Beeper Mini on Continued Outages: 'It's Super Annoying That Apple is Penalizing Their Own Customers'

[dk001]

Apple has asked the GSM to adopt a standard for encryption, though, so it’s already on their radar. It’s not a feature of stock RCS yet but will be, assuming Apple and Google find a protocol agreeable to both of them (because, let’s be honest, they’re the ones in the driver seat on it, not the telecoms).

That would be a very nice feather in everyone’s cap!

 

[5232152]

Yes you can. Literally everyone outside the US proves this by not using iMessage.
Next.

Ugh. Not only are you wrong, you trying to copy me like Android trying copy Apple is hysterical. Not sure if intentional.

 

[5232152]

I guess my “next question” would be whether you really consider a lower than 50% market share to be a monopoly? Or are you saying that not being able to change a default app is a monopoly? What exactly is your definition of a monopoly?

The easy to remember test is: “Would the disappearance of the company create significant havoc and/or disruption to the industry of said company?”
If the answer is yes, I would call them a monopoly. Same reason, despite hating Google with all my heart, I don’t see their search engine as a monopoly. Plenty of alternatives that you can use with no disruption to your day to day life.

Hope my answers satisfy your question.

 

[Kal Madda]

What? Apple owns the app. If it only allows iMessage and SMS/MMS, it is Apples shortcoming.

WhatsApp cannot be used for standard comms (say from a financial institution, or regulated business), nor can any of the other as you cannot make them default. As such, they are relegated to the LCD; SMS.

BTW, the EU its not in trouble as WA is not the business standard. You realize there are two WhatsApp. There is a WhatsApp for Business, but the predominate ones used are Slack and Teams. Those are internal. For comms outside the business environments, it’s SMS. My current business arena, it’s Teams globally for business. If you are not a “business member”, it is SMS.

For all else I try to get all onto Telegram or Signal, followed by RCS and iMessage with a dash of WhatsApp tossed in. It’s a mess. Luv to have a smart front end that can handle all these.

Seeing and living this mess I can see why the EU wants interoperability in messaging. May not like their method but something has to give.

Apple doesn’t own the alternative apps like WhatsApp, Messenger, Slack, etc. Those are the apps I was talking about, if those apps aren’t good enough for business use (they are, and are used widely in business), then that’s the apps problem, not Apples. See, that’s what I was saying, not that it was a problem with iMessage, not Apple.

And you absolutely can use Teams, Slack, etc. for standard comms within a business setting, plenty of people do it. And it doesn’t have to be default. If you’re talking about where codes for two-factor authentication or things like that fall, that really doesn’t make any difference. Besides, most two-factor authentication allows you to set an email account as the destination for the code to be sent to, which can be linked with several of those apps as well. Besides, even if you had to receive two-factor authentication codes in iMessages, so what, you grab your code from iMessage? Most if not all of normal back-and-forth messaging can be done via apps like WhatsApp, Slack, Teams, etc.

I’m not saying it would be bad to be able to set a different default, but I don’t think it would really make much difference. You can just choose not to use iMessage for any of your normal messaging needs.

 

[Kal Madda]

The easy to remember test is: “Would the disappearance of the company create significant havoc and/or disruption to the industry of said company?”
If the answer is yes, I would call them a monopoly. Same reason, despite hating Google with all my heart, I don’t see their search engine as a monopoly. Plenty of alternatives that you can use with no disruption to your day to day life.

Hope my answers satisfy your question.

You don’t see Google’s search engine as a monopoly (even though it basically has a stranglehold on the majority of the search engine market), but iMessage, which makes up a much smaller portion of it’s market is somehow a monopoly? This makes no sense, there are plenty of iMessage alternatives as well, so it isn’t a monopoly either…

 

[gregmancuso]

It’s not just about security issues, it also sets a dangerous precedent. If Apple allows this kind of unauthorized access for too long then it becomes more difficult to justify shutting it down later. And if they allow this unauthorized access into iMessage, why aren’t they allowing unauthorized access into all of their services?

100% agree. I was only speaking to he perception that there is no security issue because (it has been stated that) Beeper is E2EE encrypted.

 

[BaldiMac]

You really should read up on RCS.
It is data driven just like iMessage.
It is not carrier driven. Matter fo fact most carriers have adopted Google’s implementation. RCS is now the standard.

Your explanation is confusing. Carriers didn't adopt Google's implementation. The tried to implement their own versions and failed because of the problems of getting the various implementations to work together. So now Google controls RCS across android devices.

RCS is very reliable. Maybe a number of years back it had some issues. Those are a thing of the past.

Google's implementation is reliable across Google servers. How does it work across different implementations?

Lastly, I never said Apple should have adopted or invested in RCS years ago. Apple had the opportunity to help drive the next global standard but bowed out and moved to leverage iMessage to attract new users and lock in existing users. Too bad. It could have been the standard.

That's a petty description of what happened. We don't know Apple's reasoning. From Google's control to security to encryption, there are legitimate reasons to have avoided RCS in the past. And even now that they've agreed to implement it, it's not a replacement for iMessage. First and foremost because of encryption.

 

[gregmancuso]

Actually I am not.
What I am asking is that Apple work with others to allow an E2EE standard to be in place and used by all. This would replace or evolve SMS/MMS. The challenge is Apple’s refusal to do that. RCS is the new replacement standard for SMS/MMS and does not require carrier support (though most already have adopted it). I appreciate that Apple is adding RCS in the next year or two to iMessage however, as an Apple (and other OS) user I am very disappointed at the lack of E2EE.

RCS does nothing to remove, replace, or evolve SMS/MMS. RCS falls back on SMS today. RCS runs over the user data layer. SMS runs over the mobile tower signaling channel exploiting unused bandwidth in the channel (assuming things today still work similarly to how they did in the analog cell networks - could be using a carrier level data channel now for all I know; it's been decades since I worked in a telco.).

SMS requires carrier support. RCS does not.

RCS with GSM-adopted encryption would allow for E2EE messaging and more robust group support between Apple's Messages app and the "standard" messaging app on Android. I don't think it was ever a case of Apple will never support RCS, but rather will never support unencrypted RCS.

Or, you know, you could always use a third-party cross platform messaging app such as WhatsApp if you want to have all the bells and whistles.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually I am not.
What I am asking is that Apple work with others to allow an E2EE standard to be in place and used by all. This would replace or evolve SMS/MMS. The challenge is Apple’s refusal to do that. RCS is the new replacement standard for SMS/MMS and does not require carrier support (though most already have adopted it). I appreciate that Apple is adding RCS in the next year or two to iMessage however, as an Apple (and other OS) user I am very disappointed at the lack of E2EE.

Because a E2EE standard used by all is a fantasy. E2EE only works if you can trust the endpoints.

 

[bg1419]

Trying to guess at why individual people chose one platform over another is a moot point. Though the reason for using something like Beeper is clearly to enable E2EE for messaging with iPhone users.


lol... I was going to ask you to provide possible insight into how spoofing an iPhone to enable encryption would somehow cause a security risk to anything else, but you clearly don't just drink the kool-aid, you sprouted gills and live in the bowl.

And to be fair, I don't think anyone outside iPhone users truly care about the concept of the "blue bubble". It's not about vanity, it's about the features and functionality. Or should be-- at any rate.


...yes. That's the entire concept of reverse engineering. There's been countless examples of products releasing as the result of reverse engineering that were not only better than the original, but also rendered the original obsolete.


Sure, and Apple has every right (and potential obligation) to patch such a flaw.

But I still don't see how this flaw, whose sole purpose is to enable encryption, presents any kind of a security risk to any user. If the encryption is truly secure, one Android user pretending to be an iPhone user would not and should not have any ability to impact any other feature of iMessage, let alone the phone.

And if this spoof truly poses such a grave risk, then Apple's entire iMessage service has turned out to be a greater liability than a boon all these years.

But likely this isn't the case, and again it's just the usual drinkers fearing for their "privacy" when anything upsets their delicate garden.

If you have to quote this many people to say “well aCtUaLLy”, and then fall back on ad hominem attacks, that’s probably an indication that you’re wrong and your opinions suck; feel free to stop fighting for your life in the comments now.

 

[kc9hzn]

Apple doesn’t own the alternative apps like WhatsApp, Messenger, Slack, etc. Those are the apps I was talking about, if those apps aren’t good enough for business use (they are, and are used widely in business), then that’s the apps problem, not Apples. See, that’s what I was saying, not that it was a problem with iMessage, not Apple.

And you absolutely can use Teams, Slack, etc. for standard comms within a business setting, plenty of people do it. And it doesn’t have to be default. If you’re talking about where codes for two-factor authentication or things like that fall, that really doesn’t make any difference. Besides, most two-factor authentication allows you to set an email account as the destination for the code to be sent to, which can be linked with several of those apps as well. Besides, even if you had to receive two-factor authentication codes in iMessages, so what, you grab your code from iMessage? Most if not all of normal back-and-forth messaging can be done via apps like WhatsApp, Slack, Teams, etc.

I’m not saying it would be bad to be able to set a different default, but I don’t think it would really make much difference. You can just choose not to use iMessage for any of your normal messaging needs.

I think something is being conflated here. There’s a difference between business internal communication (who really cares whether the office uses Slack, MatterMost, Teams, or Skype for Business?), business to business communication (usually email, in my experience), and customer to business communication, and it’s the last category the EU was looking into. So we’re talking iMessage’s Messages for Businesses, RCS Business Messaging, or WhatsApp’s WhatsApp Business. The EU wants to regulate some sort of common protocol so businesses aren’t locked into one ecosystem, and I suspect RCS will probably be that common protocol.

 

[Kal Madda]

I think something is being conflated here. There’s a difference between business internal communication (who really cares whether the office uses Slack, MatterMost, Teams, or Skype for Business?), business to business communication (usually email, in my experience), and customer to business communication, and it’s the last category the EU was looking into. So we’re talking iMessage’s Messages for Businesses, RCS Business Messaging, or WhatsApp’s WhatsApp Business. The EU wants to regulate some sort of common protocol so businesses aren’t locked into one ecosystem, and I suspect RCS will probably be that common protocol.

Even in the latter case though, business can provide customers with contact information through those alternate services, at least as far as I’m aware. But even if it can’t be used for that, broadly claiming that these alternative services can’t be used for business communications as a broad category isn’t entirely true. 👍🏻

 

[bgillander]

The easy to remember test is: “Would the disappearance of the company create significant havoc and/or disruption to the industry of said company?”
If the answer is yes, I would call them a monopoly. Same reason, despite hating Google with all my heart, I don’t see their search engine as a monopoly. Plenty of alternatives that you can use with no disruption to your day to day life.

Hope my answers satisfy your question.

So you don’t even see the “mono” in the word, or just prefer to ignore the true definition completely?

 

[kc9hzn]

But I still don't see how this flaw, whose sole purpose is to enable encryption, presents any kind of a security risk to any user. If the encryption is truly secure, one Android user pretending to be an iPhone user would not and should not have any ability to impact any other feature of iMessage, let alone the phone.

At the risk of potentially wrestling with a pig, I’m gonna say that you’ve got a really myopic view on the topic.

“this flaw, whose sole purpose is to enable encryption” is very short-sighted. It doesn’t “enable encryption”, per se, it exploits the fact that iMessage is encrypted. Encryption really has nothing to do with it whatsoever, beyond providing a rationale for Beeper’s actions. “Sole purpose” is definitely a poor word choice, too. You could say that Beeper’s sole purpose in exploiting the flaw is to enable encryption (though that doesn’t seem to be the case based on their advertising copy), but the flaw doesn’t exist to “enable encryption”, and encryption between iOS and Android chat isn’t the only possible use for whatever technique Beeper is using. You could probably use it for smishing and other SMS spam, too (either by copying their technique or by using Beeper in some sort of automated Android instance). So sorry, but this paragraph was ill-considered enough that I had to address it directly.

 

[FaustsHausUK]

It's super annoying that Apple is preventing us from charging people for access to their service.

Fixed it for them. I get a _lot_ of garbage SMS messages every week, anything that could grant those same spammy arseholes access to iMessages needs to die.

 

[kc9hzn]

Fixed it for them. I get a _lot_ of garbage SMS messages every week, anything that could grant those same spammy arseholes access to iMessages needs to die.

But you are right that there’s just something a little scuzzy about commercializing something like this. It would be more defensible if they just released the app for free. It’s a bit like commercializing hackintoshes.

 

[darkpaw]

All this talk of every messaging app should be interoperable is missing the point of why there are multiple apps already.

If iMessage has to adhere to Standard A, and WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal, Telegram etc. have to adhere to Standard A, then where do we get the innovation?

When every app does the same stuff, why have multiple apps? "Oh, my Dad doesn't like Facebook so he uses Signal instead. My Mum uses Telegram, and she can still chat with my Dad." Lovely, but when Signal wants to implement some new thing, does Telegram have to handle it, too? And how quickly must Telegram implement this new thing? At some point the two apps will diverge from the "base set" of features, and will some uber-national entity (like the EU) step in and force Telegram to implement it quicker? Well then that's the situation we have right now where different apps do different things.

I doubt anyone wanting every messaging app to be able to communicate with every other messaging app has really thought it through.

Why does Apple's Numbers app exist? Because it does some things better than LibreOffice or MS Excel. Does it do everything those others do? No, and why should it? Excel doesn't write Numbers files, but Numbers can write Excel files. Is the EU going to force Microsoft to make Excel write Numbers files? And should they handle everything Numbers does so the file looks the same when opened in Numbers? If so, then why have two apps? They are different apps for different use cases, just as iMessage isn't Telegram isn't Signal isn't Threads isn't X isn't WhatsApp etc.

Just my 2c; feel free to disagree and hate-press the reaction button

 

[scorpio vega]

Ugh. Not only are you wrong, you trying to copy me like Android trying copy Apple is hysterical. Not sure if intentional.

trying to copy you? LMAO okay mate

If the answer is yes, I would call them a monopoly. Same reason, despite hating Google with all my heart, I don’t see their search engine as a monopoly. Plenty of alternatives that you can use with no disruption to your day to day life.

Google literally covers 70 percent of the world's search lmao. But they are not a monopoly.

Apple literally has 20 percent of world market share but in Smartphones but they are a monopoly. But i am the wrong that is wrong.

I can not with the Android ppl these days lol.

Ah, when MR was iPhone focused lol

 

[dk001]

Apple doesn’t own the alternative apps like WhatsApp, Messenger, Slack, etc. Those are the apps I was talking about, if those apps aren’t good enough for business use (they are, and are used widely in business), then that’s the apps problem, not Apples. See, that’s what I was saying, not that it was a problem with iMessage, not Apple.

And you absolutely can use Teams, Slack, etc. for standard comms within a business setting, plenty of people do it. And it doesn’t have to be default. If you’re talking about where codes for two-factor authentication or things like that fall, that really doesn’t make any difference. Besides, most two-factor authentication allows you to set an email account as the destination for the code to be sent to, which can be linked with several of those apps as well. Besides, even if you had to receive two-factor authentication codes in iMessages, so what, you grab your code from iMessage? Most if not all of normal back-and-forth messaging can be done via apps like WhatsApp, Slack, Teams, etc.

I’m not saying it would be bad to be able to set a different default, but I don’t think it would really make much difference. You can just choose not to use iMessage for any of your normal messaging needs.

We are apparently on different tracks. I’m talking about iMessage and you are about 3rd party apps.

Let me help by clarifying a couple of things.

Internal company messaging like Slack and Teams are not defaults and only - usually - carry business data.

Company communications to folks outside the business end up using email or SMS/MMS unless you are lucky and they use your default app. They don’t know what you have set up. This is where the default comes in.

Personal messaging, unless you have coordination between yourself and the party you are ”talking” too defaults to your messaging. If they are anything but iMessage, you get SMS/MMS on the iOS side. On the Android side you get SMS/MMS unless they are sent via RCS (usually the Android default).

It’s a challenge and one I would love see go away - SMS/MMS and be replaced with something else.

 

[scorpio vega]

If iMessage has to adhere to Standard A, and WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal, Telegram etc. have to adhere to Standard A, then where do we get the innovation?

Excellent point.

Android users really don't make sense to me. Because their fave is not doing it, it's bad then.

RCS is still not wholly reliable anyway.

 

[scorpio vega]

It’s a challenge and one I would love see go away - SMS/MMS and be replaced with something else.

I have no problem with SMS/MMS. It has worked for me the last decade. RCS I am sure will be fine (even though I couldnt care less really, it's an android need really imo) even though I have iMessage.

Provided i am able to communicate however by using the phone number, I dont care.

And i'll say that is the same for most users (Android and Apple). they want it to just work. Anything more is just a group of Android zealots aka a minority.

 

[dk001]

Your explanation is confusing. Carriers didn't adopt Google's implementation. The tried to implement their own versions and failed because of the problems of getting the various implementations to work together. So now Google controls RCS across android devices.


Google's implementation is reliable across Google servers. How does it work across different implementations?


That's a petty description of what happened. We don't know Apple's reasoning. From Google's control to security to encryption, there are legitimate reasons to have avoided RCS in the past. And even now that they've agreed to implement it, it's not a replacement for iMessage. First and foremost because of encryption.

By 2021, in the US, Google’s RCS was adopted as the default messaging app and as a result is preloaded on pretty much every Android device.

As for Apple’s decision, it is what Apple stated and has been trotted out fairly often. “Apple could have easily ported iMessage to Android to provide cross-platform compatibility. But as early as 2013, the company's executives decided not to do so because it would lower the bar for users leaving the platform and could enable families to have a mix of iPhones and Android handsets.”

 

[dk001]

RCS does nothing to remove, replace, or evolve SMS/MMS. RCS falls back on SMS today. RCS runs over the user data layer. SMS runs over the mobile tower signaling channel exploiting unused bandwidth in the channel (assuming things today still work similarly to how they did in the analog cell networks - could be using a carrier level data channel now for all I know; it's been decades since I worked in a telco.).

SMS requires carrier support. RCS does not.

RCS with GSM-adopted encryption would allow for E2EE messaging and more robust group support between Apple's Messages app and the "standard" messaging app on Android. I don't think it was ever a case of Apple will never support RCS, but rather will never support unencrypted RCS.

Or, you know, you could always use a third-party cross platform messaging app such as WhatsApp if you want to have all the bells and whistles.

It is currently the default replacement for SMS/MMS. That change is going to be drawn out as that would significantly impact Apple users. With RCS coming to iMessage, maybe that will speed things up.

 

[dk001]

I have no problem with SMS/MMS. It has worked for me the last decade. RCS I am sure will be fine (even though I couldnt care less really, it's an android need really imo) even though I have iMessage.

Provided i am able to communicate however by using the phone number, I dont care.

And i'll say that is the same for most users (Android and Apple). they want it to just work. Anything more is just a group of Android zealots aka a minority.

Enjoy your complete lack of security and privacy. Personally, I prefer something a bit more secure. SMS/MMS should have retired long ago

But if you are happy with it, more power to you.

 

[BaldiMac]

By 2021, in the US, Google’s RCS was adopted as the default messaging app and as a result is preloaded on pretty much every Android device.

That's what I said. What's your point?

As for Apple’s decision, it is what Apple stated and has been trotted out fairly often. “Apple could have easily ported iMessage to Android to provide cross-platform compatibility. But as early as 2013, the company's executives decided not to do so because it would lower the bar for users leaving the platform and could enable families to have a mix of iPhones and Android handsets.”

A decision made in 2013 about making iMessage cross-platform does not prove Apple's reason for delaying adoption of RCS.