Beeper – Moving Forward(blog.beeper.com)
blog.beeper.com
Beeper – Moving Forward
https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-moving-forward
832 comments
> I am in the Apple ecosystem, so I had no need for it anyways
I would like apple to allow chats to be exported. They kind of let you export photos and videos, but not chats, which also include photos and videos.
I know people who have chats with their (dead) loved ones who have lost everything when they lost or broke their phone.
I would like apple to allow chats to be exported. They kind of let you export photos and videos, but not chats, which also include photos and videos.
I know people who have chats with their (dead) loved ones who have lost everything when they lost or broke their phone.
If you have a mac there’s an open source project that exports iMessage messages: https://github.com/ReagentX/imessage-exporter
https://imazing.com/ can do it, but yes, would be nice if it was built in
photos and videos and notes you can bulk download from https://privacy.apple.com/ - like google takeout, takes several days before they mail you a link to the zip.
photos and videos and notes you can bulk download from https://privacy.apple.com/ - like google takeout, takes several days before they mail you a link to the zip.
Unless somethings changed in the very recent term, a few years ago I was still able to find the messages locally in, IIRC, an sqlite DB file (unless I'm thinking of iTunes stuff being in the sqlite db but I definitely also backed up very old stuff, even from the iChat AIM days).
That is a very good use case. Thank you for identifying that one for me.
I still think Apple has a missed opportunity with iMessage - dual platform support 10 years ago would mean no WhatsApp, which is universal is much of the world. Hindsight is always 20/20 I guess.
Does this matter to them though? Does apple care about having the dominant messaging platform if it's no longer a hook to get people to buy apple devices.
Having blue bubbles instead of green definitely motivates some people to buy Apple devices in the US.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-androi...
https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-androi...
The US is one country, and what happens there is not representative of the rest of the world.
We were using whatsapp before iPhone even came to my home country, and living in Ireland now, everyone seems to be using it here as well. In fact, I'll venture as far as saying /not/ having WhatsApp is considered weird and you will no doubt exclude yourself from a lot of spcial circles.
We were using whatsapp before iPhone even came to my home country, and living in Ireland now, everyone seems to be using it here as well. In fact, I'll venture as far as saying /not/ having WhatsApp is considered weird and you will no doubt exclude yourself from a lot of spcial circles.
A big part of Apple's appeal outside of tech circles is exclusivity. When people talk about premium whatever, more often than not it just means "what the plebs don't have". From that perspective, performative exclusion of oneself from some circles can be seen as a feature and not a bug. Nor is this US-specific - iPhone is even more of a luxury status symbol in much of Asia.
It’s representative of where most Apple software and hardware is designed and where their customers have atypically high disposable income compared to most other countries. They’re obviously doing pretty well with this strategy.
Yeah, why be the dominant messaging platform when you can be the the dominant platform without any qualifier.
They aren't the dominant platform regardless of qualifier. Android has a 70% global market share. They aren't even the dominant platform in any country, barely breaking 50% in a few.
What's next, are we going to call OSX the dominant OS platform lol
What's next, are we going to call OSX the dominant OS platform lol
They are coming to be.
First of all, it's simply completely unaffordable in developing countries so you can't realistically consider them part of the market. In rural India, an iPhone 15 pro Max or whatever is more than a year of income for many.
Coming to countries like the us, studies show that among younger folks, apple's market share is close to 90% [1]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-rules-gen-z-nearly-90-...
The legal jargon surrounding what dominance is remains completely irrelevant, just like the legal system itself -- the punishments are pocket money for these companies, so it's mostly ceremony to keep lawyers employed.
But from a logical standpoint, they most certainly already are in many segments, and are coming to be in other segments.
First of all, it's simply completely unaffordable in developing countries so you can't realistically consider them part of the market. In rural India, an iPhone 15 pro Max or whatever is more than a year of income for many.
Coming to countries like the us, studies show that among younger folks, apple's market share is close to 90% [1]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-rules-gen-z-nearly-90-...
The legal jargon surrounding what dominance is remains completely irrelevant, just like the legal system itself -- the punishments are pocket money for these companies, so it's mostly ceremony to keep lawyers employed.
But from a logical standpoint, they most certainly already are in many segments, and are coming to be in other segments.
"As long as you ignore poor people and only look at this generation of American teenagers, Apple is hugely dominant!"
I'm not sure this is the win you think it is ?
Androids 70% marketshare has been extremely stable over the past decade. That is the dominant platform, no qualifiers.
I'm not sure this is the win you think it is ?
Androids 70% marketshare has been extremely stable over the past decade. That is the dominant platform, no qualifiers.
WhatsApp is owned by Meta, and the revenue model is based on usage of it (i.e more users = more potential eyeballs for paying businesses to get access to). It’s not quite as creepy as the Facebook revenue model but it’s not that far from it.
iMessage is an ecosystem perk for buying Apple hardware - it has no intrinsic revenue (and as shown in every one of these discussions, in many parts of the world is largely unused by iPhone buying customers).
Interoperability is a good thing. Apple has committed to supporting RCS and doing what Google never did, and bringing E2EE to the standard rather than bolting their own shit on, and limiting who can use that.
iMessage is an ecosystem perk for buying Apple hardware - it has no intrinsic revenue (and as shown in every one of these discussions, in many parts of the world is largely unused by iPhone buying customers).
Interoperability is a good thing. Apple has committed to supporting RCS and doing what Google never did, and bringing E2EE to the standard rather than bolting their own shit on, and limiting who can use that.
10 years ago Whatsapp had 420 million users
It has 1 billion 7 years ago
Now it has over 2 billion
1. WhatsApp came out two years before iMessage.
2. Apple has made it clear that they want iMessage to be an exclusive app and it works as intended; people are literally buying iPhones to use it.
2. Apple has made it clear that they want iMessage to be an exclusive app and it works as intended; people are literally buying iPhones to use it.
> WhatsApp came out two years before iMessage
A vast majority of WhatsApp users joined long after those two years
A vast majority of WhatsApp users joined long after those two years
From a marketing point of view, I agree - for a paid product it's not exactly reliable. If you take away all the marketing fluff though it's a pretty cool open-source project, like yt-dlp or adblock origin.
And I doubt it would have gotten killed, or certainly not as swiftly, had it been an open source community based project, e.g. Hackintosh. But obviously that wasn't the point.
This is what I have been saying every time this is posted! There is no way they had the runway to continue this and alienating their customers by being unreliable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38649081
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38649081
> The team seems very intelligent and capable
They (founders/team) will be fine. Young, ambitious, and now well-known.
They (founders/team) will be fine. Young, ambitious, and now well-known.
I’m sure they had this coming. It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free.
The only positive outcome from this endeavor is recognition, which they achieved.
The only positive outcome from this endeavor is recognition, which they achieved.
> It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free.
People keep repeating this line .... but would Apple have allowed them to pay f or iMessage ? How much ? Would then Google be able to pay to access iMessage ?
I see no price or condition where Apple would have let anyone touch their walled garden. Free or not has never been an element of the conversation.
People keep repeating this line .... but would Apple have allowed them to pay f or iMessage ? How much ? Would then Google be able to pay to access iMessage ?
I see no price or condition where Apple would have let anyone touch their walled garden. Free or not has never been an element of the conversation.
Right, not even paid. It’s their servers, they can choose who uses it.
The intersting part of this is to find where the line gets blurry. For instance is it ok for legitimate Apple ID owners (e.g. people who actually own an iPhone) to access iMessage through a third party spoofing their devices.
I'd say yes, even if Apple can't separate them from the other problematic accesses.
I'd say yes, even if Apple can't separate them from the other problematic accesses.
> It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free
This is ridiculous. It's like comcast restricting or charging people for emailing customers with a comcast address.
This is ridiculous. It's like comcast restricting or charging people for emailing customers with a comcast address.
If you know how either service works, it’s not like that at all.
ah but I do.
Remember apple's cutomers might WANT to receive the messages others are sending.
Remember apple's cutomers might WANT to receive the messages others are sending.
Sweet, they open sourced their iMessage connector. I was shocked to see that Apple is using Hashcash in their oauth header! (I see now hashcash.js when I login on the website too). I assume this is to make password testing more expensive, and probably explains why I've never had to bother with a captcha when logging into an Apple ID.
https://github.com/beeper/imessage/blob/2c45fc5619cbc33f2441...
https://github.com/beeper/imessage/blob/2c45fc5619cbc33f2441...
Thanks for pointing out the use of Hashcache.
Since there are many projects apparently using this name, for anybody else like me wanting to search it up, it's the proof of work one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
Since there are many projects apparently using this name, for anybody else like me wanting to search it up, it's the proof of work one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
It looks like beeper published most of the code at this point. Would be funny if Samsung or Google built it into the native messaging app. They have the resources to continually torture apple. The problem is Samsung and Google have deep enough pockets to try to sue.
> They have the resources to continually torture apple
Why is this something we should want? And what gives Samsung and/or Google any sort of high ground position against Apple?
Why is this something we should want? And what gives Samsung and/or Google any sort of high ground position against Apple?
Torturing Apple is best for the common good so long as the torture stops if they open up their protocol: incentives towards good behavior.
> what gives Samsung and/or Google any sort of high ground position against Apple?
Hello from GrapheneOS, where I can run any Linux tool I like via nix-on-droid and where google services have to ask for my permission before they so much as sneeze.
Apple would never tolerate such a thing in iOS.
Google is evil in their own way, but not in this way.
Hello from GrapheneOS, where I can run any Linux tool I like via nix-on-droid and where google services have to ask for my permission before they so much as sneeze.
Apple would never tolerate such a thing in iOS.
Google is evil in their own way, but not in this way.
There is iSH for ios, where I can run most x86 binaries just fine, without any jailbreak, for what it’s worth.
GrapheneOS is very cool, but it’s a significant tradeoff for people (having the sufficient knowhow, also I prefer the iphone’s better hardware capabilities).
So by default, an iphone will be the most secure and privacy-friendly solution for the vast majority of the population, not violating their users’ data at every stop (as is done by google/huawei on the other side).
GrapheneOS is very cool, but it’s a significant tradeoff for people (having the sufficient knowhow, also I prefer the iphone’s better hardware capabilities).
So by default, an iphone will be the most secure and privacy-friendly solution for the vast majority of the population, not violating their users’ data at every stop (as is done by google/huawei on the other side).
I would say Androids are as secure as iOS, maybe not as private.
Regardless, I have seen the majority of iPhone users use apps such as Instagram, so I don't think privacy plays a big part in their decision when buying a device.
Also, don't equate Google and Huawei together, one collects data to sell you ads, whereas the other is a state sponsored spy organisation.
Regardless, I have seen the majority of iPhone users use apps such as Instagram, so I don't think privacy plays a big part in their decision when buying a device.
Also, don't equate Google and Huawei together, one collects data to sell you ads, whereas the other is a state sponsored spy organisation.
I generally assume that all high value targets are spying for at least one state. Some of them know it.
I didn't know about iSH, that's pretty cool. And I agree that for most people who can afford it, Apple is probably the way to go.
I do think it's good that at least some of us are more worried about protecting users from vendors instead of about who the vendors are allegedly protecting users from.
I do think it's good that at least some of us are more worried about protecting users from vendors instead of about who the vendors are allegedly protecting users from.
Thankfully this is the kind of thing where apples tolerance and forebearance will cease and the lawyers will come out. There really is clear cause for CFAA charges already, but the optics of doing this are not good against a small indie developer. This is not the case with google or Samsung getting onboard.
Playtime is over, beeper was always gonna get squashed and apple played it incredibly well without turning it into more of a legal fight than they needed to.
There are zero (0) services that are going to tolerate a third-party commercial service spoofing device credentials to get into a service that is very obviously not offered in the form they are offering. Discord will ban you for using Revanced too, even more aggressively than apple.
Just imagine being some YC startup and some other service thinks they can use your email servers for spam and sues when you close an accidentally open relay lmao. It’s a facially absurd case when you remove it from the “apple bad” fervor surrounding every single apple article. Nobody is going to tolerate commercial third party operators using their infra for revenue operations.
“Well they should have to too and —“ let me stop you there - no. Do you want open spam relays? That’s how you get open spam relays. Even with beeper it’s always been about the wave of spam that is going to be unleashed for the other legitimate users of the service. Spam as a service on other people’s infra is bad actually.
It is, again, exactly that simple. It would be an absurd case if it were anyone besides apple but the unthinking hatred of android users is just that intense. All you can see is the carrot, and you really don’t care about the consequences or the precedent, this is an absurdly bad idea/argument. But that’s how android users react on every apple topic. It gets old. Open spam relays are not a good thing even if it means you stick it to apple.
Imagine saying google has to run an open smtp relay just because they’re a gatekeeper. If somehow you managed to spoof googles server into thinking you were a google relay and started selling access to this as a commercial product they’d ban your ass too, in a literal heartbeat, but because of the constant unthinking bleating of the android fanboys it’s somehow an issue that needs to be discussed. No, you can’t do that and it it wouldn’t be a good thing if you could. Why is that even a question? Literally I am asking, why is that a legitimate thing anyone would ever argue other than blinding levels of fanboydom?
It’s so noxious, it’s every damn apple thread. The value of green bubbles as a social filter has become very apparent to me after a number of these apple threads. I didn’t think that way before but I do now, there is another reason y’all ain’t getting invited to those chats.
(Oops, naughty naughty, only green bubbles get to make sly little digs about the other sort.)
Playtime is over, beeper was always gonna get squashed and apple played it incredibly well without turning it into more of a legal fight than they needed to.
There are zero (0) services that are going to tolerate a third-party commercial service spoofing device credentials to get into a service that is very obviously not offered in the form they are offering. Discord will ban you for using Revanced too, even more aggressively than apple.
Just imagine being some YC startup and some other service thinks they can use your email servers for spam and sues when you close an accidentally open relay lmao. It’s a facially absurd case when you remove it from the “apple bad” fervor surrounding every single apple article. Nobody is going to tolerate commercial third party operators using their infra for revenue operations.
“Well they should have to too and —“ let me stop you there - no. Do you want open spam relays? That’s how you get open spam relays. Even with beeper it’s always been about the wave of spam that is going to be unleashed for the other legitimate users of the service. Spam as a service on other people’s infra is bad actually.
It is, again, exactly that simple. It would be an absurd case if it were anyone besides apple but the unthinking hatred of android users is just that intense. All you can see is the carrot, and you really don’t care about the consequences or the precedent, this is an absurdly bad idea/argument. But that’s how android users react on every apple topic. It gets old. Open spam relays are not a good thing even if it means you stick it to apple.
Imagine saying google has to run an open smtp relay just because they’re a gatekeeper. If somehow you managed to spoof googles server into thinking you were a google relay and started selling access to this as a commercial product they’d ban your ass too, in a literal heartbeat, but because of the constant unthinking bleating of the android fanboys it’s somehow an issue that needs to be discussed. No, you can’t do that and it it wouldn’t be a good thing if you could. Why is that even a question? Literally I am asking, why is that a legitimate thing anyone would ever argue other than blinding levels of fanboydom?
It’s so noxious, it’s every damn apple thread. The value of green bubbles as a social filter has become very apparent to me after a number of these apple threads. I didn’t think that way before but I do now, there is another reason y’all ain’t getting invited to those chats.
(Oops, naughty naughty, only green bubbles get to make sly little digs about the other sort.)
This notion that any third party = spam is ridiculous on its face, not to mention that new protocols can - and in this case, Apple already does - integrate anti-spam measures like PoW.
But also, it's rather ironic that you brought up email, given that this is a widely successful open protocol where random third parties connect to the server (thereby consuming resources by their email provider, the horror!) to deliver an email to the user. I'm really glad that fundamental protocols like these were developed before this kind of thinking became widespread; at least now we get to enjoy having somewhat open Internet for a little while longer.
But also, it's rather ironic that you brought up email, given that this is a widely successful open protocol where random third parties connect to the server (thereby consuming resources by their email provider, the horror!) to deliver an email to the user. I'm really glad that fundamental protocols like these were developed before this kind of thinking became widespread; at least now we get to enjoy having somewhat open Internet for a little while longer.
The goal is breaking down the walled garden and moving towards open standards.
Companies generally are against this, but if a company picked up beeper code to profit off of "imessage support on android"... The yardstick would be closer to open standards.
Companies generally are against this, but if a company picked up beeper code to profit off of "imessage support on android"... The yardstick would be closer to open standards.
iMessage is not an open standard, even if third parties have access. And in most parts of the world (outside of the US) iMessage is not really a relevant player.
If you're against walled gardens you also have to be against all the obstacles Google and Samsung have planted. Why shouldn't Apple users make free use of Google maps without paying Google (in privacy)? Why can't every person access the advertising data collected by these companies?
If the answer is "companies invest a lot of money to make these products possible" why is iMessage different?
If you're against walled gardens you also have to be against all the obstacles Google and Samsung have planted. Why shouldn't Apple users make free use of Google maps without paying Google (in privacy)? Why can't every person access the advertising data collected by these companies?
If the answer is "companies invest a lot of money to make these products possible" why is iMessage different?
> If you're against walled gardens you also have to be against all the obstacles Google and Samsung have planted.
Okay, let's be against those too.
Okay, let's be against those too.
If you're serious about opening up literally everything and probably destroying all the leverage for possible business models how do you expect companies to keep providing the services you enjoy at the moment?
Gmail seems to do fine with an interoperable network.
How about through business models that do not smell like rent-seeking extortion?
Which business model would that be then?
The Apple model where you buy expensive hardware and get exclusive software in the package?
The Microsoft model where you buy software and are still treated like a freeloading advertisement consumer?
Or the Google/Facebook model where you're not paying anything and the companies try to digest your entire life for the support of marketing departments?
The Apple model where you buy expensive hardware and get exclusive software in the package?
The Microsoft model where you buy software and are still treated like a freeloading advertisement consumer?
Or the Google/Facebook model where you're not paying anything and the companies try to digest your entire life for the support of marketing departments?
You're describing the ones that smell like rent-seeking extortion.
How about the Signal model, where you get a free messaging app with published source code that runs on multiple platforms without trying to lock you into any of them, and its modest operating expenses are paid from donations to a nonprofit?
Or the Linux model, where a minority of users with the resources or technical capacity to make improvements are given the opportunity to do so, resulting in free software that anyone else can use too, and anyone could fork if the existing maintainers became abusive?
Or the Substack model, where you pay money for a service with no ads on it?
Huge dominant conglomerates being abusive is not unexpected. But why do we need huge dominant conglomerates? Let them cease to be.
How about the Signal model, where you get a free messaging app with published source code that runs on multiple platforms without trying to lock you into any of them, and its modest operating expenses are paid from donations to a nonprofit?
Or the Linux model, where a minority of users with the resources or technical capacity to make improvements are given the opportunity to do so, resulting in free software that anyone else can use too, and anyone could fork if the existing maintainers became abusive?
Or the Substack model, where you pay money for a service with no ads on it?
Huge dominant conglomerates being abusive is not unexpected. But why do we need huge dominant conglomerates? Let them cease to be.
There's nothing preventing Apple from requiring some kind of subscription for people to use its iMessage servers even if they were to open the protocol. All we're asking is for them to treat their service similar to premium email (which is also not free, but it's not all locked up either).
How is this relevant?
Apple doesn’t charge for iMessage. It is a service offered strictly to users of Apple devices.
Apple doesn’t charge for iMessage. It is a service offered strictly to users of Apple devices.
That's the extortion. Create a service with a network effect, so you don't have a choice in what to use because it's what your group uses, then tie it to another product and thwart anyone who tries to make a compatible implementation for any other device.
A more accurate way to phrase it is that Apple does charge for iMessage, but the cost is bundled into the price of your Apple device, and there's no way unbundle.
It's fascinating that this boils down to the US market using the iPhone's default message app and social status being assigned to the colour of your bubble.
Everywhere else you'll have people on Whatsapp, Signal, Telegram and FB Messenger. I don't have a single friend in the UK or Europe that uses SMS or iPhone messages.
The default message app is basically just a spam bucket for automated texts and 2FA codes.
Everywhere else you'll have people on Whatsapp, Signal, Telegram and FB Messenger. I don't have a single friend in the UK or Europe that uses SMS or iPhone messages.
The default message app is basically just a spam bucket for automated texts and 2FA codes.
Is it even an actual status symbol, or is that just meme? FWIW, personally I've never met anyone who cared one way or another. Just heard people online say that others do. Similarly I can’t find anyone claiming they themselves see it as a status symbol.
I'm 38 but date girls in their 20s. I would say that every single girl I've talked to has at one point mentioned/joked that I use an android.
You can make of that what you will based on your world view. In my opinion, it is absolutely a slight negative to overcome. Tall +10 points. Fun cool car +5 points. Android -3 points.
You can make of that what you will based on your world view. In my opinion, it is absolutely a slight negative to overcome. Tall +10 points. Fun cool car +5 points. Android -3 points.
You have a veeeery skewed sample population there and probably shouldn’t be drawing too many conclusions from such a small minority.
You might consider that you're touching upon your 40s and you've chosen to date people almost 20 years younger than you, so you're just talking about the kids these days and not the attitudes of the people closer in maturity. Only it's the kids these days you're sleeping with.
Curious why you don't switch to iOS since it's obviously impeding a goal you have.
I never said what my goals were.
This weighting is off.
Tall +1000
Cool car 1
Android -5 off the tall points. Need those first.
Hah fine fine. But actually since she sees the android usually before the cool car (unless you literally post it), the android will hurt you before she ever gets to see the car.
The truth is, once the newness wears off, even when you're tall, the android will be used against you eventually by most women.
The truth is, once the newness wears off, even when you're tall, the android will be used against you eventually by most women.
Why is this downvoted? LGTM -- looks good to me.
Have you considered that the problem is not which phone you choose to use, but the type of women you choose to date?
I’m 2 years older than you, and it is frankly astounding and depressing that in your description of how women “view you”, it’s all superficial and materialistic factors.
Maybe if you dated women who care more about your personality and less about what brand phone you use, you’d have more fulfilling relationships?
I’m 2 years older than you, and it is frankly astounding and depressing that in your description of how women “view you”, it’s all superficial and materialistic factors.
Maybe if you dated women who care more about your personality and less about what brand phone you use, you’d have more fulfilling relationships?
It is not that simple.
There have been studies that showed that women appreciation of men change when getting clues about the men wealth. That small, going bald 45y old guy will be considered unattractive without any clue. Mentionning he is a reputable dentist living in a fancy area he becomes charming or even cute. The younger and more athletic guy who was topping the chart will go down severly we it is mentionned he work as a car mechanic.
And it is the same with men with other factors. Men will have a hard time engaging with women that can present too smart and will often "target" women that act in a way that make you think their intellectual capabilities are lower.
And both men and women play with those when interacting with strangers of the opposite gender.
It is only with time spent with people that we overcome some of these basic signals and preconceptions about people, reason why we very often end up having long relationship with people we don't meet randomly in a dancefloor, dating app but rather colleagues/ex-colleagues, business partners, friends of relatives with which we interact a number of times before actually start dating.
There have been studies that showed that women appreciation of men change when getting clues about the men wealth. That small, going bald 45y old guy will be considered unattractive without any clue. Mentionning he is a reputable dentist living in a fancy area he becomes charming or even cute. The younger and more athletic guy who was topping the chart will go down severly we it is mentionned he work as a car mechanic.
And it is the same with men with other factors. Men will have a hard time engaging with women that can present too smart and will often "target" women that act in a way that make you think their intellectual capabilities are lower.
And both men and women play with those when interacting with strangers of the opposite gender.
It is only with time spent with people that we overcome some of these basic signals and preconceptions about people, reason why we very often end up having long relationship with people we don't meet randomly in a dancefloor, dating app but rather colleagues/ex-colleagues, business partners, friends of relatives with which we interact a number of times before actually start dating.
> There have been studies that showed that women appreciation of men change when getting clues about the men wealth.
Very true. Who can forget that groundbreaking study[1] conducted by Kanye West nearly two decades ago?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Digger_(Kanye_West_song...
Very true. Who can forget that groundbreaking study[1] conducted by Kanye West nearly two decades ago?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Digger_(Kanye_West_song...
You're 40. Unless you're also dating 30 and below, it's very possible you've completely missed the generation that started dating on social media, dating apps once they went mainstream (although I started on sparkmatch!), and texted constantly in the getting to know you phase.
I think perhaps that says more about the kind of twentysomethings that are into dating guys in their 40s or late 30s than anything.
And yeah I've done the dating app thing and have friends in their 20s. One even whipped out her iPhone and promptly asked if I used Signal.
And yeah I've done the dating app thing and have friends in their 20s. One even whipped out her iPhone and promptly asked if I used Signal.
I hate to be the one to break it to you mate but being overly concerned with superficial and material things isn't some new phenomenon created by smart phones or social media.
Great, you're arguing against your own point from earlier. Except, yes, people seem even MORE superficial when they know their partner choice is going to be blasted to everyone they have ever known.
No I'm not?
Superficial/materialistic people existed before smart phones existed. Then, just as now, the key is to avoid dating people who care more about what you have than who you are.
To be honest, you sound a lot like the retired old white boys who move to Thailand, use their relative wealth to attract a young woman, and then spend the next 30 years complaining to anyone who will listen how "Thai women are only interested in your wallet".
Edit: to clarify a point I think maybe you misunderstood in my original comment:
When I said it's astounding and depressing, I was referring to the idea that someone essentially my own age hasn't yet learnt/accepted that there are people in the world who will like you for you, regardless of what you have, be it money, a car, or a particular brand of phone.
Superficial/materialistic people existed before smart phones existed. Then, just as now, the key is to avoid dating people who care more about what you have than who you are.
To be honest, you sound a lot like the retired old white boys who move to Thailand, use their relative wealth to attract a young woman, and then spend the next 30 years complaining to anyone who will listen how "Thai women are only interested in your wallet".
Edit: to clarify a point I think maybe you misunderstood in my original comment:
When I said it's astounding and depressing, I was referring to the idea that someone essentially my own age hasn't yet learnt/accepted that there are people in the world who will like you for you, regardless of what you have, be it money, a car, or a particular brand of phone.
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just describing what I see. Maybe it's because I'm in California and they're simply heavily skewed towards a certain style..
You're saying materialistic women always existed. Sure. And I'm arguing the women raised under social media are even more materialistic about visible things than women 20-30 years ago. If you don't think that a girls entire lifelong social circle being able to see glimpses into her and her bfs financial expenditures (cars, restaurant quality, vacations, clothes) and their quality and frequency of purchase makes women more image conscious, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think women care more about indicators of casual spending ability than they ever did, and the wrong color texting dot is an easy constant reminder of "this guy is a bit cheap" to them.
I do just fine playing the cheap guy. Thank God I'm tall and ok looking. I drive a 2001 Silverado 4x4 Single Cab short bed on dates, and a Chevy volt day to day. They love the truck. They don't love the android. My Google pixel 4xl cost about half of what an iPhone did. My truck now costs $7k maybe since it's nice still. A new bmw costs $45-60k. So it's not just pure money.
I think in their mind using an android is like driving an old BORING car. It's not the cheapness or age, it's mostly the boring. They're probably wondering why I don't want to just fit in and have something nicer since it only costs $500 extra vs an android (even if that's not true always).
You're saying materialistic women always existed. Sure. And I'm arguing the women raised under social media are even more materialistic about visible things than women 20-30 years ago. If you don't think that a girls entire lifelong social circle being able to see glimpses into her and her bfs financial expenditures (cars, restaurant quality, vacations, clothes) and their quality and frequency of purchase makes women more image conscious, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think women care more about indicators of casual spending ability than they ever did, and the wrong color texting dot is an easy constant reminder of "this guy is a bit cheap" to them.
I do just fine playing the cheap guy. Thank God I'm tall and ok looking. I drive a 2001 Silverado 4x4 Single Cab short bed on dates, and a Chevy volt day to day. They love the truck. They don't love the android. My Google pixel 4xl cost about half of what an iPhone did. My truck now costs $7k maybe since it's nice still. A new bmw costs $45-60k. So it's not just pure money.
I think in their mind using an android is like driving an old BORING car. It's not the cheapness or age, it's mostly the boring. They're probably wondering why I don't want to just fit in and have something nicer since it only costs $500 extra vs an android (even if that's not true always).
Its not a new phenomenon but Im sure it was exacerbated by it.
Agreed. Making your users appear obnoxious to adjacent non-users is a marketing strategy that only works if you're Apple-sized, and being Apple-sized is a new phenomenon.
To be fair, based on the comments here Android users seem to be pretty good at being obnoxious all on their own. Like the one guy who swears up and down iMessage creates incels.
Questioned "I've never met anyone who cared one way or another..."
Women under 30 from wealthy countries definitely care.
Ya, it's mainly a US problem. And it should be the domain of antitrust regulation. But, American regulators probably won't get around to it in the foreseeable future, so a little needling is good.
The entire model was initially opensourced by a 16 year old.
https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush
They modified it with their own touch.
https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush
They modified it with their own touch.
That repository is not open source.
Ah you mean Open Source^tm. If the source is on Github that's what open source de facto means _these days_.
not to the priesthood of course
not to the priesthood of course
I ain't no OSI shill. No, rather I mean it's "your employer probably doesn't want you to even look at this" source-available. Many people here work on SaaS products. If you work on a SaaS you likely want to avoid AGPL/OSL/SSPL without consulting your legal team.
As a corollary, the Unreal engine source is on GitHub, but that doesn't make it open source.
It's strictly disingenuous to call SSPL open source (I personally believe it's disingenuous to call AGPL open source but I digress)
As a corollary, the Unreal engine source is on GitHub, but that doesn't make it open source.
It's strictly disingenuous to call SSPL open source (I personally believe it's disingenuous to call AGPL open source but I digress)
For anyone interested, mCaptcha is a drop in solution: https://mcaptcha.org/
Hat tip! Thank you to share about Hashcash. Do you know why email has not introduced something similar? For example, SMTP servers would reject email without a valid Hashcash token.
It's good they are open sourcing it. That's where it belongs. It's incredible how effective open source adblock software has been for years.
You can't build a business on a hacky work around. And being centralized gives apple an edge in responding.
Some businesses were built on hacks. Airbnb is the prime example where a huge percentage of listings out in the open were illegal, but the adversary there was government so slow to respond. And I think Plaid basically scraped data using user credentials which was obv insecure and against terms of use. But again, banks aren't super agile and the UI isn't exactly a huge value add. Regardless, not a great business model
You can't build a business on a hacky work around. And being centralized gives apple an edge in responding.
Some businesses were built on hacks. Airbnb is the prime example where a huge percentage of listings out in the open were illegal, but the adversary there was government so slow to respond. And I think Plaid basically scraped data using user credentials which was obv insecure and against terms of use. But again, banks aren't super agile and the UI isn't exactly a huge value add. Regardless, not a great business model
It does have some hope yet as open source software. YouTube has been trying to kill yt-dlp for years but the community is always one step ahead.
Seems categorically different though, right?
YouTube doesn't control anything about the endpoint which it is streaming video to, it just has control over how their servers respond to different requests
But Apple does control both ends.
YouTube doesn't control anything about the endpoint which it is streaming video to, it just has control over how their servers respond to different requests
But Apple does control both ends.
That's an excellent argument for an apple anti trust case
not as antitrust laws are written, no. not a sherman section ii monopolization of trade or commerce, not a section i restraint of trade, not a clayton tying. as with most antitrust cases, it comes down to market definition. the reasonable market is phone messaging or some such; the only way to win would be basically defining the market as imessage itself which no court would suffer since whatsapp and similar are free with equal or greater features.
you can argue antitrust statute should be expanded or changed, but there's no reasonable case as things stand.
you can argue antitrust statute should be expanded or changed, but there's no reasonable case as things stand.
It's not just the way they are written, it's also the way they are interpreted. Antitrust used to have a lot more teeth pre-Bork, among other things, because it was much more proactive in terms of anticipating negative effects on the market even before the company would become a glaringly obvious monopoly.
Here's a case from 1962: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/. Note in particular the basis under which it was determined that the company in question is in a market-dominant position.
Here's a case from 1962: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/. Note in particular the basis under which it was determined that the company in question is in a market-dominant position.
It would be if they had a dominant market position. Just controlling the endpoints doesn't mean that much by itself.
you don't necessarily need a monopoly to have a "dominant marketing position". being one of the two major OS's and losing access to 30-50% of a nigh-universal market because the its not in the interest of the platform's profits would definitely count as an anti-competitor move utilizing the company's weight. AKA anti-trust.
https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha... Seems pretty dominant to me.
American teens are not Americans are not the rest of the world
Apple is an American company accountable to American laws and critiques
Also, the relevant market doesn't have to be "Americans." It's completely reasonable for it to be "teens in San Francisco" or the like, if that's the group of people you need a messaging app in order to interact with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the Beeper offices over the past few weeks. I've had a hard time guessing their intent.
To some extent all of this Beeper Mini stuff seems to be almost an elaborate marketing stunt. I don't say that to diminish the impressive work of the team of anything like that, but it seems self-evident that Apple would hate this and I've been a bit surprised by the tone of the company throughout the past few weeks. The tone feels a bit like they've been surprised by Apple's response?
With all of that said, I'm kind of selfishly happy they seem to be returning their focus to Beeper Cloud. I've been a very happy user of it for a while now and I don't particularly care about the iMessage functionality.
I'm very impressed with what they've been able to achieve and overcome when taking on Apple here, and I'm really interested in where they'll go next.
To some extent all of this Beeper Mini stuff seems to be almost an elaborate marketing stunt. I don't say that to diminish the impressive work of the team of anything like that, but it seems self-evident that Apple would hate this and I've been a bit surprised by the tone of the company throughout the past few weeks. The tone feels a bit like they've been surprised by Apple's response?
With all of that said, I'm kind of selfishly happy they seem to be returning their focus to Beeper Cloud. I've been a very happy user of it for a while now and I don't particularly care about the iMessage functionality.
I'm very impressed with what they've been able to achieve and overcome when taking on Apple here, and I'm really interested in where they'll go next.
The goal I see here is to get media[1] and regulator[2][3] attention on this issue, and to get Apple to clearly state their (anti-consumer) position. I'm sure Apple employees in every level and department have lost sleep over this.
I don't think their expressed surprise is legitimate, but is instead a rhetorical choice to make Apple seem unreasonable.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/beeper-mini-brings-imessage...
[2]: https://www.threads.net/@jolingkent/post/C0-zKSPrizx
[3]: https://www.droid-life.com/2023/12/18/lawmakers-suggest-doj-...
I don't think their expressed surprise is legitimate, but is instead a rhetorical choice to make Apple seem unreasonable.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/beeper-mini-brings-imessage...
[2]: https://www.threads.net/@jolingkent/post/C0-zKSPrizx
[3]: https://www.droid-life.com/2023/12/18/lawmakers-suggest-doj-...
I guess I just don't understand why it makes Apple look bad here. My understanding is that Beeper reverse engineered their APIs and people expect Apple to just accept it? How is it much different from blocking a hacker who's poking around to find holes?
And to be clear, I use Android and I do think the whole iMessage situation is silly. I just don't get how anyone could see an unofficial iMessage client going any differently.
From the article:
>This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice
>This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice
How do they lock customers in? There are plenty of messaging apps from other tech conglomerates, that no one chose to use alternatives in the U.S. is not Apple's problem. The market spoke.
Because the market we're talking about is not the broader messaging ecosphere, it's "texting". To the US consumer, Whatsapp and the like are not texting. Frankly it makes total sense that this is the way it is in the US, because most people do not want to waste their time using a messaging app that can only message a fraction of people. They want an app that can message 100% of people. Apple Messages can do that, as can every other texting app, because the lowest common denominator technology (SMS, soon to be RCS especially once Apple ships it) is supported on every single handset. You never need to guess if a phone number is on Whatsapp or Signal or Telegram. You can just send a text to it.
This is pretty different to the international dynamic, as MMS often comes at a surcharge in many non-US markets, but here unlimited MMS has been included in most plans for a very long time, so there's not even a "hey, you are costing me money" stigma involved like there was in the bad old days decades ago.
This is pretty different to the international dynamic, as MMS often comes at a surcharge in many non-US markets, but here unlimited MMS has been included in most plans for a very long time, so there's not even a "hey, you are costing me money" stigma involved like there was in the bad old days decades ago.
there is no "guessing", the person giving you their number can also tell you which platform they are on (in my country 99,9% of the time it will be Whatsapp).
making an antitrust case on the basis of "I don't want to guess" seems weak, but law can always turn out counterintuitive
making an antitrust case on the basis of "I don't want to guess" seems weak, but law can always turn out counterintuitive
> the person giving you their number can also tell you which platform they are on
That... doesn't solve the problem. We don't need fragmented messaging systems, we need the world's largest company to lay down some rules and abide by them. Right now, the existence of iMessage is predicated on the poor performance of traditional SMS messaging. It wouldn't surprise me if the United States (much like Europe's antitrust council) forced Apple to standardize their proprietary alternatives. There's nothing counterintuitive about that to me.
That... doesn't solve the problem. We don't need fragmented messaging systems, we need the world's largest company to lay down some rules and abide by them. Right now, the existence of iMessage is predicated on the poor performance of traditional SMS messaging. It wouldn't surprise me if the United States (much like Europe's antitrust council) forced Apple to standardize their proprietary alternatives. There's nothing counterintuitive about that to me.
Messaging networks have a network effect. You have to use the same one as the people you're communicating with, so if two or more people don't want to use the same one, at least one of them is forced to use the one they don't want to.
It doesn't matter how many other networks there are when you can't get your group to use those instead.
It doesn't matter how many other networks there are when you can't get your group to use those instead.
By going out of their way to make the experience worse when texting people who don't use iMessage.
Last century it was bell whining about customers connecting unauthorized equipment to their network. This century, it's apple whining about customers connecting unauthorized equipment to their apis.
This is really it. It's exactly the same scenario and it would be great if it could be restated for the new networks we use today. History repeats itself.
iMessage infrastructure belongs solely to Apple. It’s a value add for people who hit their products. What is owed to people who are not their customers?
If you ran a business and provided a service to your paying customers, should you be forced to offer it gratis to anyone who wants to use it? That’s an absurd position.
If you ran a business and provided a service to your paying customers, should you be forced to offer it gratis to anyone who wants to use it? That’s an absurd position.
You have to be an Apple customer to use Beeper Mini with iMessage. What's your point?
> If you ran a business and provided a service to your paying customers, should you be forced to offer it gratis to anyone who wants to use it? That’s an absurd position.
Yes, it is absurd. It's a great strawman.
A more realistic option would be to say that Apple has to sell access to its infrastructure via the API its own app uses, at a cost allowing some reasonable profit; this would conveniently align with other court decisions regarding anti-competitive practices by incumbent providers with strong market positions.
Yes, it is absurd. It's a great strawman.
A more realistic option would be to say that Apple has to sell access to its infrastructure via the API its own app uses, at a cost allowing some reasonable profit; this would conveniently align with other court decisions regarding anti-competitive practices by incumbent providers with strong market positions.
Last century, were the customers connecting their equipment without paying money to Bell ?
You now need legit Apple hardware tokens to connect to the network. Those of us currently with iMessage on Beeper have paid our dues.
You've paid your dues to Apple, right? You're not just using someone else's service to connect to another service you're not paying for, right?
Yes, I own the physical hardware that the tokens are coming from. I own an (out of date, but still legit) iPhone 6, as well as a new Mac. I have paid Apple that which they would demand of any normal customer, and now I want the messages to flow to my Android phone and my Linux/Windows Desktop.
So it's very different. Beeper connects to Apple's service without an agreement or payment. The issue with Bell was with paying customers. No one was asking Bell to allow people without an account with them to connect.
Pretty sure if an alternate phone networks existed, it was free to switch to them, and they had billions of users already, antitrust case against bell would have no merit.
(disclaimer: Android user, wish users had stopped bothered with iMessage already and switched to something else)
(disclaimer: Android user, wish users had stopped bothered with iMessage already and switched to something else)
Beeper Mini bas a net positive impact on society, contrary to hackers finding holes. The only reason it's not possible to use iMessage with Android is that it's not profitable, and it's good to remind Spoke zealots that no, Apple isn't here for you.
> My understanding is that Beeper reverse engineered their APIs and people expect Apple to just accept it?
It forces Apple to explicitly do the equivalent of Microsoft making competing word processors malfunction in DOS to pressure people to use Microsoft Word.
> How is it much different from blocking a hacker who's poking around to find holes?
That's the easy one. Interoperability is legitimate, credit card fraud isn't.
It forces Apple to explicitly do the equivalent of Microsoft making competing word processors malfunction in DOS to pressure people to use Microsoft Word.
> How is it much different from blocking a hacker who's poking around to find holes?
That's the easy one. Interoperability is legitimate, credit card fraud isn't.
The point of an API is interoperability. If somebody has to reverse engineer your API, you either suck at documentation, or are up to no good.
You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…
Employees, no. Executives, absolutely.
Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening.
Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies.
Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).
Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening.
Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies.
Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).
I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None.
That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant.
They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code).
CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for.
The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone.
Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant.
They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code).
CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for.
The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone.
Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
> unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant
Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe.
> criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass
This is pretty tenuous. They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access.
> violating the the OS license agreement and ToS [...] (yes that supersedes DMCA exception)
Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability.
> reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo
Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble.
And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market.
That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.
Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe.
> criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass
This is pretty tenuous. They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access.
> violating the the OS license agreement and ToS [...] (yes that supersedes DMCA exception)
Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability.
> reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo
Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble.
And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market.
That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.
> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability.
The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use.
What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?
The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use.
What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?
Seems legitimate to me.
There's no reasonable case for trespass under the CCFA as proper credentials are being used and there's no intent to use that access to commit further crime.
You can't infringe on intellectual property of a server by making requests to it, that doesn't make sense. Any case there would be access violations under the CCFA which are already covered above.
The only real claim would be the intellectual property of the client app in the way that it forms requests and accepts responses which this system is undoubtedly based on the reverse engineering of. The only problem with that argument is that the DMCA includes a specific exemption for interoperability as fair use.
Note that simply building a new client app doesn't necessarily constitute fair use, but in this case the client app extends to a platform that is otherwise not supported. Seems a pretty obvious case for interoperability in my eyes.
"Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it.
There's no reasonable case for trespass under the CCFA as proper credentials are being used and there's no intent to use that access to commit further crime.
You can't infringe on intellectual property of a server by making requests to it, that doesn't make sense. Any case there would be access violations under the CCFA which are already covered above.
The only real claim would be the intellectual property of the client app in the way that it forms requests and accepts responses which this system is undoubtedly based on the reverse engineering of. The only problem with that argument is that the DMCA includes a specific exemption for interoperability as fair use.
Note that simply building a new client app doesn't necessarily constitute fair use, but in this case the client app extends to a platform that is otherwise not supported. Seems a pretty obvious case for interoperability in my eyes.
"Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it.
> "Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it.
Beeper does not talk only to Apple devices but also to other Beeper clients. There is no authorization by Apple to use their backends, and they are not sharing any revenue from their business, while Apple funds all the million messages.
CCFA covers the value gain, should be less than 5000 in one year, what I doubt is happening here.
I am not even sure if they are authorized in any point, because they violate ToS. Technically they fake authorization by preventing to be something other than they are, and not authorized by the terms and conditions.
Beeper does not talk only to Apple devices but also to other Beeper clients. There is no authorization by Apple to use their backends, and they are not sharing any revenue from their business, while Apple funds all the million messages.
CCFA covers the value gain, should be less than 5000 in one year, what I doubt is happening here.
I am not even sure if they are authorized in any point, because they violate ToS. Technically they fake authorization by preventing to be something other than they are, and not authorized by the terms and conditions.
> while Apple funds all the million messages.
A text message is, on the high side, 1000 bytes, so a million messages is <1GB. For reference paying $0.09/GB for bandwidth is considered a high price.
This is not a number which is literally zero, but it's a number which rounds to zero.
A text message is, on the high side, 1000 bytes, so a million messages is <1GB. For reference paying $0.09/GB for bandwidth is considered a high price.
This is not a number which is literally zero, but it's a number which rounds to zero.
> They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access.
Authorization in the legal sense of the CFAA is permission, plain and simple.
The ToS and EULA explicitly only allow using the iMessage service on Apple hardware, so any other form without explicit permission by Apple is unauthorized.
Spoofing device credentials to fool the server and gain an authentication blob definitely doesn’t fall under authorized access.
But even with legitimately attained credentials you can still be in violation. Ex employees of a corporation, finding a device with credentials on it, etc.
Whether they commit any further crime or not is irrelevant for criminal liability.
> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability.
The DMCA exception only applies to interoperability for legally acquired (e.g., licensed) software.
But it doesn’t really matter but because ToS and license clauses that explicitly prohibit it overrule it, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0]
> Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.
This reads like a Gish gallop with a bunch of weak arguments that border fantasy.
There is no “Apple in trouble” when it comes to iMessage and there are no signals.
I don’t know where you get this from but I suggest seeking better sources on understanding legal standards and ramifications.
0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...
Authorization in the legal sense of the CFAA is permission, plain and simple.
The ToS and EULA explicitly only allow using the iMessage service on Apple hardware, so any other form without explicit permission by Apple is unauthorized.
Spoofing device credentials to fool the server and gain an authentication blob definitely doesn’t fall under authorized access.
But even with legitimately attained credentials you can still be in violation. Ex employees of a corporation, finding a device with credentials on it, etc.
Whether they commit any further crime or not is irrelevant for criminal liability.
> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability.
The DMCA exception only applies to interoperability for legally acquired (e.g., licensed) software.
But it doesn’t really matter but because ToS and license clauses that explicitly prohibit it overrule it, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0]
> Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.
This reads like a Gish gallop with a bunch of weak arguments that border fantasy.
There is no “Apple in trouble” when it comes to iMessage and there are no signals.
I don’t know where you get this from but I suggest seeking better sources on understanding legal standards and ramifications.
0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...
This case is probably relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
In that case, breaking the ToS superceded the fact they were merely accessing public information.
The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are. I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference. I would love if Apple individually started suing their own customers though.
In that case, breaking the ToS superceded the fact they were merely accessing public information.
The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are. I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference. I would love if Apple individually started suing their own customers though.
Not sure why you think HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn is relevant here?
The facts of that case are not analogous to the matter at hand.
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn primarily deals with scraping publicly available data and the definition of "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA. And to a lesser degree selectively banning competitors. ToS violation was a generic argument and not the contentious part.
Meanwhile Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. is current standing law on reverse engineering clauses in ToS and EULAs, while the matter at hand has nothing to do with publicly accessible data, no exceeding of authorized access and no data scraping.
> The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are.
That would be Beeper, no question about it. They had to agree to the OS license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering and the ToS for Apple Media Services that also prohibit reverse engineering, before they could get to the parts that needed the reverse engineering they did.
The users didn’t do any reverse engineering, although they would be in violation of the terms that state iMessage (and other Apple services and software) is only licensed to be used on Apple devices. But that’s small fry in comparison to reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling Apple’s service without a license to do so.
> I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference.
Tortious interference has more to do with affecting a relationship you’re not a party to. This is more of an intentional tort, like conversion, although in this instance that would be more of a “side-dish” claim.
After all why go through that trouble and prove damages when you’ve got more suitable options with statutory damages.
The facts of that case are not analogous to the matter at hand.
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn primarily deals with scraping publicly available data and the definition of "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA. And to a lesser degree selectively banning competitors. ToS violation was a generic argument and not the contentious part.
Meanwhile Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. is current standing law on reverse engineering clauses in ToS and EULAs, while the matter at hand has nothing to do with publicly accessible data, no exceeding of authorized access and no data scraping.
> The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are.
That would be Beeper, no question about it. They had to agree to the OS license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering and the ToS for Apple Media Services that also prohibit reverse engineering, before they could get to the parts that needed the reverse engineering they did.
The users didn’t do any reverse engineering, although they would be in violation of the terms that state iMessage (and other Apple services and software) is only licensed to be used on Apple devices. But that’s small fry in comparison to reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling Apple’s service without a license to do so.
> I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference.
Tortious interference has more to do with affecting a relationship you’re not a party to. This is more of an intentional tort, like conversion, although in this instance that would be more of a “side-dish” claim.
After all why go through that trouble and prove damages when you’ve got more suitable options with statutory damages.
> Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc
This case involves a company reverse-engineering another company's software in order to make a clone product.
Do you think a case about reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability might have a different outcome?
This case involves a company reverse-engineering another company's software in order to make a clone product.
Do you think a case about reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability might have a different outcome?
That's the thing. None of this is remotely settled, the legal system is still figuring out what the book says. Various courts at various levels have affirmed and vacated all sorts of decisions. The amount of people overconfidently declaring this is an open book shut book case are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I sure as hell don't know how this will play out, and neither can anyone with any massive degree of certainty. Hacker News opinion-passive-aggressively-stated-as-fact syndrome strikes again.
I sure as hell don't know how this will play out, and neither can anyone with any massive degree of certainty. Hacker News opinion-passive-aggressively-stated-as-fact syndrome strikes again.
>CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage account and using the service
Not fucking likely
Not fucking likely
Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue them?
That point is moot now.
That point is moot now.
Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency.
Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter.
And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
Even in a criminal matter, wouldn't Apple's description of their systems and services matter quite a lot on how that would go?
Apple would only have to report it, similar to how you report a regular trespass and provide some evidence like logs.
Maybe, if LE is unable to connect the dots, explain how it was done so the prosecution can explain it well.
But it’s significantly less intrusive than a civil case where a lot of discovery is involved.
Maybe, if LE is unable to connect the dots, explain how it was done so the prosecution can explain it well.
But it’s significantly less intrusive than a civil case where a lot of discovery is involved.
I think you might be right about Beeper not having any legal right to iMessage interoperability.
On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps?
On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps?
> On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps?
Prefacing this by saying that I’m not privy to what, if anything, Apple is cooking up. But such a case isn’t something you cobble together in an afternoon.
In my experience a lead time for something like this is at least about a month, a week if it’s urgent and less if it’s really urgent and you seek an injunction (and then you try to flesh it out afterwards).
But ideally you want to take your time so you can discuss your strategy both internally with higher ups as well as with outside counsel, collect exhibits and draft up a solid initial filing.
Part of these discussions is also what kind of exposure you’ll have during discovery. Apple for example genuinely believes that Masimo used Apple’s internal confidential documents that Masimo received during discovery in the California trial to create the competing W1 smartwatch.
It could be that they’re weary of having to share more internal information, especially since so much has already come out during the last couple of years full of cases. Or wary that Beeper would learn more about the inner workings of iMessage.
I wouldn’t characterize it as a high priority matter with urgency either because they seem able and effective in blocking Beeper, with little loss in device sales as a result.
A lot of effort is going towards the Apple Watch issue with Masimo that prevents them from selling the newest models.
Lastly, while only of minor importance, it’s slightly more beneficial for Apple if Beeper would sue them while they keep successfully blocking Beeper than Apple suing Beeper.
All in all, it’s a lot of weighing pros and cons, even when you’re in the right. That’s one of the reason why there are so many settlements, because it often is cheaper, faster and easier than a whole trial.
Prefacing this by saying that I’m not privy to what, if anything, Apple is cooking up. But such a case isn’t something you cobble together in an afternoon.
In my experience a lead time for something like this is at least about a month, a week if it’s urgent and less if it’s really urgent and you seek an injunction (and then you try to flesh it out afterwards).
But ideally you want to take your time so you can discuss your strategy both internally with higher ups as well as with outside counsel, collect exhibits and draft up a solid initial filing.
Part of these discussions is also what kind of exposure you’ll have during discovery. Apple for example genuinely believes that Masimo used Apple’s internal confidential documents that Masimo received during discovery in the California trial to create the competing W1 smartwatch.
It could be that they’re weary of having to share more internal information, especially since so much has already come out during the last couple of years full of cases. Or wary that Beeper would learn more about the inner workings of iMessage.
I wouldn’t characterize it as a high priority matter with urgency either because they seem able and effective in blocking Beeper, with little loss in device sales as a result.
A lot of effort is going towards the Apple Watch issue with Masimo that prevents them from selling the newest models.
Lastly, while only of minor importance, it’s slightly more beneficial for Apple if Beeper would sue them while they keep successfully blocking Beeper than Apple suing Beeper.
All in all, it’s a lot of weighing pros and cons, even when you’re in the right. That’s one of the reason why there are so many settlements, because it often is cheaper, faster and easier than a whole trial.
This has been my gut feeling about the entire thing and I don't understand so much about:
a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here
b) How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move
Apple's iMessage service is a privately owned, privately hosted, closed source protocol and always has been. You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise. That's just... what it is. You can dislike that, you can think it's anti-competitive and you might even have a case for it, I guess we'll see, but insofar as I can see it:
iMessage is a closed source, walled garden, private protocol Apple uses to permit a higher tier of text messaging for owners of iDevices. There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices, and there's even less reason to be surprised in the slightest that, when a company was offering services to bypass those requirements and use the API without meeting Apple's requirements, that Apple would shut that shit right down.
a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here
b) How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move
Apple's iMessage service is a privately owned, privately hosted, closed source protocol and always has been. You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise. That's just... what it is. You can dislike that, you can think it's anti-competitive and you might even have a case for it, I guess we'll see, but insofar as I can see it:
iMessage is a closed source, walled garden, private protocol Apple uses to permit a higher tier of text messaging for owners of iDevices. There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices, and there's even less reason to be surprised in the slightest that, when a company was offering services to bypass those requirements and use the API without meeting Apple's requirements, that Apple would shut that shit right down.
> You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise
What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction.
> There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices
Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction.
> There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices
Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
> What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience?
You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders.
> The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing.
That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service.
> Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway.
Edit: I'm being rate limited:
> This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue
No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones.
> and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform
No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service.
> Interoperability should be a given
IT IS.
You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders.
> The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing.
That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service.
> Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway.
Edit: I'm being rate limited:
> This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue
No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones.
> and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform
No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service.
> Interoperability should be a given
IT IS.
> as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office
Obviously the formats have already been reverse-engineered long ago. But the world you describe and wish for, such reverse-engineering would be illegal, thus those formats would never have been reversed & implemented in third-party software.
> our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money
If your client software is able to open the files then it means the key must be on the user's computer (in your application binary?) or fetched at runtime over the internet and a user can technically make their own software to obtain this key and decrypt the file.
> What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway.
What if the user pays for your software (and its implicit access to any online key server that serves the cryptographic keys) but instead uses their own replica that mimics this software? That's what's happening when an Apple device owner (having paid for access to iMessage) decides to use Beeper. Both you and Apple still make money in this case. Should this still be illegal?
> you are free to use a competitor's product
I'm not sure what the nature of your product is, but this gets murky if your product relies on proprietary file formats or centralized services like iMessage. In this case, using a competitor would be inconvenient or might be outright impossible if everyone else is using this software and expects you to be able to open their files or interoperate with them.
Why should we allow arbitrary roadblocks to interoperability that don't accomplish anything beyond strengthening monopolies and restricting end-user choice and convenience? It would be fair if Apple argued for a reasonable fee to allow iMessage access to non-Apple-device owners but they've never made such argument.
Obviously the formats have already been reverse-engineered long ago. But the world you describe and wish for, such reverse-engineering would be illegal, thus those formats would never have been reversed & implemented in third-party software.
> our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money
If your client software is able to open the files then it means the key must be on the user's computer (in your application binary?) or fetched at runtime over the internet and a user can technically make their own software to obtain this key and decrypt the file.
> What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway.
What if the user pays for your software (and its implicit access to any online key server that serves the cryptographic keys) but instead uses their own replica that mimics this software? That's what's happening when an Apple device owner (having paid for access to iMessage) decides to use Beeper. Both you and Apple still make money in this case. Should this still be illegal?
> you are free to use a competitor's product
I'm not sure what the nature of your product is, but this gets murky if your product relies on proprietary file formats or centralized services like iMessage. In this case, using a competitor would be inconvenient or might be outright impossible if everyone else is using this software and expects you to be able to open their files or interoperate with them.
Why should we allow arbitrary roadblocks to interoperability that don't accomplish anything beyond strengthening monopolies and restricting end-user choice and convenience? It would be fair if Apple argued for a reasonable fee to allow iMessage access to non-Apple-device owners but they've never made such argument.
> What if the user pays for your software (and its implicit access to any online key server that serves the cryptographic keys) but instead uses their own replica that mimics this software? That's what's happening when an Apple device owner (having paid for access to iMessage) decides to use Beeper. Both you and Apple still make money in this case. Should this still be illegal?
Again, you and most critics are keeping your examples and your metaphors solely isolated to your phone, your device, your computer and this is not the case. iMessage chats are not peer-to-peer, they reside on a platform which Apple pays to host and operate. You are not just using your device, you are using their devices too via the API.
No examples put forth in your comment or other comments are grappling with this reality. The iMessage API doesn't call other Apple devices, it calls Apple's servers, and Apple owns those servers and is within their rights to dictate how they are used. Every photo sent, every live photo, video, voice message, all are hosted and archived forever until the user deletes them on Apple's servers. That in and of itself is, in my mind, justification to restrict the service's use to their own devices.
Again, you and most critics are keeping your examples and your metaphors solely isolated to your phone, your device, your computer and this is not the case. iMessage chats are not peer-to-peer, they reside on a platform which Apple pays to host and operate. You are not just using your device, you are using their devices too via the API.
No examples put forth in your comment or other comments are grappling with this reality. The iMessage API doesn't call other Apple devices, it calls Apple's servers, and Apple owns those servers and is within their rights to dictate how they are used. Every photo sent, every live photo, video, voice message, all are hosted and archived forever until the user deletes them on Apple's servers. That in and of itself is, in my mind, justification to restrict the service's use to their own devices.
Does it matter if an Apple device user (having bought a device and paid Apple for access to iMessage servers) subsequently makes software that mimics this Apple device's interaction with the servers but runs this software on his Android device?
We'll assume it's still a single person using it, thus whether they use it on Apple or Android, the amount of messages sent shouldn't increase (they'd just be spread across the two devices) and server load should thus remain constant.
Would it be a problem? You're coming back to the idea of cost but not only are those costs negligible but Apple has never made any argument about it even though Beeper was open to paying a reasonable fee.
> it calls Apple's servers, and Apple owns those servers and is within their rights to dictate how they are used
Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN? I'm sure websites would indeed love that but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it. As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
We'll assume it's still a single person using it, thus whether they use it on Apple or Android, the amount of messages sent shouldn't increase (they'd just be spread across the two devices) and server load should thus remain constant.
Would it be a problem? You're coming back to the idea of cost but not only are those costs negligible but Apple has never made any argument about it even though Beeper was open to paying a reasonable fee.
> it calls Apple's servers, and Apple owns those servers and is within their rights to dictate how they are used
Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN? I'm sure websites would indeed love that but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it. As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
> Does it matter if an Apple device user (having bought a device and paid Apple for access to iMessage servers) subsequently makes software that mimics this Apple device's interaction with the servers but runs this software on his Android device?
From what I got from this news cycle, if this was the case and beeper mini just made you use your apple device's "hardware token" this would never have been an issue and apple would not have locked down their use.
The thing Apple blocked was hundreds to thousands of users using the same "hardware token" which means beeper mini, probably rightfully for UX reasons, didn't want Apple customers doing this but it would also gate a feature to only Apple device owners.
So if beeper mini had actually just used your Apple device's "hardware token" and only offered the feature to Apple device owners then likely all this never happens and Apple devices owners would in fact have the benefit.
From what I got from this news cycle, if this was the case and beeper mini just made you use your apple device's "hardware token" this would never have been an issue and apple would not have locked down their use.
The thing Apple blocked was hundreds to thousands of users using the same "hardware token" which means beeper mini, probably rightfully for UX reasons, didn't want Apple customers doing this but it would also gate a feature to only Apple device owners.
So if beeper mini had actually just used your Apple device's "hardware token" and only offered the feature to Apple device owners then likely all this never happens and Apple devices owners would in fact have the benefit.
> Does it matter if an Apple device user (having bought a device and paid Apple for access to iMessage servers) subsequently makes software that mimics this Apple device's interaction with the servers but runs this software on his Android device?
If explicitly forbidden in the terms of service? Yes. The ToS act as your contract with Apple to make use of the service. Violation of the terms of service terminates your access to the service. If you want to stand up your own mimic'd Apple servers then you're free to do that, but you are not free, again, to change the rules set forth by Apple to use Apple's services. I don't understand why you keep returning to this question.
> Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN?
All sorts of websites have all sorts of requirements to use them off certain VPNs, without ad-blockers, and with cookies. Tons of websites simply stop functioning if some or any of those conditions are true for your browser.
> I'm sure websites would indeed love that
They do.
> but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
What do you mean become law? The ability for an online service to not provide functionality if you do not concede to their requirements is so benign as to be barely worthy of note. Apple included! Apple has been "excluding" Android from iMessage since 2011!
> I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it.
I mean, you are! They did! And then Apple found them, and made changes to their protocol that bricked what they made. That is the most likely outcome for this and any subsequent adventures along the same path.
> As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
Because it's their platform and their right to reject it and I'm not going to rehash this point again.
If explicitly forbidden in the terms of service? Yes. The ToS act as your contract with Apple to make use of the service. Violation of the terms of service terminates your access to the service. If you want to stand up your own mimic'd Apple servers then you're free to do that, but you are not free, again, to change the rules set forth by Apple to use Apple's services. I don't understand why you keep returning to this question.
> Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN?
All sorts of websites have all sorts of requirements to use them off certain VPNs, without ad-blockers, and with cookies. Tons of websites simply stop functioning if some or any of those conditions are true for your browser.
> I'm sure websites would indeed love that
They do.
> but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
What do you mean become law? The ability for an online service to not provide functionality if you do not concede to their requirements is so benign as to be barely worthy of note. Apple included! Apple has been "excluding" Android from iMessage since 2011!
> I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it.
I mean, you are! They did! And then Apple found them, and made changes to their protocol that bricked what they made. That is the most likely outcome for this and any subsequent adventures along the same path.
> As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
Because it's their platform and their right to reject it and I'm not going to rehash this point again.
> You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders.
Corporate policies aren't absolute. It doesn't matter if a provider dislikes the manner in which it's services are used if that use is found to be protected by law, which is obviously what Beeper is hoping for.
Corporate policies aren't absolute. It doesn't matter if a provider dislikes the manner in which it's services are used if that use is found to be protected by law, which is obviously what Beeper is hoping for.
But what about the companies that make the machinery that you produce software for? Shouldn't they have the right to prevent you from accessing their built hardware and force companies to get service from them directly?
Obviously I don't know what your company does exactly, but it and Microsoft are both very bad examples. This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue, imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe, and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform. Interoperability should be a given and it's closer to a Ma Bell situation This is starkly similar to the tweaking of antimonopoly practices that needed to be hammered out back in the 80s to break up Bell.
> imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe
Is it really used by more than half in Europe? Obviously anecdotal, but I have never encountered it. Almost everyone is on WhatsApp/Telegram/FB messenger or some other non-SMS based app.
Is it really used by more than half in Europe? Obviously anecdotal, but I have never encountered it. Almost everyone is on WhatsApp/Telegram/FB messenger or some other non-SMS based app.
> No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone
It’s the only way to get an encrypted message into a user’s iMessage inbox, and iMessage is, unchangeably, the only possible default messaging app on an iPhone—the only one you can use from Contacts and so on.
IMO if you could completely substitute WhatsApp (or whatever) for iMessage on iPhones to the point of being able to delete iMessage completely, I actually bet a lot of the handwringing over iMessage being closed would go away. It also feels to me (IANAL) like that’s part of the anticompetitiveness. Apple uses its dominance in phones to establish dominance in messaging apps. Beeper is trying to force the messaging app (iMessage) itself open, but a world where everyone is just deleting iMessage and replacing it with Beeper, as Apple is required to allow them to do, would probably be fine with them too.
It’s the only way to get an encrypted message into a user’s iMessage inbox, and iMessage is, unchangeably, the only possible default messaging app on an iPhone—the only one you can use from Contacts and so on.
IMO if you could completely substitute WhatsApp (or whatever) for iMessage on iPhones to the point of being able to delete iMessage completely, I actually bet a lot of the handwringing over iMessage being closed would go away. It also feels to me (IANAL) like that’s part of the anticompetitiveness. Apple uses its dominance in phones to establish dominance in messaging apps. Beeper is trying to force the messaging app (iMessage) itself open, but a world where everyone is just deleting iMessage and replacing it with Beeper, as Apple is required to allow them to do, would probably be fine with them too.
> It’s the only way to get an encrypted message into a user’s iMessage inbox
True.
> and iMessage is, unchangeably, the only possible default messaging app on an iPhone—the only one you can use from Contacts and so on.
You kind of lost me here.
The Messages app is the default app on iPhone that handles both SMS/MMS and the iMessage protocol. So it goes without saying that it’s the only way to get get an encrypted message into a user’s “iMessage” inbox.
But it’s not the only one you can use from the Contacts app, nor is the only one you can use with Siri or the only one that pops up in the share sheet or the only one that you can use with CarPlay or the only one that you can receive notifications from or the only one that can ring your phone (if you want to count FaceTime as part of iMessage), etc, etc.
The Messages app, which supports iMessage, is the only app that can receive SMS/MMS via the cellular network. That’s pretty much the only limitation.
Other than that, there’s pretty much complete feature parity with iMessage in terms of native access, available should the third party messaging service want to implement it (and many do).
Take WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will show up as an option in under contacts[0], WhatsApp message notifications will be read by Siri if you wear AirPods, use Siri to send messages and even set which default messaging app to use[1], have WhatsApp pop up as a suggestion in share sheets[2], and so on.
0: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46422640/how-iphone-cont... this was 6 years ago, it’s now much more sleeker and you can set a default messaging service, but I couldn’t be bothered to upload a screenshot
1: https://i0.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/202...
2: https://wabetainfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WA13_Share...
True.
> and iMessage is, unchangeably, the only possible default messaging app on an iPhone—the only one you can use from Contacts and so on.
You kind of lost me here.
The Messages app is the default app on iPhone that handles both SMS/MMS and the iMessage protocol. So it goes without saying that it’s the only way to get get an encrypted message into a user’s “iMessage” inbox.
But it’s not the only one you can use from the Contacts app, nor is the only one you can use with Siri or the only one that pops up in the share sheet or the only one that you can use with CarPlay or the only one that you can receive notifications from or the only one that can ring your phone (if you want to count FaceTime as part of iMessage), etc, etc.
The Messages app, which supports iMessage, is the only app that can receive SMS/MMS via the cellular network. That’s pretty much the only limitation.
Other than that, there’s pretty much complete feature parity with iMessage in terms of native access, available should the third party messaging service want to implement it (and many do).
Take WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will show up as an option in under contacts[0], WhatsApp message notifications will be read by Siri if you wear AirPods, use Siri to send messages and even set which default messaging app to use[1], have WhatsApp pop up as a suggestion in share sheets[2], and so on.
0: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46422640/how-iphone-cont... this was 6 years ago, it’s now much more sleeker and you can set a default messaging service, but I couldn’t be bothered to upload a screenshot
1: https://i0.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/202...
2: https://wabetainfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WA13_Share...
Well, in case anyone else reads this: I mean that if you click the huge “message” button at the top of a contact’s page, that opens iMessage, and there’s nothing I can do to change that if I don’t want to be using iMessage.
For contrast, Android lets users use third party texting apps, remove the default messaging app, have all “message”-oriented actions open the app of your choice, etc. Apple, I claim, does not support this because it means that every iPhone user is also an iMessage user. But iMessage is a social network (a la WhatsApp), and a separate product.
For contrast, Android lets users use third party texting apps, remove the default messaging app, have all “message”-oriented actions open the app of your choice, etc. Apple, I claim, does not support this because it means that every iPhone user is also an iMessage user. But iMessage is a social network (a la WhatsApp), and a separate product.
> How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move
So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not?
HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc.
What is surprising to me is the growing number of comments that are defending Apple and framing the creation of an unofficial 3rd party client using terms like “flagrant misuse”.
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive.
I do think that trying to charge for the service was a questionable decision.
So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not?
HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc.
What is surprising to me is the growing number of comments that are defending Apple and framing the creation of an unofficial 3rd party client using terms like “flagrant misuse”.
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive.
I do think that trying to charge for the service was a questionable decision.
> So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not?
I mean, I think using that code would be a risky proposition at best that might earn you as a user the ire of Apple, and I wouldn't personally do it, but ultimately, showing people how to do a thing, or even providing the executable I don't think itself is a crime.
That said, I would also not be remotely surprised if Apple figured out how to block it's access to it's API's too. And, if there is money involved or if the breach is egregious enough in some other way, I don't think it would be altogether unexpected for the authors to find themselves in some legal hot water too, and/or for Github to receive a takedown notice.
> HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc.
Which I respect on the whole, but the key difference here is you are not just using your computer/smartphone, you are using Apple's computers too. That's where I find the disconnect. Each time Beeper Mini connects to those servers it is using compute resources, however infinitesimal, to perform it's functionality: functionality that is not supported, that fundamentally, Apple is now paying for. And you can justify that any way you want, but at the end of the day, that's stealing. And Apple is perfectly within their rights, IMO, to block it and if they feel they have a case, to pursue it legally afterwards.
> Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive.
And if you're talking about open protocols or API's, you have my support 100%! I've done some of that kind of work. But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.
I mean, I think using that code would be a risky proposition at best that might earn you as a user the ire of Apple, and I wouldn't personally do it, but ultimately, showing people how to do a thing, or even providing the executable I don't think itself is a crime.
That said, I would also not be remotely surprised if Apple figured out how to block it's access to it's API's too. And, if there is money involved or if the breach is egregious enough in some other way, I don't think it would be altogether unexpected for the authors to find themselves in some legal hot water too, and/or for Github to receive a takedown notice.
> HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc.
Which I respect on the whole, but the key difference here is you are not just using your computer/smartphone, you are using Apple's computers too. That's where I find the disconnect. Each time Beeper Mini connects to those servers it is using compute resources, however infinitesimal, to perform it's functionality: functionality that is not supported, that fundamentally, Apple is now paying for. And you can justify that any way you want, but at the end of the day, that's stealing. And Apple is perfectly within their rights, IMO, to block it and if they feel they have a case, to pursue it legally afterwards.
> Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive.
And if you're talking about open protocols or API's, you have my support 100%! I've done some of that kind of work. But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.
> but the key difference here is you are not just using your computer/smartphone, you are using Apple's computers too ... you can justify that any way you want, but at the end of the day, that's stealing.
I think that boiling this down to something like "stealing" oversimplifies something that can't be reduced to a singular notion as such. I think there's a case to be made that it's not approved use of the various API endpoints, but there's more nuance than just theft of CPU cycles or services. For sake of argument, I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. I have a half dozen devices that are all capable of communicating via iMessage. If I want to bring an Android device into my personal ecosystem, it doesn't seem clear ethically or morally that there is some theft occurring. I realize there are other scenarios where someone has no Apple devices, never intends to, and would be in a weaker position, having never "bought in".
How do you feel about web scrapers mining the open web and profiting from the results? Or browser automation tech that logs into websites as if there's a user at the keyboard for the purpose of building automated interactions with services that do not provide public APIs, e.g. Quicken banking connections? I'm bringing this up primarily because there is a whole ecosystem of products that exist based on brute force workarounds to a lack of public APIs. The existence of this kind of tech would equate to similar kinds of "misuse" if only judged based on whether or not the service provider intended for this use case and whether or not the client was using some publicly blessed integration channel.
> But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.
I think it's reasonable to say that in some scenarios, such use could be classified as misuse. But I don't agree with a blanket statement that "using undocumented APIs is misuse".
When the subject is creating a client for the purpose of interoperability, and when the client implementation is using the underlying APIs/services for their intended use case (i.e. to provide feature parity with the 1st party client e.g. calling the API that sends a message does so for the purpose fulfilling the feature-equivalent send message functionality in the 3rd party client), it seems like this is all a lot greyer than "textbook misuse". Textbook misuse would be building an iMessage spammer bot.
I think that boiling this down to something like "stealing" oversimplifies something that can't be reduced to a singular notion as such. I think there's a case to be made that it's not approved use of the various API endpoints, but there's more nuance than just theft of CPU cycles or services. For sake of argument, I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. I have a half dozen devices that are all capable of communicating via iMessage. If I want to bring an Android device into my personal ecosystem, it doesn't seem clear ethically or morally that there is some theft occurring. I realize there are other scenarios where someone has no Apple devices, never intends to, and would be in a weaker position, having never "bought in".
How do you feel about web scrapers mining the open web and profiting from the results? Or browser automation tech that logs into websites as if there's a user at the keyboard for the purpose of building automated interactions with services that do not provide public APIs, e.g. Quicken banking connections? I'm bringing this up primarily because there is a whole ecosystem of products that exist based on brute force workarounds to a lack of public APIs. The existence of this kind of tech would equate to similar kinds of "misuse" if only judged based on whether or not the service provider intended for this use case and whether or not the client was using some publicly blessed integration channel.
> But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.
I think it's reasonable to say that in some scenarios, such use could be classified as misuse. But I don't agree with a blanket statement that "using undocumented APIs is misuse".
When the subject is creating a client for the purpose of interoperability, and when the client implementation is using the underlying APIs/services for their intended use case (i.e. to provide feature parity with the 1st party client e.g. calling the API that sends a message does so for the purpose fulfilling the feature-equivalent send message functionality in the 3rd party client), it seems like this is all a lot greyer than "textbook misuse". Textbook misuse would be building an iMessage spammer bot.
> but there's more nuance than just theft of CPU cycles or services.
CPU time, network bandwidth, storage space, the infrastructure to drive the rest, the fat, fat internet pipes to handle half of the United States' text messaging demands...
> For sake of argument, I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. I have a half dozen devices that are all capable of communicating via iMessage. If I want to bring an Android device into my personal ecosystem, it doesn't seem clear ethically or morally that there is some theft occurring. I realize there are other scenarios where someone has no Apple devices, never intends to, and would be in a weaker position, having never "bought in".
The ethics aren't the issue. The stealing isn't a problem because it's morally wrong; it's stealing because it's against the terms of use. It doesn't matter if you own 150 iPhones and 1 Android: the iPhones meet the requirements, the Android does not. And Apple has no legal, ethical, or market obligation to allow it in, they just don't. You can text the Android from the iPhone and vice versa and it will function completely correctly in both directions, with full support for the open protocols.
> I'm bringing this up primarily because there is a whole ecosystem of products that exist based on brute force workarounds to a lack of public APIs. The existence of this kind of tech would equate to similar kinds of "misuse" if only judged based on whether or not the service provider intended for this use case and whether or not the client was using some publicly blessed integration channel.
I think you're free to do it and the provider of the service is in turn, free to make your workdays a living hell in a never ending escalating pattern of back-and-forth modifications, or free to ignore you if they don't care. Quicken apparently doesn't care, Apple does. Those are respectively their responses and both are right depending on the organization's priorities.
Most web-scraping I see is pretty gray on ethics too though, things like the stack overflow clones that piss all over the information with ads and try and SEO themselves in front of the posts they're ripping off. Personally I think all those web operators can locate a fire to die in.
> I think it's reasonable to say that in some scenarios, such use could be classified as misuse. But I don't agree with a blanket statement that "using undocumented APIs is misuse".
This is not undocumented, it is documented and said documentation is kept private because it is not meant for anyone's use outside of the organization.
> Textbook misuse would be building an iMessage spammer bot.
And it could be easily made the case that this is exactly the reason why Apple demands you own Apple devices to use the iMessage service: Because it can't be automated on their own hardware, and because it can't be used by other devices/endpoints, it is much, much, much harder to spam via iMessage. In fact I'd say it's bordering on impossible unless you buy an iDevice and do it by hand, at which point, Apple can see your suspicious traffic and disconnect you from the network, possibly without you even knowing you've been.
That's not to say they couldn't secure it in a way to combat abuse, but again, why? What does Apple gain here apart from a happy nod from a userbase that is wanting to use an Android phone and an iPad? iMessage is a free service that Apple fans enjoy using. They gain nothing by making it open to people who don't use Apple devices, and that freedom for you comes at a security cost to the platform as a whole and the users in it. Apple is very clear that their priority (apart from profits) is their users, and this gains their users incredibly little while opening the platform to much wider instances of abuse that are already incredibly common.
And even aside of my views and understanding of systems integrity and API use/misuse, frankly, even just the anti-spam excuse would be enough for me to support them in this unilaterally, because as a service, iMessage is the only platform I make regular use of that I don't end up getting calls about my cars extended warranty, or messages from hot russian women who want to bang me, or people asking to buy my stupid house, or assholes telling me they've hacked my PC and are going to send videos of me jerking off to my family, or whatever the hell. And if the closed ecosystem is the only way to do that, which it kind of seems to be, then close the ecosystems I say.
CPU time, network bandwidth, storage space, the infrastructure to drive the rest, the fat, fat internet pipes to handle half of the United States' text messaging demands...
> For sake of argument, I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. I have a half dozen devices that are all capable of communicating via iMessage. If I want to bring an Android device into my personal ecosystem, it doesn't seem clear ethically or morally that there is some theft occurring. I realize there are other scenarios where someone has no Apple devices, never intends to, and would be in a weaker position, having never "bought in".
The ethics aren't the issue. The stealing isn't a problem because it's morally wrong; it's stealing because it's against the terms of use. It doesn't matter if you own 150 iPhones and 1 Android: the iPhones meet the requirements, the Android does not. And Apple has no legal, ethical, or market obligation to allow it in, they just don't. You can text the Android from the iPhone and vice versa and it will function completely correctly in both directions, with full support for the open protocols.
> I'm bringing this up primarily because there is a whole ecosystem of products that exist based on brute force workarounds to a lack of public APIs. The existence of this kind of tech would equate to similar kinds of "misuse" if only judged based on whether or not the service provider intended for this use case and whether or not the client was using some publicly blessed integration channel.
I think you're free to do it and the provider of the service is in turn, free to make your workdays a living hell in a never ending escalating pattern of back-and-forth modifications, or free to ignore you if they don't care. Quicken apparently doesn't care, Apple does. Those are respectively their responses and both are right depending on the organization's priorities.
Most web-scraping I see is pretty gray on ethics too though, things like the stack overflow clones that piss all over the information with ads and try and SEO themselves in front of the posts they're ripping off. Personally I think all those web operators can locate a fire to die in.
> I think it's reasonable to say that in some scenarios, such use could be classified as misuse. But I don't agree with a blanket statement that "using undocumented APIs is misuse".
This is not undocumented, it is documented and said documentation is kept private because it is not meant for anyone's use outside of the organization.
> Textbook misuse would be building an iMessage spammer bot.
And it could be easily made the case that this is exactly the reason why Apple demands you own Apple devices to use the iMessage service: Because it can't be automated on their own hardware, and because it can't be used by other devices/endpoints, it is much, much, much harder to spam via iMessage. In fact I'd say it's bordering on impossible unless you buy an iDevice and do it by hand, at which point, Apple can see your suspicious traffic and disconnect you from the network, possibly without you even knowing you've been.
That's not to say they couldn't secure it in a way to combat abuse, but again, why? What does Apple gain here apart from a happy nod from a userbase that is wanting to use an Android phone and an iPad? iMessage is a free service that Apple fans enjoy using. They gain nothing by making it open to people who don't use Apple devices, and that freedom for you comes at a security cost to the platform as a whole and the users in it. Apple is very clear that their priority (apart from profits) is their users, and this gains their users incredibly little while opening the platform to much wider instances of abuse that are already incredibly common.
And even aside of my views and understanding of systems integrity and API use/misuse, frankly, even just the anti-spam excuse would be enough for me to support them in this unilaterally, because as a service, iMessage is the only platform I make regular use of that I don't end up getting calls about my cars extended warranty, or messages from hot russian women who want to bang me, or people asking to buy my stupid house, or assholes telling me they've hacked my PC and are going to send videos of me jerking off to my family, or whatever the hell. And if the closed ecosystem is the only way to do that, which it kind of seems to be, then close the ecosystems I say.
> Quicken apparently doesn't care, Apple does.
I think you're missing the point GP is making, and I think it's an interesting one: There's lots of precedent for offering products and services interoperating with an "uncooperative" third party (in this case, Quicken scraping banks' websites to import their customers' transactions).
Sometimes such “forced” interoperability is illegal, sometimes it's the opposite and the a regulator or legislator recognizes it as an important public good, and very often (such as here) there is no precedent and we know absolutely nothing about the legality. We can have our educated guesses, but that's it.
I'd personally be very curious in seeing a lawsuit; it seems like important precedent to have with all the FUD going around, here and elsewhere.
I think you're missing the point GP is making, and I think it's an interesting one: There's lots of precedent for offering products and services interoperating with an "uncooperative" third party (in this case, Quicken scraping banks' websites to import their customers' transactions).
Sometimes such “forced” interoperability is illegal, sometimes it's the opposite and the a regulator or legislator recognizes it as an important public good, and very often (such as here) there is no precedent and we know absolutely nothing about the legality. We can have our educated guesses, but that's it.
I'd personally be very curious in seeing a lawsuit; it seems like important precedent to have with all the FUD going around, here and elsewhere.
> Sometimes such “forced” interoperability is illegal, sometimes it's the opposite and the a regulator or legislator recognizes it as an important public good, and very often (such as here) there is no precedent and we know absolutely nothing about the legality. We can have our educated guesses, but that's it.
You say this as if all these cases have the same fact pattern and it’s just a roll of the dice. But that’s not true and in fact there is very clear precedent that matches the facts of the case at hand.
Quicken and other scrapers are generally allowed, especially, but exclusively, when it pertains publicly accessible data.
Those kinds of cases have been tried with the main argument being the exceeding of authorization under the CFAA and copyright violations.
Courts have consistently decided that scraping doesn’t rise to the levels of computer trespass in the form of exceeding the authorization given to access the computer system and that it’s not copyright violation primarily because, to put it simply, it doesn’t exceed the authorization enough and because there’s a fair use component to it.
The most recent case law on this, which happens to involve publicly available data so isn’t fully analogue with Quicken, is hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn[0]
However, there’s also case law on clauses in EULAs and ToSs that prohibit reverse engineering (like in the case of Apple’s EULAs and ToS) that says those clauses are not only enforceable but they supersede the DMCA reverse engineering exception.
In fact the case law is even more relevant for this Beeper debacle, because it also happens to pertain to a company that reverse engineered another companies software, repackaged it to then sell it for a price, like Beeper tried to do with Beeper mini for $2/mo. That case law is still good standing case law and is Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.[1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
1: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...
You say this as if all these cases have the same fact pattern and it’s just a roll of the dice. But that’s not true and in fact there is very clear precedent that matches the facts of the case at hand.
Quicken and other scrapers are generally allowed, especially, but exclusively, when it pertains publicly accessible data.
Those kinds of cases have been tried with the main argument being the exceeding of authorization under the CFAA and copyright violations.
Courts have consistently decided that scraping doesn’t rise to the levels of computer trespass in the form of exceeding the authorization given to access the computer system and that it’s not copyright violation primarily because, to put it simply, it doesn’t exceed the authorization enough and because there’s a fair use component to it.
The most recent case law on this, which happens to involve publicly available data so isn’t fully analogue with Quicken, is hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn[0]
However, there’s also case law on clauses in EULAs and ToSs that prohibit reverse engineering (like in the case of Apple’s EULAs and ToS) that says those clauses are not only enforceable but they supersede the DMCA reverse engineering exception.
In fact the case law is even more relevant for this Beeper debacle, because it also happens to pertain to a company that reverse engineered another companies software, repackaged it to then sell it for a price, like Beeper tried to do with Beeper mini for $2/mo. That case law is still good standing case law and is Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.[1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
1: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...
> HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc.
lol dude this wasn’t reverse engineering your lawn sprinklers to work with a raspberry pi. In effect this was always an abuse of services Apple funds and intends to be a value add for only their customers.
(Coming from someone who wishes Apple would just go ahead and release iMessage for android.)
lol dude this wasn’t reverse engineering your lawn sprinklers to work with a raspberry pi. In effect this was always an abuse of services Apple funds and intends to be a value add for only their customers.
(Coming from someone who wishes Apple would just go ahead and release iMessage for android.)
Invoking the CFAA for messaging interoperability is a pretty dystopian take. If it were as open and shut as you think it is, then why didn't AOL use the CFAA against Microsoft for doing exactly what Beeper is doing in MSN Messenger?
Apple is a massive company that swats away pesky threats all the time. It's like Exxon executives losing sleep over a guy with a hose siphoning gas from the corner station. From a PR standpoint they won't dignify it with a response of any kind, other than to quietly crush it to dust.
>Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place
"Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
"Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
> "Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
That's absolutely not what's happening, and I think Beeper's response here was totally correct.
There is no encryption, at all, between iOS and Android clients if the iOS user is using iMessage. And, furthermore, my understanding is that the presence of a single Android user in a group chat means nobody gets an encrypted messaging experience.
In the past, Apple's response to this has literally been "Buy your grandmother an iPhone". How can anyone not call incredible amounts of bullshit when their response to a company that actually let, for the first time, an Android user have an encrypted conversation with an iOS user as "This is unacceptable, we can't allow this" and claim it's because Apple cares about user security???
Not enough BS chutzpah in the universe for that one.
That's absolutely not what's happening, and I think Beeper's response here was totally correct.
There is no encryption, at all, between iOS and Android clients if the iOS user is using iMessage. And, furthermore, my understanding is that the presence of a single Android user in a group chat means nobody gets an encrypted messaging experience.
In the past, Apple's response to this has literally been "Buy your grandmother an iPhone". How can anyone not call incredible amounts of bullshit when their response to a company that actually let, for the first time, an Android user have an encrypted conversation with an iOS user as "This is unacceptable, we can't allow this" and claim it's because Apple cares about user security???
Not enough BS chutzpah in the universe for that one.
Nobody is MiTM'ing anything. Individuals willingly provide their credentials and only get access to their own messages - the same messages they can voluntarily take screenshots of & publish by logging into a real Apple device. Furthermore, Beeper's app runs entirely on-device with an optional cloud-hosted bridge that may not even have access to the plaintext.
It is pretty much universally frowned upon to provide your credentials to a 3rd party. Plenty of places will suspend your account if discovered you have done this. Building a product that relies on receiving user's credentials to 3rd parties is just building your company on a foundation of very dry/loose sand
To be fair, Beeper Mini operates entirely on your device, the optional cloud component is there because there's literally no other way. It's like an e-mail client, or an FTP or SSH client, or a browser. Are those considered bad now?
> Plenty of places will suspend your account if discovered you have done this.
Plenty of services base their business on restricted interoperability and suspend your account not because of security but because they'd miss out on all the "engagement" they get from the official client. This has nothing to do with security.
> Plenty of places will suspend your account if discovered you have done this.
Plenty of services base their business on restricted interoperability and suspend your account not because of security but because they'd miss out on all the "engagement" they get from the official client. This has nothing to do with security.
In the rare time I'd make a pro-Twit...er, X comment, if the platform makes its money from ads being delivered next to the content and then 3rd party comes up with a way to provide the users an ad free experience, OF COURSE they will not be happy with that. But this isn't specific to that particular platform. Any time you assist users in circumventing a method for the platform to earn money will be viewed as hostile. If you are build a product and pay a licensing fee to offset the lost earnings, then that would be potentially viewed as less hostile even if still not 100% accepted by the platform.
This isn't rocket science.
This isn't rocket science.
> Plenty of places will suspend your account if discovered you have done this.
And yet that's not the route Apple chose to take.
And yet that's not the route Apple chose to take.
if you can take out the 3rd party tempting Apple users from doing this, then Apple doesn't have to lose those users. doesn't seem very strange for them to do this. however, if it's not something that Apple could control on their end, then they probably still have the "suspend user" club in their bag
Wait until you discover how Plaid works.
I very much am aware of how Plaid works and will not use it.
Someone recently really tried to get me to use Chime. As soon as the "must use Plaid" part came up in their onboarding, I stopped immediately. It's just a shame that I had already provided Chime so much of my information just to stop there.
Someone recently really tried to get me to use Chime. As soon as the "must use Plaid" part came up in their onboarding, I stopped immediately. It's just a shame that I had already provided Chime so much of my information just to stop there.
Plaid is also bad.
Plaid is bad, but is there another way? (OAuth and PSD2 could be, and IIRC they use that for banks that support it, but many banks don't.)
Beeper's app is the MiTM. I already have to trust Apple not to abuse their privileged position re: e2e iMessage. Now I have to trust Beeper, Apple, and Apple has to continuously trust/verify Beeper. Privacy and interop are fundamentally in opposition here, and I find Beeper's PR approach regarding this to be misleading at best.
Beeper is as much of an MITM as your e-mail client is one, or your FTP client, or your SSH client, or your browser. Should those also be frowned upon? After all, they both implement a cryptographic protocol and have access to the plaintext.
You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS.
The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS.
The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
Email isn't end to end encrypted. FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client.
Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
> Email isn't end to end encrypted
E-mail can be end-to-end encrypted; you can use PGP (of which there are multiple implementations, all compatible) or some other custom cryptographic protocol. Having multiple compatible implementations does in no way prevent it from being secure.
> FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client.
I don't understand how iMessage and FTP are different? Both have a server which mediates communication between different clients. The FTP server accepts & persists files which other clients then see and can download. The iMessage server does something similar but with messages.
> Do you actually believe these things you're claiming
Yes? I believe every person should have the right to choose which software they use to interact with services, whether it's first-party, third-party, or their own creation. I don't know nor care which browser you're using to read & reply to my comments and shouldn't have a say it in in any case - whatever happens on your machine is your own business only.
I don't understand what is so extreme about my position? It's like arguing that being able to open & create Microsoft Office files in anything but a Microsoft-approved version is heresy.
E-mail can be end-to-end encrypted; you can use PGP (of which there are multiple implementations, all compatible) or some other custom cryptographic protocol. Having multiple compatible implementations does in no way prevent it from being secure.
> FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client.
I don't understand how iMessage and FTP are different? Both have a server which mediates communication between different clients. The FTP server accepts & persists files which other clients then see and can download. The iMessage server does something similar but with messages.
> Do you actually believe these things you're claiming
Yes? I believe every person should have the right to choose which software they use to interact with services, whether it's first-party, third-party, or their own creation. I don't know nor care which browser you're using to read & reply to my comments and shouldn't have a say it in in any case - whatever happens on your machine is your own business only.
I don't understand what is so extreme about my position? It's like arguing that being able to open & create Microsoft Office files in anything but a Microsoft-approved version is heresy.
>E-mail can be end-to-end encrypted; you can use PGP
SMS can be end-to-end encrypted; you can use PGP.
>I don't understand how iMessage and FTP are different?
If I get a new iPhone and set it up without restoring it from a backup and I have NOT opted into "Messages in iCloud" (I personally have not), then my entire iMessage history is unavailable to me on my new iPhone.
>I believe every person should have the right to choose which software they use to interact with services
Then you also believe that forgoing E2E encryption is an acceptable tradeoff for exercising that freedom.
>I don't understand what is so extreme about my position?
It's not that your position is extreme, it's that you don't seem to understand the consequences of that position.
SMS can be end-to-end encrypted; you can use PGP.
>I don't understand how iMessage and FTP are different?
If I get a new iPhone and set it up without restoring it from a backup and I have NOT opted into "Messages in iCloud" (I personally have not), then my entire iMessage history is unavailable to me on my new iPhone.
>I believe every person should have the right to choose which software they use to interact with services
Then you also believe that forgoing E2E encryption is an acceptable tradeoff for exercising that freedom.
>I don't understand what is so extreme about my position?
It's not that your position is extreme, it's that you don't seem to understand the consequences of that position.
> If I get a new iPhone and set it up without restoring it from a backup and I have NOT opted into "Messages in iCloud" (I personally have not), then my entire iMessage history is unavailable to me on my new iPhone.
Ok, the difference between an FTP server and the iMessage server is that iMessage only buffers the messages for a few hours (until delivered) where as FTP server would persist it for longer. That's completely irrelevant in this case though - both operate as a temporary storage space to which multiple clients owned by different parties connect to, and I still don't understand why it should be acceptable to connect a third-party client to one but not the other?
> Then you also believe that forgoing E2E encryption is an acceptable tradeoff for exercising that freedom.
If there was some technical reason why E2E wasn't possible then sure, but there's none - as both GnuPG, browsers, SSH clients, XMPP, and Beeper all demonstrate, a third-party client can just as well implement an E2E protocol, and the only reason we can't have that with iMessage is because it would compromise Apple's vendor lock-in.
> it's that you don't seem to understand the consequences of that position
Which are? I still don't understand how Beeper being out there affects me negatively as an Apple user? Even if we assume Beeper actually had some security vulnerabilities and was literally sending message contents in plain unencrypted form over an untrusted network, it still wouldn't be any worse than texting those people via SMS, which is unencrypted by design?
Ok, the difference between an FTP server and the iMessage server is that iMessage only buffers the messages for a few hours (until delivered) where as FTP server would persist it for longer. That's completely irrelevant in this case though - both operate as a temporary storage space to which multiple clients owned by different parties connect to, and I still don't understand why it should be acceptable to connect a third-party client to one but not the other?
> Then you also believe that forgoing E2E encryption is an acceptable tradeoff for exercising that freedom.
If there was some technical reason why E2E wasn't possible then sure, but there's none - as both GnuPG, browsers, SSH clients, XMPP, and Beeper all demonstrate, a third-party client can just as well implement an E2E protocol, and the only reason we can't have that with iMessage is because it would compromise Apple's vendor lock-in.
> it's that you don't seem to understand the consequences of that position
Which are? I still don't understand how Beeper being out there affects me negatively as an Apple user? Even if we assume Beeper actually had some security vulnerabilities and was literally sending message contents in plain unencrypted form over an untrusted network, it still wouldn't be any worse than texting those people via SMS, which is unencrypted by design?
This is a great illustration of how you can only take Apple's security claims seriously if you don't understand them.
One of the primary benefits of end to end encryption is that it can protect messages from an untrusted carrier. In other words, a proper encrypted messaging setup is not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks
One of the primary benefits of end to end encryption is that it can protect messages from an untrusted carrier. In other words, a proper encrypted messaging setup is not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks
>When sending and receiving Signal, iMessage and WhatsApp messages, Beeper Cloud's web service acts as a relay. For example, if you send a message from Beeper to a friend on WhatsApp, the message is encrypted on your Beeper Cloud client, sent to the Beeper Cloud web service, which decrypts and re-encrypts the message with WhatsApp's proprietary encryption protocol.
> Using native chat apps independently may be more secure than connecting to other encrypted chat networks with Beeper Cloud.
https://www.beeper.com/faq#how-does-beeper-connect-to-encryp...
Please tell me more about how Beeper can't be used as a MiTM for E2E encrypted networks like Signal.
> Using native chat apps independently may be more secure than connecting to other encrypted chat networks with Beeper Cloud.
https://www.beeper.com/faq#how-does-beeper-connect-to-encryp...
Please tell me more about how Beeper can't be used as a MiTM for E2E encrypted networks like Signal.
So is the issue that there's a cloud web service that interacts with some of the proprietary protocols? That definitely is another point of trust and it would seem weird that they do it that way, especially for protocols that aren't proprietary. For proprietary ones, this might be necessary to dodge intellectual property liability claims that could take the whole thing down, which is a great argument for not allowing security-critical proprietary code to be protected by law in this way, but that's just a plausible reason for them to have this problem, not a reason it doesn't matter
I appreciate you pointing out specifically what the problem was rather than just repeating that it was insecure, rather than how, and admit what I said was, as far as I now know, wrong
That said, what are the odds that Apple would accept a solution that was encrypted on-device? If this were feasible, would Apple still block the interoperation with their network, and do we agree on whether they'd be wrong to?
I think the main issue I see with iMessage that this highlights is that it's presented in a way that's deceptive to its users, and thus might give them a false sense of security in their messaging. An interoperating client on android is a band-aid for this problem at best, but it's a weird move to block it. I guess for now there's the plausible deniability of what appears to be a real issue though. The way Apple's messaging has addressed it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they do not make clear that what you point out is the issue
I appreciate you pointing out specifically what the problem was rather than just repeating that it was insecure, rather than how, and admit what I said was, as far as I now know, wrong
That said, what are the odds that Apple would accept a solution that was encrypted on-device? If this were feasible, would Apple still block the interoperation with their network, and do we agree on whether they'd be wrong to?
I think the main issue I see with iMessage that this highlights is that it's presented in a way that's deceptive to its users, and thus might give them a false sense of security in their messaging. An interoperating client on android is a band-aid for this problem at best, but it's a weird move to block it. I guess for now there's the plausible deniability of what appears to be a real issue though. The way Apple's messaging has addressed it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they do not make clear that what you point out is the issue
>what are the odds that Apple would accept a solution that was encrypted on-device?
We probably agree that the odds hover just above 0%
>would Apple still block the interoperation with their network, and do we agree on whether they'd be wrong to?
We could agree in principle that they would be wrong to, _if_ there were a clear path to continuously verifying that a third party client is behaving above board. Unfortunately that's just not the case. AFAIUI, this is still an intractable issue with encrypted communications. Is it an impossible problem? Probably not, but the amount of sustained effort this would require from Apple (and the 3rd parties) seems unworkable. So given that reality (I think), I don't think Apple are wrong to disallow third party clients for their E2E encrypted service.
>The way Apple's messaging has addressed it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they do not make clear that what you point out is the issue
Yeah, I don't disagree here. I can only say that this is par for the course when it comes to Apple's PR. They would basically never explicitly state that their E2E encrypted service is at risk of a MiTM attack due to third party clients. Instead we will get very generic language and be left to fill in the blanks ourselves.
We probably agree that the odds hover just above 0%
>would Apple still block the interoperation with their network, and do we agree on whether they'd be wrong to?
We could agree in principle that they would be wrong to, _if_ there were a clear path to continuously verifying that a third party client is behaving above board. Unfortunately that's just not the case. AFAIUI, this is still an intractable issue with encrypted communications. Is it an impossible problem? Probably not, but the amount of sustained effort this would require from Apple (and the 3rd parties) seems unworkable. So given that reality (I think), I don't think Apple are wrong to disallow third party clients for their E2E encrypted service.
>The way Apple's messaging has addressed it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they do not make clear that what you point out is the issue
Yeah, I don't disagree here. I can only say that this is par for the course when it comes to Apple's PR. They would basically never explicitly state that their E2E encrypted service is at risk of a MiTM attack due to third party clients. Instead we will get very generic language and be left to fill in the blanks ourselves.
Keep in mind that you are linking to the FAQ for the original Beeper (now renamed Beeper Cloud), this is a Matrix-bridge-based where the bridge and homeserver have access to the plaintext. You could still technically self-host both components if you wanted to.
Beeper Mini was a completely self-contained app that implemented the iMessage protocol on-device and did not use bridges. Its only optional cloud component was a push notification bridge that wasn't actually given the E2E keys (the cloud proxy would receive your messages but not be able to decrypt them, instead it just sends a push to wake up your device which will fetch and decrypt them).
Beeper Mini was a completely self-contained app that implemented the iMessage protocol on-device and did not use bridges. Its only optional cloud component was a push notification bridge that wasn't actually given the E2E keys (the cloud proxy would receive your messages but not be able to decrypt them, instead it just sends a push to wake up your device which will fetch and decrypt them).
The discussion of the technical details of this has such a low signal-to-noise ratio, and I think the blame for that lies mostly with companies who try to set themselves up as infrastructure but maintain significant secrecy about how their tech actually works
> Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple
Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit.
However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions.
If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions.
If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit.
However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom.
If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom.
If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay.
However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
> Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple
Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
Wouldn't this count: https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ ?
> I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here.
Beeper could definitely be prosecuted by the Feds.
Aaron Swartz is probably the most famous example of someone being prosecuted using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was merely accessing a web server without permission and wasn't even trying to turn a profit.
Beeper could definitely be prosecuted by the Feds.
Aaron Swartz is probably the most famous example of someone being prosecuted using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was merely accessing a web server without permission and wasn't even trying to turn a profit.
The question is: Would they really?
There are many instances of "adversarial interoperability" (somebody else already mentioned screen scraping of online banking for budget management tools already in a different thread), and I haven't seen the CFAA being thrown at the responsible parties all that often.
I'd be quite curious to see precedent being set here, but I doubt it'll happen. Apple has much more to lose than to gain from that:
They can play cat and mouse on the tech side as long as they want, but with all the attention and scrutiny of a lawsuit, I could see a small chance of Apple ending up having to open up their service for interoperability.
There are many instances of "adversarial interoperability" (somebody else already mentioned screen scraping of online banking for budget management tools already in a different thread), and I haven't seen the CFAA being thrown at the responsible parties all that often.
I'd be quite curious to see precedent being set here, but I doubt it'll happen. Apple has much more to lose than to gain from that:
They can play cat and mouse on the tech side as long as they want, but with all the attention and scrutiny of a lawsuit, I could see a small chance of Apple ending up having to open up their service for interoperability.
> The question is: Would they really?
If they're willing to prosecute some kid who wasn't even trying to make a profit off of his access to a web server, why wouldn't they prosecute a company for trying to sell hacked access to someone else's servers?
Also, there have been many prosecutions under this law. Aaron's case is just the most infamous example.
If they're willing to prosecute some kid who wasn't even trying to make a profit off of his access to a web server, why wouldn't they prosecute a company for trying to sell hacked access to someone else's servers?
Also, there have been many prosecutions under this law. Aaron's case is just the most infamous example.
This is totally different.
Beeper is trying to use an api to send message to users. They are not getting nor trying to get shell access to apple servers.
Beeper is trying to use an api to send message to users. They are not getting nor trying to get shell access to apple servers.
Executives, absolutely not. Apple is so opinionated and principled. Have you seen the emails that came out during recent trials where they state so clearly how much they deserve 30% of all commerce on their devices?
They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
It's not about what they believe, whether legitimately or not. It's about how the regulatory environment will react to their actions and statements.
The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions.
This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.
The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions.
This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.
As an iPhone user, I‘m pretty happy how Apple dealt with this so far.
I would hate to get spammed on iMessage and knowing that my messages are rendered exactly as intended on the receiver’s side is reassuring.
Calling this anti-consumer is rather subjective.
Calling this anti-consumer is rather subjective.
The Apple Stockholm Syndrome is endemic on HN. The lengths people will go to support open source and open access while also vehemently defending the exact opposite behavior from Apple is astounding.
It’s not Stockholm syndrome, you incorrectly assume that every iPhone owner is some kind of mini Stallman. Most people really don’t care about all this stuff, they just want a product that works well, with minimum fuss. They don’t care about third party appstores. Sideloading, open sourcing imessage and all this linux hacker stuff.
> Most people really don’t care about all this stuff, they just want a product that works well, with minimum fuss.
And nonetheless there's demonstrable harm to the broader industry being caused despite their lack of care about it. Corporate misbehavior you're not consciously aware of can still cause you harm despite not being consciously aware of it.
And nonetheless there's demonstrable harm to the broader industry being caused despite their lack of care about it. Corporate misbehavior you're not consciously aware of can still cause you harm despite not being consciously aware of it.
Sure, when it comes to things like pollution, or for Apple, child labour. But the broader industry is not harmed by Apple not releasing the Messages app for Android, that’s just silly.
> they just want a product that works well
It doesn't if it can't reliably do basic things like sending e2ee messages to people using smartphones from other brands with its default messaging app.
It doesn't if it can't reliably do basic things like sending e2ee messages to people using smartphones from other brands with its default messaging app.
is there a device that does this, or are we measuring iPhone's performance on some unrealistic standard?
I do more than enough tinkering but my phone‘s supposed to just work.
How is your tinkering enhanced by Apple making it difficult to communicate outside of their kingdom?
I don't see Google making it easier to communicate outside of their kingdom. AFAIK Google's RCS (with their encryption extensions) is not an industry standard or available for 3rd party apps to use. Why is the expectation only on Apple to make such changes?
RCS is a spec ratified by the GSMA, the same standards body that specified things like SMS. Google tried to get Apple to do RCS, they refused, then Google tried to get a license to interop with iMessage and Apple refused again. Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.
the best part is that I, as a google voice user, still don't have RCS support even though it's a google product.
google implemented the exact minimum they'd need to give them a foot to cry on in the courts, and no further. and now that there is a mandate to implement RCS, they almost certainly will choose to kill google voice rather than implement it. I am already planning my exit strategy, because otherwise they'll take my phone number with it. and this is not trivial, we are talking about buying another phone (hopefully it will make it until the next-gen iphone with N3E) and paying for two lines for a couple of months. This is a pain in the ass for me.
and google has already embrace-extend-extinguished the standard - their encryption implementation is proprietary and they've refused to let anyone interop, so essentially they have put themselves as imessage 2.0 but with google as the man in the middle this time.
google implemented the exact minimum they'd need to give them a foot to cry on in the courts, and no further. and now that there is a mandate to implement RCS, they almost certainly will choose to kill google voice rather than implement it. I am already planning my exit strategy, because otherwise they'll take my phone number with it. and this is not trivial, we are talking about buying another phone (hopefully it will make it until the next-gen iphone with N3E) and paying for two lines for a couple of months. This is a pain in the ass for me.
and google has already embrace-extend-extinguished the standard - their encryption implementation is proprietary and they've refused to let anyone interop, so essentially they have put themselves as imessage 2.0 but with google as the man in the middle this time.
> One thing that isn’t part of the [RCS standard ratified by GSMA] is the encryption standard Google is adopting. It’s building it on top of RCS right into the Android Messages client.
> If you are texting with somebody who isn’t using Android Messages (say, somebody using Samsung Messages or an iPhone), the fallback to either less-encrypted RCS chat or SMS will still work just fine.
Sounds like Samsung users need to separately download Android Messages to get E2EE.
Quotes from https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21574451/android-rcs-enc... which is cited by Wikpedia on RCS.
> If you are texting with somebody who isn’t using Android Messages (say, somebody using Samsung Messages or an iPhone), the fallback to either less-encrypted RCS chat or SMS will still work just fine.
Sounds like Samsung users need to separately download Android Messages to get E2EE.
Quotes from https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21574451/android-rcs-enc... which is cited by Wikpedia on RCS.
> Google has tried literally everything to try and get Apple to play ball here.
You're framing it in a nefarious way as if Apple is flat out denying it. They didn't. They would have to LOWER security in iPhones by implementing RCS because iMessages have E2EE but RCS doesn't. Which is something all you anti-Apple people seem to conveniently leave out, because you know nobody would take it seriously if you said it.
You're framing it in a nefarious way as if Apple is flat out denying it. They didn't. They would have to LOWER security in iPhones by implementing RCS because iMessages have E2EE but RCS doesn't. Which is something all you anti-Apple people seem to conveniently leave out, because you know nobody would take it seriously if you said it.
In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it. If Apple wants to make their own encryption they can do it, nothing stops them. Interoperability would still be better, just like in the case of Google with other RCS solutions.
Please explain how interoperability between messaging apps is possible if two different, proprietary E2EE schemes are used atop RCS.
Google's interop "solution" with the Samsung messages app is by not using encryption. Apple has that same level of support coming to iOS next year, and has also announced plans to work with GSMA on adding standardized encryption to RCS.
Google's interop "solution" with the Samsung messages app is by not using encryption. Apple has that same level of support coming to iOS next year, and has also announced plans to work with GSMA on adding standardized encryption to RCS.
I like that you put Google’s solution into apostrophes, while Apple’s current solution has the same problem, and even more. But I’m glad that we agree.
> In the thread to which you replied, somebody mentioned that it’s possible to do that on top RCS, and Google already did it
Google made a copy of iMessage since it is closed source and can talk to only to the same app. How is that better?
Google made a copy of iMessage since it is closed source and can talk to only to the same app. How is that better?
I don’t know what you talk about, because both can talk to whatever they want, because both support SMS.
Well I guess then they should let other people interop with iMessage directly, so the E2EE can be kept.
the iPhone messages app already supports unencrypted SMS though
You seem to be mistaken: https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
Apple says they will implement RCS in 2024.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/16/23964171/apple-iphone-rc...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/16/23964171/apple-iphone-rc...
Without end to end encryption, because that is not part of the standard, as the grandparent comment said
IMO they should also be made to open up. As should whatsapp and facebook messenger.
My suspicion is that someone like the EU made it clear to Apple that they would either interop or the EU would make them do so. They have finally relented to support RCS in the coming year.
I'm glad it's happening. RCS finally got widespread carrier adoption (minus encryption) and it's a big improvement over SMS!
Because this story is about Apple ?
What is good about whataboutism again ?
What is good about whataboutism again ?
[deleted]
> How is your tinkering enhanced by Apple making it difficult to communicate outside of their kingdom?
OP didn't say they tinkered on their phone - actually the total opposite. Read it again.
"I do more than enough tinkering but my phone‘s supposed to just work."
Anyway, you've missed the point that at the end of the day there's real-world benefits to many of the things people complain about. The FindMy lockout prevents phone theft (and has strong reductions in theft rates for these users). Serializing parts prevents thieves from stripping stolen phones and selling for parts. Having only one app store prevents large players with high network effect (tencent, facebook, etc) from demanding you install their app store to bypass the Apple's review/permissions process to spy on you (FB already got caught using dev credentials to do it anyway). Etc.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
I tend to agree, that a phone is not where I care to tinker in my life. Having it be secure and well-integrated is more important to me, I have a PC if I want to tinker. I can sign and sideload apps already if I want to try something (for 7 days), or getting an official dev credential extends this to 30 days. Android phones have a real problem with OS support lifespan and OEM parts availability, and I have no desire to install third-party ROMs and then spoof safetynet so I can run my bank app. Assuming that's even an option at all - Sony for example will wipe the camera's firmware when you unlock the bootloader, so it degrades a premium cameraphone to flip-phone levels.
"Not everyone wants to be stallman trying to figure out how to root their phone and spoof safetynet" is actually a great way to put it.
OP didn't say they tinkered on their phone - actually the total opposite. Read it again.
"I do more than enough tinkering but my phone‘s supposed to just work."
Anyway, you've missed the point that at the end of the day there's real-world benefits to many of the things people complain about. The FindMy lockout prevents phone theft (and has strong reductions in theft rates for these users). Serializing parts prevents thieves from stripping stolen phones and selling for parts. Having only one app store prevents large players with high network effect (tencent, facebook, etc) from demanding you install their app store to bypass the Apple's review/permissions process to spy on you (FB already got caught using dev credentials to do it anyway). Etc.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
I tend to agree, that a phone is not where I care to tinker in my life. Having it be secure and well-integrated is more important to me, I have a PC if I want to tinker. I can sign and sideload apps already if I want to try something (for 7 days), or getting an official dev credential extends this to 30 days. Android phones have a real problem with OS support lifespan and OEM parts availability, and I have no desire to install third-party ROMs and then spoof safetynet so I can run my bank app. Assuming that's even an option at all - Sony for example will wipe the camera's firmware when you unlock the bootloader, so it degrades a premium cameraphone to flip-phone levels.
"Not everyone wants to be stallman trying to figure out how to root their phone and spoof safetynet" is actually a great way to put it.
Those are not contradictory viewpoints anymore being pro housing but not wanting random homeless people in your house while you’re away isn’t contradictory either.
Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless.
The fake spam complaint is addressed in the article.
The fake spam complaint is addressed in the article.
I’m likely wrong here but isn’t that a problem with SMS and not necessarily iMessage?
I can exchange MMS to other Android users (and it's MMS, not RCS) that aren't ridiculously compressed, so I've always assumed it was Apple.
MMS limitations stem from the carrier. They have different attachment size limits which affects how Messages will encode the content.
[deleted]
This is absolutely, unconditonally untrue. I can send a message to an Android user just fine. SMS is delivered as it is anywhere else. Pictures go through fine - my partner and I can, and do, regularly share pictures without any issue at all.
Why hyperbolize things and spread outright nonsense? To what possible end?
Why hyperbolize things and spread outright nonsense? To what possible end?
I experience the issues described when texting android users.
MMS in 2023 is not an acceptable fallback. We all have cameras capable of shooting amazing pictures and 4k movies.
The size limit destroys decent looking pictures and basically prevents movies from even being an option with how grainy they appear stretched out on our 4k screens.
This is ignoring all the other interactive elements that are just table stakes in any kind of messaging application that make SMS absolutely terrible in comparison.
The size limit destroys decent looking pictures and basically prevents movies from even being an option with how grainy they appear stretched out on our 4k screens.
This is ignoring all the other interactive elements that are just table stakes in any kind of messaging application that make SMS absolutely terrible in comparison.
If you do don’t like mms, don’t use it, there are tons of alternatives. I have half a dozen chat apps.
> Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless.
Sure and it is absolutely obvious on my side because these contacts don’t show blue messages. Take that away and the situation turns worse because now I‘d have to guess.
Edit: don’t get me wrong - I don‘t send broken messages, I just contact them on other messengers instead.
Sure and it is absolutely obvious on my side because these contacts don’t show blue messages. Take that away and the situation turns worse because now I‘d have to guess.
Edit: don’t get me wrong - I don‘t send broken messages, I just contact them on other messengers instead.
It's obvious to you but not obvious to your average iPhone user which is why I get videos with 3 pixels sent to me repeatedly. On the flip side I can mms videos with acceptable resolution just fine. It's all just to try and keep people in the system, not because it's a better user experience.
Bullshit. AT&T limits MMS videos to 1 MB, Verizon to between 1 MB and 3.5 MB depending on the sender, T-Mobile/Sprint 1 MB to 3 MB depending. If you're getting "acceptable resolution" H.264 videos they're being sent over RCS.
This comment makes no sense - I'm an iPhone user and receive spam almost daily. And if it's reassuring to know that your messages are rendered correctly, Beeper Mini would only expand the number of contacts that this applies to.
How exactly is Beeper worsening the iPhone experience?
How exactly is Beeper worsening the iPhone experience?
> Calling this anti-consumer is rather subjective.
This is the entire fiasco distilled down to what is the root of the issue: to apple, non-apple users are not consumers. Substandard. This is the exact sentiment behind "Buy your mom an iPhone"
Messaging is by definition something that needs interop. This is why Apple (begrudgingly) supports at least SMS and MMS, because obviously you need to interop with "the others." It's also why they're being dragged kicking and screaming into RCS, which in all likelihood, they'll make equally shitty.
The fact that one company can dictate the terms of that interoperability, and make it as excruciating and inferior as possible, tells you all you need to know. But if you're the "in group" you can't even see what the issue even is.
This is the entire fiasco distilled down to what is the root of the issue: to apple, non-apple users are not consumers. Substandard. This is the exact sentiment behind "Buy your mom an iPhone"
Messaging is by definition something that needs interop. This is why Apple (begrudgingly) supports at least SMS and MMS, because obviously you need to interop with "the others." It's also why they're being dragged kicking and screaming into RCS, which in all likelihood, they'll make equally shitty.
The fact that one company can dictate the terms of that interoperability, and make it as excruciating and inferior as possible, tells you all you need to know. But if you're the "in group" you can't even see what the issue even is.
Actually you are correct. I confused consumers and customers.
Are you okay with Apple not supporting RCS on their phones? As far as I can tell, that strictly worsens your experience as a user.
I was not familiar with RCS yet but according to Wikipedia, Apple will begin to support RCS in 2024.
On the other hand, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that it is going to be a polished experience: „Not all RCS functions defined in the standard are offered by every network and every client; only the services that are available to two communication partners are also offered in the client.“ (translated from the German Wikipedia article).
On the other hand, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that it is going to be a polished experience: „Not all RCS functions defined in the standard are offered by every network and every client; only the services that are available to two communication partners are also offered in the client.“ (translated from the German Wikipedia article).
That's one of the point of the article. It's not known whether the RCS implementation of apple will be interoperable with Android's.
I’ve had iPhones for ten years and never once cared about RCS. Never even heard of it until recently, and I don’t think anyone I know has ever heard of it. It’s very very niche to care at all about it.
While "RCS" is an obscure standard nobody cares about, "being able to send reactions, high-res photos, videos, and voice memos in text messages" is a pretty universal concern. iPhone support for RCS would let iPhone users have those features in conversations with the green-messages.
I never once wished I was able to do that, the only application for that would be to communicate with android users that for some reason refuse to use whatsapp, fb messages, telegram or any of the numerous cross platform that do that. Why would anyone want to do this specifically using the sms protocol?
Dating :upside_down_face:
Also, some of my friends and family aren't on those apps and exclusively use SMS/iMessage.
Also, some of my friends and family aren't on those apps and exclusively use SMS/iMessage.
The point is that I don’t care about doing these things specifically over SMS. I send photos, voice memos etc over apps like whatsapp. It wouldn’t improve my life one iota to be able to do that with some legacy protocol.
What people care about is doing these things over something that is universal enough. In some places WhatsApp is so pervasive that it's that; in others, a mandated standard like SMS or RCS is the best you can hope for.
Whatsapp is universally available as far as I know. If people choose not to use a universally available, free and secure alternative, it would seem that universality is not the main driving factor.
Network effects are a thing. Mere availability of WhatsApp (or Signal, or whatever) doesn't do you any good if all the people you actually need to talk to don't have it installed.
Spam is a lame excuse.
From what I have understood in the first beeper mini anonucement, iMessage spam does already exist.
Also I never received spam on any open source messaging app, even when they were interconnected with gmail and facebook (xmpp). I've never received spam from telegram either, despite clients, protocol and API being open source. I have received less than a handful of spam on Whatsapp in more than 10 years. The only platform where I have received spam in their messaging app was instagram (I left in the meantime). It would be the same for iMessage. As long as spam is bound to a phone number, spammers will be banned the minute they start sending messages to people and will never reach you.
Spam however is a big deal on SMS, which if I understand correctly end up on iMessage on Apple devices.
So basically the Apple way is the worse way to deal with spam as all end up on the same app while on most other smartphone OS spam end up in the dedicated SMS messaging app that you can just totally ignore and disable notifications for. Apple does make it worse for its user in that context.
From what I have understood in the first beeper mini anonucement, iMessage spam does already exist.
Also I never received spam on any open source messaging app, even when they were interconnected with gmail and facebook (xmpp). I've never received spam from telegram either, despite clients, protocol and API being open source. I have received less than a handful of spam on Whatsapp in more than 10 years. The only platform where I have received spam in their messaging app was instagram (I left in the meantime). It would be the same for iMessage. As long as spam is bound to a phone number, spammers will be banned the minute they start sending messages to people and will never reach you.
Spam however is a big deal on SMS, which if I understand correctly end up on iMessage on Apple devices.
So basically the Apple way is the worse way to deal with spam as all end up on the same app while on most other smartphone OS spam end up in the dedicated SMS messaging app that you can just totally ignore and disable notifications for. Apple does make it worse for its user in that context.
Please drink verification can and continue.
Anyone unsure what this means: it's a popular meme where the future of cloud/online gaming will degrade to cross-sell products maliciously. (Requiring the user to drink a sugary soft drink to continue using the product).
Anyone unsure what this means: it's a popular meme where the future of cloud/online gaming will degrade to cross-sell products maliciously. (Requiring the user to drink a sugary soft drink to continue using the product).
[deleted]
I'm increasingly of the belief that the plan was to become a nuisance so that Apple buys them out, to be accompanied by an incredible journey blog post, so proud of what we've done, excited about what comes next, etc., and then quietly dissolve the whole operation.
Why would Apple buy them? What value could they provide to Apple?
Not being a nuisance.
I guess beeper users will wear out and give up before Apple need to buy them.
That is a fantasy.
I don't think the founders need any more money.
There are many people who "don't need any more money" but are still working day and night to make more money. For example, Satya or Tim Apple.
Judging by their current projects I'd make the argument that Brad and Eric are working day and night to make things they find cool, even if it loses money.
Have you heard Eric talk about beeper? He genuinely believes that beeper is the future of message apps. He keeps saying that beeper is the only company that is completely focused on building a messaging app, and thats why they will win. He is simply deluded.
I am a very happy customer of Beeper. It's a hard task and they're basically doing it for free. And all of my chats are more or less in one app. I even have my iMessage access back today.
So I'll say that I get where you're coming from, but also, I believe him and Brad!
So I'll say that I get where you're coming from, but also, I believe him and Brad!
That’s great for you, but none of that contradicts the fact that he is deluded. And also, they are not doing it for free, they have taken in and burnt millions of dollars of investor money.
What are you on about? You can go on Crunchbase right now and see they've only raised a seed round for $125k. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/beeper/company_finan...
Everything else came out of their pockets or from the super early customers who paid before launch, before they started offering their service for free.
In case you're unaware, these folks made Pebble. Their finances are probably fine.
Everything else came out of their pockets or from the super early customers who paid before launch, before they started offering their service for free.
In case you're unaware, these folks made Pebble. Their finances are probably fine.
They have raised $16m, and I am very aware of who they are. I have talked extensively with both Eric and Brad. They are nice guys, but Beeper is definitely based on a delusion, Beeper Mini even more so.
Some people said it was 4D chess, a brilliant marketing ploy, but after 3-4 iterations I think we can all agree that was not the case. They genuinely believed that Beeper Mini would fly.
There is nothing sinister about being deluded, as a startup founder you might say it's a prerequisite. But nonetheless, they are.
Some people said it was 4D chess, a brilliant marketing ploy, but after 3-4 iterations I think we can all agree that was not the case. They genuinely believed that Beeper Mini would fly.
There is nothing sinister about being deluded, as a startup founder you might say it's a prerequisite. But nonetheless, they are.
When I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong, Pitchbook's data does differ.
I agree that they believed in Beeper Mini being a reasonable strategy, I'm not contesting that. It definitely wasn't just marketing, they really wanted to bring iMessage to everyone.
But I don't see how Beeper (or the other parts of Beeper Mini) are a delusion. Having a close-enough interface to all of the relevant chat networks is great. It works well and is relatively sustainable, especially if you're targeting the least common denominator of features plus a couple additional things.
iMessage isn't the reason I use Beeper. It's a very cool feature, but I paid for Beeper before I figured out how to register my phone number with iMessage, and I'd still have done so even if I never used iMessage at all.
I agree that they believed in Beeper Mini being a reasonable strategy, I'm not contesting that. It definitely wasn't just marketing, they really wanted to bring iMessage to everyone.
But I don't see how Beeper (or the other parts of Beeper Mini) are a delusion. Having a close-enough interface to all of the relevant chat networks is great. It works well and is relatively sustainable, especially if you're targeting the least common denominator of features plus a couple additional things.
iMessage isn't the reason I use Beeper. It's a very cool feature, but I paid for Beeper before I figured out how to register my phone number with iMessage, and I'd still have done so even if I never used iMessage at all.
And yet, people like Musk and Bezos keep trying to make more money.
Musk, and probably Bezos, have goals that were previously only attainable by nation-states, which require nation-state-sized budgets.
> Musk, and probably Bezos, have goals that were previously only attainable by nation-states, which require nation-state-sized budgets.
A Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan discusses this a bit, not Musk and Bezos, but the cost of exploring space and his hope that space exploration was finally what would bring various nation states and humanity together. The irony is not lost on me that instead of bringing humanity and democracy to space, we instead brought back kings.
A Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan discusses this a bit, not Musk and Bezos, but the cost of exploring space and his hope that space exploration was finally what would bring various nation states and humanity together. The irony is not lost on me that instead of bringing humanity and democracy to space, we instead brought back kings.
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I feel like humanity is a long way from our collective advancements being used for altruism. Space represents new territory to conquer. Smartphones aren't being used as the windows into global enlightenment, but more so as a means to spread hate and misinformation in manners that benefit the powers that be. Any of these things are relatively agnostic and still hold promise for the optimistic, but humanity needs a lot of growth for those dreams to be realized.
> Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I feel like humanity is a long way from our collective advancements being used for altruism.
There’s less people in poverty than there ever has been in human history. Even with ongoing global conflicts, the world is still existing in one of the most peaceful times in human history. Could we do better? Of course. Are some people left out? Definitely. Humans as a whole are relatively young however, and we’re still figuring things out.
> Space represents new territory to conquer.
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”
~ Carl Sagan
What is there to conquer in infinity..? The idea that space is new territory to conquer is more of a reflection of the state of humanity than actual reality.
> Smartphones aren't being used as the windows into global enlightenment, but more so as a means to spread hate and misinformation in manners that benefit the powers that be.
This is true, that said, smartphones have also empowered people to learn new languages, collaborate on Wikipedia, and share lives across space and time. It’s easy to get lost in the noise of everything humanity does wrong. That’s only because no one is talking about what humanity does right.
> Any of these things are relatively agnostic and still hold promise for the optimistic, but humanity needs a lot of growth for those dreams to be realized.
It is my hope that humanity never stops growing and learning how to better itself.
There’s less people in poverty than there ever has been in human history. Even with ongoing global conflicts, the world is still existing in one of the most peaceful times in human history. Could we do better? Of course. Are some people left out? Definitely. Humans as a whole are relatively young however, and we’re still figuring things out.
> Space represents new territory to conquer.
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”
~ Carl Sagan
What is there to conquer in infinity..? The idea that space is new territory to conquer is more of a reflection of the state of humanity than actual reality.
> Smartphones aren't being used as the windows into global enlightenment, but more so as a means to spread hate and misinformation in manners that benefit the powers that be.
This is true, that said, smartphones have also empowered people to learn new languages, collaborate on Wikipedia, and share lives across space and time. It’s easy to get lost in the noise of everything humanity does wrong. That’s only because no one is talking about what humanity does right.
> Any of these things are relatively agnostic and still hold promise for the optimistic, but humanity needs a lot of growth for those dreams to be realized.
It is my hope that humanity never stops growing and learning how to better itself.
“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.”
~ William Gibson (The Economist, December 4, 2003)
~ William Gibson (The Economist, December 4, 2003)
Does Apple?
For those who missed the incredible journey reference: https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
Totally agree, it has been fun to follow, but I really don't hope that this stunt destroys for the awesome product Beeper Cloud is. As an European user I couldn't care less about blue and green bubbles, all of my communication goes through FB messenger or Snap, only exception is the occasional SMS from old relatives without other platforms.
They should do Google Messages next. Isn't there still not an API to integrate third party chat into Google's walled RCS garden?
Apple says they will implement RCS in 2024.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
Later next year, we will be adding support for RCS Universal Profile, the
standard as currently published by the GSM Association. We believe RCS
Universal Profile will offer a better interoperability experience when
compared to SMS or MMS. This will work alongside iMessage, which will
continue to be the best and most secure messaging experience for Apple users.The article addresses this.
> Just one year ago, Tim Cook had this to say about RCS: "I don't hear our users asking that we put a lot of energy in on that at this point. […] Buy your mom an iPhone.”
> Long story short, I will believe it when I see it. Apple has a long history of claiming they will support an open standard, then failing to add support. In 2010, Steve Jobs promised that Apple ‘would make FaceTime an open industry standard’. That never happened. More recently, in 2021, Apple promised to open their Find My network to competitors like Tile. Instead, they’ve penalized Tile by additional warnings in front of their app.
> Just one year ago, Tim Cook had this to say about RCS: "I don't hear our users asking that we put a lot of energy in on that at this point. […] Buy your mom an iPhone.”
> Long story short, I will believe it when I see it. Apple has a long history of claiming they will support an open standard, then failing to add support. In 2010, Steve Jobs promised that Apple ‘would make FaceTime an open industry standard’. That never happened. More recently, in 2021, Apple promised to open their Find My network to competitors like Tile. Instead, they’ve penalized Tile by additional warnings in front of their app.
Some smoothly disingenuous rhetoric going on there.
WRT FaceTime - turns out video calling had patent encumbrances. Apple was sued for massive amounts as soon as they rolled out FaceTime on their own devices. The VirNetX saga just wrapped up earlier this year. [0]
And Apple has opened up their Find My Network. [1] Other trackers, such as Chipolo, are making use of it. [2] Also, Apple and Google just today published the latest revision of a cross-platform spec to detect unwanted location trackers regardless of which network you’re using. [3]
[0] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-wins-reversal-of-...
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-networ...
[2] https://chipolo.net/en-us/products/category/chipolo-spot
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-detecting-unwanted-lo...
WRT FaceTime - turns out video calling had patent encumbrances. Apple was sued for massive amounts as soon as they rolled out FaceTime on their own devices. The VirNetX saga just wrapped up earlier this year. [0]
And Apple has opened up their Find My Network. [1] Other trackers, such as Chipolo, are making use of it. [2] Also, Apple and Google just today published the latest revision of a cross-platform spec to detect unwanted location trackers regardless of which network you’re using. [3]
[0] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-wins-reversal-of-...
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-networ...
[2] https://chipolo.net/en-us/products/category/chipolo-spot
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-detecting-unwanted-lo...
Beeper Cloud has had google messages support since at least September.
Is that an official API, or a hacked implementation like their iMessage client?
>I've had a hard time guessing their intent
They were selling a service for $2/month. Did everyone forget that? For essentially a tosser app that could quickly be a pretty lucrative amount of money.
There is some white knight narrative that has suddenly arisen that isn't based in reality. That these guys are freedom fighters that just wanted to take on Goliath. In reality they're capitalists who saw a way to make money off of a proof of concept, and (ridiculously) thought they could shame the target into not taking obvious actions to squash them.
They were selling a service for $2/month. Did everyone forget that? For essentially a tosser app that could quickly be a pretty lucrative amount of money.
There is some white knight narrative that has suddenly arisen that isn't based in reality. That these guys are freedom fighters that just wanted to take on Goliath. In reality they're capitalists who saw a way to make money off of a proof of concept, and (ridiculously) thought they could shame the target into not taking obvious actions to squash them.
They stopped charging almost immediately, as soon as the iMessage functionality was broken, and never started again. This is a strawman.
They literally released this as a commercial service for $2/month. That they removed fees temporarily while it was completely broken does not make my statement of absolute, verifiable, incontestable fact a "strawman".
History isn't rewritten because they lost.
History isn't rewritten because they lost.
Fair enough. I don’t disagree they saw it as a way to make some money.
I took your comment to imply that as a result of charging, their goal in fighting Apple was to “get back to charging $2/mo” which is a pretty surface-level statement. Their goal is to get iMessage on Android phones. I honestly doubt they’d care if they were the ones who eventually did it, as the main thing they eventually plan on making money off of is Beeper, not Beeper Mini.
I took your comment to imply that as a result of charging, their goal in fighting Apple was to “get back to charging $2/mo” which is a pretty surface-level statement. Their goal is to get iMessage on Android phones. I honestly doubt they’d care if they were the ones who eventually did it, as the main thing they eventually plan on making money off of is Beeper, not Beeper Mini.
If this was any where near the truth, they would not have started charging at all. It would have been released as a free app to gain traction, and then start charging money for it. They fact that they started charging on such a slippery app shows it was a cash grab
Based on my reading of their post where they announced it was free…
> We’ve made Beeper free to use. Things have been a bit chaotic, and we’re not comfortable subjecting paying users to this. As soon as things stabilize (we hope they will), we’ll look at turning on subscriptions again.
… and based on my reading of their jobs page …
> *How will Beeper make money?* > > We charge our users a $10/monthly paid subscription service. Our pricing model allows Beeper to deliver a great product and service, while eliminating any need to profit by monetizing user data.
… and the affirmation of that on their homepage …
> Our business model is simple - we build a great app and earn money from those who find value in it.
… I’m not sure where the narrative that their goal was anything other than to make money is coming from. They’re a business with a potentially useful product and full-time salaried employees.
> We’ve made Beeper free to use. Things have been a bit chaotic, and we’re not comfortable subjecting paying users to this. As soon as things stabilize (we hope they will), we’ll look at turning on subscriptions again.
… and based on my reading of their jobs page …
> *How will Beeper make money?* > > We charge our users a $10/monthly paid subscription service. Our pricing model allows Beeper to deliver a great product and service, while eliminating any need to profit by monetizing user data.
… and the affirmation of that on their homepage …
> Our business model is simple - we build a great app and earn money from those who find value in it.
… I’m not sure where the narrative that their goal was anything other than to make money is coming from. They’re a business with a potentially useful product and full-time salaried employees.
> In reality they're capitalists who saw a way to make money off of a proof of concept, and (ridiculously) thought they could shame the target into not taking obvious actions to squash them.
The "target" here is also literally the largest company in the world, whose executives have been discussing since 2013 about how to lock families into an iPhone monopoly that costs thousands of dollars a year by restricting iMessage [1].
There are no white knights here (it's all a money game), but Beeper's stance isn't as one-sided and ridiculous as you're making it out to be.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609/ph...
The "target" here is also literally the largest company in the world, whose executives have been discussing since 2013 about how to lock families into an iPhone monopoly that costs thousands of dollars a year by restricting iMessage [1].
There are no white knights here (it's all a money game), but Beeper's stance isn't as one-sided and ridiculous as you're making it out to be.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609/ph...
I said that Beeper saw a business opportunity to make money. This is without question. You're posing a false dichotomy that therefore I'm somehow sainting Apple or something, which simply isn't true: Apple absolutely is out to make money (humorously a couple of days ago I called Apple one of the greediest companies -- in a bad way -- ever, and my comment was flagged which...rofl), and absolutely no one doubts that. No one is claiming that Apple are the white knights in this or any other situation.
What does tosser app mean in this context?
It is a simple app, and is yet another of literally thousands of chat apps. The single compelling reason why it would be in a position of charging fees is purely because it backdoored into Apple services (which Apple of course bears the burden of), using Apple device identifiers to access it. The value they were trying to convert to cash was Apple's.
I didn't realize making an app like beeper was so simple, can you recommend your favorite alternative? The other 3rd party apps I've tried to use for FB tend to have lots of problems (eg missing/delayed notifications, rendering issues).
But... It wasn't simple. No other app has been able to create the bridge they created. We all saw their initial trending HW post and the impressive technical breakdown.
If it were simple many others would have done this by now.
If it were simple many others would have done this by now.
>If it were simple many others would have done this by now.
Would they? Not only was it obviously going to get crushed by Apple (this isn't some 20/20 hindsight -- when they first announced this I stated exactly what they were doing and exactly the reasons why it would be easily squashed), it's actually completely illegal!. Like if Apple were so inclined they could actually demand legal action of the criminal kind. Apple has been incredibly soft-handed about this whole thing.
Would they? Not only was it obviously going to get crushed by Apple (this isn't some 20/20 hindsight -- when they first announced this I stated exactly what they were doing and exactly the reasons why it would be easily squashed), it's actually completely illegal!. Like if Apple were so inclined they could actually demand legal action of the criminal kind. Apple has been incredibly soft-handed about this whole thing.
Incredibly early user of beeper here. I actually didn't use it for iMessage at all. The Matrix Bridge system they used (bridge slack, discord, sms, etc) to allow all of my communications into a single app had real complexity. My biggest concern was the front end -- the simpler part of the app -- wasn't very good. The back end had complexity if you ignore the iMessage bridge.
Then why on earth did they do this? If this is really unambiguously and completely illegal they are just going to get eviscerated and bled dry. And they would have known that. They aren't dumb.
I could just as easily claim there is more of a "they are just capitalists trying to sell a white knight narrative" narrative than an actual white knight narrative.
They're a smaller business that wants to make money, but Apple doesn't want to play fair. I agree with this part of their blog:
“Apple is within their rights to run iMessage how they see fit”
This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice.
They're a smaller business that wants to make money, but Apple doesn't want to play fair. I agree with this part of their blog:
“Apple is within their rights to run iMessage how they see fit”
This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice.
> Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation.
Must? You're really going to need to provide some actual citations there. Tortured interpretations of anti-trust laws do not count.
Must? You're really going to need to provide some actual citations there. Tortured interpretations of anti-trust laws do not count.
Yes, there is only the official app to send sms. Do you think anyone cares? Have you ever heard anyone yearn for a third party app to send texts?
Look up some alternative SMS clients on the Play Store and you will see there is a market for it. People on forums have been also complaining about there being no way to do this with RCS.
Sure, there are all kinds of people in the world, but would that group represent more or leas than 1% of users?
You wouldn't know how much demand there could be till you build it, iterate and innovate. You can't ever do that if regulations stifle it completely.
I don't care. But I'd rather live in a world where tinkerers can tinker away since I imagine they'll be able to make something I would care about later as a consumer.
I don't care. But I'd rather live in a world where tinkerers can tinker away since I imagine they'll be able to make something I would care about later as a consumer.
My best guess is probably goint to be more than 1% in markets where SMS is commonly used. Not by much, but more than 1%. Maybe 2-3% tops.
Look up some alternative SMS clients on the Play Store and you will see there is a market for it. People on forums have been also complaining about there being no way to do this with RCS.
> I've had a hard time guessing their intent.
They say in the post that they will focus on their own chat app going forward. This is their last attempt at making Beeper work.
They say in the post that they will focus on their own chat app going forward. This is their last attempt at making Beeper work.
>Beeper Mini stuff seems to be almost an elaborate marketing stunt
Imagine if they knew for some time the cutoff date from Apple so they released mini just before to ride the PR tsunami, That would be nice.
Imagine if they knew for some time the cutoff date from Apple so they released mini just before to ride the PR tsunami, That would be nice.
> The tone feels a bit like they've been surprised by Apple's response?
What they say and how they really feel aren't necessarily the same thing
What they say and how they really feel aren't necessarily the same thing
[deleted]
Just in case Eric sees this -- We're an Apple household, but I have to use a PC for work. Beeper has allowed me to extend iMessage elegantly to my work computers and works MUCH better than the alternatives. Their new solution works well for me as we have a Mac Mini always on at home. Using the registration code with Beeper's servers makes the whole thing more performant than any other alternative. I'd gladly pay them for the service.
Slightly OT but I’d recommend just not doing any personal texting on a work device, whether encrypted or not
With employers, you just never know - take the extra step and use your phone
With employers, you just never know - take the extra step and use your phone
Imagine unironically describing your family as an "Apple household".
I only mean to say we have a boatload of Apple products. All started with parents having iPhones. Eventually Apple Watches and AirPods because they work well with iPhones. Got smaller kids Apple Watches so we could track/contact them Eventually gave them our old iPhones, allowing us to control them with Screentime. Several Apple TVs and HomePods so we can all elegantly control them with our iPhones, and of course an Apple One subscription for shared iCloud storage, Apple Music and Arcade. Family controls smarthome through HomeKit.
Believe it or not, I’m not an Apple fanboy. It’s just that once you have an iPhone, the system really works well together. If I had an Android, I could not approve app requests or downtime extensions from the kids. I couldn’t instantly control the Apple TV. I’d have to use hacky workarounds for the HomePods. And, yes, absent Beeper the family would have to start using a different messaging app, which neither my wife nor girls would want to do.
I wouldn’t say we’re brand loyal. If other products worked as well, we’d buy them. I’ve tried several Samsung phones over the years, but I always come back given the friction above. Apple makes nice products that work well together. We’re an Apple household.
Believe it or not, I’m not an Apple fanboy. It’s just that once you have an iPhone, the system really works well together. If I had an Android, I could not approve app requests or downtime extensions from the kids. I couldn’t instantly control the Apple TV. I’d have to use hacky workarounds for the HomePods. And, yes, absent Beeper the family would have to start using a different messaging app, which neither my wife nor girls would want to do.
I wouldn’t say we’re brand loyal. If other products worked as well, we’d buy them. I’ve tried several Samsung phones over the years, but I always come back given the friction above. Apple makes nice products that work well together. We’re an Apple household.
That's what Apple sells, association with a brand.
I've been waiting for the dust to settle, but i imagine i'll do the same. Are you able to automate that registration process? Does it require anything manual?
I'm also curious to find out how it works for multiple users on a single computer.
edit: I also wonder what the cheapest mini i can get is. Probably some used market? Hmm
I'm also curious to find out how it works for multiple users on a single computer.
edit: I also wonder what the cheapest mini i can get is. Probably some used market? Hmm
I believe Beeper cloud running on the Mac handles the renewals automatically, but I haven't seen it yet (nor would I?).
I don’t know if there are any minis up on the site, but Apple has a refurb store that is usually pretty solid on price (or was last time I looked). Pawn shops aren’t a bad idea either - typically heavily marked down electronics, and if you find little ones tucked in next to bodegas you can find some unexpectedly good electronics.
This is interesting…
Would it be possible for you to ssh into that Mac mini and generate imessages from the command line ?
You wouldn’t need beeper for that, would you?
Genuinely curious…
Would it be possible for you to ssh into that Mac mini and generate imessages from the command line ?
You wouldn’t need beeper for that, would you?
Genuinely curious…
Yes it is possible https://github.com/CamHenlin/imessageclient
Or if you don't mind disabling SIP https://docs.mau.fi/bridges/go/imessage/mac-nosip/setup.html
Or if you don't mind disabling SIP https://docs.mau.fi/bridges/go/imessage/mac-nosip/setup.html
[deleted]
Phone Link on Windows works with iMessage. No need to use a 3rd party.
Windows 11 only, and no chat history. Also, Beeper integrates full functionality like reactions and typing indicators. It also does neat things like auto-copy approval codes. They really have put together some nice software.
I guess I’m the only one here that remembers BBM. That was before WhatsApp, Signal, RCS, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, or any of the other options we have today. It was also one of the few ways to message someone internationally without paying for international texts.
People wanted to be on BBM, but you couldn’t without both a BlackBerry and having BBM services activated on your cell plan (often for a premium).
Iirc, BB Messenger was centralized and managed all accounts (email, sms, BBM) and could upgrade sms to BBM if contacting another blackberry user. RIM was sitting on a gold mine but they didn’t use it right and then released BBM on Android (and iPhone, I think) only after the world had moved on and no one cared.
People wanted to be on BBM, but you couldn’t without both a BlackBerry and having BBM services activated on your cell plan (often for a premium).
Iirc, BB Messenger was centralized and managed all accounts (email, sms, BBM) and could upgrade sms to BBM if contacting another blackberry user. RIM was sitting on a gold mine but they didn’t use it right and then released BBM on Android (and iPhone, I think) only after the world had moved on and no one cared.
Why would you think you're the only one who remembers that?
BBM on the BB devices used efficient transport separate from the normal IP support of the network, which is why it was viewed as premium service by the carriers. iOS does something similar as a transport for APNs (and thus iMessages) with two important differences: Apple has somehow managed to convince most carriers to not bill that as premium service and can sidestep the carriers that would want to bill that as a premium service (that is the core of what the “Additional rates may apply” message in the iOS activation/onboarding process refers to, it involves few round-trips to Apple servers over SMS). BBM on Android did not do any kind of these optimizations and thus was somewhat of a battery hog (that would not fly on iPhone, so I assume it used APNS there).
APNs just travels over regular IP, no? It must on non-mobile devices which support it (Watch, iPad, TV, Mac, etc)
Are you confusing Apple Push Notification service (APNs) for mobile Access Point Name (APN)?
Are you confusing Apple Push Notification service (APNs) for mobile Access Point Name (APN)?
APNs opens a TCP connection to Apple to receive pushes
Using iMessage on an iPhone 4 circa 2011 in other countries required a monthly surcharge.
Blackberry thought BBM was their moat, and for a while it did seem that way. Teenagers worldwide were buying what had been a boring business phone just to get a BBM ID. Then some shinier phones came along and turned out no one really cared about which app they used for texting.
It's sad to see how Apple behaved here. Kudos to Beeper for fighting the fight, their entire team spent sleepless nights to find solution after solution.
Although personally I thought Apple wouldn't try to block them because it might look bad with with a potential antitrust case, this is sort of why we haven't tried moving to Windows or Android at Texts.com
I'm glad to see Beeper getting back to focusing trying to make the best chat app in the world, we aren't Apple but we'll fight like Apple for that claim ^^
Although personally I thought Apple wouldn't try to block them because it might look bad with with a potential antitrust case, this is sort of why we haven't tried moving to Windows or Android at Texts.com
I'm glad to see Beeper getting back to focusing trying to make the best chat app in the world, we aren't Apple but we'll fight like Apple for that claim ^^
It’s apple’s own private system and infrastructure and they’re within their rights to control content delivered using that system. It’s not free for them to operate.
I have seen lots of comments like “well we need some kind of solution to this problem, whether it’s Apple launching an android app or a 3rd party”, and to be honest with you, I don’t even understand the problem. Maybe it’s cause I’m not from the US and can’t wrap my head around the social implications of message bubble hues?
I have seen lots of comments like “well we need some kind of solution to this problem, whether it’s Apple launching an android app or a 3rd party”, and to be honest with you, I don’t even understand the problem. Maybe it’s cause I’m not from the US and can’t wrap my head around the social implications of message bubble hues?
You're missing a couple important things:
- It's not just bubble colors, those don't matter. What does matter is that image and especially video quality are absolute crap when texting between iPhone and Android, and almost all iPhone users in the US use iMessage instead of another platform like Whatsapp, so the experience tends to suck on both ends when texting between an iPhone and Android. It's all for vendor lock-in and it helps no one but Apple. Look up the "buy your mom an iPhone" bit.
- Not everyone cares about the private property rights of a trillion dollar corporation. I definitely don't! I think Apple can get fucked, and I think it's cool if people find ways to exploit their APIs to do things Apple doesn't want them to do.
- It's not just bubble colors, those don't matter. What does matter is that image and especially video quality are absolute crap when texting between iPhone and Android, and almost all iPhone users in the US use iMessage instead of another platform like Whatsapp, so the experience tends to suck on both ends when texting between an iPhone and Android. It's all for vendor lock-in and it helps no one but Apple. Look up the "buy your mom an iPhone" bit.
- Not everyone cares about the private property rights of a trillion dollar corporation. I definitely don't! I think Apple can get fucked, and I think it's cool if people find ways to exploit their APIs to do things Apple doesn't want them to do.
What does matter is that image and especially video quality are
absolute crap when texting between iPhone and Android
Oh. You mean MMS sucks? Why don't you complain to your carrier then? As of 2023 American carriers support attachments of roughly one megabyte. But the CTIA recommended supporting attachments of at least five megabytes… *checks notes*… back in 2013.
Remind me why this is an Apple issue?
I think Apple can get fucked
You forgot about video.
Nah. The CTIA recommended support for H.264 video in 2013. But a megabyte of H.264 isn't going to get you very far. There's no technical limitation here on size or format since MMS is just SOAP over WAP and SMTP. That's why you see the odd MMS provider supporting OGG and whatnot.
The poor MMS experience is entirely down to carriers creating a mess of it, just like they did with RCS. Or have you forgot that T-Mobile had to run (and probably still is, but I'm too lazy to check) both a Google and non-Google RCS stack to get a semblance of interoperability?
Here's Verizon's list of supported file formats:
https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-15892/
Wanna bet that they mean MPEG 4 part 2 and not MPEG 4 part 10?
Not sending high quality video via MMS isn't an Apple issue, it's a carrier one.
The poor MMS experience is entirely down to carriers creating a mess of it, just like they did with RCS. Or have you forgot that T-Mobile had to run (and probably still is, but I'm too lazy to check) both a Google and non-Google RCS stack to get a semblance of interoperability?
Here's Verizon's list of supported file formats:
https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-15892/
Wanna bet that they mean MPEG 4 part 2 and not MPEG 4 part 10?
Not sending high quality video via MMS isn't an Apple issue, it's a carrier one.
> Not everyone cares about the private property rights of a trillion dollar corporation
What's the threshold below which we should care?
What's the threshold below which we should care?
As a jumping off point, lets say any corporation with a valuation less than a trillion dollars (Which literally more than 99.9% of all corporations would fit under this umbrella)
> It’s apple’s own private system and infrastructure and they’re within their rights to control content delivered using that system.
I dunno: to me, Apple's "rights" stop at their doorstep, and if they don't want their service to be accessible to third-party clients, they are more than welcome to just not build such a service (as we honestly don't have any reason to provide legal defense for this one specific business model).
We don't merely generally avoid extending rights over other people... usually we protect people from incursions into their rights by companies, whether by contractual or even by technological means: we have many laws and legal precedents designed to ensure interoperability, fair markets, and basic things such as "legal ownership" (see the right of first sale doctrine, for example).
When Beeper sues Apple (which I do hope is their next step), it is not at all obvious that Apple will get to keep doing what they are doing here... and, even without Beeper's involvement, we're already seeing government regulators and politicians rightfully poking around at the situation, ready to provide some clarification to the rules in order to prevent this kind of thing.
I dunno: to me, Apple's "rights" stop at their doorstep, and if they don't want their service to be accessible to third-party clients, they are more than welcome to just not build such a service (as we honestly don't have any reason to provide legal defense for this one specific business model).
We don't merely generally avoid extending rights over other people... usually we protect people from incursions into their rights by companies, whether by contractual or even by technological means: we have many laws and legal precedents designed to ensure interoperability, fair markets, and basic things such as "legal ownership" (see the right of first sale doctrine, for example).
When Beeper sues Apple (which I do hope is their next step), it is not at all obvious that Apple will get to keep doing what they are doing here... and, even without Beeper's involvement, we're already seeing government regulators and politicians rightfully poking around at the situation, ready to provide some clarification to the rules in order to prevent this kind of thing.
> and if they don't want their service to be accessible to third-party clients, they are more than welcome to just not build such a service
That is exactly what they did. Or rather didn’t. They haven’t sued beeper, or retaliated in any way. They merely blocked beeper from hacking into their network. It is crazy to think that beeper could sue them for that.
That is exactly what they did. Or rather didn’t. They haven’t sued beeper, or retaliated in any way. They merely blocked beeper from hacking into their network. It is crazy to think that beeper could sue them for that.
Beeper can sue. Anyone can sue. But it’s whether the case has merit. Beeper’s would have none. Apple would counter sue, claim CFAA, and probably win without much effort at all. Their network, their rules, period. I am truly baffled how many people on HN think it’s cool for some third party to circumvent protections and use a network they don’t own or control. Remember peaking? Yeah.
If this was YOUR network, would you be fine letting some third party, who’s not paying you, to use it as they wish and profit from that use? I really doubt it. If you say sure, that’s totally fine, I will challenge anyone here to prove it. Accordingly, please post your WiFi network credentials and GPS location here. We can use your network just like Beeper used Apple’s. Then sell access to others through our connection.
If this was YOUR network, would you be fine letting some third party, who’s not paying you, to use it as they wish and profit from that use? I really doubt it. If you say sure, that’s totally fine, I will challenge anyone here to prove it. Accordingly, please post your WiFi network credentials and GPS location here. We can use your network just like Beeper used Apple’s. Then sell access to others through our connection.
Comparing a third-party using Apple's iMessage API (not network) without their blessing to someone connecting to your home network, compromising your security, is laughable.
So Apple changed the locks on their front door, what’s the big deal?
It's not about the button color, other than the fact that a green bubble means your group message is degraded and a bunch of expected functionality stops existing. It's hard not to feel some annoyance if someone is added to a group and that causes the experience to be degraded for everyone else.
I use Whatsapp for all my European friends, but getting Americans to adopt a different messaging platform is as unlikely as getting the Dutch to start using iMessage... So we're left with this situation, and it will continue until Apple/Google adopt RCS and cross-platform messaging becomes as seamless an experience as iMessage.
I use Whatsapp for all my European friends, but getting Americans to adopt a different messaging platform is as unlikely as getting the Dutch to start using iMessage... So we're left with this situation, and it will continue until Apple/Google adopt RCS and cross-platform messaging becomes as seamless an experience as iMessage.
> that a green bubble means your group message is degraded and a bunch of expected functionality stops existing
…because the functionality is a paid product feature that exists on their hardware and software? Because it’s a…product feature??
…because the functionality is a paid product feature that exists on their hardware and software? Because it’s a…product feature??
But they purposely make the green bubble messages worse than they need to be. Videos get sent with a lower than necessary resolution.
That is simply objectively false. They can’t make the experience any better than it is. In a mixed group, they have to resort to the greatest common denominator which is SMS/MSM. They literally can’t do anything else.
Thank you for bringing this up again. The green bubblers who hitch about this fail to understand the difference between SMS, MMS, and better alternative. SMS and MMS are legacy “compatibility modes” in effect. Apple users happily enter the ecosystem to get away from legacy native messaging with SMS and MMS. It’s not the iPhone that “downgrades” anything, is that the default IS SHITTY, and iPhone upgrades the experience with a better protocol for Apple users. Don’t like your sadness with Android messaging? Switch. Frankly Apple should change the green bubble to brown, like crap, to really remind us of that legacy protocol use.
Even when I used Android phones this would happen if you were misguided enough to send something over MMS lol.
MMS was dated when I had a Motorola flip phone in high school, I’m not surprised it doesn’t handle 4K video lol.
MMS was dated when I had a Motorola flip phone in high school, I’m not surprised it doesn’t handle 4K video lol.
I don't expect 4k but I would expect that when my wife sends a video green with mms and then used Whatsapp to share it with me and I use my android to send the same video to the same group they should be the same resolution but mine is _higher_ even though she took the video.
That's not accurate. The "green bubble" is SMS/MMS. They operate on a standard protocol of decades as a fallback, which absolutely has lower quality.
You can blame your carrier for that.
It wasn't that long ago that MMS too large simply failed, or lived in limbo. I'm not a big fan of low res either, but it's absolutely an improvement and beyond what they need to do.
You can blame your carrier for that.
It wasn't that long ago that MMS too large simply failed, or lived in limbo. I'm not a big fan of low res either, but it's absolutely an improvement and beyond what they need to do.
So Americans hate the iMessage experience, but for some reason they refuse to use any of the numerous free alternatives? And that is Apple’s fault.
>Americans hate the iMessage experience
No. They love the iMessage experience and iMessage inertia means that people without iPhones have to negotiate to get people to use something else. It's not even necessarily malicious or obvious, but it does happen. I was a little hurt when I realized I had been left out of certain group communications that were happening over iMessage when I didn't have an iPhone.
>but for some reason they refuse to use any of the numerous free alternatives?
I guess you could say that, but it's more that the inertia pulls them back to iMessage. I'd try to get people to use Signal/Telegram/Whatsapp/Messenger and at some point, they'd stop checking those apps and I'd have to send them a regular SMS. I was the only person they were checking the app for, so any lapse in our communication could result in forgetting to check the app (and even having it get automatically offloaded).
It's also kind of like being the only vegan in a group of meat eaters. They just get invited to less dinner parties when people don't want to go somewhere that accommodates the vegan's diet. That creates a social rift even if it's not obvious.
No. They love the iMessage experience and iMessage inertia means that people without iPhones have to negotiate to get people to use something else. It's not even necessarily malicious or obvious, but it does happen. I was a little hurt when I realized I had been left out of certain group communications that were happening over iMessage when I didn't have an iPhone.
>but for some reason they refuse to use any of the numerous free alternatives?
I guess you could say that, but it's more that the inertia pulls them back to iMessage. I'd try to get people to use Signal/Telegram/Whatsapp/Messenger and at some point, they'd stop checking those apps and I'd have to send them a regular SMS. I was the only person they were checking the app for, so any lapse in our communication could result in forgetting to check the app (and even having it get automatically offloaded).
It's also kind of like being the only vegan in a group of meat eaters. They just get invited to less dinner parties when people don't want to go somewhere that accommodates the vegan's diet. That creates a social rift even if it's not obvious.
> I'd try to get people to use Signal/Telegram/Whatsapp/Messenger and at some point, they'd stop checking those apps and I'd have to send them a regular SMS.
Android guy here, so I may be out of the loop, but why do they have to check the apps at all? Shouldn't incoming messages from any app be shown as a push notification?
Android guy here, so I may be out of the loop, but why do they have to check the apps at all? Shouldn't incoming messages from any app be shown as a push notification?
Push notification bankruptcy. I don't think a lot of people make checking every single app they have installed for the number a habit. I guess I could have policed them on where they put the app so it would be on page 1 or whatever it's called. But that Messages app? It's always going to be noticed since it's in the dock on every page.
> Push notification bankruptcy
100% this. And sometimes I'll get logged out of a service and miss the notification that it happened, so I'll go quite awhile blissfully unaware that I'm no longer reachable. Had exactly that experience recently with Google Chat. Didn't see the message until I noticed the email it got converted to.
100% this. And sometimes I'll get logged out of a service and miss the notification that it happened, so I'll go quite awhile blissfully unaware that I'm no longer reachable. Had exactly that experience recently with Google Chat. Didn't see the message until I noticed the email it got converted to.
So because of a combination of social pressure, app inertia and that people let their chat ups run up lots of unread notifications, there are situations where it's inconvenient for some people to use Android phones in groups with iPhone users? This seems like a pretty weak basis for indignation, let alone a lawsuit.
>let their chat ups run up lots of unread notifications
I'm noticing a pattern here where people who side with Apple on this issue rephrase what people say, almost to the point of making it bear no resemblance to what was originally said, to make it seem trivial or, in your own words, a "weak basis for indignation". If you need clarification, just ask for it instead of assuming. I'd also ask that you try to charitably interpret what people are saying and use empathy instead of being so dismissive about it.
The issue I'm describing here is quite the opposite: specifically because the chat application isn't generating enough notifications being that it isn't the primary messaging application--remember, they were only using it to communicate with me--it's easy to forget about, especially in a sea of other push notifications. This is just one element of the whole problem as well (lest we get into the circular argument where someone suggests some other suboptimal solution when the obvious answer is to provide some way to have iMessage on Android in whatever way Apple sees fit). It's not the only issues I and others have with iPhone dominance and iMessage only being on Apple devices.
I also don't care if what they're doing is legal or not, they're still fucking with my social network.
I'm noticing a pattern here where people who side with Apple on this issue rephrase what people say, almost to the point of making it bear no resemblance to what was originally said, to make it seem trivial or, in your own words, a "weak basis for indignation". If you need clarification, just ask for it instead of assuming. I'd also ask that you try to charitably interpret what people are saying and use empathy instead of being so dismissive about it.
The issue I'm describing here is quite the opposite: specifically because the chat application isn't generating enough notifications being that it isn't the primary messaging application--remember, they were only using it to communicate with me--it's easy to forget about, especially in a sea of other push notifications. This is just one element of the whole problem as well (lest we get into the circular argument where someone suggests some other suboptimal solution when the obvious answer is to provide some way to have iMessage on Android in whatever way Apple sees fit). It's not the only issues I and others have with iPhone dominance and iMessage only being on Apple devices.
I also don't care if what they're doing is legal or not, they're still fucking with my social network.
I did ask for clarification, that's what the interrogation mark is for.
But it seems that your argument is exactly as subtle and indirect as I proposed. It’s not that Apple are stopping or even discouraging you from using third-party chat apps, it’s that your communication patterns makes using multiple apps slightly less convenient, hence you wish the first party one was more powerful.
It is quite amazing that you feel that they are “fucking with your social network” for not not making Messages more cross platform.
But it seems that your argument is exactly as subtle and indirect as I proposed. It’s not that Apple are stopping or even discouraging you from using third-party chat apps, it’s that your communication patterns makes using multiple apps slightly less convenient, hence you wish the first party one was more powerful.
It is quite amazing that you feel that they are “fucking with your social network” for not not making Messages more cross platform.
I'm sorry to see them pull the plug so quickly, but it was mostly expected.
As a developer of a "companion" communications app, I understand Beeper's frustration all too well. I really look forward to a world of interoperable instant messaging one day; email is amazingly ubiquitous and it's because of open standards. There are pros and cons to this and, sadly, the biggest "con" is one can't completely control this to monetize the hell out of it (although Google did a pretty good job with Gmail?) and that's why IM is so siloed.
Google is pushing the hell out of RCS, but there is still no API on Android for developers to hook into this. Why am I not surprised?
As a developer of a "companion" communications app, I understand Beeper's frustration all too well. I really look forward to a world of interoperable instant messaging one day; email is amazingly ubiquitous and it's because of open standards. There are pros and cons to this and, sadly, the biggest "con" is one can't completely control this to monetize the hell out of it (although Google did a pretty good job with Gmail?) and that's why IM is so siloed.
Google is pushing the hell out of RCS, but there is still no API on Android for developers to hook into this. Why am I not surprised?
This whole Beeper situation has increased awareness that the limitations of "green bubbles" are created by Apple, not by Android devices. At least in my small social circle there seems to be a change in perspective about the problem.
Google's RCS encryption extensions are proprietary and not standardized. The limitations of "green bubbles" also apply to Google's actions. Apple has at least announced that they plan to develop a standardized end-to-end encryption extension of RCS with the GSMA. It'd be great if Google also worked together with Apple to put this nonsense behind us.
Yet another example of how much more easily and quickly lies travel than truth does.
> They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate).
Beeper is on the iOS App Store.
Beeper is on the iOS App Store.
Apple doesn't allow any apps on iOS other than Apple's own Messages app to use the phone's native SMS/MMS functionality. Due to Apple's restriction, Beeper (Beeper Cloud) does not support SMS/MMS from iOS devices like it supports SMS/MMS from Android devices.
https://beeper.notion.site/a96db72c53db4a9883e1775bcb61bb80?...
https://beeper.notion.site/a96db72c53db4a9883e1775bcb61bb80?...
Apple ships iMessage in the default messaging app. A large portion users are probably unaware what "iMessage" even is, just that blue bubbles are "better."
Microsoft got dinged for shipping IE by default, and so should Apple. Maybe you can argue Apple's not big enough yet, but I reckon we just need to wait a few years (87% of US teens use iPhones [0]).
[0] https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha...
Microsoft got dinged for shipping IE by default, and so should Apple. Maybe you can argue Apple's not big enough yet, but I reckon we just need to wait a few years (87% of US teens use iPhones [0]).
[0] https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha...
I'm baffled by the claim that Apple locks users into iMessage. I use iPhone and Macs and I haven't used iMessage in years.
Apple doesn't lock anyone into messaging apps (they have pretty great system intergration for alternate apps!) - social groups do.
Apple doesn't lock anyone into messaging apps (they have pretty great system intergration for alternate apps!) - social groups do.
Fair enough, agreed that social groups dominate the dynamic more-so (e.g. any country other than US). But being the default, pre-installed, and only app with SMS integration on iOS is an unfair position to compete from, especially when iOS is now slowly gaining dominant market position in the US.
It's not really how it works for a lot of users in the US. As I get it with the more social demographics, most use different apps for messaging for different contexts. social media like twitter or instagram for more public casual chatting with strangers, maybe private messages on said apps for growing relationships, then for more personal stuff some mutual messenger app.
social demographics just use the chat that is closest to whatever they like to do online. iMessage is more of a "it's always there if I need it" thing as I get it, not so much something chosen out of confusion -- the social demographic is quite good at compartmentalizing their lives across many apps.
social demographics just use the chat that is closest to whatever they like to do online. iMessage is more of a "it's always there if I need it" thing as I get it, not so much something chosen out of confusion -- the social demographic is quite good at compartmentalizing their lives across many apps.
I agree. Something other people aren't mentioning - the default iOS Contacts app will automatically switch your messaging and voice call shortcuts to use an alternate platform, per-contact. There's no user interaction required to do this. A lot of people in these threads conflate iMessage, SMS, and MMS - the idea that iPhone users are "locked into" iMessage is absurd. This feature has been in place for many years. [0]
IMO, the buy-in for iMessage is an iPhone. If you contrast a $429 new iPhone with the buy-in required for other mainstream apps (share and license your private data + metadata with advertising companies in perpetuity), $429 doesn't seem unreasonable at all; but if you prefer to pay with your data instead, all platforms (including the iPhone) provide an option to do so via options like FB Messenger[1] and WhatsApp[2].
If Apple were to remove these alternative options, along with SMS/MMS, and support only iMessage communication - there would be a much better support for the claim that they "lock in" their users.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/PuPIrvf.png
[1] https://bgr.com/tech/app-privacy-labels-facebook-messenger-v...
[2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-instagram-facebook-...
IMO, the buy-in for iMessage is an iPhone. If you contrast a $429 new iPhone with the buy-in required for other mainstream apps (share and license your private data + metadata with advertising companies in perpetuity), $429 doesn't seem unreasonable at all; but if you prefer to pay with your data instead, all platforms (including the iPhone) provide an option to do so via options like FB Messenger[1] and WhatsApp[2].
If Apple were to remove these alternative options, along with SMS/MMS, and support only iMessage communication - there would be a much better support for the claim that they "lock in" their users.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/PuPIrvf.png
[1] https://bgr.com/tech/app-privacy-labels-facebook-messenger-v...
[2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-instagram-facebook-...
iMessage is competing unfairly, as the default, pre-installed, SMS-integrated app on iOS. Being hardware-attested and limited to the dominant US smartphone OS exacerbates this.
Most other countries are using some other messaging app, so clearly these aren't super significant hurdles. I agree "lock-in" is strong wording that probably doesn't apply to iMessage. But you cannot argue that iMessage is competing fairly with the likes of FB Messenger / Whatsapp / Telegram / Signal.
Most other countries are using some other messaging app, so clearly these aren't super significant hurdles. I agree "lock-in" is strong wording that probably doesn't apply to iMessage. But you cannot argue that iMessage is competing fairly with the likes of FB Messenger / Whatsapp / Telegram / Signal.
Microsoft barely got a slap on the wrist from the DoJ in the end. Market competition from Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome, along with industry and cultural support for browser standards, was the ultimate remedy, and that would have happened with or without the DoJ. The original suit was brought by Netscape who were charging $40 for a browser license at the time. It was a dead end business model and MS was ultimately right when they argued in the nineties that browser tech was so fundamental it needed to be integrated into the OS.
I love iMessage because it has a good feature set for family group chats (photo sharing is stellar), but I’m also happy with all the innovation, choice, and competition on features and governance provided by Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, et al, each of which have their own strengths and have to respond to improvements by the others. The worst thing that could happen to innovation is if we were all using the same iMessage protocol forced into the stewardship of a DoJ mandated standards body.
I really can’t understand the obsession with default SMS functionality. Other than 2FA codes or setting up Uber on a new phone who gets an SMS more than once a month?
I love iMessage because it has a good feature set for family group chats (photo sharing is stellar), but I’m also happy with all the innovation, choice, and competition on features and governance provided by Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, et al, each of which have their own strengths and have to respond to improvements by the others. The worst thing that could happen to innovation is if we were all using the same iMessage protocol forced into the stewardship of a DoJ mandated standards body.
I really can’t understand the obsession with default SMS functionality. Other than 2FA codes or setting up Uber on a new phone who gets an SMS more than once a month?
Microsoft didn't get dinged for shipping IE by default. They got dinged because, to promote IE, they engaged in a lot of fairly nefarious things, forcing their OEM partners not to install other browsers, for instance.
It wasn't just "you can't have a default web browser in IE", and reducing that case to that is ahistorical.
It wasn't just "you can't have a default web browser in IE", and reducing that case to that is ahistorical.
You literally cannot install another default messaging app on iOS with SMS integration. There are no OEM partners to speak of on iOS. If iOS reaches 90%+ market share, why shouldn't it be treated the same as Microsoft?
It's not the same thing. If Microsoft was selling both the hardware and the software. IIRC the US antitrust case was mainly based on restrictions MS imposed on the OEMs. No OEMs, no issue really.
Which sort of makes sense. You don't technically don't have the obligation to make your platform open or support specific APIs regardless of your market share.
Which sort of makes sense. You don't technically don't have the obligation to make your platform open or support specific APIs regardless of your market share.
If iOS reaches 90% market share, I'm sure more companies will push the DOJ to go after Apple to open up iOS more.
I don't think Apple would care too much if they were forced to allow other applications to be designated as default SMS clients for the phone, though.
I don't think Apple would care too much if they were forced to allow other applications to be designated as default SMS clients for the phone, though.
It seems you’re missing their point.
MS was prosecuted because they pressured OEMs into not installing a different browser by making that a requirement to be able to buy Windows licenses.
The alleged illegal act here was the combination of them 1) leveraging the power they had over OEMs to 2) prevent them from installing a different browser in an effort to 3) kill competing browsers.
It was never just about having a default browser, it was about the combination of 1, 2 and 3. There were some other incidents other than the browser that involved elements 1, 2 and 3, but the logic behind it was similar.
I say “alleged” because MS won on appeal and the DOJ decided to settle.
Apple on the other hand, just has a default messaging app. They’re not using their power to block other messaging apps with the intent to kill them, nor are they pressuring other parties to do or not do an act to protect their default messaging app.
The only thing that comes closest to the MS case is that Apple told carriers that they can’t have their bloatware preinstalled from the get go with the first iPhone. The problem however is that Apple, when they imposed that restriction, had no power over carriers, they were just entering the phone market after all. If anything the carriers had power over Apple, but they still choose to play ball despite this restriction.
I’d they’d tried to do that now, then it’d be a different story, because now Apple has quite some market dominance and it could be an antitrust issue.
That’s why carriers are free to impose limitations on certain functionality like hotspot use, because if Apple would force carriers, especially in a heavy handed way, then it could be explained as abusing their power.
Apple is mainly lucky for always having done Apple things, even when they were small in the respective market.
A lot of what Apple does, Apple has done from the beginning when they were insignificant in the context of a market. They couldn’t do introduce many of those things now while they’re so big.
So for all intents and purposes Apple is treated the same as MS.
MS was prosecuted because they pressured OEMs into not installing a different browser by making that a requirement to be able to buy Windows licenses.
The alleged illegal act here was the combination of them 1) leveraging the power they had over OEMs to 2) prevent them from installing a different browser in an effort to 3) kill competing browsers.
It was never just about having a default browser, it was about the combination of 1, 2 and 3. There were some other incidents other than the browser that involved elements 1, 2 and 3, but the logic behind it was similar.
I say “alleged” because MS won on appeal and the DOJ decided to settle.
Apple on the other hand, just has a default messaging app. They’re not using their power to block other messaging apps with the intent to kill them, nor are they pressuring other parties to do or not do an act to protect their default messaging app.
The only thing that comes closest to the MS case is that Apple told carriers that they can’t have their bloatware preinstalled from the get go with the first iPhone. The problem however is that Apple, when they imposed that restriction, had no power over carriers, they were just entering the phone market after all. If anything the carriers had power over Apple, but they still choose to play ball despite this restriction.
I’d they’d tried to do that now, then it’d be a different story, because now Apple has quite some market dominance and it could be an antitrust issue.
That’s why carriers are free to impose limitations on certain functionality like hotspot use, because if Apple would force carriers, especially in a heavy handed way, then it could be explained as abusing their power.
Apple is mainly lucky for always having done Apple things, even when they were small in the respective market.
A lot of what Apple does, Apple has done from the beginning when they were insignificant in the context of a market. They couldn’t do introduce many of those things now while they’re so big.
So for all intents and purposes Apple is treated the same as MS.
They also got dinged for baking IE into Windows such that it couldn't be removed, much like Safari and iMessage on iOS.
They ultimately got sued for leveraging their dominance in the PC operating systems market to dominate the browser market.
They ultimately got sued for leveraging their dominance in the PC operating systems market to dominate the browser market.
The thing is Apple really doesn't want to dominate a market - they're fine just making the most profit.
Apple's APIs for 3rd party apps are always more limited, and a few steps behind what Apple allows their own apps do.
KakaoTalk is used by almost all smartphone users in Korea. Their protocol has been reverse-engineered [0] but using a third-party client can get your account banned [1].
I think WeChat does something similar.
Wouldn't it be "fun" if Apple did this, too!?
0: https://src.miscworks.net/fair/matrix-appservice-kakaotalk.g...
1: https://kakao.com/talksafety/en/policy/stability/abnormalusa...
I think WeChat does something similar.
Wouldn't it be "fun" if Apple did this, too!?
0: https://src.miscworks.net/fair/matrix-appservice-kakaotalk.g...
1: https://kakao.com/talksafety/en/policy/stability/abnormalusa...
Ban who people in Android or close an Apple ID? You could always create a new one with a new card using privacy.com I guess.
Am I the only one who finds its humorous that the within roughly the same week you were able to download & install Beeper on an Android phone without using the Play Store, Apple breaks it but it was Google that was found guilty of abusing its position?
Yes, I find it humorous that more than one of you seems unable to comprehend the basics of the situation.
It's not an anti-trust violation to patch holes in a closed API.
Eric's not an idiot, so I'm thoroughly confused by what he was hoping to accomplish, here.
Setting the ball in motion to set a precedent I'm guessing.
Everything that has transpired over the last few weeks strengthens the narrative for an anti trust case and hopefully makes an illustrative case in favour for adversarial interop (w.r.t megacorps).
That itself protects an untold amount of OSS projects that have been victims to billion dollar megacorp legal threats and bullying.
Idk how these things work but I hope Eric and the beeper team take Apple to the cleaners and get enough to retire a thousand times over.
Everything that has transpired over the last few weeks strengthens the narrative for an anti trust case and hopefully makes an illustrative case in favour for adversarial interop (w.r.t megacorps).
That itself protects an untold amount of OSS projects that have been victims to billion dollar megacorp legal threats and bullying.
Idk how these things work but I hope Eric and the beeper team take Apple to the cleaners and get enough to retire a thousand times over.
There is no judge on the planet who will take the position that a 3rd party is allowed to circumvent a service’s security controls and TOS to build a monetized product using a backend that neither they nor their users pay for.
Absolutely zero chance.
Absolutely zero chance.
Imagine reverse engineering AWS keys, using AWS services for free, reselling them, and then trying to sue AWS when they fix the security hole.
Maybe lack of imagination?
There are handsomely VC funded successful startups that do exactly this in banking, for example Teller:
https://jobs.lever.co/teller/ebf503af-bb82-49fb-97bd-6d9bcbb...
There are handsomely VC funded successful startups that do exactly this in banking, for example Teller:
https://jobs.lever.co/teller/ebf503af-bb82-49fb-97bd-6d9bcbb...
This is not “exactly this.”
Teller is giving users additional access modalities to services they’re already separately “paying for.” The directly analogous format would be if Teller was allowing you to store your money at Bank of America but Teller was preventing BOA from collecting revenue from you.
Teller is giving users additional access modalities to services they’re already separately “paying for.” The directly analogous format would be if Teller was allowing you to store your money at Bank of America but Teller was preventing BOA from collecting revenue from you.
No. It's like if teller allowed you to make a boa account as well. As if this one small feature makes it some egregious criminal activity.
Many beeper mini users already have apple devices + Eric in his post said he's willing to pay some reasonable fee.
Nobody pays for iMessage directly.
Many beeper mini users already have apple devices + Eric in his post said he's willing to pay some reasonable fee.
Nobody pays for iMessage directly.
Nobody pays for bank accounts directly either.
Oh Eric said he’s willing to pay? Guess that counts as a deal then!
Oh Eric said he’s willing to pay? Guess that counts as a deal then!
However, there is every chance that circumventing a service's security controls is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
That's something I've been wondering about myself. People have run afoul of the CFAA with less egregious actions than these. I guess the Beeper guys talked to their lawyer at least, before taking this course of action.
This type of project is protected from CFAA by Van Buren. AFAIK the only untested precedent is ToS violation.
I doubt Beeper will ever see any legal action (or settlement for that matter) directly with Apple from this. I do think it will be a strongly referenced bullet point as regulators look towards something like the DMA for the US or other corps challenge Apple though.
That is my thought as well. This was a winning scenario for Beeper because either the iMessage integration kept working, or Apple forced its own hand on very directly locking down messaging to the devices it sells.
> or Apple forced its own hand on very directly locking down messaging to the devices it sells
But that’s not really any different? Even if they hadn’t technically implemented it that way that is the intended way the service is supposed to be used. Locked to Apple devices.
But that’s not really any different? Even if they hadn’t technically implemented it that way that is the intended way the service is supposed to be used. Locked to Apple devices.
It's a bit like being in an HOA where you think the president would tell you to take your specific flag down vs putting up a flag and having them tell you to take it down. Regardless of whether the flag is actually right or wrong in the law (or should/shouldn't be) nobody can take the HOA to court about it because they think the HOA intends for such a flag to be taken down... but they can easily bring it up if it's something the HOA has explicitly done and explicitly messaged about.
I don’t understand this at all. Messaging is not locked down on Apple devices. You can message with android just fine via sms, and you can install dozens of other messaging solutions.
Why does having specific Apple only features outside of the core message set mean it’s now locked down?
Why does having specific Apple only features outside of the core message set mean it’s now locked down?
People have been complaining about the defacto Apple "phone class" they have created with messaging for years.
This threw it back up into the light a little more by not just complaining but trying to do something about it.
This threw it back up into the light a little more by not just complaining but trying to do something about it.
someone had to do it. i thank him for his service.
Do what?
Break into iMessage to free Android users from the oppression of… I don’t know.
This has all been weirdly performative.
This has all been weirdly performative.
Among non-technical lay people, the perception is Android can't interoperate with iPhones due to inferior technology. (For example, people call low resolution photos android photos. They don't realize photos sent over sms were downscaled by the protocol, they assume it was taken in that low resolution format to begin with)
Suddenly being able to text androids without issue made it clear to everyone it's a policy-limitation, not a technological limitation
Suddenly being able to text androids without issue made it clear to everyone it's a policy-limitation, not a technological limitation
Call Apple's bullshit and prove that there is technically no reason why iMessage can't work on Android. The only reason it doesn't work is because Apple doesn't want it to, not that it's technically impossible or has security concerns.
Considering the media coverage and that there are now bipartisan calls for an antitrust investigation I think they've succeeded very well.
Considering the media coverage and that there are now bipartisan calls for an antitrust investigation I think they've succeeded very well.
> The only reason it doesn't work is because Apple doesn't want it to
How many people thought otherwise? If they thought about it at all? I feel like HN users vastly overestimate the amount of thought the average user puts into things like this.
How many people thought otherwise? If they thought about it at all? I feel like HN users vastly overestimate the amount of thought the average user puts into things like this.
Apple really pushes the snake-oil that locking out Beeper is because of security and not vendor lock-in & business interests. They wouldn't do so if nobody believed it.
I can assure you the vast majority thought that the problem was with Android phones.
I suspect they were hoping it would be harder for Apple to close the workarounds, so they'd have a unique position in the marketplace for a little while longer than they did.
Probably decent marketing... how many people didn't know beeper existed before this?
Probably decent marketing... how many people didn't know beeper existed before this?
I think this whole saga is stupid, but you’re absolutely right. I had never heard of them before.
Maybe they did get some users out of this who will use the non-iMessage parts of the service that already existed.
However while I now know who they are might view of them is also tainted a bit because they made (what I see as) bad decisions. So at least in my case I’m not sure it’s that beneficial to them.
Maybe they did get some users out of this who will use the non-iMessage parts of the service that already existed.
However while I now know who they are might view of them is also tainted a bit because they made (what I see as) bad decisions. So at least in my case I’m not sure it’s that beneficial to them.
This is a bad precedent giving ammunition for the next antitrust lawsuits so I guess that could be one of the goals.
> Beeper Mini is beautiful, fast and fun. Our main goal with the app is to upgrade chats between iPhone and Android users from unencrypted green bubble SMS to encrypted, fully featured blue bubble chats.
Can someone help me understand a big question about iMessage? What makes iMessage so special that it needs to run on android?
There are plenty of other cross platform applications for messaging that fit the quoted needs. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram are a few examples. If end users care about “upgraded chats”, they can simply use one of those and ask those whom they message to also use those apps.
Am I missing something? What makes iMessage so special?
Can someone help me understand a big question about iMessage? What makes iMessage so special that it needs to run on android?
There are plenty of other cross platform applications for messaging that fit the quoted needs. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram are a few examples. If end users care about “upgraded chats”, they can simply use one of those and ask those whom they message to also use those apps.
Am I missing something? What makes iMessage so special?
The US uses SMS/MMS, that won’t change. SMS has limitations, which is why iMessage and RCS were created. When newer functionality is used, the experience between Android and iOS is poor - like poor media quality or stickers not appearing where they’re stuck, etc.
Other issues are limitations by the OS, like Apple doesn’t let you change the group name for non-iMessage groups. Or Apple doesn’t let you replace the entire messaging app, so you’d need multiple apps to cover multiple channels.
The issues and OS limitations leads to things like kids bullying green bubbles (as silly as that sounds).
I don’t think Android users have a right to iMessage but I can understand the need to properly interpolate with each other here and it sounds like RCS will be just that when Apple adopts it.
I think that both Google took too long playing with new messaging apps and Apple took too long to actually want to make this experience better for Android-iPhone communication (which they’ve been pretty clear they’d only do due to pressure, since it helps them sell phones).
The pressure is great. Maybe we’ll actually have a good experience with RCS, but we will see…
Other issues are limitations by the OS, like Apple doesn’t let you change the group name for non-iMessage groups. Or Apple doesn’t let you replace the entire messaging app, so you’d need multiple apps to cover multiple channels.
The issues and OS limitations leads to things like kids bullying green bubbles (as silly as that sounds).
I don’t think Android users have a right to iMessage but I can understand the need to properly interpolate with each other here and it sounds like RCS will be just that when Apple adopts it.
I think that both Google took too long playing with new messaging apps and Apple took too long to actually want to make this experience better for Android-iPhone communication (which they’ve been pretty clear they’d only do due to pressure, since it helps them sell phones).
The pressure is great. Maybe we’ll actually have a good experience with RCS, but we will see…
> The issues and OS limitations leads to things like kids bullying green bubbles (as silly as that sounds).
That sounds silly, but it's important enough that Apple executives were talking about it ten years ago. See the link from the article at https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609
> In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service...iMessage on Android would serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones
That's from Craig Federighi, who is now the SVP at Apple in charge of all operating systems. If it were a minor silly thing, you probably wouldn't expect it to be talked about at the highest levels at Apple, would you?
That sounds silly, but it's important enough that Apple executives were talking about it ten years ago. See the link from the article at https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609
> In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service...iMessage on Android would serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones
That's from Craig Federighi, who is now the SVP at Apple in charge of all operating systems. If it were a minor silly thing, you probably wouldn't expect it to be talked about at the highest levels at Apple, would you?
> If it were a minor silly thing, you probably wouldn't expect it to be talked about at the highest levels at Apple, would you?
Why not? I’ve been in C-level discussions where dark purple versus a slightly darker shade of purple turned into a weeklong shit show.
Why not? I’ve been in C-level discussions where dark purple versus a slightly darker shade of purple turned into a weeklong shit show.
Was it discussing enabling market lock-in via a darker/lighter shade?
If so, it may have been important!
If so, it may have been important!
> Was it discussing enabling market lock-in via a darker/lighter shade?
Yes, this is a framing that works for every strategic decision in business.
Yes, this is a framing that works for every strategic decision in business.
Yes, but it deserves to be taken more seriously when you are the SVP of the largest software company in the world.
The C-level of a random software company talking about US-wide market lock-in is unlikely to make it work in practice. Apple has a very real chance of doing it.
The C-level of a random software company talking about US-wide market lock-in is unlikely to make it work in practice. Apple has a very real chance of doing it.
> Apple has a very real chance of doing it
No, they are nowhere close to locking down messaging.
No, they are nowhere close to locking down messaging.
I listed it specifically because it sounds silly but is actually an important point. Thanks for sharing the link though
Yep, your "as silly as that sounds" was a "it sounds silly, but...".
Honestly, I missed that and my comment came out sounding like a gotcha when it should have just emphasized what you were saying. Sorry!
Honestly, I missed that and my comment came out sounding like a gotcha when it should have just emphasized what you were saying. Sorry!
> like Apple doesn’t let you change the group name for non-iMessage groups
SMS doesn't support the concept of naming a group. That's not an OS limitation.
SMS doesn't support the concept of naming a group. That's not an OS limitation.
[deleted]
And yet I can do it with SMS group messages on Android with Google's Messages app.
SMS group messages don't exist.
There's broadcast SMS (where the phone sends the same SMS to multiple people) and MMS groups.
There's broadcast SMS (where the phone sends the same SMS to multiple people) and MMS groups.
Does MMS support naming groups?
Are you're sure that's not RCS?
To me it's just applicable from my end on the Android app. It explicitly says the other members don't see the group name.
> Maybe we’ll actually have a good experience with RCS, but we will see…
I'll believe it when I see it. Judging from Apple's past behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if RCS messages will be shown in Comic Sans or something.
I'll believe it when I see it. Judging from Apple's past behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if RCS messages will be shown in Comic Sans or something.
You're missing nothing. Other than the fact that we've systematically decided that the average person is too lay to actively care about privacy and interoperability, and thus we all have to embrace the Stockholm Syndrome of acting like iMessage is respectable, at all.
My friend sent me the Beeper Mini article the other week and said "Look, you can have blue bubbles now!". I immediately scoffed - even if it wasn't going to break in a few days, I will never lift a finger to support what Apple is doing with iMessage. Absolutely absurd, even more so absurd the way folks talk about it.
My friend sent me the Beeper Mini article the other week and said "Look, you can have blue bubbles now!". I immediately scoffed - even if it wasn't going to break in a few days, I will never lift a finger to support what Apple is doing with iMessage. Absolutely absurd, even more so absurd the way folks talk about it.
Same. I've been considering ways to do whatever (infinitesimally small) things I can to help change the culture around "blue bubbles." I love being a "green bubble."
Green bubbles are not just "a broke Android user" even though the Apple masses like to spread that image.
Green bubbles are a sign of a technological badass, a power user who does things with their devices that Big Gray doesn't think they should be able to. It's the sign of a person who thinks lock-in strategies are gross and an anti-pattern, and is principled enough to vote with their wallet. It's the sign of a non-conformist, a free thinker who makes their own decisions, rather than following the group-thinking masses. A green bubble is the badge of honor that identifies a person who thinks differently.
In the end, Apple's strategy will probably win because Machiavellianism works, but that doesn't mean we can't give it a hell of a good run.
Green bubbles are not just "a broke Android user" even though the Apple masses like to spread that image.
Green bubbles are a sign of a technological badass, a power user who does things with their devices that Big Gray doesn't think they should be able to. It's the sign of a person who thinks lock-in strategies are gross and an anti-pattern, and is principled enough to vote with their wallet. It's the sign of a non-conformist, a free thinker who makes their own decisions, rather than following the group-thinking masses. A green bubble is the badge of honor that identifies a person who thinks differently.
In the end, Apple's strategy will probably win because Machiavellianism works, but that doesn't mean we can't give it a hell of a good run.
I also love being a green bubble, and telling people to use one of the several other secure, cross-platform messengers. I would personally never use Beeper Mini, because anyone in my social circle who cares about "blue bubbles" would be mocked mercilessly.
But I also hear all these stories about kids being bullied for having Android phones, and see Apple executives talking about locking entire families into the iPhone ecosystem using iMessage [1] on that basis.
To me, this is pretty evil, monopolistic behavior which needs to be regulated out of existence. I'm glad Beeper is bringing it to light. The fact that it doesn't affect me personally is unimportant.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609/ph...
But I also hear all these stories about kids being bullied for having Android phones, and see Apple executives talking about locking entire families into the iPhone ecosystem using iMessage [1] on that basis.
To me, this is pretty evil, monopolistic behavior which needs to be regulated out of existence. I'm glad Beeper is bringing it to light. The fact that it doesn't affect me personally is unimportant.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609/ph...
Agree completely. My kids are facing this now. The bullying is obscene and ridiculous, and very real.
> My kids are facing this now. The bullying is obscene and ridiculous, and very real.
The worst part is that the company knows about this and could simply end it by changing a single color in their app.
The worst part is that the company knows about this and could simply end it by changing a single color in their app.
My kids are facing this now and it doesn't seem to even exist. Some of them have Android phones, and they're still friends. My daughter doesn't even want an iPhone because she figures I will have more parental control over it than I would an Android phone.
This strikes me as much the same argument as "racism doesn't exist because I haven't seen it"
My understanding is that there’s a weird trend in the US, where iPhones dominate, to regard “green bubble” users as socially inferior or something of the sort.
Anyone who knows more about this please correct me. This is purely from reading Internet forums.
Anyone who knows more about this please correct me. This is purely from reading Internet forums.
I used to believe this wouldn't happen to me (I use Android phones without much issue). Then, last week, I was added to a group text for some party planning, and the first few messages in the group chat were "who here has android", "who's the intruder", etc.
Of course it was all jokey and no big deal but I still came away from that situation having learned that all this green bubble malarkey is very much real, and these were all grown adults (like, 30+ with children).
Of course it was all jokey and no big deal but I still came away from that situation having learned that all this green bubble malarkey is very much real, and these were all grown adults (like, 30+ with children).
It kind of messes up the functionality.
If you have all iMessage users, then you can do things like add more users to the chat, etc.
As soon as one Android user is in the chat, then you can't do that.
The other issue, for me, personally, is that I can respond to my iOS users from my desktop (where I spend most of my time), but I have to actually pick up the phone to communicate with my Android friends.
It's not the end of the world, as my Apple Watch tells me when I get texts from my phone, but it is a bit annoying.
If you have all iMessage users, then you can do things like add more users to the chat, etc.
As soon as one Android user is in the chat, then you can't do that.
The other issue, for me, personally, is that I can respond to my iOS users from my desktop (where I spend most of my time), but I have to actually pick up the phone to communicate with my Android friends.
It's not the end of the world, as my Apple Watch tells me when I get texts from my phone, but it is a bit annoying.
This is exactly right. Green bubble chats require more effort and are less fun.
You can't leave a green bubble chat. You can't send messages from your computer or non-iPhone devices (Apple has message forwarding, but it's unreliable). Pictures look awful, videos look worse. Read receipts don't work. Tapbacks/emoji/stickers/memoji/etc don't work. It's a drag to remember all these limitations.
I grudgingly got an iphone in 2019 for work. I no longer work there but now I'm locked into blue bubble chats with family. I've been trying to use Beeper to solve this it's not reliable enough yet.
(if RCS wasn't such a dog's breakfast, I might make more of an effort. Even when Messages supports RCS, the experience will still suck)
You can't leave a green bubble chat. You can't send messages from your computer or non-iPhone devices (Apple has message forwarding, but it's unreliable). Pictures look awful, videos look worse. Read receipts don't work. Tapbacks/emoji/stickers/memoji/etc don't work. It's a drag to remember all these limitations.
I grudgingly got an iphone in 2019 for work. I no longer work there but now I'm locked into blue bubble chats with family. I've been trying to use Beeper to solve this it's not reliable enough yet.
(if RCS wasn't such a dog's breakfast, I might make more of an effort. Even when Messages supports RCS, the experience will still suck)
Pictures look awful,
https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018832773-Tw...
> videos look worse.
Same as above.
> Read receipts don't work
MMS read receipts have been a thing since at least 2004. Wanna bet your carrier still doesn't support them?
You’re suggesting I should get my friends to switch carriers??
Why should it be up to the carrier? I guess that’s why it’s so broken.
Why should it be up to the carrier? I guess that’s why it’s so broken.
Why not just use whatsapp?
The other replies already brought up that WhatsApp is not common in the US, but I'll also add that if your beef with iMessage is the evil corporate overlord, moving to WhatsApp kinda seems like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Because in US, it's just not a common application everyone has so you get a ton of "I don't have whatsapp, just text me!" from friends.
I've gotten almost everyone I know to use WhatsApp. Not switch necessarily, but use. There's only a few stragglers left. It's not a hard sell, at least in a big city where you're bound to know a lot of foreigners or people with foreign friends/family, so adoption starts well above zero.
Good grief, if I were ranking corporations by trust, I'm definitely not switching from Apple to Facebook of all things.
No reason not to except it's just not very big in the US.
It's not an Android issue, though. It's Apple gatekeeping it. Like for instance if they allowed Android users to use this Beeper app, the experience would be good for all users.
Apple degrade the user experience to spite their own customers. Quite bizarre.
Apple degrade the user experience to spite their own customers. Quite bizarre.
> Like for instance if they allowed Android users to use this Beeper app, the experience would be good for all users
They have not restricted Android users to use third party messaging apps like Beeper. But Beeper isn't using their own infrastructure - they have reverse engineered third party API and are hacking them to work.
Apple's argument against iMessage being covered by DMA is that there are more popular third party products already running on Apple's platform in the EU e.g. WhatsApp.
They have not restricted Android users to use third party messaging apps like Beeper. But Beeper isn't using their own infrastructure - they have reverse engineered third party API and are hacking them to work.
Apple's argument against iMessage being covered by DMA is that there are more popular third party products already running on Apple's platform in the EU e.g. WhatsApp.
They degrade the user experience to profit off their own customers. Same thing with soldering down storage on Macs. It's really effective.
Then Android users have to download a separate iMessage app for groups involving iPhone users, since they can’t use their default Messages app either and the cycle repeats.
Why can’t everyone in these situations just ask everyone to use one app like WhatsApp? If having good experience was important everyone would be on board.
Why can’t everyone in these situations just ask everyone to use one app like WhatsApp? If having good experience was important everyone would be on board.
This is exactly what would happen, if iphones weren't so dominant already. The problem is, many people will not add "a second messaging app" just for one "green bubble" (which as an aside, is a great way to de-humanize "the others", something we humans naturally do. Robert Sapolsky's book "Behave" is phenomenal if you're interested in that). They'll just cut that person out of the group chat.
Also it's not a "good experience" for everyone, not as much as just cutting that green bubble loser out. With no green bubbles, you get to use the default messaging app. With a different app, since you can't change the default on iOS, you have to have at least two apps, and many people balk at that.
Also it's not a "good experience" for everyone, not as much as just cutting that green bubble loser out. With no green bubbles, you get to use the default messaging app. With a different app, since you can't change the default on iOS, you have to have at least two apps, and many people balk at that.
I just want to know what Android friend groups are doing to talk to that one iPhone user? I get that iPhones are more popular in the US but in Europe where Android is dominant they (supposedly) all use WhatsApp, which is also not the default messaging app.
Are Americans just too lazy to download another app?
Are Americans just too lazy to download another app?
It's not a problem for Android because every messaging app is cross platform. The only one that isn't is iMessage, so by definition this isn't a problem that exists. But also in the US, it's nearly all iPhones, so there just aren't any groups of Android users with one iPhone friend.
More I think they are just really susceptible to marketing efforts by companies like Apple who tell them that it's a bad user experience to have multiple apps, and your own personal user experience is supreme, so people adopt and believe that. And for the people who don't, you can almost guarantee they have at least one "Apple fanatic" in their circle who will preach that gospel to them routinely.
Then there's the social status symbol of "Apple" that has become a big thing in the US. The killer on top is the invasion of the social sphere, partiuclarly with younger people, where you are bullied and isolated for not having an iThingy, and you've got a perfect recipe for Apple.
At some point I think it's got to come back around, but unfortunately that time isn't looking soon as it's trending heavily in the wrong direction right now. It's so bad now that "iPhone" has come to be a generic word for "mobile phones" and "iPad" a generic for "tablet." Just a few days ago I heard someone say something like, "Oh is that an Android iPad? aren't those just cheap knock-offs?" When this is the level of thinking in most of society, it's not hard for a company like Apple to manipulate to serve their ends.
More I think they are just really susceptible to marketing efforts by companies like Apple who tell them that it's a bad user experience to have multiple apps, and your own personal user experience is supreme, so people adopt and believe that. And for the people who don't, you can almost guarantee they have at least one "Apple fanatic" in their circle who will preach that gospel to them routinely.
Then there's the social status symbol of "Apple" that has become a big thing in the US. The killer on top is the invasion of the social sphere, partiuclarly with younger people, where you are bullied and isolated for not having an iThingy, and you've got a perfect recipe for Apple.
At some point I think it's got to come back around, but unfortunately that time isn't looking soon as it's trending heavily in the wrong direction right now. It's so bad now that "iPhone" has come to be a generic word for "mobile phones" and "iPad" a generic for "tablet." Just a few days ago I heard someone say something like, "Oh is that an Android iPad? aren't those just cheap knock-offs?" When this is the level of thinking in most of society, it's not hard for a company like Apple to manipulate to serve their ends.
> ... marketing efforts by companies like Apple who tell them that it's a bad user experience to have multiple apps
Citation needed? Apple has pretty much marketed the exact opposite (e.g. the entire App Store concept)
Citation needed? Apple has pretty much marketed the exact opposite (e.g. the entire App Store concept)
> Android because every messaging app is cross platform
Isn't Google using a proprietary version of RCS? That's not cross platform.
Isn't Google using a proprietary version of RCS? That's not cross platform.
In a group of ten people in the US, you may potentially be asking nine others to install WhatsApp.
Thats ignoring that some people (like myself) have philosophical reasons not to support Meta via WhatsApp. Just like others will not install Signal since it requires them to know your phone number (at least currently).
Then try a couple APAC countries, and people will ask why you aren't using LINE.
This has been going on for decades, ever since we saw AIM/MSN/ICQ and so on divisions country-by-country. In some cases it was simply who localized their app first.
Thats ignoring that some people (like myself) have philosophical reasons not to support Meta via WhatsApp. Just like others will not install Signal since it requires them to know your phone number (at least currently).
Then try a couple APAC countries, and people will ask why you aren't using LINE.
This has been going on for decades, ever since we saw AIM/MSN/ICQ and so on divisions country-by-country. In some cases it was simply who localized their app first.
FWIW - you can enable Apple's built-in text message forwarding to proxy those SMSes via your iPhone to your Mac - it's pretty seamless.
See: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/messages/icht8a28bb9a/...
See: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/messages/icht8a28bb9a/...
Funny, I don't have that problem with Facebook Messenger, Instagram Chat, WhatsApp, Matrix, etc. I hope Apple can hire some smart folks to help them with these totally-not-self-imposed challenges!
What's funny is the Stockholm syndrome aspect of this behavior.
"Oh no, our chat is acting weird because there is an Android user in here."
It's like hostages complaining that somebody left the door open and is letting in cold air.
"Oh no, our chat is acting weird because there is an Android user in here."
It's like hostages complaining that somebody left the door open and is letting in cold air.
You can enable text message forwarding on your ipad/mac.
On your iphone, in settings go to messages > text message forwarding and select the devices you want to allow.
On your iphone, in settings go to messages > text message forwarding and select the devices you want to allow.
I've enabled it, both iPad and Mac, and found it only works maybe 80% of the time. When it fails, Messages shows the message successfully sent, but the recipient never gets it.
It fails often enough that I can't rely on it.
It fails often enough that I can't rely on it.
[deleted]
This is why most of the world prefers WhatsApp or Telegram. It can do all of what iMessage does, and a lot more, without forcing you to give one shit about what hardware another person decides to use.
And next time they'll just exclude you from the group chat altogether.
It's real. I remember bracing myself every time I got someone's number off a dating app for the inevitable comment about my "green bubble". These are people in their 20s in NYC. And (for most people), a rant about ecosystem lock-in and being able to do what I want with my hardware etc wouldn't exactly make me come off as more attractive...
Not to invalidate your frustration, but if someone rejected me based on the colour of my chat bubble in a messaging app, that would be decisively unattractive to me.
I have the confidence to feel that now, but dating apps imbue a sense of helplessness in users like my past self, who would get maybe 10-20 matches total, ever, most of whom wouldn't even reply. So perhaps my experience speaks more to the psychological game of dating apps than anything about bubbles and phones.
And, to be fair, they didn't reject me per se, they would make slightly judgmental comments or observations. It just felt like it knocked me down a peg in their eyes and made it all the more difficult to make a real connection.
And, to be fair, they didn't reject me per se, they would make slightly judgmental comments or observations. It just felt like it knocked me down a peg in their eyes and made it all the more difficult to make a real connection.
It is the default message platform on iPhones, that is what makes it so special.
There isn't much special about iMessage you can't find on other messaging platforms. Since iMessage is the default messaging app, few iPhone users bother installing anything else. Apple doesn't want good messaging compatibility with Android devices because they want to retain iPhone users. For the last couple years, Apple's iPhone innovation has stagnated, and one of the ways they can maintain their market share is by keeping customers in the walled garden.
> Since iMessage is the default messaging app, few iPhone users bother installing anything else.
Moreso, there's no such thing as a default messaging app, just like there's no default phone dialer. The system handles telco messaging and calls.
But there's also no real limitations elsewhere as long as you aren't requesting SMS/MMS specifically. I can send an image to someone via Signal just as easily as I can via iMessage - they show up in the same lists.
This is different from cross-vendor standard protocols like email, where you may want a mailto: link to compose a mail in the app the user actually has configured. For mail you can configure a default application.
Moreso, there's no such thing as a default messaging app, just like there's no default phone dialer. The system handles telco messaging and calls.
But there's also no real limitations elsewhere as long as you aren't requesting SMS/MMS specifically. I can send an image to someone via Signal just as easily as I can via iMessage - they show up in the same lists.
This is different from cross-vendor standard protocols like email, where you may want a mailto: link to compose a mail in the app the user actually has configured. For mail you can configure a default application.
I forgot about that. iMessage is the only option for iPhone users receiving SMS. Even more reason to play nice with other non-apple messaging systems. I am an Android user so I forget Apple doesn't allow the same level of customization and changing of system defaults.
Globally, most iPhone users install another messaging app.
[deleted]
Being an Android user in the US typically comes with getting left out of group messages because most people here just use iMessage. There's not enough users of WhatsApp, Signal, or Telegram.
The biggest issue is in the US, most phones are iPhones, so most people are using iMessage by default.
Because of Apple's actions, this has led to android users being ridiculously ostracized and discriminated again[0][1].
It's not that there are not alternatives, it's that iPhone users are unlikely to switch to those alternatives, leaving Android users no choice but to continue to be discriminated against if they want to talk to the majority.
This a uniquely US thing. It's very strange.
[0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-...
[1]https://www.techdirt.com/2015/02/12/green-bubbles-how-apple-...
Because of Apple's actions, this has led to android users being ridiculously ostracized and discriminated again[0][1].
It's not that there are not alternatives, it's that iPhone users are unlikely to switch to those alternatives, leaving Android users no choice but to continue to be discriminated against if they want to talk to the majority.
This a uniquely US thing. It's very strange.
[0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-...
[1]https://www.techdirt.com/2015/02/12/green-bubbles-how-apple-...
People are so weird: it used to be that using the Internet a lot was seen as anti-social, now everyone's addicted to phones and if your message bubbles aren't the right color you're the weird one. It's just a stupid chat app.
It's completely awful we're strong-armed into having 6 different chat clients that send text messages because of gate-keeping. Chat has been fully commoditized since about 2000 or so.
It's completely awful we're strong-armed into having 6 different chat clients that send text messages because of gate-keeping. Chat has been fully commoditized since about 2000 or so.
> it used to be that using the Internet a lot was seen as anti-social, now everyone's addicted to phonesv
This is so true, I think about this a lot sometimes. As someone growing up in the 90s who was considered weird for finding the internet amazing, I'm online substantially less than many of those people who made a big deal about it back then.
This is so true, I think about this a lot sometimes. As someone growing up in the 90s who was considered weird for finding the internet amazing, I'm online substantially less than many of those people who made a big deal about it back then.
It kind of makes sense though. The dominant messaging app has always varied by region. The US is just really unlucky that the one that won there happens to be owned by Apple. And I say "unlucky" - it's not really luck. iMessage could only ever dominate in the US really because iPhones are very popular there and because SMS is free.
In most of the world iPhones aren't nearly as dominant so nobody would use iMessage or they wouldn't be able to talk to half their friends, and there was a much bigger incentive to just ditch SMS-related systems entirely.
In most of the world iPhones aren't nearly as dominant so nobody would use iMessage or they wouldn't be able to talk to half their friends, and there was a much bigger incentive to just ditch SMS-related systems entirely.
I think part of the issue is Apple didn't really indicate to users they were using iMessage, so most people thought they were just using SMS anyway.
[deleted]
Like jmondi mentioned, its' the default app for messaging on iPhones.
On top of that, switching to upgraded chats by switching platforms is not as easy as it sounds because you need to convince your friends to switch platforms. And that can be a hard ask, especially for friends and family that are less tech-savvy.
You could have people only message you via text, instead of iMessage, but doing that reliably is harder than switching platforms, unless you ask someone to disable iMessage in the messages app altogether, and no one wants to do that
On top of that, switching to upgraded chats by switching platforms is not as easy as it sounds because you need to convince your friends to switch platforms. And that can be a hard ask, especially for friends and family that are less tech-savvy.
You could have people only message you via text, instead of iMessage, but doing that reliably is harder than switching platforms, unless you ask someone to disable iMessage in the messages app altogether, and no one wants to do that
A bunch of hacky comedians deemed it a social fopaux to not be able to afford an iPhone for some reason. I hope they got their tik tok engagement out of it at least.
For me, it's just security, no other reason.
> There are plenty of other cross platform applications for messaging that fit the quoted needs.
Absolutely, and I encourage people to use them. Unfortunately, I can't force people not to use iMessage.
It's not about bullying (I've no doubt that it happens, but it's never happened to me). It's not about social pressure, I couldn't care less if someone wants to make a big deal over me having a green bubble -- don't let the door hit you on your way out. What it is about is the fact that I can't change my family members' behaviors, and the consequence of their behaviors is that all of their messages to me get sent unencrypted.
I would like those messages to be encrypted. I can't force them to use a better messenger, so it would be nice if I could on my end make a change that seamlessly, with zero friction on their part, causes their messages to suddenly be encrypted. No, I'm not buying an iPhone, heck off with that garbage. But I would be willing to install a separate app if it meant that my family members on iPhones could instantaneously have their messages encrypted.
Barring that, I can keep subtly encouraging them to use any of the other much more secure messaging services available, but... I mean, I don't control their phones. They are adults and they make their own decisions. And Apple doesn't really help here by marketing the Messages app as if it's secure while leaving out the fact in its marketing that a huge portion of the messages it sends have zero security at all. I tell people that we should swap to something else, their response is, "I don't need to, iMessages is secure." It would be secure if you were using it. But when you message me, you're not using it, you're using SMS.
> If end users care about “upgraded chats”, they can simply use one of those and ask those whom they message to also use those apps.
Like everything else in security, this boils down to the fact that people are apathetic and the people who are security conscious have to try and bend to meet them halfway. Beeper would have been a way for me to bend and meet some of the iPhone users in my life halfway. I'm not buying an iPhone, I'm not giving my family members an ultimatum that I'm going to stop responding to their texts if they don't use the messenger that I want them to use; that would be wildly antisocial behavior for me to engage in. So they'll send all their texts to me in plaintext.
As anyone who's tried to use Signal can attest, there is nothing simple about asking people you message to use a different app. And security in specific is a really hard sell for getting people to switch.
This is what I keep hammering when I talk about this -- Apple's position on iMessage makes iPhone users less secure. For anyone in my life who is security conscious, we couldn't care less about iMessage, we use actually secure cross-platform messaging services that allow us to actually encrypt 100% of what we send to each other. Emoji reactions do not matter, the problem is that iMessage can't send cross-platform encrypted chats, and Apple's position is that it cares more about whatever weird platform-exclusivity lock-in it thinks its getting than it cares about making sure the messages that iPhone users send are actually encrypted.
The motivation here isn't complicated, I want the iPhone users in my life to actually be secure rather than pretending that they're secure.
I'll note that the same problem also exists for Android. I'm not singling Apple out here, in practice Android users also send all of their messages to me in plain text regardless of whatever proprietary garbage Google is trying to pass off as message security nowadays. The same problem exists there, I can't get them off of the default messaging app. But on Android, there's not the potential of an app I could install that with no changes to their OS or setup would cause their messages to suddenly start being encrypted.
> There are plenty of other cross platform applications for messaging that fit the quoted needs.
Absolutely, and I encourage people to use them. Unfortunately, I can't force people not to use iMessage.
It's not about bullying (I've no doubt that it happens, but it's never happened to me). It's not about social pressure, I couldn't care less if someone wants to make a big deal over me having a green bubble -- don't let the door hit you on your way out. What it is about is the fact that I can't change my family members' behaviors, and the consequence of their behaviors is that all of their messages to me get sent unencrypted.
I would like those messages to be encrypted. I can't force them to use a better messenger, so it would be nice if I could on my end make a change that seamlessly, with zero friction on their part, causes their messages to suddenly be encrypted. No, I'm not buying an iPhone, heck off with that garbage. But I would be willing to install a separate app if it meant that my family members on iPhones could instantaneously have their messages encrypted.
Barring that, I can keep subtly encouraging them to use any of the other much more secure messaging services available, but... I mean, I don't control their phones. They are adults and they make their own decisions. And Apple doesn't really help here by marketing the Messages app as if it's secure while leaving out the fact in its marketing that a huge portion of the messages it sends have zero security at all. I tell people that we should swap to something else, their response is, "I don't need to, iMessages is secure." It would be secure if you were using it. But when you message me, you're not using it, you're using SMS.
> If end users care about “upgraded chats”, they can simply use one of those and ask those whom they message to also use those apps.
Like everything else in security, this boils down to the fact that people are apathetic and the people who are security conscious have to try and bend to meet them halfway. Beeper would have been a way for me to bend and meet some of the iPhone users in my life halfway. I'm not buying an iPhone, I'm not giving my family members an ultimatum that I'm going to stop responding to their texts if they don't use the messenger that I want them to use; that would be wildly antisocial behavior for me to engage in. So they'll send all their texts to me in plaintext.
As anyone who's tried to use Signal can attest, there is nothing simple about asking people you message to use a different app. And security in specific is a really hard sell for getting people to switch.
This is what I keep hammering when I talk about this -- Apple's position on iMessage makes iPhone users less secure. For anyone in my life who is security conscious, we couldn't care less about iMessage, we use actually secure cross-platform messaging services that allow us to actually encrypt 100% of what we send to each other. Emoji reactions do not matter, the problem is that iMessage can't send cross-platform encrypted chats, and Apple's position is that it cares more about whatever weird platform-exclusivity lock-in it thinks its getting than it cares about making sure the messages that iPhone users send are actually encrypted.
The motivation here isn't complicated, I want the iPhone users in my life to actually be secure rather than pretending that they're secure.
I'll note that the same problem also exists for Android. I'm not singling Apple out here, in practice Android users also send all of their messages to me in plain text regardless of whatever proprietary garbage Google is trying to pass off as message security nowadays. The same problem exists there, I can't get them off of the default messaging app. But on Android, there's not the potential of an app I could install that with no changes to their OS or setup would cause their messages to suddenly start being encrypted.
market share
"At this stage, Apple’s actions to block Beeper Mini look increasingly hard for them to defend."
That is 100% accurate from the technical perspective.
As an iPhone mobile / windows desktop user I would love an interoperable protocol so I could respond to texts from my desktop
But from the business side Apple's decision is totally defensible and clear
The blue bubbles are a luxury item / luxury signal that let's apple differentiate their products
I assume an internal assessment of that "brand" value from blue bubbles is in the many billions of dollars
That is 100% accurate from the technical perspective.
As an iPhone mobile / windows desktop user I would love an interoperable protocol so I could respond to texts from my desktop
But from the business side Apple's decision is totally defensible and clear
The blue bubbles are a luxury item / luxury signal that let's apple differentiate their products
I assume an internal assessment of that "brand" value from blue bubbles is in the many billions of dollars
Not really? iMessage isn't a peer-to-peer network. It's dependent on Apple's massive global messaging service. Beeper Mini simply doesn't work without co-opting Apple's servers. Unless you start from the premise that it's okay for one business to siphon off resources from another one without authorization or compensation, then Beeper Mini's solution is technically infeasible.
As far as “siphoning off resources” is concerned, it’s not that different from sending emails to an iCloud Mail address, which also makes use of Apple’s servers. Beeper’s purpose is not for Android users to communicate among themselves, but to communicate with Apple users. It’s only natural that this would involve Apple’s servers, as it does with email.
This is not to say that this entitles anyone to do so without Apple’s consent, but the argument about resource usage is a straw man here, IMO. This is not about who pays for the servers. Even if Beeper would offer Apple an appropriate portion of their revenue (edit: and they actually do in TFA), Apple would not agree. For Apple, this is about keeping the garden wall up.
This is not to say that this entitles anyone to do so without Apple’s consent, but the argument about resource usage is a straw man here, IMO. This is not about who pays for the servers. Even if Beeper would offer Apple an appropriate portion of their revenue (edit: and they actually do in TFA), Apple would not agree. For Apple, this is about keeping the garden wall up.
> As far as “siphoning off resources” is concerned, it’s not that different from sending emails to an iCloud Mail address, which also makes use of Apple’s servers.
Which is the intent of running those email servers. These are the “public-use” servers. The iMessage servers are private.
Which is the intent of running those email servers. These are the “public-use” servers. The iMessage servers are private.
That’s not how email works. Your email provider maintains servers to send and receive messages on your behalf, and your email client checks in with your provider for messages. iMessage not like email.
Sending an email will connect to Apple’s SMTP server and make use of Apple’s resources that way. (I happen to run my own mail server that does exactly that.) Yes, receiving iMessage messages presumably works differently from receiving email, in that it’s probably pull rather than push, but that doesn’t change the basic argument.
It’s not just that: for email providers, they’re responsible for storing messages that their customer has received. Your server you pay to maintain holds your messages.
On iMessage, all messages are stored on Apple’s servers (at least in-transit), even those that would be destined between two Android users communicating via iMessage.
At least with email it’s a bit easier to filter out spam, but iMessage is also E2E encrypted so automatic spam detection is much harder.
On iMessage, all messages are stored on Apple’s servers (at least in-transit), even those that would be destined between two Android users communicating via iMessage.
At least with email it’s a bit easier to filter out spam, but iMessage is also E2E encrypted so automatic spam detection is much harder.
The fundamental difference is that iCloud email is based on a 41 year old plain-text open protocol which was designed to be federated and lacks any real security or E2EE built-in.
It seems that you agree that resource usage isn’t the issue. Which was the point of the analogy.
Agree, but it is a closed service. Hacking for shit-n-giggles is fine. Doing it for security research and bug bounties is also fine. Offering another service (and planning to charge, no less!) that uses that closed service without concent isn't, irresepective of motive or ethics. Ethically, whether you advocate FOSS or not, it is wrong. I'm no Stallman fan, but I admire his ethics here; if it's closed, he won't entertain using a service.
But why do you run your own mail server if you can just use Apple's?
Same reason I don't use Gmail: I don't want all of my emails on a big tech company's servers. I pay for Fastmail.
It’s completely different. Email is a decentralized network. iMessage is centralized. Email servers, like Mastodon, Usenet (RIP), etc. implicitly agree to federate (usually!) with other servers. All iMessage traffic sent or received has to go through an Apple owned iMessage server and propagate through the iMessage network, so every additional iMessage client has a direct cost to Apple that Apple didn't agree to.
The resources are negligible and not worth mentioning. Chat, encrypted or not, is not an expensive service for Apple to run.
There are much better business arguments to make here then "oh no! The 3 trillion dollar company might have slightly more overhead managing text messaging!"
There are much better business arguments to make here then "oh no! The 3 trillion dollar company might have slightly more overhead managing text messaging!"
iMessage supports attachments up to 100Mb and groups of 32 participants. It’s certainly more resource intensive than 140 byte SMS.
Sure, but let's not fool ourselves. It isn't exactly a cost center for Apple to run the service nor would it be to scale up usage to include Android users. The cost would be a rounding error to Apple.
From a business perspective, I'm much more sympathetic to arguments that iMessage is a perk Apple wants to keep as incentive for more users to switch to Apple's ecosystem and, likely more important, lack of cross-platform interoperability raises the cost for existing Apple users to transition to Android.
From a business perspective, I'm much more sympathetic to arguments that iMessage is a perk Apple wants to keep as incentive for more users to switch to Apple's ecosystem and, likely more important, lack of cross-platform interoperability raises the cost for existing Apple users to transition to Android.
Another way to look at it is that there would always be a fixed cost to operating any global messaging network that would probably be at least a million dollars a year. Piggybacking on Apple's already-built network and focusing only on marginal cost sidesteps the reality that standing up a service that big from scratch is very expensive. Even if iMessage were a decentralized network like email that allows federation, Beeper Mini would be on the hook for a much bigger bill.
.....?
Are you claiming Apple would have to pay fixed costs a second time because new users were added to the already existing service?
And are you claiming that 1 million dollars is a lot of money to Apple, a company worth over three million million dollars?
Are you claiming Apple would have to pay fixed costs a second time because new users were added to the already existing service?
And are you claiming that 1 million dollars is a lot of money to Apple, a company worth over three million million dollars?
The unauthorized access is the problem, not the amount of resources used. If you hack into a system and use it "just a little" you've still committed a crime.
Okay? Not sure why you're bringing up a what-if that didn't happen. Beeper Mini didn't hack into Apple's servers.
I was responding to someone who said the extra overhead for running a chat service that has more people use it would be notable for Apple. A business argument - not a legal one.
I was responding to someone who said the extra overhead for running a chat service that has more people use it would be notable for Apple. A business argument - not a legal one.
This hacking is more DMCA than CFAA
This is the one and only argument needed. Everything else can be met with some degree of philosophical discussion and back-and-forth. The bottom line is that Apple didn’t invite them to use their (Apple’s) resources.
The article literally responds to this...they said if Apple wants reasonable (key word, reasonable) compensation for the resources used, they're more than willing to pay that.
Apple could simply sell iMessage. They don't because iMessage is not a product, it's a stealth marketing tool and a wildly successful one.
So no 3rd party client software unless the company running the service gives explicit permission?
No 3rd party batteries in devices or 3rd party ink cartridges either
No 3rd party batteries in devices or 3rd party ink cartridges either
It generally doesn't cost e.g. the printer manufacturer anything when you use a 3rd party cartidge. This is separate from the value/loss described above. I still think once you reach a certain size there need to be some interop requirements though but I can also see why many would say these points are unrelated to iMessage.
> So no 3rd party client software unless the company running the service gives explicit permission?
That's about the strength of it. Unless the protocol is open, paid or otherwise. iMessage is closed and undocumented.
That's about the strength of it. Unless the protocol is open, paid or otherwise. iMessage is closed and undocumented.
Beeper says in the article that they'd be willing to pay Apple for use of their resources.
If I broke into your house and started sleeping on your couch, would you be OK with it as long as I promised to pay you rent?
If my house was the size of twelve Tesla Gigafactorys stacked on top of each other, every other door was locked, I could track your movements throughout the house, you had your own private door and couch to sleep on, and I was worth 3 trillion dollars, sure.
Apple is running a hotel, not a house
Even if we accept the terrible metaphor it would be a hotel solely for Apple users
Beeper says that, but they probably don't have the amount of money that Apple thinks is worth using their services.
I'm willing to buy all of your property for $1, but that doesn't give me the right to come use it all, just because in theory there is a price I would pay to have it all.
I'm willing to buy all of your property for $1, but that doesn't give me the right to come use it all, just because in theory there is a price I would pay to have it all.
what do you mean co-opting? Unless you're referring to beeper mini to beeper mini communications, sure, but the majority of the comms are going to Apple users.
On a messaging network, work must be done to both send and to receive messages. For Beeper Mini to iPhone communication, cost is added to the network, but only one of the devices has paid for the privilege of using it. At best you could argue that Beeper Mini only steals half of the resources needed to communicate with iPhone users.
The ability to differentiate blue and green bubbles isn't inextricably tied to keeping iMessage closed. Apple could allow iMessage to interoperate and still only allow apple users to have blue bubbles. But they choose not to. Requiring an iPhone for a blue bubble is reasonable. Forcing everyone to use insecure chat just because one of them isn't an Apple customer isn't.
Blue vs green bubble isn't about iPhone vs Android - It's about iMessagevs not-iMessage. If Apple did have an Android client with feature parity, I would strongly imagine that would show up as blue bubbles.
> But from the business side Apple's decision is totally defensible and clear
Sure, many atrocious acts are fantastic business decisions. Slavery? Great for business. Massive ROI. Incredibly evil.
Sure, many atrocious acts are fantastic business decisions. Slavery? Great for business. Massive ROI. Incredibly evil.
> As an iPhone mobile / windows desktop user I would love an interoperable protocol so I could respond to texts from my desktop
You have MANY of them. SMS/MMS and Matrix spring to mind immediately. Mastodon qualifies. You can use RCS today if your carrier has an app like Verizon's Message+. If you want to go all retro, IRC.
That's ignoring the productized implementations all over the place - Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, Slack, Discord, and so on. MSN and ICQ are still running.
You have MANY of them. SMS/MMS and Matrix spring to mind immediately. Mastodon qualifies. You can use RCS today if your carrier has an app like Verizon's Message+. If you want to go all retro, IRC.
That's ignoring the productized implementations all over the place - Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, Slack, Discord, and so on. MSN and ICQ are still running.
100% accurate elsewhere.
Who is auditing Beeper's code for security issues? How big is their security team and their response SLA? How are they encrypting messages at rest? How much money are they prepared to spend on attorneys to defend these stances against various governments? What can their servers see, what do those servers retain? etc etc
Apple makes commitments about encryption and security, shown in-app via message colors, that Beeper has no right to subvert.
Who is auditing Beeper's code for security issues? How big is their security team and their response SLA? How are they encrypting messages at rest? How much money are they prepared to spend on attorneys to defend these stances against various governments? What can their servers see, what do those servers retain? etc etc
Apple makes commitments about encryption and security, shown in-app via message colors, that Beeper has no right to subvert.
> Apple makes commitments about encryption and security
Those commitments are only as strong as the recipient's control of their Apple ID credentials. It should be up to them whether they want to entrust a third-party (whether Beeper, or someone with an actual Apple device) with their messages.
Those commitments are only as strong as the recipient's control of their Apple ID credentials. It should be up to them whether they want to entrust a third-party (whether Beeper, or someone with an actual Apple device) with their messages.
Nonsense. They're making that decision, without consent or notification, for everyone else in that conversation.
But they don't need Beeper to make that decision. They can just as well leak screenshots of the conversation, backup their phone to iCloud (which breaks E2E unless Advanced Data Protection is enabled) or a compromised computer, or just leak their Apple ID credentials which would allow any attacker to take over their iMessage account (using a real device) and download their backups, or run an outdated iOS version with known vulnerabilities or jailbreak and install a malicious tweak.
I don't see how Beeper makes that any worse - I've listed a myriad of ways a user can choose to compromise the security of any iMessages sent to them. These ways have been known for decades and Apple hasn't done anything (they could lock-out outdated and jailbreakable iOS versions).
I don't see how Beeper makes that any worse - I've listed a myriad of ways a user can choose to compromise the security of any iMessages sent to them. These ways have been known for decades and Apple hasn't done anything (they could lock-out outdated and jailbreakable iOS versions).
Those are exceptions. Being able to take a screenshot simply isn't in any way comparable to silently transiting every single message through a service, with unknown management and unaudited security, with < 50 employees, and that doesn't even appear to employ a single security engineer per my skim of their linkedin page.
Being careless with your Apple ID credentials, having malware on your outdated iOS device or the computer you sync your iPhone to (note: they can sync wirelessly and in the background now, so it doesn't have to be an explicit action) can result in the same outcome - your messages silently going to an attacker.
Either way, it should be up to the user to decide what they want to do with their messages and how much security they attach to them. After all, even in case of a fully bulletproof solution that would even prevent screenshots, the user is still free to read their messages out loud in a public place or in reach of a recording device.
Also, again, Beeper Mini (different from Beeper Cloud, which is not E2E compatible) operates entirely on-device - no message data transits through Beeper's infrastructure. There's an optional cloud component to enable real-time push notifications but even in that case I believe their server merely relays data and doesn't have the decryption keys.
Either way, it should be up to the user to decide what they want to do with their messages and how much security they attach to them. After all, even in case of a fully bulletproof solution that would even prevent screenshots, the user is still free to read their messages out loud in a public place or in reach of a recording device.
Also, again, Beeper Mini (different from Beeper Cloud, which is not E2E compatible) operates entirely on-device - no message data transits through Beeper's infrastructure. There's an optional cloud component to enable real-time push notifications but even in that case I believe their server merely relays data and doesn't have the decryption keys.
> Either way, it should be up to the user to decide what they want to do with their messages and how much security they attach to them.
So you agree, it's wildly unethical to use Beeper because it doesn't give all the users in the convo the right to choose the security of their messages.
So you agree, it's wildly unethical to use Beeper because it doesn't give all the users in the convo the right to choose the security of their messages.
It's only as unethical as someone not running the latest iOS version, not having a strong passcode on their device and a strong Apple ID password and observing proper security practices on their main computer to ensure it isn't compromised either.
Whether you consider that unethical is up to you. Most people don't know or care and everything works out anyway.
Whether you consider that unethical is up to you. Most people don't know or care and everything works out anyway.
> The blue bubbles are a luxury item / luxury signal that let's apple differentiate their products
It's also an abuse of their market position to discriminate against the competition, and they have done so very successfully.
There are far more subtle, less othering ways to indicate a participant in a conversation isn't capable of the same functionality as others.
It's also an abuse of their market position to discriminate against the competition, and they have done so very successfully.
There are far more subtle, less othering ways to indicate a participant in a conversation isn't capable of the same functionality as others.
It’s not an abuse any more than Google doing the same damn thing with Google messenger! Your phone number is registered there too by the way.
Google is pushing RCS only because they are completely incapable of making their own protocol and lord you know they have tried (gchat, hangouts, allo, and now messenger)
And by the way, RCS is entirely carrier dependent. It’s awful. I wish my friends could also use iMessage but Apple is well within their rights to stop people from using their network against their terms of service.
Google is pushing RCS only because they are completely incapable of making their own protocol and lord you know they have tried (gchat, hangouts, allo, and now messenger)
And by the way, RCS is entirely carrier dependent. It’s awful. I wish my friends could also use iMessage but Apple is well within their rights to stop people from using their network against their terms of service.
It's more abuse because of a) the market position and b) the extent of the othering.
> so I could respond to texts from my desktop
You can. I've been using Beeper Cloud for a year on a Windows desktop. It's fantastic. I also use WhatsApp in that same application.
Before that I had all sorts of workarounds that mostly worked. Like having a Mac VM running in the background with an AirMessage server and then using their web client to access messaging from Windows. Beeper Cloud removed all this nonsense from my life.
You can. I've been using Beeper Cloud for a year on a Windows desktop. It's fantastic. I also use WhatsApp in that same application.
Before that I had all sorts of workarounds that mostly worked. Like having a Mac VM running in the background with an AirMessage server and then using their web client to access messaging from Windows. Beeper Cloud removed all this nonsense from my life.
For me the desktop version worked fine for months until Beeper Mini got announced here. Too bad they weren't able to keep it low key. In my use case Im already fully invested in the Apple ecosystem. I have a mac, an iphone, and ipad. Beeper allowed me to extend my chats to two Windows machines that I have to use.
This was the mistake; it could have been a whispered feature that those in the know could let others know, but it became front-page news and got killed.
That someone has iMessage on android without the remote device work around would have blown up regardless.
Has Beeper classics iMessage integration been impacted as well?
Works fine for me.
Just in case Eric sees this -- We're an Apple household, but I have to use a PC for work. Beeper has allowed me to extend iMessage elegantly to my work computers. Their new solution works well for me as we have a Mac Mini always on at home. Using the registration code with Beeper's servers makes the whole thing more performant than any other alternative. I'd gladly pay them for the service.
[deleted]
With all the drama surrounding this, isn't the actual root of the problem that most US Apple users just can't be bothered to simply install another messaging app?
Pretty much. There are other messaging protocols that do basically everything iMessage does (and outside of the US, they're fairly ubiquitous). A better resolution to all of this would have been for everyone to just switch to Matrix/Signal -- heck even WhatsApp would be an improvement.
It seems to be a uniquely American problem that I can't get any of my contacts (on Android too, by the way, users there are just as apathetic) to switch to secure cross-platform messaging services. In a better world all this talk about RCS and SMS bridges wouldn't matter because we'd all have already abandoned SMS entirely.
It seems to be a uniquely American problem that I can't get any of my contacts (on Android too, by the way, users there are just as apathetic) to switch to secure cross-platform messaging services. In a better world all this talk about RCS and SMS bridges wouldn't matter because we'd all have already abandoned SMS entirely.
For every 10 people I chat with, maybe 1 ends up falling back to SMS. Why do I want to tell the other 9 that we should all use Facebook? And how can I with a straight face suggest they are actually better than Apple?
Your argument works pretty well when the hate for Apple is greater than the hate for Facebook. In my experience it's mostly the other way around.
Your argument works pretty well when the hate for Apple is greater than the hate for Facebook. In my experience it's mostly the other way around.
It's so strange they came to this fight with only the energy for 2 counter moves
They really thought that Apple couldn’t block it when they originally announced it. Obviously that was not accurate…
I always thought that was weird. Apple controls every single device that accesses the service as well as the design of the service itself.
They have effectively infinite latitude to change it to block unauthorized access.
Even if it took Apple a month or two to respond every time, how many times does it take before basically everyone gives up on Beeper anyway?
I can get why they did it the first time for the PR value and raising the issue in public consciousness but I can’t see any value in continuing to fight past that first block.
They have effectively infinite latitude to change it to block unauthorized access.
Even if it took Apple a month or two to respond every time, how many times does it take before basically everyone gives up on Beeper anyway?
I can get why they did it the first time for the PR value and raising the issue in public consciousness but I can’t see any value in continuing to fight past that first block.
Why? Its clear after 2 attempts that Apple is serious about continuing to break their business model, so why keep fighting a company with unlimited resources that has their sights set on you?
The way you phrase this makes it sound like “ why would I work so hard to break into this house if the owner is clearly more resourced than I am, and insists on breaking my business model of using their stuff for free”
Apple owns those servers and has every right to control how they are accessed.
Apple owns those servers and has every right to control how they are accessed.
I can't help if that is how you interpreted what I said, but I fully agree apple is well within their rights to block this type of usage.
> Beeper Cloud has always been free to use.
This isn't true [0], unless you count "always" as meaning "always [after the time that the new iMessage bridge was introduced]."
[0]: https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-is-now-free
This isn't true [0], unless you count "always" as meaning "always [after the time that the new iMessage bridge was introduced]."
[0]: https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-is-now-free
Yes, that's essentially the whole post. They lambast the dec9 Apple statement with all of the things they've done post-Dec9. Acting as if they weren't forced into all these things and acting as if their product has always been the way it is now. It's pretty bad
I admire the Beeper team’s effort, but this post playing the victim card is deranged. Beeper was trying to turn a profit piggy-backing on Apple’s servers and Apple curbing access is construed as “interference”, lol.
I don’t know if it would’ve made a difference, but charging a subscription out of the gate and poking the bear by claiming Apple would have a difficult time blocking access doomed this project from the start.
Again, I admire the hacker spirit, but what were they thinking?
I don’t know if it would’ve made a difference, but charging a subscription out of the gate and poking the bear by claiming Apple would have a difficult time blocking access doomed this project from the start.
Again, I admire the hacker spirit, but what were they thinking?
Since Beeper has stated that they're done if Apple doesn't like their latest solution, what are other options? Two I know of are AirMessage¹ and Texts², both of which seem to support this in a way that doesn't bother Apple.
¹ https://airmessage.org/ ² https://texts.com/
¹ https://airmessage.org/ ² https://texts.com/
I've always figured one of the driving motivations behind corporate blogs is to generate interest in your company and product. I'm fascinated why so many companies blog on substack or similar with no links to their own website. I actually wanted to learn about Beeper but couldn't find any links to their site. There are a ton of links to learn about substack.
Apple blackholed my SMSs from certain people for years.
I'll never forgive them for that. From the very beginning they decided to be hostile to users.
I'll never forgive them for that. From the very beginning they decided to be hostile to users.
Apple blackholed my SMSs from certain people for years.
Are you sure it's Apple?
I had a similar problem for years, and it turned out to be AT&T.
I mentioned it to an AT&T rep when I was on the phone correcting a billing error. He was able to do something on AT&T's end, then send a signal that actually rebooted my iPhone remotely (!), and ever since then I get every SMS perfectly fine.
Are you sure it's Apple?
I had a similar problem for years, and it turned out to be AT&T.
I mentioned it to an AT&T rep when I was on the phone correcting a billing error. He was able to do something on AT&T's end, then send a signal that actually rebooted my iPhone remotely (!), and ever since then I get every SMS perfectly fine.
I see iMessage as simply the default texting app that comes with apple. It can text to any other type of phone and any other phone can text to it. It does have other features/perks that are only available to apple users, but why do android users feel they have the right to this too? It's not like apple only allows iphone to iphone texting.
Android users do not want iMessage. What they want is their friends to stop telling them to buy an iPhone because Apple ignores the RCS standard and does a purposely shitty job of integrating SMS group chat into iMessage.
I'm generally pretty laissez faire about technology, but when it comes to things that have achieved high market adoption, I am more sympathetic to the EU's position of enforcing standards.
I have no idea why people support corporations creating these weird little walled garden fiefdoms that are actively user hostile. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Imagine how stupid it would be to have to have an Apple phone to call another Apple user. Or to have to go to a Ford gas station to fill your car. Or if you could only send/receive email with other Gmail users.
I'm generally pretty laissez faire about technology, but when it comes to things that have achieved high market adoption, I am more sympathetic to the EU's position of enforcing standards.
I have no idea why people support corporations creating these weird little walled garden fiefdoms that are actively user hostile. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Imagine how stupid it would be to have to have an Apple phone to call another Apple user. Or to have to go to a Ford gas station to fill your car. Or if you could only send/receive email with other Gmail users.
No one on Android really cares. It's actually iPhone users either complaining or excluding Android users from group chats.
It's iPhone users creating the social pressure to use iMessage.
It's iPhone users creating the social pressure to use iMessage.
I'm an Android user who cares.
Not necessarily for myself, but more generally for the damage Apple is doing to society by creating a divisive wedge between people for the sake of luxury signalling.
Like you say, there are lots of iPhone users who pressure and exclude outsiders to try to force them to get iPhones. Android doesn't do anything like this.
Not necessarily for myself, but more generally for the damage Apple is doing to society by creating a divisive wedge between people for the sake of luxury signalling.
Like you say, there are lots of iPhone users who pressure and exclude outsiders to try to force them to get iPhones. Android doesn't do anything like this.
> the damage Apple is doing to society by creating a divisive wedge between people for the sake of luxury signalling.
Would you be able to elaborate on this and provide some examples, please. With respect to iMessage, that is.
Would you be able to elaborate on this and provide some examples, please. With respect to iMessage, that is.
Some people are apparently so torn up about their text message bubbles being a different colour, they’ll apparently wage a holy war for it in the comments.
Spoiler alert everyone: if you want the product feature, buy the product.
Spoiler alert everyone: if you want the product feature, buy the product.
> It's not like apple only allows iphone to iphone texting.
Because of the limitations of SMS (not supporting high res pictures, no groupchats over 10 people, etc) it effectively is only for iphones. People with Android phones in the US in iPhone-circles simply cannot be socially integrated and have full social lives
Because of the limitations of SMS (not supporting high res pictures, no groupchats over 10 people, etc) it effectively is only for iphones. People with Android phones in the US in iPhone-circles simply cannot be socially integrated and have full social lives
I've been using it for a few months, and even if iMessage gets removed from Beeper (cloud) I'll keep using it, alongside the Messages app. And this is coming from an almost-exclusive mac-iPhone user.
Having all my chats in one place have helped me better keep in touch with friends and family.
Having all my chats in one place have helped me better keep in touch with friends and family.
That Apple "lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting" is a lie.
I use several different SMS texting (some also voice call) apps on my iPhone, in order to keep SMS numbers as required by various segments of digital life apart, as well as to serve as the "mobile" number for SMS on my contact info.
For a decade my iPhone's primary voice and SMS line were even an original "Grand Central" number before it was acquired by Google Voice.
If your preferred number is stuck on your iPhone, you can port it to any app backed by a service that supports porting, then keep using your number not just on that iPhone but anywhere you run the app.
I use several different SMS texting (some also voice call) apps on my iPhone, in order to keep SMS numbers as required by various segments of digital life apart, as well as to serve as the "mobile" number for SMS on my contact info.
For a decade my iPhone's primary voice and SMS line were even an original "Grand Central" number before it was acquired by Google Voice.
If your preferred number is stuck on your iPhone, you can port it to any app backed by a service that supports porting, then keep using your number not just on that iPhone but anywhere you run the app.
Mad respect for trying. Maybe there will be some sort of litigation on their behalf?
I offer old Apple gear to friends so that they can iMessage and FaceTime.
If I were mainly on linux, I'd do the same with open messaging apps. (admittedly, not mobile ones. YET)
Except that I already gave away all my old PC hardware.
There's actually a benefit of using software that's not tied to a phone number, a drastic decline in spam. I really don't intend to apply for a laborer position in Alameda.
And let's face it, the unreadable white type on a bright green background punishes only the Apple users who have to squint at it. (Will rose-colored sunglasses work?).(pulls out No. 25 photographic filter) YES!
If I were mainly on linux, I'd do the same with open messaging apps. (admittedly, not mobile ones. YET)
Except that I already gave away all my old PC hardware.
There's actually a benefit of using software that's not tied to a phone number, a drastic decline in spam. I really don't intend to apply for a laborer position in Alameda.
And let's face it, the unreadable white type on a bright green background punishes only the Apple users who have to squint at it. (Will rose-colored sunglasses work?).(pulls out No. 25 photographic filter) YES!
The iMessage “social pressure” is mostly a USA problem.
Europeans use whatsapp and some eastern use telegram.
Which is not surprising since iphone is and always was one of the most expensive phones to get.
Knowing nothing about how beeper provides its services, does it require that they are given your icloud login credentials so they can login on your behalf and broker your messages to all your clients? If so, why would anyone be willing to do that? I hardly trust Apple with my stuff, and have advanced data protection enabled, and use icloud services as little as possible outside of iMessage. I'd never hand over icloud access to another party regardless of what nice to have feature they are taping over on Apple's behalf.
No they needed just your phone number in the original iteration of the app.
They can access all of a person's iMessage using only a phone number? So they are registering it on your behalf then, and keeping all of the credentials for themselves. You all are nuts using that.
What are they doing about people using someone else's number to gain access to all their messages?
What are they doing about people using someone else's number to gain access to all their messages?
I actually read a whole book on the weaponization of human rights, and how some groups portray their cause as “noble” to get around the sticky questions such as motive and self-benefit. I’m not saying this exactly that, but there’s a lot of, “we’re doing this for you!” speech here that’s a bit out of line with the stakes of the problem…
Apple is doing it for our security and save the environment. If Apple can do it, others should be able to do it too.
After all, the whole SV is trying to make the world a better place, make humans interplanetary species, protect freedom of speech, democratise stuff etc.
After all, the whole SV is trying to make the world a better place, make humans interplanetary species, protect freedom of speech, democratise stuff etc.
I opt in to Apple’s work, whereas Beeper Mini was done on my behalf, which is the striking difference.
Reminds me of this: Go all the way back to 2009. The Palm Pre spoofed USB ids (I guess) so it would work with iTunes. Apple updated iTunes a time or two to block it. Palm gave up.
https://www.networkworld.com/article/758811/palm-gives-up-la...
https://www.networkworld.com/article/758811/palm-gives-up-la...
I might be a minority here who thinks this was a useless waste of effort and money. Who paid for it? Whose problems does it solve? I doubt if many who use non ios ecosystem would pay for it in the first place, not to mention the fact that you need to rely on Apple to be friendly. It was destined for failure IMO. For the reference my household has multiple different devices and we fall back to text messages or some other app.
Blah blah our best interest, it’s a for profit company same as Apple. No one I mean no one will keep looking at the source code and to make sure the one on the phone and the code is 1:1, it’s not a security guarantee.
Even if they did, Apple doesn’t care about that. If they wanted an Android client they’d make one, not allow some random company to do it.
They are small enough and their blog posts are technical enough that for rn they seem to be more technically/ideologically led than strictly business led so I'm inclined to believe they aren't thinking about how to maximize profit with every word in their blog post and are not just another Apple
They are a for-profit company, but they want to make their profit by filling a demand people are willing to pay for
What do you suggest they do instead?
Nothing. They got great publicity out of this. They also got Apple under serious additional scrutiny by Congress. Beeper Mini the product never had a chance at actually being successful, so I think this is about the best outcome they could have ever hoped for.
“Never had a chance”
Because of anticompetitive behavior by Apple, yes.
That’s literally the whole point people keep missing.
Because of anticompetitive behavior by Apple, yes.
That’s literally the whole point people keep missing.
Find a business model that doesn't depend on the unauthorized access of a private API would be a good place to start.
By “private API” do you mean undocumented public API?
yes.
I've used 'private API' exactly how you did and some pedant told me it wasn't a real term so I empathize
HN is accessed via an undocumented public API that you are using every time you visit this site.
And I would suggest it's a bad idea to base your entire business off using that API.
What did they expect would happen? Apple's reaction was more than predictable. Why waste money and time on this?
[deleted]
I didn't really believe the Apple fanboy effect was real before, but I'm honestly just blown away by this thread.
If they were up against any other company, I'm absolutely certain this thread would be rooting for Beeper hard, with all the usual arguments about interoperability, open source, the right to control your own devices and own your data.
Only for Apple, suddenly all of that falls out of the window and the most blatant anticompetitive behaviour is ok because of "security".
If they were up against any other company, I'm absolutely certain this thread would be rooting for Beeper hard, with all the usual arguments about interoperability, open source, the right to control your own devices and own your data.
Only for Apple, suddenly all of that falls out of the window and the most blatant anticompetitive behaviour is ok because of "security".
The /r/beeper subreddit is full of people coming in to complain about beeper. Even if people don't think what beeper is trying to do is worthwhile, I don't understand what makes people emotionally invested to the point where they are would devote a ton of energy to complaining about perceived threats. It's like they see any threats to Apple as a personal attack on them
I have nothing against open standards but I see this more like an attack on private property. Why should Apple be disallowed from creating a walled garden? It's suddenly not valid to control which devices can participate in your network? Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it.
Those are common arguments, but usually this is how open source, interop and reverse engineering are seen from a companies' perspective. I find it just unusual to see this perspective shared by users.
> I see this more like an attack on private property
Why are the iPhones that people bought the private property of Apple?
> Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it.
How exactly does it improve the user experience?
Probably every company that manufactures smart devices makes that argument. That's how Microsoft justifies Secure Boot with a hardwired key and how John Deere justifies locking up their tractors. What makes Apple special in that regard?
> I see this more like an attack on private property
Why are the iPhones that people bought the private property of Apple?
> Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it.
How exactly does it improve the user experience?
Probably every company that manufactures smart devices makes that argument. That's how Microsoft justifies Secure Boot with a hardwired key and how John Deere justifies locking up their tractors. What makes Apple special in that regard?
Perspective shift, there's an axis of responsibility:
Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works.
Where you sit on this spectrum from Hacker to User defines your opinion on this.
Neither end is wrong, they just want different things.
Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works.
Where you sit on this spectrum from Hacker to User defines your opinion on this.
Neither end is wrong, they just want different things.
But how is the user of an iPhone being compromised if someone else can use the iMessage protocol?
The sender is trusting that Apple isn’t capturing the message content in the iMessages app after it gets decrypted so it can be shown to the receiver.
In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to.
If you are sending to someone receiving in some other app, you have to trust the receiver, Apple, and who ever makes the thing that is being used to display the decrypted message. You don’t even know what app you’re trusting as the sender.
The further you go down this rabbit hole the more ergh it all feels, but actually being able to trust the whole chain from your mind to someone else’s over the internet is quite hard.
In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to.
If you are sending to someone receiving in some other app, you have to trust the receiver, Apple, and who ever makes the thing that is being used to display the decrypted message. You don’t even know what app you’re trusting as the sender.
The further you go down this rabbit hole the more ergh it all feels, but actually being able to trust the whole chain from your mind to someone else’s over the internet is quite hard.
What did anyone expect? They did all this to get attention to release their Beeper App. They knew how it would end from the moment they came up with the idea.
Does anyone have a consolidated timeline of the counters by Apple and patches by beeper with technical details? It would be fascinating to read
Serious, why people use iMessage so much in the us?
Nobody does in southern Europe, not even iOS users do, everybody just uses WhatsApp.
Nobody does in southern Europe, not even iOS users do, everybody just uses WhatsApp.
Historically, the US had (rather expensive by the RoW standards) "unlimited" plans very early on, so most of the US users would not bother to think about the cost of SMS before sending a message. The rest of the world at the time was mostly on pay-per-SMS plans.
Then WhatsApp appeared, with an offer of $1 per year for an unlimited amount of messages.
As can be seen, the value proposition of that was tremendous in e.g. Europe, but non-existing in the US, as it just was $1 over what the US users already had. Most of the world got sucked into WhatsApp pretty quickly. The US never followed suit.
Then WhatsApp appeared, with an offer of $1 per year for an unlimited amount of messages.
As can be seen, the value proposition of that was tremendous in e.g. Europe, but non-existing in the US, as it just was $1 over what the US users already had. Most of the world got sucked into WhatsApp pretty quickly. The US never followed suit.
Most of us had unlimited free domestic SMS messages here in Norway as well long before iMessage was a thing, but it’s still rare (at least in my circles) to see anyone receive an iMessage or SMS. WhatsApp also isn’t widely used. The dominant messaging app is Facebook Messenger. I have no idea why this happened.
>Nobody does in southern Europe, not even iOS users do, everybody just uses WhatsApp.
Er...not 'everybody'. *currently in S-Eu, I've never had wa, getting along fine with signal. As are several other people...maybe slowly, but surely. Can confirm nobody I've ever met has mentioned i-stuff.
Er...not 'everybody'. *currently in S-Eu, I've never had wa, getting along fine with signal. As are several other people...maybe slowly, but surely. Can confirm nobody I've ever met has mentioned i-stuff.
iMessage probably just came first for enough people with enough other people using it that it just stuck. I think most often in other countries the iPhone was too expensive so a cheap Android was the only option, with alternative messaging apps therefore being much more useful for those people.
That's nonsense.
Even on early iPhones you still had to communicate with friends with Androids, Sybians, Windows Phones, Blackberrys.
Those all had Whatsapp, but iMessage was unique to iOS.
Even on early iPhones you still had to communicate with friends with Androids, Sybians, Windows Phones, Blackberrys.
Those all had Whatsapp, but iMessage was unique to iOS.
> Just one year ago, Tim Cook had this to say about RCS: "I don't hear our users asking that we put a lot of energy in on that at this point. […] Buy your mom an iPhone.”
He said the quiet part out loud, and no one did anything about it. That moment (or any time before then) is when the battle was lost.
If our governments had any sense of justice, Apple would be facing anti-trust enforcement over that statement alone.
He said the quiet part out loud, and no one did anything about it. That moment (or any time before then) is when the battle was lost.
If our governments had any sense of justice, Apple would be facing anti-trust enforcement over that statement alone.
What would be the cause of action in this hypothetical antitrust case you speak of?
Apple is using the vertical integration between its software business and its hardware business to prevent competition with both.
Vertical integration through internal expansion is not a cause of action under the Sherman Antitrust Act nor the Clayton Antitrust Act. Even vertical integration through merger isn’t an antitrust issue per se.
I can’t think of any abusive act that prevents competition, I do see them not going out of their way to facilitate competition with themselves, but they have no positive obligation to do so.
I can’t think of any abusive act that prevents competition, I do see them not going out of their way to facilitate competition with themselves, but they have no positive obligation to do so.
Maybe don’t share your Apple ID password with a third-party in the first place, just saying.
I'm glad their efforts raised awareness of the Apple's closed messaging system and the "bullying" and social friction it causes. A company in Apple's position abusing it's power to make people, mostly young people, feel bad until they buy an iPhone is about as vile of a marketing tactic as I can think of.
This is such an insane take to me. Apple hasn't done anything but provide a feature that some subset of their customers in a single digit number of markets finds compelling.
Do you really think that teenagers in America wouldn't be bullying the outgroup—to the extent that they actually are frequently ostracizing their peers over this, which is not at all clear—over something else if all the bubbles were blue?
Do you really think that teenagers in America wouldn't be bullying the outgroup—to the extent that they actually are frequently ostracizing their peers over this, which is not at all clear—over something else if all the bubbles were blue?
Growing up as a teenager in a time where there wasn’t iPhones it was tennis shoes. My kids dealt with it too—specifically backpacks (if I recall correctly). Point is, after we got out of high school it didn’t much matter and we got on with our lives in our off the rack shoes and no name backpacks.
We didn’t need special intervention that made all shoes Nike or all backpacks JanSport.
We didn’t need special intervention that made all shoes Nike or all backpacks JanSport.
Making it harder for bullies to bully is always good. Yes, there would be a small net reduction in bullying if apple stopped being bully enablers. Stop defending their evil practices.
This is what I mean! "You, as someone who isn't an Apple customer, can't use this one service" is not evil, for fuck's sake.
Making cars illegal would make it harder for bullies to bully. Your logic dictates that this is always good.
Why is Apple obligated to support iMessage for people who aren’t customers? This seems to be at the root of the discussion, not this silly blue bubble thing. The costs of iMessage are included in the high price of Apple devices. Why should Apple customers subsidize non-customers?
If they really wanted to, they should go the opensource route. Maybe they could succeed like unblock origin. They basically based their product on a 12yo's solution so why not let others contribute as well.
They did open source it.
Shoot, I was hoping they'd keep going :/
The antitrust angle makes no sense. Every device, even android and windows have defaut apps but to allow competition replacement apps are tolerated.
Regardless of size, no company owes users or the public free service using their servers. Fairness always cuts both ways. As an iPhone user, I demand apple provides me iMessage and ensures non-imessage clients can't message me.
Beeper can make a chat client and compete, they can advertisr in the appstore and elsewhere. Internet Explorer and now Edge are default on windows but Chrome is the number one browser (despite edge using chromium). Why can't beeper do the same?
This whole "eat the rich" crap needs to end. People like apple products the way they are. You succeed by figuring out why that is and competing. I used signal on iphone for a couple of years and then got rid of it for example. Didn't like the ui as much as imessage, can't import backups and lost all message and contact history I built on signal over many years. Similarly, i have had a lot of bad experience with usb-c but lightning has been great in every way for me but thanks to this same anti-capitalist attitude my choice was taken away.
My problem is not that the biggest company on earth is being treated unfairly and will lose chump change. My problem is that I am being affected! My choices and preferences are being taken away in an undemocraric and anti-capitalist way. I didn't have a vote on usb-c, to the contary I paid apple a lot of money for their product to show support. Same thing with I message, why donmt the voices mine and the majority who use iphones' voices not matter here? What is apple doing to prevent beeper from creating a chat client that does things just like imessage and then have other better features? Of all the chat clients I have used, imessage has superior ui and reliability, that's why I use it. They make it sound like iphone users don't know how to search the appstore for better chat clients. Outside the US, even on iphone people use whatsapp as a default for example, because that's what they prefer (international calling friendly) and most americans haven't even heard of viber.
Clearly othere have demonstrated that you can compete with default apps and even beat imessage in some markets outside the US by competing fairly. Now what is the reason you all have your torches lighted and pitchforks sharpened so that mine and iphone user's choices get limited once more?
Regardless of size, no company owes users or the public free service using their servers. Fairness always cuts both ways. As an iPhone user, I demand apple provides me iMessage and ensures non-imessage clients can't message me.
Beeper can make a chat client and compete, they can advertisr in the appstore and elsewhere. Internet Explorer and now Edge are default on windows but Chrome is the number one browser (despite edge using chromium). Why can't beeper do the same?
This whole "eat the rich" crap needs to end. People like apple products the way they are. You succeed by figuring out why that is and competing. I used signal on iphone for a couple of years and then got rid of it for example. Didn't like the ui as much as imessage, can't import backups and lost all message and contact history I built on signal over many years. Similarly, i have had a lot of bad experience with usb-c but lightning has been great in every way for me but thanks to this same anti-capitalist attitude my choice was taken away.
My problem is not that the biggest company on earth is being treated unfairly and will lose chump change. My problem is that I am being affected! My choices and preferences are being taken away in an undemocraric and anti-capitalist way. I didn't have a vote on usb-c, to the contary I paid apple a lot of money for their product to show support. Same thing with I message, why donmt the voices mine and the majority who use iphones' voices not matter here? What is apple doing to prevent beeper from creating a chat client that does things just like imessage and then have other better features? Of all the chat clients I have used, imessage has superior ui and reliability, that's why I use it. They make it sound like iphone users don't know how to search the appstore for better chat clients. Outside the US, even on iphone people use whatsapp as a default for example, because that's what they prefer (international calling friendly) and most americans haven't even heard of viber.
Clearly othere have demonstrated that you can compete with default apps and even beat imessage in some markets outside the US by competing fairly. Now what is the reason you all have your torches lighted and pitchforks sharpened so that mine and iphone user's choices get limited once more?
>If Apple wants to accuse us of being insecure, they need to back that up with hard evidence.
No, as history has shown, apple can just make up and spread arbitrary FUD about your business, and a lot of customers will believe them. Apple lobbyists will then use the FUD to push laws which put your business at risk.
No, as history has shown, apple can just make up and spread arbitrary FUD about your business, and a lot of customers will believe them. Apple lobbyists will then use the FUD to push laws which put your business at risk.
> …made to be unreliable due to interference by Apple…
What a brazen characterization. They try to take a free ride on someone else's infrastructure by a process akin to breaking and entering, charge their own users for it, and when Apple fends them off, they call it interference. I'm speechless.
What a brazen characterization. They try to take a free ride on someone else's infrastructure by a process akin to breaking and entering, charge their own users for it, and when Apple fends them off, they call it interference. I'm speechless.
This whole fiasco is hogging US Congress' antitrust attention is, IMO, a huge fail.
Chat apps is largely represented by iMessage, but dwarfed by WhatsApp. But for the most part there is _some_ competition. And Apple requiring that you _purchase_ their product in order to use its services is not harmful to consumers. Been crazy watching people do mental gymnastics trying to make that sound like a huge problem.
Meanwhile, Google has effectively sterilized all competition in the browser market and is definitely, willfully using their market share to push around other companies and make purely self-interested, consumer-hurting choices. _This_ is where antitrust scrutiny needs to be aimed at.
Chat apps is largely represented by iMessage, but dwarfed by WhatsApp. But for the most part there is _some_ competition. And Apple requiring that you _purchase_ their product in order to use its services is not harmful to consumers. Been crazy watching people do mental gymnastics trying to make that sound like a huge problem.
Meanwhile, Google has effectively sterilized all competition in the browser market and is definitely, willfully using their market share to push around other companies and make purely self-interested, consumer-hurting choices. _This_ is where antitrust scrutiny needs to be aimed at.
how so? firefox exists ... and you can't run (real) chrome on ios
AGPLv3. Nope, not touching that one.
The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter).
Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
I remember the late 90s / early 00s when we had MSN, AOL IM, ICQ and others. People got so fed up with different people using different services that a whole slew of 3rd party clients were available that supported everything. Like Pidgin, libpurple, Bitlbee (an IRC server that supported IM protocols), and Trinity (or something named like that).
Now we are stuck with vendor lockouts and crappy 1st party apps that are usually little more than a web container.
It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
I remember the late 90s / early 00s when we had MSN, AOL IM, ICQ and others. People got so fed up with different people using different services that a whole slew of 3rd party clients were available that supported everything. Like Pidgin, libpurple, Bitlbee (an IRC server that supported IM protocols), and Trinity (or something named like that).
Now we are stuck with vendor lockouts and crappy 1st party apps that are usually little more than a web container.
It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
There’s a ton of open protocols that could have been the messaging standard. But beeper took a always-closed protocol and tried to open it.
I’m not in support of Apple here but it’s pretty obvious which way this would go.
I’m not in support of Apple here but it’s pretty obvious which way this would go.
Beeper doesn’t have any control over the protocol Apple implement. They do have control over whether they reverse engineer that protocol.
Beeper could have come up with a new messaging app for iOS. They didn’t have to reverse-engineer iMessage.
> Beeper could have come up with a new messaging app for iOS.
But the point of Beeper was to bring iOS compatibility to non-Apple devices. There’s a literal XKCD comic about creating new standards.
> They didn’t have to reverse-engineer iMessage.
Sure. But that’s not a reason not to do something. The literal same remark can be used against Apple too:
“Apple didn’t need to break support for Beeper”
“Apple didn’t need to make iMessage proprietary”
Etc
For what it’s worth, I’m not against Apple per se. In fact I’m typing this on an iPhone. I’m just commenting about how locked in messaging has become and how it’s weird that people are ok with that (or more precisely, only ok with it when it’s an Apple protocol).
But the point of Beeper was to bring iOS compatibility to non-Apple devices. There’s a literal XKCD comic about creating new standards.
> They didn’t have to reverse-engineer iMessage.
Sure. But that’s not a reason not to do something. The literal same remark can be used against Apple too:
“Apple didn’t need to break support for Beeper”
“Apple didn’t need to make iMessage proprietary”
Etc
For what it’s worth, I’m not against Apple per se. In fact I’m typing this on an iPhone. I’m just commenting about how locked in messaging has become and how it’s weird that people are ok with that (or more precisely, only ok with it when it’s an Apple protocol).
I’m just not sure what your point is? That beeper should just be allowed to do this, just because they wanted to?
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m an Apple user and I don’t really use iMessage deep enough to have issues talking to Android users.
I’ve just seen Beeper being incredibly entitled about another company’s service that they’re not paying for throughout this whole process.
As a previous startup founder and a developer (which is HN’s primary user-base), I just think it was obvious which way this was going to go.
And saying that making a service closed is equitable to reverse-engineering said service is a weird take. Should every non-public service be allowed to be attacked like this?
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m an Apple user and I don’t really use iMessage deep enough to have issues talking to Android users.
I’ve just seen Beeper being incredibly entitled about another company’s service that they’re not paying for throughout this whole process.
As a previous startup founder and a developer (which is HN’s primary user-base), I just think it was obvious which way this was going to go.
And saying that making a service closed is equitable to reverse-engineering said service is a weird take. Should every non-public service be allowed to be attacked like this?
Honestly, I’m not sure I have a point. I was just commenting on what I’ve observed as a double standard on here.
If I were to comment on the Beeper thing specifically, I think they were wrong to make it a commercial project (something they’ve now rectified). But I think Apple are wrong to break Beeper too (though I get why they did).
I think there is enough blame to go round to all parties involved.
If I were to comment on the Beeper thing specifically, I think they were wrong to make it a commercial project (something they’ve now rectified). But I think Apple are wrong to break Beeper too (though I get why they did).
I think there is enough blame to go round to all parties involved.
Ok, that's fair. But what should Apple do in response? If they did not break it the first time, Beeper would be making $2-3/month off of their services.
It would have also shown that Apple's platform isn't as secure as they position themselves to be if someone other than them can utilize their services without their permission.
There was no winning move here for Apple except to close access off to secure their closed protocol. It was just inevitable at that point.
It would have also shown that Apple's platform isn't as secure as they position themselves to be if someone other than them can utilize their services without their permission.
There was no winning move here for Apple except to close access off to secure their closed protocol. It was just inevitable at that point.
Is it really a security problem though? Something can be secure and support 3rd party clients. More likely this is just a walled garden problem. Because if it was just a security problem then Apple would have released a 1st party iMessage app for Android before now.
This doesn't answer your question though. I guess what I'd have liked to have seen is Apple release a public iMessage API. I know that would never happen, but one can dream. The approach Apple took was certainly predictable. I have no sympathy for Beeper either.
This doesn't answer your question though. I guess what I'd have liked to have seen is Apple release a public iMessage API. I know that would never happen, but one can dream. The approach Apple took was certainly predictable. I have no sympathy for Beeper either.
You can write this comment without the weird HN meta the guidelines ask you to skip and it would be a much better comment.
My comment is about what I believe to be a double standard in what was a popular comment in this thread. It's not a meta argument because it's directly responding to the comments being made that are Beeper are in the wrong / Apple are in the right and it would be hard for me to make that point without, well, referencing those comments :)
In my view it has been a very one sided discussion and I wanted to shine a light on that fact. It definitely isn't a sneer at the wider community (I mean why would I? as a prolific commenter myself, I'd be tarring myself with that same brush!)
So I do not believe I'm breaking any of the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
I do want to shine a light on one of the guidelines though:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I appreciate your comment is well intentioned but it's not taking my post in good faith.
In my view it has been a very one sided discussion and I wanted to shine a light on that fact. It definitely isn't a sneer at the wider community (I mean why would I? as a prolific commenter myself, I'd be tarring myself with that same brush!)
So I do not believe I'm breaking any of the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
I do want to shine a light on one of the guidelines though:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I appreciate your comment is well intentioned but it's not taking my post in good faith.
It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments. It strictly turns reasonable comments into bad comments which end up getting moderated.
If you want to respond to a comment, respond to the comment. If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
If you want to respond to a comment, respond to the comment. If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
> It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments.
I don't see any moderator comments. Though isn't Daniel (dang) the only mod left since Scott departed?
> If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
I do appreciate your point of view, I honestly do. But it feels the only issue you take from my comment was that it had two letters in it: "HN". I could write my comment in a way that infers the subjects without saying "HN" but it wouldn't change anything about the tone nor content of the post. So I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines on this occasion because Hacker News isn't like Voldemort -- it's ok to say "HN" in a comment on HN. You just can't be derogatory about the HN community, which I wasn't. And the high quality of the discourse that followed should demonstrate that.
Anyway I don't wish this to become a tangent. Perhaps it's better to agree to disagree. Your point is valuable generally speaking though. That much I do completely agree with you on.
I don't see any moderator comments. Though isn't Daniel (dang) the only mod left since Scott departed?
> If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
I do appreciate your point of view, I honestly do. But it feels the only issue you take from my comment was that it had two letters in it: "HN". I could write my comment in a way that infers the subjects without saying "HN" but it wouldn't change anything about the tone nor content of the post. So I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines on this occasion because Hacker News isn't like Voldemort -- it's ok to say "HN" in a comment on HN. You just can't be derogatory about the HN community, which I wasn't. And the high quality of the discourse that followed should demonstrate that.
Anyway I don't wish this to become a tangent. Perhaps it's better to agree to disagree. Your point is valuable generally speaking though. That much I do completely agree with you on.
You can search by:dang sneer and by:dang meta to find lots of relevant comments. As to 'it's just the letters HN', I don't see how that's a reasonable interpretation of anything I wrote.
The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter). Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
This is meta, it's sneery, it's an inaccurate thing to write about any threads since threads change quickly and it's not particularly meaningful since the forum is big enough to contain multitudes of conflicting viewpoints at different times. It's the stuff that gets comments deranked. If you have trouble finding exact moderation comments to that effect, you can email the mods and ask.
The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter). Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
This is meta, it's sneery, it's an inaccurate thing to write about any threads since threads change quickly and it's not particularly meaningful since the forum is big enough to contain multitudes of conflicting viewpoints at different times. It's the stuff that gets comments deranked. If you have trouble finding exact moderation comments to that effect, you can email the mods and ask.
With the greatest of respect to yourself, and I know your comments here are well intentioned, but I think you’re the bigger rule breaker in this discussion.
You’re off topic and you’re not reading comments charitably (I was not being sneery, as I’ve said repeatedly already). If you have an issue with my comment then downvote it or flag it. That’s what you’re supposed to do as per the guidelines.
Again, I know your comments are well intentioned but I absolutely do not agree with your interpretation here. I think you’re twisting my comments unfavourably and creating meta arguments from them rather than using the peer review systems in place. Which is ironic because you’re breaking those very guidelines you’re trying to uphold.
So let’s just agree to disagree please. Because you are no more of an authority to dictate who’s right or wrong here than I am and arguing with me about those guidelines is absolutely not what you’re supposed to do as part of those guidelines.
You’re off topic and you’re not reading comments charitably (I was not being sneery, as I’ve said repeatedly already). If you have an issue with my comment then downvote it or flag it. That’s what you’re supposed to do as per the guidelines.
Again, I know your comments are well intentioned but I absolutely do not agree with your interpretation here. I think you’re twisting my comments unfavourably and creating meta arguments from them rather than using the peer review systems in place. Which is ironic because you’re breaking those very guidelines you’re trying to uphold.
So let’s just agree to disagree please. Because you are no more of an authority to dictate who’s right or wrong here than I am and arguing with me about those guidelines is absolutely not what you’re supposed to do as part of those guidelines.
It might seem weird to you, because most of what you’re talking about are false equivalencies.
> The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter).
You’re comparing companies who had open and public APIs and then closed them, with one that was never open to begin with. Apple didn’t suddenly tell hundreds of third party developers to pound sand, they made a thing for themselves and never pretended it to be something different.
> Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
Again, that’s not because it’s suddenly about Apple. It is because it’s an entirely different premise.
Generally HN and others with similar expertise will applaud hacking and tweaking things for the sake of hacking and tweaking things. If you’d want to do a deeper analysis on it, I’d say it’s primarily applauding the skills that are at display.
This, however, was a bit different. For starters Beeper tried to monetize it, it being someone else’s services and resources.
While many are put off by monetization, no manner the skills involved on the basic premise that it loses its “rebellious” and “counterculture” edge, even more are put off by recurring monetization schemes. Add to that the fact that it is recurring monetization of empty air (or Apple’s resources if you will) and you lose even more people.
Then there’s a subset that simply is of the mindset that they can recognize accomplishments but don’t condone subsequent usage of said accomplishments in the manner Beeper tried to do as opposed to individuals doing it themselves in a grassroots way.
There are also many that fall within a spectrum of all of the above. I don’t speak for all of these people, I’m merely attempting to describe the mindset of some people here on HN and the subsequent lack of incongruity you seem to think exists here.
> I remember the late 90s / early 00s when we had MSN, AOL IM, ICQ and others. People got so fed up with different people using different services that a whole slew of 3rd party clients were available that supported everything. Like Pidgin, libpurple, Bitlbee (an IRC server that supported IM protocols), and Trinity (or something named like that).
I can be wrong here, but I don’t recall any of those efforts trying to charge people $2/mo for using their creation. That alone makes this situation not analogous. Another would be that the ones I recognize from your list were licensed under FOSS licenses, as opposed to being the pet project of a SaaS startup.
> Now we are stuck with vendor lockouts and crappy 1st party apps that are usually little more than a web container.
iMessage clients on iOS and macOS aren’t web containers and are more and more becoming fully native SwiftUI projects so I fail to see the relevance of that remark. As for vendor lockouts, you say that as if it’s a dirty thing.
Personally I take more issue with something that was open and then squeezed shut after everyone’s inside, less so with things that were closed off from the get go and people still adopted it despite that fact, provided later down the line, after significant growth, there wasn’t an abuse of power.
> It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
What’s weirder, to me anyways, is that you talk about open source as if it’s a staple value for you, yet here you are carrying water for commercial SaaS startup. Comparing their efforts to the likes of those who created Pidgin and libpurple.
> The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter).
You’re comparing companies who had open and public APIs and then closed them, with one that was never open to begin with. Apple didn’t suddenly tell hundreds of third party developers to pound sand, they made a thing for themselves and never pretended it to be something different.
> Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters.
Again, that’s not because it’s suddenly about Apple. It is because it’s an entirely different premise.
Generally HN and others with similar expertise will applaud hacking and tweaking things for the sake of hacking and tweaking things. If you’d want to do a deeper analysis on it, I’d say it’s primarily applauding the skills that are at display.
This, however, was a bit different. For starters Beeper tried to monetize it, it being someone else’s services and resources.
While many are put off by monetization, no manner the skills involved on the basic premise that it loses its “rebellious” and “counterculture” edge, even more are put off by recurring monetization schemes. Add to that the fact that it is recurring monetization of empty air (or Apple’s resources if you will) and you lose even more people.
Then there’s a subset that simply is of the mindset that they can recognize accomplishments but don’t condone subsequent usage of said accomplishments in the manner Beeper tried to do as opposed to individuals doing it themselves in a grassroots way.
There are also many that fall within a spectrum of all of the above. I don’t speak for all of these people, I’m merely attempting to describe the mindset of some people here on HN and the subsequent lack of incongruity you seem to think exists here.
> I remember the late 90s / early 00s when we had MSN, AOL IM, ICQ and others. People got so fed up with different people using different services that a whole slew of 3rd party clients were available that supported everything. Like Pidgin, libpurple, Bitlbee (an IRC server that supported IM protocols), and Trinity (or something named like that).
I can be wrong here, but I don’t recall any of those efforts trying to charge people $2/mo for using their creation. That alone makes this situation not analogous. Another would be that the ones I recognize from your list were licensed under FOSS licenses, as opposed to being the pet project of a SaaS startup.
> Now we are stuck with vendor lockouts and crappy 1st party apps that are usually little more than a web container.
iMessage clients on iOS and macOS aren’t web containers and are more and more becoming fully native SwiftUI projects so I fail to see the relevance of that remark. As for vendor lockouts, you say that as if it’s a dirty thing.
Personally I take more issue with something that was open and then squeezed shut after everyone’s inside, less so with things that were closed off from the get go and people still adopted it despite that fact, provided later down the line, after significant growth, there wasn’t an abuse of power.
> It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
What’s weirder, to me anyways, is that you talk about open source as if it’s a staple value for you, yet here you are carrying water for commercial SaaS startup. Comparing their efforts to the likes of those who created Pidgin and libpurple.
> You’re comparing companies who had open and public APIs and then closed them, with one that was never open to begin with.
I don’t see that as a false equivalency. Plus AOL IM, MSN and ICQ weren’t open either.
> I can be wrong here, but I don’t recall any of those efforts trying to charge people $2/mo for using their creation.
There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free. They were seen as the good guys when those apps broke after Twitter and Reddit decided they didn’t want 3rd party app support.
> iMessage clients on iOS and macOS aren’t web containers
I agree but iMessage is the exception in that regard. Pretty much every other messaging app on iOS and Android (and even desktop applications too) are little more than Electron or web views.
> What’s weirder, to me anyways, is that you talk about open source as if it’s a staple value for you
It’s not. My comment there was that Android, iOS and macOS are all built upon open source technologies. Yet things are more closed than ever. I just find that a little ironic.
> This, however, was a bit different. For starters Beeper tried to monetize it, it being someone else’s services and resources.
I saved this to the end because I do actually completely agree with you on this. At least they’ve done the right thing now and open sourced Beeper. But it should never have been a commercial product to begin with.
I don’t see that as a false equivalency. Plus AOL IM, MSN and ICQ weren’t open either.
> I can be wrong here, but I don’t recall any of those efforts trying to charge people $2/mo for using their creation.
There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free. They were seen as the good guys when those apps broke after Twitter and Reddit decided they didn’t want 3rd party app support.
> iMessage clients on iOS and macOS aren’t web containers
I agree but iMessage is the exception in that regard. Pretty much every other messaging app on iOS and Android (and even desktop applications too) are little more than Electron or web views.
> What’s weirder, to me anyways, is that you talk about open source as if it’s a staple value for you
It’s not. My comment there was that Android, iOS and macOS are all built upon open source technologies. Yet things are more closed than ever. I just find that a little ironic.
> This, however, was a bit different. For starters Beeper tried to monetize it, it being someone else’s services and resources.
I saved this to the end because I do actually completely agree with you on this. At least they’ve done the right thing now and open sourced Beeper. But it should never have been a commercial product to begin with.
> I don’t see that as a false equivalency.
To me and perhaps others, those elements matter when making a comparison, so it seems we’ll disagree on how equivalent the examples are.
> Plus AOL IM, MSN and ICQ weren’t open either.
I was replying to the examples of Twitter and Reddit you gave. AIM, MSN and ICQ weren’t amongst your examples, presumably because they’re not equivalent to Twitter and Reddit (open to third parties and then not anymore).
But I feel I’ve covered the initiatives “against” AIM, MSN and ICQ and why I think they’re not equivalent to Beeper extensively enough further down that comment.
> There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free. They were seen as the good guys when those apps broke after Twitter and Reddit decided they didn’t want 3rd party app support.
So now we’re going from one false equivalency to another?
Perhaps it helps if I break it down. The players on the board are:
A) Grassroots selfless non-profit initiatives vs. corporations, the former having the goal to enrich community as a whole instead of enriching themselves
B) Small for-profit indie developers + grassroots non-profit selfless initiatives which tried to help people with disabilities to participate in online discourse + well as researchers trying to contribute to general knowledge who all were paying a fee for API usage commensurate with market value and financial capabilities vs. corporations who in actuality wanted to kill third party API access but instead of outright saying that and doing so, instead decided to hike their prices to ridiculous astronomical levels in a surprise with not enough time to even digest the changes, all while making duplicitous comments throughout even going as far as reassuring developers right before, only to follow it up with derogatory comments and in one case defamation and utter disrespect to both the affected developers, the people with disabilities that got excluded and their everyday users l, and all but ensuring the death of both third party apps (if not outright bankrupting them) as well as grassroots projects for the benefit of the community as whole
C) A for-profit SaaS startup using fake credentials to receive authentication blobs, violating the CFAA’s computer trespass statutes by accessing another corporation’s servers unauthorized and facilitating unauthorized access by third parties with goal of selling the other corporation’s services for $2/mo
A) came about without any profit motives and in cases, like Pidgin, didn’t even involve reverse engineering[0], but were created with public documents and even help from people of the company they were trying to connect to[1]. Let alone spoofing credentials to circumvent authentication. They weren’t owed anything, but were being selfless
B) Has mostly to do with poorly treating paying customers, closing up something that was open, having benefitted from third parties’ work to grow, and even then the “normie” backlash only really gained traction after abysmal and unprofessional communication by the people in charge at Reddit and Twitter. They were owed something (at the very least decency) but didn’t get it, with a small portion being selfless.
C) Is mainly a company trying to make a buck, wrapping it in some moral stance and feeding it to the masses. They weren’t owed anything and acted wronged.
A, B and C are not comparable in the slightest. All three are wholly different scenarios.
> It’s not. My point was that Android, iOS and macOS are all built upon open source technologies. Yet things are more closed than ever. my point was just that it’s ironic.
I guess I misread what you were going for. I feel the opposite. Granted I haven’t looked into this, and perhaps this is because repos are more readily accessible than ever, but I have the feeling there’s more open source stuff available than ever before.
So much so that 9/10 when I’m thinking of creating something because “it would be so darn handy to have” I check if someone beat me to it and often times this ends up being the case and there’s a GitHub repo available with a permissive license that does the very thing I was about to waste my time on.
> I saved this to the end because I do actually completely agree with you on this. At least they’ve done the right thing now and open sourced Beeper. But it should never have been a commercial product to begin with.
It seems we can at least agree on some things. That said, I was mainly trying to explain why people on HN might not be fully on Beeper’s side.
Personally I thought it was a pretty cool little workaround they bought (pypush), but didn’t think it was smart of them to try and sell it.
As illogical it might sounds, if this was just a DIY thing for people to do themselves then I would’ve probably leaned more towards Apple being petty by trying to block it. But by it being a company doing it and trying to profit off of it, I immediately skewed more against Beeper.
In particular because I saw the writing on the wall. Not only of Apple mitigating it, but the subsequent “woe is me” by Beeper as well. Whereas I’m more of the mentality that if you’re gonna fuck around like this, at least take it on the chin if it doesn’t work out.
But that’s just me I guess.
0: https://web.archive.org/web/19990210175349/http://www.marko....
1: https://archive.ph/2012.12.08-193508/http://www.forbes.com/2...
To me and perhaps others, those elements matter when making a comparison, so it seems we’ll disagree on how equivalent the examples are.
> Plus AOL IM, MSN and ICQ weren’t open either.
I was replying to the examples of Twitter and Reddit you gave. AIM, MSN and ICQ weren’t amongst your examples, presumably because they’re not equivalent to Twitter and Reddit (open to third parties and then not anymore).
But I feel I’ve covered the initiatives “against” AIM, MSN and ICQ and why I think they’re not equivalent to Beeper extensively enough further down that comment.
> There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free. They were seen as the good guys when those apps broke after Twitter and Reddit decided they didn’t want 3rd party app support.
So now we’re going from one false equivalency to another?
Perhaps it helps if I break it down. The players on the board are:
A) Grassroots selfless non-profit initiatives vs. corporations, the former having the goal to enrich community as a whole instead of enriching themselves
B) Small for-profit indie developers + grassroots non-profit selfless initiatives which tried to help people with disabilities to participate in online discourse + well as researchers trying to contribute to general knowledge who all were paying a fee for API usage commensurate with market value and financial capabilities vs. corporations who in actuality wanted to kill third party API access but instead of outright saying that and doing so, instead decided to hike their prices to ridiculous astronomical levels in a surprise with not enough time to even digest the changes, all while making duplicitous comments throughout even going as far as reassuring developers right before, only to follow it up with derogatory comments and in one case defamation and utter disrespect to both the affected developers, the people with disabilities that got excluded and their everyday users l, and all but ensuring the death of both third party apps (if not outright bankrupting them) as well as grassroots projects for the benefit of the community as whole
C) A for-profit SaaS startup using fake credentials to receive authentication blobs, violating the CFAA’s computer trespass statutes by accessing another corporation’s servers unauthorized and facilitating unauthorized access by third parties with goal of selling the other corporation’s services for $2/mo
A) came about without any profit motives and in cases, like Pidgin, didn’t even involve reverse engineering[0], but were created with public documents and even help from people of the company they were trying to connect to[1]. Let alone spoofing credentials to circumvent authentication. They weren’t owed anything, but were being selfless
B) Has mostly to do with poorly treating paying customers, closing up something that was open, having benefitted from third parties’ work to grow, and even then the “normie” backlash only really gained traction after abysmal and unprofessional communication by the people in charge at Reddit and Twitter. They were owed something (at the very least decency) but didn’t get it, with a small portion being selfless.
C) Is mainly a company trying to make a buck, wrapping it in some moral stance and feeding it to the masses. They weren’t owed anything and acted wronged.
A, B and C are not comparable in the slightest. All three are wholly different scenarios.
> It’s not. My point was that Android, iOS and macOS are all built upon open source technologies. Yet things are more closed than ever. my point was just that it’s ironic.
I guess I misread what you were going for. I feel the opposite. Granted I haven’t looked into this, and perhaps this is because repos are more readily accessible than ever, but I have the feeling there’s more open source stuff available than ever before.
So much so that 9/10 when I’m thinking of creating something because “it would be so darn handy to have” I check if someone beat me to it and often times this ends up being the case and there’s a GitHub repo available with a permissive license that does the very thing I was about to waste my time on.
> I saved this to the end because I do actually completely agree with you on this. At least they’ve done the right thing now and open sourced Beeper. But it should never have been a commercial product to begin with.
It seems we can at least agree on some things. That said, I was mainly trying to explain why people on HN might not be fully on Beeper’s side.
Personally I thought it was a pretty cool little workaround they bought (pypush), but didn’t think it was smart of them to try and sell it.
As illogical it might sounds, if this was just a DIY thing for people to do themselves then I would’ve probably leaned more towards Apple being petty by trying to block it. But by it being a company doing it and trying to profit off of it, I immediately skewed more against Beeper.
In particular because I saw the writing on the wall. Not only of Apple mitigating it, but the subsequent “woe is me” by Beeper as well. Whereas I’m more of the mentality that if you’re gonna fuck around like this, at least take it on the chin if it doesn’t work out.
But that’s just me I guess.
0: https://web.archive.org/web/19990210175349/http://www.marko....
1: https://archive.ph/2012.12.08-193508/http://www.forbes.com/2...
> I was replying to the examples of Twitter and Reddit you gave. AIM, MSN and ICQ weren’t amongst your examples,
Yes they were
> So now we’re going from one false equivalency to another? Perhaps it helps if I break it down. The players on the board are: [...] Pidgin [etc]
I'm not talking about FOSS when I say "There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free."
Apollo is a great example of a paid 3rd party app that HN were sympathetic to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36312122
> I guess I misread what you were going for. I feel the opposite. Granted I haven’t looked into this, and perhaps this is because repos are more readily accessible than ever, but I have the feeling there’s more open source stuff available than ever before.
I agree there is. And commercial operating systems are taking advantage of that too. Yet our walled gardens are more restrictive than ever. Messaging protocols are more locked down than ever (libpurple is a pale shell of what it used to be, Facebook and Google used to use XMPP). There's ongoing legal disputes about Apple's App Store and how restrictive that is. Windows and macOS both treat any unsigned 3rd party programs as suspicious. Our hardware itself is become more locked down than ever too.
It's a better story on desktop Linux for sure. But I'm stuck with Android and iOS for phones because building a FOSS handset is almost impossible (and I've tried!). Even the hardware on modern phones are full of closed binary firmware, SoCs and closed Linux drivers.
But I digress. My original complaint was the, in my view, double standard happening about people shouting for greater openness yet also supporting Apple in locking out 3rd party iMessage clients.
> Personally I thought it was a pretty cool little workaround they bought (pypush), but didn’t think it was smart of them to try and sell it.
> As illogical it might sounds, if this was just a DIY thing for people to do themselves then I would’ve probably leaned more towards Apple being petty by trying to block it. But by it being a company doing it and trying to profit off of it, I immediately skewed more against Beeper.
> In particular because I saw the writing on the wall. Not only of Apple mitigating it, but the subsequent “woe is me” by Beeper as well. Whereas I’m more of the mentality that if you’re gonna fuck around like this, at least take it on the chin if it doesn’t work out.
Yeah I completely agree with you regarding Beeper. That said, I don't think that should really change things on Apple's side. It just means both parties are at fault rather than it being a hero vs villain story. I guess I just view this debacle as more nuanced than a lot of the comments on here would like to claim. People are definitely picking sides but, personally, I don't think either company has come out of this looking particularly great.
Yes they were
> So now we’re going from one false equivalency to another? Perhaps it helps if I break it down. The players on the board are: [...] Pidgin [etc]
I'm not talking about FOSS when I say "There’s been plenty of 3rd party clients for Twitter and Reddit that weren’t free."
Apollo is a great example of a paid 3rd party app that HN were sympathetic to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36312122
> I guess I misread what you were going for. I feel the opposite. Granted I haven’t looked into this, and perhaps this is because repos are more readily accessible than ever, but I have the feeling there’s more open source stuff available than ever before.
I agree there is. And commercial operating systems are taking advantage of that too. Yet our walled gardens are more restrictive than ever. Messaging protocols are more locked down than ever (libpurple is a pale shell of what it used to be, Facebook and Google used to use XMPP). There's ongoing legal disputes about Apple's App Store and how restrictive that is. Windows and macOS both treat any unsigned 3rd party programs as suspicious. Our hardware itself is become more locked down than ever too.
It's a better story on desktop Linux for sure. But I'm stuck with Android and iOS for phones because building a FOSS handset is almost impossible (and I've tried!). Even the hardware on modern phones are full of closed binary firmware, SoCs and closed Linux drivers.
But I digress. My original complaint was the, in my view, double standard happening about people shouting for greater openness yet also supporting Apple in locking out 3rd party iMessage clients.
> Personally I thought it was a pretty cool little workaround they bought (pypush), but didn’t think it was smart of them to try and sell it.
> As illogical it might sounds, if this was just a DIY thing for people to do themselves then I would’ve probably leaned more towards Apple being petty by trying to block it. But by it being a company doing it and trying to profit off of it, I immediately skewed more against Beeper.
> In particular because I saw the writing on the wall. Not only of Apple mitigating it, but the subsequent “woe is me” by Beeper as well. Whereas I’m more of the mentality that if you’re gonna fuck around like this, at least take it on the chin if it doesn’t work out.
Yeah I completely agree with you regarding Beeper. That said, I don't think that should really change things on Apple's side. It just means both parties are at fault rather than it being a hero vs villain story. I guess I just view this debacle as more nuanced than a lot of the comments on here would like to claim. People are definitely picking sides but, personally, I don't think either company has come out of this looking particularly great.
> What’s weirder, to me anyways, is that you talk about open source as if it’s a staple value for you, yet here you are carrying water for commercial SaaS startup. Comparing their efforts to the likes of those who created Pidgin and libpurple.
Beeper has done a ton of open source work on matrix bridges, both themselves and through sponsoring other developers. I don't see how it's out of place to compare them to libpurple devs at all.
Beeper has done a ton of open source work on matrix bridges, both themselves and through sponsoring other developers. I don't see how it's out of place to compare them to libpurple devs at all.
Be that as it may, the Beeper mini client wasn’t licensed under a FOSS license and they tried to monetize it with a monthly recurring subscription.
And by the looks of it, many of their matrix bridges were created by their, now Lead Architect, before they joined Beeper. Those are under GPL so Beeper doesn’t has much choice but to keep them open source.
So it’s kind of like me bragging about doing good for society by virtue of me paying my taxes.
And by the looks of it, many of their matrix bridges were created by their, now Lead Architect, before they joined Beeper. Those are under GPL so Beeper doesn’t has much choice but to keep them open source.
So it’s kind of like me bragging about doing good for society by virtue of me paying my taxes.
Okay, so? Are you implying they would make the bridges closed source if they could? Then why do they still maintain the open source bridges instead of forking or writing their own, and why do they sponsor devs to make new open source bridges instead of contracting them to create closed source ones, and why do they dump a bunch of money into the matrix foundation with no immediate benefit to their business? Not sure why it's so hard to believe that people might try to support themselves while improving the open source ecosystem.
Yes, the clients (both beeper mini and beeper cloud) are closed source. That's their business model - open source bridges that anyone can run if they wanted, then they just make it more convenient if you use their services by hosting it all for you and giving a nice polished client. The comparison was to libpurple devs - bridges are the equivalent of libpurple. This is like if libpurple devs decided to write a closed source client based on libpurple and then charge for it. Sounds good to me if it lets them keep working on the open source stuff.
Yes, the clients (both beeper mini and beeper cloud) are closed source. That's their business model - open source bridges that anyone can run if they wanted, then they just make it more convenient if you use their services by hosting it all for you and giving a nice polished client. The comparison was to libpurple devs - bridges are the equivalent of libpurple. This is like if libpurple devs decided to write a closed source client based on libpurple and then charge for it. Sounds good to me if it lets them keep working on the open source stuff.
MSN and AIM were not open or public APIs
AOL / ICQ's proprietary Protocol (ICQ moved to it after being acquired by AOL): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR_protocol
I don't really care to look up the details of MSN, but at the time Microsoft was not "open" friendly by any means.
AOL / ICQ's proprietary Protocol (ICQ moved to it after being acquired by AOL): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR_protocol
I don't really care to look up the details of MSN, but at the time Microsoft was not "open" friendly by any means.
Your comment is the one that’s weird. HN is not a hive mind, and hacker news itself is a proprietary site that doesn’t implement any open standards or protocols.
Even if we accept your faulty premise, the solution would be to encourage the open protocol, not build on top of closed ones…
Even if we accept your faulty premise, the solution would be to encourage the open protocol, not build on top of closed ones…
Which open standard is implemented? Not XMPP, not Mastodon or Matrix. And unless something changed, you can’t even make posts using that API, again to the point.
iMessage does have an API as well, it’s just not publicly available. Hence the current debacle
iMessage does have an API as well, it’s just not publicly available. Hence the current debacle
> Which open standard is implemented?
I never said anything about the protocol needing to be a standard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> iMessage does have an API as well, it’s just not publicly available.
That’s a hell of a “just” ;)
I never said anything about the protocol needing to be a standard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> iMessage does have an API as well, it’s just not publicly available.
That’s a hell of a “just” ;)
> The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP)
> It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
> It’s weird how open source has taken over the world and yet our messaging protocols have gotten more proprietary than ever.
…and not one mention of the term “standard”.
Something can be open and not a standard. Like the HN API.
Something can be open and not a standard. Like the HN API.
Is the HN api proprietary?
Im not here to discuss HN and I’m not getting dragged into your strawman arguments. So ending our discussion here.
[deleted]
i’m pretty tired of hearing about beeper. i find their arguments pretty disingenuous.
unless they’re dumb as rocks they knew this was the end game and this whole thing was a marketing stunt.
unless they’re dumb as rocks they knew this was the end game and this whole thing was a marketing stunt.
Open sourcing their code is the biggest fuck you to Apple.
While I like Apple, their iMessage shenanigans is classic monopolistic bully behavior.
I firmly believe that if the large tech behemoths were broken down into smaller focused companies, they would create much more value for everyone.
The professional managerial class is optimizing for rent seeking at top levels.
While I like Apple, their iMessage shenanigans is classic monopolistic bully behavior.
I firmly believe that if the large tech behemoths were broken down into smaller focused companies, they would create much more value for everyone.
The professional managerial class is optimizing for rent seeking at top levels.
> their iMessage shenanigans is classic monopolistic bully behavior.
These "monopoly" accusations are pure nonsense.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone market, they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact).
And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones.
Saying that Apple's behavior here has anything to do with a monopoly is like claiming WhatsApp has a "monopoly" on sending WhatsApp messages, or Facebook has a monopoly on publishing Facebook posts.
These "monopoly" accusations are pure nonsense.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone market, they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact).
And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones.
Saying that Apple's behavior here has anything to do with a monopoly is like claiming WhatsApp has a "monopoly" on sending WhatsApp messages, or Facebook has a monopoly on publishing Facebook posts.
So, a few iOS versions back, Apple changed “Music.app” into “Apple Music.app”, and everyone that opened it got a pop-up to try their new fancy pants streaming service.
That instantly unlocked a big previously-unaddressed portion of the US music streaming market, likely apprehensive or lay-people. It’s what made Apple Music viable and rocketed up its market share.
The pop-up did not include an option to try Spotify (or Tidal or Deezer) instead.
With a couple hundred million iOS users out there in the US.. yeah. Not okay.
The only reason Apple was able to do this because they own half of an extremely quintessential market. Monopoly (well, duopoly) behavior pur sang.
That instantly unlocked a big previously-unaddressed portion of the US music streaming market, likely apprehensive or lay-people. It’s what made Apple Music viable and rocketed up its market share.
The pop-up did not include an option to try Spotify (or Tidal or Deezer) instead.
With a couple hundred million iOS users out there in the US.. yeah. Not okay.
The only reason Apple was able to do this because they own half of an extremely quintessential market. Monopoly (well, duopoly) behavior pur sang.
I don’t really see what’s not okay? My credit card company doesn’t send me offers from other companies alongside theirs, even though the networks are a duopoly. When I pull up to McDonald’s they don’t ask me if I’d like to order sides from Burger King instead. Not seeing how consumers were harmed.
Say there are only two places in the world that you can get groceries (apps): MegaMarket and Grocery King. Alongside that, these supermarkets offer amenities like shopping carts to make your visit more comfortable.
One of the amenities that MegaMarket offers is a water cooler (music app). Then, one day, they decide to change the water cooler into a house brand coffee machine (music streaming) that has the water tap function stuffed away on its back.
All the other coffee brands are in the back of the store in a rack, all next to eachother. Meanwhile, MegaMarket’s coffee is front and center right as you walk into the store. And a bunch of people who’s store route never took them to the back of the store now also try coffee and get used to buying it each month.
See how that horribly disadvantages the singular coffee brands? And none of them have the capital needed to start their own supermarket. And even if they did, their new grocery platform could never build enough marketshare before MegaMarket coffee entrenches itself in the coffee market.
One of the amenities that MegaMarket offers is a water cooler (music app). Then, one day, they decide to change the water cooler into a house brand coffee machine (music streaming) that has the water tap function stuffed away on its back.
All the other coffee brands are in the back of the store in a rack, all next to eachother. Meanwhile, MegaMarket’s coffee is front and center right as you walk into the store. And a bunch of people who’s store route never took them to the back of the store now also try coffee and get used to buying it each month.
See how that horribly disadvantages the singular coffee brands? And none of them have the capital needed to start their own supermarket. And even if they did, their new grocery platform could never build enough marketshare before MegaMarket coffee entrenches itself in the coffee market.
Umm... please review the Microsoft anti-trust cases from late 1990s & early 2000s with US and EU. At the height of MS Windows, Microsoft could crush any competitor by including a poor substitute for any software with their OS. Eventually, this was ruled multiple times as anti-competitive.
You’re missing the primary reason: they controlled pricing. What price could other operating systems makers charge in the late 90s, early 2000s? It didn’t matter, Microsoft had forced OEMs to only sell PCs with Windows or not be able to sell Windows per-installs at all.
If Apple said to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile that they could only sell iPhones if they only sold iPhones and _then_ used that position to bundle other services they would look like Microsoft. I could see potentially on the supply side (buying all of TMSCs most cutting edge capacity) Apple has that power, but on the consumer side they have no price control in any market (Apple products are not a market).
If Apple said to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile that they could only sell iPhones if they only sold iPhones and _then_ used that position to bundle other services they would look like Microsoft. I could see potentially on the supply side (buying all of TMSCs most cutting edge capacity) Apple has that power, but on the consumer side they have no price control in any market (Apple products are not a market).
This is conflating two issues identified with Microsoft's practices during this time. Both of which got them in trouble. Microsoft abused it's dominant position in the PC OS market to (A) lock out competition in the OS market and (B) gain footholds in other markets and extinguish competition (such as for the web browser market).
It's a strained argument to say that if they hadn't have put the OEM agreements in place that they would've been completely unchecked by the antitrust authorities in the browser market.
It's a strained argument to say that if they hadn't have put the OEM agreements in place that they would've been completely unchecked by the antitrust authorities in the browser market.
Apple has not reached the market share in any category that Microsoft had at its peak with Windows
They own half of a market sure, but that is not in question in your statements. In the market of music streaming services available for iOS phones, they used their platform owner position as the manufacturer of iPhones to give themselves a competitive boost in music streaming services.
There are not a couple hundred million iOS users in the US.
iPhone alone is used by about 60% of the population, which is about 198 million people out of the 331 million who live here.
This is assuming every person has a phone, which they don't. Looks like that metric is about 85% of the population. If you factor that in, it's about 160 million iOS users. Is it less than 200 million, yes. But "couple hundred million" sufficiently implies an estimation.
And this is just looking at iPhones, not factoring in users who use iPads or anything else.
This is assuming every person has a phone, which they don't. Looks like that metric is about 85% of the population. If you factor that in, it's about 160 million iOS users. Is it less than 200 million, yes. But "couple hundred million" sufficiently implies an estimation.
And this is just looking at iPhones, not factoring in users who use iPads or anything else.
they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact)
And, regarding market share from the perspective of competition regulation: Who cares about global. It's all about local (state/nation level).
The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation: It is free on all platforms, including the desktop web browser. Time and time again, we have seen that free and non-free products and services are treated differently by competition regulators. For example: "Free" mobile games that are stuffed with adverts and use deceptive advertising techniques to attract more downloads.
> The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation
I mean we’re talking about text messaging. Practically everyone on the planet has myriad options. It’s really hard for me to see any consumer harm.
If you just want to lobby the government to make Apple do stuff, that’s fine.
I mean we’re talking about text messaging. Practically everyone on the planet has myriad options. It’s really hard for me to see any consumer harm.
If you just want to lobby the government to make Apple do stuff, that’s fine.
> And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones.
From an antitrust perspective, this is the whole point. The antitrust argument would be that Apple is leveraging its dominant position in smartphones/smartphone OSes to gain market power in the messaging market.
From an antitrust perspective, this is the whole point. The antitrust argument would be that Apple is leveraging its dominant position in smartphones/smartphone OSes to gain market power in the messaging market.
And from a semantic perspective: one of the key definitions of Monopolies (from Wikipedia) is they are characterized by a lack of viable substitute goods.
It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute.
It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute.
But iMessage does have a viable substitute.
And not just one, many of them.
The iMessage substitutes often offer more features, work on more platforms and are widely adopted across the globe.
At the risk of making a sweeping statement, and with no data to support it, I’d guess that no one outside of the USA seems to care about Blue Bubble vs Green Bubbles.
Being on iMessage vs SMS isn’t a conversation in my world.
Teenagers that I know all have iPhones, but use Discord or SnapChat for messaging.
And not just one, many of them.
The iMessage substitutes often offer more features, work on more platforms and are widely adopted across the globe.
At the risk of making a sweeping statement, and with no data to support it, I’d guess that no one outside of the USA seems to care about Blue Bubble vs Green Bubbles.
Being on iMessage vs SMS isn’t a conversation in my world.
Teenagers that I know all have iPhones, but use Discord or SnapChat for messaging.
It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me. So… seems like they’re successfully exerting monopoly pressure on some people.
I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. iMessage isn’t the only reason I use Apple products, but it is a reason.
They don’t need to have 100% market share to be behaving monopolistically. And whether you feel the impact of the monopoly is also irrelevant.
I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. iMessage isn’t the only reason I use Apple products, but it is a reason.
They don’t need to have 100% market share to be behaving monopolistically. And whether you feel the impact of the monopoly is also irrelevant.
> It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me.
> I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups.
I thought you said there isn’t a viable substitute? Who knew Schrödinger’s messenger is a thing?
> I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups.
I thought you said there isn’t a viable substitute? Who knew Schrödinger’s messenger is a thing?
> It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute.
That's not really how that works. That's a company blocking unauthorized access to a service they provide. BBM used to be only available on blackberry devices as well, they never got sued over blocking attempts from others to use BBM outside of their devices (that I'm aware of).
I am aware BBM is no longer platform locked. Didn't know they shutdown BBM...
That's not really how that works. That's a company blocking unauthorized access to a service they provide. BBM used to be only available on blackberry devices as well, they never got sued over blocking attempts from others to use BBM outside of their devices (that I'm aware of).
I am aware BBM is no longer platform locked. Didn't know they shutdown BBM...
Disclosure: I love Apple products and all my devices are Apple.
This is absolutely monopolistic shenanigans.
Complaints about monopolistic behavior in the smartphone market from Apple are always met on HN with “Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the global market” - who cares? Apple is from California, the Bay Area is famously self involved, Apple has a majority stake in the US and certainly in California.
But regardless - trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. Debate why it doesn’t seem like monopolistic behavior, the debate about whether Apple is a monopoly is whataboutism.
This is absolutely monopolistic shenanigans.
Complaints about monopolistic behavior in the smartphone market from Apple are always met on HN with “Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the global market” - who cares? Apple is from California, the Bay Area is famously self involved, Apple has a majority stake in the US and certainly in California.
But regardless - trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. Debate why it doesn’t seem like monopolistic behavior, the debate about whether Apple is a monopoly is whataboutism.
> trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument.
It’s a great argument because a monopoly is a very clearly defined thing, not whatever you want it to be.
It’s a great argument because a monopoly is a very clearly defined thing, not whatever you want it to be.
Even if it's a duopoly that counts for something.
In the USA, which is where this case matters; Apple has a monopoly on messages. iMessage is the most popular chat platform there.
In the USA, which is where this case matters; Apple has a monopoly on messages. iMessage is the most popular chat platform there.
Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US, how can iMessage be the most popular chat platform? What’s App handles an order of magnitude more messages per day than iMessage. Telegram handles double. Facebook Messenger, WeChat, and SMS all handle more messages.
What happens when you try to write a client for What’s App? https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html
What happens when you try to write a client for What’s App? https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html
> Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US
A 54% market share, compared to Google’s 46% market share doesn’t seem like a minority to me. It’s not a large majority, but it’s definitely not a minority market share in the US. And just for context, the Justice department filed an Antitrust suit against Google in 2020 for controlling 80% of the market share in search[1].
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file...
A 54% market share, compared to Google’s 46% market share doesn’t seem like a minority to me. It’s not a large majority, but it’s definitely not a minority market share in the US. And just for context, the Justice department filed an Antitrust suit against Google in 2020 for controlling 80% of the market share in search[1].
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file...
I stand corrected. I hadn’t realized iPhones had made that much in roads. iMessage still is dwarfed by several other messaging services.
I find it odd to argue that the 4ᵀᴴ most popular (likely less) messaging platform should be forced to open (primarily due to a huge misunderstanding of what monopolistic and anti-competitive practices actually are).
I find it odd to argue that the 4ᵀᴴ most popular (likely less) messaging platform should be forced to open (primarily due to a huge misunderstanding of what monopolistic and anti-competitive practices actually are).
Do you have a source that says it's 4th in the US? Because from my research that is not the case by almost any metric. And if you consider "texting" as understood by most consumers (grouping SMS, RCS, and iMessage usage together), it seems to be overwhelmingly dominant in the US.
You might wonder why you'd group those three together without including other messaging apps. There's a few factors:
- Every phone comes with a texting app. It's the one that sends text messages to phone numbers
- Within a user's texting app, the underlying technology chosen by the app (SMS, RCS, iMessage) is mostly transparent and automatic. It is not a conscious choice by the user, nor is it something the texting app goes to pains to ensure you understand. And in Apple's case, it is not an option to choose a technology for a specific conversation, you can only configure the entire app to use one technology versus another.
- End users consider it to be an overall unified platform, despite the technology mess. Consumers say "I'll text you", they don't say I'll SMS you.
You might wonder why you'd group those three together without including other messaging apps. There's a few factors:
- Every phone comes with a texting app. It's the one that sends text messages to phone numbers
- Within a user's texting app, the underlying technology chosen by the app (SMS, RCS, iMessage) is mostly transparent and automatic. It is not a conscious choice by the user, nor is it something the texting app goes to pains to ensure you understand. And in Apple's case, it is not an option to choose a technology for a specific conversation, you can only configure the entire app to use one technology versus another.
- End users consider it to be an overall unified platform, despite the technology mess. Consumers say "I'll text you", they don't say I'll SMS you.
I don’t have specific metrics for the US, but estimates for What’s App globally are 100B per day, Telegram 16B per day, SMS 23B per day, WeChat 45B per day, and iMessage 8.6B per day. I couldn’t find estimates for Signal, Google Chat, or Facebook Messenger.
> I firmly believe that if the large tech behemoths were broken down into smaller focused companies, they would create much more value for everyone
In the case of Amazon, Google - possibly. Their solutions generally tend to be disjointed anyway, so if they were operated by different companies i doubt much would change.
In the case of Apple this would absolutely result in worse products - the defining characteristic is the vertical integration and cohesive ecosystem driven largely by hardware revenues.
If you prefer to use subsidised products where the cost is offset by advertising, where there’s less single-vendor functionality and a larger focus on third parties: that already exists, there are dozens and dozens of Android-based phone brands, there are Windows and Linux PCs, there is also ChromeOS on tablets.
In the case of Amazon, Google - possibly. Their solutions generally tend to be disjointed anyway, so if they were operated by different companies i doubt much would change.
In the case of Apple this would absolutely result in worse products - the defining characteristic is the vertical integration and cohesive ecosystem driven largely by hardware revenues.
If you prefer to use subsidised products where the cost is offset by advertising, where there’s less single-vendor functionality and a larger focus on third parties: that already exists, there are dozens and dozens of Android-based phone brands, there are Windows and Linux PCs, there is also ChromeOS on tablets.
> if the large tech behemoths were broken down into smaller focused companies, they would create much more value for everyone.
Is this a “true right now” statement or a “true now and always” statement? I have a tough time seeing smaller, focused companies coming up with the original iPhone. And is there a good way all those small companies decide how to integrated their offerings? Xkcd’s “now there are 14 industry standards” comic comes to mind…
Is this a “true right now” statement or a “true now and always” statement? I have a tough time seeing smaller, focused companies coming up with the original iPhone. And is there a good way all those small companies decide how to integrated their offerings? Xkcd’s “now there are 14 industry standards” comic comes to mind…
[deleted]
Don't forget the hubris from just 2 weeks ago:
> Side note: many people always ask ‘what do you think Apple is going to do about this?’ To be honest, I am shocked that everyone is so shocked by the sheer existence of a 3rd party iMessage client. The internet has always had 3rd party clients! It’s almost like people have forgotten that iChat (the app that iMessage grew out of) was itself a multi-protocol chat app! It supported AIM, Jabber and Google talk. Here’s a blast from the past: https://i.imgur.com/k6rmOgq.png.
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38531759
To now:
> As much as we want to fight for what we believe is a fantastic product that really should exist, the truth is that we can’t win a cat-and-mouse game with the largest company on earth.
I really do wonder what they genuinely thought was going to happen...
> Side note: many people always ask ‘what do you think Apple is going to do about this?’ To be honest, I am shocked that everyone is so shocked by the sheer existence of a 3rd party iMessage client. The internet has always had 3rd party clients! It’s almost like people have forgotten that iChat (the app that iMessage grew out of) was itself a multi-protocol chat app! It supported AIM, Jabber and Google talk. Here’s a blast from the past: https://i.imgur.com/k6rmOgq.png.
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38531759
To now:
> As much as we want to fight for what we believe is a fantastic product that really should exist, the truth is that we can’t win a cat-and-mouse game with the largest company on earth.
I really do wonder what they genuinely thought was going to happen...
I think those quotes still stand for themselves. Normalize 3rd party clients!
Adversarial interoperability needs to be explicitly legalized.
The fact is these clients never face much in the way of market fitness tests, as they often use the threat of legal action to deter any other clients.
This is not what computing should be. We've pretty much just let every rando user who doesn't really give a care about how this stuff goes down decide things for us.
The fact is these clients never face much in the way of market fitness tests, as they often use the threat of legal action to deter any other clients.
This is not what computing should be. We've pretty much just let every rando user who doesn't really give a care about how this stuff goes down decide things for us.
[deleted]
Apple's behavior on messaging is terrible and they should be taking more heat than they are on this. Apple seems to want to be seen as the good guy on many issues (like privacy), but on this one they are clearly the bad guy. They need to do better.
Could you explain why you think apple is the bad guy?
They support SMS as the standard carrier-supported messaging protocol (in the states, not sure globally). They also have a private protocol for apple devices which they fully own and control. And they have now announced that next year they will be supporting RCS, the next-gen carrier-supported protocol.
I think it's fair to say that Apple has been slow to adopt RCS - but I don't think that makes them the bad guy.
(SMS is insecure, iMessage is a lock in that they use to their benefit, RCS has been on Android forever, etc etc etc)
They support SMS as the standard carrier-supported messaging protocol (in the states, not sure globally). They also have a private protocol for apple devices which they fully own and control. And they have now announced that next year they will be supporting RCS, the next-gen carrier-supported protocol.
I think it's fair to say that Apple has been slow to adopt RCS - but I don't think that makes them the bad guy.
(SMS is insecure, iMessage is a lock in that they use to their benefit, RCS has been on Android forever, etc etc etc)
> iMessage is a lock in that they use to their benefit
This is why I think they are the bad guy. They aren't passively benefiting from an iPhone network effect, they are actively and aggressively prevent workarounds that users can do to get around their lock-in.
During the 90s, Apple was the victim of similar behavior by Microsoft, and most tech people correctly vilified Microsoft for this behavior. Now Apple is acting as the villain and we should call that out.
This is why I think they are the bad guy. They aren't passively benefiting from an iPhone network effect, they are actively and aggressively prevent workarounds that users can do to get around their lock-in.
During the 90s, Apple was the victim of similar behavior by Microsoft, and most tech people correctly vilified Microsoft for this behavior. Now Apple is acting as the villain and we should call that out.
Apple restricting a free service to Apple's own users is not even remotely the same as Microsoft's various forms of skullduggery and I don't know how you can make the comparison seriously.
It has never been easier to switch platforms, and the gulf between iOS and Android has never been shallower. Android users not having access to one also-ran messaging service is not some sort of fundamental injustice, and Apple is not a villain for building features that they think will appeal to their customers. It's sort of their whole business!
It has never been easier to switch platforms, and the gulf between iOS and Android has never been shallower. Android users not having access to one also-ran messaging service is not some sort of fundamental injustice, and Apple is not a villain for building features that they think will appeal to their customers. It's sort of their whole business!
In case anyone thinks its an overstatement, no, it's not.
The only reason iMessage isn't available on Android, is because Craig Federighi explicitly wants it iPhone only to lock users in to iPhones.
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?la...
The only reason iMessage isn't available on Android, is because Craig Federighi explicitly wants it iPhone only to lock users in to iPhones.
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?la...
Right. But it’s a service Apple created to add value to Apple devices. It’s subsidized by people purchasing those devices.
Why should they have to give it to Android?
I just don’t see that quote as a smoking gun. Why isn’t that Apple‘s choice to make?
Why should they have to give it to Android?
I just don’t see that quote as a smoking gun. Why isn’t that Apple‘s choice to make?
From a legal perspective, they don't have to. From a legal perspective, the world's largest corporation can aggressively lock out non-iPhone users to try to further increase revenue.
But from an ethical perspective, it sucks. I own Apple devices and Android devices and I have friends on both. Why should my life be more painful just so Apple can squeeze out a tiny bit more money?
But from an ethical perspective, it sucks. I own Apple devices and Android devices and I have friends on both. Why should my life be more painful just so Apple can squeeze out a tiny bit more money?
Apple is ethically obligated to give free services to people who don’t buy their products?
Ethical? Say you launch a product that uses cloud services (ie servers and storage). If I reverse engineer your protocol and launch my own (paid) product on top of your service, is it unethical for you to shut me down? Isn’t it also unethical for me to create a product on top of your infrastructure without getting permission or providing some kind of payment?
IMHO, Beeper is the one with an ethics problem.
IMHO, Beeper is the one with an ethics problem.
It also shows that the privacy campaign is just a business tactic.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise of course, but the Apple reality distortion field is real so I think it’s worth noting.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise of course, but the Apple reality distortion field is real so I think it’s worth noting.
I think if iMessage was a separate app that came preloaded on iPhones, it would be reasonable to ask why Apple has to make it work with Android. But the fact that it is THE SMS app built into the OS, in my opinion, is the only reason it’s so ubiquitous in the US.
You don’t get to say, “we compete just like any other messaging app, we shouldn’t be forced to integrate with anything” while also enjoying OS-level integration to the point where many (most?) people were onboarded into the iMessage ecosystem without even realizing it.
As the Microsoft anti-trust case established, defaults matter.
edit: even a separate preloaded app could still be considered anti-competitive if it’s selected by default, cf. Internet Explorer
You don’t get to say, “we compete just like any other messaging app, we shouldn’t be forced to integrate with anything” while also enjoying OS-level integration to the point where many (most?) people were onboarded into the iMessage ecosystem without even realizing it.
As the Microsoft anti-trust case established, defaults matter.
edit: even a separate preloaded app could still be considered anti-competitive if it’s selected by default, cf. Internet Explorer
Isn’t that what Google did with their messaging things? Wasn’t the same app as SMS?
Isn’t that how they’ve deployed RCS?
The MS case wasn’t all about defaults. I’m not sure any of it was about defaults. The thing that killed them was deals saying you couldn’t offer competing programs or had to pay them regardless of if you put Windows on the machine (so it was a waste of money to ship anything else). Plus changing code to break competitors.
The MS case wasn’t all about defaults. I’m not sure any of it was about defaults. The thing that killed them was deals saying you couldn’t offer competing programs or had to pay them regardless of if you put Windows on the machine (so it was a waste of money to ship anything else). Plus changing code to break competitors.
Google doesn't have "messaging things" anymore. The default messaging app supports SMS/RCS and that's it.
They tried the unified SMS/proprietary message protocol approach with Hangouts but that was short lived. I'm not even sure if it was ever at any point installed by default on a majority of Android phones.
After Hangouts, they tried Allo which did not support SMS and was not a replacement for the default messages app which did support SMS.
They tried the unified SMS/proprietary message protocol approach with Hangouts but that was short lived. I'm not even sure if it was ever at any point installed by default on a majority of Android phones.
After Hangouts, they tried Allo which did not support SMS and was not a replacement for the default messages app which did support SMS.
I didn’t notice your edit earlier.
The issue with IE, besides the “don’t install Netscape” contracts, was that they undercut Netscape’s price by charging $0 which is impossible to compete with. Essentially dumping. I don’t think it being default was also an issue in the US case, but the 90s was a long time ago.
You’re 100% right about the power of defaults. That was a big issue in the EU which is why MS had to include the first-run browser picker. But I’m not in the EU and didn’t follow that case so unfortunately that tiny bit is all I know there.
The issue with IE, besides the “don’t install Netscape” contracts, was that they undercut Netscape’s price by charging $0 which is impossible to compete with. Essentially dumping. I don’t think it being default was also an issue in the US case, but the 90s was a long time ago.
You’re 100% right about the power of defaults. That was a big issue in the EU which is why MS had to include the first-run browser picker. But I’m not in the EU and didn’t follow that case so unfortunately that tiny bit is all I know there.
For me, the issue is it's hostile to Apple users - too.
Ie i can't use the message platform i pay for on many of my devices unless every single one of them is Apple. I use Beeper to use iMessage from my Linux desktop.
Ie i can't use the message platform i pay for on many of my devices unless every single one of them is Apple. I use Beeper to use iMessage from my Linux desktop.
Well from some logical point of view I don't know if I have a good case to argue off the top of my head, nor do I want to come up with one.
On the other hand, its because it fucking sucks. It's the largest company in the world (by market cap) which has a revenue of a third of a trillion dollars every year. They can afford to make it free but they don't for their own gain. All their competitors make their myriad of chat apps (that only Americans don't seem to want to use) free and available on as many platforms as possible. The only real reason Apple doesn't is because they want to hoard more and more of their money and become an even bigger company. That just sucks, it's shitty, it's worse for the world. They have hundreds of billions of cash reserves that they don't even know what to do with. I don't give a shit if it's their right or whatever to do it, I still think it sucks and is worse for everyone who isn't a VP at Apple.
Open standards are nice, decentralization is nice, having options and choice and cross-platform things are nice. Having a gigantic company make a choice to create a silo where they're the only ones allowed to use it is not nice.
On the other hand, its because it fucking sucks. It's the largest company in the world (by market cap) which has a revenue of a third of a trillion dollars every year. They can afford to make it free but they don't for their own gain. All their competitors make their myriad of chat apps (that only Americans don't seem to want to use) free and available on as many platforms as possible. The only real reason Apple doesn't is because they want to hoard more and more of their money and become an even bigger company. That just sucks, it's shitty, it's worse for the world. They have hundreds of billions of cash reserves that they don't even know what to do with. I don't give a shit if it's their right or whatever to do it, I still think it sucks and is worse for everyone who isn't a VP at Apple.
Open standards are nice, decentralization is nice, having options and choice and cross-platform things are nice. Having a gigantic company make a choice to create a silo where they're the only ones allowed to use it is not nice.
I totally get the “this sucks it should be better argument”. And I get people wanting laws to fix it.
What I have trouble with are the people who confuse that with existing law say Apple is doing illegal things, which has been sadly common in these threads.
What I have trouble with are the people who confuse that with existing law say Apple is doing illegal things, which has been sadly common in these threads.
What do you mean by get around their lock in? You mean that only Apple users can use iMessage?
How do you think Apple pays is for that? It’s subsidized through device cost.
I get why people hate the App Store rules and no side loading, etc. but that’s a different situation in my mind.
Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?
How do you think Apple pays is for that? It’s subsidized through device cost.
I get why people hate the App Store rules and no side loading, etc. but that’s a different situation in my mind.
Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?
> Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?
Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android users.
Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android users.
That’s fair. No one has said free.
But I have a sneaking suspicion the instant Apple releases a paid Android app HN would be having this exact same discussion, except complaining it’s not free.
But I have a sneaking suspicion the instant Apple releases a paid Android app HN would be having this exact same discussion, except complaining it’s not free.
I cannot say how HN would respond but Beeper's whole business model is charging users for iMessage.
> RCS, the next-gen carrier-supported protocol.
RCS is pretty old at this point, almost a decade. But its also not as open a protocol as it says on the tin. Android is using a ton of extensions, notably end to end encryption, that are not standardized and the infrastructure is hard to run. Carriers are for the most part using google rcs infrastructure or users are accessing google infrastructure directly because the only relevant RCS users are android users who default to not using carrier RCS servers that don't have the google extensions. So its really an "open" protocol managed by google.[1][2] Somewhat of an upgrade over the closed ecosystem of imessage in principal but RCS isn't the open protocol win that many fantasize about; it feels more like hoping on to a product that's in the late extend and extinguish phase.
1: https://9to5google.com/2023/09/21/t-mobile-rcs-google-jibe/ 2: https://9to5google.com/2023/06/09/att-rcs-jibe-google/
RCS is pretty old at this point, almost a decade. But its also not as open a protocol as it says on the tin. Android is using a ton of extensions, notably end to end encryption, that are not standardized and the infrastructure is hard to run. Carriers are for the most part using google rcs infrastructure or users are accessing google infrastructure directly because the only relevant RCS users are android users who default to not using carrier RCS servers that don't have the google extensions. So its really an "open" protocol managed by google.[1][2] Somewhat of an upgrade over the closed ecosystem of imessage in principal but RCS isn't the open protocol win that many fantasize about; it feels more like hoping on to a product that's in the late extend and extinguish phase.
1: https://9to5google.com/2023/09/21/t-mobile-rcs-google-jibe/ 2: https://9to5google.com/2023/06/09/att-rcs-jibe-google/
That is the thing about RCS.. it seems like a whole lot more of it is proprietary Google product than many people realize.
I would not be surprised if there was another patent stew going on with Google's RCS extensions.
I would not be surprised if there was another patent stew going on with Google's RCS extensions.
US carriers only comitted to RCS in 2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/20/22584443/verizon-android-...
The rollout has been pretty slow, fragmented, and annoying.
The rollout has been pretty slow, fragmented, and annoying.
In large part because of Google's cajoling and creation of Jibe. The carriers view messaging as a software product. At this point because basically every phone is running android or ios thus supporting a lower level carrier protocol is of questionable value for them when anyone can submit an app and run their own infrastructure to support a messaging protocol.
That’s kind of why I’ve been very surprised by this whole thing.
Apple made an Apple service for Apple users.
Because no one else has succeeded in the US at taking over a large chunk of the market Apple became de facto bad and loses their rights.
As almost every thread has pointed out, this situation is very unique to the US. Almost everywhere else other apps have taken over. So it’s not like Apple is PREVENTING people from using other apps. People just like it better.
Just like most people like Google better as their search engine. It has a huge market share too but no one seems mad about that. (Their tying that to advertising IS horrible, but not an angle in the iMessage analogy)
And as you said, Apple has announced RCS support. So I wonder if any of this will even matter much in a year or so.
Apple made an Apple service for Apple users.
Because no one else has succeeded in the US at taking over a large chunk of the market Apple became de facto bad and loses their rights.
As almost every thread has pointed out, this situation is very unique to the US. Almost everywhere else other apps have taken over. So it’s not like Apple is PREVENTING people from using other apps. People just like it better.
Just like most people like Google better as their search engine. It has a huge market share too but no one seems mad about that. (Their tying that to advertising IS horrible, but not an angle in the iMessage analogy)
And as you said, Apple has announced RCS support. So I wonder if any of this will even matter much in a year or so.
Anti green bubble discrimination is directly responsible for the rise of large amounts of incels in America.
Make no mistake, it’s a meme among gen Z about how if a man has an android phone, they better hide it for at least 3 dates as a woman seeing them having an android phone is enough to get them ghosted on subsequent dates.
There are literally hundreds of articles written about green bubble discrimination in the dating world. Before the knee jerk downvoted, please google my claims and read some of them.
Make no mistake, it’s a meme among gen Z about how if a man has an android phone, they better hide it for at least 3 dates as a woman seeing them having an android phone is enough to get them ghosted on subsequent dates.
There are literally hundreds of articles written about green bubble discrimination in the dating world. Before the knee jerk downvoted, please google my claims and read some of them.
Idiots who are rejected by women will blame anything except their own behavior.
There are plenty of men who have android phones who date women with iPhones.
Even if the bubble color were the same those men would be rejected anyway for not having an iPhone. I guess the government should mandate all phones look the same to prevent further discrimination against those without iDevices.
There are plenty of men who have android phones who date women with iPhones.
Even if the bubble color were the same those men would be rejected anyway for not having an iPhone. I guess the government should mandate all phones look the same to prevent further discrimination against those without iDevices.
I'm picturing a guy on a date who just won't shut up about why Android is better and she should get rid of her iPhone.
"She dumped me because I use Android!"
Well, that's partially true...
"She dumped me because I use Android!"
Well, that's partially true...
That probably does happen.
But, also, some people are shamed for simply using Android as well.
https://gizmodo.com/im-buying-an-iphone-because-im-ashamed-o...
A lot has been written about the perception of "green bubbles". It's well documented.
But, also, some people are shamed for simply using Android as well.
https://gizmodo.com/im-buying-an-iphone-because-im-ashamed-o...
A lot has been written about the perception of "green bubbles". It's well documented.
And if this were true and getting a women is important to the individual, than just get the iphone until you get the girl. People spend money to show their value to mates through cars, clothes, jewelry, haircuts, etc ad infinitum.
Der_Einzige(2)
No one is entitled to affection from any other person. Thinking otherwise is the only thing responsible for the rise of incels. Blaming “green bubble discrimination” is only one of limitless deflections from that underlying problem.
What's the terrible behaviour Apple has had?
[deleted]
Apple is such a shitty organization. They make excellent hardware, but everything they do is just an attack on its customers.
They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad, that they'll transparently attack attempts to make things better for everyone.
They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad, that they'll transparently attack attempts to make things better for everyone.
Apple was founded by members of the Homebrew Computer Club[0]. They had a different philosophy and outlook on their products. As they gained more money, their image started warp. By the time the founders were out of the picture, we're left with people that joined Apple primarily for monetary gain. That's the current Apple under Tim Cook. It's a shame to see such a decline because they absolutely have room to be wildly profitable while bucking the greedy ethos of other corporations, but they have settled down that path and implemented numerous decisions that are hostile to their own users.
There are too many hardware and software decisions they have made in recent years to list, but one decision I think representative of the company's pursuit of profit in spite of its users interests is the fact that iPhone cases do not fit models from year-to-year, even for the small refreshes.
[0] https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-sili...
There are too many hardware and software decisions they have made in recent years to list, but one decision I think representative of the company's pursuit of profit in spite of its users interests is the fact that iPhone cases do not fit models from year-to-year, even for the small refreshes.
[0] https://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/for-one-night-only-sili...
> They want to keep people in their walled garden so bad
Many of us willingly pay a premium for that. It has its benefits and nobody forces you to lock yourself into their ecosystem. Crying about it when you willingly pick something outside of their defined ecosystem and have some weird expectation of access is baffling.
Many of us willingly pay a premium for that. It has its benefits and nobody forces you to lock yourself into their ecosystem. Crying about it when you willingly pick something outside of their defined ecosystem and have some weird expectation of access is baffling.
When you encounter a non-Apple user and you have to interact with them with your iDevice (video calls, messaging, file transfer, etc.) do you do everything in your power to make it a good experience? Otherwise you're peer pressuring other people to enter the ecosystem.
Why do you think any part of that would be a negative experience? If I want to transfer a file to someone I can send it over using standard old smb, if I want to message them I've got imessage (which can send/recieve sms), whatsapp, signal, telegram, whatever other one you can think of). If I want to do a video call theres zoom, google meet, teams, or again any other service.
Not a single one of the items you've mentioned has to be a 'walled' experience when interacting with someone not inside the ecosystem, it's bizarre that you'd even think it would be unless you've got very little understanding of how computers work in 2023.
Not a single one of the items you've mentioned has to be a 'walled' experience when interacting with someone not inside the ecosystem, it's bizarre that you'd even think it would be unless you've got very little understanding of how computers work in 2023.
You clearly have very little understanding of how society works in 2023 since iPhone users in the USA almost never install third party messaging and video chatting apps.
Also your reply suggests you haven't actually understood what I wrote
Also your reply suggests you haven't actually understood what I wrote
And you clearly have a very limited view of the world if you think I was referring specifically to the US. Whatsapp for example is practically the de-facto messaging app across vast areas of Europe and Asia, which collectively is vastly more iOS users than the US alone.
Your reply suggests you never understood what my original post was refering to.
Your reply suggests you never understood what my original post was refering to.
> It has its benefits and nobody forces you to lock yourself into their ecosystem.
Network effects absolutely do and Apple knows this. Otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to distinguish non-Apple users in chats.
Network effects absolutely do and Apple knows this. Otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to distinguish non-Apple users in chats.
If someones shallow enough to get upset over the background colour of a message then that says a lot more about them than Apple.
> Many of us willingly pay a premium for that
Cool, stay in the walled garden if you want to. That doesn't mean other users need to be forced within in it with you, too.
Cool, stay in the walled garden if you want to. That doesn't mean other users need to be forced within in it with you, too.
That’s the thing, nobody is forced to buy an iphone.
99% of people buy hardware unaware of the how the software locks them into a walled garden.
The vast majority of people aren't thinking "Wow, I love how Apple takes away my freedom and forces me to use apps even if I might want to use something else", they're buying an iPhone because it's shiny and is what they're familiar with.
Those people deserve to be afforded user freedom and to own the devices they purchased.
The vast majority of people aren't thinking "Wow, I love how Apple takes away my freedom and forces me to use apps even if I might want to use something else", they're buying an iPhone because it's shiny and is what they're familiar with.
Those people deserve to be afforded user freedom and to own the devices they purchased.
You're in the minority. A tiny minority at that. Of all the 'normal' people I know that own iPhones I can tell you now that not a single one of them thinks "gee if only I could <do thing you seem to imagine they cant do>".
The average user doesn't give a crap if you can sideload some random app that is only needing to be sideloaded because its likely dodgy as hell.
Also if someones using an iOS device and is skilled enough to need to sideload then they'll know full well they CAN sideload by deploying an app from xcode.
The average user doesn't give a crap if you can sideload some random app that is only needing to be sideloaded because its likely dodgy as hell.
Also if someones using an iOS device and is skilled enough to need to sideload then they'll know full well they CAN sideload by deploying an app from xcode.
99% of people don’t care about what you call a “walled garden”. They have no more desire for that “freedom” than you yearn to install third-party firmware on your dishwasher.
Go up to a random stranger and ask how much it would be worth to them to be able to sideload apps or have a bash terminal on their iPhone. They wouldn’t even say “zero dollars”, they would just laugh.
I am a professional iOS developer and I also couldn’t possibly care less.
Go up to a random stranger and ask how much it would be worth to them to be able to sideload apps or have a bash terminal on their iPhone. They wouldn’t even say “zero dollars”, they would just laugh.
I am a professional iOS developer and I also couldn’t possibly care less.
And I never asked or made any indication anyone should, or would be forced into the walled garden...it's bizzare how out of touch and disconnected from the reality of using a modern computer people are.
I am an Apple customer. I don’t feel attacked. In this case, specifically, I feel protected.
Using an analogy from a person I follow on Mastodon: “For $1.99 per month, I will give you a QR code that tells 24 Hour Fitness that you are their customer when you really aren't. You can work out for free whenever you want.”
And:
“The Department of Justice is investigating 24 Hour Fitness for banning the people I charge $1.99 per month for access to all 24 Hour Fitness locations without actually being a member. What a world!”
Thread: https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp
Using an analogy from a person I follow on Mastodon: “For $1.99 per month, I will give you a QR code that tells 24 Hour Fitness that you are their customer when you really aren't. You can work out for free whenever you want.”
And:
“The Department of Justice is investigating 24 Hour Fitness for banning the people I charge $1.99 per month for access to all 24 Hour Fitness locations without actually being a member. What a world!”
Thread: https://fedia.social/notes/9n0w48tiq887x0bp
Protected from what, end-to-end encryption?
That's a terrible analogy. Per the OP, Beeper users are Apple customers:
> Beeper uses real registration data from real Macs and iPhones. These credentials are being used by real people, with real Apple accounts, to send real iMessages.
> Beeper uses real registration data from real Macs and iPhones. These credentials are being used by real people, with real Apple accounts, to send real iMessages.
This only changes today. Until now they have used various workarounds to avoid this.
To be fair, that was JUST added in the most recent change. It has _not_ been like that the whole time, and it's a bit disingenuous to imply that it has.
I doubt it'll have an impact though, and this will likely get shut down just as other methods have been.
I doubt it'll have an impact though, and this will likely get shut down just as other methods have been.
In my opinion, it was the App Store and iCloud services era of Apple that made the company so user hostile to Mac users.
One of the things I liked about earlier OS X and Macs was the potential to do hacky things, and the plethora of tools to accomplish just that on your Mac.
Turns out hacking and tinkering has the potential to impact their bottom line, so no more of that without Apple getting in the way to make it inconvenient to impossible.
One of the things I liked about earlier OS X and Macs was the potential to do hacky things, and the plethora of tools to accomplish just that on your Mac.
Turns out hacking and tinkering has the potential to impact their bottom line, so no more of that without Apple getting in the way to make it inconvenient to impossible.
One of the benefits of iOS locked down is that all of your app subscriptions are in one easy to find to place, no dark patterns, no tell us why you canceled questions, etc etc. If an app doesn’t let me subscribe through the App Store I just won’t do it regardless of how much I want to. And this is just one of the many benefits. There’s no reason to turn iOS into Android. Apple worries about their users, not everyone.
to be fair they have their upsides, security and encryption, refusal to hand over customer info to government agencies that ask, refusal to comply with built-in back doors
this hasn't changed, has it?
this hasn't changed, has it?
We are literally talking about Apple removing a system that allows seamless E2E encrypted chat with Android users. The result is less security and encryption for iMessage users!
Not necessarily, and I see this from Apple's perspective though.
When iMessage is under their control (it is their creation after all), they (Apple) can be sure that what is happening is exactly what users expect. We can know that the messages are encrypted E2E without someone in the middle.
With Beeper, there are no guarantees of that anymore. I could be messaging a person that is using Beeper, or some other tool, and the messages are being intercepted by that other tool's server and decrypted there. I'd be _expecting_ E2EE but not getting it.
Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is.
When I see a blue message, or know I'm in an iMessage chat I have certain expectations. If you allow outside apps to interface with it like Beeper is doing then my expectations would need to be adjusted and I would no longer be able to trust that what I expect to be happening is always happening.
When iMessage is under their control (it is their creation after all), they (Apple) can be sure that what is happening is exactly what users expect. We can know that the messages are encrypted E2E without someone in the middle.
With Beeper, there are no guarantees of that anymore. I could be messaging a person that is using Beeper, or some other tool, and the messages are being intercepted by that other tool's server and decrypted there. I'd be _expecting_ E2EE but not getting it.
Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is.
When I see a blue message, or know I'm in an iMessage chat I have certain expectations. If you allow outside apps to interface with it like Beeper is doing then my expectations would need to be adjusted and I would no longer be able to trust that what I expect to be happening is always happening.
Did you even read the post?
Beeper's integration is open-source. Anyone can audit it. That means that Beeper requires less trust from its users than iMessage does! Nobody gets to audit iMessage.
> Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is.
And if iMessage's protocol is E2E encrypted, then that is already guaranteed to be secure from MITM. The only new attack surface would be the endpoint, AKA the messaging app itself. The only way to guarantee coverage for that attack surface is to audit every messaging app, including iMessage. That is not the case, so there is no change in expectation.
---
Your entire argument boils down to this: You trust Apple, and distrust everyone else: therefore, as an iMessage user, you should just throw E2E encryption out the window, and use unencrypted SMS instead!
Beeper's integration is open-source. Anyone can audit it. That means that Beeper requires less trust from its users than iMessage does! Nobody gets to audit iMessage.
> Perhaps Beeper has the best of intentions, but if you _allow_ Beeper you will need to allow everyone or then it gets even messier than it already is.
And if iMessage's protocol is E2E encrypted, then that is already guaranteed to be secure from MITM. The only new attack surface would be the endpoint, AKA the messaging app itself. The only way to guarantee coverage for that attack surface is to audit every messaging app, including iMessage. That is not the case, so there is no change in expectation.
---
Your entire argument boils down to this: You trust Apple, and distrust everyone else: therefore, as an iMessage user, you should just throw E2E encryption out the window, and use unencrypted SMS instead!
I'd appreciate if you were less combative in your discussion. "Did you even read the post?" Give me a break, read the rules of this discussion forum, please.
Beeper is only ONE of the concerns I mentioned. As I said, Beeper may have the best of intentions, but not every solution will be. And if you allow Beeper, you're going to have issues with others doing the same.
iMessage is end-to-end encrypted. Here's how you can MITM it though, if you allow third party tools like Beeper.
For an app like this to work it uses a 3rd party app, because it has to fill the gaps of work being done by iMessage, which means it's handling keys, handling encryption, as well as all the user facing functionality.
How do we know that all of these tools are not MITM'ing the solution? It could just as easily not E2E encrypt the data and decrypt on the server, before sending it to you via the app on your device (an Android device, or web app, or whatever you're using to interact with Beeper as a non-Apple device user). I understand Beeper operates locally, but even in that scenario a malicious app utilizing this same functionality and code could send the decrypted data elsewhere, requiring no server MITM, just a modified client side app.
To an Apple user, we would have no way to tell that the user on the other end is potentially compromised. This _does_ change the trust model, does it not?
Again, Beeper may have the best of intentions, but allowing Beeper to operate would mean allowing others to operate and they may not have the same intentions.
Allowing these types of tools absolutely changes the trust of the solution.
And to be clear, yes, we can view the Beeper code since it's open source. The real concern is other tools utilizing the Beeper code but in a modified way. Just because Beeper's code is open does not mean all solutions are open. And on my end, as an Apple user, I have no way of knowing someone is using a "best of intention" app like Beeper, or a maliciously modified fork of it.
Beeper is only ONE of the concerns I mentioned. As I said, Beeper may have the best of intentions, but not every solution will be. And if you allow Beeper, you're going to have issues with others doing the same.
iMessage is end-to-end encrypted. Here's how you can MITM it though, if you allow third party tools like Beeper.
For an app like this to work it uses a 3rd party app, because it has to fill the gaps of work being done by iMessage, which means it's handling keys, handling encryption, as well as all the user facing functionality.
How do we know that all of these tools are not MITM'ing the solution? It could just as easily not E2E encrypt the data and decrypt on the server, before sending it to you via the app on your device (an Android device, or web app, or whatever you're using to interact with Beeper as a non-Apple device user). I understand Beeper operates locally, but even in that scenario a malicious app utilizing this same functionality and code could send the decrypted data elsewhere, requiring no server MITM, just a modified client side app.
To an Apple user, we would have no way to tell that the user on the other end is potentially compromised. This _does_ change the trust model, does it not?
Again, Beeper may have the best of intentions, but allowing Beeper to operate would mean allowing others to operate and they may not have the same intentions.
Allowing these types of tools absolutely changes the trust of the solution.
And to be clear, yes, we can view the Beeper code since it's open source. The real concern is other tools utilizing the Beeper code but in a modified way. Just because Beeper's code is open does not mean all solutions are open. And on my end, as an Apple user, I have no way of knowing someone is using a "best of intention" app like Beeper, or a maliciously modified fork of it.
> I'd appreciate if you were less combative in your discussion.
OK. I agree to drop the word, "even". I could have phrased that more generosly. Here's a try: "Did you consider the rebuttal provided in the article?" I didn't want to be redundant by repeating it.
---
Let's look at this with some perspective. There are 3 ways this can pan out:
1. What Apple wants: Everyone buys an iPhone and uses iMessage.
In this scenario, the security of literally everyone depends on their trust in one party (Apple), because iMessage cannot be audited. It's also never gonna happen, so there's that.
2. What Beeper wants: 3rd party apps can send and receive messages with iMessage, and all messages are E2E encrypted.
In this scenario, trust is only needed when the app at each end is closed-source. Open source apps can be audited, so conversations between them can be known to be secure. Messages between closed and open source apps must rely on the trust of one closed source app.
This is worse if one or more 3rd party apps is closed source, because that introduces more parties who demand trust.
This is better if all 3rd party apps are open source, because it allows guaranteed secure comms between users of open-source apps. It's a neutral change for iMessage users, because they must trust the same number of parties (just Apple).
3. What we got: iMessage is only encrypted (if Apple is trustworthy) when both users are using iMessage.
This is worse, because iMessage users (and everyone who messages with them) are practically guaranteed to send and receive unencrypted messages. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
OK. I agree to drop the word, "even". I could have phrased that more generosly. Here's a try: "Did you consider the rebuttal provided in the article?" I didn't want to be redundant by repeating it.
---
Let's look at this with some perspective. There are 3 ways this can pan out:
1. What Apple wants: Everyone buys an iPhone and uses iMessage.
In this scenario, the security of literally everyone depends on their trust in one party (Apple), because iMessage cannot be audited. It's also never gonna happen, so there's that.
2. What Beeper wants: 3rd party apps can send and receive messages with iMessage, and all messages are E2E encrypted.
In this scenario, trust is only needed when the app at each end is closed-source. Open source apps can be audited, so conversations between them can be known to be secure. Messages between closed and open source apps must rely on the trust of one closed source app.
This is worse if one or more 3rd party apps is closed source, because that introduces more parties who demand trust.
This is better if all 3rd party apps are open source, because it allows guaranteed secure comms between users of open-source apps. It's a neutral change for iMessage users, because they must trust the same number of parties (just Apple).
3. What we got: iMessage is only encrypted (if Apple is trustworthy) when both users are using iMessage.
This is worse, because iMessage users (and everyone who messages with them) are practically guaranteed to send and receive unencrypted messages. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
[deleted]
Google is doing the exact same with RCS that has their proprietary e2ee layer on top that no one is allowed to use besides Samsung and themselves.
On top of that they’re acting like spoiled children used to getting their way, pointing fingers, because they ‘lost’ the instant messaging war.
On top of that they’re acting like spoiled children used to getting their way, pointing fingers, because they ‘lost’ the instant messaging war.
Google has tried to get everyone on board with RCS for years
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-messa...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-messa...
Google made a e2ee extension on top the standard that deviates from the RCS spec thus it might as well be considered another spec all-together as it’s no longer able to communicate with adopters of the plain RCS protocol in a meaningful way.
Their extension is proprietary and unavailable to anyone except themselves and Samsung. This means that Google is making a bad faith argument as they’re not advocating for RCS, but their own incompatible version of it.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-...
Their extension is proprietary and unavailable to anyone except themselves and Samsung. This means that Google is making a bad faith argument as they’re not advocating for RCS, but their own incompatible version of it.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones-what-...
RCS is extensible and allows for capability discovery. Adding an E2EE extension doesn't really "deviate" from the spec but rather builds on top of it. Google's client can still communicate with other Universal Profile clients; the messages just aren't end-to-end encrypted.
And Google has said that they plan to switch to MLS [1]. Releasing their own E2EE spec more widely at this point would be pointless.
[1] https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-to...
And Google has said that they plan to switch to MLS [1]. Releasing their own E2EE spec more widely at this point would be pointless.
[1] https://security.googleblog.com/2023/07/an-important-step-to...
endisneigh(1)
endisneigh(4)
This was my feeling from the first time I saw it on HN. I am in the Apple ecosystem, so I had no need for it anyways, but I didn’t expect a product to last when it relies on Apple not restricting something they clearly want to restrict.
It clearly got them a lot of press, attention, and recognition. But also indicated, to me, that they are just not reliable.
The team seems very intelligent and capable. I truly hope they find something to do next that doesn’t rely on such a fragile bridge.