Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

beeper.com

661–670 of 902 posts

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#661
post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever received C&D for your work? There's a big problem of OSS projects being TOS-trolled by billion dollar companies and having to shut down out of fear.

What would they demand they cease doing? Publishing software? If the use of this software is against their rights in some way, the end users running it would be the ones in violation. Publishing original software is protected expression.

This was tried by apple. https://www.engadget.com/apple-drops-its-lawsuit-against-a-m...

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#662
post #661
post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would they demand they cease doing? Publishing software? If the use of this software is against their rights in some way, the end users running it would be the ones in violation. Publishing original software is protected expression.

This was tried by apple. https://www.engadget.com/apple-drops-its-lawsuit-against-a-m...

Emulation software isn’t wholly original as it needs firmware and software from the device so emulated. An iPhone emulator with no bootrom and no iOS isn’t very useful.

An open source client for an API need not include any non-original works.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#663

Beeper is a really cool idea by some cool people (people behind the Pebble smartwatch) but I've resisted using it for fear of bans. I don't want my Slack/Discord/Instagram/AppleId/etc to get banned for using something not allowed under the terms of service. How are people who use Beeper dealing with this? Are you just using dummy/test accounts that you don't care about or are you just rolling the dice. I would like t…

Since they've been on waitlist-mode for several years, it's not currently easy to try out in any case.

Invite: https://refer.beeper.com/7Wh0gt

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#664
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the developer but I also looked at that binary to help the project at some point. It's taken straight from OS X 10.8 (more precisely from an Update Combo on their download portal). It's calling NACInit, NACKeyEstablishment and NACSign functions from it (which have no entry points but with reverse engineering the offsets have been figured out). They are themselves relying on OS X system functions to get devic…

If that becomes a problem and they get enough funding, I'm sure they can spend a few days / weeks reverse engineering the functions they need. At this point it just needs some effort, not some crazy research capabilities.

Given that these are cryptography-related functions, I feel like symbolic execution could yield the actual algorithm they use.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#665

It is normal these days to have login with buttons BEFORE the subscription info? I mean I wouldn't even try to download if I knew there was a monthly subscription fee. Thanks

Right? I felt like it was some kind of trick to at least get your email before showing you the app actually is a subscription only app.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently paid >$1000 for the privilege of access to iMessage when switching from Android to iPhone. I'd have been _much_ happier staying on my preferred operating system and paying $24/yr. (iMessage has, for me, actually been worth it - but still, I frequently find myself wishing that something like Beeper Mini existed so I could go back to android).

What do you prefer about Android?

Long list, I've been meaning to write a blog post.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#668
post #580

Did you get permission from Apple to connect to their servers? Google Play does not allow apps to connect to 3rd party APIs without consent. The relevant policy can be found at: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... "We don’t allow apps that interfere with, disrupt, damage, or access in an unauthorized manner the user’s device, other devices or computers, servers, networks, application progr…

Is this specifically unauthorized, though? The user is permitted to use Apple's services, and Apple has, as far as I know, not announced that third party apps may not use their services.

Even Signal pitches a fit if you use a third-party app with their servers. It's a common (and unfortunate) practice.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#669
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if Beeper keeps it up they’re likely running afoul of the CFAA in the US. The EU doesn’t rule the world. They haven’t forced iMessage open yet, and Apple is clearly trying to avoid it with their announced RCS support. I don’t think things are as far along as you do.

Can you explain more about the suspected CFAA violation?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.

The CFAA says that "having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [is a federal crime]".

The courts held that 3Taps scraping the Craigslist website was accessing a computer and exceeding authorized access because it should have been obvious to 3taps that craigslist did not authorize them to scrape their website (namely from some IP blocks and a C&D letter), so it stands to reason that talking to the iMessage API from a non-apple device is a federal crime. Apple has only authorized apple-devices to talk to their API, it should be incredibly obvious to all of us that this is not being done with apple's authorization, hence crime.

In case it's not clear, I think the CFAA is a rather poorly thought out law since "authorized access" seems like it could be as vague as a ToS violation, which means it escalates things that seem more like civil matters into federal crimes.

Re: Show HN: Beeper Mini – iMessage client for Android

#670
post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we’ve learned very clearly over the last 20 years of commercialization of spam, that never works. The only tractable way to fight fraud and abuse is to impose cost.

The massive prevalence of physical junk mail would refute your argument that even a significant per message cost would dissuade abuse.

Scope and scale is important here, the amount of junk mail from business interests outside of my immediate region is not very high. If physical mail were free and you could send it from anywhere in the world, junk mail would be so much worse than it is. You couldn't run a lot of internet scams at the costs of physical mail and be profitable.
Post reply on HN