So what's the big idea? Keep playing whack-a-mole with Apple until Apple changes their TOS and sues their pants off, or until they run out of open holes? Or is there a bigger end goal?
(It was exposed in a recent courtroom hearing that Apple has seriously considered making it available on Android, but they decided that having it Apple-only is a serious benefit for them)
One which paints a negative light on Apple which of, if a crowd following gathered "why isn't there iMessage for Android?". As I see, it would result of one of the following:
- They sue and cause a backlash of Apple users.
- They do nothing, shows Apple solely interest is in itself.
- They create, happy times.
Is there a single person in the world who didn’t already know the answer to this question?
TBC, I also don't necessarily view this as a positive. I just don't see it as a negative whatsoever. It would be nice to be able to chat with Android friends over iMessage, but it's not offputting at all that an outside company trying to monetize reverse-engineered "hacks" onto the protocol are getting booted.
(Yes I know it's not "hacking," but it is obviously hacky)
Does for myself. Knowing that Apple has the capabilities yet not willing to implement them.
The disconnect is real. I don't own Facebook, nor use WhatsApp neither do I want to use either.
Other applications do exist but the learning curve and convincing family to use shouldn't be something I need to do. Nor how do I know they'll survive in the next five years?
Yes, RCS will happen but its long overdue.
The deciding factor is whatever device makes it easier for me to talk to my relatives will be my next device.
I currently have an iPhone XR, and I have been so frustrated with it for the past five years.
Why I've not changed device because it cost me a heck amount of money and minus my gripes is usable.
I assume there's some very rich benefactor behind it that is willing to fund it.
It's now an ongoing PR stunt, since Eric and Brad were rewarded handsomely in attention for the first hack.
I think Beeper is intentionally aiming for (heavily publicized) litigation to set a precedent.
Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (who did sign a TOS, but didn't reverse engineer), so we're all clean."
During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Fortunately, courts aren't computers, judges aren't compilers, and legal code isn't a programming language.
"Authorization" in the legal sense != authorization in the cryptographic sense. You can get a token and still be not legally authorized to access a system.
Accessing a public server using the public protocol it advertises is generally allowed.
It is possible to put unenforceable terms in a TOS, but it's simply untrue that "TOSes are not legally binding."
What do you think is the distinction between a legally binding contract and a TOS?
In a similar vein: has any maker of web scraping tools been sued by a website? I couldn't find anything.
Also, breaking the TOS is usually not illegal. TOS of a random company is not the law, otherwise you would get into trouble non-stop from random websites and apps making you "agree" to things.
In Apple's iMessage TOS? I don't find that likely but open to being wrong.
> Also, breaking the TOS is usually not illegal
In general, contracts are legally binding, therefore breaking them is illegal. Sometimes contracts include clauses that can't be legally binding, but I don't think a TOS forbidding this type of behavior would be questionable in the slightest. Apple obviously has no obligation to allow anyone to use its platform as a backend for their own (previously commercialized) product.
In EU law. No contract or license may restrict your right to reverse engineer or decompile for the purpose of interoperability or building an alternative implementation.
Not quite a carte blanche protection in the EU, either.
Terms of Service are just... the terms you need to follow in exchange for service. If you violate the terms, you get cut off from service... which they already did