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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#531

Post by dickersnoodle »

jtriangle wrote: post #356
snakeyjake wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So "monopoly" as a single entity controlling a single market is a simplistic view of the issue at hand. Anti-trust is far broader than that, where any anticompetitive action can be subject to anti-trust lawsuits/regulatory action. So the legal argument would be that, because Apple allows for a single messaging app, and interacting with that app requires an iphone, they're effectively preventing messaging app competit…

>So the legal argument would be that, because Apple allows for a single messaging app, and interacting with that app requires an iphone, they're effectively preventing messaging app competition.

That is weapons-grade horseshit. You can put WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Signal on your iPhone and message to your heart's content. (I know, because I've had the first two on my phone before and they did not get killed in their sleep by Apple's native messaging app).

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#532

Post by MBCook »

hamandcheese wrote: post #469
averageRoyalty wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show an example of an aquisition they've made to explicitly stop an external company using their APIs? I've not heard of one, it doesn't appear to be in their playbook.

You're moving the goalposts. Parent said "Beeper doesn't seem to offer anything that Apple couldn't do themselves."

It’s the same thing. There is no reason for Apple to buy Beeper except to make them stop.

Apple doesn’t do that. It has lawyers to use.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#533

Post by zappb »

zeven7 wrote: post #526
arilotter wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK they are using a reverse-engineered Apple binary that does the real iMessage - and since Apple doesn't update apps outside of iOS updates, Apple can't, in theory, patch it without also breaking iMessage on older iPhones.

I'd have assumed there'd be something more going on in iMessage, like each device has a private key that needs to sign the messages, and Apple can ban any private keys that leak -- but in theory couldn't they even be prevented from leaking by secure enclave? I'm just speculating on what would have made sense, but I'm guessing that's not how it's working since Beeper Mini exists. It begs the question: why isn't that t…

Messages has existed longer than the Secure Enclave has.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#534

Post by seanp2k2 »

LordKeren wrote: post #26

I think one of the underlying issues is that many are now going to be hesitant to even bother with Beeper Mini anymore. I don’t think there is going to be a high tolerance for this game of cat and mouse from the end user perspective I also don’t think goading apple is going to do much here either. Regardless of the current feelings around apple’s walled garden, they are not going to suddenly keel over and give up on…

All Apple needs to do is send a few scary C&D letters from their army of lawyers and this will be done. If they run the infrastructure for imessage, I'm sure there's something in a ToS somewhere that talks about spoofing device IDs and unauthorized use of their services blah blah Apple's sole discretion.

In theory I love it but in reality it'll be dead soon as Apple has too much to gain from the walled garden they've spent decades and billions building and defending.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#535

Post by RobotToaster »

stouset wrote: post #445
acaloiar wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm not a lawyer. > But I do believe there's reason to consider Apple's policy relative to iMessage clients monopolistic. In order for antitrust laws to apply, it’s not enough to exhibit monopolistic behavior. You actually have to be a monopoly and use this behavior to achieve and/or retain it.

> You actually have to be a monopoly

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony — Sherman Act, Section 2

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#536

Post by wutwutwat »

kevinsync wrote: post #528

Maybe this came up in the earlier threads (announcement, outage) so I apologize if it's been discussed ... This project is fantastic. The hacker spirit is in full force, and I love a good David and Goliath story. However, all the comments about demanding interoperability and protocols keep confusing me -- I don't consider APNS a protocol (like TCP anyways), it's also not incidental, extra header space to stuff data i…

Uhhhh, what does APNS have to do with any of this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people want iMessage to be an open protocol. You're talking about APNS, the "apple push notification service", which is something completely different than what beeper is doing and what folks are asking for. The message schema, format, types, encoding, max length, delivery guarantees, etc, like jabber/xmpp [1]. Push notifications are sent for iMessage, but that isn't what people want to be turned into an open protocol

[1] https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#537

Post by MuffinFlavored »

beatboxrevival wrote: post #521
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #518

As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?

The hackintosh community has tools to generate those #s. e.g. https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Post-Install/universal/i...

But why is it Apple's responsibility to accept a non-legit/unknown serial #?

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#538

Post by rezonant »

Nextgrid wrote: post #219
madeofpalk wrote: post #98

> Messages App is the default chat app for all iPhone customers. Not only is it the default, iOS makes it impossible to change the default chat app. In the US, where the majority of people have iPhones, this means that the easiest way to chat is by tapping on your friend’s name in your contact list and hitting the ‘message’ button. This is not true. On iOS - iOS has APIs for third party messaging and voip apps to int…

Default option is still usual phone call/iMessage in a lot of places - in some you can long press and select another option, but not all. Also, merely opening a separate app doesn't really help. How about instead of having 5 different apps (that the system one sometimes generously allows you to open), you had one app that can seamlessly speak all protocols? You can add multiple e-mail or contacts accounts (even from…

Or just one app that spoke a single protocol that all phones implement, like SMS used to be. That way you wouldn't have to install and juggle 20 apps to cover all of your friend's preferences, and manage which type of messenger they prefer over time.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#539

Post by MuffinFlavored »

grishka wrote: post #523
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #518

As far as I understand, in order to talk to Apple iMessage services/backend (and all auth pieces) you need a "legit" Apple ID and legit Apple hardware model #s / serial #s If you don't have that, how are they able to get auth tokens / send messages around without basically "exploiting a hidden hack that might get patched"?

Maybe they generate legit-looking fake device serial numbers, that just happen to match real devices most of the time?

How does Apple not know a database of real serial #s that match products it has sold? Why would an API that goes to the lengths of expecting a serial # not validate and instead accept a fake "real-looking" serial # instead of a known- matched-in-the-database real serial #?

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#540

Post by unshavedyak »

graphe wrote: post #497
LordKeren wrote: post #26

I think one of the underlying issues is that many are now going to be hesitant to even bother with Beeper Mini anymore. I don’t think there is going to be a high tolerance for this game of cat and mouse from the end user perspective I also don’t think goading apple is going to do much here either. Regardless of the current feelings around apple’s walled garden, they are not going to suddenly keel over and give up on…

iMessage is reliable, ‘free’ and encrypted. Beeper mini is unreliable, paid, and encrypted. I wouldn’t recommend it anymore to my Android friends.

Is it free? I have it bundled as part of my hardware purchases. Is there somewhere to get it without paying?
Post reply on HN