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

Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 665 posts

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#241

Post by jonhohle »

CivBase wrote: post #191
stouset wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ma Bell had a monopoly. This is one messaging app on one brand of phone. Nothing stops you from using another phone, or multiple or other messaging apps. And messaging apps aren’t restricted by a “default” in quite the same way a web browser is. I have friends on WhatsApp and Signal and Instagram and I message them all without any appreciable difference in effort.

Right. This is much more similar to MS and Internet Explorer back in 98. Interestingly enough, one of the outcomes of that case was IE for the Mac.

It required no ongoing infrastructure for people to use IE either on Windows or on Mac. iMessage requires servers, bandwidth, and operators.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#242

Post by enragedcacti »

vikramkr wrote: post #177
cdme wrote: post #42

I miss the days when chat wasn't fragmented across apps and platforms or could at least be unified in apps like Adium. Having to have a different app installed for myriad different contacts is, at best, irritating.

It's interesting to simultaneously see takes complaining about fragmentation and apple having monopoly power in this thread. In sympathetic to the fragmentation take honestly, apple doesn't stop you from installing Whatsapp, but it's an interesting situation where it's folks who opted into a closed system that are complaining about the system being closed

> It's interesting to simultaneously see takes complaining about fragmentation and apple having monopoly power in this thread.

They are both issues! Fragmentation in messaging is a real problem in the US, and iMessage has for a decade been the closest to a solution for iPhone users. Users' frustration with fragmentation pushes them into the app where 1) they know the message will get there, and 2) there's a 50% chance the experience won't suck. iMessage's existence in a fragmented market and refusal to interoperate all but guarantees the fragmentation will continue.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#243

Post by [deleted] »

skeaker wrote: post #240
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android users have been banging this drum about the iPhone supremacists for an actual decade at this point and it so, so goddamn tiring. I buy iPhones for a number of reasons: - Ecosystem which has been explained at length so often you'd have to have your head under a rock to not know what it means - Ease of transfer of data between phones/tablets and replacements, along with constant sync - Excellent build quality -…

What makes your anecdote more valuable than GP's? You may not know anyone who does the "snobby conformist" act, but GP does. Why should I care that you haven't experienced it when someone who actually has experienced it tells me so? Moreover, since you admit those people exist, why wouldn't you support interoperability between iMessage and other platforms? It would only benefit you as a user since it would allow you…

[deleted]

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#244

Post by Miner49er »

jonhohle wrote: post #234
sottol wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that's not right either. Apple did not physically build the phone network and nobody is piggybacking on their network, Apple isn't hosting anyone's photos or videos afaict and the user pays for bandwidth, they maybe pay for notification relay to their own users. It's more like phone manufacturer X that accesses Ma Bell's network creates phone with slightly better call quality that only works with other X phone…

What type of infrastructure and operations do you think is necessary to handle 8.4B messages per day. So far, the cost of those systems and teams has come from hardware sales. The benefit is that it is effectively a paid for service and doesn't need external support from advertisers or by selling user data.

A couple hundred servers, and like 5 engineers.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#245

Post by freedomben »

kbenson wrote: post #222
skeaker wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not let the government intervene here? Typically my reason for wanting government to not do stuff is because it could affect me, but none of us will never be a trillionaire corporate entity, so anything done to Apple wouldn't apply to us as a precedent. If anything, you could argue that part of the purpose of the government is to stand up to these giant businesses that the average person can do nothing to.

Because usually precedents are not so narrow as to apply towards trillion dollar companies only, and even if they are they can be expanded upon. If you would be against a trillion dollar company forcing a small competitor to open up, you should rightly be worried about allowing the reverse, because the principles by which they justify it are unlikely to discern based on company size.

I (mostly) do favor government intervention with Apple, but you make a good point. Originally the income tax was only to apply to the uber mega rich. It didn't take long for it to apply to all the middle class too.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#246

Post by badwolf »

user_7832 wrote: post #50
joshmanders wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I do too, but I'm against this ridiculous notion that Apple MUST allow others to integrate and use their services for free. My point is nobody has any problem with the myriad of other messaging platforms that are completely closed, but all of the sudden iMessage is the bad guy because you don't want to have a green bubble with iPhone users?

I don't think anyone's saying apple must allow them (though such people admittedly exist on the internet, in retrospect). I think its more of disappointment at the speed at which apple is "patching" this.

It seems the CEO of Beeper is literally doing that.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#247

Post by lxgr »

skeaker wrote: post #207
function_seven wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly, and iMessage is not a monopoly. People routinely use WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, SMS, FB Messenger, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love that these guys are poking the bear. I wish Apple would do something to let me send high-quality photos and videos to my Android-owning friends via "text". But I don't think the government has a place to force that issue. Plenty of alternatives e…

Why not let the government intervene here? Typically my reason for wanting government to not do stuff is because it could affect me, but none of us will never be a trillionaire corporate entity, so anything done to Apple wouldn't apply to us as a precedent. If anything, you could argue that part of the purpose of the government is to stand up to these giant businesses that the average person can do nothing to.

While I'm also in favor of Apple doing something, anything really, that's better than the frustrating status quo, I could see how blunt/incompetent regulation might weaken encryption.

I've been wondering if we can already see the foreshadows of Apple's next move, actually: CKV is already only possible between modern (iOS 17.2 or macOS 14.2 and above only) devices, and their RCS implementation will presumably not be end-to-end encrypted.

I could see them opening up "legacy iMessage" (i.e. non-CKV, non-ephermerally-encrypted) and integrating RCS, but assigning new color to "modern iMessage" exclusively. That would credibly count as opening up their service, while still preserving a distinguishing feature for Apple devices, and even nudging people to upgrade some old devices.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#248

Post by standardUser »

rrreese wrote: post #117
cdme wrote: post #42

I miss the days when chat wasn't fragmented across apps and platforms or could at least be unified in apps like Adium. Having to have a different app installed for myriad different contacts is, at best, irritating.

I’m baffled as to when this time was? Back in the day there was ICQ, Yahoo Chat, MSN Messenger (and no doubt a dozen I forget). Before the there there the proprietary networks (Aol, CompuServe and others) along with BBS, IRC, Newsgroups, etc. I literally don’t remember a time in my life where messaging hasn’t been fragmented.

Yes, and there was Trillian, which was compatible with all of ICQ, Yahoo Chat, MSN Messenger and others.

But because Apple decided to make their messaging system a marketing tool instead of an interoperable app, we don't get to have a Trillian equivalent today.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#249

Post by camkego »

function_seven wrote: post #143
josephcsible wrote: post #126

When Ma Bell didn't let people use third-party phones with their service, the government made them change their ways. Why is the government letting Apple get away with the equivalent?

Because Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly, and iMessage is not a monopoly. People routinely use WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, SMS, FB Messenger, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love that these guys are poking the bear. I wish Apple would do something to let me send high-quality photos and videos to my Android-owning friends via "text". But I don't think the government has a place to force that issue. Plenty of alternatives e…

"Jury Rules Google App Store Operates as Monopoly" is in the headlines this week. So it seems maybe there is some risk to Apple with regards to iMessage.

Re: Apple partly halts Beeper's iMessage app again, suggesting a long fight ahead

#250

Post by nicce »

sottol wrote: post #202
lm411 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the equivalent. If the third party phones allowed users access to Ma Bell's network, switching systems, etc, without paying Ma Bell - then it might be equivalent. I'm pretty sure that would be considered theft of communication services.

I feel that's not right either. Apple did not physically build the phone network and nobody is piggybacking on their network, Apple isn't hosting anyone's photos or videos afaict and the user pays for bandwidth, they maybe pay for notification relay to their own users. It's more like phone manufacturer X that accesses Ma Bell's network creates phone with slightly better call quality that only works with other X phone…

Traffic goes to Apple’s servers.

Servers handle routing and storing. iMessage will deliver and store the message to server, and then to receiver when it is online.

It is major cost when there are millions of users on, top of notifications.

User pays for ISP, only up to the closest link.

Post reply on HN