Frank Slootweg wrote:

> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.

You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
legal arrangements?

On 2023-12-09 08:28, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 09/12/2023 10:24, Wally J wrote:
>> It used to shock me how incredibly insecure Apple's code is, what with
>> ten
>> times the number of exploits than Android and many times the zero day
>> bugs.
>
> I'm not an Apple fan but I don't think that's true.

Of course it's not, Wally (Arlen, other sock puppet names) spreads its
nonsense far and wide and pounces on anything to spin fresh BS.

> Based on the information available up to 2021, Android had a total of
> 574 vulnerabilities discovered in that year, which was a reduction from
> the 859 in 2020. However, 79% of these were characterized by low attack
> complexity. On the other hand, iOS had fewer vulnerabilities but tended
> to have more serious ones, including zero-days

Wallern is a stranger to facts - don't waste your time on it.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 09.12.23 14:19, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 01:41, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 09.12.23 05:43, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>>> To be seen.
>>>
>>> Why would I want to pay £2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,
>>> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?
>>
>> You misunderstand what will happen: The *bubbles* stay green with RCS
>> and it will not solve the inferiority complex of Android users.
>
> It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
> functionality of iMessage.

That comes on top. ;-)

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
> > are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.
>
> You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
> legal arrangements?

Well, those legal arrangements are documented on their website
(<https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/>) and if they want to change them,
they'll have to inform their users. (IIRC, quite some time ago they were
planning to change some privacy related aspect, but backed down when it
came known in the press.)

Also note that the legal situation in the 'European Region' (which
includes the UK) is much more strict than elsewhere.

Bottom line is that there is a lot of FUD, urban legends, etc. about
WhatsApp's alleged lack of privacy, but no facts, proof, etc..

We (SWMBO and I) can only speak from experience. Two WhatsApp accounts
for nearly eight years without any ill effect whatsoever. Our
acquaintances (family, friends, etc.) have similar experience.

On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>
> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.

Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
the same functionality.

There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:

1. The blue bubbles. :-D
2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
provider Apple.

You have no clue.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02?PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
> wrote:
>
> > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
> >
> > Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> > Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
> >
> > Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
> >
> > I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> > number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> > To be seen.
>
> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
> would permit this?

Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.

So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?

[1] 'Beeper Mini: Chat With iPhones'
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.beeper.ima>

[2] For some reason I couldn't find it in the Play Store app, but that
sometimes happens with somewhat ambiguous 'names'.

On 09.12.23 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 01:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>
>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>
>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>
>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>> To be seen.
>>
>> Why The Fuck are *Android-users* so keen to enter the Apple world in the
>> first place?! Inferiority complex?
>
> It would be nice to have the functionality of iMessage on Android and
> that's what this attempted.
>
> IAC, much (if not all) of this will be moot when Apple aligns with RCS
> next year - although some iMessage features will remain exclusive to the
> Apple eco-sphere.
>
>> *Ridiculous*!
>
> Yes, you are.

Like always you are brain dead idiot and fanboy:

There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:

1. The blue bubbles. 😂
2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
provider Apple.

You have no clue.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.

Do you feel better now?

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Tyrone wrote:
>
>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>> would permit this?
>
> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

<https://www.androidpolice.com/beeper-mini-outage-b/>

<https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-minis-access-after-launch-of-service-that-brought-imessage-to-android/>

> So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?

At a rough guess, Apple have initially blocked Beeper's IPs from their
firewall?

On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>
> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>
> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>
> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
> To be seen.

The app requires a *$1.99 monthly* subscription. Beeper Mini cofounder
Eric Migicovsky told Business Insider the fee is to show that it's a
trustworthy service and keeps it free of ads.

An idiot's business model. Grasping android users? Never ever!

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> > downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
>
> Do you feel better now?

Not really! I've a totally useless (for me) app on my phone, polluting
my Apps screen (well, the last page of it)! :-)

I think I'll keep it till the dust has settled down. (As I mentioned,
I couldn't care less about this app or iMessage in general. It's a
non-issue in the real world.)

On 2023-12-09 14:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 1:00:18?AM EST, ""Carlos E. R."" <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04?AM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02?PM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>>>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>>>>>> To be seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>>>>>> would permit this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway. :-\
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>> "green with envy".
>>>
>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>>
>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>
>> Nope. It is Android users wanting to use iMessage. No iPhone users are
>> wanting to be Android users.
>
> And vice versa, but that's not the point Carlos is making.
>
> The point is that except for the US - and maybe NA - nobody cares
> about iMessage, because everyone - yes, *including* iPhone users - is
> using an IM platform which *is* cross-OS-platform. As Carlos said, for
> most that's WhatsApp.
>
> So we hate to break it to you, but the world does not revolve around
> Apple, nor the US (nor Android, nor ... ad infinitum).

Yes, that is the point.

Maybe that's a point behind Apple decision to open up to RCS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04 AM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne"
>>>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's
>>>>>> phone
>>>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of
>>>>>> service.
>>>>>> To be seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think
>>>>> Apple
>>>>> would permit this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get
>>>>> over it?
>>>>
>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>
>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>> "green with
>>> envy".
>>
>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>
> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.

Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.

>
> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.

Not going to happen.

Years ago there was lots of noise about WhatsApp not being secure.
People tried other apps. Me myself have Signal an Telegram also
installed. I mananged to exchange a few messages on T, none on S. I know
some people ditched W. In the end, everybody is using W, except some
security concerned people in their islands.

>
> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
> account.  Pity - hard to break such bonds.

Not at all. I don't have FB on the phone, many people don't have
accounts there. You got it wrong.

W is used by preference because everybody uses it.

>
>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>
> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
> garden means self contained and limiting.
>
> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.

You got the point wrong :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 15:37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
>>> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.
>>
>> You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
>> legal arrangements?
>
> Well, those legal arrangements are documented on their website
> (<https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/>) and if they want to change them,
> they'll have to inform their users. (IIRC, quite some time ago they were
> planning to change some privacy related aspect, but backed down when it
> came known in the press.)

And those changes could be against the EU regulations, and we let them know.

> Also note that the legal situation in the 'European Region' (which
> includes the UK) is much more strict than elsewhere.
>
> Bottom line is that there is a lot of FUD, urban legends, etc. about
> WhatsApp's alleged lack of privacy, but no facts, proof, etc..
>
> We (SWMBO and I) can only speak from experience. Two WhatsApp accounts
> for nearly eight years without any ill effect whatsoever. Our
> acquaintances (family, friends, etc.) have similar experience.

Yes, same here.

I don't even get commercials, which would be the only manner to monetize.

Sometimes there is talk to charge for this or that, but no more than
rumours.

Well, with the exception of the free backup on the Google Drive cloud.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 14:41, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04?AM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:

....

>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone
>>>>>> REALLY think Apple would permit this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get over
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>> "green with
>>>> envy".
>>>
>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>
>> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.
>
> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
> are quite specific about WhatsApp *not* sharing user data with Facebook.
>
> But of course some people revel on FUD, urban legends, etc., so this
> kind of misinformation will never cease.
>
> People actually *using* WhatsApp, know better.
>
>> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.
>>
>> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
>> account. Pity - hard to break such bonds.
>
> In Europe and probably also elsewhere where WhatsApp is popular, it's
> probably mostly the other way around. Many people already used WhatsApp
> before it was bought by Facebook and many people use WhatsApp without
> having a Facebook account.

That's true, we started before Meta bought W.

> FWIW, I've a WhatsApp 'account', but no Facebook account. [This space
> is intentionally left blank for the 'shadow Facdebook account' urban
> legend.]
>
>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be able
>>> to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>
>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want. A walled
>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>
> I think Carlos is referring to Apple (and others) needing to open up
> to interoperate with other (than iMessage) IM platforms to conform to
> upcoming EU regulation.

That too.

But I simply meant that those on iMessage here can only talk with the
21% of users that have an iPhone, the rest are on Android. We don't have
any envy as you claim :-)

Opening up to RCS gives them more people to talk to. Apple can chose:
lose to Meta or lose to Google :-D

>
>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>
> Good on you!

Of course :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 16:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>
>> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
>
> Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
> much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
> like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
> the same functionality.
>
> There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
>
> 1. The blue bubbles. :-D
> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> provider Apple.
>
> You have no clue.

I know of some people (I'm thinking of an immigrant lady) who had an
iPhone for prestige, same as others would buy an expensive car. But she
used WhatsApp. The phone got stolen on her job, which is when I saw her
using a tablet as phone for a while. I don't know what she is using now,
I have not seen her since Covid. Well, I may have, but I did not ask :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 12:46, badgolferman wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
>> Who cares about the color of bubbles?
>> There aren't even bubbles on Android to care about the color of.
>>
>> And I communicate with iPhone users all the time.
>> What's this about "iPhone-only chats" that anyone could care about?
>>
>> The app is marketed with the following splash screens:'
>> a. Finally get blue bubbles on Android
>> b. Join iPhone-only group chats
>> c. Full size photos and videos, plus replies and reactions
>> d. Secured with end-to-end encryption
>> e. Continue with Google
>>
>> I'm struggling to see who would care about any of that
>> (given you already have all of that already, don't you)?
>>
>>
>
>
> I participate in several group chats which include iOS and Android users.
> If there is a single Android user then the entire chat turns green.
> Personally I don’t like the white letters on green background because it’s
> harder to read than white letters on blue background. But even more
> importantly, if a person is added or deleted from the group chat then an
> entire new chat/conversation has to be created. If everyone was using
> iMessage then the same conversation can be edited easily without creating a
> new one.
>
> In iOS there are reactions you can use by long pressing a message. These do
> not transfer over to the chat properly if it is green. There are also
> automated animated reactions such as Happy Birthday which pops up balloons
> and confetti in iMessage conversations which does not work in green chats.

I guess those features could be kept by opening to RCS, which could
support them.

>
> These type of limitations are what iOS users don’t like when an Android
> user enters a group chat. If everyone used something like WhatsApp then
> this would be a moot point, but here in America we haven’t adopted third
> party messaging apps like the rest of the world. I have relatives overseas
> with iPhones who have turned off the iMessage function on their phone
> because they don’t use it.
>
> I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the iMessage
> world and why Apple is resisting. Ultimately it would work best for
> everyone if the systems were compatible, but Apple would then lose the one
> advantage they have which maintains their loyal user base.

Yep.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>
>> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
>
> Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
> much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
> like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
> the same functionality.

iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
not practically feasible between Android devices from different
manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
dependencies).

So while messaging with, eg, Signal, can be a full and valuable
experience, it is "islanded" within Signal's feature set.

> There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
>
> 1. The blue bubbles. :-D

Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
blue... mysterious).

> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> provider Apple.

Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.

So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.

> You are really expert at this.

True.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 10:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 01:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>
>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>
>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>>>> To be seen.
>>>
>>> Why The Fuck are *Android-users* so keen to enter the Apple world in the
>>> first place?! Inferiority complex?
>>
>> It would be nice to have the functionality of iMessage on Android and
>> that's what this attempted.
>>
>> IAC, much (if not all) of this will be moot when Apple aligns with RCS
>> next year - although some iMessage features will remain exclusive to the
>> Apple eco-sphere.
>>
>>> *Ridiculous*!
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>
> Like always you are spot on right!

I know. As to other parts of your reply, see my other reply to you of a
minute or so ago.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 10:15, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
>> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
>
> Do you feel better now?

It bothers you that Mr. Slootweg is 100x smarter than you are, huh?

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 10:19, Andy Burns wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think
>>> Apple
>>> would permit this?
>>
>>    Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
>> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)
>
> <https://www.androidpolice.com/beeper-mini-outage-b/>
>
> <https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-minis-access-after-launch-of-service-that-brought-imessage-to-android/>
>
>>    So *what* exactly *did* Apple 'kill'?
>
> At a rough guess, Apple have initially blocked Beeper's IPs from their
> firewall?

No need.

I believe Apple can "interrogate" any device that registers with it (or
attempts to) and quickly determine if it is an Apple device.

So while the young chap (16 years old) who developed the core of Beeper
Mini was clever in figuring out how to get non-Apple devices to
"register" on Apple's servers, Apple took their time, figured out what
he was doing and added an extra layer of verification.

I'm surprised Apple didn't have such before. It's not a security
concern so much as a "who gets access to the candy" concern by virtue of
spending money on Apple devices.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 10:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 09.12.23 01:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>
>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>
>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>
>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's phone
>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of service.
>> To be seen.
>
> The app requires a *$1.99 monthly* subscription. Beeper Mini cofounder
> Eric Migicovsky told Business Insider the fee is to show that it's a
> trustworthy service and keeps it free of ads.
>
> An idiot's business model. Grasping android users? Never ever!

It also came with a free period so people could decide if it was of
value to them. $2/month is cheap ... if you get that much value from
it. If you don't, nobody is forcing you.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 10:38, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
>>> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
>>
>> Do you feel better now?
>
> Not really! I've a totally useless (for me) app on my phone, polluting
> my Apps screen (well, the last page of it)! :-)
>
> I think I'll keep it till the dust has settled down. (As I mentioned,
> I couldn't care less about this app or iMessage in general. It's a
> non-issue in the real world.)

It may be a non-issue in -your- world, but in the real world there are
Android users who would want this sort of ability.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 11:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04 AM EST, "Your Name"
>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne"
>>>>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's
>>>>>>> phone
>>>>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of
>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>> To be seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY
>>>>>> think Apple
>>>>>> would permit this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get
>>>>>> over it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>> "green with
>>>> envy".
>>>
>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>
>> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.
>
> Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.

In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to. But you have to trust that that
is what is happening.

>
>>
>> I'd try to get people to switch to something independent such as Signal.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> Years ago there was lots of noise about WhatsApp not being secure.
> People tried other apps. Me myself have Signal an Telegram also
> installed. I mananged to exchange a few messages on T, none on S. I know
> some people ditched W. In the end, everybody is using W, except some
> security concerned people in their islands.

Historical inertia (eg: who gets there first and signs up the most users
wins - why the world at large is still so Windows oriented).

>>
>> But I get that people ended up on WhatsApp because of their Facebook
>> account.  Pity - hard to break such bonds.
>
> Not at all. I don't have FB on the phone, many people don't have
> accounts there. You got it wrong.
>
> W is used by preference because everybody uses it.

And FB brought a large portion of them there - likely more than half
(see my other reply to Mr. Slootweg).

>
>>
>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be
>>> able to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>
>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>>
>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>
> You got the point wrong :-D

Not at all. Apple's system is not a walled garden. More like an
exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
of the club you want.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> The point is that except for the US - and maybe NA - nobody cares
> about iMessage, because everyone - yes, *including* iPhone users - is
> using an IM platform which *is* cross-OS-platform. As Carlos said, for
> most that's WhatsApp.

At least default Android messaging apps don't need you to log into an
Internet server just to send short messages to people around the world.

While it's clear this "tyrone" is one of the iKooks and hence this thread
was an attempt to troll the Android users, not only are both Frank & Carlos
correct that most non-USA users have a cellular charging system such that
they use WhatsApp (or WeChat) for most of their short messaging needs...

But even in the USA, what iKooks don't realize is the iMessage servers are
not different in that way from any other Internet based messaging service.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.

BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the same reasons).