6 ms·

These Beeper folk sound a bit entitled. As was repeatedly mentioned in the other thread [1], building production applications on top of an undocumented and unsu

These Beeper folk sound a bit entitled. As was repeatedly mentioned in the other thread [1], building production applications on top of an undocumented and unsupported (in terms of backwards compatability, etc) API is a nightmare that should be avoided. Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. I understand Apple's incentives to not want to be in this situation. I don't buy their "Beeper unequivocally makes things secure story" either. For one, I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party. I trust an established, trillion dollar company far more with that sensitive info than I do a fast-moving, eager-to-break-things startup. And the list goes on. It's an impressive engineering effort, but I really don't believe they're entitled to parasite off the undocumented iMessage API. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38574888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38574888

campbel 3y ago
I think they are rightly calling out that iMessage as part of Apple's moat building is both bad for their customers and people their customers interact with. And while I agree with you, and I won't be using the service, I think from their POV it is the correct messaging.
- richwater 3y ago
  > Apple's moat building is both bad for their customers and people their customers interact with I bought into the ecosystem exactly because of the quality and functionality of iMessage. There's absolutely no spam, everything works and the ecosystem is tight-knit.
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    But other side of the Apple reality is your then stuck when all your other relatives use Android. I am then forced to use some $app, persuade my contacts to use said app. Defeating the point of iMessage when I just want native support all around. Something that Apple had never implemented anywhere else and for which it could decades ago. I wouldn't switch to an Android because the feature became available. If all your contacts use Apple Devices, sure go nuts. But when others don't iMessage becomes unpractical. But hey, vendor device lock-in money is very nice. It's unfortunate that they don't water the lawns of the walled-garden nor restock the bird feeder. We are expected to do that ourselves using a wooden ladder with missing prongs.
    - jamiek88 3y ago
      You aren’t though because sms exists as fallback.
      - oarsinsync 3y ago
        Group chat SMS doesn’t work globally the same way as it apparently works in the USA. (This is one of the reasons why WhatsApp is big in the rest of the world)
  - oarsinsync 3y ago
    > I bought into the ecosystem exactly because of the quality and functionality of iMessage. There's absolutely no spam I’m glad I bought into the ecosystem for other reasons, as I definitely receive occasional iMessage spam. It’s about as frequent as WhatsApp spam.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I think it's valid feedback from Beeper, but to insinuate that this gives them to right to force Apple to run their reverse-engineered access is where things go a bit too far for me. Apple's customers are not Beeper's customers. They have completely different incentives. I guess the approach is to try and force Apple's hand or push some legislation for interoperability, but Apple is working on RCS so it's not like they've been completely ignoring criticism...
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Apple's RCS implementation is meaningless unless they cut out the blue/green bubble shit.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      It will be far from meaningless if I can send a high resolution image easily to a groupchat containing a mix of android and ios users.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Sure, but if Beeper keeps working, likely some free alternative isn't far behind, and if that means your messages don't come up as blue, that will be everyone's preference.
    - placatedmayhem 3y ago
      "Meaningless" isn't accurate at this point. Media doesn't get nearly as severely downgraded (if at all), so the user experience of using an RCS chat is better than SMS/MMS. There are still disparities, though, that should be presented. There's no standardized end-to-end encryption yet for RCS (although it could be argued Google's protocol is a de facto standard), and Apple has indicated it will be implementing RCS as the standard dictates, i.e. with no E2E encryption. Using blue bubble to indicate E2E encrypted and green to indicate otherwise is a reasonable UX choice. After Apple implements E2E encryption over RCS via whatever standard (which can be reasonably inferred as their intention from their announcements), if the delineation for green-vs-blue is still iMessage/not-iMessage (rather than E2E vs not-E2E), then I think "meaningless" applies. But we're not there yet.
- echelon 3y ago
  Apple is at a scale in smartphone dominance that they're anticompetitive. There are only two vendors. They control everything about one of the most essential functional pieces of modern society. A smartphone is essential. Apple and Google tax 30%, control when and how software can be deployed, control browser tech (Apple), prevent web downloads of executable software (Apple) or scare and confuse you about it (Google). They control the payment rails and increasingly enforce using their identity and customer management, so they can sink more claws into business and innovation. They're partnering with governments to be authoritative identify providers. They're usurping payment rails to become the entire payment ecosystem of the future. The devices are user unfriendly. Can't repair them, can't use third party components, can't replace the battery. Unofficial pieces break core features due to unnecessary cryptographic locks. Updates obsolete old hardware. Nevermind the petty bullshit about green and blue bubbles giving children (and even adults) fear about their image and reputation. Being bullied for not buying the latest and greatest. This is scary shit and we're letting them do this. Nevermind all the fluff of them owning movie studios and music and the arts to keep eyeballs locked. Car companies wish they had it this good. They'd love to charge you for third party accessories, or to charge McDonalds a fee every time they drive you there. That's essentially the deal Apple and Google are getting. This is all at once worse than Standard Oil, and comes with heavy Orwellian vibes. We need more than two vendors, and we need different companies to own different parts of the stack. As it stands, these two companies own everyone and everything these people touch.
  - oldandboring 3y ago
    I had started writing basically this and stopped because you did a much better job. Thanks for taking the time to articulate this. I want to add a subtle but important part: outside of the tech community, almost nobody knows this problem exists. If you try to explain it their eyes glaze over. Normies with iPhones, if they think anything, think iMessage is "texting". Blue bubbles mean they can see when you're typing and can send reactions, green bubbles mean you can't because you're on Android (or, "Samsung"). None of them think of iMessage as a "chat application" on par with WhatsApp... it's texting. And all the government officials we wish would step in are included in this lot. They all have iPhones and they love them. iPhone is synonymous with 'smartphone' in common discourse and Apple is happy to trade brand dilution for that kind of "default" brand status. And, as you eloquently point out, we could break the world trying to loosen Apple's grip on texting, only to find that we just transferred some of their power to Google, which isn't much better.
- solardev 3y ago
  As a Google Android user using a Google Pixel and Google's RCS on Google Fi, the messaging system is a total clusterfuck. There's no way to reliably send or receive messages, and sometimes my images will be degraded silently, group messages to other Fi users often don't work before several retries, reactions are totally hit and miss... IMessage is a much much much better experience. It's not at all bad for their customers. It's a huge plus of that system over Android and other platforms that still try to piggyback off SMS or haphazardly support RCS.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    GNU Jami or similar messaging systems are the solution, not some proprietary vendor locking solution.
    - solardev 3y ago
      That sounds like an uphill battle, lol. Signal came and went, WhatsApp and WeChat and Line dominate in much of the world, even email these days is mostly proprietary webmail. I think the average person will always prefer ease of use over openness or security.
    - guyomes 3y ago
      Olvid [0,1] seems interesting too. [0]: https://olvid.io https://olvid.io [1]: https://github.com/olvid-io/olvid-android https://github.com/olvid-io/olvid-android
matsemann 3y ago
When did HN get so anti-consumer, anti-hacker, anti-freedom, pro-proprietary? Them taking the fight with Apple should be applauded. A walled down proprietary message platform only a few can use is stupid to fight in favor of.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  There is nothing quite as hard as making a man understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chewmieser 3y ago
  I think we can commend their efforts and call out their entitled messaging at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.
- distortionfield 3y ago
  When the VC money got tangled in the roots.
- misnome 3y ago
  It isn’t anti-freedom and pro-proprietary to have a view on what you think the law says and what you think Apple’s right to respond is. The original kid who reversed: Great hacking, I think we can all applaud. This is a for-profit (VC funded?) company charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for (and using apple binary blobs?). If they used the protocol they reverse engineered on their own servers that’d be completely different. But that wouldn’t be profitable for them.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for Apple is free to charge for them. In fact, I think it would be the best outcome and a mitigation to the upcoming spam onslaught now that the protocol has been documented. > But that wouldn’t be profitable for them. Is it a problem to profit off creating a tool that some other manufacturer intentionally doesn't want to create (since Apple is more than capable of building an Android iMessage client)? Isn't that the whole point of a competitive market?
stefan_ 3y ago
You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at any moment for individual devices? There are some very weird takes around security on this to somehow twist it into an "Apple good" scenario. No, like literally every other time in history, closed & controlled does not make it more secure.
- martinky24 3y ago
  Isn't Whatsapp a proprietary, single vendor implementation? Isn't Signal a single vendor implementation? I'm confused on your point.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Like Signal? To my knowledge, you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances. The Signal guy doesn't want you to do that (just like Apple), but it's absolutely possible. It's in fact much easier than in the iMessage scenario since all the client sources are available.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  Giving your Apple ID to a third party is an incredibly bad idea for your security, full stop. Do not ever do this. Any argument that this helps user security because your messages are now E2E is completely undermined by the risk to your identity for literally all of Apple's other services, and that someone could now impersonate you in Messages. But it'd be encrypted!
  - wvenable 3y ago
    Of course, if you're on Android -- which you would be to use this service -- then maybe you don't even have any other Apple services (I don't). So this is not a problem. In fact, can't I not just create an new Apple ID specifically for this?
barnabee 3y ago
No. Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. iMessage should no longer allowed to be proprietary and stay part of Apple.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. You mean like SMS and MMS right now, and RCS next year? https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
  - xeromal 3y ago
    This is one of those technically correct comments, but missing the point. We're probably too old for this but the green message bubble vs blue message bubble is an actual thing that many people care about.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      I have two kids in high-school who insist it's not a thing. I've seen their text chains, and they're all standards-based (green) because their friends have both. This isn't to say there aren't toxic cliques whose alpha-teen leaders insist on certain brands of phones, clothing, ebikes, etc., but just that the flames of this particular media panic are actively fanned by Google and Samsung PR.
      - xeromal 3y ago
        It seems like to me that whether it's real or not, removing the potential for it to be used in a bad way is a good thing.
      - bscphil 3y ago
        Someone in a recent thread said that they performed an informal survey of their friends and family, and there was unanimous agreement that each person would be much less interested in dating someone with green bubble text messages, because this indicates that there's likely to be a poor culture fit between themselves and the other person. To me, this provides an excellent argument for using Android devices if you are single and looking to start a long term relationship. Through one tiny choice, you get some of the most elitist, opinionated, and disagreeable people to voluntarily exclude themselves as potential dates, with no hard feelings on either side. It's a far better filter than most stuff you could put in a dating profile.
haswell 3y ago
If the only thing Beeper does is continue to make Apple look anti-competitive, they've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I'm deep into the Apple ecosystem and don't see myself getting out anytime soon. But I think their stance on iMessage sucks, even while understanding the strategic reasons they're doing it. I don't see this as "leeching off an undocumented API" as much as demonstrating that iMessage is already in a state that allows 3rd parties to interact with it, documented or not. Every time Beeper starts working again, it shines a light on the fact that iMessage was never so locked down to begin with. It also puts pressure on Apple to answer the growing # of their own customers who are frustrated by the limits. These are good things, IMO. Apple may have every right, but that doesn't make their stance good for the ecosystem or good for consumers. This is pretty clearly about forcing people to switch ecosystems and not about security. If security was the only issue, Apple could easily provide supported iMessage APIs that make it clear that the other user is not a verified Apple user, while still allowing interoperability.
- robertoandred 3y ago
  Imitating a first-party user isn't the same as being a third-party user.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  What's anti-competitive with what Apple does with iMessage? iMessage's lack of popularity everywhere else in the world is proof that competition is able to flourish. Apple is under no obligation to make an Android app, and it's silly to pretend not making an app for another platform is somehow anti-competetive. The market simply chosing a preference is not anti-competive. iPhone and iMessage is able to compete on it's own merits without competition being artificially hindered.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    If I have a computer that's technically capable to interoperate and talk with someone else's computer, why should we intentionally restrict that ability? The answer isn't to say that in other locations we have a different gatekeeper so all is well, the answer should be that Apple's gatekeeping should be broken, and then other gatekeepers' gatekeeping should be broken too. We should all have one messaging client that can seamlessly use all the major protocols and services - in fact like we used to have over a decade ago.
albelfio 3y ago
Devil’s advocate: does Beeper opens up iMessage to spam bots?
- rpmisms 3y ago
  This is addressed in the announcement, beeper is happy to add a pager emoji to the message metadata to allow for identification.
- mareko 3y ago
  Spam bots can already use the Mac version of iMessage. I doubt Beeper will change spam levels for iMesssage users.
xd1936 3y ago
Your Apple ID login is not routed through a third party when you use Beeper Mini. You don't have to input your Apple ID at all. Edit: Should have read this new post more closely. They are now requiring an Apple ID, when they weren't before.
- mattl 3y ago
  > Phone number registration is not working yet. All users must now sign in with an AppleID.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
They are not entitled at all, they are filling a void in the market that Apple doesn't want filled. As I understand it this is explicitly legal under the DMCA and the EU DSA,
- glasshug 3y ago
  Anyone have some detail on the copyright law connection here?
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Copyright law is often abused to prevent adversarial interoperability, so it's relevant, even if it might not actually apply.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability. I'd say it's relevant.
wvenable 3y ago
> Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. They can blame whomever they want, what difference does it really make. > For one, I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party. As long as you don't use the service, then you're fine. I don't see why you should even care if other people want to use this service.
duped 3y ago
I don't know where you're getting "entitled" from. They clearly don't care what Apple does, they have plans and designs to work around it. Beeper isn't "blaming" Apple for being Apple. They're saying that Apple is full of shit when they claim that Beeper hurts the security and privacy of their users.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sigmar 3y ago
edit: guess I was wrong
- misnome 3y ago
  Bad news! This is now Beeper mini works now _according to the very article to which your comment is attached_.
mullingitover 3y ago
The part that's wild to me is that Beeper is collecting revenue from their users for this. Apple doesn't charge for iMessage, and instead that service is funded by device purchases. Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices to help them parasitize the infrastructure of the service, and instead of contributing to Apple's operational expenses, they're pocketing the money. There's no scenario where this stands, even if iMessage came to non-Apple devices Apple is probably going to charge users if they're not buying Apple devices (I can't imagine it being an ad-driven service).
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  The marginal cost of an extra user on the APNS server is extremely small. Hell I bet the overall barrage of spam push notifications across the iOS landscape causes orders of magnitude more load than Beeper users, and Apple doesn't complain (despite push spam being against the App Store rules). Of course, Apple is welcome to start charging a reasonable fee for the service.
  - wang_li 3y ago
    Asking a million people to pay $0.01 per month is a small marginal cost. Asking one company to pay $0.01 for each of a million users per month is not a small marginal cost.
  - turtlesdown11 3y ago
    - Stealing is wrong "I'm only stealing fractions of pennies at a time! That's why it's not stealing!"
- BD103 3y ago
  That was the point I wanted to make. I don’t see Apple letting Beeper make money off of a service they don’t run. If the app was open sourced and free then Apple wouldn't really be able to stop it. Apple can definitely sue them as a business, though.
- eredengrin 3y ago
  > Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices Do you have numbers for that? Sure, some of the users haven't purchased devices, but many of them have an apple device or two and just want access to the network across all the devices they use.
afavour 3y ago
The way I see it Beeper are deliberately poking the bear. They knew Apple would block their implementation (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they had this replacement ready to go). You don’t have to trust them, if you don’t want to use the service then don’t. They’re highlighting the closed nature of Apple’s messaging system more effectively than anyone has in a long time. I support them in doing that.
- theklr 3y ago
  Only question is what’s the endgame? It’s not like they’re going to gain meaningful followers from this. This happens every 3-5 years with something Apple does and all that happens is Apple hardens even more, the little guy gets some press for a month and then disappears into the ethers
  - afavour 3y ago
    The context is a little different, with the EU looking into whether iMessage is anticompetitive and should be opened up: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessage-should-be-regulated-by-the-eus-digital-markets-act/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessa... I imagine Beeper is providing exhibits A and B for any such court case, should it happen. And they get some good brand publicity along the way.
    - fh9302 3y ago
      The EU has already decided the iMessage is not a gatekeeper.
  - skeaker 3y ago
    They are absolutely getting followers from this. You're talking about them now, whereas hardly anyone was a week ago.
- mlindner 3y ago
  > They’re highlighting the closed nature of Apple’s messaging system more effectively than anyone has in a long time. I support them in doing that. Every major chat app is closed though? For example, I use LINE regularly, there's no way to access that chat system through anything but LINE apps.
Nextgrid 3y ago
> I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party Then don't use Beeper. > I trust an established, trillion dollar company far more with that sensitive info than I do a fast-moving, eager-to-break-things startup. And the list goes on. Thankfully, you don't necessarily have to trust them since the entire process runs on your device. > I really don't believe they're entitled to parasite off the undocumented iMessage API. Do you also believe it's "parasitism" for a tool manufacturer to create a screwdriver that fits another manufacturer's screw shapes? That's more or less exactly what's happening here - they made a tool that fits the existing proprietary API and interacts with it.
- misnome 3y ago
  You do have to trust them - you have to trust both apple and beeper not to harvest your messages and personal/contact info. And stupid analogies help nobody. Which part of your screwdriver is costing the original manufacturer money every time you turn a screw?
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > Which part of your screwdriver is costing the original manufacturer money every time you turn a screw? The true cost is so insignificant as to not matter. The normal iOS push notification spam uses orders of magnitude more resources than whatever Beeper uses, and yet Apple doesn't seem to mind those. The screwdriver would cost a lot to a screw company that based its business model on being the only seller of compatible screwdrivers though, and that's why Apple is mad about this and trying to break it.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  This is more like a 3rd party releasing a tool that unlocks a proprietary security shroud so you can plug in a wireless router to an ISP POP. You aren't authorized to unlock that shroud or rebroadcast that internet, just like Beeper Mini is not authorized by Apple to use their authorization-required iMessage service. If I sold internet off that wireless router and the next OSP tech that gets into that POP (rightfully) unplugs it, why should I have any right to call my ISP and chew them out because people gave me money for that internet access?
fimdomeio 3y ago
Did apple had any right to hijack sms, feels a bit entitled. When I first got an iphone I didn't really understood what was going on with me messages, and why they were different for some people. The interface is so subtle that most people think they are sending sms.
kernal 3y ago
>building production applications on top of an undocumented API Sort of like how Apple builds their apps?

campbel 3y ago

I think they are rightly calling out that iMessage as part of Apple's moat building is both bad for their customers and people their customers interact with. And while I agree with you, and I won't be using the service, I think from their POV it is the correct messaging.

richwater 3y ago
> Apple's moat building is both bad for their customers and people their customers interact with I bought into the ecosystem exactly because of the quality and functionality of iMessage. There's absolutely no spam, everything works and the ecosystem is tight-knit.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  But other side of the Apple reality is your then stuck when all your other relatives use Android. I am then forced to use some $app, persuade my contacts to use said app. Defeating the point of iMessage when I just want native support all around. Something that Apple had never implemented anywhere else and for which it could decades ago. I wouldn't switch to an Android because the feature became available. If all your contacts use Apple Devices, sure go nuts. But when others don't iMessage becomes unpractical. But hey, vendor device lock-in money is very nice. It's unfortunate that they don't water the lawns of the walled-garden nor restock the bird feeder. We are expected to do that ourselves using a wooden ladder with missing prongs.
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    You aren’t though because sms exists as fallback.
    - oarsinsync 3y ago
      Group chat SMS doesn’t work globally the same way as it apparently works in the USA. (This is one of the reasons why WhatsApp is big in the rest of the world)
- oarsinsync 3y ago
  > I bought into the ecosystem exactly because of the quality and functionality of iMessage. There's absolutely no spam I’m glad I bought into the ecosystem for other reasons, as I definitely receive occasional iMessage spam. It’s about as frequent as WhatsApp spam.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
I think it's valid feedback from Beeper, but to insinuate that this gives them to right to force Apple to run their reverse-engineered access is where things go a bit too far for me. Apple's customers are not Beeper's customers. They have completely different incentives. I guess the approach is to try and force Apple's hand or push some legislation for interoperability, but Apple is working on RCS so it's not like they've been completely ignoring criticism...
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Apple's RCS implementation is meaningless unless they cut out the blue/green bubble shit.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    It will be far from meaningless if I can send a high resolution image easily to a groupchat containing a mix of android and ios users.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Sure, but if Beeper keeps working, likely some free alternative isn't far behind, and if that means your messages don't come up as blue, that will be everyone's preference.
  - placatedmayhem 3y ago
    "Meaningless" isn't accurate at this point. Media doesn't get nearly as severely downgraded (if at all), so the user experience of using an RCS chat is better than SMS/MMS. There are still disparities, though, that should be presented. There's no standardized end-to-end encryption yet for RCS (although it could be argued Google's protocol is a de facto standard), and Apple has indicated it will be implementing RCS as the standard dictates, i.e. with no E2E encryption. Using blue bubble to indicate E2E encrypted and green to indicate otherwise is a reasonable UX choice. After Apple implements E2E encryption over RCS via whatever standard (which can be reasonably inferred as their intention from their announcements), if the delineation for green-vs-blue is still iMessage/not-iMessage (rather than E2E vs not-E2E), then I think "meaningless" applies. But we're not there yet.
echelon 3y ago
Apple is at a scale in smartphone dominance that they're anticompetitive. There are only two vendors. They control everything about one of the most essential functional pieces of modern society. A smartphone is essential. Apple and Google tax 30%, control when and how software can be deployed, control browser tech (Apple), prevent web downloads of executable software (Apple) or scare and confuse you about it (Google). They control the payment rails and increasingly enforce using their identity and customer management, so they can sink more claws into business and innovation. They're partnering with governments to be authoritative identify providers. They're usurping payment rails to become the entire payment ecosystem of the future. The devices are user unfriendly. Can't repair them, can't use third party components, can't replace the battery. Unofficial pieces break core features due to unnecessary cryptographic locks. Updates obsolete old hardware. Nevermind the petty bullshit about green and blue bubbles giving children (and even adults) fear about their image and reputation. Being bullied for not buying the latest and greatest. This is scary shit and we're letting them do this. Nevermind all the fluff of them owning movie studios and music and the arts to keep eyeballs locked. Car companies wish they had it this good. They'd love to charge you for third party accessories, or to charge McDonalds a fee every time they drive you there. That's essentially the deal Apple and Google are getting. This is all at once worse than Standard Oil, and comes with heavy Orwellian vibes. We need more than two vendors, and we need different companies to own different parts of the stack. As it stands, these two companies own everyone and everything these people touch.
- oldandboring 3y ago
  I had started writing basically this and stopped because you did a much better job. Thanks for taking the time to articulate this. I want to add a subtle but important part: outside of the tech community, almost nobody knows this problem exists. If you try to explain it their eyes glaze over. Normies with iPhones, if they think anything, think iMessage is "texting". Blue bubbles mean they can see when you're typing and can send reactions, green bubbles mean you can't because you're on Android (or, "Samsung"). None of them think of iMessage as a "chat application" on par with WhatsApp... it's texting. And all the government officials we wish would step in are included in this lot. They all have iPhones and they love them. iPhone is synonymous with 'smartphone' in common discourse and Apple is happy to trade brand dilution for that kind of "default" brand status. And, as you eloquently point out, we could break the world trying to loosen Apple's grip on texting, only to find that we just transferred some of their power to Google, which isn't much better.
solardev 3y ago
As a Google Android user using a Google Pixel and Google's RCS on Google Fi, the messaging system is a total clusterfuck. There's no way to reliably send or receive messages, and sometimes my images will be degraded silently, group messages to other Fi users often don't work before several retries, reactions are totally hit and miss... IMessage is a much much much better experience. It's not at all bad for their customers. It's a huge plus of that system over Android and other platforms that still try to piggyback off SMS or haphazardly support RCS.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  GNU Jami or similar messaging systems are the solution, not some proprietary vendor locking solution.
  - solardev 3y ago
    That sounds like an uphill battle, lol. Signal came and went, WhatsApp and WeChat and Line dominate in much of the world, even email these days is mostly proprietary webmail. I think the average person will always prefer ease of use over openness or security.
  - guyomes 3y ago
    Olvid [0,1] seems interesting too. [0]: https://olvid.io https://olvid.io [1]: https://github.com/olvid-io/olvid-android https://github.com/olvid-io/olvid-android

matsemann 3y ago

When did HN get so anti-consumer, anti-hacker, anti-freedom, pro-proprietary? Them taking the fight with Apple should be applauded. A walled down proprietary message platform only a few can use is stupid to fight in favor of.

rpmisms 3y ago
There is nothing quite as hard as making a man understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chewmieser 3y ago
I think we can commend their efforts and call out their entitled messaging at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.
distortionfield 3y ago
When the VC money got tangled in the roots.
misnome 3y ago
It isn’t anti-freedom and pro-proprietary to have a view on what you think the law says and what you think Apple’s right to respond is. The original kid who reversed: Great hacking, I think we can all applaud. This is a for-profit (VC funded?) company charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for (and using apple binary blobs?). If they used the protocol they reverse engineered on their own servers that’d be completely different. But that wouldn’t be profitable for them.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for Apple is free to charge for them. In fact, I think it would be the best outcome and a mitigation to the upcoming spam onslaught now that the protocol has been documented. > But that wouldn’t be profitable for them. Is it a problem to profit off creating a tool that some other manufacturer intentionally doesn't want to create (since Apple is more than capable of building an Android iMessage client)? Isn't that the whole point of a competitive market?

stefan_ 3y ago

You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at any moment for individual devices? There are some very weird takes around security on this to somehow twist it into an "Apple good" scenario. No, like literally every other time in history, closed & controlled does not make it more secure.

martinky24 3y ago
Isn't Whatsapp a proprietary, single vendor implementation? Isn't Signal a single vendor implementation? I'm confused on your point.
theshrike79 3y ago
Like Signal? To my knowledge, you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances. The Signal guy doesn't want you to do that (just like Apple), but it's absolutely possible. It's in fact much easier than in the iMessage scenario since all the client sources are available.
KerrAvon 3y ago
Giving your Apple ID to a third party is an incredibly bad idea for your security, full stop. Do not ever do this. Any argument that this helps user security because your messages are now E2E is completely undermined by the risk to your identity for literally all of Apple's other services, and that someone could now impersonate you in Messages. But it'd be encrypted!
- wvenable 3y ago
  Of course, if you're on Android -- which you would be to use this service -- then maybe you don't even have any other Apple services (I don't). So this is not a problem. In fact, can't I not just create an new Apple ID specifically for this?

barnabee 3y ago

No. Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. iMessage should no longer allowed to be proprietary and stay part of Apple.

CharlesW 3y ago
> Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. You mean like SMS and MMS right now, and RCS next year? https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
- xeromal 3y ago
  This is one of those technically correct comments, but missing the point. We're probably too old for this but the green message bubble vs blue message bubble is an actual thing that many people care about.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    I have two kids in high-school who insist it's not a thing. I've seen their text chains, and they're all standards-based (green) because their friends have both. This isn't to say there aren't toxic cliques whose alpha-teen leaders insist on certain brands of phones, clothing, ebikes, etc., but just that the flames of this particular media panic are actively fanned by Google and Samsung PR.
    - xeromal 3y ago
      It seems like to me that whether it's real or not, removing the potential for it to be used in a bad way is a good thing.
    - bscphil 3y ago
      Someone in a recent thread said that they performed an informal survey of their friends and family, and there was unanimous agreement that each person would be much less interested in dating someone with green bubble text messages, because this indicates that there's likely to be a poor culture fit between themselves and the other person. To me, this provides an excellent argument for using Android devices if you are single and looking to start a long term relationship. Through one tiny choice, you get some of the most elitist, opinionated, and disagreeable people to voluntarily exclude themselves as potential dates, with no hard feelings on either side. It's a far better filter than most stuff you could put in a dating profile.

haswell 3y ago

If the only thing Beeper does is continue to make Apple look anti-competitive, they've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I'm deep into the Apple ecosystem and don't see myself getting out anytime soon. But I think their stance on iMessage sucks, even while understanding the strategic reasons they're doing it. I don't see this as "leeching off an undocumented API" as much as demonstrating that iMessage is already in a state that allows 3rd parties to interact with it, documented or not. Every time Beeper starts working again, it shines a light on the fact that iMessage was never so locked down to begin with. It also puts pressure on Apple to answer the growing # of their own customers who are frustrated by the limits. These are good things, IMO. Apple may have every right, but that doesn't make their stance good for the ecosystem or good for consumers. This is pretty clearly about forcing people to switch ecosystems and not about security. If security was the only issue, Apple could easily provide supported iMessage APIs that make it clear that the other user is not a verified Apple user, while still allowing interoperability.

robertoandred 3y ago
Imitating a first-party user isn't the same as being a third-party user.
madeofpalk 3y ago
What's anti-competitive with what Apple does with iMessage? iMessage's lack of popularity everywhere else in the world is proof that competition is able to flourish. Apple is under no obligation to make an Android app, and it's silly to pretend not making an app for another platform is somehow anti-competetive. The market simply chosing a preference is not anti-competive. iPhone and iMessage is able to compete on it's own merits without competition being artificially hindered.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  If I have a computer that's technically capable to interoperate and talk with someone else's computer, why should we intentionally restrict that ability? The answer isn't to say that in other locations we have a different gatekeeper so all is well, the answer should be that Apple's gatekeeping should be broken, and then other gatekeepers' gatekeeping should be broken too. We should all have one messaging client that can seamlessly use all the major protocols and services - in fact like we used to have over a decade ago.

albelfio 3y ago

Devil’s advocate: does Beeper opens up iMessage to spam bots?

rpmisms 3y ago
This is addressed in the announcement, beeper is happy to add a pager emoji to the message metadata to allow for identification.
mareko 3y ago
Spam bots can already use the Mac version of iMessage. I doubt Beeper will change spam levels for iMesssage users.

xd1936 3y ago

Your Apple ID login is not routed through a third party when you use Beeper Mini. You don't have to input your Apple ID at all. Edit: Should have read this new post more closely. They are now requiring an Apple ID, when they weren't before.

mattl 3y ago
> Phone number registration is not working yet. All users must now sign in with an AppleID.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

They are not entitled at all, they are filling a void in the market that Apple doesn't want filled. As I understand it this is explicitly legal under the DMCA and the EU DSA,

glasshug 3y ago
Anyone have some detail on the copyright law connection here?
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Copyright law is often abused to prevent adversarial interoperability, so it's relevant, even if it might not actually apply.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability. I'd say it's relevant.

wvenable 3y ago

> Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. They can blame whomever they want, what difference does it really make. > For one, I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party. As long as you don't use the service, then you're fine. I don't see why you should even care if other people want to use this service.

duped 3y ago

I don't know where you're getting "entitled" from. They clearly don't care what Apple does, they have plans and designs to work around it. Beeper isn't "blaming" Apple for being Apple. They're saying that Apple is full of shit when they claim that Beeper hurts the security and privacy of their users.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sigmar 3y ago

edit: guess I was wrong

misnome 3y ago
Bad news! This is now Beeper mini works now _according to the very article to which your comment is attached_.

mullingitover 3y ago

The part that's wild to me is that Beeper is collecting revenue from their users for this. Apple doesn't charge for iMessage, and instead that service is funded by device purchases. Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices to help them parasitize the infrastructure of the service, and instead of contributing to Apple's operational expenses, they're pocketing the money. There's no scenario where this stands, even if iMessage came to non-Apple devices Apple is probably going to charge users if they're not buying Apple devices (I can't imagine it being an ad-driven service).

Nextgrid 3y ago
The marginal cost of an extra user on the APNS server is extremely small. Hell I bet the overall barrage of spam push notifications across the iOS landscape causes orders of magnitude more load than Beeper users, and Apple doesn't complain (despite push spam being against the App Store rules). Of course, Apple is welcome to start charging a reasonable fee for the service.
- wang_li 3y ago
  Asking a million people to pay $0.01 per month is a small marginal cost. Asking one company to pay $0.01 for each of a million users per month is not a small marginal cost.
- turtlesdown11 3y ago
  - Stealing is wrong "I'm only stealing fractions of pennies at a time! That's why it's not stealing!"
BD103 3y ago
That was the point I wanted to make. I don’t see Apple letting Beeper make money off of a service they don’t run. If the app was open sourced and free then Apple wouldn't really be able to stop it. Apple can definitely sue them as a business, though.
eredengrin 3y ago
> Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices Do you have numbers for that? Sure, some of the users haven't purchased devices, but many of them have an apple device or two and just want access to the network across all the devices they use.

afavour 3y ago

The way I see it Beeper are deliberately poking the bear. They knew Apple would block their implementation (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they had this replacement ready to go). You don’t have to trust them, if you don’t want to use the service then don’t. They’re highlighting the closed nature of Apple’s messaging system more effectively than anyone has in a long time. I support them in doing that.

theklr 3y ago
Only question is what’s the endgame? It’s not like they’re going to gain meaningful followers from this. This happens every 3-5 years with something Apple does and all that happens is Apple hardens even more, the little guy gets some press for a month and then disappears into the ethers
- afavour 3y ago
  The context is a little different, with the EU looking into whether iMessage is anticompetitive and should be opened up: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessage-should-be-regulated-by-the-eus-digital-markets-act/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-argues-imessa... I imagine Beeper is providing exhibits A and B for any such court case, should it happen. And they get some good brand publicity along the way.
  - fh9302 3y ago
    The EU has already decided the iMessage is not a gatekeeper.
- skeaker 3y ago
  They are absolutely getting followers from this. You're talking about them now, whereas hardly anyone was a week ago.
mlindner 3y ago
> They’re highlighting the closed nature of Apple’s messaging system more effectively than anyone has in a long time. I support them in doing that. Every major chat app is closed though? For example, I use LINE regularly, there's no way to access that chat system through anything but LINE apps.

Nextgrid 3y ago

> I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party Then don't use Beeper. > I trust an established, trillion dollar company far more with that sensitive info than I do a fast-moving, eager-to-break-things startup. And the list goes on. Thankfully, you don't necessarily have to trust them since the entire process runs on your device. > I really don't believe they're entitled to parasite off the undocumented iMessage API. Do you also believe it's "parasitism" for a tool manufacturer to create a screwdriver that fits another manufacturer's screw shapes? That's more or less exactly what's happening here - they made a tool that fits the existing proprietary API and interacts with it.

misnome 3y ago
You do have to trust them - you have to trust both apple and beeper not to harvest your messages and personal/contact info. And stupid analogies help nobody. Which part of your screwdriver is costing the original manufacturer money every time you turn a screw?
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > Which part of your screwdriver is costing the original manufacturer money every time you turn a screw? The true cost is so insignificant as to not matter. The normal iOS push notification spam uses orders of magnitude more resources than whatever Beeper uses, and yet Apple doesn't seem to mind those. The screwdriver would cost a lot to a screw company that based its business model on being the only seller of compatible screwdrivers though, and that's why Apple is mad about this and trying to break it.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
This is more like a 3rd party releasing a tool that unlocks a proprietary security shroud so you can plug in a wireless router to an ISP POP. You aren't authorized to unlock that shroud or rebroadcast that internet, just like Beeper Mini is not authorized by Apple to use their authorization-required iMessage service. If I sold internet off that wireless router and the next OSP tech that gets into that POP (rightfully) unplugs it, why should I have any right to call my ISP and chew them out because people gave me money for that internet access?

fimdomeio 3y ago

Did apple had any right to hijack sms, feels a bit entitled. When I first got an iphone I didn't really understood what was going on with me messages, and why they were different for some people. The interface is so subtle that most people think they are sending sms.

kernal 3y ago

>building production applications on top of an undocumented API Sort of like how Apple builds their apps?