5 ms·

So what's the big idea? Keep playing whack-a-mole with Apple until Apple changes their TOS and sues their pants off, or until they run out of open holes? Or is

So what's the big idea? Keep playing whack-a-mole with Apple until Apple changes their TOS and sues their pants off, or until they run out of open holes? Or is there a bigger end goal?

rpmisms 3y ago
Force Apple to either allow or implement iMessage interoperability via competitive tactics, not regulatory means.
- not_your_vase 3y ago
  They don't implement it exactly due to their competitive tactics... (It was exposed in a recent courtroom hearing that Apple has seriously considered making it available on Android, but they decided that having it Apple-only is a serious benefit for them)
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    Of course. This now puts Apple in a prickly situation. One which paints a negative light on Apple which of, if a crowd following gathered "why isn't there iMessage for Android?". As I see, it would result of one of the following: - They sue and cause a backlash of Apple users. - They do nothing, shows Apple solely interest is in itself. - They create, happy times.
    - misnome 3y ago
      > "why isn't there iMessage for Android?" Is there a single person in the world who didn’t already know the answer to this question?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I don't think this is painting Apple in a negative light for their actual customers, who pay them money. It's painting them in a negative light for a small segment of Android users who obviously are unlikely to switch to Apple anyway.
      - sahila 3y ago
        I disagree, I'm an Apple user and don't view this positively for them. There's a lot of narratives including better security, more interoperability, or even just a david vs goliath battle with Beeper. If it was Google proper, it might be a different story but people like to root for the small guys on the side of right.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Does this make you less likely to purchase an Apple device in the future? TBC, I also don't necessarily view this as a positive. I just don't see it as a negative whatsoever. It would be nice to be able to chat with Android friends over iMessage, but it's not offputting at all that an outside company trying to monetize reverse-engineered "hacks" onto the protocol are getting booted. (Yes I know it's not "hacking," but it is obviously hacky)
        doublerabbit 3y ago
        > Does this make you less likely to purchase an Apple device in the future? Does for myself. Knowing that Apple has the capabilities yet not willing to implement them. The disconnect is real. I don't own Facebook, nor use WhatsApp neither do I want to use either. Other applications do exist but the learning curve and convincing family to use shouldn't be something I need to do. Nor how do I know they'll survive in the next five years? Yes, RCS will happen but its long overdue.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        So because of this you're more likely to purchase an Android product on your next device refresh? I don't see how that logic works out... "My family shouldn't have to use the inferior protocol, so next chance I get I'm going to switch myself to that protocol?"
        doublerabbit 3y ago
        Who said anything about superior or inferior. The deciding factor is whatever device makes it easier for me to talk to my relatives will be my next device. I currently have an iPhone XR, and I have been so frustrated with it for the past five years. Why I've not changed device because it cost me a heck amount of money and minus my gripes is usable.
- richwater 3y ago
  I don't want millions of Android phones being able to spam me on iMessage, thank you very much.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Apple will need to charge a registration fee for devices that can't be strongly authenticated (no secure element) - that way legitimate use (of both Beeper and legacy non-SE devices) is possible while spam is made unprofitable.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
[flagged]
- martinky24 3y ago
  Care to elaborate on the "blatant hypocrisy"?
CharlesW 3y ago
> So what's the big idea? It's now an ongoing PR stunt, since Eric and Brad were rewarded handsomely in attention for the first hack.
Laaas 3y ago
What grounds would Apple have for suing?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  "No reverse engineering" is a pretty standard TOS item.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Has any of this ever been tested in court though? Also, the whole thing can be (and very well may have been) implemented using a "clean-room" process, where the Beeper app developers were never exposed to proprietary Apple code, instead working off the pypush PoC's code. I think Beeper is intentionally aiming for (heavily publicized) litigation to set a precedent.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    When did Bepper accept their TOS?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Either they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (who did sign a TOS, but didn't reverse engineer), so we're all clean."
      - randyrand 3y ago
        Authorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini. During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
        deleted 3y ago
Nextgrid 3y ago
I suspect the end-game of Beeper is to explicitly set a legal precedent or at the very least a highly publicized fight over adversarial interoperability, something no other company dared to do (because most tech companies nowadays themselves make money out of interoperability restrictions). I assume there's some very rich benefactor behind it that is willing to fund it.

So what's the big idea? Keep playing whack-a-mole with Apple until Apple changes their TOS and sues their pants off, or until they run out of open holes? Or is there a bigger end goal?

rpmisms 3y ago

Force Apple to either allow or implement iMessage interoperability via competitive tactics, not regulatory means.

not_your_vase 3y ago
They don't implement it exactly due to their competitive tactics... (It was exposed in a recent courtroom hearing that Apple has seriously considered making it available on Android, but they decided that having it Apple-only is a serious benefit for them)
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Of course. This now puts Apple in a prickly situation. One which paints a negative light on Apple which of, if a crowd following gathered "why isn't there iMessage for Android?". As I see, it would result of one of the following: - They sue and cause a backlash of Apple users. - They do nothing, shows Apple solely interest is in itself. - They create, happy times.
  - misnome 3y ago
    > "why isn't there iMessage for Android?" Is there a single person in the world who didn’t already know the answer to this question?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I don't think this is painting Apple in a negative light for their actual customers, who pay them money. It's painting them in a negative light for a small segment of Android users who obviously are unlikely to switch to Apple anyway.
    - sahila 3y ago
      I disagree, I'm an Apple user and don't view this positively for them. There's a lot of narratives including better security, more interoperability, or even just a david vs goliath battle with Beeper. If it was Google proper, it might be a different story but people like to root for the small guys on the side of right.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Does this make you less likely to purchase an Apple device in the future? TBC, I also don't necessarily view this as a positive. I just don't see it as a negative whatsoever. It would be nice to be able to chat with Android friends over iMessage, but it's not offputting at all that an outside company trying to monetize reverse-engineered "hacks" onto the protocol are getting booted. (Yes I know it's not "hacking," but it is obviously hacky)
        doublerabbit 3y ago
        > Does this make you less likely to purchase an Apple device in the future? Does for myself. Knowing that Apple has the capabilities yet not willing to implement them. The disconnect is real. I don't own Facebook, nor use WhatsApp neither do I want to use either. Other applications do exist but the learning curve and convincing family to use shouldn't be something I need to do. Nor how do I know they'll survive in the next five years? Yes, RCS will happen but its long overdue.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        So because of this you're more likely to purchase an Android product on your next device refresh? I don't see how that logic works out... "My family shouldn't have to use the inferior protocol, so next chance I get I'm going to switch myself to that protocol?"
        doublerabbit 3y ago
        Who said anything about superior or inferior. The deciding factor is whatever device makes it easier for me to talk to my relatives will be my next device. I currently have an iPhone XR, and I have been so frustrated with it for the past five years. Why I've not changed device because it cost me a heck amount of money and minus my gripes is usable.
richwater 3y ago
I don't want millions of Android phones being able to spam me on iMessage, thank you very much.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Apple will need to charge a registration fee for devices that can't be strongly authenticated (no secure element) - that way legitimate use (of both Beeper and legacy non-SE devices) is possible while spam is made unprofitable.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago

[flagged]

martinky24 3y ago
Care to elaborate on the "blatant hypocrisy"?

CharlesW 3y ago

> So what's the big idea? It's now an ongoing PR stunt, since Eric and Brad were rewarded handsomely in attention for the first hack.

Laaas 3y ago

What grounds would Apple have for suing?

ethanbond 3y ago
"No reverse engineering" is a pretty standard TOS item.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Has any of this ever been tested in court though? Also, the whole thing can be (and very well may have been) implemented using a "clean-room" process, where the Beeper app developers were never exposed to proprietary Apple code, instead working off the pypush PoC's code. I think Beeper is intentionally aiming for (heavily publicized) litigation to set a precedent.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  When did Bepper accept their TOS?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Either they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (who did sign a TOS, but didn't reverse engineer), so we're all clean."
    - randyrand 3y ago
      Authorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini. During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
      - deleted 3y ago

Nextgrid 3y ago

I suspect the end-game of Beeper is to explicitly set a legal precedent or at the very least a highly publicized fight over adversarial interoperability, something no other company dared to do (because most tech companies nowadays themselves make money out of interoperability restrictions). I assume there's some very rich benefactor behind it that is willing to fund it.