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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#441

Post by microtonal »

ankit219 wrote: post #379
microtonal wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This aspect is ignored, because it's clear that Apple blocks third-party clients to maintain its dominant position in the US (social unacceptability of green bubbles among teens). If cost was the problem, they could offer a subscription.

It's pretty clear why they don't want an android iMessage app. In this case, what beeper enables (if successful) potentially is to use Apple's infra for future communication between android to android phones, or android to iMessage groups, while on Apple's infra and dime. Beeper will likely collect a fee for it as well. Thats not a position Apple would want to be in.

Like I said, if that was the issue, Apple could just charge $10 per month for iMessage users that don't have an Apple product linked to their account.

The only reason is to bully people who fear social exclusion into buying an iPhone.

(I am an iPhone/Mac user, so I am not trying to bash Apple from the other side of the 'divide').

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#442

Post by cmiles74 »

chipgap98 wrote: post #430
misnome wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's no technical reason why services could not interoperate and still provide end-to-end encryption.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#443

Post by [deleted] »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #97
micromacrofoot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's valid feedback from Beeper, but to insinuate that this gives them to right to force Apple to run their reverse-engineered access is where things go a bit too far for me. Apple's customers are not Beeper's customers. They have completely different incentives. I guess the approach is to try and force Apple's hand or push some legislation for interoperability, but Apple is working on RCS so it's not like th…

Apple's RCS implementation is meaningless unless they cut out the blue/green bubble shit.

[deleted]

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#444

Post by vore »

ceejayoz wrote: post #333
jay-barronville wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this one of them? I don’t believe so. Beeper Mini uses Apple’s protocols the same way the native iMessage uses it; they didn’t exploit a security hole (unless you classify the device faking part as a security hole—I don’t). They maintain the E2EE flow.

The protocol's implementation is intended to verify you're connecting a device Apple built, with stuff like secure enclave and end-to-end encryption as known quantities. With Beeper, you have to give your Apple ID to a third-party app , which they then proxy through a server of some kind ( https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/11/beeper-mini-is-back-in-ope... ; "signing in with our Apple ID generated an Apple prompt that no…

I know that HN is not one homogeneous opinion, but it always comes up in these Apple threads that all this device attestation and secure enclave stuff is unambiguously good because Apple does it, but when it comes to TPM key escrow or Web Environment Integrity suddenly everyone is up in arms about how it's a total violation of a user's freedoms to do what they want with their device.

You shouldn't defend something that's inherently consumer hostile just because it happens to be for something you like.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#445

Post by stouset »

acaloiar wrote: post #421
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…

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.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#446

Post by randyrand »

ethanbond wrote: post #316
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did Bepper accept their TOS?

Either they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (…

Authorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini.

During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#447

Post by NelsonMinar »

Some useful history, the AOL/MSN chat wars: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-19/essays/chat-wars/

AOL finally "won" that one by making a buffer exploit in their own client part of the required protocol. Later a court required them to allow messaging interop (as part of the Time Warner merger). They never implemented it.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#448

Post by canucker2016 »

tapoxi wrote: post #338
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…

Aren't 70% of American teenagers on iPhone because of the iMessage network effects? The whole "green bubble" shaming issue.

from Piper Sandler's 2023 Fall survey of US teens ( https://www.pipersandler.com/teens ):

"87% of teens own an iPhone; 88% expect an iPhone to be their next phone; 34% own an Apple Watch"

No idea how many bought them specifically for iMessage...

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#449

Post by toyg »

chipgap98 wrote: post #426
toyg wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-store...

For context: Epic launched their lawsuit in August 2020, fighting the 30% cut, and less than 3 months later Apple lowered it to 15% for small businesses. Absolute coincidence, I'm sure.

Re: Beeper Mini is back

#450

Post by lowbloodsugar »

acaloiar wrote: post #421
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…

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…

> But they prevailed only because the judge had broken his code of conduct in discussing the case with media;

You seem to think this was a terrible, terrible accident on the part of the judge, rather than just one of the many mechanisms by which the powerful evade laws to protect the weak. That is, a deliberate terrible terrible "mistake".

Post reply on HN