12 ms·
Serious questions, I haven’t been paying enough attention to all of this to know the answers: Looking at Beeper’s website, I can see > We currently offer a 7
by notamy 3y ago
Serious questions, I haven’t been paying enough attention to all of this to know the answers:
Looking at Beeper’s website, I can see
> We currently offer a 7 day free trial, afterwards there is a $1.99 per month subscription.
I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it, without at least paying for the infrastructure they’re using. Why is Apple expected to accept it?
Isn’t the reverse-engineering against Apple ToS anyway? As far as I know, it’s a pretty standard clause in basically every company’s ToS. How is Beeper supposed to "win" here, short of that sort of ToS clause being declared unenforceable?
- post-it 3y agoBeeper hasn't necessarily agreed to Apple's ToS.
- paulmd 3y agoCFAA would be unenforceable if it required unauthorized users to have agreed to the terms of service of the systems they were abusing. You’re not supposed to be there and that’s sufficient.
- tptacek 3y agoAll its users have, as Beeper is aware, and Beeper has taken extensive steps, predicated on the existing of that customer agreement (in fact: meaningful only because of that agreement) to help them renege.
- greyface- 3y agoBeeper isn't marketed at Apple users - they already have access to iMessage. Are we to presume that all Android users have agreed to the iOS ToS?
- JoshuaRogers 3y agoIf we’re presuming that the end-user has not agreed to any term of service, then why are we assuming that they have the right to use the service in anyway whatsoever? It’s basically the definition of unauthorized use at that point.
- drekk 3y agoMaybe I have an Apple laptop but an Android phone and would like to use a unified messaging solution across both. But we shouldn't have to get to such specific examples to discuss the issue at play here—Apple is fighting against adversarial interoperability. I'm amazed to see people arguing in their favor on Hacker News.
- JoshuaRogers 3y agoIn this case I wasn’t arguing in their favor but arguing that the lack of agreement to a TOS does not somehow imply authorization.
- sbuk 3y ago> Beeper isn't marketed at Apple users Does that mean they are therefore not competing with Apple? And if their users are using Beeper Mini to access iMessage, are they not implicitly accepting the ToS?
- greyface- 3y ago> are they not implicitly accepting the ToS? Courts generally do not find that ToS can be accepted implicitly, even in situations where they are actually shown to the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browsewrap#Case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browsewrap#Case_law
- overstay8930 3y agoDoesn't matter, plenty of legal precedent for Apple to fall back on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer Very cut and dry CFAA case, I'm guessing Beeper saw how well it went for Epic Games when they leveraged the useful idiots to sway public opinion, so they are doing the same for a quick buck and hoping it gets political enough to avoid getting fined.
- pxmpxm 3y agoAh yes, they should absolutely go with these types of sovereign citizen legal arguments.
- bicx 3y agoThere is a mentality where if a service becomes ubiquitous enough, it should be treated like a public utility. It’s not a particularly valid way of thinking, but common nonetheless.
- tomalbrc 3y agoSo, everything google and any other "big" company does, i can reverse engineer and resell the infrastructure that i'm using, free of charge?
- nhumrich 3y agoYes. Thats how competition works. The entire internet is built on this concept. Some languages even use githubs infrastructure free of charge. Npm was the way in its early days. Go still is this way. Also, there are already so many products that do this. Custom gmail apps, anything email, DNS, Anything that uses google maps See Reddit clients vs charging for API debate If apple wants to shut down beeper, there is a very very very easy way. Release iMessage for android. And suddenly beeper is dead overnight. All they have to do is build the product people want.
- giantrobot 3y agoThe problem isn't the API. If I build a service using the S3 API but run it on my own infrastructure, that's competition to Amazon. If I somehow write a system that uses Amazon's S3 infrastructure without Amazon's approval, I'm probably violating the CFAA. Beeper's problem isn't implementing the iMessage API but providing access to Apple's infrastructure without authorization.
- iAMkenough 3y agoLawmakers question why Apple doesn't provide outside authorization to their default secure messaging app, or provide their own secure means of messaging non-Apple hardware a family member might be provided by their cell carrier. The answer seems to be Apple wants to force families to purchase an iPhone for every family member, or download and agree to the terms of a third-party app in order to securely communicate.
- jncfhnb 3y ago“Short of that sort of clause being declared unenforceable” is not an insurmountable barrier. Clauses are deemed unenforceable all the time. Reverse engineering is not a problem. Shutting down a competitor business draws scrutiny. Beeper’s strategy is not clean, but apple’s behavior in this space could be framed as anti competitive to begin with. They’re probably hoping so for some kind of concession that will force apple to open and provide a way for beeper to operate that is more above the table.
- fh9302 3y agoReverse engineering is not a problem, accessing servers in an unauthorized way and then charging money for it is a problem.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSure. But breaking down an illegally constructed fence can produce discussions beyond vandalism.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoA real, operating, company needs to have a more solid foundation than 'produce discussions'.
- jncfhnb 3y agoDoesn’t matter for the case
- MichaelZuo 3y agoHuh? Of course it matters whether they are a viable company, at least according to many HN readers who upvoted this post to the front page and engaged in comments.
- blackoil 3y ago
- simion314 3y agoPeople that are old enough can remember applications like Pidgin, Gaim or similar, I do not remember anyone attempting and wining to sue the developers. The user will create an account so IMO if I have an Apple account (I own an old Apple laptop) then WTF would Apple care I send the bytes from a differrent application. I am curious what a judge or legislators will decide on this, can a company force you to use their client to connect to their service? Then Google can force us to use Google approved and signed apps to access youtube and google apps, even if they can't block alternatives they can bully the alternatives with the justice system. It would be also interesting to know if using this app instead of the fallback it is actually using maybe less resources and it would be a benefit for the world for Apple to open the protocol.
- dimask 3y agoI am all against monopolies, I loved pidgin (and just saw that actually it still exists!), but the beeper-mini case was quite weird. > The user will create an account so IMO if I have an Apple account (I own an old Apple laptop) then WTF would Apple care I send the bytes from a differrent application. Actually, the initial version of beeper mini did not require an apple ID. And actually this was one feature they seemed to advertised a lot. Only the phone number was used: "No Apple ID is required" [1]. I guess the idea was that they could provide an upgrade to the current, unencrypted communication between iMessage and android (that does not require an apple id either). But I guess the issue here, was that people who used it did not necessarily have an apple ID, and thus not consented to apple's ToS, which as I understand makes it different than pidgin etc. And they actually say that this is a problem they are trying to fix: "Phone number registration is not working yet. All users must now sign in with an AppleID. Messages will be sent and received via your email address rather than phone number. We’re currently working on a fix for this." [2] Unless I misunderstand something, beeper mini stopped working because apple somehow disabled this "feature". I mean I do not have any invested interest in this, I do not own an iphone and even if I did all people I know use other chatting apps, I do not own apple stocks or anything, I am all for piracy and whatnot, but I would not consider blocking access to their service when there is no ToS agreement "anti-competitive behaviour". [1] https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works (initial announcement) [2] https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-mini-is-back https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-mini-is-back
- GeekyBear 3y ago> I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it, without at least paying for the infrastructure they’re using. How is this not a violation of the same Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that was used to prosecute Aaron Swartz for unauthorized access to a web server? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
- criddell 3y agoI've been wondering the same thing. Could Apple ask the DOJ (or whomever would be appropriate) to go after Beeper with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)? To my uneducated eyes, this looks like a pretty clear case of Beeper accessing Apple computers without authorization.
- airstrike 3y agoWorth noting that Swartz was never convicted, so the case doesn't really constitute a precedent, as tragic as the outcome was RIP Aaron Swartz
- _fat_santa 3y agoThe problem for Apple is because they are so big, any action they take will be seen as a "David vs Goliath" battle, regardless of the underlying right and wrong.
- yreg 3y agoImagine someone started selling bootleg sim cards running unofficially on Verizon's network.
- colanderman 3y agoBad analogy. Verizon's network is federated with all other telephony networks. iMessage does not federate.
- overstay8930 3y agoVerizon's network is as federated as iMessage, as in not at all. You can't just use Verizon for free, you pay for access through an authorized vendor or through Verizon themselves. Just because something is accessible does not implicitly grant authorization, there are hundreds of court cases that have set that precedent (this is why you DON'T need an MOTD auth warning anymore). Not only is Beeper doing that, they're also profiting from their abuse. This is more than enough to be a major violation of the CFAA and this is probably what the DOJ is investigating.
- colanderman 3y agoI don't follow your argument. Verizon's network is federated with AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, whomever. Messages can be routed freely between those networks unadulterated. That is what federation means. To communicate via iMessage you must use Apple's servers. There are no other servers which can accept iMessage messages and forward them back and forth with Apple's server. (Only in a lossy manner, via MMS.) It is not a federated protocol. Federation promotes competition. Preventing 3rd party access by any mechanism stifles competition. If iMessage were federated, as in, Beeper could host their own servers which federate with Apple's, I think more of us would side with Apple here.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoDon't all Verizon sim cards, by definition, rely on Verizon's servers? How can they be federated? i.e. If every last Verizon server is shut down then they become small plastic bricks. It wouldn't matter how many agreements have been signed with AT&T, T-mobile, etc...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- haswell 3y agoThe two legal factors discussed during the first round of reporting were: - The explicit carve-out of reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability in the DMCA - The European Digital Markets Act, which will require chat networks to provide interoperability What's not clear to me is how relevant the DMCA is here, and/or if a ToS can supersede these laws. > I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it There is a whole ecosystem of products built on this premise. Quicken, for example, relies on a library of reverse engineered banking interfaces to automate interaction and data aggregation of one's accounts. Search and LLM products are also built on the consumption of other people's data and then charging for it. I'm not arguing that Apple is ok with this, but that as a model, it's not uncommon.
- GeekyBear 3y ago> The European Digital Markets Act, which will require chat networks to provide interoperability iMessage (and Bing) don't have a large enough user base in the EU to fall under the DMA. https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-european-union-commission-digital-markets-act-dma https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/6/23861030/imessage-bing-eur...
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoThat's just what MS and Apple claim. > Both Microsoft and Apple have reportedly argued that Bing and iMessage aren’t popular enough in Europe to warrant being covered by the DMA, despite the commission claiming they meet the required thresholds.
- GeekyBear 3y agoNo. It's the initial finding of the EU. > A report from Bloomberg on Wednesday suggests that the EU will rule in Apple's favor. Sources familiar with the matter cited by the report claim that officials are "leaning toward the reprieve" for iMessage, given its relative lack of popularity in the EU marketplace. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/imessage-may-not-forced-open-135206026.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/imessage-may-not-forced-open-...
- kevingadd 3y agoThe people who buy Apple products or subscribe to Apple services already paid for Apple's infrastructure and services. Beeper (theoretically) exists to allow Android users to communicate with iPhone users, so one of the two users in the conversation already gave Apple hundreds of dollars. They'll survive.
- jmye 3y agoOh come on. Android users can “communicate” just fine over MMS/SMS with iPhone users. Images work. Text works. Beeper exists solely to make Android users feel better about the color of their bubble and their social standing thereof.
- barnabee 3y ago> I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it, They may not be ok with it but they should be forced to allow and not attempt to thwart "adversarial interoperability", on which the computing and the internet were built!
- burkaman 3y agoHow do you feel about Apple reverse-engineering Microsoft Office so they could make iWork compatible with it, and then charging money for it?
- evilduck 3y agoOffice uses open, if insanely overly complicated, document formats. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-docx/b839fe1f-e1ca-4fa6-8c26-5954d0abbccd https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards...
- pxmpxm 3y agoBetter analogy would be iWork 365 where Apple reverse engineers the back end to do the cloud storage and collaboration all using MSFT's azure boxes. And charge money for it.
- dqv 3y agoMicrosoft365 has an API and therefore doesn’t need to be reverse engineered. You’re making a great point for having Apple open up the iMessage platform or at least meet consumer demand for access to iMessage on non-Apple devices. They can even charge for it - the going rate looks to be $1.99 a month.
- pxmpxm 3y agoAre you actually making an argument that microsoft would open up and license the 365 back end, for free, to a direct office competitior?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoSome have suggested courts are less willing to enforce "click-wrap" agreements against consumers than they are against corporations. The later might be more likely to read and thus consent. Did Beeper read the Apple ToS. What do you think. Perhaps the outcome of challenging Apple's ToS depends on where the case would be filed. For example, 5th Cir would favour Beeper as it follows Vault v Quaid. 1st Cir follows Bowers v Baystate and would favour Apple. 8th Cir has followed Bowers (See Davidson, the Blizzard case). "[P]rivate parties are free to contractually forego the limited ability to reverse engineer a software product under the exemptions of the Copyright Act[,]" Bowers v. Baystate Techs, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317, 132526 (Fed. Cir. 2003) But note that in Bowers, Baystate did not actually attempt to plead fair use or copyright misuse. It only focused on preemption. The Bowers case is used to argue against reverse engineering as fair use but Baystate never asserted that defense. The so-called "tech" companies and their supporters would prefer Bowers to apply everywhere. But it does not apply everywhere. What is more interesting than the copyright issues, IMHO, is the idea of an antitrust illegality defense to breach of a software license. From 1996, https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v09/09HarvJLTech237.pdf https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v09/09HarvJLTech23... Samuelson and Scotchmer mentioned it again in 2002. "While antitrust and competition law may regulate antireverse engineering clauses in an appropriate case or context, no such claim has as yet been brought, let alone sustained." https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/200_ay258cck.pdf https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/200_ay258cck.pdf
- EMIRELADERO 3y agoI'm surprised that the defendants in the Bowers case didn't raise a public policy argument. Wouldn't the reverse-engineering exceptions both to copyright (made by common law precedent through fair use) and the DMCA (section 1201(f)) be strong evidence of such a public policy position? Were it otherwise, any copyright holder could lock their software behind an EULA or similar agreement that prohibits reverse-engineering and foreclose what would otherwise be fully legal research into the non-copyrightable expression/systems/methods in the software code.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fennecbutt 3y agoNintendo tried to do this with game boy games and got told by the courts to shove it. Which is right, it's only good for consumers if Apple just sucks it up and accepts that they need to support stuff like this. They're happy enough to use wifi/Bluetooth/other comms specs. Vendor lock in special cult club effect I guess. It's just a phone...