3 ms·

There 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, bu

by bicx 3y ago

There 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 ago
So, 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 ago
  Yes. 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Lawmakers 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.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  Beeper isn't "reselling infrastructure" they're building a compatible clone of Apple's infrastructure. And yes, a variety of companies have reverse engineered and copied Amazon S3 for example. The difference is that Apple's business model is built around preventing you from communicating with iMessage while Amazon is happy to let you copy things from anywhere into or out of your Amazon S3 bucket (for a price.)
  - fh9302 3y ago
    This is not correct. The Beeper client directly connects to Apple's servers while bypassing authorization checks through serial number spoofing. They did not build their own infrastructure based on reverse engineering iMessage.
    - lukeschlather 3y ago
      You have to do that to communicate with iMessage. The infrastructure is the Internet, Apple is just operating a mailbox and the only way to send a letter to that mailbox over the public infrastructure is to bypass the auth check.
naasking 3y ago
> There 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. You mean if a monopoly is created, it should be regulated like a utility. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, not sure what's invalid about this way of thinking.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  The power company is a monopoly because you can only get power from it. iMessage is not a monopoly because you can get messaging service from multiple other providers, and you are not even limited to using iMessage on an iPhone.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    To continue the analogy, you can get utility service from the gas company or water works. The market in question is chat apps for the iMessage network, like Trillium was (is?) for many networks, not just "messaging".
- pxmpxm 3y ago
  That's not how any of that work - monopolies are fine, what gets regulated is anti competitive monopolistic behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
  - naasking 3y ago
    We're talking about about what "should" happen, not what allegedly does happen. There's nothing intrinsically problematic with saying any monopoly should be regulated like a utility, which is what the OP had claimed.

by bicx 3y ago

There 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 ago

So, 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 ago
Yes. 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Lawmakers 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.
lukeschlather 3y ago
Beeper isn't "reselling infrastructure" they're building a compatible clone of Apple's infrastructure. And yes, a variety of companies have reverse engineered and copied Amazon S3 for example. The difference is that Apple's business model is built around preventing you from communicating with iMessage while Amazon is happy to let you copy things from anywhere into or out of your Amazon S3 bucket (for a price.)
- fh9302 3y ago
  This is not correct. The Beeper client directly connects to Apple's servers while bypassing authorization checks through serial number spoofing. They did not build their own infrastructure based on reverse engineering iMessage.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    You have to do that to communicate with iMessage. The infrastructure is the Internet, Apple is just operating a mailbox and the only way to send a letter to that mailbox over the public infrastructure is to bypass the auth check.

naasking 3y ago

> There 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. You mean if a monopoly is created, it should be regulated like a utility. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, not sure what's invalid about this way of thinking.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
The power company is a monopoly because you can only get power from it. iMessage is not a monopoly because you can get messaging service from multiple other providers, and you are not even limited to using iMessage on an iPhone.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  To continue the analogy, you can get utility service from the gas company or water works. The market in question is chat apps for the iMessage network, like Trillium was (is?) for many networks, not just "messaging".
pxmpxm 3y ago
That's not how any of that work - monopolies are fine, what gets regulated is anti competitive monopolistic behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
- naasking 3y ago
  We're talking about about what "should" happen, not what allegedly does happen. There's nothing intrinsically problematic with saying any monopoly should be regulated like a utility, which is what the OP had claimed.