• Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Depends on the context about which you’re talking.

    I’m talking about accessing a service which Apple is in control of the infrastructure and has specifically put in place access and authorization controls.

    In this instance, if Beeper wanted to reverse engineer the API, make their own implementation, and offer their own messaging service that’s fine. More power to them generally.

    But unless Beeper comes to some sort of agreement to allow interoperability with Apple’s iMessage (or Apple is forced to allow it by government action) then they can’t take it upon themselves to use exploits or spoofing to gain access without authorization. You might think it sucks that Apple has kept their API closed and that it’s a bad idea, but that’s their prerogative. It’s just like when Twitter closed their API or when Reddit priced everyone out of using their API, except Apple never had it open to start with.

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Isnt this explicitly a private service? You can sms without iMessage. Id love to be able to iMessage on windows and android though. Would be nice if the US had something better than sms as standard

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Saying you’ve put access controls in to a public service isn’t an argument. It’s a confession. Anti-competitive behavior is illegal. And forcing the traffic through infrastructure you set up specifically to wall it off is Anti- Competitive. Just because neo liberals got in control of things does not mean we need to normalize corporate governance.