Yeah, not the point. The point is to prove that it's possible and relatively simple, and the only reason Apple operates this way is to lock people into the ecosystem.
I don't doubt that.
> and it is why many people like Apple products so much.
No. People like the quality and the refinement and polish. In most cases those things to not require (as much of) a closed ecosystem. Beeper is proof of that.
In the case of Beeper Mini, the proof is in the pudding. You have evidence right in front of your face that an Android client for iMessage is possible, because one now exists. Does your iPhone suddenly feel lower quality to you?
Sure, but I'm not the one who has to handle customer service for it.
Apple can have a test suite that encompasses every possible supported device (and OS combination). That's much tougher if they want to support Android.
> Does your iPhone suddenly feel lower quality to you?
No, but that's missing the point. If Beeper catches on, and all my Android friends install it, and some of my messages start getting lost, delayed, what have you, that's when I'd start to feel it.
Then you can blame their phone... just like you would now if your SMS messages to them were getting lost.
You realize that's been Apple's fault right, intentionally breaking Beeper?
Sure, it's impossible that Beeper's app or services could ever just malfunction on their own. The first bug-free app!
> If Beeper catches on, and all my Android friends install it, and some of my messages start getting lost, delayed, what have you, that's when I'd start to feel it.
In that case, you might be shocked to learn that before Beeper Mini you simply couldn't send iMessages to Android devices at all. Imagine that, ALL of your iMessages to them getting dropped and having to go through SMS instead...
Now they have to support an open standard/protocol, though. That's not negligible effort.
> In that case, you might be shocked to learn that before Beeper Mini you simply couldn't send iMessages to Android devices at all. Imagine that, ALL of your iMessages to them getting dropped and having to go through SMS instead...
But that's seamless; I've never had to wait or make that choice.
When there's some kind of iMessage failure, though, they sit around and don't send, until I get a delivery failure and "send as SMS" as the fallback. This is rare, but extremely annoying. Adding third-party services into the mix doesn't seem like it's going to reduce these instances.
Evidently not, given the existence of Beeper Mini without intervention on their part. In fact, they're actively spending effort on breaking a working implementation that took them no effort. And either way, they have trillions of dollars and some of the brightest people in tech under their belt. If your argument is that they're not capable of making that protocol work, you're wrong.
>But that's seamless; I've never had to wait or make that choice.
It's seamlessly giving you less functionality, sure. This is not a matter of opinion: Being able to send iMessages to Android users is a feature that iPhones currently do not have at all. Apple is choosing to not give you that functionality when they could be. With something like Beeper Mini, you as an iPhone user gain more functionality by being able to send iMessages to some Android users. Even if it fails sometimes, it is still functionality that simply did not exist at all before. This is only beneficial to you as an iPhone user because you now have functionality that you did not before. I don't know if that can be phrased any more directly.
Leaving a hole open is not anywhere near the same thing as formally supporting a public protocol.
> In fact, they're actively spending effort on breaking a working implementation that took them no effort.
They're spending effort fixing a security hole in an internal protocol.
> Being able to send iMessages to Android users is a feature that iPhones currently do not have at all.
That's like saying Toyota doesn't offer "driving a Ford" as a feature. I don't give a shit? Sending an SMS to Android users is fine.
Then they're spending effort regardless, and your argument was that they shouldn't spend effort at all. If that is the case then it would be better spent opening the protocol in the first place.
> That's like saying Toyota doesn't offer "driving a Ford" as a feature.
Fun hyperbole, but no, there's an obvious difference and this is a reach.
> I don't give a shit? Sending an SMS to Android users is fine.
Good for you, but it's obvious that a lot of people do care. Look around in this very thread, even. Apple users complain that things like group chats and read receipts don't work with Android users. The whole fickle green bubble thing originates from this. Plenty of people do care about this functionality and are happy that this exists, iPhone users included. And if you don't care, then why would you be so insistent about not wanting it added?
They must fix security holes. They don't have to make internal protocols public. These are not comparable investments of time, either.
In this case, it's not a standard.
The total failure of any open messaging standard to capture the market seems to imply to me that control is actually pretty important to the experience of using the service!
I also have devices outside of the the walled garden but they take a bit more effort as far as initial set up and upkeep, things I’m willing to do but average Joe just wanting his tech to do what he tells it to do might not have the patience for.
That "somehow" is pretty easy to explain. Apple creates innovative products - the iPod, iPhone and AirPods were all the first-of-their-kind products - and especially, it creates long lasting products, both in terms of build quality and support.
Good luck getting security updates (including drivers) for your 5 year old typical Windows laptop (or getting a modern OS running on it, see the issue with TPM requirements). Apple, on average, supports a device for ~6 years, and up to 9 years (!) for mobile devices [2].
Meanwhile, you're lucky if your Windows or Android device even lasts that long physically.
On top of that, the battery lifetimes for Apple devices are insane compared to the competition - a feat that neither Windows nor Android can achieve as they lack the complete control over the entire stack, from CPU design over firmware over hardware to the OS and user-space libraries, that Apple has.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/07/some-macs-are-gettin...
I'm talking about the entire stack including drivers. Microsoft is left at the mercy of vendors here.
Additionally, I have yet to see a Windows laptop that doesn't develop cracks, broken hinges and whatnot after 2-3 years of use.
It's exactly this sort of contemptuous attitude that "techies" have towards "average users" that enabled Apple to become the most valuable company in history.
and it's why (well one very big reason why) I hate Apple products, and avoid them.
1/7 isn't bad, I guess.
Totally. But in a messaging app context, that doesn't apply or even make sense. They could just release an iMessage app for Android and keep the experience exactly the same for their iPhone users.
No company on earth is that generous, let alone Apple.
It’s not free, the end user just isn’t paying in monetary currency.
FWIW, this is always a good question to ask yourself when considering using a service... they are getting paid for it one way or another.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
Apple's message is clear: if you want iMessage, get an Apple device. And I fail to understand how "access to iMessage" should be considered a public good that Apple must be forced to allow others access to, there's nothing special about it, there's plenty of different services providing the same experience, anyone can launch an iMessage competitor.
There very evidently is something special about it. It comes from Apple, so it enjoys the advantages of their closed ecosystem and Apple can get away with offering an inferior product.
Apple has no interest in a market they control which has interested customers. Apple should be bullied into it because any other option is an utter failure of capitalism.
> Apple should be bullied into it because any other option is an utter failure of capitalism.
This is an extreme hyperbole, capitalism isn't going to fail because some people think less of "green bubble folks". Also, that scheme failed in any other market than the US. US folks engaging in bullying because of some messenger preferences does not mean you get to dictate the market, and if it does, please provide me some information about that law from which you derive that justification.
Honest question: is there anyone who doesn't already think that? Even at, like, a legislative level?
Signal, WhatsApp, Slack, and iMessage are examples of services which were designed to be run by one company as part of their product. They _might_ have certain SDKs to extend that service (like bots for slack, or app extensions in iMessage) - but generally they aren't excited to shoulder the additional cost and support headaches of third parties using their infrastructure or arbitrarily interacting with the official software clients.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "ecosystem" - I'd argue the first set form ecosystems, while the second set form products.
Is that the point? Everybody already knew that Apple's messaging strategy was a business calculation based around lock in.
Beeper also presents itself as a company, so I'm not sure how releasing software that annoys Apple just to make a point could possibly help their bottom line. If that was the goal, they should've released the code as an anonymous open source project rather than painting a huge target on their own backs.
Other messaging services are available on iOS. In much if the world, iMessage is barely used. This is not lock-in, at all.
If anything, this is lock-out - it's a service that Apple provides to its customers and they don't want 3rd party clients and/or non-customers using the service.
The amount of corporate bootlickers who wish to surrender that right is staggering though.
Because it’s also their right not to respond to those packets?
Where is the lock in?
Is it perhaps because it's easier to message them, do photo sharing/albums, see their location, have airtags work on both? At least for a sizable group my extended family included it's a lock-in for iPhones (or a very strong social disincentive to switch).
1: https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/04/04/iphone-is-still-t...