iMessage for Android App 'Beeper Mini' is Back, Apple ID Sign In Now Required and Phone Numbers Don't Work

[Janschi]

What if you have many Apple devices but some Android, and want to continue conversations across different devices? Is there any chat service aside from iMessage which doesn’t allow this?

Google Voice, Telegram, WhatsApp for example. For the latter two the other parties need to be using the app as well.

Beware. Allowing a 3rd party company access to your Apple ID to deliver you iMessages will also allow them access to everything else associated with your Apple ID. These companies will typically keep your Apple ID signed into a server based Mac and although they will claim that iMessages are the only part of your Apple account they will use, you have no guarantee that they are not seeing or harvesting other data from your account, nor can you be guaranteed that this company is keeping that system secure and protected enough from data breaches and hacking the way Apple does.

Well for Beeper Cloud this is completely true, Beeper mini does not use a virtual Mac but apart from push notifications everything directly works via the app and Apple servers. But I 100% agree with you in the regard of it being a security risk. I use Beeper Cloud, but I did not dare to use the virtual Mac bridge, for the other services, I dont care too much about security.

 

[Harthag]

I mean you support Beeper which was profiting off Apple's iMessage Therefore the little guy taking from Big bad Apple.

"Screw these companies" are the words you used, no?

I was referring to specific comments on pirating old software. If X company chooses to shut down a server and I can’t access content I paid for, I’ve no problem pirating it and yes, screw those companies. Has nothing to do with supporting the little guy. Has everything to do with the company taking money from the person who paid for the product.

In the case of Beeper, I support progress. Apple’s statements are and have always been smoke and mirrors. You’re right, it’s not good on Beeper to profit from it and they deserve whatever comes their way. They were trying to make a point, anyone who thinks Eric didn’t know it’d get shut down instantly is a fool. The damage is done and it’s clear as day iMessage / RCS interoperability is possible, and Apple is holding up progress. I couldn’t care less about native iMessage on Android. I just want *native* messaging apps on both iOS and Android to support high quality image and video sharing, among other features, between iOS and Android.

Two different situations and you can’t throw them under the same umbrella.

 

[spinedoc77]

There is a big difference between a competitive advantage and a anticompetitive action. iMessage is a competitive advantage for Apple. It does nothing to stifle competition among messaging services.

I'm curious about the veracity of this. In the 90s Microsoft was sued for antitrust issues because Internet Explorer was the default browser, and due to Microsoft's dominant market share provided it an anti-competitive advantage. Seems like iMessage being the default (and even more so egregious you are unable to make a 3rd party messaging app the default app) would put them in antitrust territory *IF* their market share was dominant. That's where I'm not sure if their market share is "dominant", even in the US. It's interesting that this question was brought up in the EU and if you believe rumors the EU is set to rule in favor of Apple primarily because it doesn't have dominant market share.

 

[spinedoc77]

While "RCS" is an open standard, to date, I believe only Google hosts the needed intermediate RCS servers needed for the service to operate. Clearly Apple objected to that, and word is that Apple will host its own RCS servers that reject any message that can't be verified as being fully E2EE.

In other words, Apple is now open to adopting RCS support so long as it can meet their strict requirements for privacy and a consistent user experience.

iMessage will continue to offer unique features that are not supported by RCS clients, such as Memoji.

That's good. While I don't necessarily trust Apple, I definitely trust Google much less. I'm hoping Apple can shoehorn e2e encryption as well as that's not in the GSMA spec from what I understand, that's probably another reason why they need their own servers.

 

[spinedoc77]

Sure. But having an advantage and getting bigger doesn't make you anticompetitive. Anticompetitive actions involve interfering with your competitors, not simply developing features and services that they want. For example, Microsoft in the 90s and Google very recently in the Epic trial were found guilty of anticompetitive behavior by leveraging their market dominance in combination with financial incentives to prevent their partners from installing their competitors products.

Apple avoids this pitfall by making the whole widget. There are certainly some arguments to make around NFC access and In App Payments where Apple could be considered anticompetitive. But they can argue that the consumer benefits of closing those systems amount to a legitimate business purpose.

Does that mean Apple has never purchased a company to remove that competition from the market? I'll have to do some research, but I'd tend to think Apple has done this before. I get the argument against Google, and especially in the Epic v Google where it came out that they didn't charge Spotify to use their marketplace versus Apple simply creating their own music app (WTF Google didn't just push YT music is beyond me), as one example. But Apple buys tons of companies, I suppose the issue is actually proving intent.

Edit: Very quick research sees lots of support for Apple stifling innovation in part because of acquisitions and marketplace incentives, of course nothing proven yet. Epic v. Apple seems to have largely been decided because the courts believed since Android existed consumers had a viable option. But would that not apply to Microsoft in the 90s, where you could buy a Mac (or in the case of Internet Explorer you could still install Netscape for example), maybe the differentiator, as I previously mentioned, was simply market share. Although I tend to think the differentiator was more based on regulators attitudes being different today than they were 25 years ago.

 

[Janschi]

None of these reasons explain an 87% market share amongst teenagers. The iPhone is 16 years old now and has been non-exclusice for around 10. Teenagers were toddlers or not even born for the first 3 points. When you were a teen the market share was probably at or under 50% in the US. Finally even after launching a year after the iPhone if Android was of such poor quality it would never have seen much higher market share market share globally at times over the past decade and a half.

And you don't understand that Android phones are considered poor quality, because you only think about Pixels, Galaxies and One Pluses. You can walk into a 7/11 in Thailand and buy a low spec Android device for 60-70 bucks. Additionally, you make points but do not connect the dots. Android is popular globally because it has low spec and cheap devices available for the "poor", perfect for countries that don't have the money or do not want to spend the money on an iPhone. The iPhone is considered a premium phone, even in its home market - the US.

Do you really think people easily can afford iPhones in countries like Thailand, where there is no minimum wage or if there is, it is a fraction of what me and you are used to? That is why Android is so popular, not because everyone can own a premium device like a Galaxy or Pixel.

 

[Janschi]

Exactly. No way are kids actually being bullied in school because their text comes through with a green bubble. The only people who care about this are clickbait writers for The Verge and WSJ.

Kids dont use SMS/iMessage nowadays, just as @scorpio vega said, they use Instagram or Snapchat.

 

[Janschi]

Why don't people just move group messages to Whatsapp if the issues for Android are that significant? Why is it better to grant Android users access to iMessage?

Because Americans do not use WhatsApp and this news article clearly is about the US.

 

[spinedoc77]

Kids dont use SMS/iMessage nowadays, just as @scorpio vega said, they use Instagram or Snapchat.

Maybe my kids are outliers but they and all of their friends use iMessage almost exclusively. They don't even have Instagram or Snapchat installed.

 

[Janschi]

this is not about technology, they don't care about consumers.
Google is loosing on data collection from messages because they released 4 different messaging apps in last 5 years and nothing worked.
now if they force Apple to use RCS standard then Google can kill What's App and all other messaging apps and get all messaging data because 99.99% of the people own either iPhone or an Android phone.

This probably is only true for the US. Europe will still continue to use WhatsApp.

 

[Janschi]

I agree with you, but I understand Apple’s reservations. I would 100% have an Android if it weren’t for iMessage. Instead I buy a new Pro Max every single year. No doubt there are many like myself out there.

"Not owning an iPhone, if it wasn't for iMessage" "I buy a Pro Max every single year"

This statement is stupid. If you really ONLY cared about iMessage an iPhone SE or XS would still work perfectly fine... Yet you spend thousands of dollars every year, because of iMessage... Sure.

 

[Janschi]

Which makes them not “literally the same thing”.

Just one example, not the only thing: I do enjoy getting Memojis from my daughter.

Sounds to me Line you don’t actually ude iMessage, especially across devices.

You can actually use the Memoji stickers in WhatsApp.

It's crazy how many people have opinions about stuff they have no idea about in this thread.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm curious about the veracity of this. In the 90s Microsoft was sued for antitrust issues because Internet Explorer was the default browser, and due to Microsoft's dominant market share provided it an anti-competitive advantage. Seems like iMessage being the default (and even more so egregious you are unable to make a 3rd party messaging app the default app) would put them in antitrust territory *IF* their market share was dominant. That's where I'm not sure if their market share is "dominant", even in the US. It's interesting that this question was brought up in the EU and if you believe rumors the EU is set to rule in favor of Apple primarily because it doesn't have dominant market share.

Microsoft didn't get in trouble because IE was the default. The got in trouble for leveraging their 95% market share and providing incentives to their partners to discourage them from installing alternative browser and creating browser add-ons. They also created technical hurdles without legitimate business justification to using alternative browsers.

See the summary of the case from the FTC:

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

Does that mean Apple has never purchased a company to remove that competition from the market?

No.

 

[Janschi]

Okay cool.

So you are implying your Parents and not capanble of learning? Or are you saying you dont have the patience to teach them. Because that's either offensive or just plain lazy.

my grandmother (God rest her soul) was in her 70s using an iPhone as well and after spending time showing her how to use it and messenger she figured it out.

My grandfather is pushing 80 and as old and ornery as he is, I was able to get the man onto the Apple TV and off off Directv paying $200 a month.

My mother is not elderly by any means (53) and she used to be very anti-tech and I had to hold her hand. I remember i came back from Japan after a year and it shocked me she now was able to not only go shop for her own phones but she actually doesnt need me to hold her hand to use apps. She installed RIng camera by herself. Download this app or that app...by herself. 10 years ago she wouldnt have been able to do that.

The point being is, you are making excuses. But i'll play devil's advocate. I am not talking about(and most people here) are not talking about Mom and Dad or our grandparents who aren't going to know what green or blue means.

We are talking about people under 50.

People that can and likely already use multiple messaging apps.

I agreed with all of your posts, but with this one you might have to enhance your view.
I'm glad I got my parents to switch to an iPhone because supporting them is way easier as I know where every little setting is hidden without having a device in front of me.

I know I'm not the person you replied to, however your point of 'offensive or lazy' is very reckless.
I am trying to teach my mother constantly how to get more out of her phone. She's just a few of years older than your mother. However I get yelled at, when I try to explain stuff to her, because I already know it and I can do it so much faster than her. I tried to explain to her how to make an Apple Pay In-App payment and she got so mad on why I am not doing it for her. Mind you she was 3h away from home and she wanted me to pay for it and log into her account.
Your mom might want to learn about tech, but please do not assume every 'older' person is like this, because my mom certainly does not want to learn.

 

[Janschi]

I'm curious about the veracity of this. In the 90s Microsoft was sued for antitrust issues because Internet Explorer was the default browser, and due to Microsoft's dominant market share provided it an anti-competitive advantage. Seems like iMessage being the default (and even more so egregious you are unable to make a 3rd party messaging app the default app) would put them in antitrust territory *IF* their market share was dominant. That's where I'm not sure if their market share is "dominant", even in the US. It's interesting that this question was brought up in the EU and if you believe rumors the EU is set to rule in favor of Apple primarily because it doesn't have dominant market share.

The difference is though, during setup you are being asked if you WANT to turn on iMessage and you can disable it even after turning it on.

 

[Gix1k]

"Not owning an iPhone, if it wasn't for iMessage" "I buy a Pro Max every single year"

This statement is stupid. If you really ONLY cared about iMessage an iPhone SE or XS would still work perfectly fine... Yet you spend thousands of dollars every year, because of iMessage... Sure.

I don’t have to convince you. If $1200 a year is a lot of money to you, sorry.

 

[wassupdoc]

Maybe apple should just go ahead and release an android version of the app, but keep the bubbles green. Who cares as long as the other functionality works - End to end encryption, functional group chats etc. Those that are really bothered by being a green bubble will still end up buying iphones. There are so many other reasons to love the apple ecosystem and interoperability it provides which android can't match anyway.

 

[StanleyOmar]

Because Americans do not use WhatsApp and this news article clearly is about the US.

I think we all understand that WhatsApp isn't a first choice for Americans. It's just strange that people would rather spend the better part of a decade complaining about a crappy experience when messaging between Android and iOS, and even go so far as to buy some sketchy app that offers something no one thought would last, than to just use an existing, time-tested solution in WhatsApp (if they must have group chats with Android users and care about the missing bits).

 

[spinedoc77]

Microsoft didn't get in trouble because IE was the default. The got in trouble for leveraging their 95% market share and providing incentives to their partners to discourage them from installing alternative browser and creating browser add-ons. They also created technical hurdles without legitimate business justification to using alternative browsers.

See the summary of the case from the FTC:

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

No.

Sounds to me, based on what the FTC is saying about Microsoft, that Apple could *arguably* fall into that antitrust category in regard to both iMessage and the App store. 1) Using its dominant position by including these in their products (included on iPhones, iPads, MacOS, etc). 2) Making it technically difficult not to use the service (iMessage and App store installed by default, you can't make any other messaging app default, you can't go outside of the app marketplace at all). 3) Granting favorable conditions to discourage other apps from competing (This is relevant in Spotify's claim where the EU agreed mainly on the lines of Apple stopping devs from advertising alternative ways to suscribe to their apps outside of Apple's marketplace, kind of a reverse incentive where Spotify can't afford the 30% cut). Arguably the Spotify issue was partially resolved in the Epic case as now devs can advertise subscriptions outside of Apple, but that's just one example.

Anyway many of the Microsoft issues seem really relevant here, thanks for that link as it really solidified my understanding. I'll quote the relevant part from the FTC:

Example: The Microsoft Case​

Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers. Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the operating systems market to exclude other software developers and prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software to run with Microsoft's operating system software. Specifically, Microsoft illegally maintained its operating systems monopoly by including Internet Explorer, the Microsoft Internet browser, with every copy of its Windows operating system software sold to computer makers, and making it technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser. Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser. These actions hampered efforts by computer makers to use or promote competing browsers, and discouraged the development of add-on software that was compatible with non-Microsoft browsers. The court found that, although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft. To settle the case, Microsoft agreed to end certain conduct that was preventing the development of competing browser software.

 

[Born Again]

No, it is not. There are many, many iOS apps that allow you to have secure messaging with your android friends.

Why doesn't Google just make a messaging app with support for iOS?

The androidism is strong here. Should we keep apple and android users separate? are you okay with mixing users together?

 

[spinedoc77]

The difference is though, during setup you are being asked if you WANT to turn on iMessage and you can disable it even after turning it on.

That's a good point, from what I understand it was difficult to uninstall, with MS even saying it would break the OS while at the same time providing a discrete Internet Explorer for Mac. I remember back then it was possible to uninstall changing some of the code in the setup files. But you can't uninstall iMessage, only turn it off, and you can't make it the default messaging app, and of course it's bundled with every single iPhone and iPad sold encouraging a majority of users to use it. In the 90s the argument was also that Netscape Navigator was available to install and use, but that argument didn't fly.

 

[Radon87000]

Good for you. Honestly.

It won't, but it IS one piece of a larger puzzle.

Apple has openly stated that they are not trying to make devices for everyone. But they are really, really good at capturing the most valuable segment of consumers, which is why they are making all of the money.

As big of an Apple fanboy that I openly am, I have always argued that Apple products are not for everyone. If you don't want to pay for a quality experience, get a cheap Android. If you want to pay for a quality experience AND has specific needs that aren't covered by iPhone, get a high-end Android (you won't get the same objective "quality", and if you think you do you are the sheep - but you will as you stated get features not available on iPhone). All the people who has relatively mainstream use cases and want to pay for a quality experience, get an iPhone.

The second part of that argument is that the group that "should" get a high-end Android based on this logic is, in fact, very very small. But, advanced users always - ALWAYS - overestimate the requirements of "normal people", and overestimate the amount of advanced users.

Good for them. I think Apple has proven it can survive without them.

The vast majority of android users buying android flagships are usually able to talked into
Them. Source I used to work for a telecom for several years.

What I have learned and even seen with my own eyes is sales reps go out of their way to push flagship android phones.

One could argue, it’s because iPhones sell themselves.

Towards my tenure and even after moving on, any android users I have talked to switched to iPhone has thanked me.

Android is a subpar Os and I would rather walk on broken glass for the rest of my life before I ever use it as a daily driver. I cringed earlier using my galaxy lmao.

The apple ecosystem significantly trumps google and Samsung offerings and that’s precisely why apple is able to sell itself with minimal effort. Apple doesn’t offer carrier incentive to reps to sell their phones because they don’t need to.

iMessage isn’t what keeps people on iOS but there is no benefit for apple to bring iMessage to android simply because they are aware that they aren’t going to make a dent in the messaging world. A world where WhatsApp and messenger and telegram all
Ring supreme.

It’s just a waste of resources. There’s a reason why safari isn’t on windows despite windows being the most popular. Nobody used it and it is a waste of
Resources.

Again I can't speak for everyone else but those who have the money for an S23 Ultra have the money to buy an iPhone 15 Pro but buy the Android on purpose. iPhones are a household name so people buying Androids go out of their way to buy one

We can debate as to the reasons for eternity but for me it's down to convenience.

1. Universal back gesture from the right. It baffles me why Apple don't have this basic feature which is so ergonomic, its the one thing which keeps me on Android. People hold phones one-handed so the back gesture should be located on the right side of the phone so I don't have to stretch my thumb all the way to the left to go back. Phones have become so huge nowadays, this is really basic stuff

In fact I will even credit Apple here on their tap to top gesture which Android needs to implement as well. But the back gesture is something people use hundreds of times a day.

The back gesture on Android is also universal. Launch an app from the homescreen and navigate through it. Every time you swipe back it retraces your steps and you don't hit a wall like on iOS.


To this day, iOS has the back button on the top left of the screen, the one place where your finger will never reach one-handed.

2. Again something ergonomic. On Android, swipe down from the middle of the screen and the notification panel will come down. Swipe again for control center. On iOS, you simply cannot do this without using Reachability. On the subject of Reachability, Android shrinks the whole screen down instead of just the top half and for left-handed users, you can place the screen in whichever corner you want

3. A proper file system. I can connect my Galaxy to my Windows notebook, transfer files like its an actual computer with folders. I can get my photos and files on my PC/Phone significantly faster than iOS which needs bloatware like iTunes installed.

4. Split screen functionality. Its ridiculous that on a 6.9 screen we cannot divide it into 2 halves to multi task. On Android, you also don't even need to go to the home screen to launch an app. Just swipe from the top right for the dock and launch the app no matter where you are.

5. Actual different browsers with their own engine which aren't just a reskinning of Chrome.

6. Number key on top of keyboard. Why am I forced to go through 2 steps for number keys on iOS?

7. Battery protection measures are significantly better than iOS. If you are someone who keeps their phones for longer, Android has 3 ways to enhance battery health. 1) Limit charge at 85% 2) Charge normally till 85% and trickle charge until 100% and then allow it to drop down to 95% and then let it reach 100% and rinse and repeat.

8. Routines. This is a lifesaver for me. You can customise Android to do certain tasks based on your location and time. I have scheduled battery routine to charge till 85% from 11pm to 6am. Then allow it to reach 100%. I have a split screen app pair in the dock for web browsing and watching YouTube based on my location

I could go on and on about this but the bottom line is theres many things on Android in terms of convenience which users like me value.

As far as the ecosystem goes, I really haven't found anything which my Galaxy Tab and S23 Ultra and my Windows notebook cant do and which my 14 Pro Max, iPad Pro and Macbook Air can.

I am entrenched in both and they are vastly different experience for good and bad.

@Velli, what do you mean "quality experience"? I see no difference between my S23 Ultra and iPhone 14 Pro Max (will be buying the 15 Pro Max and the S24 Ultra as well). If you don't believe me, here is my suite of Samsung and Apple devices.

The Galaxy tab in particular is gorgeous. The OLED display is far superior to the MiniLED on my iPad Pro.

On the topic of sales, Fortnite is one of the most successful video games on the market eclipsing genuinely good games which sell not even half as much. So Apple selling more does not mean they have the better product. You could argue they are the more popular product.

 

[bobcomer]

I’ve literally never owned an Android as my main phone and never pirated an app on Android.

Well, I've owned androids for a long time and have never pirated an app.

 

[Radon87000]

Well, I've owned androids for a long time and have never pirated an app.

I agree. This is another lie parroted by fanboys on this forums. The vast majority of Android users probably even don't know how to set Android up to install apps from unknown sources.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sounds to me, based on what the FTC is saying about Microsoft, that Apple could *arguably* fall into that antitrust category in regard to both iMessage and the App store. 1) Using its dominant position by including these in their products (included on iPhones, iPads, MacOS, etc). 2) Making it technically difficult not to use the service (iMessage and App store installed by default, you can't make any other messaging app default, you can't go outside of the app marketplace at all). 3) Granting favorable conditions to discourage other apps from competing (This is relevant in Spotify's claim where the EU agreed mainly on the lines of Apple stopping devs from advertising alternative ways to suscribe to their apps outside of Apple's marketplace, kind of a reverse incentive where Spotify can't afford the 30% cut). Arguably the Spotify issue was partially resolved in the Epic case as now devs can advertise subscriptions outside of Apple, but that's just one example.

Anyway many of the Microsoft issues seem really relevant here, thanks for that link as it really solidified my understanding. I'll quote the relevant part from the FTC:

Example: The Microsoft Case​

Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers. Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the operating systems market to exclude other software developers and prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software to run with Microsoft's operating system software. Specifically, Microsoft illegally maintained its operating systems monopoly by including Internet Explorer, the Microsoft Internet browser, with every copy of its Windows operating system software sold to computer makers, and making it technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser. Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser. These actions hampered efforts by computer makers to use or promote competing browsers, and discouraged the development of add-on software that was compatible with non-Microsoft browsers. The court found that, although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft. To settle the case, Microsoft agreed to end certain conduct that was preventing the development of competing browser software.

I think you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole there.

Even your claim that they make things technically difficult is a stretch. Not being able to make a messaging app default on iOS is meaningless. You can access third-party apps the same way you do the Messages app through the share sheet.

The biggest difference here is that Apple is controlling their own product iOS. Microsoft was trying to control the decisions of their partners.

But don't just take my word for it. Look at the courts. Epic sued Apple and Google. Apple won with one exception. Google lost because they did the same thing Microsoft did. They incentivized their partners to limit competition.

I'm certainly not saying that Apple doesn't have antitrust issues. I think they do, particularly around NFC access and IAP. They're primary defense likely being that they have legitimate reasons for their policies.