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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#711

Post by berkes »

martimarkov wrote: post #629
s3p wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course you can. It's sitting there on your Mac As I am sure we all understood, OP meant on their Android.

The the OP should read what he is buying. I have a TV from 95 am I not allowed to watch Netflix? It runs on my phone. Yes the limitations are different but you know them beforehand you just go and say it’s unfair I can’t have everything just the way I want it. You don’t like iMessage - we have plenty of alternatives.

One of these is inherent, dictated by technological abilities. The other virtual, made up and kept in place by abusing a monopoly.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#712

Post by thaumasiotes »

lxgr wrote: post #611
rezonant wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I thought Google clamped down on that practice a while ago, since it increases power, data, and memory usage.

I don't really follow the reasoning. If saving on power, data, and memory usage were more important than the ability to receive messages, it would follow that you were better off carrying around a cinder block than a phone.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#714

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

jocaal wrote: post #654
simondotau wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Epic Games give developers "total freedom" with Unreal Engine or will they insist upon their royalty when applicable? You can read their FAQ and there's literally a section titled "Why does Epic think it’s fair to ask for a percentage of a developer’s product revenue?" What's good for the goose, etc.

5% Royalty past $1m for using the most high tech game engine in the world is a totally reasonable price. Just like 3% for using payment services is totally reasonable. But 30% for using a distribution service is just absurd. The only reason the app stores can charge that much is because of their iron grip on the platforms.

> But 30% for using a distribution service is just absurd.

It’s the market rate. Almost all retail stores online and offline charge 30%.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#715

Post by inquirerGeneral »

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…

[dead]

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#717

Post by pjmlp »

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…

The hacker spirit in relation to Apple was long gone when the Mac Classic was released.

People that imagine otherwise haven't lived through those days.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#718

Post by vezycash »

modeless wrote: post #687
mlindner wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left off the point that that only true if you had iCloud backup of iMessages enabled. If you didn't have iCloud backup enabled then they've always been E2EE.

No, I mentioned that. > If you didn't have iCloud backup enabled then they've always been E2EE. Correction: if you and the person you're messaging both didn't have iCloud backup enabled. And also it's worth noting that Apple forbids you from using any cloud backup system other than theirs.

>Apple forbids you from using any cloud backup solution other than theirs

If this is true, how is that legal?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#719

Post by oynqr »

lxgr wrote: post #611
rezonant wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very possible on Android versions that are closer to AOSP. Shitty vendor forks, probably not.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#720

Post by aryaneja »

modeless wrote: post #687
mlindner wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left off the point that that only true if you had iCloud backup of iMessages enabled. If you didn't have iCloud backup enabled then they've always been E2EE.

No, I mentioned that. > If you didn't have iCloud backup enabled then they've always been E2EE. Correction: if you and the person you're messaging both didn't have iCloud backup enabled. And also it's worth noting that Apple forbids you from using any cloud backup system other than theirs.

You seem to have written a very misleading comment. Apple is offering privacy minded folks two options:

1. Don't turn on iCloud Backups and receive E2EE on your messages 2. Turn on iCloud Backups AND advanced data protection and recieve E2EE on your messages

This is not some kind of nefarious plan on their end. Any user service will have a vulnerability on the user end of back-ups. For instance, Whatsapp backups will also have their keys available to Apple/Google. They need to offer this as for most users, the risk of losing their whole digital lives because they forgot their passwords outweights E2EE. For users who find that important, they have the two options listed above. Sounds like an appropriate trade-off to me.

Post reply on HN