Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#611

Post by lxgr »

rezonant wrote: post #553
lxgr wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since Mini was entirely client-side it would be feasible for a free version to exist. It uses a server for bridging APNs to GCM. Sure, that could be maintained on a donation basis, but it’s not completely infrastructure-free in any case.

If you think about it, it's actually not even a technological requirement. It's plenty possible to use an Android system service which maintains a connection for Beeper Mini persistently from the phone. After all that's what GCM does too. Yes, it would require backgrounding permissions, but that is something pretty justifiable for a messaging app, and when using the right UI practices, you can explain this to the use…

Is this actually still possible without (or even with) a foreground notification? I thought Google clamped down on that practice a while ago, since it increases power, data, and memory usage.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#612

Post by acka »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #392
empyrrhicist wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, totally understandable that this would be blocked within our legal system... but its a proof of concept that it would not be burdensome for apple to enable interoperability. We should be demanding support for open standards for messaging from mono/duopolists like Apple/Google.

Yearly reminder that a long time ago, chat services used XMPP and we were on the verge of having GChat interoperability with FB messages and I think Yahoo or something similar at the time. None of them really wanted to do it for business reasons, so they could “add value” (and charge for it)….same reason RSS has fallen out of favor (no good way to inject ads and tracking). IRC and Matrix still exist.

There is hope. The European Union's Digital Markets Act allows new messaging platforms to demand interoperability with the existing walled gardens. All it takes is for other jurisdictions to follow suit.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#613

Post by nani8ot »

LargeTomato wrote: post #589
haswell wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this was a meme at some point in the past, it’s a very real issue now. I know multiple people who have switched to iPhone just for iMessage. And the kids these days won’t accept anything but the blue bubble. This is no longer a meme. Or if it is, it’s also real.

I switched because people think android users are poor and I don't want to signal to others that I am poor.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Once everyone has an iPhone to not be perceived as poor, the only people still using Android will actually not be able to afford an iPhone.

At least it sounds like that's what happens across the ocean.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#614

Post by saintfire »

jeroenhd wrote: post #259
georgespencer wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside that I count at least two glaring examples from this list[^1] in your reply, I suspect Apple would argue that it is in fact _solely_ preoccupied with its users' security: that's why iMessage is end to end encrypted and Apple does not offer 2FA / OTPs via SMS. Apple does not generally try to mitigate security issues which are beyond its control (e.g. non-Apple devices, protocols). [^1]: https://en.wikipe…

> and Apple does not offer 2FA / OTPs via SMS Last time I checked, Apple still used security questions any hacker can get answers to on Facebook. I'm not all that confident about Apple's approach to account security. Apple has the ability to control security issues on Android: they can release an Android app, like every other E2EE messenger out there. Apple chooses not to, and it's their choice, of course. It doesn't…

> Apple has the ability to control security issues on Android: they can release an Android app, like every other E2EE messenger out there.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this mentioned more. They could even make a green (or whatever colour they wish) iMessage bubble to denote that it is not from an Apple device. Seems like it solves all the problems people present with E2EE/iMessage with Android interop. On the issue of spam, which I feel is just grasping at straws, You could allow blocking unknown non-Apple iMessages by default. Unless I am mistaken, this really only leaves the walled-garden as the thing that stops Apple from implementing something like this.

In fact, you could even only allow Android iMessage conversations that include at least one genuine Apple device. This combats the argument that they shouldn't have to give resources away to Android users for free. This would be added-value to their own customers by providing more streamlined messaging with their Android contacts. Such as situations where group chats are forced to swap to MMS for a single Android user, sending pictures/video to a friend, etc.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#615

Post by perryizgr8 »

russelg wrote: post #336

Where is the hacker spirit here? The number of Apple apologists that have crawled out to say "see? I told you so!!" is saddening. It is a bit dicey when you're charging for it, but since Mini was entirely client-side it would be feasible for a free version to exist. Apple claims iMessage is E2EE, do we have proof they aren't siphoning the messages from the client once it's been decrypted? The level of trust we have t…

> Where is the hacker spirit here?

Kind of silly to buy apple devices (especially iphone) and expect to be able to hack their services. Apple is the last place to look for hacker friendly products. Ffs you can't even run your own software on an iPhone. Spend your hacker energy somewhere worthwhile, on devices and platforms that welcome that kind of tinkering (or at least tolerate it).

There are so many relatively open messaging services. Telegram has a rich API and bots framework. Much more hacker like to build something interesting on that. People trying to force imessage are just fighting a battle that is already lost. Why spend time and energy on something that will perpetuate closed ecosystems even if they succeed?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#617

Post by zxt_tzx »

jareklupinski wrote: post #535
toastercat wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

youtube-dl, NewPipe, and uBlock Origin exist solely for the purpose of empowering the individual, yet they are constantly attacked on HN as being tools used unfairly to harm Google's profitability. Open-source projects like Matrix, PeerTube, Mastodon, are built to be free and open-source for the benefit of end-users and lack of vendor lockin. Yet each is derided on HackerNews for not being enough like their corporate…

> this site's audience is mostly folk who like the status quos set by FAANG something something someone's salary and getting them to see something

”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#618

Post by geodel »

russelg wrote: post #336

Where is the hacker spirit here? The number of Apple apologists that have crawled out to say "see? I told you so!!" is saddening. It is a bit dicey when you're charging for it, but since Mini was entirely client-side it would be feasible for a free version to exist. Apple claims iMessage is E2EE, do we have proof they aren't siphoning the messages from the client once it's been decrypted? The level of trust we have t…

Go support the hackers then. Here you seem to be heckling people who don't share your viewpoint.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#619

Post by winterqt »

commandersaki wrote: post #381
llm_nerd wrote: post #290

This was the obvious outcome. People were being willfully blind about how this "hack" works. Using an exfiltrated binary they used its blackbox functions to perform a sort of device attestation using ripped Apple device identifiers. Clearly Apple simply needs to blacklist any device attestation that this service uses, which is obviously trivial. These aren't just RNGs they're fabricating, they're sets of legitimate A…

Not disagreeing, but I do not think Beeper Mini used the binary method for registering accounts. I think that was the way to do it for non-mobile devices that couldn't receive SMS, but there is also a way to register an account using SMS which I believe Beeper Mini uses.

I believe that you are correct: https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#620

Post by mlindner »

toastercat wrote: post #478
runnerup wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember another post that was very well-received where an individual hacker wrote his own homebrew iMessage client for his own personal purposes. HN really liked that! I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interope…

youtube-dl, NewPipe, and uBlock Origin exist solely for the purpose of empowering the individual, yet they are constantly attacked on HN as being tools used unfairly to harm Google's profitability. Open-source projects like Matrix, PeerTube, Mastodon, are built to be free and open-source for the benefit of end-users and lack of vendor lockin. Yet each is derided on HackerNews for not being enough like their corporate…

I can't remember any of those being derided other than Mastodon, which has major issues nothing to do with the fact it's competing with something.
Post reply on HN