5 ms·

This has been my gut feeling about the entire thing and I don't understand so much about: a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here b) How so many

This has been my gut feeling about the entire thing and I don't understand so much about: a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here b) How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move Apple's iMessage service is a privately owned, privately hosted, closed source protocol and always has been. You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise. That's just... what it is. You can dislike that, you can think it's anti-competitive and you might even have a case for it, I guess we'll see, but insofar as I can see it: iMessage is a closed source, walled garden, private protocol Apple uses to permit a higher tier of text messaging for owners of iDevices. There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices, and there's even less reason to be surprised in the slightest that, when a company was offering services to bypass those requirements and use the API without meeting Apple's requirements, that Apple would shut that shit right down.

Nextgrid 3y ago
> You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction. > There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. > The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service. > Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files? I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. Edit: I'm being rate limited: > This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones. > and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service. > Interoperability should be a given IT IS.
  - topato 3y ago
    But what about the companies that make the machinery that you produce software for? Shouldn't they have the right to prevent you from accessing their built hardware and force companies to get service from them directly? Obviously I don't know what your company does exactly, but it and Microsoft are both very bad examples. This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue, imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe, and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform. Interoperability should be a given and it's closer to a Ma Bell situation This is starkly similar to the tweaking of antimonopoly practices that needed to be hammered out back in the 80s to break up Bell.
    - doix 3y ago
      > imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe Is it really used by more than half in Europe? Obviously anecdotal, but I have never encountered it. Almost everyone is on WhatsApp/Telegram/FB messenger or some other non-SMS based app.
  - closewith 3y ago
    > You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. Corporate policies aren't absolute. It doesn't matter if a provider dislikes the manner in which it's services are used if that use is found to be protected by law, which is obviously what Beeper is hoping for.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office Obviously the formats have already been reverse-engineered long ago. But the world you describe and wish for, such reverse-engineering would be illegal, thus those formats would never have been reversed & implemented in third-party software. > our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money If your client software is able to open the files then it means the key must be on the user's computer (in your application binary?) or fetched at runtime over the internet and a user can technically make their own software to obtain this key and decrypt the file. > What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. What if the user pays for your software (and its implicit access to any online key server that serves the cryptographic keys) but instead uses their own replica that mimics this software? That's what's happening when an Apple device owner (having paid for access to iMessage) decides to use Beeper. Both you and Apple still make money in this case. Should this still be illegal? > you are free to use a competitor's product I'm not sure what the nature of your product is, but this gets murky if your product relies on proprietary file formats or centralized services like iMessage. In this case, using a competitor would be inconvenient or might be outright impossible if everyone else is using this software and expects you to be able to open their files or interoperate with them. Why should we allow arbitrary roadblocks to interoperability that don't accomplish anything beyond strengthening monopolies and restricting end-user choice and convenience? It would be fair if Apple argued for a reasonable fee to allow iMessage access to non-Apple-device owners but they've never made such argument.
haswell 3y ago
> How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not? HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc. What is surprising to me is the growing number of comments that are defending Apple and framing the creation of an unofficial 3rd party client using terms like “flagrant misuse”. Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive. I do think that trying to charge for the service was a questionable decision.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not? I mean, I think using that code would be a risky proposition at best that might earn you as a user the ire of Apple, and I wouldn't personally do it, but ultimately, showing people how to do a thing, or even providing the executable I don't think itself is a crime. That said, I would also not be remotely surprised if Apple figured out how to block it's access to it's API's too. And, if there is money involved or if the breach is egregious enough in some other way, I don't think it would be altogether unexpected for the authors to find themselves in some legal hot water too, and/or for Github to receive a takedown notice. > HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc. Which I respect on the whole, but the key difference here is you are not just using your computer/smartphone, you are using Apple's computers too. That's where I find the disconnect. Each time Beeper Mini connects to those servers it is using compute resources, however infinitesimal, to perform it's functionality: functionality that is not supported, that fundamentally, Apple is now paying for. And you can justify that any way you want, but at the end of the day, that's stealing. And Apple is perfectly within their rights, IMO, to block it and if they feel they have a case, to pursue it legally afterwards. > Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive. And if you're talking about open protocols or API's, you have my support 100%! I've done some of that kind of work. But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.

Nextgrid 3y ago

> You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction. > There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. > The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service. > Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files? I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. Edit: I'm being rate limited: > This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones. > and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service. > Interoperability should be a given IT IS.
- topato 3y ago
  But what about the companies that make the machinery that you produce software for? Shouldn't they have the right to prevent you from accessing their built hardware and force companies to get service from them directly? Obviously I don't know what your company does exactly, but it and Microsoft are both very bad examples. This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue, imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe, and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform. Interoperability should be a given and it's closer to a Ma Bell situation This is starkly similar to the tweaking of antimonopoly practices that needed to be hammered out back in the 80s to break up Bell.
  - doix 3y ago
    > imsg is used by roughly half of Americans, more than half in Europe Is it really used by more than half in Europe? Obviously anecdotal, but I have never encountered it. Almost everyone is on WhatsApp/Telegram/FB messenger or some other non-SMS based app.
- closewith 3y ago
  > You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. Corporate policies aren't absolute. It doesn't matter if a provider dislikes the manner in which it's services are used if that use is found to be protected by law, which is obviously what Beeper is hoping for.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office Obviously the formats have already been reverse-engineered long ago. But the world you describe and wish for, such reverse-engineering would be illegal, thus those formats would never have been reversed & implemented in third-party software. > our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money If your client software is able to open the files then it means the key must be on the user's computer (in your application binary?) or fetched at runtime over the internet and a user can technically make their own software to obtain this key and decrypt the file. > What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. What if the user pays for your software (and its implicit access to any online key server that serves the cryptographic keys) but instead uses their own replica that mimics this software? That's what's happening when an Apple device owner (having paid for access to iMessage) decides to use Beeper. Both you and Apple still make money in this case. Should this still be illegal? > you are free to use a competitor's product I'm not sure what the nature of your product is, but this gets murky if your product relies on proprietary file formats or centralized services like iMessage. In this case, using a competitor would be inconvenient or might be outright impossible if everyone else is using this software and expects you to be able to open their files or interoperate with them. Why should we allow arbitrary roadblocks to interoperability that don't accomplish anything beyond strengthening monopolies and restricting end-user choice and convenience? It would be fair if Apple argued for a reasonable fee to allow iMessage access to non-Apple-device owners but they've never made such argument.

haswell 3y ago

> How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not? HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc. What is surprising to me is the growing number of comments that are defending Apple and framing the creation of an unofficial 3rd party client using terms like “flagrant misuse”. Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive. I do think that trying to charge for the service was a questionable decision.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> So that I better understand your position, would you feel differently if Beeper Mini was just a GitHub repo hosting the code to an unofficial 3rd party iMessage client? Why or why not? I mean, I think using that code would be a risky proposition at best that might earn you as a user the ire of Apple, and I wouldn't personally do it, but ultimately, showing people how to do a thing, or even providing the executable I don't think itself is a crime. That said, I would also not be remotely surprised if Apple figured out how to block it's access to it's API's too. And, if there is money involved or if the breach is egregious enough in some other way, I don't think it would be altogether unexpected for the authors to find themselves in some legal hot water too, and/or for Github to receive a takedown notice. > HN as a community is made up of quite a few people who care about interoperability, the right to use our computers as we see fit, the joy of building solutions to solve problems that other people won’t solve, etc. Which I respect on the whole, but the key difference here is you are not just using your computer/smartphone, you are using Apple's computers too. That's where I find the disconnect. Each time Beeper Mini connects to those servers it is using compute resources, however infinitesimal, to perform it's functionality: functionality that is not supported, that fundamentally, Apple is now paying for. And you can justify that any way you want, but at the end of the day, that's stealing. And Apple is perfectly within their rights, IMO, to block it and if they feel they have a case, to pursue it legally afterwards. > Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t expect Apple not to fight this, but I think we need to walk back the hyperbole a bit and consider how utterly normal it is for developers to try to build their own clients when the official options either suck or are too restrictive. And if you're talking about open protocols or API's, you have my support 100%! I've done some of that kind of work. But you can't just use API's that are publicly available but otherwise closed to you just because you want to. That's textbook misuse.