperable API argument comes from the same place as "encryption where the good guys have keys," yet somehow demands for interoperability seem to be much more popular on HN. The E2E in E2E encryption stands for end-to-end, which inherently requires trusting both ends. Otherwise you might as well not have encryption.
Note that whether or not companies should be required to support third party clients is a different debate than whether or not Apple should be required to support Android, even if the end result happens to be similar in this case. I think most people defending Beeper are interested in the latter and are willing to burn down encryption to get it via the former. As a user, sure I'd love for my Android friends to use iMessage too. But this is not the way.
(To be clear, I don't think we should regulate that Apple has to support Android either. If I develop a new OS, would every company be required to build a client for their service for my new OS too? But at least I understand the merits of that debate.)
What if I make a 3rd party client that actively records my users' iMessages and sells them to Facebook? Should Apple be required to support my app too? If not, are they expected to audit and vouch for every third party client? If yes, how is Apple supposed to make any claims about the security of iMessage if I have no control over the client my recipient might be using?
The whole interoperable API argument comes from the same place as "encryption where the good guys have keys," yet somehow demands for interoperability seem to be much more popular on HN. The E2E in E2E encryption stands for end-to-end, which inherently requires trusting both ends. Otherwise you might as well not have encryption.
Note that whether or not companies should be required to support third party clients is a different debate than whether or not Apple should be required to support Android, even if the end result happens to be similar in this case. I think most people defending Beeper are interested in the latter and are willing to burn down encryption to get it via the former. As a user, sure I'd love for my Android friends to use iMessage too. But this is not the way.
(To be clear, I don't think we should regulate that Apple has to support Android either. If I develop a new OS, would every company be required to build a client for their service for my new OS too? But at least I understand the merits of that debate.)
This project exists so Google can go to the (EU) regulators and demand Apple stop anti-competitive actions and lets poor small-time startups like Beeper freely interact with iMessage. The EU is much more likely to protect Beeper from Apple than Google due to them being in the same weight class, so this is a solid strategy.
I was using regular Beeper to consolidate my chat apps into one, but this mess with Android to iPhone has made everything so unstable that I dropped iMessage from the app. I wish they hadn't rocked the boat with Mini, it's affecting the users who don't try to circumvent Apple's lock-in too.
Beeper (before mini) was working with iMessage by relaying messages from VMs, probably one VM for x users.
November 15 ( or a bit earlier, but communicated on that date) they switched to new iMessage bridge, where Beeper client directly communicated with Apple servers.
Beginning of December they launched Beeper Mini.
My theory is: their move to move from VM relay to new bridge caused problems, but VM relay was not sustainable with growth. Maybe Apple started to require re-validation, maybe it was like this to begin with.
So eventually they rolled the dice with Beeper Mini and in the end existing Beeper users have to provide a Mac for validation.
I think this will be good for Beeper, as I guess slowly they will retire iMessage totally. And focus on the on the other bridges. They are a bit more sustainable now.
November 15 ( or a bit earlier, but communicated on that date) they switched to new iMessage bridge, where Beeper client directly communicated with Apple servers.
Beginning of December they launched Beeper Mini.
My theory is: their move to move from VM relay to new bridge caused problems, but VM relay was not sustainable with growth. Maybe Apple started to require re-validation, maybe it was like this to begin with.
So eventually they rolled the dice with Beeper Mini and in the end existing Beeper users have to provide a Mac for validation.
I think this will be good for Beeper, as I guess slowly they will retire iMessage totally. And focus on the on the other bridges. They are a bit more sustainable now.
Linus Sebastian (online tech media personality) sums up my thoughts on this perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXqivw5YLys&t=149
Now it's just a matter of: is Apple justified in actively sabotaging interoperability in general?