[HN Gopher] Beeper - Moving Forward ___________________________________________________________________ Beeper - Moving Forward Author : unshavedyak Score : 278 points Date : 2023-12-21 16:05 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.beeper.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.beeper.com) | spsesk117 wrote: | 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. | andwaal wrote: | 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. | tedunangst wrote: | 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. | striking wrote: | I don't think the founders need any more money. | chihuahua wrote: | 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. | striking wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | striking wrote: | 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! | eli wrote: | Does Apple? | malfist wrote: | And yet, people like Musk and Bezos keep trying to make | more money. | bdcravens wrote: | Musk, and probably Bezos, have goals that were previously | only attainable by nation-states, which require nation- | state-sized budgets. | randmeerkat wrote: | > 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. | bdcravens wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | Why would Apple buy them? What value could they provide to | Apple? | playingalong wrote: | Not being a nuisance. | SnorkelTan wrote: | For those who missed the incredible journey reference: | https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ | harryVic wrote: | I guess it is great marketing. I didn't even know they had a | bleeper cloud offering. | Grustaf wrote: | Does their behaviour with beeper mini instill great | confidence? Will you trust them with your credentials to all | your chat apps? | alright2565 wrote: | 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-... | zwily wrote: | You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I | seriously doubt it... | Nextgrid wrote: | 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). | nwiswell wrote: | > 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) | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | This isn't how the law works. If it's a valid defence, | it's a valid injunction. | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | 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. | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan | calls for regulatory action against Apple_ | | Media attention, yes. Policy support, no. | Nextgrid wrote: | Wouldn't this count: | https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken- | antitrust/ ? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | It looks like a sounding document--you put it out and see | who calls. If quality voters call in support, it gains | momentum. If it's crickets, or only people messaging why | they like the _status quo_ , it's dropped. | GeekyBear wrote: | > 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. | amazingman wrote: | >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!" | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | amazingman wrote: | 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. | Nextgrid wrote: | 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). | amazingman wrote: | 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? | Nextgrid wrote: | > 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. | dylan604 wrote: | 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 | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | dylan604 wrote: | 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. | ClarityJones wrote: | > Plenty of places will suspend your account if | discovered you have done this. | | And yet that's not the route Apple chose to take. | dylan604 wrote: | 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 | heavyset_go wrote: | Wait until you discover how Plaid works. | mplewis wrote: | Plaid is also bad. | notpushkin wrote: | 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.) | dylan604 wrote: | 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. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > "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 care's about user security??? | | Not enough BS chutzpah in the universe for that one. | advael wrote: | 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 | turquoisevar wrote: | 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. | Nextgrid wrote: | 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. | ToucanLoucan wrote: | 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._ | Nextgrid wrote: | > 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? | ToucanLoucan wrote: | > 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._ | topato wrote: | 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. | closewith wrote: | > 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. | haswell wrote: | > _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. | ToucanLoucan wrote: | > 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. | stuartjohnson12 wrote: | > 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. | mikeryan wrote: | Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue | them? | | That point is moot now. | Frivolous9421 wrote: | >CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage | account and using the service | | Not fucking likely | sgustard wrote: | 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. | _Microft wrote: | 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. | Larrikin wrote: | 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. | _Microft wrote: | > 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. | sanex wrote: | 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. | inferiorhuman wrote: | 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. | BlackjackCF wrote: | I'm likely wrong here but isn't that a problem with SMS | and not necessarily iMessage? | daedalus_j wrote: | 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. | giantrobot wrote: | MMS limitations stem from the carrier. They have | different attachment size limits which affects how | Messages will encode the content. | jmye wrote: | 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? | sixothree wrote: | I experience the issues described when texting android | users. | Larrikin wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | If you do don't like mms, don't use it, there are tons of | alternatives. I have half a dozen chat apps. | luma wrote: | 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. | _Microft wrote: | I do more than enough tinkering but my phone's supposed | to just work. | luma wrote: | How is your tinkering enhanced by Apple making it | difficult to communicate outside of their kingdom? | riscy wrote: | 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? | tedd4u wrote: | Apple says they will implement RCS in 2024. | | https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/16/23964171/apple- | iphone-rc... | legobmw99 wrote: | Without end to end encryption, because that is not part | of the standard, as the grandparent comment said | nicoburns wrote: | IMO they should also be made to open up. As should | whatsapp and facebook messenger. | luma wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | I'm glad it's happening. RCS finally got widespread | carrier adoption (minus encryption) and it's a big | improvement over SMS! | luma wrote: | 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. | joshmanders wrote: | > 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. | xg15 wrote: | Well I guess then they should let other people interop | with iMessage directly, so the E2EE can be kept. | ruszki wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | 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. | ruszki wrote: | 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. | nicce wrote: | > 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? | shawnz wrote: | the iPhone messages app already supports unencrypted SMS | though | riscy wrote: | > 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. | paulmd wrote: | 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. | redhale wrote: | You seem to be mistaken: | https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to- | iphone/ | paulmd wrote: | 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 social leverage | (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. | | 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 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 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. | endisneigh wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | Centigonal wrote: | 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. | _Microft wrote: | 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). | forty wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | crakhamster01 wrote: | 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? | ricardobayes wrote: | 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). | llm_nerd wrote: | >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. | quadrifoliate wrote: | > 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... | llm_nerd wrote: | 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. | mattl wrote: | What does tosser app mean in this context? | llm_nerd wrote: | 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. | DirkH wrote: | 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. | llm_nerd wrote: | >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. | hx8 wrote: | 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. | Rebelgecko wrote: | 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). | borski wrote: | They stopped charging almost immediately, as soon as the | iMessage functionality was broken, and never started again. | This is a strawman. | llm_nerd wrote: | 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. | borski wrote: | 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. | dylan604 wrote: | 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 | DirkH wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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? | i5-2520M wrote: | 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. | i5-2520M wrote: | 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. | giantrobot wrote: | > 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. | kotaKat wrote: | They should do Google Messages next. Isn't there _still_ not an | API to integrate third party chat into Google 's walled RCS | garden? | eredengrin wrote: | Beeper Cloud has had google messages support since at least | September. | kotaKat wrote: | Is that an official API, or a hacked implementation like | their iMessage client? | tedd4u wrote: | Apple says they will implement RCS in 2024. | | 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. | creativeembassy wrote: | 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. | rchaud wrote: | > 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. | airstrike wrote: | _> 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 | samstave wrote: | > _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. | Invictus0 wrote: | It was a bad idea from day 1 | gardenhedge wrote: | Exactly, beeper has no credibility | COGlory wrote: | Eric's not an idiot, so I'm thoroughly confused by what he was | hoping to accomplish, here. | ycombinatrix wrote: | someone had to do it. i thank him for his service. | madeofpalk wrote: | Do _what_? | MBCook wrote: | Break into iMessage to free Android users from the | oppression of... I don't know. | | This has all been weirdly performative. | realusername wrote: | This is a bad precedent giving ammunition for the next | antitrust lawsuits so I guess that could be one of the goals. | smashah wrote: | 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. | zamadatix wrote: | 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. | Lalabadie wrote: | 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. | MBCook wrote: | > 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. | zamadatix wrote: | 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. | upon_drumhead wrote: | 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? | ethanbond wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | Imagine reverse engineering AWS keys, using AWS services | for free, reselling them, and then trying to sue AWS when | they fix the security hole. | GeekyBear wrote: | However, there is every chance that circumventing a | service's security controls is a violation of the Computer | Fraud and Abuse Act. | supergeek133 wrote: | 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. | micromacrofoot wrote: | 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? | MBCook wrote: | 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. | bko wrote: | 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 | pants2 wrote: | 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. | sharkjacobs wrote: | 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. | wnevets wrote: | 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? | madeofpalk wrote: | It's not an anti-trust violation to patch holes in a closed | API. | theshackleford wrote: | Yes, I find it humorous that more than one of you seems unable | to comprehend the basics of the situation. | gunalx wrote: | 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. | smashah wrote: | They did open source it. | remram wrote: | They did, here's the link from the article: | https://github.com/beeper/imessage | LeafItAlone wrote: | > "Each time that Beeper Mini goes 'down' or is made to be | unreliable due to interference by Apple, Beeper's credibility | takes a hit. It's unsustainable," Beeper writes. | | 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. | intrasight wrote: | > The team seems very intelligent and capable | | They (founders/team) will be fine. Young, ambitious, and now | well-known. | JoblessWonder wrote: | 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 | barbs wrote: | 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. | plarkin13 wrote: | Mad respect for trying. Maybe there will be some sort of | litigation on their behalf? | andrewmutz wrote: | 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. | _justinfunk wrote: | 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) | andrewmutz wrote: | > 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. | MBCook wrote: | 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? | bhelkey wrote: | > Why should Apple have to give Android users free | service? | | Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android | users. | hraedon wrote: | 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! | etblg wrote: | 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?l | a... | MBCook wrote: | 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? | etblg wrote: | 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. | MBCook wrote: | 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. | andrewmutz wrote: | 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? | MBCook wrote: | Apple is _ethically obligated_ to give free services to | people who don't buy their products? | yellow_postit wrote: | 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. | criddell wrote: | 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. | unshavedyak wrote: | 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. | et1337 wrote: | 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 | MBCook wrote: | 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. | nerdix wrote: | 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. | MBCook wrote: | 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. | Der_Einzige wrote: | 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. | endisneigh wrote: | 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. | nickthegreek wrote: | 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. | kstrauser wrote: | 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... | nerdix wrote: | 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. | eyelidlessness wrote: | 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. | bbatha wrote: | > 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/ | jrnichols wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | 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. | bbatha wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | What's the terrible behaviour Apple has had? | hraedon wrote: | Not providing every differentiating feature to Android users, | primarily | system2 wrote: | They made the iMessage popular by creating it. Now you as | asking them to make it free to use for any competitor? Why | would any company do that? They are popular for a reason. | standardUser wrote: | 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. | hraedon wrote: | 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? | Der_Einzige wrote: | 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. | hraedon wrote: | 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. | nickthegreek wrote: | Making cars illegal would make it harder for bullies to | bully. Your logic dictates that this is always good. | kcplate wrote: | 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. | this_user wrote: | What did they expect would happen? Apple's reaction was more than | predictable. Why waste money and time on this? | neither_color wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | MBCook wrote: | I don't know, it's too big a story. As soon as any tech | journalist became "in the know" there would be a very strong | chance that it would become news anyway. | | It certainly would've lasted longer than putting out a press | announcement though. | axus wrote: | Move fast and break Terms of Service. | actualwill wrote: | That someone has iMessage on android without the remote | device work around would have blown up regardless. | hamandcheese wrote: | Has Beeper classics iMessage integration been impacted as well? | starik36 wrote: | Works fine for me. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | It's so strange they came to this fight with only the energy for | 2 counter moves | chewmieser wrote: | They really thought that Apple couldn't block it when they | originally announced it. Obviously that was not accurate... | MBCook wrote: | 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. | athorax wrote: | 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? | dmitrygr wrote: | 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. | athorax wrote: | 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. | hcurtiss wrote: | 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. | unshavedyak wrote: | 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 | rsync wrote: | 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... | pzmarzly wrote: | 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 | endisneigh wrote: | Why are people so obsessed about iMessage? If you want to talk to | iPhone users use SMS which all phones support or buy an Apple | device. If you want rich options tell the person on the other | side this and choose one of the dozens of arguably superior | options or wait for RCS support next year (though that's still | not iMessage). | | Sheesh | ToucanLoucan wrote: | This has been a bugbear for Android users since practically the | launch of iMessage and I have never understood it at all, | especially since now we're simply _drowning_ in messaging | services that are free, E to E encrypted, and incredibly | feature rich oftentimes even outpacing iMessage itself. | turquoisevar wrote: | The typical counter to this is that they're bullied by Apple | users (and some go even as far as to claim Apple pushes users | to bully non-users, which is of course ridiculous). | | The answer to the bullying is to end relations with people | who are childish like that. | | And where it pertains children, you need to seek the solution | elsewhere. Children bully each other not just for bubbles, | but also for clothing, toys and other stupid stuff that | doesn't have an easy scapegoat to blame instead of employing | solid parenting and teaching. | m3kw9 wrote: | 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. | Lienetic wrote: | What do you suggest they do instead? | nickthegreek wrote: | Find a business model that doesn't depend on the unauthorized | access of a private API would be a good place to start. | ItsABytecode wrote: | By "private API" do you mean undocumented public API? | nickthegreek wrote: | yes. | beeboobaa wrote: | HN is accessed via an undocumented public API that you | are using every time you visit this site. | tedunangst wrote: | And I would suggest it's a bad idea to base your entire | business off using that API. | nabakin wrote: | I've used 'private API' exactly how you did and some | pedant told me it wasn't a _real_ term so I empathize | willseth wrote: | 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. | DennisAleynikov wrote: | "Never had a chance" | | Because of anticompetitive behavior by Apple, yes. | | That's literally the whole point people keep missing. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | nabakin wrote: | 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 | sublimefire wrote: | 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. | SamuelAdams wrote: | > 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? | jmondi wrote: | It is the default message platform on iPhones, that is what | makes it so special. | chewmieser wrote: | 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... | marcellus23 wrote: | > 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. | Hasu wrote: | And yet I can do it with SMS group messages on Android with | Google's Messages app. | marcellus23 wrote: | Are you're sure that's not RCS? | otachack wrote: | 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. | richardwhiuk wrote: | SMS group messages don't exist. | | There's broadcast SMS (where the phone sends the same SMS | to multiple people) and MMS groups. | marcellus23 wrote: | Does MMS support naming groups? | quadrifoliate wrote: | > 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? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _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. | quadrifoliate wrote: | Was it discussing enabling market lock-in via a | darker/lighter shade? | | If so, it may have been important! | chewmieser wrote: | I listed it specifically because it sounds silly but is | actually an important point. Thanks for sharing the link | though | cassianoleal wrote: | 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. | sevagh wrote: | 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). | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | 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. | psobot wrote: | 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/... | matsemann wrote: | 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. | bronson wrote: | They degrade the user experience to profit off their own | customers. Same thing with soldering down storage on | Macs. It's really effective. | riscy wrote: | 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. | freedomben wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | 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? | freedomben wrote: | 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. | dwaite wrote: | > ... 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) | dwaite wrote: | 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. | dwaite wrote: | > 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. | k8svet wrote: | 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! | KolmogorovComp wrote: | 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. | bronson wrote: | 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. | bronson wrote: | 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) | worble wrote: | Why not just use whatsapp? | ethanbond wrote: | No reason not to except it's just not very big in the US. | stackskipton wrote: | 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. | standardUser wrote: | 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. | Analemma_ wrote: | 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. | inferiorhuman wrote: | Pictures look awful, | | The CTIA recommended allowing up to 5MB for pictures back | in 2013. That would handle full-size JPEGs with | reasonable compression most DLSRs. What does your carrier | support? | | 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? | ryandvm wrote: | 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. | standardUser wrote: | 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. | nerdix wrote: | And next time they'll just exclude you from the group chat | altogether. | Nav_Panel wrote: | 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... | barbs wrote: | 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. | quarkw wrote: | 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 | k8svet wrote: | 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. | freedomben wrote: | 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. | quadrifoliate wrote: | 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/15894507665066926 | 09/ph... | freedomben wrote: | Agree completely. My kids are facing this now. The | bullying is obscene and ridiculous, and very real. | heavyset_go wrote: | > * 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. | mrinterweb wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | Globally, most iPhone users install another messaging app. | dwaite wrote: | > 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. | GabeIsko wrote: | 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. | PrimeMcFly wrote: | 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-... | IshKebab wrote: | 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. | PrimeMcFly wrote: | 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. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | 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. | PrimeMcFly wrote: | > 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. | Miner49er wrote: | 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. | danShumway wrote: | 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. | _justinfunk wrote: | > 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. | somethingsidont wrote: | 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... | etchalon wrote: | 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. | somethingsidont wrote: | 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? | turquoisevar wrote: | 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. | etchalon wrote: | 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. | heavyset_go wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | 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. | somethingsidont wrote: | 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. | csydas wrote: | 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. | username190 wrote: | 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-... | somethingsidont wrote: | 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. | pornel wrote: | Apple's APIs for 3rd party apps are always more limited, and a | few steps behind what Apple allows their own apps do. | commoner wrote: | 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?... | okdood64 wrote: | 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... | erohead wrote: | I think those quotes still stand for themselves. Normalize 3rd | party clients! | mattgreenrocks wrote: | 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. | beeboobaa wrote: | What's the supposed hubris that you are talking about? | okdood64 wrote: | Perhaps the wrong term, but it seemed rather dismissive of | the rather valid concern that Apple won't take kindly to what | they're doing and try to stop them. | aresant wrote: | "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 | willseth wrote: | 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. | regularjack wrote: | Beeper says in the article that they'd be willing to pay | Apple for use of their resources. | sgerenser wrote: | 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? | seizethegdgap wrote: | 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. | pcthrowaway wrote: | Apple is running a hotel, not a house | endisneigh wrote: | Even if we accept the terrible metaphor it would be a | hotel solely for Apple users | dingnuts wrote: | 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. | ItsABytecode wrote: | 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 | zamadatix wrote: | 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. | sbuk wrote: | > 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. | layer8 wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | 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. | layer8 wrote: | 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. | sbuk wrote: | 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. | layer8 wrote: | It seems that you agree that resource usage isn't the | issue. Which was the point of the analogy. | sbuk wrote: | 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. | tedunangst wrote: | But why do you run your own mail server if you can just | use Apple's? | riscy wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | 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. | alsetmusic wrote: | > 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. | willseth wrote: | 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. | rockskon wrote: | 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_! " | ddol wrote: | iMessage supports attachments up to 100Mb and groups of 32 | participants. It's certainly more resource intensive than | 140 byte SMS. | rockskon wrote: | 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. | willseth wrote: | 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. | rockskon wrote: | .....? | | 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? | Analemma_ wrote: | 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. | ItsABytecode wrote: | This hacking is more DMCA than CFAA | rockskon wrote: | 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. | cyanydeez wrote: | 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. | willseth wrote: | 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. | alsetmusic wrote: | 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. | Moomoomoo309 wrote: | 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. | standardUser wrote: | 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. | PrimeMcFly wrote: | > 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. | asylteltine wrote: | 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. | PrimeMcFly wrote: | It's more abuse because of a) the market position and b) | the extent of the othering. | x0x0 wrote: | 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. | beeboobaa wrote: | > 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. | thereddaikon wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | 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. | starik36 wrote: | > 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. | quarkw wrote: | 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. | hcurtiss wrote: | 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. | hnlmorg 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. | | 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. | chewmieser wrote: | 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. | hnlmorg wrote: | Beeper doesn't have any control over the protocol Apple | implement. They do have control over whether they reverse | engineer that protocol. | chewmieser wrote: | Beeper could have come up with a new messaging app for iOS. | They didn't have to reverse-engineer iMessage. | hnlmorg wrote: | > 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). | chewmieser wrote: | 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? | hnlmorg wrote: | 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. | chewmieser wrote: | 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. | hnlmorg wrote: | 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. | endisneigh wrote: | 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... | hnlmorg wrote: | https://github.com/HackerNews/API | endisneigh wrote: | 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 | hnlmorg wrote: | > 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" ;) | endisneigh wrote: | > 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. | hnlmorg wrote: | ...and not one mention of the term "standard". | | Something can be open and not a standard. Like the HN | API. | endisneigh wrote: | Is the HN api proprietary? | hnlmorg wrote: | Im not here to discuss HN and I'm not getting dragged | into your strawman arguments. So ending our discussion | here. | turquoisevar wrote: | 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. | eredengrin wrote: | > 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. | turquoisevar wrote: | 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. | eredengrin wrote: | 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. | enobrev wrote: | 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. | hnlmorg wrote: | > 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. | turquoisevar wrote: | > 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.ma | rko.... | | 1: https://archive.ph/2012.12.08-193508/http://www.forbes.c | om/2... | hnlmorg wrote: | > 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. | pvg wrote: | You can write this comment without the weird HN meta the | guidelines ask you to skip and it would be a much better | comment. | hnlmorg wrote: | 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. | pvg wrote: | 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. | hnlmorg wrote: | > 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. | nkcmr wrote: | 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. | twism wrote: | how so? firefox exists ... and you can't run (real) chrome on | ios | WendyTheWillow wrote: | 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... | mrtksn wrote: | 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. | batch12 wrote: | I really can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, I can read it | both ways. Is it? | mrtksn wrote: | It is. The intent is to demonstrate that motives of the | Beeper developer are not better or worse than those of the | rest of the industry. | WendyTheWillow wrote: | I opt in to Apple's work, whereas Beeper Mini was done on my | behalf, which is the striking difference. | TradingPlaces wrote: | 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? | endisneigh wrote: | So why are people obsessed with iMessage again? Are android users | suffering without it or something? | | At the end of the day beeper is trying to make money, just like | Apple. I find it hilarious that they're trying to act like some | saint here. | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | From what I understand, it's annoying for iPhone users to text | Android users and vise versa. When an Android number is in a | group chat it degrades all of the iPhone users' experience. | | Likewise, as an Android user myself, whenever an iPhone person | texts me a picture or video it's always a potato. This makes me | not want to text iPhone users. | | I wonder if there are any studies on how this causes people to | subconsciously exclude Android users. | endisneigh wrote: | Even if iMessage were available for android that situation | wouldn't be fixed because iMessage can be disabled on iPhones | and you'd have to use the iMessage app anyways, but if you're | willing to do that, why not just use one of the dozens of | apps already available? | | I honestly find it baffling you would even care what phone | the other person has to the point you'd avoid texting them | because they have an iPhone for example. | ItsABytecode wrote: | I think iMessage is a great example of "Embrace, Extend". Apple | didn't build a standalone chat app because everyone (in the US) | was already using SMS on their phones and "hey if you happen to | be SMSing another iPhone user you get these extra features" | robust-cactus wrote: | At this point, I'd pay for iMessage on Android. There's a lot | of conversations android users are not a part of because of | iMessage. | Miner49er wrote: | Yes, Android users do suffer without it, which is why so many | were willing to pay for it. | endisneigh wrote: | Why and how do they suffer? I hear things like exclusion, but | that's always possible. | Miner49er wrote: | Exclusion, bullying. Exclusion is because they don't have | iMessage. | spogbiper wrote: | 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. | riscy wrote: | 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. | ComputerGuru wrote: | 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. | mvdtnz wrote: | Why would you think you're the only one who remembers that? | paxys wrote: | 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. | dfox wrote: | 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). | sambull wrote: | 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. | reaperducer wrote: | _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. | FriedPickles wrote: | 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... | gorkish wrote: | 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 | manmal wrote: | For anyone interested, mCaptcha is a drop in solution: | https://mcaptcha.org/ | toddmorey wrote: | 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. | k310 wrote: | 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! | batuhanicoz wrote: | 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 ^^ | comradesmith wrote: | 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? | sbrother wrote: | 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. | FridgeSeal wrote: | > 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?? | sanex wrote: | But they purposely make the green bubble messages worse | than they need to be. Videos get sent with a lower than | necessary resolution. | FridgeSeal wrote: | 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. | sanex wrote: | 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. | averageRoyalty wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | 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. | saurik wrote: | > 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. | comradesmith wrote: | So Apple changed the locks on their front door, what's the | big deal? | Grustaf wrote: | > 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. | jdjdjdjdjd wrote: | 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. | nerdix wrote: | 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. | anonporridge wrote: | 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. | confd wrote: | > 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. | FridgeSeal wrote: | 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. | ryandvm wrote: | 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. | CharlesW wrote: | 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/ | KomoD wrote: | bluebubbles | jaywalk wrote: | AirMessage requires you to run a server on macOS, and Texts | only supports iMessage on macOS. That's why Apple doesn't mind, | because neither of those services is hacking iMessage itself. | maipen wrote: | 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. | tempodox wrote: | > ...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. | m00x wrote: | 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. | graftak wrote: | 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. | m00x wrote: | Google has tried to get everyone on board with RCS for years | | https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs- | messa... | graftak wrote: | 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. | | [0] https://www.phonearena.com/news/rcs-support-on-iphones- | what-... | davidcollantes wrote: | 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 | Ajedi32 wrote: | 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. | selykg wrote: | 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. | Grustaf wrote: | This only changes today. Until now they have used various | workarounds to avoid this. | badrequest wrote: | Protected from what, end-to-end encryption? | stainablesteel wrote: | 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? | thomastjeffery wrote: | 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! | selykg wrote: | 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. | thomastjeffery wrote: | 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! | selykg wrote: | 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. | esskay wrote: | > 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. | heavyset_go wrote: | > _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. | Grustaf wrote: | That's the thing, nobody is forced to buy an iphone. | heavyset_go wrote: | 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. | Almondsetat wrote: | 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. | xg15 wrote: | > _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. | heavyset_go wrote: | 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. | sotix wrote: | 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... | binkHN wrote: | 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? | Arch-TK wrote: | >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. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | 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... | poisonborz wrote: | 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? | danShumway wrote: | 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. | system2 wrote: | 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. | Hortinstein wrote: | Does anyone have a consolidated timeline of the counters by Apple | and patches by beeper with technical details? It would be | fascinating to read | thomastjeffery wrote: | > 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. | turquoisevar wrote: | What would be the cause of action in this hypothetical | antitrust case you speak of? | thomastjeffery wrote: | Apple is using the vertical integration between its software | business and its hardware business to prevent competition | with both. | xg15 wrote: | 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". | invig wrote: | 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. | epolanski wrote: | Serious, why people use iMessage so much in the us? | | Nobody does in southern Europe, not even iOS users do, everybody | just uses WhatsApp. | DHPersonal wrote: | 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. | rsanek wrote: | You could ask the same thing -- why does everyone use WhatsApp? | maratc wrote: | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-21 23:00 UTC)