3 ms·

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

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.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    We do: SMS It's just worse than the alternative that Apple provides for its own ecosystem of users. Any Apple user is free to opt for that more universal system if they want.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Well, Beeper has proven that we now have another one: iMessage. Why not use the more modern, featureful & secure option instead of antiquated SMS? Why are you still defending corporate greed at the expense of user experience?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        I pay Apple to manage my mobile device experience. That is literally why they demand and receive a premium over the alternatives. Why do you think Apple customers are some helpless and ignorant victim, and not people specifically placing their bets with a company that has delivered exceptional products at the expense of rather fringe philosophical views on "openness?" I don't care about "openness" nor taking down "corporate greed" in this context, I care about having a great experience using my own mobile device. FWIW there was an era where I felt differently. I was very active in the early Android jailbreak community. It was fun and the freedom has benefits, but those are benefits that I've deliberately chosen to give up for the benefits of the other end of the spectrum. I wasn't tricked into giving them up and neither was anyone else: people are paying Apple for the experience Apple is trusted to deliver. The reason people trust them is because they deliver it. It's super simple.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        > I pay Apple to manage my mobile device experience > I care about having a great experience using my own mobile device. But you can still do that - I don't see how Beeper changes that? As a happy Apple user you don't need to use Beeper, though might still get benefit from it if your Android-using friends can now use the same messaging app you do.
- thrwy_918 3y ago
  When you have market power, your behavior has to be held to a higher standard. Apple has huge amounts of market power in the US cell phone market. It is totally clear to any reasonable observer that they are using that market power to dissuade people from purchasing Android devices via the green bubble system.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    "Making a product that people like and use" is abusing market power? How does Apple abuse this power in the US but not EU with no differences in the product?
    - haswell 3y ago
      > "Making a product that people like and use" is abusing market power? This is a very one-sided framing of the situation and leaves out quite a few factors. People aren’t just buying Apple products because they like them. They’re being forced to buy Apple products to stay in the “in” group. They face exclusion by peers due to Apple’s dominance in the geo and in certain demographics. As I understand it, iMessage is not dominant in the EU, so the market conditions are quite unlike each other.
      - misnome 3y ago
        > They’re being forced to buy Apple products to stay in the “in” group. They face exclusion by peers due to Apple’s dominance in the geo and in certain demographics So, uh, factors that have zero to do with Apple are evidence that it is… abusing… the… market…? Are you auditioning for Apples’ defence team or something?
        haswell 3y ago
        > So, uh, factors that have zero to do with Apple are evidence that it is… abusing… the… market…? How does this have zero to do with Apple? It has everything to do with Apple, because it’s ultimately their product decisions driving user behavior. Had they implemented support for RCS by now, this conversation wouldn’t be happening. They made the explicit choice to capitalize on their poor interoperability and decided to claim it’s for security reasons, which is pretty obviously bullshit.
- haswell 3y ago
  > iMessage's lack of popularity everywhere else in the world is proof that competition is able to flourish. I truly do not understand the reasoning behind this. A product doesn’t need to be popular world-wide for behavior to be anti-competitive. The reality is that the US market is heavily impacted, and the fact that this isn’t true in other geos has nothing to do with the impact here. > 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. I think that framing this only as an obligation for Apple to make an android app is unnecessarily narrow. There are many ways this could be solved: - By not artificially degrading the non-iMessage experience - By not want until 2024 to implement support for RCS - By opening up APIs with appropriate restrictions to be consumed by other apps - the thing they do for most other native phone capabilities Building a first party app is just one of a large number of possibilities that are less broken than the status quo. RCS will help this. They’re embarrassingly and/or intentionally late to the party.
Pulcinella 3y ago
Someone "hacking"[0] into my bank account shines a light on the fact that my bank wasn't so locked down to begin with, but I still don't want people doing it. Keep in mind, iMessage also relies on a server component. It's not some peer-to-peer protocol. Apple has to pay for the costs of sending messages, high resolution videos and photos, audio recordings, and supporting iMessage apps[1]. You can argue that this is included in the price of the iPhone/iPad/Mac but obviously is not for random android devices. Personally it doesn't bother me if Apple has to just eat the costs, but it is a cost, and probably a not insubstantial one. [0] Social Engineering. [1] Ok how many people actually use these? Still, they are part of iMessage.
mlindner 3y ago
That's a strange argument... It sounds like you're making the claim that every single chat application should be mandatory legally required to have completely open APIs for any clone that wants to pop up and get access to their network. What chat apps using a centralized server owned by a single company have open APIs that let anyone use them?
- haswell 3y ago
  I don’t believe every chat application should be required to have completely open APIs. Key factors in my mind: - iMessage isn’t a chat app. It’s the default experience for sending the equivalent of text messages from the Apple ecosystem. They’ve blended the experiences such that it’s not fair to compare it to a traditional chat app - 3rd party chat apps are cross platform. The only reason Beeper exists is because there is no first party option to interact with iMessage chats outside of the ecosystem. This is not the case for actual “chat apps”, and the non-existence of APIs takes on lesser relevance
  - mlindner 3y ago
    - On blending the two, what's the issue here? Automatically upgrading SMS messages to go over data connections instead of SMS systems seems like a pure upgrade? - 3rd party chat apps are cross platform because they're funded by alternative methods, usually by selling your personal information, though sometimes also by sales of other products within the app (like on LINE). Apple funds its chat app through phone sales.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
Apple has always been anticompetitive to an extent that would make Bill Gates blush, at least as far back as I can remember. They are one of the most toxic tech companies in that regard. I hope that they are forced to open their walled gardens (app lockdowns in particular), but I have no doubt they'll find another way to be anticompetitive. It's just in their company culture.

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.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  We do: SMS It's just worse than the alternative that Apple provides for its own ecosystem of users. Any Apple user is free to opt for that more universal system if they want.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Well, Beeper has proven that we now have another one: iMessage. Why not use the more modern, featureful & secure option instead of antiquated SMS? Why are you still defending corporate greed at the expense of user experience?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I pay Apple to manage my mobile device experience. That is literally why they demand and receive a premium over the alternatives. Why do you think Apple customers are some helpless and ignorant victim, and not people specifically placing their bets with a company that has delivered exceptional products at the expense of rather fringe philosophical views on "openness?" I don't care about "openness" nor taking down "corporate greed" in this context, I care about having a great experience using my own mobile device. FWIW there was an era where I felt differently. I was very active in the early Android jailbreak community. It was fun and the freedom has benefits, but those are benefits that I've deliberately chosen to give up for the benefits of the other end of the spectrum. I wasn't tricked into giving them up and neither was anyone else: people are paying Apple for the experience Apple is trusted to deliver. The reason people trust them is because they deliver it. It's super simple.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        > I pay Apple to manage my mobile device experience > I care about having a great experience using my own mobile device. But you can still do that - I don't see how Beeper changes that? As a happy Apple user you don't need to use Beeper, though might still get benefit from it if your Android-using friends can now use the same messaging app you do.
thrwy_918 3y ago
When you have market power, your behavior has to be held to a higher standard. Apple has huge amounts of market power in the US cell phone market. It is totally clear to any reasonable observer that they are using that market power to dissuade people from purchasing Android devices via the green bubble system.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  "Making a product that people like and use" is abusing market power? How does Apple abuse this power in the US but not EU with no differences in the product?
  - haswell 3y ago
    > "Making a product that people like and use" is abusing market power? This is a very one-sided framing of the situation and leaves out quite a few factors. People aren’t just buying Apple products because they like them. They’re being forced to buy Apple products to stay in the “in” group. They face exclusion by peers due to Apple’s dominance in the geo and in certain demographics. As I understand it, iMessage is not dominant in the EU, so the market conditions are quite unlike each other.
    - misnome 3y ago
      > They’re being forced to buy Apple products to stay in the “in” group. They face exclusion by peers due to Apple’s dominance in the geo and in certain demographics So, uh, factors that have zero to do with Apple are evidence that it is… abusing… the… market…? Are you auditioning for Apples’ defence team or something?
      - haswell 3y ago
        > So, uh, factors that have zero to do with Apple are evidence that it is… abusing… the… market…? How does this have zero to do with Apple? It has everything to do with Apple, because it’s ultimately their product decisions driving user behavior. Had they implemented support for RCS by now, this conversation wouldn’t be happening. They made the explicit choice to capitalize on their poor interoperability and decided to claim it’s for security reasons, which is pretty obviously bullshit.
haswell 3y ago
> iMessage's lack of popularity everywhere else in the world is proof that competition is able to flourish. I truly do not understand the reasoning behind this. A product doesn’t need to be popular world-wide for behavior to be anti-competitive. The reality is that the US market is heavily impacted, and the fact that this isn’t true in other geos has nothing to do with the impact here. > 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. I think that framing this only as an obligation for Apple to make an android app is unnecessarily narrow. There are many ways this could be solved: - By not artificially degrading the non-iMessage experience - By not want until 2024 to implement support for RCS - By opening up APIs with appropriate restrictions to be consumed by other apps - the thing they do for most other native phone capabilities Building a first party app is just one of a large number of possibilities that are less broken than the status quo. RCS will help this. They’re embarrassingly and/or intentionally late to the party.

Pulcinella 3y ago

Someone "hacking"[0] into my bank account shines a light on the fact that my bank wasn't so locked down to begin with, but I still don't want people doing it. Keep in mind, iMessage also relies on a server component. It's not some peer-to-peer protocol. Apple has to pay for the costs of sending messages, high resolution videos and photos, audio recordings, and supporting iMessage apps[1]. You can argue that this is included in the price of the iPhone/iPad/Mac but obviously is not for random android devices. Personally it doesn't bother me if Apple has to just eat the costs, but it is a cost, and probably a not insubstantial one. [0] Social Engineering. [1] Ok how many people actually use these? Still, they are part of iMessage.

mlindner 3y ago

That's a strange argument... It sounds like you're making the claim that every single chat application should be mandatory legally required to have completely open APIs for any clone that wants to pop up and get access to their network. What chat apps using a centralized server owned by a single company have open APIs that let anyone use them?

haswell 3y ago
I don’t believe every chat application should be required to have completely open APIs. Key factors in my mind: - iMessage isn’t a chat app. It’s the default experience for sending the equivalent of text messages from the Apple ecosystem. They’ve blended the experiences such that it’s not fair to compare it to a traditional chat app - 3rd party chat apps are cross platform. The only reason Beeper exists is because there is no first party option to interact with iMessage chats outside of the ecosystem. This is not the case for actual “chat apps”, and the non-existence of APIs takes on lesser relevance
- mlindner 3y ago
  - On blending the two, what's the issue here? Automatically upgrading SMS messages to go over data connections instead of SMS systems seems like a pure upgrade? - 3rd party chat apps are cross platform because they're funded by alternative methods, usually by selling your personal information, though sometimes also by sales of other products within the app (like on LINE). Apple funds its chat app through phone sales.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

Apple has always been anticompetitive to an extent that would make Bill Gates blush, at least as far back as I can remember. They are one of the most toxic tech companies in that regard. I hope that they are forced to open their walled gardens (app lockdowns in particular), but I have no doubt they'll find another way to be anticompetitive. It's just in their company culture.