11–20 of 1001 posts
> Our Play Store ranking dropped precipitously on Friday.
Really have to wonder what their play here is. What did they think would happen?
Isn't it always going to be a cat and mouse game with Apple? Who would want to use a messaging service that works some days but not others, much less pay for it?
I don't buy their "Beeper unequivocally makes things secure story" either. For one, I do not want to have my Apple ID login routed through a third party. 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.
It's an impressive engineering effort, but I really don't believe they're entitled to parasite off the undocumented iMessage API.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're either going to keep getting their access cut, or sued into bankruptcy. You can't really piggyback off another companies service in violation of their TOS without things working out poorly for you IMO.
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.
There are numerous chat apps with those features, so I can’t see why people were “desperate” about it at all. Better yet, those existing chat apps aren’t likely to stop working tomorrow.
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?
Force Apple to either allow or implement iMessage interoperability via competitive tactics, not regulatory means.
(It was exposed in a recent courtroom hearing that Apple has seriously considered making it available on Android, but they decided that having it Apple-only is a serious benefit for them)
As an Apple customer, I applaud their tenacity. Every time Beeper's protocol hacks are fixed, Messages gets more secure.
Beeper isn't "hacking" Messages... they've implemented the protocol.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're either going to keep getting their access cut, or sued into bankruptcy. You can't really piggyback off another companies service in violation of their TOS without things working out poorly for you IMO.
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.
Honest question: is there anyone who doesn't already think that? Even at, like, a legislative level?