Beeper's CEO Wants To Sue Apple for Blocking Its iMessage Bridge Hack (appleinsider.com) 69
An anonymous reader shares a report: Eric Migicovsky insists his Beeper Mini will continue despite Apple's best efforts to prevent it bringing iMessage blue speech bubbles to Android. Beeper Mini is, or is continually trying to be, a way to get iMessage without buying an iPhone -- although users might have to get access to a Mac. Since the start of December 2023, Beeper has launched a service to do this, then Apple blocked it, then Beeper tried another way.
According to The Information, this cycle is going to continue, too, as Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky maintains that his company will persist -- and could take legal action, too. "We're investigating legal ramifications for Apple, definitely," said Migicovsky. "Around antitrust, around competition, around how they've made the experience worse for iPhone users with this change. They've degraded the performance of iMessage for iPhone users," he continued, "all in search of crushing a competitor."
According to The Information, this cycle is going to continue, too, as Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky maintains that his company will persist -- and could take legal action, too. "We're investigating legal ramifications for Apple, definitely," said Migicovsky. "Around antitrust, around competition, around how they've made the experience worse for iPhone users with this change. They've degraded the performance of iMessage for iPhone users," he continued, "all in search of crushing a competitor."
Interoperability should be enforced (Score:1, Insightful)
In all of the digital space, there really needs to be government intervention to guarantee that artificial blocks to interoperability should be illegal. There is a term for it.... adversarial interoperability. But the thing is, if this were in place and couple with protections that hardware and software MUST be considered separate for all devices, technology would advance WAY faster, and competition would be much stronger if this were enforced by law. Anti competitive and anti consumer practices like artificially crippling hardware so that the functionality could be sold back to you would go away literally overnight. It would force actual innovation to get ahead rather than beating on consumers with these shit practices. Even in items like cars with subscriptions for heated seats. If you could swap out software or use software of your choice if one company decided to do stupid shit like this.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:5, Insightful)
But, like, why? It's not that people on Apple devices can't be reached any other way, or that there aren't a plethora of other ways to contact them, or even that you can't contact them through the specific app (Messages) that's at the centre of this. Messages is perfectly interoperable with Android devices, and will even have some of the features that Message-to-Message users enjoy once RCS is implemented. It's obviously not the full set of features, but that's not a huge deal.
Interoperability already exists. I'm not sure why Apple should guarantee the full feature set to an outside third party that is using dubious methods to fake looking like a person with an iPhone.
And I already get enough SMS spam, I don't also want iMessage spam on top of that. At least right now Apple can take a junk message report and maybe shut down the Apple ID associated with it, but opening it up to non-Apple devices brings up a completely different set of issues that Apple would then have to police. By having a slightly more restricted system, their moderation burden is much lower.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:1)
Because this goes way deeper than just one service on one platform from one company. And the way things are done now, it hinders and slows technological progress. In addition, enforcing interoperability would give us all a much better level of interoperability WITHOUT enabling any company to become a monopoly and even if one company did create a product or service good enough that even, despite the above protections, somehow would up being a defacto monopoly in their chosen space... if they then used that monopoly to go off the rails and start artificially crippling features so they can be sold back to their consumers, it simply opens the door for another company to step right in and fill the void. It will ENFORCE competition much more than any other method currently and will force focus on new features and technology advancements to gain and retain customers instead of much slower advancement that uses crippling technologies to grind every cent out of their users at every opportunity.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:1)
The real reason anyone at all bitches about iMessage, is because Android bubbles are green. Thats it. No one is trying to Apple Pay Android users, or share with them games. It's just the color. Those who bitch say it's because people bully green users. Horseshit.
Incase anyone doesnt know, the real reason bubbles go blue, isnt because its another iPhone user, its because that message was sent with end-to-end encryption. Apple is right to block Beeper from falsely displaying blue bubbles. They are defeating an encryption indicator. That is bad. Really bad. Take the schoolyard drama elsewhere. Journalists use iPhones. Political dissenters use iPhones. They do so in oppressive regimes.Our own US government spies on SMS messages all the time. RCS isnt end-to-end encrypted either. Fuck that. They stay green. It is an important distinction in our increasingly Orwellian world.
Quite frankly, I am so shocked that on a site like Slashdot, that point is lost on people. We are supposed to be the people who understand the necessity and value of encryptions, its implementation, weaknesses, and the rest of it. Nerds? Please. You're all one step shy of being a government cum-dumpster. Defeating encryption is the work of the devil. Dont disguise it with "think of the children". We all know better, how that will turn out.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:3)
Please read deeper, my statement is not restricted to imessage and bubbles and is much more broad, but still to tackle your Apple fanboyism, let me state that you really don't get it. Apple is not secure for you, they are secure for them. Take for instance the case a few years back with the suspected terrorist when California was trying to get Apple to give them access to the phone. It is ridiculous because apple should not even be ABLE to give up your security to any government entity. If devices and protocols are configured securely, then only the endpoints define and control both the encryption and how it is implemented. If a company dictates what encryption is used and controls it, then you are NOT secure no matter what you believe. Message apps, by definition can not truly be secure from the end user perspective unless the encryption algorithm and mechanism is controlled by the user. i.e. add ons at the control of the user or even better, PRE-encryption with peer reviewed, open source, verifiable encryption before it ever even sees any messaging app. Apple pulled off a marketing coverup by somehow manipulating it so that no one ever asked the question, "why is it even possible for you to give up my security in the first place?"
To broaden it back up again, let look at a similar marketing miracle that happened during hurricane Katrina with Tesla. Tesla remotely enabled extended driving range as a "favor" to help people get out of the path of hurricane Katrina and turned into a marketing win. The correct question was never asked "why the fuck do you have access to something that someone else owns in the first place". The answer is that they shouldn't or at the VERY least, there should be government enforced controls that you do not have to allow them access to your equipment (car) after you have purchased it. They should not be able to change anything remotely or in person without the approval of the owner of the device and technically the owner should have that control directly even if they get pissy about it and threaten to void warranties if you cause battery damage.
Security is not security unless it is in the hands of the 2 endpoints and ONLY those endpoints, otherwise it is just fancy, pre-loaded malware that they suckered you into paying for.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
To broaden it back up again, let look at a similar marketing miracle that happened during hurricane Katrina with Tesla. Tesla remotely enabled extended driving range as a "favor" to help people get out of the path of hurricane Katrina and turned into a marketing win.
Neat trick. Katrina in 2005 and Tesla first model year release in 2008. Extended driving range AND time travel! What a marketing miracle!
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he's referring to Hurricane Irma, where Tesla remotely extended the range of their vehicles via an OTA to help owners get out of the path of the hurricane.
Source: https://electrek.co/2017/09/09... [electrek.co].
Re: Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
It is great that you want to question the idea of a company having the ability to give up your personal security, but you lose credibility when you also advocate for the government to force Apple into making iMessage universally available to non-iPhone users.
You should already know by now, unless you have been living under a rock, that any enforcement action proposed by the government is also going to include interoperability requirements that allow various three-letter government agencies blanket access to the data or make it trivially easy for them to acquire it. Much in the same way you say Apple is only secure for corporate benefit and not for their end users, the government does propose or pass legislation that it does not benefit from in one form or another.
The government is not your friend. They do not have your best interests at heart. Your welfare is only a concern of the state to the extent that it aligns with their interests in preserving or expanding their authority over you. You are absolutely correct in saying that true security is only possible when the keys to the kingdom exist only at the source and destination. Involving the government in any part of that process all but guarantees that somewhere along the line those keys will be quietly duplicated for use by whatever alphabet organization that wants to. If the government had its way, irrespective of what flag it flies, encryption as you describe it would be outlawed.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:0)
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
I'm not sure what innovation you think is being lost in this very specific instance. There are more chat clients than ever, and I would say that Telegram and Signal are actually doing plenty of innovation to bring people into the platform, and in the case of Telegram, to make it worth paying for a subscription.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:1)
I sometimes wonder why we have as many messaging systems as we do. All the IM systems have a bonus over SMS in that they require registration and it's a lot easier to control the message flow.
I assume Apple's primary concern is the 'walled garden' - to make Apple shiny and desirable enough you're ready to pay their ridiculous premium for access... but I do get the moderation/filtering angle too.
I'd love to see a single system pop up where you could use key pairs for encrypted messages and identification. Don't care if it's 'SMS' or IM in the background. You want to send me a message? Great, here's your key. Now I know it's you and if you sell that key or abuse it, I'll deactivate it.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:1)
But, like, why? It's not that people on Apple devices can't be reached any other way, or that there aren't a plethora of other ways to contact them, or even that you can't contact them through the specific app (Messages) that's at the centre of this. Messages is perfectly interoperable with Android devices, and will even have some of the features that Message-to-Message users enjoy once RCS is implemented. It's obviously not the full set of features, but that's not a huge deal.
Interoperability already exists. I'm not sure why Apple should guarantee the full feature set to an outside third party that is using dubious methods to fake looking like a person with an iPhone.
And I already get enough SMS spam, I don't also want iMessage spam on top of that. At least right now Apple can take a junk message report and maybe shut down the Apple ID associated with it, but opening it up to non-Apple devices brings up a completely different set of issues that Apple would then have to police. By having a slightly more restricted system, their moderation burden is much lower.
Exactly This!
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
Because if competitors made it so on Android anytime you received a text message from an iPhone user they made it a poop-emoji brown color Apple would freak out and demand special treatment. "Oh but you can reach us, we just identify non android devices differently'.
It's one of those things that it's fine as long as it suits the a particular parties interest, but if someone else does the exact same thing they'd flip out.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
Oh you are one of those people.
They would do it too! isn't a argument. It's something a kid says to his parents when they get in trouble. Billies parents would let him do it!
There is no strong monopoly argument for iMessage. This is just a silly argument that some kids bully other kids for the color of bubbles. Well, kids will always find something to bully you about, get over it.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
Oh you are one of those people.
And you're the exact kind of people I was talking about. The kind of person that says it's not big deal, get over it, move on, as long as its in your favor, if it wasn't, we know how your type behaves too.
They would do it too isn't the argument, the implication is as standard both sides consider it unacceptable unless it's in their favor, so that means clearly the overall problem exists.
Just like violence, there are people out there that are okay with it as long as they're the ones hitting other people, but they're not okay with it if they're the one getting hit.
The problem then is violence and both sides shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's a very sane, and reasonable argument.
So, if Apple would be all pissy and claim anti-competitive behavior if Android was doing it, then it means the behavior itself is still what it is, even if Apple the one doing it. Ergo, we should make both sides play nice and not do it.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
but opening it up to non-Apple devices brings up a completely different set of issues that Apple would then have to police
Just because someone made a non-Apple device work doesn't mean you Don't still need an Apple ID.
I think it should be perfectly fine that Apple requires you to have an Apple ID, and they can even require you to have a piece of Apple Hardware to authorize your ID to use their service.
What they should Not be allowed to do is Enforce an arbitrary Policy that you must use specific Apple hardware to use a service that is provided to you --- And It should be antitrust violation if they froze Apple IDs on the basis of using a competing product or made modifications solely to block a competing product that allows Apple customers to also use the service on other hardware.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
SMS is interoperable.
Nobody *needs* the cutesy stuff that iMessage adds.
And why do we see on the same day one post that this Beeper thing will persist, and another that it's giving up?
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:0)
But the thing is, if this were in place and couple with protections that hardware and software MUST be considered separate for all devices, technology would advance WAY faster, and competition would be much stronger if this were enforced by law.
You would also completely destroy the security industry in one fell swoop.
Hardware based encryption keys and authentication tokens would be illegal to make and use.
We have *vast* swaths of people that not only are incapable of using "what you know" factors of authentication, but are actively hostile to it in the most morbid confusing ways.
They demand access to their data without being inconvenienced by authenticating, but then complain when they eliminate the need for authentication and everyone else accesses their stuff.
I don't feel the fact hardware authentication tokens can be used for both good ("something you have" authentication) and for evil (drm) is a worthy justification to eliminate them.
DRM and other hostile uses of hardware based encryption are much better dealt with on an "intent" level in the law.
Banning the use of hardware and software combined this way is going to have an unimaginably negative effect on innovation and the progress of technology over many fields.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
What the heck? There is no encryption key BS involved here. To intemperate with iMessage you just need a valid Apple device ID that’s not encrypted it’s just a long enough number that you can’t guess someone else’s device id. Initially apparently they forgot to do the check and so you just needed any random ID but now Apple makes sure the number matches an existing phone or device.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
*interoperate
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
You would also completely destroy the security industry in one fell swoop.
Hardware based encryption keys and authentication tokens would be illegal to make and use.
I work in the IT security industry. This is absolutely untrue and is FUD of epic proportions. Hardware keys and tokens are typically coded with open source encryption that has been peer reviewed and the ability to swap out that software by the people on either end of the software or hardware (the only 2 parties that matter) is completely up to them.
Let me give an example using one of the biggest shitshows in IT, pinned certificates. It should never be an option for a company to hide communications from the owner of a given device. If an owner of the device decides they need to view or authorize any data coming out of their device going back to the company they should ALWAYS have that option. They are the owner of the device and they have EVERY right to know and authorize every bit of data that comes out of that device that may be reporting back to home base. Pinned certificates make this difficult to impossible. If regulations were in place that enforced that the companies could not prevent users from loading their own self signed certs and proxying traffic in a way that the owner of the device can see and take action on the traffic content. This does not make the system any less secure from an internet perspective. People in the middle without direct access to the hardware are still just as locked out.
So basically if a company is bitching about not being able to secure their product or service against the owner of the device, then they are in fact malware themselves. Owners should God of the items they own. If they misconfigure and allow access that is on them, not the company or the protocols or hardware being used. But it should be their right to configure it any way they want and they should have the right to say yes or no to every single thing that device does, from network connected wall plugs to automobiles.
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
WUT?
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
I think they meant to type "Owners should BE God of the items they own."
Re: Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
Re:Interoperability should be enforced (Score:2)
Unfortunately (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is under no obligation to let other people do anything with their proprietary messaging system. ... At least in the USA. I do wonder if things will be different if the EU DMA is determined to apply to iMessage at some point since that requires interoperability.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2, Insightful)
While they don't have to guarantee interpretability, it can be illegal to deliberately break it under certain circumstances. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble doing exactly that during the 90s, not once but repeatedly. The Apple camp really hated Microsoft over this, but now that the tables have turned, suddenly they think it's the right thing to do.
I remember saying for a long ass time back then, here on slashdot even (much older account than this) that if Apple ever took the dominant position on anything, Microsoft would look like a saint in comparison given Apple's even then much worse case of NIH syndrome, which apple fans vehemently denied.
Well...Told ya so...
Re: Unfortunately (Score:1)
Re: Unfortunately (Score:1)
No actually, I'm not. Microsoft did a lot more than with Java. For example they made a lot of their business applications deliberately incompatible with competing OSes, and vice versa, such as DR-DOS, Novell, etc.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple hasn't broken any interoperability though. You can still text them or use Telegram or whatever. They're not siloed off and unreachable, it's just that SMS/MMS messages:
- show up with green bubbles
- have degraded media quality
- lack some realtime feedback cues
But I text (and Telegram/Whatsapp/FB Messenger) with Android people all the time. There's no (lack of) interoperability argument to be made here.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is you have to rely on them to install other applications. It would be one thing if iMessage was downloaded separately, but it isn't. This is what you call a tying arrangement. Microsoft got in trouble with this over Internet explorer. Normally not a problem, except as you stated, they designed it to degrade the experience for competitors. Specifically, competitors aren't allowed to use rcs or sms, only iMessage can. That's a pretty clear cut case of an antitrust violation.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:3)
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Interoperability and tying seem like different problems with different solutions. If what we're talking about is how interoperable an iPhone and an Android phone are, I think there's no question: they communicate just fine, with very few obstacles, and the central point of contention is LARGELY aesthetic.
If what you're talking about is whether or not Messages is being illegally tied to the platform and degrades the experience for competitors (which I don't think it does, IMO--Telegram does exactly what I want, which is communicate with other Telegram users; it's a platform unto itself) that's a different topic that isn't what Beeper is talking about.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
You'd think but remember, iMessage replaces SMS for Apple users. Apple could easily improve that situation in multiple ways. Example: Allow third party apps to replace the default SMS client, which themselves could reroute to other users of the same application like imessage already does. Or even allow third party developers to support RCS. That's a pretty clear cut case of both tying AND interoperability in an antitrust case. The thing that's particularly damning for Apple here is Tim Cook's "buy your grandma an iPhone" comment when a reporter asked about this specifically.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
If everyone just followed the a single standard for messaging then tying wouldn't even matter. Use any client you want and it will "talk" with any other client just fine. We kind of have this because most applications will use sms if that's the only common protocol. It sounds like RCS will take that over and we will all be better off.
It still probably won't give people a certain color bubble and kids will still use that little detail to screw with each other like the monsters quite a few of them are. It's what kids do after all.
Luckily, this more or less isn't really a problem since most messaging apps still can do the basic messaging. I know I'm still able to text with my iphone owning family without any problems.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
I still personally prefer SMS over these services anyways, mainly because I loathe read receipts and notifications to the other party when you're typing. Those are two "features" I never asked for and most of these apps don't allow you to turn off.
E2EE is nice but I'd rather do without if it means avoiding that crap. That, and when I want to have a confidential conversation, I never do it over text, even with E2EE.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Exactly! Apple has provided an interface for customers of other devices to talk to apple device users. This is like publishing a API that has slightly less features than your paid product. If someone found a way to access your paid APIs without paying you would sue them.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Apple runs the iMessage service as an internal network at no cost to Apple users. Why should another business get to sell access to that network?
Was this a neat technical hack? Hell yes! Do I think Apple should make an Android client for iMessage? I mean... I guess, sure? But the idea that Apple needs to allow third parties access to iMessage is daft.
Don't get me wrong: I think Apple well and truly abuses their power around the iOS App Store, and that they need regulation there to rein them in. But putting iMessage in the same category is just silly. It's a fairly popular messaging app in the US, little-used elsewhere. There are tons of competitors, some of which are good. Better than iMessage, honestly.
Migicovsky is being dumb here. I don't think he has any intention to actually take Apple to court; Beeper would get trounced. Maybe he can focus some additional regulatory scrutiny on Apple? But I think he's just grabbing the microphone to be loud and get some press before Beeper fades the obscurity of another multi-protocol chat app
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Apple runs the iMessage service as an internal network at no cost to Apple users. Why should another business get to sell access to that network?
Whether it's free is notwithstanding when it comes to antitrust concerns. Remember, Microsoft gave away Internet explorer for free, even to apple users. But this wasn't the problem, the problem was the tying arrangement.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Basically this. He's just another loudmouth trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. And chances are, he's probably sold a bunch of Beeper stock so he's trying to pump up the stock price before it eventually plummets.
Anyone with a Mac can use it as a iMessage gateway and Apple cannot stop it. It's how BlueBubbles and AirMessage work. But those apps have less glamour.
It's really just another WeWork CEO trying to scam investors in the end - I mean, they're offering nothing new anymore but all his bluster is trying to prop up stock prices or other things.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Yes, if Apple is seen as s dominant player, then antitrust laws can apply if Apple tries to keep out competitors with certain actions.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
While they don't have to guarantee interpretability, it can be illegal to deliberately break it under certain circumstances. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble doing exactly that during the 90s, not once but repeatedly.
The "under certain circumstances" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The circumstances were: a) having complete market dominance, b) breaking 3rd party systems using your market dominance, and c) they didn't directly get in trouble for it because the entire anti-trust case covered far more than just these actions and they were a minor contributor overall to their case.
In any case it's not remotely the same thing as what is going on right here. Apple is under no obligation to let anyone play in *their* world. Microsoft didn't break interoperability with their stuff, they broke it with others.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Actually Microsoft did it in both directions, many times, as I already mentioned.
But your understanding of how antitrust law works is wanting. Market dominance, or even a monopoly, isn't required to run afoul of any of it. It's about restraint of trade.
The most relevant legal theory here is a tying arrangement, in addition to the fact that Apple, purely as a matter of policy particularly in its app store, does not allow competitors to function as the default sms app, nor do they allow other apps to support rcs. Then to make matters worse, they deliberately degrade the experience for competitors.
I get that, as an Appletologist you believe that apple and T Don Cookard can do no wrong and the law doesn't apply to them, but the real world doesn't work that way.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Yes they did it in both directions, but only got in trouble for doing it in one direction. Also I didn't say you need to have market dominance, or a monopoly. You didn't read my post. I said Microsoft had it. All you need for antitrust is to monopolize a market (a legally ill-defined verb, not the noun people associate with it).
Your tying argument is finally getting to something close, except, it remains their product and their services are tied to it. That is one of the reasons Apple keeps winning these cases over and over again, while Google keeps losing them. Apple is under zero obligation to allow another app to communicate on their device. Antitrust is only relevant when you impact the wider market, not when you enact a policy such as "we do not allow an any third party apps to send smses".
I get that, as an Appletologist
Now you've just shown your biggest ignorance here. I'm an infamous Apple hater. But I do reserve legal judgement to what is legally possible. I dare say personally fuck them in every way possible, but then I'm not a judge so that is my prerogative.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
The issue with that is locking down your own system against an unwanted 3rd party application is not actually being anti-competitive. It remains *their* system. Anti-competitive would be locking down a previously open system, which this never was as evident of the hackery that Beeper needed to go through to get it working. Apple has plenty of antitrust problems (especially around payment systems, and the way they have run the app store in the past), but this is not one of them.
Re: Unfortunately (Score:2)
"Oh, woe is me! those big meanies at apple won't take my word for it that my quickie app is just as secure as their engineering and let its output run free on their network. Almost as bad as that bank that won't give me cash on my homemade ATM card!"
[eyeroll]
Apple locking it down (Score:0)
It always bugged me that Apple didn't open up their messaging app to non-mac PCs, because it would be nice to use it while I'm working and not have to pull out my phone.
Is Apple's attitude "keep it locked down to encourage Apple adoption," which sounds ridiculous?
Or is it because they just don't feel like supporting competitors using their infrastructure, because why should they?
Re:Apple locking it down (Score:2)
Re:Apple locking it down (Score:0)
It always bugged me that Apple didn't open up their messaging app to non-mac PCs, because it would be nice to use it while I'm working and not have to pull out my phone.
Is Apple's attitude "keep it locked down to encourage Apple adoption," which sounds ridiculous?
Apple's business model is to make money off their hardware and give users access to most of their software and services for free. It's been trying to add services income and the app store brings in money too.
If the software and Apple services are made free on any platform, how would you replace the Apple hardware income that they rely upon?
(By the way, an old $100 iPad on your desk works for messaging and other personal stuff you should keep off your work computer.)
Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:3)
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:2)
to me non-blue bubbles mean "ok, they may or may not get the message based on my signal, their signal, etc". and "don't send pictures w/o resizing somehow first"
Of course, I'm rural and will float between SOS only levels of signal and one little tiny bar if I'm not on my wireless. Things get better mostly about a mile or so from the house in any direction.... if I changed providers that could change (there is a Verizon tower near by, a coworker that lives 2 miles away uses it for his home internet, and the tower is between our houses), etc. but that hassle isn't worth it to me
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:3)
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:0)
As far as I can tell, nobody I communicate with has a problem with my non-Blue bubbles, and if they did, I doubt they'd be worth communicating with.
Green bubbles also equals non-encrypted, while blue means end-to-end encrypted.
I dislike having my communications monitored and recorded. Not everyone lives where this is safe.
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, nobody I communicate with has a problem with my non-Blue bubbles, and if they did, I doubt they'd be worth communicating with. Is this a hack solution in search of a problem?
Congrats, you communicate with a few well mannered people. Or at least well mannered to your face. The reality is most many people aren't like that, heck some people you communicate with may just not let on that they aren't like that.
Also clearly you don't understand the limitations of the system if you think this is solely a problem of bubble colours. Some people send more than text via messaging systems.
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:2)
Re:Blue Speech Bubbles (Score:2)
The whole images look like shit on SMS has to be either the carrier or the android phone. I get SMS messages from android users in group chats all the time that are as perfectly high res as any I get on signal or telegram. I've sent test sms messages to my android device and they look just as good as they do on my iPhone. So what am I doing right that the whole United States can't?
Isn't this normal? (Score:2)
"how they've made the experience worse for iPhone users with this change. They've degraded the performance of iMessage for iPhone users," he continued, "all in search of crushing a competitor."
My small corner supermarket does the same, it categorically refuses to let Walmart put their wares on its shelves, thereby ruining my shopping performance, forcing me to go to 2 shops, all in search of crushing Walmart.
Re:Isn't this normal? (Score:2)
Just an attempt to share the misery of Android by Google. Microsoft used to do this all the time too, funding SCO and such.
This Beeper dude can't possibly make money the way he is marketing this thing. He sounds just like Darl McBride, for those who remember.
Re:Isn't this normal? (Score:2)
I'ts very different from SCO. SCO was falsely claiming to own software that it did not own, and demanding payments from everyone. In this case Beeper wants to interoperate with other devices.
Re:Isn't this normal? (Score:2)
Actually Beeper is trying to hack some other company's interface and wrap the flag around itself like it's authorized to do so. It's not. You can try passing some laws to rein in Apple, but what Beeper is doing is as doomed as what SCO was trying to do. That is the similarity.
Good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Entitled dude wants Apple to pay for services he c (Score:2, Funny)
fucking moron (Score:0)
a child throwing a temper tantrum. put him in time out for an hour or so till he figures out why hes a retard.
proprietary (Score:2)
You either purchased proprietary hardware/software or you didn't. Proprietary hardware/software that you did not purchase owes you nothing.
Meh... it is what it is .... (Score:2)
I feel like first off? Screw you, Apple, for wasting time, effort and money on such nonsense. But that said? The developer trying to bridge iMessaging to Android has no legal leg to stand on to file a lawsuit to force them to allow what he's doing.
So often in I.T., as in other things in life? Just because you legally CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.
We see a lot of "cat and mouse" games that go on and on this way, because stubborn dev wants to offer a service that big corp. prefers not to offer.
The wise company would see that the feature is desirable enough so a third party feels it worth going to these lengths to make it happen, and would just build a solution of their own to solve the problem. To be honest? Apple isn't clueless. They already know people want the iMessages interoperability without identifying someone as an iOS user vs an Android user. They're just holding out, trying to make things happen in some way they feel is more profitable or advantageous for them. But the clock has been ticking for a while now on making a move. IMO, Apple should have just developed an iMessages app for Android and called it a day. Now, they've got to expect these other hacks to start popping up.
Re:Meh... it is what it is .... (Score:2)
Screw you, Apple, for wasting time, effort and money on such nonsense.
I disagree here, mainly because the same method the app used could also be used to setup a spam operation targeting imessage users. If they hadn't been closed it down other not as upstanding people would have figured out how Beeper was doing this and copied it. This is honestly Apple closing a exploit in the imessage system.
The real business model now revealed (Score:0)