Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Beeper Says Apple is Blocking Some iMessages (theverge.com) 111

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
After investigating reports that some users aren't getting iMessages on Beeper Mini and Beeper Cloud, Beeper says that Apple seems to be "deliberately blocking" iMessages from being delivered to about five percent of Beeper Mini users. From a report: The company says that uninstalling and reinstalling the app fixes the issue and that it's working on a broader fix.

Apple didn't immediately reply to a request for comment about Beeper's new claim, and it hasn't replied to my original request for comment, either. But given that the company has already blocked Beeper Mini before, it's not too surprising that it seems to be taking action against the app again.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beeper Says Apple is Blocking Some iMessages More

Beeper Says Apple is Blocking Some iMessages

Comments Filter:

  • I just want to leave a group chat. (Score:3)

    by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Thursday December 14, 2023 @11:33AM (#64081379)

    I don't care what color my bubbles are on your phone.
    I don't care that you phone deliberately poorly interprets my likes and reactions.
    I don't really care that SMS messages aren't encrypted (though I sympathize with those that do need higher security).
    If you want a phone that gives you a bad messaging experience, I don't care. You do you.

    I just want Apple to implement RCS into iMessages so that I can finally leave some group chats.

    • If you care about none of the things above, why do you care about RCS or iMessage? And what version of RCS do you want Apple to implement? The Standard Universal Profile which is basically SMS++ and comes with all sorts of compatibility problems with phone manufacturers and cell networks or Google RCS which comes with compatibility problems across Android phones?
    • i agree, while i can say Apple builds great hardware the software side sucks the the worst i ever seen, after my experience with iphone my first iphone will also be my last iphone, i will find the least googly android until fairphone or pinephone breaks into the US market

      • Even google's flagship phone can be "DeGoogled".

        Pixel series phones are supported by LineageOS, and installing "Mind the GApps" is fully optional.

        My "Obsolete" 4A just received a weekly update today, for instance, since I have made the switch.

        The only issue is that the 4A has an incessant boot nag screen complaining about the unlocked boot loader. (because WOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Owning your software experience is SO SCARY! You actually have to be RESPONSIBLE, and not just TRUST MOMMY GOOGLE.)

        Anyhow; look into it.

        • Every Android device I've unlocked the bootloader on in the last 5 years has that nag screen. It's actually quite the nice feature to make sure someone hasn't fucked with your shit unknowingly, and easily ignored when you know you unlocked your own shit - hardly something worth complaining about.

          • Every Android device I've unlocked the bootloader on in the last 5 years has that nag screen. It's actually quite the nice feature to make sure someone hasn't fucked with your shit unknowingly, and easily ignored when you know you unlocked your own shit - hardly something worth complaining about.

            You really should lock your shit. You can install a custom signing key and sign your own images, so you can run whatever software you like and still have a locked bootloader. I explained more thoroughly here [slashdot.org].

            • To be fair, I don't run an unlocked bootloader on any device that I care about the data on. My actual daily-use phone is using the OEM image. The hacked devices are strictly older devices for fucking around, or a cheap android tablet that is being used as an in-car entertainment and diagnostic system in a project car, and I couldn't do what I needed to do with their shitty 4+ year old abandonware image, so LineageOS it is.

              • Makes sense. I have lots of devices with unlocked bootloaders, too, but they have no data of significance on them, including not being logged into any account I care about.

        • The only issue is that the 4A has an incessant boot nag screen complaining about the unlocked boot loader. (because WOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Owning your software experience is SO SCARY! You actually have to be RESPONSIBLE, and not just TRUST MOMMY GOOGLE.)

          This has nothing to do with responsibility. It says your device is insecure because your device is insecure. Anyone who gets your device can install any software they want on it, software that will have full access to all of your data. The screen [android.com] says "any data on the device may be available to attackers" because any data on the device may be available to attackers. It's not lying, or even exaggerating. What it says is precisely accurate.

          If you want to run custom software, you don't have to leave your as

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by laktech ( 998064 )
      You also get shitty image quality when sharing pictures.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

        The images aren't a problem for me. It's not like I'm going to be printing any of them out for posters. The videos REALLY suck though, and Apple intentionally makes them suck worse than they even need to suck.

    • Cripes. It's like no one else ever thought to look them up, even on Wikipedia, and do a feature-by-feature comparison.

      You already have the ability to leave group chats in iMessage. Do you want a list of the features you will LOSE if Google gets its way and Apple is forced to scrap iMessage and replace it with RCS? (And like the other reply mentioned... *which* RCS?)

    • Re:I just want to leave a group chat. (Score:5, Funny)

      by sglewis100 ( 916818 ) on Thursday December 14, 2023 @02:21PM (#64081955)
      You can leave group chats now from Android. Just keep replying with horrifically vulgar responses until they remove you.
    • Apple will implement RCS when it figures out a way to look like they invented it.

  • Doesn't this just make the whole imessage protocol appear unreliable?

    • Doesn't this just make the whole imessage protocol appear unreliable?

      No, it makes Beeper appear unreliable

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        No, it makes Beeper appear unreliable

        Which is probably a better result for Apple in the end - if Beeper is unreliable, then you are never quite sure if you are missing messages and may revert back to a more reliable messaging system.

        iMessage to iPhones works fine. Users will chat away happily. But Beeper users suddenly have to make a choice - special colored bubbles with the risk of missing (potentially important) messages or having messages missed, or differently colored bubbles.

        Heck, if Apple could detec

  • Beeper charges for its service (Score:5, Interesting)

    by david.emery ( 127135 ) on Thursday December 14, 2023 @11:41AM (#64081413)

    and then demands Apple support it for free. Heluva business model, if you can make it work...

    • i guess Apple dont care to win hearts & minds of android users, they rather be the old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        That's kind of how I interpret it. Android users (apparently, for whatever reason) want to get in on all that sweet sweet iMessage goodness. Apple won't give it to them, so a 3rd party is trying to fill the gap. Apple will never back down on its curmudgeonly hipster ways, and is busy plugging the holes in it's garden fence, looking like a bunch of dicks in the process.

        • Apple is "a bunch of dicks" for not providing iMessage to Android for free? Or should Apple be "an even bigger bunch of dicks" by charging Android users for it?

          I'm truly amazed that some people think massive engineering and computing infrastructure should somehow be "free" because it's "all in the cloud" or because "they can afford it."

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Pascoea ( 968200 )

            Who said free? I didn't. I guess you could interpret my "give it to them" as "give it to them for free", but that wasn't my intent. It was a "give it to them" as in "make it available", but I see your point there.

            Anyway, back on topic: Apple could release an app and charge for it if they want to. Obviously people are willing to pay for the service, or Beeper wouldn't exist. And yes, the optics of Apple essentially shutting down an app that provides a service they refuse make available pretty much makes t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Pascoea ( 968200 )
              Ah, OP (you) said free. I get it now. I stand by the intent of my post: There is no technical reason for Apple to not provide this service. (They can charge for it if they want to.)

            • An Apple-provided app would handle the key exchange that is a big part of the rationale for iMessage as a relatively closed system.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Pascoea ( 968200 )
                Ok. And? That comment seems to support my "Apple could provide an iMessage Android app if they wanted to. The fact that they won't, and won't let anyone else do it, makes them look like dicks" line of thinking. Not quite sure what we're arguing about here.
              • Do Androids have the same type of Secure Enclave that iPhones have to protect the keys and messages. My reading is that this is optional hardware on Android because the Android ecosystem is varied. If it is not, then the Apple app could not be used by some Androids.

            • Anyway, back on topic: Apple could release an app and charge for it if they want to. Obviously people are willing to pay for the service, or Beeper wouldn't exist.

              Please describe the encryption scheme that Apple is to deploy to non-Apple devices they do not control. Which E2EE standard should Apple follow? You seem to have the answers already.

              And yes, the optics of Apple essentially shutting down an app that provides a service they refuse make available pretty much makes them look like dicks.

              An app that bypasses E2EE of their users that at first did not require Apple credentials but a phone number? The next iteration requires users enter in their Apple credentials to a 3rd party. I want any company that has my credentials to be dicks about the security of those credentials when it comes to unrelated 3rd parties.

              Obviously what some Android users want is technically possible, that leaves the only reason not to do it is "they don't want to".

              Agai

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Pascoea ( 968200 )

                Please describe the encryption scheme that Apple is to deploy to non-Apple devices they do not control. Which E2EE standard should Apple follow?

                Maybe they could ask someone at Signal, Telegram, Messenger, or any of the dozens of other messaging apps that run end-to-end encryption on devices they don't control? Or is your assertion that because Apple owns the device they are the only one capable of properly encrypting a message?

                You seem to have the answers already.

                Nope. Just observations. Explain to me, as if I'm an idiot, why all those other apps can do it but Apple just can't seem to figure it out? From a lay-person's point of view it would be pretty easy to jump to the conclusion t

              • Please explain how every other messaging service in existence is able to use the Android Keystore for keeping crypto keys secure and un-exportable, which has existed for 12 years now, but Apple can't figure it out.

                Oh, by the way, there's documentation that is quite simple to find. Try googling: "Android secure key storage" [google.com] and click the first damn link.

              • Do all of these Android devices have the necessary secure enclaves to protect messages and keys.

                Yes. Have since 2015, including attestation so remote devices/servers can be confident they're talking to such a secure enclave.

                Do they have the necessary hardware encryption so that encryption and decryption is seamless?

                Yes.

                I would say no.

                Why would you say no?

          • It's clear there's a market for it, if Beeper is addressing that market.

            Nobody ever expected Apple to do anything for free, especially in an Android market. Why can't they publish a paid-for first-party iMessage client on Android? Simply because they don't want to. So they can't really complain if someone else decides to address that market, can they?

            Apple can make it all go away by just publishing their own client - clearly it's not that difficult if Beeper was able to reverse engineer a functional MVP,

            • Simply because they don't want to. So they can't really complain if someone else decides to address that market, can they?

              Except the part where the app bypasses E2EE. Other than that, no.

              • No it doesn't.

                It registers and participates in end-to-end encryption. If you can't see the distinction there, then you don't need to be commenting on this subject.

                Beeper messages are encrypted exactly the same as an iMessage message is encrypted, because Beeper is provisioning encryption keys using the same API as iMessage on Mac.

                So other than you being wrong, yeah sure.

                • It registers and participates in end-to-end encryption. If you can't see the distinction there, then you don't need to be commenting on this subject.

                  Do you understand what End to End means? If it is an unauthorized party then how is it end-to-end? If you don't know how encryption works, you should not be participating on this subject.

                  Beeper messages are encrypted exactly the same as an iMessage message is encrypted, because Beeper is provisioning encryption keys using the same API as iMessage on Mac.

                  Why do you does Beeper needs Apple credentials then if that is true? Maybe you should reread about encryption.

                  • Do you understand that encryption doesn't care about "authorization" but only if you have a proper key for decrypting the encrypted information?

                    Beeper sets up those keys using Apple's own services, so that communications across Apple's servers is still encrypted from a Beeper client, to an iMessage client. Thus, end-to-end encrypted.

                    I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with end-to-end encryption, because Beeper fully employs Apple's end-to-end encryption scheme using Ap

          • If Apple brought a first-party iMessage client to Android, exactly nobody would be calling them dicks, even if they charged money for it.

            That would be the correct way to deal with Beeper - make their own first-party app available for the same price. Why would you go with some third-party unsupported hack when you can have a first-party supported experience?

            This is why Apple is being a bunch of dicks - they are actively spending time to make this interoperability shit show remain an interoperability shit sh

          • And who's to say that Apple wouldn't be sued for monopoly abuse as soon as they release iMessage for Android - by the current leader in messaging, Meta.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Beeper actually said a couple of days ago (according to the last article on this evolving story) that they're staying free during this period because they don't want to subject paying customers to the current uncertainty.

      • Re:Beeper charges for its service (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Thursday December 14, 2023 @12:26PM (#64081595) Journal

        they're staying free during this period because they don't want to subject paying customers to the current uncertainty.

        Translation: A lawyer told them if they charge for this service and can't deliver then they'll get sued.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

          I remember when TimeWarner purchased AOL and a major part of their settlement with the FTC to approve the acquisition was that AOL had to open up AIM. Which they did. They opened the protocol that would have allowed any other company to do cross platform chat.

          Yahoo, MS, Google, ICQ... everyone walked away and said "Na, I'm gonna keep trying for that monopoly".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

            Dammit. I'm lost.

          • Irony: due to that, the original pre-iPhone version of iMessage on the Mac supported messaging on the AIM network as well as the "iMessage" network that only started existing when they launched the app.

            Apple did this before beeper did, to make iMessage a messaging client people used on the Mac, and extended it with some mDNS discovery for local iMessage clients running on the local network. It then grew into what it is today. Now they want to disallow someone else to do the exact same thing they did.

            • There was no "original pre-iPhone version of iMessage on the Mac", there was iChat, which was a client for various chat services. Open services, open standards, no re-engineering, and most certainly no iMessage (nor SMS for that matter). And no E2EE.

      • There really isn't any uncertainty. Apple is never going to let this fly and piggybacking on a company's network after they've told you in no uncertain terms to GTFO, is not a sustainable business model.

        • No, it's not a sustainable business model. At least, not until you get the right set of politicians [techcrunch.com] and regulators to notice what's going on. Then it becomes a different game: can you legally or politically fuck Apple into opening up their shit, in which case you get a first-mover advantage and the reputation of being a "scrappy upstart" that brought a reviled goliath (at least in the Android market) to heel.

          That's a hard needle to thread, but if you do it usually turns into a successful business model.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      The recipient is likely an Apple user.

    • Apple is more than welcome to publish their own first-party iMessage client for android for a similar price, which would cause Beeper to disappear overnight.

      Why the fuck would I go with a 3rd party hacky solution when a first-party supported solution is available for the same price?

    • Apparently you, and Apple, both forgot that iMessage started as a multi-network chat app. [twimg.com]

      So according to your logic, Apple created an app that used others' chat services, and then demanded that they support it for free. Heluva business model, if you can make it work...

  • Explain what the subject of the article actually is. I admit I am not in touch with the latest gizmos but what is Beeper?

    • That green beast is Beeper.

      https://www.wsaz.com/content/n... [wsaz.com]

    • I think this is one of those cases where if you don't know what the article is about from the summary, you are probably not affected. I ignore all stories where I can't un-scramble the headline. Another Journalism tip.
      • Ah the ignorance is bliss strategy. Not a bad one at all, right up until it isn't.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by GlennC ( 96879 )

          It could also be the "this doesn't affect me and therefore I can safely ignore it" strategy.

          That's the one I'm using on this, as there are other avenues I can use to communicate using my Android phone to those who use iPhones.

    • Beeper is an app that allows you to get iMessages on Android. The way it used to work a few weeks ago was it did not require users to login to their Apple ID accounts but exploited something in the iMessage protocol (I think). After Apple blocked that, Beeper now requires you to pass Apple ID login credentials but it does not always work apparently. I do not see how the first method was ever going to be allowed by Apple as that seems like a major security vulnerability. Beeper charges for this service.

  • Remember the AOL and MSN Instant Messenger wars?

    https://developers.slashdot.or... [slashdot.org]

    • I also remember using Trillian to log into AIM, MSN messenger, and ICQ. And later using Pidgin. Good on Beeper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      I remember that. I also remember that AOL went to great lengths to stop 3rd party clients from being able to connect.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • We could really use some regulation... (Score:3)

    by sarren1901 ( 5415506 ) on Thursday December 14, 2023 @01:14PM (#64081703)

    on this whole messaging system thing.

    An open set of standards that included e2ee that was platform agnostic. Must be made available to any platform with over a million users.

    It wouldn't have to prevent other forms of communication but it would be nice to have. I'm not going to hold my breath for this to happen though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Why hasn't Google tried to get its improvements to RCS (end-to-end encryption etc) into the official RCS standard? (the one Apple has said it intends to implement)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Already exists. RCS with Signal protocol for E2E encryption. Android supports it, it's just Apple that doesn't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      on this whole messaging system thing.

      An open set of standards that included e2ee that was platform agnostic. Must be made available to any platform with over a million users.

      It wouldn't have to prevent other forms of communication but it would be nice to have. I'm not going to hold my breath for this to happen though.

      We do, it's called SMS.

      Regulation sets the baseline, however the market often sets the high water mark. This problem is exclusive to the US. Out here in the ROTW, SMS is basically free but hardly ever used because there are better options (Whatsapp, Signal, Discord, pick your poison). SMS is kept simply to make sure it works on everything, with RCS at least Google is trying to make that open (even if there are problems with RCS itself), Apple tried to close it's protocol and ended up with everyone outsid

  • Won't most of this be moot once Apple implements RCS support?

    • Nope.

      Apple is going for the GSM standards body's version of RCS, which is a subset of Google's RCS. Or, more accurately, Google's RCS implementation has "extended functionality" not present in the GSM standard. Thus, one major thing that won't be part of Apple's implementation is end-to-end encryption.

      Things will be marginally better than no RCS support and only SMS / MMS fallback, but it's still going to suck in comparison to just publishing an iMessage client for Android that can register with the SMS b

    • No. RCS Universal Profile does not have E2EE. At least it does not as of the 2019 standard. Only Google's RCS implementation has it along with other features. Basically RCS at this point is SMS ++ with more features than SMS but not everything that iMessage or Google Messages has right now. And that does not account for new features the Google or Apple may add to their messaging platforms.

    • Depends on how Apple implements RCS.

      As it is currently, they deliberately make the inclusion of SMS users so intolerable that Apple users are driven to exclude non-imessage users.

      There's nothing stopping Apple from arbitrarily making the experience of including RCS group members equally bad.

      "Hey, sorry if there's an RCS group member then you can't post gifs." or some bullshit like that.

  • One trick China uses with its firewall is to make it look like the connection is working but unreliable. The idea is citizens blame the offshore web sites for the poor performance, rather the Chinese government for a hard block. It trains locals to use local websites while deflecting blame.

    If Apple are only affect some users or some messages they may be hoping to redirect the blame for a bad user experience on Beeper so that Apple can avoid blame and quietly move customers onto their preferred solution

  • Or (Score:1)

    by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

    Everyone can stop caring about iMessage on Android or what fucking color you are on their screen. It doesn't fucking matter.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      And if you know someone who does care about the colors of texts... delete them from your pitiful life.

  • Doesn't sound like an Apple problem (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The company says that uninstalling and reinstalling the app fixes the issue and that it's working on a broader fix.

    I'm sure Apple will be fucking with them in many ways, since Beeper is charging their customers for a service that's freeloading off of Apple, but if users are fixing their issue by uninstalling and reinstalling their shitty Android app it doesn't sound like this particular issue is caused by Apple now does it?

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Close