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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#191

Post by meowtimemania »

rpmisms wrote: post #123
knowald wrote: post #106

It might be a controversial topic, but this post had some oddly rapid upvotes for HN. I'm trying to understand what the target of this hacky iMessage spin-off of Beeper is. The whole idea of subscription-based monetization. Rather no way of Apple not patching quickly, dealing with this as soon as it raises attention. But maybe that was the intent of a hack they found? A clever marketing strategy, to gain some rapid t…

I saw the announcement on Twitter and came over here to talk about it. People are really excited about Beeper.

I’m not excited about beeper but am excited about the drama around beeper!

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#192

Post by thayne »

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.

> it is why many people like Apple products so much

and it's why (well one very big reason why) I hate Apple products, and avoid them.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#193

Post by ethanbond »

Laaas wrote: post #42
not_your_vase wrote: post #3

So what's the big idea? Keep playing whack-a-mole with Apple until Apple changes their TOS and sues their pants off, or until they run out of open holes? Or is there a bigger end goal?

What grounds would Apple have for suing?

"No reverse engineering" is a pretty standard TOS item.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#194

Post by misnome »

mareko wrote: post #177

It's interesting to see how polarizing this topic is. I'm curious if people are just reacting according to the "party line" so to speak, ie based on whether they are iPhone or Android users. We can do a poll to confirm this without revealing your phone preference. Just respond with "Affirmative" if you are an iPhone user and dont like this OR you're an Android users and like this. Likewise, respond with "Negative" if…

I think you are mixing up what you are calling “the party line” with a mixture of - people cheering for the world they want (EU yet again forces a US company to change behaviour), and people who view the chances of this (at best interpretation legally grey) gamble working without that as extremely unlikely.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#196

Post by Nextgrid »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #155
Nextgrid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is more like a 3rd party releasing a tool that unlocks a proprietary security shroud so you can plug in a wireless router to an ISP POP. You aren't authorized to unlock that shroud or rebroadcast that internet, just like Beeper Mini is not authorized by Apple to use their authorization-required iMessage service. If I sold internet off that wireless router and the next OSP tech that gets into that POP (rightfully…

> that unlocks a proprietary security

Beeper Mini is not "unlocking" anything more than a real iPhone does. It's not exploiting anything, it's following exactly the same protocol and registration flow as the real thing (that's why it works in the first place). No security is being broken here.

You could argue that it's using an (insignificant) amount of resources on Apple's side without having paid for it (since most users wouldn't have purchased an iOS device), but Apple can trivially mitigate that by offering an officially-supported registration flow that charges a reasonable fee.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#197

Post by ethanbond »

Nextgrid wrote: post #173
madeofpalk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

If I have a computer that's technically capable to interoperate and talk with someone else's computer, why should we intentionally restrict that ability? The answer isn't to say that in other locations we have a different gatekeeper so all is well, the answer should be that Apple's gatekeeping should be broken, and then other gatekeepers' gatekeeping should be broken too. We should all have one messaging client that…

We do: SMS

It's just worse than the alternative that Apple provides for its own ecosystem of users. Any Apple user is free to opt for that more universal system if they want.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#198

Post by mrweasel »

mareko wrote: post #177

It's interesting to see how polarizing this topic is. I'm curious if people are just reacting according to the "party line" so to speak, ie based on whether they are iPhone or Android users. We can do a poll to confirm this without revealing your phone preference. Just respond with "Affirmative" if you are an iPhone user and dont like this OR you're an Android users and like this. Likewise, respond with "Negative" if…

It's not really that simple. I'm an iPhone use, who thinks Android is kinda pointless, but I don't understand why Apple hasn't opened up the iMessage protocols years ago, or at the very least made their own Android application

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#199

Post by JumpCrisscross »

solardev wrote: post #120
KerrAvon wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple needs better critics. 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.

I don't think it's just a matter of not understanding technology, but not having any sway in politics. Most of their peers care more about personal brands and culture wars and virtue signaling than doing the boring day to day task of regulating minituae for consumers. People like Warren and Bernie are like the determined sergeants in the trenches, while most of Congress is busy grandstanding and trying to become the…

Most voters couldn’t care less about Apple’s iMessage antitrust concerns. Even within the realm of antitrust questions it’s an extremely low priority.
Post reply on HN