5 ms·
Not really? iMessage isn't a peer-to-peer network. It's dependent on Apple's massive global messaging service. Beeper Mini simply doesn't work without co-opting
by willseth 3y ago
Not really? iMessage isn't a peer-to-peer network. It's dependent on Apple's massive global messaging service. Beeper Mini simply doesn't work without co-opting Apple's servers. Unless you start from the premise that it's okay for one business to siphon off resources from another one without authorization or compensation, then Beeper Mini's solution is technically infeasible.
- regularjack 3y agoBeeper says in the article that they'd be willing to pay Apple for use of their resources.
- sgerenser 3y agoIf I broke into your house and started sleeping on your couch, would you be OK with it as long as I promised to pay you rent?
- seizethegdgap 3y agoIf my house was the size of twelve Tesla Gigafactorys stacked on top of each other, every other door was locked, I could track your movements throughout the house, you had your own private door and couch to sleep on, and I was worth 3 trillion dollars, sure.
- pcthrowaway 3y agoApple is running a hotel, not a house
- endisneigh 3y agoEven if we accept the terrible metaphor it would be a hotel solely for Apple users
- dingnuts 3y agoBeeper says that, but they probably don't have the amount of money that Apple thinks is worth using their services. I'm willing to buy all of your property for $1, but that doesn't give me the right to come use it all, just because in theory there is a price I would pay to have it all.
- ItsABytecode 3y agoSo no 3rd party client software unless the company running the service gives explicit permission? No 3rd party batteries in devices or 3rd party ink cartridges either
- zamadatix 3y agoIt generally doesn't cost e.g. the printer manufacturer anything when you use a 3rd party cartidge. This is separate from the value/loss described above. I still think once you reach a certain size there need to be some interop requirements though but I can also see why many would say these points are unrelated to iMessage.
- sbuk 3y ago> So no 3rd party client software unless the company running the service gives explicit permission? That's about the strength of it. Unless the protocol is open, paid or otherwise. iMessage is closed and undocumented.
- layer8 3y agoAs far as “siphoning off resources” is concerned, it’s not that different from sending emails to an iCloud Mail address, which also makes use of Apple’s servers. Beeper’s purpose is not for Android users to communicate among themselves, but to communicate with Apple users. It’s only natural that this would involve Apple’s servers, as it does with email. This is not to say that this entitles anyone to do so without Apple’s consent, but the argument about resource usage is a straw man here, IMO. This is not about who pays for the servers. Even if Beeper would offer Apple an appropriate portion of their revenue (edit: and they actually do in TFA), Apple would not agree. For Apple, this is about keeping the garden wall up.
- riscy 3y agoThat’s not how email works. Your email provider maintains servers to send and receive messages on your behalf, and your email client checks in with your provider for messages. iMessage not like email.
- layer8 3y agoSending an email will connect to Apple’s SMTP server and make use of Apple’s resources that way. (I happen to run my own mail server that does exactly that.) Yes, receiving iMessage messages presumably works differently from receiving email, in that it’s probably pull rather than push, but that doesn’t change the basic argument.
- rockskon 3y agoThe resources are negligible and not worth mentioning. Chat, encrypted or not, is not an expensive service for Apple to run. There are much better business arguments to make here then "oh no! The 3 trillion dollar company might have slightly more overhead managing text messaging!"
- ddol 3y agoiMessage supports attachments up to 100Mb and groups of 32 participants. It’s certainly more resource intensive than 140 byte SMS.
- rockskon 3y agoSure, but let's not fool ourselves. It isn't exactly a cost center for Apple to run the service nor would it be to scale up usage to include Android users. The cost would be a rounding error to Apple. From a business perspective, I'm much more sympathetic to arguments that iMessage is a perk Apple wants to keep as incentive for more users to switch to Apple's ecosystem and, likely more important, lack of cross-platform interoperability raises the cost for existing Apple users to transition to Android.
- willseth 3y agoAnother way to look at it is that there would always be a fixed cost to operating any global messaging network that would probably be at least a million dollars a year. Piggybacking on Apple's already-built network and focusing only on marginal cost sidesteps the reality that standing up a service that big from scratch is very expensive. Even if iMessage were a decentralized network like email that allows federation, Beeper Mini would be on the hook for a much bigger bill.
- rockskon 3y ago.....? Are you claiming Apple would have to pay fixed costs a second time because new users were added to the already existing service? And are you claiming that 1 million dollars is a lot of money to Apple, a company worth over three million million dollars?
- cyanydeez 3y agowhat do you mean co-opting? Unless you're referring to beeper mini to beeper mini communications, sure, but the majority of the comms are going to Apple users.
- willseth 3y agoOn a messaging network, work must be done to both send and to receive messages. For Beeper Mini to iPhone communication, cost is added to the network, but only one of the devices has paid for the privilege of using it. At best you could argue that Beeper Mini only steals half of the resources needed to communicate with iPhone users.
- alsetmusic 3y agoThis is the one and only argument needed. Everything else can be met with some degree of philosophical discussion and back-and-forth. The bottom line is that Apple didn’t invite them to use their (Apple’s) resources.
- Moomoomoo309 3y agoThe article literally responds to this...they said if Apple wants reasonable (key word, reasonable) compensation for the resources used, they're more than willing to pay that.
- standardUser 3y agoApple could simply sell iMessage. They don't because iMessage is not a product, it's a stealth marketing tool and a wildly successful one.