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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#901

Post by anticensor »

Klonoar wrote: post #476
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? The site is called "Hacker News" but it's predominantly existed over the years as a funnel for the business-centric Valley industry. Which is to say that I think you're trying to apply one specific definition of "hacker" when it doesn't really work that way.

This site was originally called "Startup News" then renamed to "Hacker News".

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#902

Post by azubinski »

smeej wrote: post #576

Sometimes I think this whole "blue bubble" thing is a gigantic opt-in psych experiment about how biases like racism can start absolutely anywhere.

First you need to infantilize them to the level of “I’m ready to do anything to be in their gang.”

But at the same time, you need to feed snobbery so that you get a safe mixture of 80% immaturity and 20% snobbery.

Let’s add two drops of self-deprecation, that boring feeling of “I don’t have blue bubbles, I’m worthless and a loser.”

And now you can take a large bag for money and leave it open - they will fill it themselves, tie it and send it to the address :)

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#903

Post by michaelcampbell »

treyd wrote: post #210
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…

>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.

Sure, but I don't think anyone can legitimately claim Gruber hasn't had some generally pro-Apple stance for decades.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#904

Post by tptacek »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #451
tptacek wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bunch of reasons why this is unlikely to be tortious interference, but one of the obvious ones is the contractual Terms & Conditions that apply between Apple and its users; I doubt Beeper is liable here, but if interference was a thing, my bet (not a lawyer!) is that the liability would point the other direction.

There’s certainly a contract there, but it’s not obvious how a customers compliance the terms and obligations create a profit for Apple. I think most outside observers would generally assume that Apple‘s profits come from the payments the customers make to Apple, when purchasing devices or making subscriptions. After all, the only people subject to, and breaching the terms of service are Apple customers who did pay f…

In a California interference case, Apple would need to prove:

1. An enforceable contract existed (check!)

2. Beeper knew about the contract (check!)

3. Beeper's actions intentionally caused a breach of that contract (check!)

4. An actual breach of Apple's Terms & Conditions occurred

5. Apple had damages

None of those elements have much to do with profit.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#905

Post by _fzslm »

eiiot wrote: post #645
garysahota93 wrote: post #580

What if they create a version of Beeper Mini that spoofs an apple device you own? For example: I don't want to own an iPhone, but I do have a MacBook. So rather than use a randomly generated device that tricks Apple's servers to allow me to connect, I can just use a device a legitimately own (and just trick apple to think my phone is my laptop). I know this won't work for everyone (especially folks that don't have an…

This already exists! https://airmessage.org

not quite what the parent comment was referring to - AirMessage is cool but needs a server Mac to run 24/7.

parent is asking if it’s possible to spoof the secure identifiers from the Mac in Beeper - extracting the secure IDs, inputting them into Beeper - at which point Beeper can communicate directly with Apple as if it is that Mac.

a clever workaround!

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#906

Post by Pulcinella »

inoop wrote: post #418
HKH2 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why Americans cling so dearly to SMS.

As a European living in the US, it's been baffling to me. Everywhere else in the world people use WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, etc. This iMessage green/blue bubble nonsense just isn't a thing outside the US.

My understanding is that unlimited SMS text messages have basically been included free with cellphone plans in the US for a very long time while that's generally still not the case in Europe. So there hasn't been a need to find a cheaper way to send messages.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#907

Post by crest »

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…

> It’s untenable that there’s unsanctioned client software for a messaging platform for which privacy and security are a primary feature.

What a stupid take on the situation. At most it's untenable to Apples short term financial interests. A well designed protocol and implementation would be even better at protecting user privacy and security especially from a privileged attacker like the service provider and anyone able to put covert pressure on them.

The only way in which vendor lock-in helps the the existing users is that spammers and scammers have to invest additional money to acquire Apple devices to create new accounts instead of just phone numbers and a labor to create accounts.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#908

Post by Pulcinella »

mission_failed wrote: post #688
StressedDev wrote: post #143

One thing which is really confusing is why are Android users obsessed with iMessage? Android users can send text messages to iPhones, the can call iPhone users, and they can use third party messaging apps to communicate with iPhone users. It really isn’t clear to me why so many people are so angry they cannot use iMessage on Android.

Because Apple deliberately screws with messages to non Apple users. Every video my family sends to me is low res heavily pixelated trash, to the point that you can't even recognise faces.

That's cellphone carriers. MMS messages generally have to fit within 300-600KB[0] so they are horribly, horribly compressed.

https://m.gsmarena.com/glossary.php3?term=mms

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#910

Post by meonkeys »

jeroenhd wrote: post #286
mh8h wrote: post #49

An open source client for iMessage is going to be used for fraud and spam. Before this, a device being blocked by Apple because it was used for fraud or spam would increase the cost of business for fraudsters and spammers. But now it's a matter of picking a new phone number. Of course Apple would try hard to stop this.

This is exactly why Signal closed their source code: if you allow access to your network, you're only accepting spam. For their users' security, it's essential that they must guard access to their network as much as possible.

I feel the need to get a bit pedantic here. I'm not trying to pick a fight; I truly hope it helps clear up a few things.

Signal is open source. It's a fair argument that they make it difficult to use servers other than theirs, and we can't be sure exactly what they run server-side, but their code is possible to fork and all that. Their licensing is clear. Even the choice of AGPL is significant here: they must provide the source for exactly what they run on their server.

Network access is orthogonal to source availability/openness. Closing source as a means to limit access is security through obscurity. Not to say that it wouldn't work, but we certainly wouldn't expect the Signal Foundation to take this approach.

The most significant measure Signal uses to manage access to their network has to do with the phone number requirement. That's an intentional choice on their part (arguably controversial, but I don't have an opinion about it).

I've never received a spam message from another Signal user... is this common for you (or anyone)? I think in all the years I've used Signal I've only received less than 5 spammy "message requests" that are quite obvious/easy to decline because I don't already have their phone number in my contacts. I've always had to first ask someone "hey, can we use Signal?" so I'm already expecting legitimate message requests when they arrive.

Post reply on HN