I feel like this is in Apple's DNA. Perhaps Beeper is lucky that Apple needs to support a lot of legacy devices and they might not be able to fully plug this hole without creating a big support nightmare.
Why should I pay costs for server uptime and maintenance for clients that I a) did not authorize and b) did not pay for me keeping up my servers and c) actually accept that a third party is getting money for providing said access to my servers?
I really don't get how Apple is to blame for protecting what they pay for.
The reason they block this is not that they cannot afford the infrastructure, it's peanuts for them. It's because they want to continue maintaining the schism in the US where Android users are stigmatized for green bubbles, pushing them to buy iPhones. (AKA exploiting teenagers' insecurity for profit.)
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?).
The fact that US teenages stigmatize each other has nothing to do with Apple's business. Apple has always advertized iMessage as an Apple-only messaging platform. If teenagers are to be protected here, it is up to US legislation to create a law that prevents the undesired behavior. Until such a law is present, what Apple is doing is legal, and what Beeper is doing is probably not, they're certainly creating server upkeep costs that they do not pay Apple for, despite Apple telling them clearly not to do so.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is broad and vague. It's practical definition depends on common-law precedent. While the system may seem baroque, it offers a kind of stability that has made common-law jurisdictions the preferred arena for most international business across the world. Hence, this fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the relevant competition law.
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.
I don't think Apple is going to get bankrupt for forwarding a few SMS, they'll be fine don't worry.
Up until quite recently, most phone carriers metered the number of texts you could send per month and then charged extra. Many still charge per text when you're roaming overseas. Perhaps Apple could offer API access on commercial terms to third parties but that's their decision.
Additionally, iMessage is full of scams and spams already, it's not hard to buy a box of old iphones and turn them into spam relays and that's exactly what is happening now.
Because you designed the system in such a way that interoperability was impossible without non-customers using your servers?