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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#841

Post by rjzzleep »

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.

Yeah and how did that work out for google? Hangouts was their most popular product and most of my friends were using it. Incredibly stupid management decisions right there.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#842

Post by mlrtime »

keepamovin wrote: post #682
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…

I like/love Apple, but it's not really about hacker spirit. I think Steve and Steve were at the start, for sure. But then, it's like Steve figured out how to "evolve" hacker spirit into a business model. And not just any business model: but a totalitarian vertically integrated model. I mean, fabulously successful and don't let the negative political connotations of totalitarian offend you here, it's but a minor jab,…

Not just that but it is no longer Steve's company (If he were alive). It is now a multinational public company with shareholders, employees and 1000's of vendors (and their employees, etc...)

It is all but required for a company of this size to take action in this way.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#844

Post by throw310822 »

doubledash wrote: post #838
throw310822 wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, why don't you force them to use Whatsapp (or Signal, or whatever) to contact you? Get an app that rejects by default SMSes coming from certain numbers. They want to text you at all? They need to use Whatsapp, otherwise they can go fuck themselves. (It worked for me when a friend wanted to force me to contact him on Telegram rather than Whatsapp- I resisted for weeks but at the end I gave in). Once…

Is this a legitimate question? No one is going to download an app and use it to message one guy.

No one? I did. Normal, if you really care about that guy. In any case, the app is free, what does it cost you? Plus, the more people do it, the easier is for everyone to move to an app that works for everyone.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#845

Post by mlrtime »

jlarocco wrote: post #584
dmillar wrote: post #65

As usual, Gruber was right on the money. Via Threads yesterday: "My prediction is that Apple will make changes—fixing bugs and/or closing loopholes—that break Beeper Mini. It’s untenable that there’s unsanctioned client software for a messaging platform for which privacy and security are a primary feature. It’s a very nice app, remarkably clever, and for now works like a charm, but if Apple wanted an iMessage client…

His first sentence about privacy and security is nonsense, but his second sentence hits the nail on the head. If the richest company in the world wanted their chat app to run on Android, it would by now. It's strange Apple doesn't sell an iMessage Android app, but I'm sure they've had somebody do the math and found out that it's more money for Apple in the long run if they don't.

Look no further than blackberry... Their days were always numbered as the only reason to keep it is the messaging (and a bit the keyboard).

Another theme here is BBM (Bloomberg Messaging). People/Companies pay BB five figures per year just to get BBM. Why would they ever release a messaging app outside of the terminal. They will die before this happens.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#846

Post by password4321 »

namdnay wrote: post #753
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…

Interestingly enough, there are companies out there making a business of doing this with WhatsApp! I have no idea why Meta isn’t cracking down in it, it seems absolutely insane https://www.telemessage.com/mobile-archiver/whatsapp-archive... It’s literally a hacked WhatsApp binary (that logs all your messages) that they sell to corporate clients…

https://twitter.com/LiamCottle/status/1406616490783117322

Snapchat as a service is no more. But there may be other options:

https://github.com/rhunk/SnapEnhance

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#847

Post by [deleted] »

gnicholas wrote: post #88
corobo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beeper (not mini) is already a company - it's an app that aggregates the various other networks friends and family insist on using. WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Telegram, Instagram, etc. Been using it a while now, pretty good. This was a proof of concept to expand that app, it's not the entire company

What's the pricing model? I would think that many people would not be potential customers because the vast majority of their networks are on a single platform (whatsapp or messages), or because they don't really care if messages live in 2 different places. I could imagine paying a one-time fee for something like this, but I assume the ongoing upkeep required would not work with such a model.

[deleted]

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#848

Post by pbhjpbhj »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #707
crazygringo wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the hacker spirit here? The hacker spirit is the fun of reverse engineering. The hacker spirit is about personal use. It's not expecting to be able to turn it into a business , or a popular app, that wouldn't quickly be shut down. That's just common sense. > Myself for example owns a Macbook, but an Android phone. Am I not allowed to use iMessage? I paid the toll. Of course you can. It's sitting there on y…

> Of course you can. It's sitting there on your Mac where you can use it as much as you like. For what? I own a Mac an iPhone and an iPad but iMessage and FaceTime are entirely useless to me because no one I communicate with on a regular basis uses Apple devices. Same thing with various iCloud sharing features. Not using the family sharing offers is entirely uneconomical as well. So what happens is that I gravitate t…

Can you do what people did with Windows in the noughties, install a different OS and get a refund for the OS portion of your purchase (or for the apps portion??), it sounds like you're not using it?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#849

Post by danShumway »

m3kw9 wrote: post #489
oehpr wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to figure out if this post is sarcasm. The first half definitely made me think sarcasm, then the second half... I mean I know some people actually believe this... Then I noticed you said "encryption" instead of "protocol". Breaking an encryption standard is obviously very hard, breaking a protocol is obviously not nearly so hard. On the other hand, taking this stance would be insane given the post we're ta…

I wasn’t being sarcastic, I mean you do know there exist closed source for a reason whatever that is. For Apple to open their protocol would mean your messages sent to 3rd party clients, which means they could sell your messages for ad targeting or worse.

When Apple sends messages via SMS, they are sending your messages to 3rd party clients who could sell your messages for ad targeting or worse. Apple already does this. They already send your messages to random clients who could be spying on you.

It's just that in addition to sending your messages to 3rd party clients that could be stealing the data, Apple goes the extra step to make it even more insecure and also sends your messages completely unencrypted, so that everybody along the path from your device to the 3rd-party client can join in and also read your messages and can also use them for ad targeting or worse.

I'll make the argument that this is strictly worse for security than tolerating an encrypted 3rd-party client (or better, releasing their own 1st-party client rather than relying on SMS).

Post reply on HN