6 ms·

Its awesome to reverse engineer this... but.. At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won'

Its awesome to reverse engineer this... but.. At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won't last. Apple should have added an iMessage client to Android (and charged for it) long, long, long ago, but it doesn't change the ethics problem here. (This is the downside to the "just pay for it with hardware" model people always love rather than paying subscription fees.)

erohead 3y ago
Apple announced that they will support RCS. Presumably they will not charge Android users for sending RCS messages to iPhone users right?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Does RCS rely on Apple servers? If it just goes through the same carrier network the way SMS does, why would Apple need to be compensated for the use of their cloud infrastructure?
  - erohead 3y ago
    Yes, Apple will most likely run their own RCS servers.
- divbzero 3y ago
  Yes, I think RCS will be supported free of charge similar to SMS and MMS today. I also suspect that Apple will reserve blue bubbles for native iMessage and use green bubbles for RCS.
  - verwalt 3y ago
    There was an info somewhere that RCS will still be green: https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-confirms-rcs-messages-will-have-green-bubbles/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-confirms-rcs-messages-w...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- geniium 3y ago
  Thank you I just came by to say that
- SllX 3y ago
  RCS is in theory and intended to be a carrier service. From what Apple announced, all we know of what they are doing is is 1) adding RCS protocol support to Messages and 2) working with the GSM Association to beef up security, somehow. In reality, RCS is practically a Google service at this point, and we don’t know a damn thing about how that is going to affect interoperability since the carriers have more or less outsourced the service to Google.
- olliej 3y ago
  RCS isn't encrypted, doesn't work without phones, doesn't have a single identity across multiple devices, etc so it's not going to replace iMessage.
  - addandsubtract 3y ago
    If only there was an encrypted chat service, that works on multiple devices, has a single identity across all of them, etc. Oh well, guess we'll all have to buy iPhones to use iMessage.
    - olliej 3y ago
      Correct! There are numerous options available across a wide variety of platforms, and yet people obsess specifically over iMessage because of perceived (and seemingly US only?) obsession with blue bubbles.
    - elashri 3y ago
      There is matrix.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    RCS can be encrypted. Whether Apple chooses to do so is yet to be seen of course, but I'm guessing they will reserve encryption for "blue bubbles."
    - olliej 3y ago
      Yes, as a non-standard google extension that is not guaranteed to be present. To illustrate the issue, imagine apple added support for "encrypted RCS" that was just iMessage's message blob stuck in an RCS blob (this is essentially how google's encrypted messaging solution works). Would you be ok with that being presented as "encrypted RCS"?
ryaneager 3y ago
As if Apple doesn’t have hundreds of Billions in the bank... I think they can afford to foot the bill.
- SllX 3y ago
  One of the ways they got to having billions in the bank is by selling things for money at a profit. If Apple ever offers iMessage to Android users directly, Apple is going to get paid somehow.
gorkish 3y ago
OTOH this software existing does change the conversation, especially if the solution gains significant media attention or becomes popular. Hopefully this solution passes muster and does effect some kind of change. Remember when Apple promised that Facetime would be based on SIP and would be interoperable? Neither does anyone. I hope that someone opens this Pandora's box also and gives it to every grandma on the planet before Apple has a chance to ban it.
- wicktron 3y ago
  The VirtnetX patent case is what crushed interopable FaceTime.
  - gorkish 3y ago
    You have any other fairytales to tell us?
- microtonal 3y ago
  This indeed changes a lot. If this gets enough traction to be visible and Apple blocks it, it’ll further complicate their relations with the European Commission, who are currently investigating whether iMessage should be regulated under the Digital Markets Act.
jpalawaga 3y ago
iMessage is offered as a free service. If they would like to 'receive recompense', then they should simply charge people. Do we provide recompense to YCombinator for using hackernews?
- dang 3y ago
  I see your point, but please steer clear of personal attacks - you can make your substantive points without that.
  - jpalawaga 3y ago
    sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack. I'll edit it so that it reads less hostile.
    - dang 3y ago
      Appreciated!
- olliej 3y ago
  iMessage is not free though? Apple's "free" services are all dependent on you having bought apple products. When you buy a device, the "profit" on the hardware (the oft reference BoM only cost) also pays for the software development, the services, etc. Claiming that anyone should be able to use those services because they're "free" is like saying anyone should be able to get free service at Toyota garages because Toyota does free service for people who bought a Toyota vehicle.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. Should we, as a society, allow companies to lock people into platforms, and discriminate against those who have decided not to fall prey to that lock-in? Especially when avoiding that lock-in (which is often a passive financial/economic choice, not an active rights/freedom one) actually causes social and emotional harm (the whole "green bubble bullying" is a real thing; yes, I think it's dumb too, but what we think is irrelevant). Personally, I think the answer is "no", we should not allow that sort of thing. Profit is not the most important thing in the world, by far. Your car analogy falls flat, as is the case with most car analogies. No one would expect to get free service at any garage, and that is unrelated to the topic at hand. You can go to any garage, and they're mostly not model specific; even when they are, there are plenty of third-party alternatives. (And this is why locking down car hardware/software such that only the manufacturer can provide service is a garbage practice that we should legally disallow.)
standardUser 3y ago
The only "ethics" problem I see is a company using it's considerable weight to deliberately segregate users of different platforms, resulting in discrimination and bullying. I understand a lot of people here may not understand this, on account of not being a teenager or young adult, but it is a very real phenomenon.
- nullwarp 3y ago
  Not even young at this point. I overheard two grown men talking about how much they hate people with green bubbles and purposely skip inviting them into group chats because of it.
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    To be clear, I don’t think people actually look down on green bubbles vs. blue ones, it’s just that the presence of a green bubble in a Messages chat leads to numerous issues with threading, reactions, etc. (which is also something we can blame Apple for, but different than disliking a person for using an Android phone).
  - schmichael 3y ago
    I have been a grown man on both sides of that conversation: left out of group chats due to being a green bubble, and now tacitly approving of not including green bubbles in otherwise pristine-seas-of-blue chats. It's less about the background color and more about the endless series of interoperability paper cuts that exist with green bubbles. Will my reaction emoji come through as intended? Will my shared media get downsampled to feature phone quality? Will referencing the person's name in chat work the same? etc etc etc. Interop is always a pain, but the sooner Apple can be forced into making any concessions the better. It would help if Google wasn't a complete joke in the messaging space though. As much as I want iMessage interop with Android users, I have no faith or trust in any Google-based messaging app or initiative. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me dozens of times ... well I'd be an idiot to trust Google messaging again. The fact that a huge number of perfectly good third party chat apps exist and yet most Apple users prefer iMessage is a huge testament to iMessage just being a really well made product. I wouldn't put up with the obnoxious interop and lockin issues if it weren't!
unshavedyak 3y ago
> At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won't last. I wish companies wouldn't see it like this. I'm not going to speak on this one specifically, but the other one (Beeper Cloud) "makes Apple money" in that i'm more likely to buy into the Apple ecosystem. Ie normally i'm wanting to get out, because Apple likes to play all-or-nothing with the features that i buy from them. As someone who has an Apple watch, phone, laptop, tv, tv+, airpods.. yet works on Linux & PC, it makes me want to switch away from Apple if i can find better hardware. Beeper lets me get _some of the features i pay for_, which makes me not want to switch. Makes me sad that so many companies have this view of direct income or piss off. Secondary benefits are real imo, and it's what i personally want to buy. Apple feels actively hostile to me, and it makes me want to leave.
WisNorCan 3y ago
Agree. We have seen this before. What if someone reverse engineered Twitter's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Twitter do? What if someone reverse engineered Reddit's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Reddit do? What if someone reverse engineered Instagram's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Instagram do?
- stevefeinstein 3y ago
  Not really. Twitter, and Reddit publish(ed) API's that required one to obtain a key in order to use at scale. No one reverse engineered them.
CaptainFever 3y ago
There's probably indeed a pragmatic issue with the service not lasting, but it is not an ethics problem. If anything, it's unethical for Apple to be so damn proprietary.

erohead 3y ago

Apple announced that they will support RCS. Presumably they will not charge Android users for sending RCS messages to iPhone users right?

rootusrootus 3y ago
Does RCS rely on Apple servers? If it just goes through the same carrier network the way SMS does, why would Apple need to be compensated for the use of their cloud infrastructure?
- erohead 3y ago
  Yes, Apple will most likely run their own RCS servers.
divbzero 3y ago
Yes, I think RCS will be supported free of charge similar to SMS and MMS today. I also suspect that Apple will reserve blue bubbles for native iMessage and use green bubbles for RCS.
- verwalt 3y ago
  There was an info somewhere that RCS will still be green: https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-confirms-rcs-messages-will-have-green-bubbles/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-confirms-rcs-messages-w...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
geniium 3y ago
Thank you I just came by to say that
SllX 3y ago
RCS is in theory and intended to be a carrier service. From what Apple announced, all we know of what they are doing is is 1) adding RCS protocol support to Messages and 2) working with the GSM Association to beef up security, somehow. In reality, RCS is practically a Google service at this point, and we don’t know a damn thing about how that is going to affect interoperability since the carriers have more or less outsourced the service to Google.
olliej 3y ago
RCS isn't encrypted, doesn't work without phones, doesn't have a single identity across multiple devices, etc so it's not going to replace iMessage.
- addandsubtract 3y ago
  If only there was an encrypted chat service, that works on multiple devices, has a single identity across all of them, etc. Oh well, guess we'll all have to buy iPhones to use iMessage.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Correct! There are numerous options available across a wide variety of platforms, and yet people obsess specifically over iMessage because of perceived (and seemingly US only?) obsession with blue bubbles.
  - elashri 3y ago
    There is matrix.
- freedomben 3y ago
  RCS can be encrypted. Whether Apple chooses to do so is yet to be seen of course, but I'm guessing they will reserve encryption for "blue bubbles."
  - olliej 3y ago
    Yes, as a non-standard google extension that is not guaranteed to be present. To illustrate the issue, imagine apple added support for "encrypted RCS" that was just iMessage's message blob stuck in an RCS blob (this is essentially how google's encrypted messaging solution works). Would you be ok with that being presented as "encrypted RCS"?

ryaneager 3y ago

As if Apple doesn’t have hundreds of Billions in the bank... I think they can afford to foot the bill.

SllX 3y ago
One of the ways they got to having billions in the bank is by selling things for money at a profit. If Apple ever offers iMessage to Android users directly, Apple is going to get paid somehow.

gorkish 3y ago

OTOH this software existing does change the conversation, especially if the solution gains significant media attention or becomes popular. Hopefully this solution passes muster and does effect some kind of change. Remember when Apple promised that Facetime would be based on SIP and would be interoperable? Neither does anyone. I hope that someone opens this Pandora's box also and gives it to every grandma on the planet before Apple has a chance to ban it.

wicktron 3y ago
The VirtnetX patent case is what crushed interopable FaceTime.
- gorkish 3y ago
  You have any other fairytales to tell us?
microtonal 3y ago
This indeed changes a lot. If this gets enough traction to be visible and Apple blocks it, it’ll further complicate their relations with the European Commission, who are currently investigating whether iMessage should be regulated under the Digital Markets Act.

jpalawaga 3y ago

iMessage is offered as a free service. If they would like to 'receive recompense', then they should simply charge people. Do we provide recompense to YCombinator for using hackernews?

dang 3y ago
I see your point, but please steer clear of personal attacks - you can make your substantive points without that.
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack. I'll edit it so that it reads less hostile.
  - dang 3y ago
    Appreciated!
olliej 3y ago
iMessage is not free though? Apple's "free" services are all dependent on you having bought apple products. When you buy a device, the "profit" on the hardware (the oft reference BoM only cost) also pays for the software development, the services, etc. Claiming that anyone should be able to use those services because they're "free" is like saying anyone should be able to get free service at Toyota garages because Toyota does free service for people who bought a Toyota vehicle.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. Should we, as a society, allow companies to lock people into platforms, and discriminate against those who have decided not to fall prey to that lock-in? Especially when avoiding that lock-in (which is often a passive financial/economic choice, not an active rights/freedom one) actually causes social and emotional harm (the whole "green bubble bullying" is a real thing; yes, I think it's dumb too, but what we think is irrelevant). Personally, I think the answer is "no", we should not allow that sort of thing. Profit is not the most important thing in the world, by far. Your car analogy falls flat, as is the case with most car analogies. No one would expect to get free service at any garage, and that is unrelated to the topic at hand. You can go to any garage, and they're mostly not model specific; even when they are, there are plenty of third-party alternatives. (And this is why locking down car hardware/software such that only the manufacturer can provide service is a garbage practice that we should legally disallow.)

standardUser 3y ago

The only "ethics" problem I see is a company using it's considerable weight to deliberately segregate users of different platforms, resulting in discrimination and bullying. I understand a lot of people here may not understand this, on account of not being a teenager or young adult, but it is a very real phenomenon.

nullwarp 3y ago
Not even young at this point. I overheard two grown men talking about how much they hate people with green bubbles and purposely skip inviting them into group chats because of it.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  To be clear, I don’t think people actually look down on green bubbles vs. blue ones, it’s just that the presence of a green bubble in a Messages chat leads to numerous issues with threading, reactions, etc. (which is also something we can blame Apple for, but different than disliking a person for using an Android phone).
- schmichael 3y ago
  I have been a grown man on both sides of that conversation: left out of group chats due to being a green bubble, and now tacitly approving of not including green bubbles in otherwise pristine-seas-of-blue chats. It's less about the background color and more about the endless series of interoperability paper cuts that exist with green bubbles. Will my reaction emoji come through as intended? Will my shared media get downsampled to feature phone quality? Will referencing the person's name in chat work the same? etc etc etc. Interop is always a pain, but the sooner Apple can be forced into making any concessions the better. It would help if Google wasn't a complete joke in the messaging space though. As much as I want iMessage interop with Android users, I have no faith or trust in any Google-based messaging app or initiative. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me dozens of times ... well I'd be an idiot to trust Google messaging again. The fact that a huge number of perfectly good third party chat apps exist and yet most Apple users prefer iMessage is a huge testament to iMessage just being a really well made product. I wouldn't put up with the obnoxious interop and lockin issues if it weren't!

unshavedyak 3y ago

> At the end of the day, this product is taking money for using Apple Services with no recompense to Apple. It won't last. I wish companies wouldn't see it like this. I'm not going to speak on this one specifically, but the other one (Beeper Cloud) "makes Apple money" in that i'm more likely to buy into the Apple ecosystem. Ie normally i'm wanting to get out, because Apple likes to play all-or-nothing with the features that i buy from them. As someone who has an Apple watch, phone, laptop, tv, tv+, airpods.. yet works on Linux & PC, it makes me want to switch away from Apple if i can find better hardware. Beeper lets me get _some of the features i pay for_, which makes me not want to switch. Makes me sad that so many companies have this view of direct income or piss off. Secondary benefits are real imo, and it's what i personally want to buy. Apple feels actively hostile to me, and it makes me want to leave.

WisNorCan 3y ago

Agree. We have seen this before. What if someone reverse engineered Twitter's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Twitter do? What if someone reverse engineered Reddit's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Reddit do? What if someone reverse engineered Instagram's services and built a separate client and tried to monetize it. What would Instagram do?

stevefeinstein 3y ago
Not really. Twitter, and Reddit publish(ed) API's that required one to obtain a key in order to use at scale. No one reverse engineered them.

CaptainFever 3y ago

There's probably indeed a pragmatic issue with the service not lasting, but it is not an ethics problem. If anything, it's unethical for Apple to be so damn proprietary.