6 ms·
They're either going to keep getting their access cut, or sued into bankruptcy. You can't really piggyback off another companies service in violation of their T
by res0nat0r 3y ago
They're either going to keep getting their access cut, or sued into bankruptcy. You can't really piggyback off another companies service in violation of their TOS without things working out poorly for you IMO.
- rpmisms 3y agoYeah, not the point. The point is to prove that it's possible and relatively simple, and the only reason Apple operates this way is to lock people into the ecosystem.
- Legion 3y agoIs that really an unknown that anyone required proof of?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ketzo 3y ago> and the only reason Apple operates this way is to lock people into the ecosystem. Honest question: is there anyone who doesn't already think that? Even at, like, a legislative level?
- grok25 3y ago[dead]
- Nextgrid 3y agoApple is pushing the whole security/privacy narrative and yet people are guzzling it even here, so I'd argue yes.
- smoldesu 3y agoIt's probably my favorite part of HN, at this point. The reaction from people the other day when Google/Apple admit to cooperating with FIVE-EYES was priceless.
- Nextgrid 3y agoExpect another one of those once it gets revealed that marketing/analytics providers (whose spyware litters every single mainstream website & app) are also compromised by intelligence agencies.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dwaite 3y agoThere are systems designed to be federated, like email, mastodon, matrix and SMS/RCS. Signal, WhatsApp, Slack, and iMessage are examples of services which were designed to be run by one company as part of their product. They _might_ have certain SDKs to extend that service (like bots for slack, or app extensions in iMessage) - but generally they aren't excited to shoulder the additional cost and support headaches of third parties using their infrastructure or arbitrarily interacting with the official software clients. I don't know exactly what you mean by "ecosystem" - I'd argue the first set form ecosystems, while the second set form products.
- res0nat0r 3y agoThats the entire point of the Apple ecosystem. They want to control the entire user experience end to end, and it is why many people like Apple products so much.
- hamandcheese 3y ago> Thats the entire point of the Apple ecosystem. They want to control the entire user experience end to end I don't doubt that. > and it is why many people like Apple products so much. No. People like the quality and the refinement and polish. In most cases those things to not require (as much of) a closed ecosystem. Beeper is proof of that.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe quality and refinement comes from the control. They don’t ever have to support a device they didn’t make themselves.
- skeaker 3y agoI have seen this argument so many times and it has never made sense to me. There is so much quality software that is free and open and interoperable. It is more than possible to be both open in nature and of high quality, to me that is indisputable. Apple obviously has a financial incentive to be locked down, they're not locked down out of any sort of necessity or as a concession for the sake of quality. In the case of Beeper Mini, the proof is in the pudding. You have evidence right in front of your face that an Android client for iMessage is possible, because one now exists. Does your iPhone suddenly feel lower quality to you?
- ceejayoz 3y ago> You have evidence right in front of your face that an Android client for iMessage is possible, because one now exists. Sure, but I'm not the one who has to handle customer service for it. Apple can have a test suite that encompasses every possible supported device (and OS combination). That's much tougher if they want to support Android. > Does your iPhone suddenly feel lower quality to you? No, but that's missing the point. If Beeper catches on, and all my Android friends install it, and some of my messages start getting lost, delayed, what have you, that's when I'd start to feel it.
- encoderer 3y agoNobody is locked into Apple products because of iMessage.
- rpmisms 3y agoApple disagrees https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-confirms-imessage-locks-users-into-ios-and-putting-it-on-android-would-hurt-apple/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-confirms-imessage-locks-...
- encoderer 3y agoMost iPhones are not purchased by parents for kids. You’re fixated on this but it’s a footnote for why people buy iPhones.
- rpmisms 3y agoYou said nobody, I provided evidence that "nobody" is false.
- encoderer 3y agoMe buying an iPhone for my kids doesn’t make me locked into the platform. I just want my kids on the same platform as I am. Where is the lock in?
- sahila 3y agoWhat is the reason you want your kids on the same platform? Is it perhaps because it's easier to message them, do photo sharing/albums, see their location, have airtags work on both? At least for a sizable group my extended family included it's a lock-in for iPhones (or a very strong social disincentive to switch).
- encoderer 3y agoYes exactly - it’s the whole Apple experience. If iMessage started working on android it would remove one reason to get my kid an iPhone. I still have 20 more.
- constantly 3y agoI don’t think anyone thinks it’s impossible for apple, or even relatively difficult for them. I also don’t think anyone doesn’t understand that they try to lock people into their ecosystem. Not my favorite choice of theirs, but largely a business choice they’ve decided to make.
- misnome 3y agoAs is their right?
- Nextgrid 3y agoJust like it's our right to run software on my device that sends packets of a certain format to a certain server. The amount of corporate bootlickers who wish to surrender that right is staggering though.
- misnome 3y agoIt’s completely our right to send those packets, but that fact is completely disconnected to anything anyone is talking about here. Because it’s also their right not to respond to those packets?
- Nextgrid 3y agoIt's their right to not respond, but people here seem to be mad at Beeper for producing software which sends packets that Apple servers want to respond to.
- meepmorp 3y ago> lock people into the ecosystem. Other messaging services are available on iOS. In much if the world, iMessage is barely used. This is not lock-in, at all. If anything, this is lock-out - it's a service that Apple provides to its customers and they don't want 3rd party clients and/or non-customers using the service.
- jkubicek 3y agoRunning the iMessage service for a billion iPhone users can't be cheap. Opening up the API and running it for the entire rest of the world for free is a non-starter. No company on earth is that generous, let alone Apple.
- kaladin-jasnah 3y agoThen how does WhatsApp run their service for free across multiple platforms?
- ska 3y ago> Then how does WhatsApp run their service for free across multiple platforms? FWIW, this is always a good question to ask yourself when considering using a service... they are getting paid for it one way or another.
- oarsinsync 3y agoFacebook mines the metadata to increase revenue received through advertising. It’s not free, the end user just isn’t paying in monetary currency.
- umeshunni 3y agoThe last year it was independent, WhatsApp lost nearly $140M (on a much smaller userbase than it has today) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114000047/exhibit991auditedwhatsappi.htm#sF55875FCF1FF3BEFDC9E3C963FAA96C5 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
- Fuzzwah 3y agoWhy does it have to be free? Aren't beeper showing that there is a market of users who would pay to be able to use imessage from non-apple hardware?
- rpmisms 3y agoSeriously, Apple would make absolute bank selling this exact service, even if it was restricted to blue bubbles, reactions, and high-quality media.
- bagels 3y agoSeems like an expensive way to tell us all something we've known since the iphone was released.
- JeremyNT 3y ago> Yeah, not the point. The point is to prove that it's possible and relatively simple, and the only reason Apple operates this way is to lock people into the ecosystem. Is that the point? Everybody already knew that Apple's messaging strategy was a business calculation based around lock in. Beeper also presents itself as a company, so I'm not sure how releasing software that annoys Apple just to make a point could possibly help their bottom line. If that was the goal, they should've released the code as an anonymous open source project rather than painting a huge target on their own backs.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoExcept what they are doing is specifically legal under the DMCA, and protected under the EU SDA. Under the EU SDA, Apple might even have to assist them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kernal 3y ago>sued into bankruptcy Good luck with that. I'd like to see this play out in court with a technically inclined judge. Be careful what you wish for.
- Nextgrid 3y agoI 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.
- randyrand 3y agoYes, this is like a picture perfect case for interoperability.
- goodluckchuck 3y agoThere’s no piggybacking. Beeper’s messages never hit Apple servers.