Next Beeper Mini Fix Requires Users to Have a Mac

[ozaz]

I love it. People buy that crappy android system then whine because it doesn’t work like an iPhone.

This is such an incorrect characterisation of the issue. Android-to-Android modern rich text communication (via RCS) has similar functionality to iMessage. I imagine not quite as good, but certainly good enough for most. I don't think many are whining about Android not having something like iMessage. The problem is Apple have not created a bridge between open RCS and their closed iMessage system. This is what many people are "whining" about and probably the main reason some Android users currently have a desire to access iMessage by whatever means is available to them. It's also not something which only affects Android users. Any iPhone user who communicates with an Android user via native messaging (i.e. messaging via phone number) would benefit if the bridge existed. Thankfully, Apple have said they plan to create the bridge next year, but that's still a long way off and is probably a plan most people are not even aware of yet.

I still don't understand who gives a bleep about SMS being blue.

No one cares about the colour itself. It's the current vast differences in functionality between blue vs green messages that's the issue, particularly when it doesn't need to be this way. Personally I think that once Apple does integrate RCS they should keep a colour distinction between iMessage and RCS. If I was using an iPhone I'd want to know what network is being used for each message and colour is as good a way as any to signal this. However, I'd also want a colour distinction between RCS and SMS.

Just use WhatsApp like a normal person if you've got friends on other platforms.

Whilst this can sometimes be an option, it absolutely doesn't solve the problem. You're going to run into some people (generally iPhone users) who are not willing to use anything other than their main Messages app, even if you live in a country where WhatsApp is popular (as I do).

 

[BaldiMac]

This is an utterly incorrect characterisation of the issue. Android-to-Android modern rich text communication (via RCS) has similar functionality to iMessage. I imagine not quite as good, but certainly good enough for most. I don't think many are whining about Android not having something like iMessage. The problem is Apple have not created a bridge between open RCS and their closed iMessage system. This is not an Android vs iPhone user issue. It affects everyone who engages in cross-platform communication via native messaging (i.e. messaging via phone number). This is what many people are "whining" about and probably the main reason some Android users currently have a desire to access iMessage by whatever means is available to them. Thankfully, Apple have said they plan to create the bridge next year, but that's still a long way off and is probably a plan most people are not even aware of yet.



No one cares about the colour itself. It's the current vast differences in functionality between blue vs green messages that's the issue, particularly when it doesn't need to be this way. Personally I think that once Apple does integrate RCS they should keep a colour distinction between iMessage and RCS. If I was using an iPhone I'd want to know what network is being used for each message and colour is as good a way as any to signal this. However, I'd also want a colour distinction between RCS and SMS.



Whilst this can sometimes be an option, it absolutely doesn't solve the problem. You're going to run into some people (generally iPhone users) who are not willing to use anything other than their main Messages app, even if you live in a country where WhatsApp is popular (as I do).

Apple isn't creating a bridge between iMessage and RCS. Presumably, they will add support for RCS to the Messages app in the same way that the Messages app supports SMS.

 

[ozaz]

Apple isn't creating a bridge between iMessage and RCS. Presumably, they will add support for RCS to the Messages app in the same way that the Messages app supports SMS.

OK, perhaps bridge was not the appropriate term, but the the addition of RCS support in Messages app will enable modern rich communication between Android and Apple via native (phone number) messaging. The current lack of this, which can only be remedied by Apple, is probably the root cause of most people's "whining" (rather than the lack of modern rich communication features available in Android which was implied by the person I was replying to).

 

[BaldiMac]

OK, perhaps bridge was not the appropriate term, but the integration will enable modern rich communication between Android and Apple native messaging. The current lack of this, which can only be remedied by Apple, is probably the root cause of people "whining" (rather than the lack of modern rich communication features available in Android, as implied by the person I was replying to).

Again, there isn't a lack of this. There are plenty of apps that support native, cross-platform, rich messaging.

What people are whining about is that some people choose not to use their preferred messaging service.

 

[LowKeyed]

The thing I do not get is why are so many iphone users in here saying to use 3rd party apps if android users want to communicate with iphone users. All android users are asking for is to have a seamless experience of being able to text iphone users via the imessage system without the convoluted need to use 3rd party apps or to go through numerous phone settings. It should be a simple case of an android user adding the contact of an iphone user (mum/dad, grandparents, siblings, other family members and friends) and then be able to start text messaging them, sending photo's and videos where needed but they cannot due to reasons mentioned. Why are iphone users/Apple fans in here so objectionable for that seamless operation to happen?.

I'm not opposed to the seamless operation. If Apple chooses to make things interoperable, I'm cool with that. I'd honestly rather them not waste time on it, but that is my personal preference. If Beeper can make the relay work without violating any terms from Apple, I'm fine with that. I never make the assumption that the only person who will see a message I send is the person I want to see it. Someone else can look over there shoulder or they can show someone else or forward it or a plethora of other situations. At some point you have to trust the recipient, that is how I think of Beeper. If the person sets up a relay of some sort and something gets nabbed in the middle, that is on them and on me for trusting them.

What I'm opposed to is the next level of this. When or if Apple chooses not to support this feature of iMessage and then someone runs out and gets themselves a legal body to compile Apple to do it. I think that legislative bodies should not be making product choices for companies. I do acknowledge the exception for user safety and to a certain extent global impact, I don't like seatbelt laws, but I understand the argument for mandatory belts in cars and what role lawmaking bodies play in that. I'm not crazy about how CAFE requirements are determined, but again, I understand the role of legislators in the process. iMessage is at best a convenience, I'm very opposed to legislating convenience.

Then the second option...let me remove and replace the messages app. As it stands now, there is no 3rd-party apps for the iPhone that can receive SMS on the carrier phone number.

I don't use iMessage as we're a mixed Apple/Android household.

I get where Sorinut is coming from on this. What they are asking for is not unreasonable and again, if Apple wants to fix this problem for them, that is awesome. I know they posted somewhere that they have sent that request to Apple several times. I know Apple listens to customer feedback, they don't always respond in a way that the customer wants. I suspect if they got enough feedback asking for this, they'd do it. And I support that. As I already said, what I'm opposed to is a legal mandate to offer the feature. I am not aware of Sorinut suggesting this, but it has become the pattern that when some company or group of people want Apple to do something they can't persuade them to do with business cases, they litigate and legislate.

 

[ozaz]

Again, there isn't a lack of this. There are plenty of apps that support native, cross-platform, rich messaging.

What people are whining about is that some people choose not to use their preferred messaging service.

Not sure which ones you're referring to here, but what I mean by native messaging is messaging through the messaging app that's linked to your phone number doesn't involve signing up for a service that isn't provided by the OS-provider or the network, i.e. Apple Messages app on iPhone. Until RCS is added this app doesn't support cross platform, rich messaging. WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal etc are different beasts and are not adequate solutions. Helpful sometimes, but not always.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not sure which ones you're referring to here, but what I mean by native messaging is messaging through the messaging app that works through your phone number without signing up for a service that isn't provided by the OS or the network, i.e. Apple Messages app on iPhone. Until RCS is added this app doesn't support cross platform, rich messaging. WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal etc are different beasts and are not adequate solutions. Helpful sometimes, but not always.

Sure, but that's a made up, overly-qualified definition specifically limited to make your point.

There is nothing preventing Google (or anyone else) from releasing an iOS app that works with your phone number. The only "problem" is that some people may choose not to use it.

 

[ozaz]

Sure, but that's a made up, overly-qualified definition specifically limited to make your point.

There is nothing preventing Google (or anyone else) from releasing an iOS app that works with your phone number. The only "problem" is that some people may choose not to use it.

It's really not an over-qualified definition. It's simply because I'm not putting time into thinking about a snappier term for the purpose of writing an internet forum post. I'm sure we all know what I'm just referring to is just the default Messages app that many people will use as their only messaging app.

And there absolutely is a critical obstacle to an RCS app on iPhone that isn't made by Apple. RCS needs SMS/MMS fallback in exactly the same way that iMessage needs it. So unless Apple decided to allow users to change their SMS/MMS app, it can't be done adequately by anyone else. But I agree with you that even if it were possible, most people would probably not choose to use it as it would mean cutting themselves off from iMessage, which is another reason the best solution for better interoperability is RCS support in the Apple Messages app.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Better idea, buy any of the thousand android devices released just this year.

Just don't cry that you don't have iMessage.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's really not an over-qualified definition. It's simply because I'm not putting time into thinking about a snappier term for the purpose of writing an internet forum post. I'm sure we all know what I'm just referring to is just the default Messages app that many people will use as their only messaging app.

Right. You were trying to create a definition that basically says that you think Apple should have adopted RCS sooner.

And there absolutely is a critical obstacle to an RCS app on Android that isn't made by Apple. RCS needs SMS/MMS fallback in exactly the same way that iMessage needs it. So unless Apple decided to allow users to change their SMS/MMS app, it can't be done by anyone else.

Why is that critical? The leading messaging apps in the world don't have that fallback, so it's certainly not "critical" to adoption.

In reality, there's nothing critical about it. You just want Apple to provide something that Apple has already agreed to provide. Seems like you'd be happy about that.

But I agree with you that even if it were possible, people would not choose to use it, which is another reason the best solution for better interoperability is RCS support in the default messaging app.

Or you could just respect their choice.

 

[ozaz]

Right. You were trying to create a definition that basically says that you think Apple should have adopted RCS sooner.

I do think Apple should have adopted RCS sooner, but I didn't need to "create" a definition for this. A default, phone-number-linked messaging app as something which exists in a smartphone is not a notion created by me.

Why is that critical? The leading messaging apps in the world don't have that fallback, so it's certainly not "critical" to adoption.

In reality, there's nothing critical about it. You just want Apple to provide something that Apple has already agreed to provide. Seems like you'd be happy about that.

None of the apps you're thinking about have 100% adoption and that's the problem with the "just use another app" suggestion. They help sometimes but not all the time, and I'm sure very few people really enjoys juggling multiple apps, having to remember which service each of their contacts uses for better-than-sms messaging, or tyring to convince people to use an app other than their default. The only rich messaging option I see with potential to connect practically 100% of smartphone users is RCS, and that's only if it's linked to sms/mms and only if Apple adopts it in the Apple Messages app.

I am indeed very happy Apple is planning to integrate it, as I said in the first post you responded to! But I also made the point that its not available today, may well be many months away, and many people will not know Apple is planning to do it. So don't be surprised by ongoing interest in apps like Beeper.

 

[tazinlwfl]

There are alternative to Meta apps and services. As suggested there's Signal and other apps. fallback to SMS though, means you're downgrading your entire conversation to something almost as plaintext.

Imagine someone asking you for a door code or Wi-Fi password (while they're not on Apple's eco-system). You're now completely bypassing any minimal encryption. That's why tech companies really wanted on Apple to go RCS.
With RCS you'd at least have more modern tech for the fallback rather using a known security rabbit hall.

And if I don’t have Signal, Meta, or any other service over-the-top of my carrier’s SMS/MMS offering? How do any of those other services reach me?

If I just give someone my phone number to text me, what do they use?

RCS doesn’t even have E2EE in the spec, Jibe/Google add it as a proprietary extension, so unless the GSM adds E2EE to RCS, then the “security” of RCS is the same as SMS/MMS that everyone has been using for decades.

“Downgrading” is hyperbole. There is a baseline level of communication supported over SMS protocol. More features over the MMS protocol, and even more over the RCS protocol. These are the baseline that Apple supports, and puts iMessage over the top. It is a supported service of the Messages app for Apple devices, simple as that.

This argument about forcing iMessage to become some open protocol for others to use doesn’t seem to get directed at anyone else providing a messaging service over the top of standard SMS/MMS/RCS. No one is demanding that FB Messenger conversations be accessible to Discord without a Facebook account.

 

[BaldiMac]

I do think Apple should have adopted RCS sooner, but I didn't need to "create" a definition for this. A default, phone-number-linked messaging app as something which exists in a smartphone is not a notion created by me.

I think you've lost the point here. Yes, it exists. That's not what we were discussing.

None of the apps you're thinking about have 100% adoption and that's the problem with the "just use another app" suggestion.

So? If I choose to use an app or service that doesn't meet your requirements, that's simply my choice.

They help sometimes but not all the time, and I'm sure very few people really enjoys juggling multiple apps, having to remember which service each of their contacts uses for better-than-sms messaging, or tyring to convince people to use an app other than their default. The only rich messaging option I see with potential to connect practically 100% of smartphone users is RCS,

The problem with this is that I believe that a rich messaging option that is universally accessible based on phone numbers is a bad thing. It's ripe for abuse, particularly with spammers who now can add rich content for minimal costs.

and that's only if it's linked to sms/mms and only if Apple adopts it in the Apple Messages app.

These are unnecessary requirements that you throw in to eliminate other options.

I am indeed very happy Apple is planning to integrate it, as I said in the first post you responded to! But I also made the point that its not available today, may well be many months away, and many people will not know Apple is planning to do it. So don't be surprised by ongoing interest in apps like Beeper.

Which is where our fundamental disagreement comes in. I don't believe that any of what you said is enough of a barrier to communication to support theft. Everything that you describe is nothing more that a mild inconvenience for some people.

 

[ozaz]

The problem with this is that I believe that a rich messaging option that is universally accessible based on phone numbers is a bad thing. It's ripe for abuse, particularly with spammers who now can add rich content for minimal costs

Seems a non-issue to me. But I suspect you'll be able to disable RCS like you can disable iMessage (you can on Android).

Everything that you describe is nothing more that a mild inconvenience for some people.

If it's really just a mild inconvenience, there wouldn't be any interest amongst Android users in connecting to iMessage, and there wouldn't be any interest in RCS being integrated into Apple Messages. But there clearly is.

 

[Septercius]

If you do not have access to a Mac computer, but have a friend on Beeper with a Mac, you can ask them if you can use their registration data. In our testing, 10-20 iMessage users can safely use the same registration data.

So, Beeper Mini think that sharing your registration data with 10-20 other people is fine. What will happen when Apple breaks it again? Will you need to share your bank data? Your social security number?

We get told again and again to keep our data safe and to watch out for scams. But apparently sharing stuff when using Beeper Mini is fine. What exactly is this registration data? Could someone use it to pretend they are the Mac owner who's foolish enough to share their data with 10-20 others, and try and pull off some sort of scam that way? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to reverse engineer all Sony's stuff to try and use my Amiga with PSN.

 

[BaldiMac]

Seems a non-issue to me. But I suspect you'll be able to disable RCS like you can disable iMessage (you can on Android).

Non-issue? Spam is certainly an issue. Not sure how that's arguable.

If it's really just a mild inconvenience for an Android user to get of their iPhone contacts to use something other than the Apple Messages app, there wouldn't be any interest amongst Android users in connecting to iMessage, and there wouldn't be any interest in Apple adding RCS to Apple Messages. But there clearly is.

So? How does that justify theft?

 

[ozaz]

Non-issue? Spam is certainly an issue. Not sure how that's arguable.

I expect spammers are already sending spam via both iMessage and RCS, so Apple adding RCS support won't be triggering any big change.

So? How does that justify theft?

Who's saying it justifies theft? I'm saying it demonstrates that for many use of WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal etc is not simply a mild inconvenience as you put it, and furthermore does not work as an effective option for many.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

How is this anti competitive when it’s an apple featured made for iPhones lmao. Safari isn’t on any other platform lol. That doesn’t make that anti competitive

Companies that are actively competing are literally attempting to provide services and features that the competition doesn’t have… and that’s “anti-competitive” today? Some people see healthy competition as anti-competitive.

 

[BaldiMac]

I expect spammers are already sending spam via both iMessage and RCS, so Apple adding RCS support won't be triggering any big change.

iMessage spam is minimal because Apple controls the endpoints. That's another reason that Beeper Mini is a security issue. The hack used by beeper mini could be used by spammers and other bad actors to take advantage of uncontrolled access to the network.

Who's saying it justifies theft?

You did. You said that why people are interested in Beeper Mini.

I'm saying it demonstrates that for many use of WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal etc is not simply a mild inconvenience as you put it, and furthermore does not work as an effective option for many.

Eye of the beholder kind of thing. I'm comfortable with the claim that having to switch between services is a mild inconvenience in the greater scheme of things.

However, the claim that it is not a effective option for many seems dubious to me. The other services are certainly an effective way of cross platform messaging.

 

[ozaz]

You did. You said that why people are interested in Beeper Mini.

Saying there's a reason someone may be interested in doing something sketchy does not mean you think there's a justification for doing it. I can see how someone who is unemployed and short of money may start to get interested in stealing. That doesn't mean I think there's justification for them stealing.

As an aside, I don't know if i would agree with the characterisation of what beeper is doing as theft. By this I mean I haven't read about the laws in this area so don't have a view on it. But that's a separate point.

 

[BaldiMac]

Saying there's a reason someone may be interested in doing something sketchy does not mean you think there's a justification for doing it. I can see how someone who is unemployed and short of money may start to get interested in stealing. That doesn't mean I think there's justification for them stealing.

Fair enough.

As an aside, I don't know if i would agree with the characterisation of what beeper is doing as theft. By this I mean I haven't read about the laws in this area so don't have a view on it. But that's a separate point.

What laws do you need to read? Theft is deprivation of property rights. Beeper Mini accesses, stores, and processes information on Apple's servers and uses their bandwidth. All without permission or compensation.

 

[ozaz]

What laws do you need to read? Theft is deprivation of property rights. Beeper Mini accesses, stores, and processes information on Apple's servers and uses their bandwidth. All without permission or compensation.

If it's as straightforward as you put it, I expect Apple would have already reported Beeper for criminal activity.

 

[BaldiMac]

If it's as straightforward as you put it, I expect Apple would have already reported Beeper for criminal activity.

Why would you expect that? It's likely a civil matter where Apple has nothing to gain through litigation. It would likely only be a last resort in the unlikely event that Beeper Mini becomes a significant drain on resources.

 

[ozaz]

Why would you expect that? It's likely a civil matter where Apple has nothing to gain through litigation. It would likely only be a last resort in the unlikely event that Beeper Mini becomes a significant drain on resources.

If someone stole something from me, I'd report it as a crime, but perhaps it's different for theft between companies 🤷‍♂️. Also don't know if Beeper enabling sending/receiving iMessages from Android phones legally constitutes theft of Apple's server resources as you characterised it. But like I said, i'd need to read about this stuff to have a better understanding and opinion on it. Haven't done so as I'm not personally interested in using Beeper or iMessage myself.

My interest in this story really stems from my interest in Apple supporting RCS; I suspect the whole situation might cause Apple to expedite their efforts to support RCS.

 

[scorpio vega]

I agree. I'm very glad Aplple implemented iMessage verification. I turned it on.

About iMessage Contact Key Verification - Apple Support

iMessage Contact Key Verification provides additional security by helping to detect sophisticated threats against iMessage servers and allowing you to verify that you’re messaging only with the people that you intend.

support.apple.com

Thanks I’ll look into it.

Exactly what someone who is trapped in a wall garden would say.

I know it’s shocking to believe. But not everyone wants or likes lagdroid. I rather a “walled garden” than an insane asylum of anOS that depending on what phone I have I may either have the current OS version or I’m missing this feature that this other android has or my camera is inferior if I didn’t buy this phone.