13 ms·

The goal I see here is to get media[1] and regulator[2][3] attention on this issue, and to get Apple to clearly state their (anti-consumer) position. I'm sure A

The goal I see here is to get media[1] and regulator[2][3] attention on this issue, and to get Apple to clearly state their (anti-consumer) position. I'm sure Apple employees in every level and department have lost sleep over this. I don't think their expressed surprise is legitimate, but is instead a rhetorical choice to make Apple seem unreasonable. [1]: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/beeper-mini-brings-imessage-to-android-without-your-apple-id/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/beeper-mini-brings-imessage... [2]: https://www.threads.net/@jolingkent/post/C0-zKSPrizx https://www.threads.net/@jolingkent/post/C0-zKSPrizx [3]: https://www.droid-life.com/2023/12/18/lawmakers-suggest-doj-investigate-apple-over-beeper-mini-vs-imessage-battle/ https://www.droid-life.com/2023/12/18/lawmakers-suggest-doj-...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zwily 3y ago
You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Employees, no. Executives, absolutely. Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening. Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies. Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    > Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
  - amazingman 3y ago
    >Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place "Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Nobody is MiTM'ing anything. Individuals willingly provide their credentials and only get access to their own messages - the same messages they can voluntarily take screenshots of & publish by logging into a real Apple device. Furthermore, Beeper's app runs entirely on-device with an optional cloud-hosted bridge that may not even have access to the plaintext.
      - amazingman 3y ago
        Beeper's app is the MiTM. I already have to trust Apple not to abuse their privileged position re: e2e iMessage. Now I have to trust Beeper, Apple, and Apple has to continuously trust/verify Beeper. Privacy and interop are fundamentally in opposition here, and I find Beeper's PR approach regarding this to be misleading at best.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        Beeper is as much of an MITM as your e-mail client is one, or your FTP client, or your SSH client, or your browser. Should those also be frowned upon? After all, they both implement a cryptographic protocol and have access to the plaintext. You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS. The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
        amazingman 3y ago
        Email isn't end to end encrypted. FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client. Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant. They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code). CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for. The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone. Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
      - turquoisevar 3y ago
        Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
        3y ago
  - sgustard 3y ago
    Apple is a massive company that swats away pesky threats all the time. It's like Exxon executives losing sleep over a guy with a hose siphoning gas from the corner station. From a PR standpoint they won't dignify it with a response of any kind, other than to quietly crush it to dust.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Executives, absolutely not. Apple is so opinionated and principled. Have you seen the emails that came out during recent trials where they state so clearly how much they deserve 30% of all commerce on their devices? They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      It's not about what they believe, whether legitimately or not. It's about how the regulatory environment will react to their actions and statements. The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions. This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.
_Microft 3y ago
As an iPhone user, I‘m pretty happy how Apple dealt with this so far. I would hate to get spammed on iMessage and knowing that my messages are rendered exactly as intended on the receiver’s side is reassuring. Calling this anti-consumer is rather subjective.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless. The fake spam complaint is addressed in the article.
  - _Microft 3y ago
    > Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless. Sure and it is absolutely obvious on my side because these contacts don’t show blue messages. Take that away and the situation turns worse because now I‘d have to guess. Edit: don’t get me wrong - I don‘t send broken messages, I just contact them on other messengers instead.
    - sanex 3y ago
      It's obvious to you but not obvious to your average iPhone user which is why I get videos with 3 pixels sent to me repeatedly. On the flip side I can mms videos with acceptable resolution just fine. It's all just to try and keep people in the system, not because it's a better user experience.
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
        Bullshit. AT&T limits MMS videos to 1 MB, Verizon to between 1 MB and 3.5 MB depending on the sender, T-Mobile/Sprint 1 MB to 3 MB depending. If you're getting "acceptable resolution" H.264 videos they're being sent over RCS.
  - BlackjackCF 3y ago
catlover76 3y ago
[dead]
lhamil64 3y ago
I guess I just don't understand why it makes Apple look bad here. My understanding is that Beeper reverse engineered their APIs and people expect Apple to just accept it? How is it much different from blocking a hacker who's poking around to find holes? And to be clear, I use Android and I do think the whole iMessage situation is silly. I just don't get how anyone could see an unofficial iMessage client going any differently.
- rakoo 3y ago
  Beeper Mini bas a net positive impact on society, contrary to hackers finding holes. The only reason it's not possible to use iMessage with Android is that it's not profitable, and it's good to remind Spoke zealots that no, Apple isn't here for you.
- s3p 3y ago
  From the article: >This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice
  - biftek 3y ago
    How do they lock customers in? There are plenty of messaging apps from other tech conglomerates, that no one chose to use alternatives in the U.S. is not Apple's problem. The market spoke.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      By going out of their way to make the experience worse when texting people who don't use iMessage.
      - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zwily 3y ago

You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…

Nextgrid 3y ago
Employees, no. Executives, absolutely. Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening. Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies. Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).
- nwiswell 3y ago
  > Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
- amazingman 3y ago
  >Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place "Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Nobody is MiTM'ing anything. Individuals willingly provide their credentials and only get access to their own messages - the same messages they can voluntarily take screenshots of & publish by logging into a real Apple device. Furthermore, Beeper's app runs entirely on-device with an optional cloud-hosted bridge that may not even have access to the plaintext.
    - amazingman 3y ago
      Beeper's app is the MiTM. I already have to trust Apple not to abuse their privileged position re: e2e iMessage. Now I have to trust Beeper, Apple, and Apple has to continuously trust/verify Beeper. Privacy and interop are fundamentally in opposition here, and I find Beeper's PR approach regarding this to be misleading at best.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        Beeper is as much of an MITM as your e-mail client is one, or your FTP client, or your SSH client, or your browser. Should those also be frowned upon? After all, they both implement a cryptographic protocol and have access to the plaintext. You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS. The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
        amazingman 3y ago
        Email isn't end to end encrypted. FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client. Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant. They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code). CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for. The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone. Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
      - 3y ago
- sgustard 3y ago
  Apple is a massive company that swats away pesky threats all the time. It's like Exxon executives losing sleep over a guy with a hose siphoning gas from the corner station. From a PR standpoint they won't dignify it with a response of any kind, other than to quietly crush it to dust.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Executives, absolutely not. Apple is so opinionated and principled. Have you seen the emails that came out during recent trials where they state so clearly how much they deserve 30% of all commerce on their devices? They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    It's not about what they believe, whether legitimately or not. It's about how the regulatory environment will react to their actions and statements. The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions. This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.

_Microft 3y ago

As an iPhone user, I‘m pretty happy how Apple dealt with this so far. I would hate to get spammed on iMessage and knowing that my messages are rendered exactly as intended on the receiver’s side is reassuring. Calling this anti-consumer is rather subjective.

Larrikin 3y ago
Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless. The fake spam complaint is addressed in the article.
- _Microft 3y ago
  > Your messages are all screwed up when delivered to anyone not using an iPhone. Pictures and movies are basically destroyed and worthless. Sure and it is absolutely obvious on my side because these contacts don’t show blue messages. Take that away and the situation turns worse because now I‘d have to guess. Edit: don’t get me wrong - I don‘t send broken messages, I just contact them on other messengers instead.
  - sanex 3y ago
    It's obvious to you but not obvious to your average iPhone user which is why I get videos with 3 pixels sent to me repeatedly. On the flip side I can mms videos with acceptable resolution just fine. It's all just to try and keep people in the system, not because it's a better user experience.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Bullshit. AT&T limits MMS videos to 1 MB, Verizon to between 1 MB and 3.5 MB depending on the sender, T-Mobile/Sprint 1 MB to 3 MB depending. If you're getting "acceptable resolution" H.264 videos they're being sent over RCS.
- BlackjackCF 3y ago

catlover76 3y ago

[dead]

lhamil64 3y ago

I guess I just don't understand why it makes Apple look bad here. My understanding is that Beeper reverse engineered their APIs and people expect Apple to just accept it? How is it much different from blocking a hacker who's poking around to find holes? And to be clear, I use Android and I do think the whole iMessage situation is silly. I just don't get how anyone could see an unofficial iMessage client going any differently.

rakoo 3y ago
Beeper Mini bas a net positive impact on society, contrary to hackers finding holes. The only reason it's not possible to use iMessage with Android is that it's not profitable, and it's good to remind Spoke zealots that no, Apple isn't here for you.
s3p 3y ago
From the article: >This might be true if Apple was a small company. But they aren’t. They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate). Large companies that dominate their industry must follow a different set of rules that govern fair competition, harm to consumers and barriers to innovation. We are not experts in antitrust law, but Apple’s actions have already caught the attention of US Congress and the Department of Justice
- biftek 3y ago
  How do they lock customers in? There are plenty of messaging apps from other tech conglomerates, that no one chose to use alternatives in the U.S. is not Apple's problem. The market spoke.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    By going out of their way to make the experience worse when texting people who don't use iMessage.
    - 3y ago