[HN Gopher] Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access ___________________________________________________________________ Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access Author : coloneltcb Score : 70 points Date : 2023-12-08 21:41 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com) (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com) | nicklevin wrote: | Saw that coming. Just like Google did with the SEO heist a person | bragged about a couple weeks ago, if you make big tech companies | look foolish they are going to react quickly. | blinding-streak wrote: | SEO heist? | minimaxir wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38433856 | minimaxir wrote: | When did Google react to the SEO heist? I can't seem to find a | source for it. | nicklevin wrote: | https://x.com/rosshudgens/status/1729889490947518868 | gruez wrote: | This is still baffling. The tweets make it sound like | they're competing against google and stole traffic from | google, but their landing page makes it look like they're | some sort of business modeling SaaS? Why would they be | competing against google? | travem wrote: | They are competing against another business (not google), | and through AI generation of content (based information | gathered from the competitors site map) they were able to | capture web traffic from Google that would previously | have gone to their competitor. | ribosometronome wrote: | Isn't it just fighting over already low effort affiliate | spam pages, anyway? The ideal result is seeing none of | them. | mchanson wrote: | Smart to do it Friday afternoon. | vinberdon wrote: | That was fast! | cloudking wrote: | I wonder what Apple will do with the number registrations that | came from Androids. | frizlab wrote: | Unregister them, just like when so switch from iOS to android I | guess | mchanson wrote: | Done late on a Friday. | spzb wrote: | If I know anything about software dev, it'll be someone at | Bleeper who fat-fingered something in their haste to get the | weekend started. | ReptileMan wrote: | The EU will probably look closely into that. | superb_dev wrote: | Why? iMessage so far isn't a part of the EU's plan. There's no | requirement for it to be open. | rplnt wrote: | Apple isn't blocking competitive messaging apps from their | platform. They are simply blocking unauthorized access to their | services. EU won't look at Slack for blocking your irc client, | and EU won't look at this. | HPsquared wrote: | Potato, potato. Would they authorize it if asked? | etchalon wrote: | No, and, at the moment at least, they have no legal | requirement to do so. | jimbob45 wrote: | If you can't come up with at least a specious argument as | to why your [insert thing] should be locked down, you | should expect EU Antitrust at your door in the near | future. | etchalon wrote: | "Cause it's ours and we don't want to." is a very | legitimate reason. | | I don't have to let you into my house. I don't owe you a | reason. It's my house. | hnuser435 wrote: | Brutal. Will there be refunds? | graypegg wrote: | Well, to be fair, wasn't this always going to be the end state? | I wouldn't be surprised if the choice of subscription plan was | mostly because it makes "total value-time received" a really | easy calculation. It worked for 2 months, you're not getting | your 4$ back. | | Surprised it only lasted this long though, I'm sure they | weren't betting on that. I still wouldn't expect a refund for | the 1,50$ of 3 weeks this payment cycle that you didn't use. | DeIlliad wrote: | Beeper Mini starts as a 7 day trial and its been 24 hours so I | imagine they'll be fine. | focusedone wrote: | Why can't we have nice things? | sonicanatidae wrote: | Humans. Humans are why we can't have nice things. | waffleiron wrote: | Greed I'd argue, there are many that aren't greedy but enough | to ruin many things. | aidenn0 wrote: | Oh, so we just kill all the humans, and _then_ we can have | nice things? | JohnMakin wrote: | this comment predicted it: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38536577 | madeofpalk wrote: | I'm pretty sure _everyone_ predicted it. It was exceptionally | clear to anyone that Apple would block this and patch the hole | that allows it to work. | JohnMakin wrote: | but, if you read the comment, he points out why/how, which | other commenters seemed confused about. | etchalon wrote: | You mean the company who controls the protocol, and the clients, | and the servers for a given service somehow found a way to stop a | third-party from utilizing that service without permission? | | I am shocked at this outcome, and shall write my senator. | sonicanatidae wrote: | Make sure you mention the tubes! | rplnt wrote: | And IIRC it used some old OSX binaries to do so? Just | terminating the access might be a lucky outcome if that's the | case, considring the money involved. | chrisbrandow wrote: | I mean, what did they really expect when accessing a private | messaging service without permission? | | Maybe it shouldn't be private or whatever, but it still seemed | weird to me that they thought this would "just work". | wmf wrote: | One may wonder if the real goal was to create an antitrust case | rather than a working app. | madeofpalk wrote: | How is this a demonstration of "antitrust"? Apple does not | unfairly prevent competition for messaging apps, as evidenced | by a plethora of competition for messaging apps, plenty of | which are far more popular _on iPhone_ outside of the US. | Jtsummers wrote: | How would this be used for an anti-trust case? | amelius wrote: | It's for your own good. Those Android users cannot be trusted. | dang wrote: | Recent and related: | | _Show HN: Beeper Mini - iMessage client for Android_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38531759 - Dec 2023 (863 | comments) | | _iMessage, explained_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38532167 - Dec 2023 (143 | comments) | JaggedJax wrote: | Don't worry guys, everything is perfectly fine. Their status page | says so, and status pages are always accurate. | https://beeperstatus.com/ | DeIlliad wrote: | This status page is for their cloud offering, Beeper Cloud. | Given how Beeper Mini works I don't think they could even make | a status page for it? | JaggedJax wrote: | That's very likely. They don't actually say anywhere what | that status page is for. I do feel like they could be and | should be collecting stats on whether or not messages are | sending properly or not in app, especially since this ways | always the most likely scenario eventually. | crazysim wrote: | This was the way with GAIM and Adium and stuff back in the old | days. It'll be back. | phailhaus wrote: | Crazy that the CEO even tried to create an entire company based | on something that they absolutely cannot control. Was this an | acquisition play? | maelito wrote: | The entire company is not based on Beeper Mini. | rglullis wrote: | Beeper is doing a lot more than just an iMessage proxy. | ElijahLynn wrote: | > Reached for comment, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky did not deny | that Apple has successfully blocked Beeper Mini. "If it's Apple, | then I think the biggest question is... if Apple truly cares | about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why | would they stop a service that enables their own users to now | send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using | unsecure SMS? With their announcement of RCS support, it's clear | that Apple knows they have a gaping hole here. Beeper Mini is | here today and works great. Why force iPhone users back to | sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?" | | Does it come down to The Law of Leaky Abstractions? | | >> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of- | leaky-a... | | Which means that if Apple wants to change something eventually, | then they will possibly break downstream abstractions and then | people will complain and the downstream abstraction will say | "Well Apple changed their API, it is their fault". Letting | someone do it from square one would be enabling that future | scenario, as it isn't "if" it changes, it is "when". | | If it was an open source API that would be different, but Apple's | is closed source, that is Apple's philosophy at the core. It is a | closed API yah? Not even an open spec right? | trynumber9 wrote: | The EU should, like they did years ago with PC operating systems, | mandate a default browser selection screen. And a default | messenger selection screen. And a default app store selection | screen. | | Not that we'd get it in the US but it would help reduce | Apple/Google market capture efforts. | gafage wrote: | >And a default messenger selection screen. | | What for? Everybody in the EU already use whatsapp. | mh8h wrote: | An open source client for iMessage is going to be used for fraud | and spam. Before this, a device being blocked by Apple because it | was used for fraud or spam would increase the cost of business | for fraudsters and spammers. But now it's a matter of picking a | new phone number. Of course Apple would try hard to stop this. | KomoD wrote: | This is what Snazzy Labs said about Beeper Mini... hilarious: | | > This doesn't appear to be some easy thing Apple can just turn | off. | | > It will require a complete redesign of their entire | authentication and delivery strategy for not just iMessage but | Apple ID account access as a whole. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-08 23:00 UTC)