6 ms·

Maybe this came up in the earlier threads (announcement, outage) so I apologize if it's been discussed ... This project is fantastic. The hacker spirit is in f

Maybe this came up in the earlier threads (announcement, outage) so I apologize if it's been discussed ... This project is fantastic. The hacker spirit is in full force, and I love a good David and Goliath story. However, all the comments about demanding interoperability and protocols keep confusing me -- I don't consider APNS a protocol (like TCP anyways), it's also not incidental, extra header space to stuff data into in an existing message being transported (ala early SMS), and it's not an open relay for everybody to use. It's Apple's private message delivery system! Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? I'm not licking boots over here, just genuinely curious. I wouldn't want to set up a mail server and then foot the bill and assume liability for whatever the hell goes through it from random people on the internet. And trust me, I'm all for civil disobedience and sticking it to the man with clever technical solutions, but given the (probable) massive costs of operating APNS, Apple's got every right in the world to close any gaps in their system and keep kicking Beeper out.. and Beeper can keep trying to get back in.. but I just can't wrap my head around making the assumption that APNS access is somehow a fundamental right that we're all being denied.

grishka 3y ago
> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Network effects.
- nine_k 3y ago
  This would be "enticed", not "entitled". What a user is entitled for is listed in the ToS; who did not accept them, is not entitled. Not necessarily forbidden or blocked, but any bets and guarantees are off.
  - grishka 3y ago
    If many people around you are participating in something but you're left out because of your phone OS choice, you do still feel entitled to participate in that by whatever means necessary. It's about the social aspects more than anything else. See other comments here for people apparently getting shamed and left out of group chats for having wrong color bubbles. Remember Clubhouse, and how it was iOS-only when it was actually popular for a month? I felt entitled to build an unofficial Android app for it because so many people were on there doing interesting things, and so many other people were complaining loudly about it being iOS-only. FOMO is a powerful force.
wutwutwat 3y ago
Uhhhh, what does APNS have to do with any of this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but people want iMessage to be an open protocol. You're talking about APNS, the "apple push notification service", which is something completely different than what beeper is doing and what folks are asking for. The message schema, format, types, encoding, max length, delivery guarantees, etc, like jabber/xmpp [1]. Push notifications are sent for iMessage, but that isn't what people want to be turned into an open protocol [1] https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html
- ranie93 3y ago
  https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-and-receives-messages-sec70e68c949/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-...
- ddoolin 3y ago
  https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works
- rezonant 3y ago
  APNs is used as the backbone of iMessage, it's not an optional component. It is not just used for the push notifications you see on your phone, but for the actual delivery of the messages.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
maxwell 3y ago
> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Vertical tying.
ksherlock 3y ago
Apparently, blue bubble envy is a thing people have. The beeper home page mentions blue bubbles 9 times (and not being a green bubble twice). WSJ reported in August that 87% of teens have an iPhone so anybody with an android or a green bubble therefore stands out and is a loser. https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-android-phones-30005a9c https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-androi...
- dawnerd 3y ago
  It’s not just about that. I want to be able to use my Apple message id on other devices.
  - hifreq 3y ago
    I want to be able to send messages from Signal to WhatsApp! Alas, I am not entitled to that.
    - dawnerd 3y ago
      What? That’s not even the same thing. I can install signal on all my devices. I can’t do the same with messages. It’s about device vendor lock in.
  - JUNGLEISMASSIVE 3y ago
    [dead]
- artyn 3y ago
  I think people wouldn't mind the green bubble if it had a good contrast ratio.
- fatnoah 3y ago
  My son had an Android phone. I don't think anyone considered him to be a loser, but he did get very sick of everyone why he had a green bubble.
  - 3y ago
babl-yc 3y ago
Selfishly I'm most excited about this project as a demonstration that secure and reliable communication across platforms is pretty straightforward. The only blocker is that Apple doesn't want it to exist. If Apple were truly acting in their users best interest, they would want their users to have encrypted and fast communication with all devices, through an open protocol or otherwise. And yes, iOS allows 3rd party apps but not nearly with enough permissions to act as a full Messages+iMessage alternative.
- oneplane 3y ago
  Don't WhatsApp and Signal already do exactly that?
  - rezonant 3y ago
    > And yes, iOS allows 3rd party apps but not nearly with enough permissions to act as a full Messages+iMessage alternative. Not an Apple user, but I imagine even though there's some allowances for third party messaging, there's a lot of holes. For instance, what happens if I ask Siri to send a message to a specific contact from my Apple Watch. Will it send it over Signal if I've added a Signal address to their contact card and went the mile to set that as the default messaging app for that user? Curious.
    - oneplane 3y ago
      While I don't mix text and voice control that often myself, it appears to be fully supported: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1803878309981730/?locale=sv_SE&cms_platform=iphone# https://faq.whatsapp.com/1803878309981730/?locale=sv_SE&cms_... as for what actions an app supports, that appears to vary based on what the developer included.
      - rezonant 3y ago
        But do you have to say "Send a WhatsApp message to X" or does it work with "send a message to X"?
- 3y ago
GeekyBear 3y ago
> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? I hereby demand that Google stop making changes to YouTube that prevent ad blockers from working. Or more to the point, I should have the right to sell hacked access to Microsoft's Office 365 servers to end users and Microsoft must not take any action that interferes in those user's access. That's reasonable, right?
- ehvatum 3y ago
  I hereby demand that Apple stop supporting email interoperability with non iCloud users. The current situation, where the iCloud email users enjoy first class communication with gmail users, is tantamount to theft. That’s reasonable, of course.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    What does that have to do with a company's right to control access to the services it runs?
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    That does not seem like it follow from the person you are replying to's examples. Pretty much nothing is about removing functionality?
hamandcheese 3y ago
I am an Apple user. I've owned more iPhones and MacBooks than I can remember. I am the one who foots the bill for iMessage and APNS. I want to be able to message my friends with Androids with the same ease as I do my friends with iPhones. I also would like to be able to access my messages when I run Asahi Linux on my MacBook.
- dotBen 3y ago
  Use Signal. Get your friends to do so. What you are describing is a multi-platform ecosystem so don't rely on one of the platform vendors to enable something for everyone else.
  - greentea23 3y ago
    Or better, use matrix/element if you can (the backbone technology of Beeper). It's an open protocol not beholden to one central server (Signal/WhatsApp/Telegram/Discord) that could go out of business, get bought, or change their usage policy at any time.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  Yep, its really a lose-lose for everyone except Apple. Apple could even release a client that doesn't allow Android<->Android iMessage and I doubt many Android users would care. Personally, I just want a decent messaging experience and I would be willing to jump through the extra hoop of downloading another app even if my iPhone using contacts aren't willing to.
waynesonfire 3y ago
> It's Apple's private message delivery system! In the US, where democratic principles govern and capitalism drives the economy, the regulation of corporations emerges as a necessary practice. This approach rests on the understanding that while corporations are essential for economic growth, they must operate within a framework that prioritizes the public's interest. In a democracy, every entity, including corporations, should answer to the people. Corporations wield significant influence and power, and without oversight, this power could be used in ways that harm the broader society. Corporations should reflect the values of the society in which they operate and not undermine social, environmental, and ethical standards set by the democratically elected government. Regulation of corporations is not about impeding economic growth but about guiding it in a direction that is beneficial for all members of society.
- vlozko 3y ago
  This is a wonderful speech full of noble platitudes. None of this actually answers the question of why Apple (or really anyone) should let anyone have free and open access to something they paid and keep paying a lot to create, deploy, maintain, and iterate on. It’s their stuff, not the public’s. Nobody should expect corporations to be charities.
  - danaris 3y ago
    Or, to expand a bit: If Apple should be expected to open up iMessage, then why shouldn't Facebook be expected to allow interoperability with Messenger, and Telegram and Signal forced to open those up, too? Or, if you wish to take it a slightly different way: Why shouldn't the New York Times be expected to give everyone a copy of their paper for free? Information and good journalism are a public good, after all. Why shouldn't pharmaceutical companies be expected to make all life-saving medications available for free? Why shouldn't ISPs be expected to make Internet access available to all for free?
    - edrxty 3y ago
      I mean, we could structure our society so that everything wasn't arbitrarily gated but that would be gasp socialism. Also, Telegram and Signal are already open and can be bridged from anything to anything so yeah, we should force Messenger and Imessage to accept, at a minimum, bridging as well.
beejiu 3y ago
It's my understanding that in the European Union, the new Digital Markets regulations will require interoperability. It's still not 100% what it will cover, but it could become a requirement.
- oneplane 3y ago
  As far as I could find, the text suggests that only applies to market giants (i.e. Meta with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). iMessage is not even breaking the top 5 in the EU. It's not even in the top 5 world wide, and even in the US it's only somewhere in position 4 or 5. If they go for absolute numbers (i.e. X million users) instead of market share that might be different, but it's unlikely to really be relevant to the EU considering from a user's perspective it's already interoperable (messages sent on one device end up on the other device, even if it's technically a mix of SMS, MMS and iMessage - that part is not really relevant). I think the only source of all this iMessage this that and the other comes from parts of American society where they value the color of a chat bubble. Ironically that value has nothing to do with iMessage and just to do with "this persion I am chatting with can afford an iPhone", which in turn is what people appear to value. In countries where iMessage is not really used, it doesn't matter at all. I would be surprised if most users would even know about different chat bubble colours and what they mean.
- danaris 3y ago
  It's already been made public that iMessage will not (currently) be covered under this.
- realusername 3y ago
  iMessage is pretty much dead in the EU though so I doubt the EU regulators will ask for interoperability.
phonon 3y ago
You could say the same thing about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_(software)
- fahhem 3y ago
  Samba is a protocol, Microsoft doesn't have any costs associated with more users of it. GP is asking about APNS, which involves Apple servers and therefore costs Apple to handle more requests, however minimal per individual request/message
  - phonon 3y ago
    Support costs for Microsoft definitely go up.
    - jpc0 3y ago
      Explain your perspective on this. Here is a probing question. How does support costs for Microsoft go up when I communicate from my linux workstation to my linux server using SMB implemented by Samba.
- macNchz 3y ago
  I think Samba was my first introduction to the idea that using a non-official/reverse-engineered implementation of something to piggyback into a closed ecosystem may not actually be preferable to either shunning that ecosystem entirely, or just buying into it. I loved it in concept, but in practice not so much.
segasaturn 3y ago
>Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Because I want to talk to my friends without being locked into Apple's ecosystem. Simple as that, I don't need any other reason. This language about "entitlement" feels like when Google complains about people using adblockers on YT - I don't care because they're both $2T corporations, and the only "entitlement" I see is the way Apple and Google think they're entitled to my money and my data.
- raydev 3y ago
  Why are you entitled to use Apple's messaging servers without paying for access?
  - wmf 3y ago
    People are willing to pay but Apple won't take their money.
    - raydev 3y ago
      Is this an answer to my question? I’m allowed to add more load and increase your infrastructure costs just because you won’t take my money in the way I want you to?
      - wmf 3y ago
        The argument is that iMessage is a de facto monopoly utility and should be operated accordingly.
- bogantech 3y ago
  > Because I want to talk to my friends without being locked into Apple's ecosystem. Simple as that, I don't need any other reason. You can't do that now with SMS and a plethora of other messaging apps?
  - abrouwers 3y ago
whycome 3y ago
Apple hijacked SMS. You can't CHOOSE to send SMS. If your phone is tied to a computer for a shared imessage account, if you're outside with your phone alone (while computer is online) the phone cannot receive text messages. (The sender ios device presumes 'success' in sending the message because it is received by the computer. It does not have the ability to send just sms). So, i'm all for anything that shakes up messaging and maybe returns some of it to users.
- marvy 3y ago
  you can choose; there's an option buried in settings somewhere
  - whycome 3y ago
    But, there's no ability on a per-message basis. If they have their phone set up with iMessage, I cannot just send them an SMS if they lose their data connection.
- jmkni 3y ago
  I mean you can literally just set the iMessage toggle to 'Off' on your phone It's not even buried. Settings -> Messages -> iMessage == Off
  - whycome 3y ago
    But, that party uses imessage for some things. I want to be able to send them an SMS. How would that be done?
- jb1991 3y ago
  > You can't CHOOSE to send SMS You can turn off iMessage and force sms unless you are referring to something else.
  - darknavi 3y ago
    You can also press and hold the send button to swap over to SMS.
goodluckchuck 3y ago
> It's Apple's private message delivery system! It's not! > Note: Beeper Cloud’s new Oct 2023 iMessage bridge never used Mac relay servers and still does not today. It uses a similar method to Beeper Mini, but runs on a cloud server.
- rezonant 3y ago
  I think you misunderstand that quote. Prior versions of Beeper Cloud hosted Mac Minis in data centers and used genuine Apple hardware and software to automate iMessage in order to function. This quote simply says that Beeper Cloud is using the same direct implementation of iMessage that Beeper Mini does. It does not indicate that Beeper Cloud & Mini do not communicate with Apple's servers (they do).
paulddraper 3y ago
It's the same as XMPP/etc vs proprietary chat protocols. "Slack chat is only for Slack customers." "Google chat is only for Google customers." And so on. Well....if you say it is, then it is. But the supporters of interoperability would like to...interoperate. So non-Apply customers can send messages to Apple customers and vice versa.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? I'm only speaking for myself here, but I don't look at it as "being entitled to use Apple's services". I look at it as closed, non-interoperable systems as being fundamentally bad for people and for the internet. I hesitate to call them immoral, but I feel like I could argue that competently as well, if pushed to do so. So if Apple isn't willing to allow interoperability with their messaging service that is used by hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, then I support every effort to "sneak in" and make that happen anyway. And if that means using some Apple service that isn't intended for use outside the Apple ecosystem, that's just how it has to be. On the other hand, I would frankly just prefer that non-interoperable systems die, instead, and be replaced by functionally equivalent, but more open, systems. So I am also uncomfortable with Beeper Mini pushing more people into Apple's closed ecosystem, even if overall (in the short term, at least) it will mean a better, more secure experience for both iOS and Android users. (It's gross that Apple talks about the security and privacy afforded to users of their products, but at the same time forces their own iPhone users to send unencrypted SMS/MMS messages to anyone who doesn't have an iPhone, because keeping non-iPhone users off iMessage is a competitive advantage for them.)

grishka 3y ago

> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Network effects.

nine_k 3y ago
This would be "enticed", not "entitled". What a user is entitled for is listed in the ToS; who did not accept them, is not entitled. Not necessarily forbidden or blocked, but any bets and guarantees are off.
- grishka 3y ago
  If many people around you are participating in something but you're left out because of your phone OS choice, you do still feel entitled to participate in that by whatever means necessary. It's about the social aspects more than anything else. See other comments here for people apparently getting shamed and left out of group chats for having wrong color bubbles. Remember Clubhouse, and how it was iOS-only when it was actually popular for a month? I felt entitled to build an unofficial Android app for it because so many people were on there doing interesting things, and so many other people were complaining loudly about it being iOS-only. FOMO is a powerful force.

wutwutwat 3y ago

Uhhhh, what does APNS have to do with any of this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but people want iMessage to be an open protocol. You're talking about APNS, the "apple push notification service", which is something completely different than what beeper is doing and what folks are asking for. The message schema, format, types, encoding, max length, delivery guarantees, etc, like jabber/xmpp [1]. Push notifications are sent for iMessage, but that isn't what people want to be turned into an open protocol [1] https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html

ranie93 3y ago
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-and-receives-messages-sec70e68c949/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-...
ddoolin 3y ago
https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works
rezonant 3y ago
APNs is used as the backbone of iMessage, it's not an optional component. It is not just used for the push notifications you see on your phone, but for the actual delivery of the messages.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

maxwell 3y ago

> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Vertical tying.

ksherlock 3y ago

Apparently, blue bubble envy is a thing people have. The beeper home page mentions blue bubbles 9 times (and not being a green bubble twice). WSJ reported in August that 87% of teens have an iPhone so anybody with an android or a green bubble therefore stands out and is a loser. https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-android-phones-30005a9c https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/why-teens-hate-androi...

dawnerd 3y ago
It’s not just about that. I want to be able to use my Apple message id on other devices.
- hifreq 3y ago
  I want to be able to send messages from Signal to WhatsApp! Alas, I am not entitled to that.
  - dawnerd 3y ago
    What? That’s not even the same thing. I can install signal on all my devices. I can’t do the same with messages. It’s about device vendor lock in.
- JUNGLEISMASSIVE 3y ago
  [dead]
artyn 3y ago
I think people wouldn't mind the green bubble if it had a good contrast ratio.
fatnoah 3y ago
My son had an Android phone. I don't think anyone considered him to be a loser, but he did get very sick of everyone why he had a green bubble.
- 3y ago

babl-yc 3y ago

Selfishly I'm most excited about this project as a demonstration that secure and reliable communication across platforms is pretty straightforward. The only blocker is that Apple doesn't want it to exist. If Apple were truly acting in their users best interest, they would want their users to have encrypted and fast communication with all devices, through an open protocol or otherwise. And yes, iOS allows 3rd party apps but not nearly with enough permissions to act as a full Messages+iMessage alternative.

oneplane 3y ago
Don't WhatsApp and Signal already do exactly that?
- rezonant 3y ago
  > And yes, iOS allows 3rd party apps but not nearly with enough permissions to act as a full Messages+iMessage alternative. Not an Apple user, but I imagine even though there's some allowances for third party messaging, there's a lot of holes. For instance, what happens if I ask Siri to send a message to a specific contact from my Apple Watch. Will it send it over Signal if I've added a Signal address to their contact card and went the mile to set that as the default messaging app for that user? Curious.
  - oneplane 3y ago
    While I don't mix text and voice control that often myself, it appears to be fully supported: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1803878309981730/?locale=sv_SE&cms_platform=iphone# https://faq.whatsapp.com/1803878309981730/?locale=sv_SE&cms_... as for what actions an app supports, that appears to vary based on what the developer included.
    - rezonant 3y ago
      But do you have to say "Send a WhatsApp message to X" or does it work with "send a message to X"?
3y ago

GeekyBear 3y ago

> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? I hereby demand that Google stop making changes to YouTube that prevent ad blockers from working. Or more to the point, I should have the right to sell hacked access to Microsoft's Office 365 servers to end users and Microsoft must not take any action that interferes in those user's access. That's reasonable, right?

ehvatum 3y ago
I hereby demand that Apple stop supporting email interoperability with non iCloud users. The current situation, where the iCloud email users enjoy first class communication with gmail users, is tantamount to theft. That’s reasonable, of course.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  What does that have to do with a company's right to control access to the services it runs?
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  That does not seem like it follow from the person you are replying to's examples. Pretty much nothing is about removing functionality?

hamandcheese 3y ago

I am an Apple user. I've owned more iPhones and MacBooks than I can remember. I am the one who foots the bill for iMessage and APNS. I want to be able to message my friends with Androids with the same ease as I do my friends with iPhones. I also would like to be able to access my messages when I run Asahi Linux on my MacBook.

dotBen 3y ago
Use Signal. Get your friends to do so. What you are describing is a multi-platform ecosystem so don't rely on one of the platform vendors to enable something for everyone else.
- greentea23 3y ago
  Or better, use matrix/element if you can (the backbone technology of Beeper). It's an open protocol not beholden to one central server (Signal/WhatsApp/Telegram/Discord) that could go out of business, get bought, or change their usage policy at any time.
enragedcacti 3y ago
Yep, its really a lose-lose for everyone except Apple. Apple could even release a client that doesn't allow Android<->Android iMessage and I doubt many Android users would care. Personally, I just want a decent messaging experience and I would be willing to jump through the extra hoop of downloading another app even if my iPhone using contacts aren't willing to.

waynesonfire 3y ago

> It's Apple's private message delivery system! In the US, where democratic principles govern and capitalism drives the economy, the regulation of corporations emerges as a necessary practice. This approach rests on the understanding that while corporations are essential for economic growth, they must operate within a framework that prioritizes the public's interest. In a democracy, every entity, including corporations, should answer to the people. Corporations wield significant influence and power, and without oversight, this power could be used in ways that harm the broader society. Corporations should reflect the values of the society in which they operate and not undermine social, environmental, and ethical standards set by the democratically elected government. Regulation of corporations is not about impeding economic growth but about guiding it in a direction that is beneficial for all members of society.

vlozko 3y ago
This is a wonderful speech full of noble platitudes. None of this actually answers the question of why Apple (or really anyone) should let anyone have free and open access to something they paid and keep paying a lot to create, deploy, maintain, and iterate on. It’s their stuff, not the public’s. Nobody should expect corporations to be charities.
- danaris 3y ago
  Or, to expand a bit: If Apple should be expected to open up iMessage, then why shouldn't Facebook be expected to allow interoperability with Messenger, and Telegram and Signal forced to open those up, too? Or, if you wish to take it a slightly different way: Why shouldn't the New York Times be expected to give everyone a copy of their paper for free? Information and good journalism are a public good, after all. Why shouldn't pharmaceutical companies be expected to make all life-saving medications available for free? Why shouldn't ISPs be expected to make Internet access available to all for free?
  - edrxty 3y ago
    I mean, we could structure our society so that everything wasn't arbitrarily gated but that would be gasp socialism. Also, Telegram and Signal are already open and can be bridged from anything to anything so yeah, we should force Messenger and Imessage to accept, at a minimum, bridging as well.

beejiu 3y ago

It's my understanding that in the European Union, the new Digital Markets regulations will require interoperability. It's still not 100% what it will cover, but it could become a requirement.

oneplane 3y ago
As far as I could find, the text suggests that only applies to market giants (i.e. Meta with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). iMessage is not even breaking the top 5 in the EU. It's not even in the top 5 world wide, and even in the US it's only somewhere in position 4 or 5. If they go for absolute numbers (i.e. X million users) instead of market share that might be different, but it's unlikely to really be relevant to the EU considering from a user's perspective it's already interoperable (messages sent on one device end up on the other device, even if it's technically a mix of SMS, MMS and iMessage - that part is not really relevant). I think the only source of all this iMessage this that and the other comes from parts of American society where they value the color of a chat bubble. Ironically that value has nothing to do with iMessage and just to do with "this persion I am chatting with can afford an iPhone", which in turn is what people appear to value. In countries where iMessage is not really used, it doesn't matter at all. I would be surprised if most users would even know about different chat bubble colours and what they mean.
danaris 3y ago
It's already been made public that iMessage will not (currently) be covered under this.
realusername 3y ago
iMessage is pretty much dead in the EU though so I doubt the EU regulators will ask for interoperability.

phonon 3y ago

You could say the same thing about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_(software)

fahhem 3y ago
Samba is a protocol, Microsoft doesn't have any costs associated with more users of it. GP is asking about APNS, which involves Apple servers and therefore costs Apple to handle more requests, however minimal per individual request/message
- phonon 3y ago
  Support costs for Microsoft definitely go up.
  - jpc0 3y ago
    Explain your perspective on this. Here is a probing question. How does support costs for Microsoft go up when I communicate from my linux workstation to my linux server using SMB implemented by Samba.
macNchz 3y ago
I think Samba was my first introduction to the idea that using a non-official/reverse-engineered implementation of something to piggyback into a closed ecosystem may not actually be preferable to either shunning that ecosystem entirely, or just buying into it. I loved it in concept, but in practice not so much.

segasaturn 3y ago

>Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? Because I want to talk to my friends without being locked into Apple's ecosystem. Simple as that, I don't need any other reason. This language about "entitlement" feels like when Google complains about people using adblockers on YT - I don't care because they're both $2T corporations, and the only "entitlement" I see is the way Apple and Google think they're entitled to my money and my data.

raydev 3y ago
Why are you entitled to use Apple's messaging servers without paying for access?
- wmf 3y ago
  People are willing to pay but Apple won't take their money.
  - raydev 3y ago
    Is this an answer to my question? I’m allowed to add more load and increase your infrastructure costs just because you won’t take my money in the way I want you to?
    - wmf 3y ago
      The argument is that iMessage is a de facto monopoly utility and should be operated accordingly.
bogantech 3y ago
> Because I want to talk to my friends without being locked into Apple's ecosystem. Simple as that, I don't need any other reason. You can't do that now with SMS and a plethora of other messaging apps?
- abrouwers 3y ago

whycome 3y ago

Apple hijacked SMS. You can't CHOOSE to send SMS. If your phone is tied to a computer for a shared imessage account, if you're outside with your phone alone (while computer is online) the phone cannot receive text messages. (The sender ios device presumes 'success' in sending the message because it is received by the computer. It does not have the ability to send just sms). So, i'm all for anything that shakes up messaging and maybe returns some of it to users.

marvy 3y ago
you can choose; there's an option buried in settings somewhere
- whycome 3y ago
  But, there's no ability on a per-message basis. If they have their phone set up with iMessage, I cannot just send them an SMS if they lose their data connection.
jmkni 3y ago
I mean you can literally just set the iMessage toggle to 'Off' on your phone It's not even buried. Settings -> Messages -> iMessage == Off
- whycome 3y ago
  But, that party uses imessage for some things. I want to be able to send them an SMS. How would that be done?
jb1991 3y ago
> You can't CHOOSE to send SMS You can turn off iMessage and force sms unless you are referring to something else.
- darknavi 3y ago
  You can also press and hold the send button to swap over to SMS.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

> It's Apple's private message delivery system! It's not! > Note: Beeper Cloud’s new Oct 2023 iMessage bridge never used Mac relay servers and still does not today. It uses a similar method to Beeper Mini, but runs on a cloud server.

rezonant 3y ago
I think you misunderstand that quote. Prior versions of Beeper Cloud hosted Mac Minis in data centers and used genuine Apple hardware and software to automate iMessage in order to function. This quote simply says that Beeper Cloud is using the same direct implementation of iMessage that Beeper Mini does. It does not indicate that Beeper Cloud & Mini do not communicate with Apple's servers (they do).

paulddraper 3y ago

It's the same as XMPP/etc vs proprietary chat protocols. "Slack chat is only for Slack customers." "Google chat is only for Google customers." And so on. Well....if you say it is, then it is. But the supporters of interoperability would like to...interoperate. So non-Apply customers can send messages to Apple customers and vice versa.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 3y ago

> Why does everybody feel entitled to use it if they're not using Apple products? I'm only speaking for myself here, but I don't look at it as "being entitled to use Apple's services". I look at it as closed, non-interoperable systems as being fundamentally bad for people and for the internet. I hesitate to call them immoral, but I feel like I could argue that competently as well, if pushed to do so. So if Apple isn't willing to allow interoperability with their messaging service that is used by hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, then I support every effort to "sneak in" and make that happen anyway. And if that means using some Apple service that isn't intended for use outside the Apple ecosystem, that's just how it has to be. On the other hand, I would frankly just prefer that non-interoperable systems die, instead, and be replaced by functionally equivalent, but more open, systems. So I am also uncomfortable with Beeper Mini pushing more people into Apple's closed ecosystem, even if overall (in the short term, at least) it will mean a better, more secure experience for both iOS and Android users. (It's gross that Apple talks about the security and privacy afforded to users of their products, but at the same time forces their own iPhone users to send unencrypted SMS/MMS messages to anyone who doesn't have an iPhone, because keeping non-iPhone users off iMessage is a competitive advantage for them.)