[starkparker]

Best-case outcome is that Apple decides engaging in an arms race with a motivated competitor isn't worth the time or effort and they enable some (probably limited) interop.

I can imagine a "blue-green" type of message that's encrypted but not from an Apple device; Apple keeps their status symbology and users on both ends get E2E encrypted messages to and from Apple device users without Apple users switching to a third-party app.

Apple's never had to confront this because nobody's had this much success smashing the walled garden on iMessage before. If Beeper is persistent and good enough, they'll have the first foot in the door of such an outcome.

Worst case is Apple keeps escalating the fight knowing that Beeper can't outlast them. Everybody loses in this situation; Beeper and Apple both burn a bunch of money with no benefit to anyone, iMessage users see people popping into and out of chats because Apple keeps blocking them, and most non-Apple users continue sending unencrypted SMS messages because Apple users won't switch off iMessage.

Of all the moats Apple has, iMessage's "blue bubble" is by far the most arbitrary. Allowing strictly controlled interop with non-Apple devices doesn't change how good iMessage is, it only dents the ecosystem's most superficial status symbol.

I'm rooting for the better outcome but expecting the latter.

[wvenable]

> Worst case is Apple keeps escalating the fight knowing that Beeper can't outlast them.

I feel like this is in Apple's DNA. Perhaps Beeper is lucky that Apple needs to support a lot of legacy devices and they might not be able to fully plug this hole without creating a big support nightmare.

[Longhanks]

Please explain to me why that wouldn't be in anyone's interest?

Why should I pay costs for server uptime and maintenance for clients that I a) did not authorize and b) did not pay for me keeping up my servers and c) actually accept that a third party is getting money for providing said access to my servers?

I really don't get how Apple is to blame for protecting what they pay for.

[microtonal]

Apple also uses a lot of infrastructure that they don't pay for on their devices. Everything from open source code used in Darwin to public internet infrastructure. Besides that, if that is the reason that they don't want to offer this, they could offer a paid subscription for Android users.

The reason they block this is not that they cannot afford the infrastructure, it's peanuts for them. It's because they want to continue maintaining the schism in the US where Android users are stigmatized for green bubbles, pushing them to buy iPhones. (AKA exploiting teenagers' insecurity for profit.)

[Longhanks]

Apple has every right in the world to use open source software if they comply with the code's license. The Beeper client has no right to interact with Apple's servers in a way that involves faking an Apple authorization.

Apple has chosen not to provide an iMessage client. The mere possibility for one existing does not mean Apple can be forced into providing or tolerating one, given that it involves cost on Apple's server side, no matter how small that might be to them (how can you even tell?).

The fact that US teenages stigmatize each other has nothing to do with Apple's business. Apple has always advertized iMessage as an Apple-only messaging platform. If teenagers are to be protected here, it is up to US legislation to create a law that prevents the undesired behavior. Until such a law is present, what Apple is doing is legal, and what Beeper is doing is probably not, they're certainly creating server upkeep costs that they do not pay Apple for, despite Apple telling them clearly not to do so.

[wvenable]

> The Beeper client has no right to interact with Apple's servers in a way that involves faking an Apple authorization.

I'm not completely down on the implementation details but is there really anything "faked" here. If they have a service that client and authenticate against using an Apple ID and I just use a different client with my Apple ID then nothing is "faked". It's just implementing the protocol.

> Apple has chosen not to provide an iMessage client. The mere possibility for one existing does not mean Apple can be forced into providing or tolerating one, given that it involves cost on Apple's server side, no matter how small that might be to them (how can you even tell?).

I agree. But if they're going to provide these servers on the Internet without any sort of paid authentication and I can utilize them with an alternative client then I'm going to do that. They don't have to tolerate it.

I also use an adblocker when I browse the web.

[scythe]

>If teenagers are to be protected here, it is up to US legislation to create a law that prevents the undesired behavior.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is broad and vague. It's practical definition depends on common-law precedent. While the system may seem baroque, it offers a kind of stability that has made common-law jurisdictions the preferred arena for most international business across the world. Hence, this fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the relevant competition law.

[zappb]

Who do you think maintains all that OSS in Darwin?

[tibbydudeza]

What OSS - why do we have homebrew - Apple stuff is years behind current ever since GPL V3 murked the waters.

[error503]

> Why should I pay costs for server uptime and maintenance for clients that I a) did not authorize and b) did not pay for me keeping up my servers and c) actually accept that a third party is getting money for providing said access to my servers?

Because you designed the system in such a way that interoperability was impossible without non-customers using your servers?

[realusername]

> I really don't get how Apple is to blame for protecting what they pay for.

I don't think Apple is going to get bankrupt for forwarding a few SMS, they'll be fine don't worry.

[tjmc]

"They can afford it" is a terrible argument. There's literally no upside for Apple providing their infrastructure for free to third parties, particularly given that it's a potential vector for flooding their customers with spam.

Up until quite recently, most phone carriers metered the number of texts you could send per month and then charged extra. Many still charge per text when you're roaming overseas. Perhaps Apple could offer API access on commercial terms to third parties but that's their decision.

[realusername]

I really don't think anybody should think about their decision, they are too big for fully owning the platform.

Additionally, iMessage is full of scams and spams already, it's not hard to buy a box of old iphones and turn them into spam relays and that's exactly what is happening now.

[microtonal]

Of all the moats Apple has, iMessage's "blue bubble" is by far the most arbitrary.

100% I have been an iPhone user since 2009, but for me the most likely reason to go to the competition is not if it gets iMessage (I don't live in the US). The most likely reason is that Apple has become utterly boring when it comes to innovation. I recently purchased an iPhone 15, coming from the iPhone 13, I can honestly not say what has changed or improved besides the camera, the underused dynamic island, and USB-C [1]. And USB-C is nice, but pretty much a letdown because they capped it to USB 2 for market segmentation and it still has excruciatingly slow charging. At least on the Android side, for better or worse, interesting stuff is happening: from Fairphone's phone that is repairable with a single screwdriver, foldables (finally a phone that is small and big), Samsung S-Pen, to Nothing's slightly whimsical back LEDs. Also, pretty much every phone above 300 Euro has a good OLED screen with 120Hz, whereas I am still looking at 60Hz (because segmentation).

At any rate, Tim Cook will fight this nail and tooth. By now it's very clear that he has a blind spot where he thinks Apple is entitled to some things and is not sensitive to different viewpoints in other cultures/legislations. He thought Apple is entitled to a 30% cut. But he pushed it so far that the EU will regulate them. Now they have to offer side-loading and open the iPhone to alternative app stores. This will lead to segmentation of the platform, because some apps will only be available in app stores with better terms for the developer.

Ideally Apple would stop Beeper in its tracks by releasing an Android client themselves, because then they could dictate their own terms (orange bubbles, feature segmentation, etc.). Now they open up themselves to the risk that regulators in some regions will require opening up iMessage.

[1] Of course, the spec sheet contains more improvements, like a better SoC, but it is barely noticable.

[lotsofpulp]

> The most likely reason is that Apple has become utterly boring when it comes to innovation. I recently purchased an iPhone 15, coming from the iPhone 13, I can honestly not say what has changed or improved

Is there some law of nature that allows humans to achieve a rate of technological advancement that is beyond what “bores” you?

[microtonal]

Is there some law of nature that allows humans to achieve a rate of technological advancement that is beyond what “bores” you?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say?

Are you saying that I am not entitled to progress? If so, I am not saying that I am. I am just saying that (IMO) some other companies are now more innovative and that should worry Apple more. Short term they can try retain users by locking them in, but at some point people will buy alternatives because they surpassed Apple's products at their price points.

[lotsofpulp]

Apple's whole schtick is that they exercise restraint on design so that it works well across many constraints, not just optimizing for one, such as newest or best feature.

I am sure engineering these devices involves lots of compromise, and maybe they did not find sufficient benefits to outweigh the drawbacks for those other features.

Maybe it is possible they swing the pendulum too far into the cautious territory, but given their track record, I would not bet on it.

[doublepg23]

I mean I kind of like "boring"?

I upgraded from a 11 Pro Max to a 14 Pro Max last year and it was my phone, but better.

[mlindner]

> Of all the moats Apple has, iMessage's "blue bubble" is by far the most arbitrary. Allowing strictly controlled interop with non-Apple devices doesn't change how good iMessage is, it only dents the ecosystem's most superficial status symbol.

I've said this before and I'll say it again here. No Apple device user I've ever met thinks of the blue bubble as a status symbol. This is only something that Android users for some reason covet. In fact I've never heard it mentioned by any Android user in real life. This is only an internet thing that a tiny segment of people, like those who post to hacker news, seem to care strongly about.

I personally couldn't care less if Android got iMessage or not as long as it doesn't force any changes on the Apple side of things. It doesn't prevent me from communicating with Android users in any way currently. I also don't want to see any spam start to appear via iMessage, as there is currently none of it.

[deergomoo]

To be honest, given Apple has already committed to adding RCS support next year, the market for this thing is limited anyway. Apple has said they won't implement Google's encryption extension, but your average person doesn't care much about that anyway. They just want to be able to group chat and send media to their friends.