91–100 of 1001 posts
These Beeper folk sound a bit entitled. As was repeatedly mentioned in the other thread [1], building production applications on top of an undocumented and unsupported (in terms of backwards compatability, etc) API is a nightmare that should be avoided. Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. I understand Apple's incentives to not want to be in this situ…
These Beeper folk sound a bit entitled. As was repeatedly mentioned in the other thread [1], building production applications on top of an undocumented and unsupported (in terms of backwards compatability, etc) API is a nightmare that should be avoided. Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. I understand Apple's incentives to not want to be in this situ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. iMessage should no longer allowed to be proprietary and stay part of Apple.
> Apple given their scale and position in the market should be forced to operate and interoperate with an open standard for messaging. You mean like SMS and MMS right now, and RCS next year? https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
These Beeper folk sound a bit entitled. As was repeatedly mentioned in the other thread [1], building production applications on top of an undocumented and unsupported (in terms of backwards compatability, etc) API is a nightmare that should be avoided. Apple has every right to change their API, if they do Beeper will go down, and Beeper will blame Apple. I understand Apple's incentives to not want to be in this situ…
Apple doesn't charge for iMessage, and instead that service is funded by device purchases. Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices to help them parasitize the infrastructure of the service, and instead of contributing to Apple's operational expenses, they're pocketing the money.
There's no scenario where this stands, even if iMessage came to non-Apple devices Apple is probably going to charge users if they're not buying Apple devices (I can't imagine it being an ad-driven service).
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/12/11/apple-shutters-new-app...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, not the point. The point is to prove that it's possible and relatively simple, and the only reason Apple operates this way is to lock people into the ecosystem.
Running the iMessage service for a billion iPhone users can't be cheap. Opening up the API and running it for the entire rest of the world for free is a non-starter. No company on earth is that generous, let alone Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are rightly calling out that iMessage as part of Apple's moat building is both bad for their customers and people their customers interact with. And while I agree with you, and I won't be using the service, I think from their POV it is the correct messaging.
I think it's valid feedback from Beeper, but to insinuate that this gives them to right to force Apple to run their reverse-engineered access is where things go a bit too far for me. Apple's customers are not Beeper's customers. They have completely different incentives. I guess the approach is to try and force Apple's hand or push some legislation for interoperability, but Apple is working on RCS so it's not like th…
This is not true. On iOS - iOS has APIs for third party messaging and voip apps to intergrates natively into the system where they are presented as equal peers to iMessage and default phone app.
When I view contacts in the first party Contacts app, it presents message & call as the top options for my contacts. The first time per-contact it'll prompt you which you want to use, with third party options getting equal billing compared to first-party, but after that it'll remember.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at any moment for individual devices? There are some very weird takes around security on this to somehow twist it into an "Apple good" scenario. No, like literally every other time in history , closed & controlled does not make it more secure.
Giving your Apple ID to a third party is an incredibly bad idea for your security, full stop. Do not ever do this. Any argument that this helps user security because your messages are now E2E is completely undermined by the risk to your identity for literally all of Apple's other services, and that someone could now impersonate you in Messages. But it'd be encrypted!
In fact, can't I not just create an new Apple ID specifically for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems clear to me that Beeper is playing a game of chicken with Apple. If Apple continues to cut off Beeper's access, it makes an antitrust argument stronger (a la https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/06/eus-imessage-antitrust-invest... )
The Beeper vs Apple battle is already getting the attention of US legislators https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/10/senator-warren-calls-out-a...
Senator Warren would be a lot more effective if she or her staff understood how technology actually works. Senator Markey is another person who cares about this stuff but is also incompetent to regulate it.