Update: it may be limited to those using a hackintosh in conjunction with beeperserv (the jailbreak tweak). Still kind of lousy of them to lock the reddit topic though…
Several users recently reported that after using pypush—the tool that Beeper paid $25,000 for in order to build Beeper Mini—Apple banned their genuine Apple hardware devices from accessing iMessage.
When their comments were shared to the r/Beeper subreddit, one of the mods whom Beeper appointed decided to lock the comments, citing the “need to investigate this further” and directing concerned users to “reach out to support through the appropriate channels.”
for all the latest beeper and matrix news, join BeeperApp on Telegram
Wow, Apple sucks
In other news, mountains are tall.
A second breaking story, water is wet.
… but is water really wet? https://youtu.be/TN25ghkfgQA
Ackhually… 🤓
Not to take sides, but one company built their entire business model around “let’s break into the secure messaging platform of this other company”.
Why are Apple the ones who suck here?
Back then, Apple reverse engineered Microsoft office files, and it was fine if Apple did that?
Probably not entirely the same, but the core issue is the similar IMO: non-interoperability.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay
This isn’t the same at all, it’s even more benign. It’s like if Apple bought a Microsoft Office license for every Mac they sold and only used Microsoft’s official source code to read Office files and then Microsoft started banning those copies of Office.
But Apple was renting out the use of that Office software to paying customers?
deleted by creator
While the others is garden wall everything about our product series, removing consumer choice, and forcing everything done our way.
But consumers have a choice. Just don’t buy Apple products if you don’t like their walled garden. Plenty of other options out there.
That’s exactly what people mean when they say “Apple sucks”.
So in this context, “Apple sucks” means “I choose to not buy or use Apple products but still want to use their Apple-only messaging service and I can’t” and I’m salty about that”?
Jesus wept. There are so many legitimate criticisms to make against the company, and this is where they want to make their stand?
deleted by creator
People keep pointing to this as a big problem, but the walled garden is not a problem for the average apple user ime.
My experience - the apple system is simply a great bonus point in choosing a device. It is a selling point. I do not feel boxed in or forced into the ecosystem.
I used to hate on everything apple until i decided to try iOS with their mini lineup on iPhone 12 mini. I actually fell in love with the OS and felt dumb for shitting on it this whole time. Is it for power-users? No. But for the average consumer, it feels much nicer than android.
A year down the line I needed a laptop and got an M1 mac, not because I was forced by the iOS, because the mac had great specs for an ultralight and will last me years. Plus it has great interoperability with my phone.
Now I have also an apple TV device - not because I am forced into the ecosystem, because I hated my TVs OS and the apple box had appealing specs and again it had seamless interoperability with my devices as a bonus.
At this point in my life I’m just tired of fighting my devices.
Apple draws the line on some seriously questionable/stupid stuff and when faced with that your only choice is to deal with it.
If Android ever tried to force icons to auto-arrange like iOS does, it would be fixed by seven different guys within a week.
You can’t get floating browser popups that cover your home screen and menu buttons on iOS. Somehow this is possible on a Galaxy S22 that a family member has. It’s apparently some app that’s allowed to do this outside of the Notification permission that I disabled for everything. I’ll take a forced gird of icons over that.
Removed by mod
You can use google apps like Keep on iOS.
Removed by mod
It’s not that simple. What Apple does, others follow. It’s not just about Apple being Apple; it’s about this bigger issue where all these big tech companies kind of play follow the leader, and the leader is always the first person to dare do something anti-consumerist.
Before you say anything I have given this company easily over 10,000 dollars, maybe even close to 20,000; I have bought their products for YEARS. Always giving them more chances than I have any other company.
Over the years I have bought apple products for myself as well as gifts for my family and friends:
So no, I’m not just a random hater that didn’t give them enough chances. I have given them plenty of chances, more than any person should. And I now take a firm stance:
I shall not give this company even a penny more until they publicly apologize for their treatment of this small company and open source ALL of their code (not just imessage)
Yes, it’s extreme, but I’m 100% serious.
This is textbook cronyism. One company does something, and suddenly they’re all doing it. It’s not just about avoiding Apple; it’s about how all these companies are in cahoots, and that’s what’s messing things up for us consumers.
The problem is that there truly is not alternative to the tech oligarchy, unless WE create one. The solution is real free market capitalism/consent economies, not the current cronyism.
But the solution is creating competitive tech companies with morals, with a goal to write software and create hardware that’s better than what the competition offers, but that’s entirely open source and embraces competition.
We need to embrace a philosophy of transparency and consumer empowerment. This means developing technology that prioritizes user needs and preferences. We need to let go of the ego driven mindset that has dominated the tech industry for so long.
Whenever this discussion comes into play the same arguments are always presented
“It’s too difficult to compete with these giants.” Yes, it is challenging, but not impossible. The tech industry was built on innovation and disruption. New players can emerge with fresh ideas and technologies that challenge the status quo.
“Open source can’t be profitable.” This is a myth. Open source allows for a broader base of contributors and can lead to more robust and secure products. Moreover, companies can still generate revenue, and in fact should EMBRACE revenue. Revenue and Open Source are not mutually exclusive.
“Consumers don’t really care about these issues.” This is a defeatist attitude. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about issues like privacy, data security, and ethical practices. Companies that prioritize these values can gain a loyal customer base.
“The market is too saturated for new entrants.” Saturation doesn’t mean there’s no room for innovation. Often, it’s an indicator that consumers are looking for better alternatives. There’s always room for products that are more user-friendly, secure, and ethical.
“What we need is regulations against these monopolistic practices.” Over-reliance on regulation can stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. Instead, the emphasis should be on fostering a competitive environment where new entrants can challenge established players. You cannot use force to create a truly free and fair market. What’s needed is a shift in consumer mindset and a rise in demand for ethical, user-centered technology. We must support startups and businesses that are trying to make a positive impact in the tech world. By choosing to spend our money on products and services that align with our values, we can drive change in the industry. Government intervention will only shift the situation slightly, until a new winner emerges (or the current “winners” adapt) and then the cycle of cronyism starts again. It’s a never-ending game of whack-a-mole unless we, the consumers, take a stand.
1/3 (sorry I had to split it into 3 comments, I was reaching some limitation I didn’t realize existed)
We have to realize that every dollar we spend is a vote for the kind of world we want to live in. When we choose to support ethical tech companies, we’re not just buying a product or service; we’re investing in a philosophy, a set of values that respects our privacy, values our freedom, and treats us not as products but as partners.
We also need to nurture a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, when we see open source products that are valuable to us we should pay for them, as much as we can, even multiple times the amount of money that we pay for the same product from a big tech company, if possible. By doing so, we not only validate the effort put into creating these open-source alternatives but also encourage more developers and entrepreneurs to venture into this space.
Education plays a crucial role in this change. We need to educate consumers about the importance of privacy, data security, and ethical practices in technology. The solution is not an us versus them mentality because I truly think that most people that hate big tech companies, me included, would welcome them with open arms if they changed their practices and started to put the consumers first again. But until that happens, we need to be proactive in creating and supporting alternatives that do align with these principles.
The idea of a technology ecosystem built on trust, respect, and partnership with the users is not just a dream; it’s a necessity for the future of our digital lives. It requires a collective effort, where consumers, developers and entrepreneurs work together towards a common goal of a more ethical, transparent, and user-centric technology landscape.
I am taking a stand against immoral big tech companies and have for a while, but for some reason I gave apple the benefit of the doubt, way more than I should’ve. We can’t afford to give any company a free pass just because of their reputation or history. Every tech giant must be held accountable for their actions and the impact they have on consumers and society at large.
I’m tired of the same arguments over and over, it’s not capitalism that’s broken, it’s cronyism. We have a skewed version of capitalism, where a few giants dominate the market, often using their power to stifle competition and innovation. This is not the free market at its best; it’s an oligopoly that’s detrimental to both consumers and the industry as a whole.
To truly reform the tech industry, we need to start valuing different metrics. Success shouldn’t just be measured in terms of market share or profit margins, but also in how a company treats its customers, its ethical standards, and its contribution to technological advancement. We need to redefine what it means to be a successful tech company in today’s world.
Furthermore, we need to bring back the concept of competition in tech, real true competition, not just a superficial race for market dominance, but a competition grounded in innovation, ethics, and consumer satisfaction. This means encouraging and supporting small companies and startups that dare to challenge the status quo with their ideas and values.
It’s about time we shift our focus from just the big names to the smaller, more agile companies that are pushing boundaries and prioritizing the consumer. These companies often struggle to gain visibility in a market dominated by a few key players, and they struggle to get the funding required to hire enough developers to compete with Big Tech, but they are the ones who are truly driving innovation and change.
Consumers have more power than they realize. By choosing where to spend our money, we can influence the market and encourage a shift towards a more ethical, consumer-centric approach. Every purchase is a statement of our values and what we want to see in the world.
We need to celebrate and support the disruptors, the risk-takers, the ones who are not afraid to think outside the box and challenge the existing business models. These are the people who are building the future of technology, one that is more inclusive, transparent, and respectful of user rights.
This movement towards a more ethical and consumer-centric tech industry isn’t just about challenging the status quo; it’s about envisioning and building a better future. It’s about understanding that technology should serve humanity, not the other way around. Our gadgets, apps, and platforms should be tools that enhance our lives, not devices that manipulate or exploit us.
The technology landscape should be always evolving, not stay stagnant as it has.
In this digital age, our freedom and our data are the most valuable assets that any individual has, and it’s time we start treating them as such. The current paradigm, where our data is often treated as a commodity to be bought and sold without our consent, is not sustainable. We need to reclaim control over our digital identities and ensure that our personal information is used ethically and responsibly.
2/3 (sorry I had to split it into 3 comments, I was reaching some limitation I didn’t realize existed)
Repeat after me:
I am officially taking a very public stance against Big Tech, and advocating for a radical shift in how we interact with and create technology.
Do you want to join the future of ethical technology with me?
Let’s build FOSS technology. Let’s embrace ownership. Let’s embrace freedom. Let’s innovate with integrity, creating tools that empower rather than exploit. Let’s prioritize the user, designing for needs rather than profits. Let’s champion privacy, safeguarding our data as fiercely as our freedoms. Let’s foster collaboration, embracing diverse voices in technology creation. Let’s cultivate ethical entrepreneurship, where values drive business models. Let’s promote digital literacy, educating ourselves and others on the importance of tech ethics. Let’s support small tech innovators, the underdogs challenging the giants. Let’s demand transparency, holding companies accountable for their actions. Let’s create with purpose, ensuring technology serves the greater good. Let’s unite for a tech revolution, where freedom and ownership are paramount.
Together, we can redefine the technology landscape, shaping a future where ethics, empowerment, and innovation coexist. Join me in this journey towards a more ethical, open, and user-centric digital world. Let’s be the architects of a new tech era, let’s build the future we want to live in.
Let’s build Arx.
3/3 (sorry I had to split it into 3 comments, I was reaching some limitation I didn’t realize existed)
I truly hope this is some copy pasta, because I am sorry but I am not going to read a 3-comment wall of text based on the premise that apple is morally wrong for not allowing a company to abuse their systems and make money off it. iMessage is not this existential necessity where you could even remotely argue that point. It is a subpar service that is outshined by any 3rd party messaging app.
But you do you.
not a copy pasta, but also it’s not just about iMessage, but apple in general. I couldn’t care less about iMessage, but what I do care about is that big tech cannot keep acting like bullies.
In retrospect, I did write a bit too much for a lemmy comment, and it should’ve been a standalone article, but what’s done is done
Wow it’s almost like that’s what happens when you buy a product from a company
Yeah, and? That still doesn’t excuse anyone breaking into their system against their will.
Did you also feel the same way about Steam shutting down the gambling sites that gambled with CSGO skins? Steam garden walled their product and forced everything done their way. The consumer chose to gamble their real money on video game pixels, why did Steam have the right to shut that down?
You are free to disagree with Apple’s ecosystem, but don’t try to convince me you wouldn’t do the exact same if you were in Apple’s shoes, or try to convince me you didn’t celebrate Steam shutting down gambling just because you personally disagree with the idea of gambling on CSGO skins.
You seem to be making the assumption that because I disagree with the walled garden that I agree with breaking it. I believe both are wrong.
I agree with steam shutting down the gambling sites and I am against steam for having the lootboxes in the first place.
There is a concept of not agreeing with either side as both are bad options.