Apple Confirms It Shut Down iMessage for Android App Beeper Mini

[msackey]

You make a good point, but the messaging apps you listed can be used on other platforms… iMessage is tied to only Apple devices.

Yes, those message apps can be used on other platforms because those companies themselves provide those apps on the different platforms. So it’s cross platform because those companies offer the apps on different platforms, but these are not cross-messaging apps.

What I’m trying to say is the iMessage is, in a sense, cross-platform. While it doesn’t use the iMessage protocol when the receiving device doesn’t have iMessage, it is still able to send messages across platform when you’re in iMessage.

 

[Ludatyk]

Yes, those message apps can be used on other platforms because those companies themselves provide those apps on the different platforms. So it’s cross platform because those companies offer the apps on different platforms, but these are not cross-messaging apps.

What I’m trying to say is the iMessage is, in a sense, cross-platform. While it doesn’t use the iMessage protocol when the receiving device doesn’t have iMessage, it is still able to send messages across platform when you’re in iMessage.

Well, Android and iOS can still communicate via SMS… but it’s not iMessage. It might be cross-platform in a sense you can communicate via an iPhone, iPad or a Mac… but again those are all Apple devices.

I’m of the belief, that if Beeper didn’t decide to monetize this project… Apple wouldn’t have done anything. AirMessage and BlueBubbles haven’t had any Apple resistance, since they don’t charge for their project. But once Beeper attached a price tag onto using their service… it became a problem.

 

[msackey]

I’m of the belief, that if Beeper didn’t decide to monetize this project… Apple wouldn’t have done anything. AirMessage and BlueBubbles haven’t had any Apple resistance, since they don’t charge for their project. But once Beeper attached a price tag onto using their service… it became a problem.

I thought Apple’s adoption of RCS was announced way before this Beeper thing broken into iMessages.

Apple announces that RCS support is coming to iPhone next year - 9to5Mac

In a surprising move, Apple has announced today that it will adopt the RCS (Rich Communication Services) messaging standard. The...

9to5mac.com

I don’t know enough about AirMessage and BlueBubbles to really comment how they are able to use iMessage. Are either of those messaging programs faking an identity like Beeper was? Perhaps not?

Update: So I just read that AirMessages uses a very different method and I can see why Apple isn’t shutting it down. Directly from AirMessages website: “AirMessage leverages a Mac computer to handle sending and receiving messages instead.” So this begs the question whether AirMessage is truly secured because once the message arrives at that AirMessage Mac, it would seem that anyone with “authorized” access (aka that 18 year old software developer) can read the messages. Yeah, this is not the same form of hack as Beeper and there’s no reason Apple would be shutting down that service because: a) those using that system know what they’re getting into and b) it’s not hacking into Apple iMessages. In this case, I don’t think monetization is the reason that Beeper got shutdown.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

My understanding is that a big part of this Beeper project was to get Apple to do exactly what they did - as preparation for the incoming antitrust suit. It was a trap, and Apple stepped right in it.

The EU is going to have fun with this.

And Apple will lose, and Apple will deserve it.

 

[JeMeCasse]

I never thought this was a viable business, but it was born of Apple's anti consumer practices for their own gain around messaging. Group chats with Android users was a horrible experience and it didn't need to be. I look forward to RCS coming next year and hope it is well implemented.

 

[_Refurbished_]

This is like Robin Hood, except Robin Hood wants to charge you a monthly subscription.

 

[Ludatyk]

I thought Apple’s adoption of RCS was announced way before this Beeper thing broken into iMessages.

Oh yeah, absolutely. It was announced before this fiasco and I’m glad RCS on the iPhone will exist… but I’m currently using BlueBubbles on Android. And I’ll most likely continue using it regardless of RCS being on the iPhone because I highly doubt Apple’s implementation of RCS will be as good as just communicating via iMessage.

I don’t know enough about AirMessage and BlueBubbles to really comment how they are able to use iMessage. Are either of those messaging programs faking an identity like Beeper was? Perhaps not?

AirMessage has been out for awhile and BlueBubbles came afterwards, but their methods to use iMessage relies on having your own Mac hardware (or WindowsPC).

So, no… they don’t use any fake identities like Beeper. But the end result of these projects… is to have iMessage on Android (something I’m sure Apple is not a fan of). Heck, both AirMessage and BlueBubbles have a website and it’s on Google Play Store to legitimize the use of it.

It’s not some underground thing, so… I‘m sure they are on Apple’s radar.

 

[padrino121]

"Anticompetitive" in what way? Apple built and maintains a service that costs them money. They pay for it by selling other products and services. Have these clowns offered to pay Apple for the use of their servers? (That's not even getting into the security issues.)

Hmmm, so I built and maintain and infrastructure to provide you a service, say electricity… act as a gatekeeper and keep others away on purpose, no cross connects, no bridges to other operators… Because I pay for the infrastructure for service I am by default not a monopoly and it’s ok, look at history if you want to understand the dangers… First pull your head out of Apple’s ass then take a look

 

[msackey]

AirMessage has been out for awhile and BlueBubbles came afterwards, but their methods to use iMessage relies on having your own Mac hardware (or WindowsPC).

So, no… they don’t use any fake identities like Beeper.

Yeah, in those cases, I don’t see how Apple could or would shut down those services. Those two message systems are using totally different modalities than Beeper.

 

[shenfrey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of you on here extremely happy with this? I would presume many of you want nothing to do with Android, and want Apple to be the only guy on the block?

 

[bobcomer]

Following your logic, would it be ok then for an external party to hack into the Signal or WhatsApp messaging system and make a business out of that by selling that service? Genuinely asking.

It would be to me, reverse engineering a protocol for interoperability is okay by me, but WhatsApp people are doing it themselves. They have to, it's an EU law. My hope is that on the iPhone WhatsApp client they add iMessage integration too. Then we can just forget about Apple's walled garden in iMessage. (which never should have been there in the first place. iOS is good enough itself to command a good market share.)

 

[rorschach]

Hmmm, so I built and maintain and infrastructure to provide you a service, say electricity… act as a gatekeeper and keep others away on purpose, no cross connects, no bridges to other operators… Because I pay for the infrastructure for service I am by default not a monopoly and it’s ok, look at history if you want to understand the dangers… First pull your head out of Apple’s ass then take a look

Comparing a text messaging app on a smartphone to critical infrastructure like electricity is quite a take.

Let's start with the fact that physical infrastructure by its nature has limited space. Software doesn't. There's no way to have 100 different electricity providers available to every building each with their own infrastructure. You can, however, have 100 different messaging apps. You can have 1000, even. There's no limit. You're free to use iMessage. Or WhatsApp. Or Signal. Or Telegram. It's entirely your choice.

As for being a monopoly. iMessage certainly doesn't have a monopoly. Even if it did, having a monopoly isn't illegal; abusing it is. And considering that Apple allows you to delete the stock Messages app and use whatever messaging apps you want, they wouldn't be abusing their monopoly if they had one.

All of this also ignores that "iMessage" doesn't need to be cross-platform or open; the Messages app does and is because it supports SMS and soon RCS. You only need one standard that everyone supports as a baseline, which is SMS/RCS. As long as you have that, anyone can message anyone on any platform. Any other service like iMessage or WhatsApp is just an optional extra that people can use or not and those don't need to be interoperable. Just like how you have a standard government postal service that anyone can use and delivers everywhere, but you can also use FedEx or some other service if you choose. FedEx doesn't have to deliver everywhere.

 

[JeMeCasse]

Genuine question as I'm not from the US, but does America have a bullying problem?

 

[iBluetooth]

My understanding is that a big part of this Beeper project was to get Apple to do exactly what they did - as preparation for the incoming antitrust suit. It was a trap, and Apple stepped right in it.

The EU is going to have fun with this.

And Apple will lose, and Apple will deserve it.

No one is allowed to make an App to send WhatsApp messages? Their marketshare is much larger.

 

[bobcomer]

Does it? I legitimately don’t know.

They do, for etoe encryption.

But regardless, can one use WhatsApp to text into Signal? I don’t think so.

Not yet from what I understand, but they will soon.

 

[msackey]

Genuine question as I'm not from the US, but does America have a bullying problem?

Yes it does. Look at the US Congress itself.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of you on here extremely happy with this? I would presume many of you want nothing to do with Android, and want Apple to be the only guy on the block?

I don't care about Android but, I think honest competition is a good thing for the marketplace and the consumer. In that sense, I think it is very important that Apple isn't the "only guy on the block."

As far as I am concerned, Beeper and its CEO are shady (at best) and lazy and they got what they deserved.

 

[BootsWalking]

Apple only lets you compromise their users security if you pay them billions of dollars like Google is doing.

 

[wanha]

throw timmy in jail until he stops being so anticompetitive.

Might as well throw out all of capitalism, as every company plays lip service to open markets and free competition, yet all their actions are geared toward building monopolies and insulating them from the effects of competition

 

[GalileoSeven]

Given the security problems this would seem to introduce, this was only a matter of time in coming.

With all the attention iMessage has been getting though, I'm surprised that scant attention has been paid to just how little it's used outside the US/N. America. As has been said before, users of WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal et al outnumber the total number of iMessage users by many orders of magnitude. If this whole issue didn't revolve entirely around making Apple look bad, then I would think you'd see more attention being paid towards efforts to allow users of the above iMessage alternatives to message each other in a similar inter-operational manner.

 

[wanha]

I just want interoperability and privacy. It's mad that it costs me £0.60 each time I send a photo to an Android buddy using MMS.

Fear not, RCS is coming to iPhones for those laggard users that don't already have WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Messenger or any of the countless interoperable messaging services on their devices

 

[wanha]

Apple only lets you compromise their users security if you pay them billions of dollars like Google is doing.

You're confusing privacy and security here, my friend. There's overlap between the two, but they're not the same.

 

[Ludatyk]

Yeah, in those cases, I don’t see how Apple could or would shut down those services. Those two message systems are using totally different modalities than Beeper.

Again, if they took Beeper’s approach and attached a price tag. I believe Apple would have stepped in… imagine, if Beeper acted in good faith.

Didn’t charge money for Beeper Mini and maybe provided a donation link, I don’t believe Apple would have reacted. It’s not necessarily about the fake identities… I’ve been told Hackintosh (hacks on Macs) has done this for YEARS.

 

[wanha]

Ok I’m not an advocate of ‘throwing Timmy in jail’, but you’re kidding yourself if you think Apple isn’t anti-competitive when it comes to iMessage. Apple could offer iMessage on Android, but intentionally chose not to do so because they were afraid more kids would chose Android relative to their parents - this actually came out in public discovery in the Epic v Apple court case.

Also, when asked publicly about RCS or cross platform support for secure, rich communications between Apple and Android users, Tim famously said ‘buy your mom an iPhone’

I would posit to you a company whose answer to cross compatibility is simply ‘Make everyone on planet Earth buy our iPhones, problem solved!’ is extremely monopolistic and anticompetitive.

Source: Yahoo News
“During a question-and-answer session, a journalist raised the issue of the iPhone’s incompatibility with rich communication services (RCS) messaging, preventing the seamless sharing of video clips with their Android-using mom. It’s been a longstanding issue between Apple and Android devices. Cook acknowledged that it isn’t a top priority for the company. If the reporter wanted to fix the issue, Cook joked, “buy your mom an iPhone.””

Source: The Verge
“Eddy Cue pushed to bring iMessage to Android as early as 2013, according to a new deposition made public as part of the Epic case. Currently Apple’s senior VP of software and services, Cue wanted to devote a full team to iMessage support on Android, only to be overruled by other executives.
The line of questioning is likely to play a significant role in Epic’s antitrust lawsuit, which argues that iOS app store exclusivity represents an illegal use of market power. Epic has made clear in previous filings that it plans to make iMessage exclusivity part of that argument, citing a 2016 email from Phil Schiller that argues iMessage expansion “will hurt us more than help us.””

Having an OS that isn't freely open to other manufacturers is already fundamentally anti-competitive, is it not? After all, the whole point of it is to create structural barriers that insulate you from the actions of competitors so you don't have to compete on price.

So yes, iMessage is anti-competitive, but so is basically everything else about Apple's business.

 

[BootsWalking]

You're confusing privacy and security here, my friend. There's overlap between the two, but they're not the same.

You're failing to consider how ads can deliver malware via zero-day exploits that have been previously discovered on iOS.