Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
bogwog
This seems like it won't last, but it's AWESOME and I really hope you survive Apple's inevitable attempts to kill this. A universal chat application would be amazing, and will maybe help bring attention to the value of standards and interoperability (hopefully by governments/regulators).
wslh
One of my companies lives from this kind of things so it would last if someone could fund it. More food for thought: "Reflecting on 16 Years of Work on Adversarial Interoperability" (now, more than 20...) [1]
[1] https://blog.nektra.com/2020/01/12/reflecting-on-16-years-of...
smashah
Have you ever received C&D for your work? There's a big problem of OSS projects being TOS-trolled by billion dollar companies and having to shut down out of fear.
wslh
You know, your question is very interesting: no, we didn't.
Anecdote: we reverse engineered several Microsoft products and before Microsoft Windows 7 launch we were contacted by Microsoft QA and they offered us support to check if our software was compatible with it! BTW, our software was installed in millions of computers around the globe. For example, Trend Micro used our software for supporting their antivirus in Outlook Express and Windows Mail.
Our Deviare Hooking Engine [1] was eclipsed when Microsoft Detours [2] turned to an MIT license and free. Even when our was superior in several ways. This is why I wrote that you should continuously fight for "adversarial interoperability".
[1] https://github.com/nektra/Deviare2
[2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/detours/
sneak
What would they demand they cease doing? Publishing software?
If the use of this software is against their rights in some way, the end users running it would be the ones in violation. Publishing original software is protected expression.
chipgap98
I saw an article on the topic where the reporter spoke with Beeper's CEO, Eric Migicovsky. He seems to believe that blocking Beeper might cause problems for legitimate Apple user's.
Obviously that outcome is something he wants, but I still think its interesting.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/5/23987817/beeper-mini-imes...
hedgehog
Apple maintains iMessage compatibility with devices that are long out of support, if Beeper Mini is sufficiently similar to the client in for example iOS 12 then it makes an Apple decision to break Beeper fairly expensive. Even if they do the work to publish iMessage updates for the old iOS versions it just buys a little time before the new version gets reverse engineered, and that at the cost of poor user experience for the people with those devices in a form they will directly blame on Apple. Given all that I suspect he's right.
lxgr
> Even if they do the work to publish iMessage updates for the old iOS versions it just buys a little time before the new version gets reverse engineered
There's probably a cliff in complexity. Once Apple starts requesting signed attestations from the secure enclave on the devices that have one, it's game over.
They probably don't just yet, since still too many people use iMessage on first-party clients that don't have one, e.g. Intel laptops without a T1 or T2.
hedgehog
Looks like Apple figured out a way to identify Beeper clients: https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/08/apple-cuts-off-beeper-mini...
afavour
That would make sense: because Apple have deeply coupled iMessage to the OS they can’t simply roll out a new version of the app with protocol changes that would block Beeper, they’d have to release entire OS updates.
No matter the method it would be a scorched earth approach. I suspect the number of people actually using Beeper will be far below a rounding error for Apple.
lxgr
Non-Apple legitimate users aren't the only concern for Apple: Once third-party clients are readily available, this makes spam much harder to filter.
Right now they can probably just ban known-spam-originating devices, which is much more effective than banning iCloud accounts since there is a much higher cost to the spammers.
dylan604
You say this like Apple doesn't release OS updates. Why are you putting that as some arbitrary limiter to what Apple could do to protect its walled garden?
nebula8804
Uptake for OS updates is very high on iOS though right? I heard a while back that it is like 90+% in 6 months. (could be totally wrong on that can someone confirm?)
jotux
I'm not that familiar with ios apps, can they not push out updates to individual apps?
crystaldecanter
will iMessage Contact Key Verification coming in iOS 17.2 break Beeper — or just make it super annoying like the “not a genuine Apple part” warning when replacing a screen or battery
threeseed
> because Apple have deeply coupled iMessage to the OS
No they haven't. On my Mac it's just an app and a reusable framework.
There is nothing stopping them releasing it on the App Store similar to Mail.
undefined
BowBun
It's not too hard to think through -
They would need to accept and verify a flag from messages that the copycats can't reproduce. At the very least that would require a client update from anyone using official iMessage clients, which covers many millions of devices.
Unless they're able to hook into already existing flags/keys on the devices since they already verify application signatures and a whole other host of things.
Apple can probably do it, but much like jailbreaking how fast can they release breaking changes?
IshKebab
They could probably require a new check but whitelist already registered numbers.
mattgreenrocks
What's brilliant is they get press either way this goes down.
dylan604
i understand no such thing as bad news/publicity, but if the 800lb gorilla squashes the little guy, then that's some pretty bad news. with the recent Twitt...er,X and reddit debacle with 3rd party apps, that 800lbs is pretty powerful when it wants to be
edit, because i used the wrong turn of phrase
Rygian
On the contrary, the EU law that enforces interoperability should put some wind under this project's wings.
hansoolo
Exactly what I thought
jackjeff
But EU interoperability laws are cancelled out by DMCA (aka EUCD). That’s why reading a DVD with VLC has always been “technically” illegal.
If Apple is able to update the protocol in such a way that it requires some kind of signed attestation from the secure enclave (basically a DRM) they’ll get legal protection.
Also. Nobody uses iMessage in the EU. It’s all WhatsApp here. Blue bubbles are an American obsession.
geraldhh
it might even be the reason for it's existence
cavisne
The timing is potentially clever. Apple has committed to supporting RCS next year, and will face regulatory pressure in places like Europe.
Even if short lived they could onboard a lot of Android users and then use RCS once it’s supported.
rezonant
I wonder if these events are connected. Imagine Apple hearing through the grapevine that someone had a proper iMessage implementation and that they planned to release it for Android. Perhaps one way to get in front of that would be to commit to RCS. One could imagine the Nothing Phone events having the same cause.
vmfunction
>A universal chat application would be amazing
It would be, however would not bet my chatting account history on a phone number. Phone number does get lost over time. Email is more reliable, but may be a private key for authentication instead. Also a modern day chat app, one would expect to have chatting over bluetooth as well Internet such as Briar, and chatting over Tor such as Quite would be much more needed.
nani8ot
I'm not so sure about email being more reliable than a phone number. I believe more people have a contract with their cellular provider than with their email. Free email accounts could be banned with no recourse.
toastal
We had universal chat applications & standards and interoperability in the 2000s. Pidgin (et al.) + libpurple allowed users to use a singular application for chat--even the proprietary protocols. We also had (& still have) XMPP from that era which many of the big boys like Google jumped on, killed, then jumped off (EEE?). Are we just repeating history (https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-netwo...)? There’s an XKCD about inventing yet a new standard despite us having good ones for decades…
nani8ot
Given how many large chat systems are based on XMPP, it should be possible to select a set of standard extensions to interoperate with each other. Sadly, I don't see it happening.
toastal
True. But developers should push in that direction anyhow since it still means interop for those in that camp already… and considering how well those large systems have scaled, it’s a good idea.
rezonant
This was never enough for me. On paper Pidgin did the trick, but you still had to remember which of your friends preferred which platform, you had multiple "friend" entries for the same person, many used silly pseudonyms that they certainly didn't go by IRL, you had no way to tell if your friends actually were monitoring each of their accounts (I uninstalled aim months ago, have you been sending me messages on it?), you couldn't have group conversations across networks without mental gymnastics or compromise, the features offered on each platform were inconsistent, both on their native apps and the features pidgin actually implemented.
That to me is not universal chat, that's just welding 10 chat apps into one, somewhat poorly.
That being said XMPP was well on the way to becoming something universally supported, and though the protocol itself was way more complicated and crufty than I'd like, it's a shame that Google particularly abandoned it for really no reason.
toastal
Since those services all died off my memory is a bit foggy, but I recall stacking contacts in one with Adium & being able to prioritize in that meta contact which service they provided. But I really only ever used it for two-person conversations so I had no experience with the group situation. Even still, a multi-chat app was a vastly better user experience than running several independent applications (with the cost of missing ‘advanced’ features & occasional outages as protocols needed to be reverse engineered & the proprietary providers had no incentive for backwards compatibility).
> Google particularly abandoned it for really no reason
What most annoying is seeing Big Tech now trying to write a new standard to comply with the EU instead of using the existing standard they abandoned that already has all the mileage & scaling looked at. Instead all the same hurdles will have to be overcome yet again, just like the current growing pains of Matrix meanwhile XMPP is still quietly holding strong for massive chat/presence systems.
superduty
What is currently not interoperable between the majors mobile OS makers?
rezonant
Well messaging for one thing...
Some others:
- Find my device features including Bluetooth ping networking (airtags, Tile, Android's upcoming network)
- Airdrop/Nearby Share
- Bluetooth LE proximity pairing (at least I doubt this works when pairing cross ecosystem)
- Carplay/Android Auto
- Airplay/Google Cast
windexh8er
> Find My / Airtags
Another Apple ecosystem that can be used by non-Apple devices. OpenHaystack [0] has been working well for quite a while.
fy20
- Carplay/Android Auto
Are there any headunits that only support one or the other? The cheap Chinese unit I got last year supports wireless for both. It would be nice to have an open protocol though, so third parties could develop alternative UIs.
collegeburner
okay but this "interoperability" is legitimately hard without degrading the user experience because apple's unique level of control allows it to produce a superior product with more consistency. airdrop is best-in-class; open-source solutions like wi-fi direct are dumpsterfires with trash UX. LE proximity pairing is, i believe, a custom chip apple put in airpods (h1 chip) because bluetooth is stuck in 2005 and still doesn't have easy pairing, full quality two-way audio, etc. carplay/auto have different feature sets and airplay is an objectively easier experience than google cast.
the EU is fundamentally interested in these changes regardless of consumer welfare. this is sour grapes because they fail at tech by every conceivable metric and by degrading everything to a common feature set and commoditizing certain standards, they hope to give domestic companies a prayer. that it prevents innovation and improvements is merely a secondary concern for the hard-headed anti-Americans in brussels.
DeathArrow
>A universal chat application would be amazing Can't Whatsapp, Signal, Telegram, Viber and other chat apps be installed on both Android and iOS?
altairprime
This downloads from GitHub and ’executes’ specific code points in what looks like a proprietary Apple binary, ‘IMDAppleServices’. Where was that binary sourced? Could you provide more context for what is performed at the hard-coded call-in addresses in your code? Does this relate to how you’re presenting a unique device identifier to the network? Do all clients share one identifier, or is it generated per Apple ID? Have any Apple IDs been locked out of iMessage during your development and testing?
dadoum
I am not the developer but I also looked at that binary to help the project at some point.
It's taken straight from OS X 10.8 (more precisely from an Update Combo on their download portal). It's calling NACInit, NACKeyEstablishment and NACSign functions from it (which have no entry points but with reverse engineering the offsets have been figured out). They are themselves relying on OS X system functions to get device information. The Python code is using Unicorn to emulate it and patch the calls to those functions to stubs returning pre computed values from a Mac machine (stored in a data.plist file). All clients are using the same machine identifier. IIRC, nobody did get its account locked but if the Apple ID has not been used at all it might fail (it depends on the donor device that generated data.plist, if it's a hackintosh for example it will likely not work).
stefan_
That seems like a problem. Emulating the protocol is okayish-to-gray but having the binary there will just be a straight DMCA.
Wonder what the actual app is doing since this is just the PoC.
chatmasta
I don't think the finer legal points matter too much. If Apple wants to sue them, they'll sue them, regardless of legal merit. And I suspect Beeper is betting they can make their case from a more philosophical angle, such that it's irrelevant what grounds Apple cites when suing them. Beeper will fight it either way.
I'm an Apple user who has no need for this app. But I really appreciate that Beeper has the balls to reverse engineer the protocol and build a business around it while fully expecting a lawsuit. That's some old school hacker shit and I'm here for it.
Apple tried and failed to sue Corellium for emulating their hardware, and now Corellium has a viable business around it. I don't see why Beeper should fare any differently. They just need to be prepared for a fight, both legally (lawsuits) and technically (ongoing game of cat-and-mouse).
altairprime
There’s no need for Apple to react to this project at all.
Eventually, someone will send spam using this app, at which point automated systems at Apple will “console ban” the hardware identifier shared by all of the app’s customers. The project presumably has a library of valid hardware identifiers collected and ready to go, and eventually that’ll be drained by spammers faster than revenue versus device purchasing allows for. Apple can just wait silently as the app exhausts their pool of hardware identifiers, each banned by pre-existing anti-spam automation, without ever acknowledging their existence.
dadoum
The app is not redistributing it, it just requests a server to get validation data (since anyway the actual library loading involves patching every system function, making the function independent from the host device, see [0] if you want to see how it's stubbed to run on Linux using a data.plist file), and thus there is no need to emulate it on device.
JimDabell
Doesn’t this already have precedent? Nintendo used to check for the existence of their logo in cartridges before loading them so that anybody who wanted to create an unauthorised cartridge for a Nintendo system would have to reproduce their logo and infringe on their copyright. I’m pretty sure the court ruled that reproducing the logo for the purpose of interoperability was fair use.
threeseed
There are reverse engineering/interoperability exemptions to the DMCA so it may not be that simple.
So would be curious if they have already sought legal advice which says they are in the clear.
WD40ForRust2
I hope we get to a place where people like this simply generate an OpenPGP key/OpenSSL certificate for a pseudonym and just throw this stuff up on .onion and .i2p domains. A place where DMCA and copyright literally cannot be enforced because it's impossible to.
viraptor
If that becomes a problem and they get enough funding, I'm sure they can spend a few days / weeks reverse engineering the functions they need. At this point it just needs some effort, not some crazy research capabilities.
ronsor
Given that these are cryptography-related functions, I feel like symbolic execution could yield the actual algorithm they use.
dadoum
It’s already in the works, someone has already made a lot of progress on this front on pypush’ Discord server.
danpalmer
I already had a significant respect for Beeper (Cloud) as a technical product. The backend being Matrix with open source bridges was a great choice.
This write up adds so much more to that respect. It would have been easy to botch this, it would have been easy to do a worse implementation that would have caused problems for users whether they cared or not, but Beeper seemingly took the time to get right.
Congrats to Eric and the team on the launch!
sprite
Did you get permission from Apple to connect to their servers? Google Play does not allow apps to connect to 3rd party APIs without consent.
The relevant policy can be found at: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
"We don’t allow apps that interfere with, disrupt, damage, or access in an unauthorized manner the user’s device, other devices or computers, servers, networks, application programming interfaces (APIs), or services, including but not limited to other apps on the device, any Google service, or an authorized carrier’s network."
From what I understand your app connects to APNS without permission from Apple.
I have personally had my Google Play Developer account banned for making an app that connected to a 3rd party service
geor9e
I'm surprised Apple hasn't cut them off yet. They must not be able to for some legacy reason. I suspect the only way to cut them off would be to cut off all the older phones like iPhone 3GS as well.
>the iMessage protocol and encryption have been reverse engineered by jjtech, a security researcher. Leveraging this research, Beeper Mini implements the iMessage protocol locally within the app. All messages are sent and received by Beeper Mini Android app directly to Apple’s servers. The encryption keys needed to encrypt these messages never leave your phone. Neither Beeper, Apple, nor anyone except the intended recipients can read your messages or attachments. Beeper does not have access to your Apple credentials.
>We built Beeper Mini by analyzing the traffic sent between the native iMessage app and Apple’s servers, and rebuilding our own app that sends the same requests and understands the same responses.
CobrastanJorji
Is this specifically unauthorized, though? The user is permitted to use Apple's services, and Apple has, as far as I know, not announced that third party apps may not use their services.
sprite
If Apple files a complaint with Google it will definitely get taken down under this clause, so I think the only way it will stay up is if Apple doesn’t care.
With the trouble Apple goes through to ensure you are accessing APNS from an Apple device including obfuscating the signing algorithm and requiring unique hardware identifiers I think it’s safe to assume they don’t want 3rd parties accessing their services.
ryukoposting
Even Signal pitches a fit if you use a third-party app with their servers. It's a common (and unfortunate) practice.
colinsane
what does this mean? plenty of 3rd party signal clients exist (flare being a well-known one); signal explicitly factored out a libsignal presumably to _encourage_ this.
i’ve run multiple 3rd-party signal clients, even alongside the official apps, and never seen any problems or warnings.
remus
> It's a common (and unfortunate) practice.
It would be nice if third party clients were allowed to connect, but it's totally understandable if they don't want to allow it. Servers cost money, and misbehaving client apps that you have no control over sound like a pain in the ass.
KTibow
> I have personally had my Google Play Developer account banned for making an app that connected to a 3rd party service.
Well what did it do with the service?
sprite
I had app that connected to the Snapchat API and let you upload photos with custom effects and photos from your photo album before that was a feature (not sure if it is today, I don't use Snapchat)
matsz
Great job! Just from taking a quick look at this, what you have here is much bigger than iMessage itself.
This could literally allow things like Universal Clipboard to work on Linux and Windows - by using the method presented here to access the iCloud Keychain and generating Continuity keys and placing them there - then the iPhone will broadcast its clipboard data encrypted with those keys via BLE. If I understand all of this correctly.
crooked-v
I had been wondering where Beeper's route to profitability was, but if they can get Continuity and AirDrop stuff working with Windows that will be an instant no-brainer subscription for a lot of people (including me), so I guess it works out.
LectronPusher
It works over wifi, but you might be interested in KDE Connect [1]. It can do clipboard, remote input, file sending, command running, etc. on Windows and Linux.
valianteffort
Would like to try it out but the developer decided to force sign-in with google and I have removed that from my AOSP build.
joshstrange
Beeper is a really cool idea by some cool people (people behind the Pebble smartwatch) but I've resisted using it for fear of bans. I don't want my Slack/Discord/Instagram/AppleId/etc to get banned for using something not allowed under the terms of service. How are people who use Beeper dealing with this? Are you just using dummy/test accounts that you don't care about or are you just rolling the dice.
I would like to live in a world where I could use Beeper without worry but I don't feel like we currently live in that world. Am I wrong?
nusl
I’ve been using Beeper as my main chat client for multiple years and haven’t had any issues with account blocks or bans on any of their supported platforms. I have Discord, Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, and LinkedIn connected. There are technical issues at times but they are well communicated and usually resolved pretty quickly.
ChaseT
I've used Beeper for about a year with Facebook, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and iMessage. Instagram signs me out once a month or so for security suspicions, but I just reconfirm my account with 2FA. Other than that, no issues.
gaws
> I would like to live in a world where I could use Beeper without worry but I don't feel like we currently live in that world. Am I wrong?
I've been using Beeper for close to six months, and it's been a dream.
yellow_lead
Since they've been on waitlist-mode for several years, it's not currently easy to try out in any case.
nusl
They’ve opened invites from existing users
quantumsequoia
Beeper mini does not require an apple account so there's not much harm Apple can do
chatmasta
If you have an Apple account, why are you even using Beeper? I guess it might have some advantages for convenience (multiplexing chat apps), but is that the main selling point right now? I'd imagine the target market is Android users who want to talk to people on Apple Messages. So they can just create a new Apple account, right? (Isn't that kinda hard anyway, though? You need to tie it to billing, etc.) And if that gets banned, who cares? It's not like they were using it for anything else anyway.
altintx
I sit in front of my work laptop which is signed into my work apple account. My iPhone is signed into my personal Apple account. I cannot iMessage from the keyboard because they won't play together. I've been using Cloud Beeper since early summer, and it makes the two apple systems play nice together. I also have a Windows machine signed in to it, but that's a nice to have.
chatmasta
Wait, how does this work? Is it using Handoff and sending from your phone, or Beeper is just a GUI and you've extracted a token from your personal phone to use with Beeper on your work device?
Btw, this is mostly unrelated, but do you work for a large company? I'd assume most security teams would have a problem with a setup like this.
joshstrange
I'm more interested in the multiplexing aspect, yes I'm iOS/macOS so I don't care about the iMessage aspect alone though I'd love to pull all my chats into 1 extendable app.
chefandy
An Apple account isn't particularly useful for messaging without an Apple device to message people with.
jdiez17
It seems that at least the push notification registration part uses a "leaked/extracted" FairPlay private key [1]. As far as I understand, FairPlay certificates/keys should be unique to each iDevice. Couldn't Apple trivially ban all subscriptions originating from this fake device? The comment says you know how to generate more; does Beeper Mini generate one for each install? Why would Apple believe those certificates are authentic?
P.S.: the source repo mentioned in the comment (https://github.com/MiUnlockCode/albertsimlockapple) is 404.
[1] https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush/blob/main/albert.py#L16
chdefrene
Snazzy Labs did an overview video [1] about this implementation. According to them, reusing a specific hardware token is such s common practice that Apple would need to "redesign their entire authentication and delivery strategy" to mitigate this problem. I guess we'll see how this statement holds up in the coming weeks/months.
saagarjha
This didn’t really say much. Apple definitely knows about Hackintosh users, they mostly just don’t care. The question is whether they will actually do something if made to care.
nebula8804
They 'don't care' because they know that the M series processors were coming and now there is a built in death counter coming for Hackintoshes...the day they drop Intel support.
June 5, 2028: Intel hardware will reach "vintage" status after having been discontinued five years prior, ending most of Apple's service and parts support for Intel hardware.
June 5, 2030: Intel hardware will reach "obsolete" status after having been discontinued seven years prior, ending all of Apple's service and parts support for Intel hardware.
oceanplexian
This is too high profile. Apple is absolutely, 100% going to kill this and it’s gonna screw this over for those of us who leverage iMessage in Hackintosh environments.
bitwize
We're talking about a company that changes CPU architectures for their ecosystem every few years, completely seamlessly. If redesigning their entire authentication and delivery strategy is what it will take to mitigate this problem, Apple will do it.
semi-extrinsic
What problem? Increased compatibility?
blopker
Does this look like the same file from the deleted repo? https://github.com/rdxunlock/albertsimlockapple/blob/main/AL...
I'd love to see an open source version of Beeper with no analytics. I'd be happy to host my own notification server.
malermeister
The python library they provide should be a good start at least: https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush
ebb_earl_co
Beeper already advertises the self-hosting route: https://github.com/beeper/self-host
rd07
I hope they open source their client app or at least makes it possible to connect to other matrix server. For me, their client app is the best matrix client in terms of UI.
kristofferR
Looks like it's this?
https://github.com/xxCabin/albertsimlockapple/blob/main/ALBE...
This also seems related:
https://github.com/unicode99/MiUnlock/blob/main/activator.ph...
szszrk
OK, took a while to figure out what it is, as I barely know anyone using iphone. Though it's not for me, BUT if they deliver this:
> Over time, we will be adding all networks that Beeper supports into Beeper Mini, including SMS/RCS, WhatsApp, Messenger, Signal, Telegram, Instagram, Twitter, Slack, Discord, Google Chat and Linkedin. We'll also bring Beeper Mini to desktop and iOS.
I'm interested, even if it's paid. I'd love to have most of those apps gone and use a cleaner one.
striking
Happy Beeper customer and original poster here to tell you: Beeper Cloud is already out there and works really well! It's also free, though you'll have to get through the waitlist somehow. It doesn't perfectly replace every app just yet but it covers the most important functionality extremely well. And it's available on mobile as well as desktop devices.
kelnos
IIRC, though, Beeper Cloud does not come with end-to-end encryption on messaging services that usually have that feature through their regular app. Messages are encrypted between your device and Beeper's servers, and between Beeper's servers and the other end of the conversation, but the Beeper folks can still read your messages if they want.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong; the architecture of their product is pretty confusing.)
neither_color
Ive tried the legacy version to consolidate Signal, Whatsapp, etc and you can't send/receive calls, only messages. It's very much still a work in progress
kyawzazaw
> as I barely know anyone using iphone.
where are you located?
midasz
I'm from the Netherlands and I know plenty of people who have iPhones but I also know (and am) plenty people with androids. People use either WhatsApp or Telegram. Isn't iMessage just texting within a walled garden?
hn_throwaway_99
The situation is very different in the US, primarily because in other countries SMS fees tended to be really high a decade and change ago, and thus drove users to WhatsApp, but in the US most carriers had adopted some form of unlimited texting shortly after the iPhone first came out.
Thus, for many socio-economic groups, iPhone is definitely king in the US, and for them iMessage is just the default way to message people because when it was introduced it was the default way to use SMS on iPhone. A restaurant in Texas famous for their funny signs put this out, https://twitter.com/ElArroyo_ATX/status/1693316647677825160 , and tons of people (myself included) could immediately relate.
averageRoyalty
> Isn't iMessage just texting within a walled garden?
Isn't that exactly what WhatsApp (and to a lesser extent) Telegram are?
szszrk
Poland. I know a few apple fanboys but those aren't people I communicate with outside of work. Just not my bubble.
It's actually weird and silly when they send me text messages and somehow I end up in the same conversation multiple times - like once 1:1, once in a group chat with myself included twice or more (as a number, as an email, as a second number). It's a bizarre experience and usually iPhone user can't see anything wrong :D
VanTheBrand
I think this might be launching at an opportune time. The EU is already trying to force them to open up the App Store and iMessage has a target on its back. A cease and desist about this won’t look great in the inevitable antitrust hearings…
apexalpha
Does iMessage have a target on its back? It doesn't have a dominant position here in messaging, if it has a position at all.
ddxv
First they require email and personal info. Then they tell you it's a monthly subscription. Felt like a terrible onboarding experience and a bit of a dark pattern.
mianos
If you scratch around enough they do say it's a paid product. Pretty cool yes,"show hacker news"? Dunno.
cschep
This is an amazing technical achievement and there is no world where it doesn't get banned.
windowshopping
Dang, I support your efforts but I just don't have any incentive to pay for a texting app. Normal texting and WhatsApp and discord and Instagram and tiktok messages etc etc are all free. So I just don't really have a reason to subscribe to this.
hn_throwaway_99
> Normal texting and WhatsApp and discord and Instagram and tiktok messages etc etc are all free.
This product is not for you. I don't know where you're commenting from, but I'm guessing it's not from the US. Using WhatsApp or Discord or Instagram or TikTok messages only have value because the people you want to talk to use them. In the US, iMessage is by far the dominant messaging service for iPhone users, and iPhones dominate certain socioeconomic groups. This situation sucks, but there are lots of Android users who get extremely frustrated when a large group of their friends are on iPhones, to the point it can be socially isolating when you're "the odd man out" in a group chat (and it's not the whole green/blue bubbles the media likes to talk about, it's that interoperability between iMessage and other clients sucks and breaks many features).
This is a great option for US Android users who want to be able to better communicate with their friends that have iPhones.
windowshopping
I am in the US and have been here my whole life. My entire extended social circle uses whatsapp. I realize that is the minority but it does exist.
xwolfi
In Hong Kong everyone has an iphone but everyone uses Whatsapp. I'm so surprised iMessage is even used at all, we all consider it a gimmick here, like, Whatsapp and Telegram are so great at their respective subset of features and WeChat does the rest.
rattray
I recently paid >$1000 for the privilege of access to iMessage when switching from Android to iPhone. I'd have been _much_ happier staying on my preferred operating system and paying $24/yr.
(iMessage has, for me, actually been worth it - but still, I frequently find myself wishing that something like Beeper Mini existed so I could go back to android).
dwaite
You switched from Android _just_ for iMessage? Why on earth for? Could you elaborate?
quantumsequoia
I did as well. Because there are group chats I need to be in that I can only access if I have iMessage
I can't convince dozens of people in the groups to go sign up for signal just to accommodate me
kortilla
In many circles in the US, it is the way to communicate. You just end up left out of “fun” group chats where people want to use iMessage features and then end up left out of actual events because people forgot to invite in the greenie group.
rattray
For both social and work life it's an important way of communicating for many people.
Some people are just a little less quick to message you back if you're a green bubble or ask to use WhatsApp, especially in certain circles.
robk
it's very hard to socialize with non-techies in the US without it. you miss so much.
azinman2
What do you prefer about Android?
rattray
Long list, I've been meaning to write a blog post.
PrimeMcFly
How about not being in a walled garden and actually having access to your device?
cutler
Affordability.
Friskyseal
Yeah, the cost is a bummer but if I look at it as spending $2 a month to avoid buying an iPhone, it's worth it.
Ayesh
There really is no free lunch.
// insert some clever "you are the product" here.
geor9e
Their older app, Beeper Cloud, is free anyhow.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Hi HN! I’m proud to share that we have built a real 3rd party iMessage client for Android. We did it by reverse engineering the iMessage protocol and encryption system. It's available to download today (no waitlist): https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.beeper.ima and there's a technical writeup here: https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works.
Unlike every other attempt to build an iMessage app for Android (including our first gen app), Beeper Mini does not use a Mac server relay in the cloud. The app connects directly to Apple servers to send and receive end-to-end encrypted messages. Encryption keys never leave your device. No Apple ID is required. Beeper does not have access to your Apple account.
With Beeper Mini, your Android phone number is registered on iMessage. You show up as a ‘blue bubble’ when iPhone friends text you, and can join real iMessage group chats. All chat features like typing status, read receipts, full resolution images/video, emoji reactions, voice notes, editing/unsending, stickers etc are supported.
This is all unprecedented, so I imagine you may have a lot of questions. We’ve written a detailed technical blog post about how Beeper Mini works: https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works. A team member has published an open source Python iMessage protocol PoC on Github: https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush. You can try it yourself on any Mac/Windows/Linux computer and see how iMessage works. My cofounder and I are also here to answer questions in the comments.
Our long term vision is to build a universal chat app (https://blog.beeper.com/p/were-building-the-best-chat-app-on). Over the next few months, we will be adding support for SMS/RCS, WhatsApp, Signal and 12 other chat networks into Beeper Mini. At that point, we’ll drop the `Mini` postfix. We’re also rebuilding our Beeper Desktop and iOS apps to support our new ‘client-side bridge’ architecture that preserves full end-to-end encryption. We’re also renaming our first gen apps to ‘Beeper Cloud’ to more clearly differentiate them from Beeper Mini.
Side note: many people always ask ‘what do you think Apple is going to do about this?’ To be honest, I am shocked that everyone is so shocked by the sheer existence of a 3rd party iMessage client. The internet has always had 3rd party clients! It’s almost like people have forgotten that iChat (the app that iMessage grew out of) was itself a multi-protocol chat app! It supported AIM, Jabber and Google talk. Here’s a blast from the past: https://i.imgur.com/k6rmOgq.png.