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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#421

Post by acaloiar »

snakeyjake wrote: post #290
lacker wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is this an actionable anti-trust issue? iMessage doesn't even register as a messaging platform in the minds of most users globally. In the US is it dwarfed by at least three other platforms. Globally, do any of the other top ten (Apple is nowhere near the top ten) messaging apps allow third parties to spoof their service? The purpose of anti-trust is to increase competition and prevent unlawful monopolies. Apple…

I'm not a lawyer.

But I do believe there's reason to consider Apple's policy relative to iMessage clients monopolistic. Apple's behavior is not significantly different from Microsoft's, which instigated US v. Microsoft [1]. That case largely took issue with Microsoft's mandatory bundling of IE with Windows and the extent to which Microsoft created an inorganic monopoly. In addition to how Microsoft's monopoly came to be one, the judge also took issue with Microsoft's methodology in quashing threats to that monopoly. One could claim that Apple is taking similar quashing action relative to Beeper now.

Microsoft of course appealed the judgement, and prevailed. But they prevailed only because the judge had broken his code of conduct in discussing the case with media; not because Microsoft's behavior was not monopolistic.

I don't believe global or domestic iMessenger usage is relevant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#422

Post by modeless »

mike_d wrote: post #408
modeless wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beeper Mini does not MITM messages. E2EE is maintained throughout. More so than iMessage actually, which sends all your encryption keys to Apple in the most common configuration (iCloud backup). Where's your concern about that?

That is not true. iMessage content is encrypted in iCloud with keys stored in your keychain only accessible to your devices. When you add a new device to your account it learns the keys from one of your existing devices and requires touch/face ID approval. In an "all devices lost" situation the keychain is backed up to iCloud but encrypted using a key stored in an HSM that requires authentication using things only yo…

You have been misled. The truth is that the iMessage keys stored in iCloud are accessible to Apple unless you have enabled the non-default Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature. This is clearly documented by Apple themselves[1]. And even if you do enable it, your messages are still accessible to Apple in the iCloud backups of the people you are messaging, since they likely didn't enable a non-default feature like ADP. Defaults matter!

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#423

Post by snapcaster »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #287
UmYeahNo wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tell you what, if you're a young person you can be publicly shamed for having the wrong color bubble, or outcast by being excluded from a group chat. To you and I that probably doesn't make sense, but for a big portion of the young, phone using population being unable to participate in the iMessage ecosystem is a huge deal socially. You are essentially excluded from the friend group, you're excluded from conversati…

Those young people are probably doing themselves a favor by disassociating from peers who are shallow and prejudiced enough to exclude someone for, of all things, not using a specific (proprietary!) chat app.

Oh come on, are you claiming you don't have arbitrary actions/clothing/language that you treat as a status signal amongst your in group? Have you forgotten what it was like to be a teenager?

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#424

Post by TeMPOraL »

This clearly isn't going to be solved through technical means. It makes me wonder - if Apple were to stop obstructing interoperability, how much the resulting market for competition to iMessage and other parts of the walled garden be worth? A couple billion dollars? With today's valuations, probably closer to trillions.

Why then VCs aren't willing to spend a fraction of that - say a couple billion - to invest into a crack team of lawyers and sue the shit out of Apple over this issue? When at least one side of the suit is a corporation, my understanding is that American justice system is basically the game of who can outspend whom. Surely enough VCs could outspend Apple on this while still securing some probable profit in the end?

Why is this not happening?

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#425

Post by TeMPOraL »

gafage wrote: post #412
TeMPOraL wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this an actionable anti-trust issue? How is this less of an issue than Microsoft integrating Internet Explorer with Windows back in the day? The shit Google and Apple seem to be getting away with these days would make regulators of yore spin in their graves.

It is less of an issue because of market share. MS crushed Netscape with IE. imessage is not used in the EU

Does this mean that existence of Android allows both Google and Apple to mutually shield themselves from antitrust accusations? They basically get to do what they want, and argue "us refusing to give you X is not antitrust-relevant, because there's the other 50% of the market that refuses to give you X in an entirely different way".

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#426

Post by chipgap98 »

toyg wrote: post #399
sircastor wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and to lower the 30% app store fee to 10%. In danger of being an Apple apologist, the app store fee for the vast majority of sellers is 15%.

Only now, because they were forced to lower it. There is nothing stopping them from raising it again, once the prospects of antitrust prosecution disappear.

When were they forced to lower it? It seems like you are saying they decided to lower it

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#427

Post by modeless »

lxgr wrote: post #419
modeless wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beeper Cloud was running for years before, and Apple released a statement at the time they blocked Beeper Mini. This was not automated.

Beeper Cloud was running on actual Apple hardware until October 2023, which is when they switched to the software emulation approach that Beeper Mini is also employing.

Yes, but if Apple's complaint is truly about security then they should have blocked it even harder before, because the cloud version wasn't E2EE. Their behavior reveals that security is not their real concern here.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#428

Post by realusername »

Longhanks wrote: post #231
wvenable wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case is Apple keeps escalating the fight knowing that Beeper can't outlast them. I feel like this is in Apple's DNA. Perhaps Beeper is lucky that Apple needs to support a lot of legacy devices and they might not be able to fully plug this hole without creating a big support nightmare.

Please explain to me why that wouldn't be in anyone's interest? Why should I pay costs for server uptime and maintenance for clients that I a) did not authorize and b) did not pay for me keeping up my servers and c) actually accept that a third party is getting money for providing said access to my servers? I really don't get how Apple is to blame for protecting what they pay for.

> I really don't get how Apple is to blame for protecting what they pay for.

I don't think Apple is going to get bankrupt for forwarding a few SMS, they'll be fine don't worry.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#429

Post by microtonal »

JeremyNT wrote: post #309
bentt wrote: post #273

The whole green bubble thing with Android SMS on iPhone is a problem, but the solution is to get everyone to use a different chat app. Apple will never give this up. Google could be leading that charge and providing a world beating chat app that works across all phones and all desktop devices. They have every reason to provide the best chat app in the world and yank iPhone users over to it. Instead they have given up…

> The whole green bubble thing with Android SMS on iPhone is a problem, but the solution is to get everyone to use a different chat app. Apple will never give this up. There are so many competitors in this space, you really can't claim it's for lack of trying. Defaults are powerful, especially for Apple users.

It's not just that defaults are powerful, it's the network effects. When WhatsApp was purchased by Facebook, there was a strong movement in Europe to move to other messengers. But it never really got off the ground because everyone is on WhatsApp. Trying to live without WhatsApp in some European countries only leads to social isolation (a bit like trying to live without iMessage in the US).

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#430

Post by chipgap98 »

misnome wrote: post #179
lacker wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

US? When has that ever happened in the last 30 years? I’d buy the EU stepping in to mandate interoperability though. I’d welcome that! But… shouldn’t mostly everyone here view needing the EU to force the behaviour of a US company kind of against the entire supposed benefit of the US system and the purpose of the domain this forum is hosted on?

How would interoperability and end to end encryption work together?
Post reply on HN