Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beeper Mini is back

blog.beeper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#141

Post by madeofpalk »

haswell wrote: post #61
martinky24 wrote: post #13

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…

If the only thing Beeper does is continue to make Apple look anti-competitive, they've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I'm deep into the Apple ecosystem and don't see myself getting out anytime soon. But I think their stance on iMessage sucks, even while understanding the strategic reasons they're doing it. I don't see this as "leeching off an undocumented API" as much as demonstrating that iMessage is already in…

What's anti-competitive with what Apple does with iMessage? iMessage's lack of popularity everywhere else in the world is proof that competition is able to flourish. Apple is under no obligation to make an Android app, and it's silly to pretend not making an app for another platform is somehow anti-competetive.

The market simply chosing a preference is not anti-competive. iPhone and iMessage is able to compete on it's own merits without competition being artificially hindered.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#142

Post by misnome »

Nextgrid wrote: post #111
martinky24 wrote: post #13

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…

> I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party Then don't use Beeper. > I trust an established, trillion dollar company far more with that sensitive info than I do a fast-moving, eager-to-break-things startup. And the list goes on. Thankfully, you don't necessarily have to trust them since the entire process runs on your device. > I really don't believe they're entitled to parasite off the und…

You do have to trust them - you have to trust both apple and beeper not to harvest your messages and personal/contact info.

And stupid analogies help nobody. Which part of your screwdriver is costing the original manufacturer money every time you turn a screw?

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#143

Post by hamandcheese »

res0nat0r wrote: post #22
rpmisms wrote: post #10

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.

Thats the entire point of the Apple ecosystem. They want to control the entire user experience end to end, and it is why many people like Apple products so much.

> Thats the entire point of the Apple ecosystem. They want to control the entire user experience end to end

I don't doubt that.

> and it is why many people like Apple products so much.

No. People like the quality and the refinement and polish. In most cases those things to not require (as much of) a closed ecosystem. Beeper is proof of that.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#144

Post by Pulcinella »

haswell wrote: post #61
martinky24 wrote: post #13

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…

If the only thing Beeper does is continue to make Apple look anti-competitive, they've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I'm deep into the Apple ecosystem and don't see myself getting out anytime soon. But I think their stance on iMessage sucks, even while understanding the strategic reasons they're doing it. I don't see this as "leeching off an undocumented API" as much as demonstrating that iMessage is already in…

Someone "hacking"[0] into my bank account shines a light on the fact that my bank wasn't so locked down to begin with, but I still don't want people doing it.

Keep in mind, iMessage also relies on a server component. It's not some peer-to-peer protocol. Apple has to pay for the costs of sending messages, high resolution videos and photos, audio recordings, and supporting iMessage apps[1]. You can argue that this is included in the price of the iPhone/iPad/Mac but obviously is not for random android devices. Personally it doesn't bother me if Apple has to just eat the costs, but it is a cost, and probably a not insubstantial one.

[0] Social Engineering.

[1] Ok how many people actually use these? Still, they are part of iMessage.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#146

Post by Nextgrid »

theshrike79 wrote: post #69
stefan_ wrote: post #49

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.

Like Signal? To my knowledge, you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.

> you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.

The Signal guy doesn't want you to do that (just like Apple), but it's absolutely possible. It's in fact much easier than in the iMessage scenario since all the client sources are available.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#147

Post by resters »

Apple/Google/Microsoft/Amazon do a lot of extremely petty things that should disgust us and give us a glimpse at how this pettiness and adversarial conduct might escalate in a GAI world:

- Amazon does not carry Google branded products. ([edit] they do now once again, whew!)

- Search in GMail is nearly completely broken when you have too many messages, yet Google (ostensibly a search company) can't deliver good email search at scale so they don't bother.

- Apple allows lots of customization of push notifications and notification behavior (lock screen, badge icons, etc., etc.) yet does not simply let the user turn off push notifications that are advertisements or promotions.

- Google does not let parents choose third party whitelist "experts" for kids content recommendations. The status quo is that most kids either have parents who spend hours curating or they get to watch all the generative content garbage that Youtube hosts.

- Google Maps contains significant glitches and confusing navigation suggestions even though there must be terabytes of data showing that they routinely result in wrong turns and rerouting.

These are all examples of market failures that are fostered/continued by various anticompetitive aspects of the markets these firms operate in.

Not sure why anyone would expect Apple to allow Beeper Mini when clearly iMessage is meant to secure a competitive advantage at the expense of apple customers convenience and freedom.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#148

Post by lacker »

qrohlf wrote: post #29

I’m curious what their best-case outcome is here. It’s fully transparent at this point that Apple has no appetite for a third party iMessage client on any platform and will take whatever technical steps needed to prevent this from happening. I’d wager heavily that even if Beeper plays cat-and-mouse to the point where they’ve exhausted Apple’s budget for blocking them and somehow managed to avoid Apple’s legal team pu…

The best case outcome is to get publicity leading to US and EU antitrust regulators to file a lawsuit against Apple, both of which Apple loses. The conclusion of this lawsuit is that not only must Apple allow access to iMessage, they also must allow changing the default for every component of iOS - messaging app, browser, app store, let you replace Siri with other voice assistants - and to lower the 30% app store fee to 10%. Same rules apply to Android.

Okay, that might not be likely, but you did ask about the best case outcome.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#149

Post by fimdomeio »

martinky24 wrote: post #13

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…

Did apple had any right to hijack sms, feels a bit entitled. When I first got an iphone I didn't really understood what was going on with me messages, and why they were different for some people. The interface is so subtle that most people think they are sending sms.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#150

Post by misnome »

sigmar wrote: post #92
martinky24 wrote: post #13

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…

edit: guess I was wrong

Bad news! This is now Beeper mini works now _according to the very article to which your comment is attached_.
Post reply on HN