> The Beeper client has no right to interact with Apple's servers in a way that involves faking an Apple authorization.
I'm not completely down on the implementation details but is there really anything "faked" here. If they have a service that client and authenticate against using an Apple ID and I just use a different client with my Apple ID then nothing is "faked". It's just implementing the protocol.
> Apple has chosen not to provide an iMessage client. The mere possibility for one existing does not mean Apple can be forced into providing or tolerating one, given that it involves cost on Apple's server side, no matter how small that might be to them (how can you even tell?).
I agree. But if they're going to provide these servers on the Internet without any sort of paid authentication and I can utilize them with an alternative client then I'm going to do that. They don't have to tolerate it.
I'm not completely down on the implementation details but is there really anything "faked" here. If they have a service that client and authenticate against using an Apple ID and I just use a different client with my Apple ID then nothing is "faked". It's just implementing the protocol.
> Apple has chosen not to provide an iMessage client. The mere possibility for one existing does not mean Apple can be forced into providing or tolerating one, given that it involves cost on Apple's server side, no matter how small that might be to them (how can you even tell?).
I agree. But if they're going to provide these servers on the Internet without any sort of paid authentication and I can utilize them with an alternative client then I'm going to do that. They don't have to tolerate it.
I also use an adblocker when I browse the web.