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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#861

Post by norman784 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #848
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

AFAIK macOS is free for people with an Apple device, so this won't work.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#862

Post by nojito »

madeofpalk wrote: post #834
modeless wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple claims iMessage is E2EE, do we have proof they aren't siphoning the messages from the client once it's been decrypted? Actually it is documented by Apple themselves that they receive the encrypted messages and the key to decrypt them when iCloud backup is used (unless you and the person you are messaging have specifically enabled their "advanced data protection" feature). They have decrypted messages in respo…

Not even that - Because Apple controls the key exchange, Apple could also just silenty register another recipient (their own mitm) and siphon off all your messages if they wanted to. You must trust that Apple (or Whatsapp or whatever) does not do that.

This isn’t true because you will get notified that another device was added to your account.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#863

Post by eptcyka »

al_borland wrote: post #295
treyd wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s untenable that there’s unsanctioned client software for a messaging platform for which privacy and security are a primary feature. I don't follow this logic at all. Shouldn't supporting thirdparty clients be desirable if security is a primary feature in the interest of transparency? Especially if the reference client is proprietary and undocumented.

This would be the case if it were a protocol designed to be opened up for use by 3rd party clients. As it stands, this was a clever hack which would undermine the integrity of the system if left in place. Within a few weeks we’d see 100 3rd party iMessage clients, and it would be luck of the draw if the one someone downloads is secure or not.

How is using another client undermining the security of the whole system?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#864

Post by nickez »

The reason gsm, 3g, 4g, sms and so on succeeded was because everyone could implement them. I guess you had to pay license or patent fees, but they are not walled gardens. Phones from different manufacturers and/or different operators can communicate. I'm surprised that "chat"-protocols are allowed to be monopolies by the regulators. The regulators probably don't understand tech.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#866

Post by dcow »

lolinder wrote: post #658
dcow wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on adversarial interoperability In what world is interoperability adversarial? What the actual?

It's adversarial because one party explicitly does not want to interoperate and can be expected to try to break interop. OP didn't coin the term, it looks like it comes from Cory Doctorow [0]. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...

Cory is talking about it in the sense that the tech industry at large said “adversarial interop” is stupid and lobbied against it. It seems HN has lost the plot judging by the number of people on this thread defending Apple engaging in such a slimy practice.

> Big Tech climbed the adversarial ladder and then pulled it up behind them.

Anyway the comment I was replying to was implying that Beeper is the adversary which is not a correct use of the term.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#868

Post by 4oo4 »

dkga wrote: post #867

Seriously what I don’t get is the number of people complaining about iMessage for Android vs Apple when free, encrypted and widely used system-agnostic alternatives like WhatsApp exist.

Network effects. In the US at least WhatsApp and Signal are barely used in comparison to iMessage, despite them being solid cross platform alternatives.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#869

Post by dcow »

noirbot wrote: post #659
dcow wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on adversarial interoperability In what world is interoperability adversarial? What the actual?

Are you trying to ignore the state of what's going on? Beeper's business model was as interoperable with Apple as my neighbors cracking my wifi password to use for their household. The interoperability wasn't intended. Forcing someone to interoperate with you doesn't immediately make it all collaborative any more than a stranger walking up to me at lunch and declaring they're my friend now makes me want to invite the…

The adversary is the incumbent that’s working to artificially stifle innovation, strong arm the market, and exclude competition.

Beeper is not someone who hacked your wifi. Beeper is sending legitimate packets to your router and Apple is saying “I don’t like those packets because they threaten my artificial hold on the market”.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#870

Post by hu3 »

jamesdepp wrote: post #523

I feel like this could be a part of a weird plan to trap Apple into an antitrust lawsuit about iMessage. Beeper's CEO has been claiming that the existence of Beeper Mini actually improves iPhone users' experiences. He could argue that Apple shutting off access is not meant to improve Apple users' experiences, but rather, to keep people off of Android. Honestly, I have mixed feelings. I REALLY think that iMessage need…

iMessage is mostly a US problem.

EU usage of iMessage is minimal compared to WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal and Facebook Messenger.

So there's little incentive for EU to get involved.

Post reply on HN