4 ms·
> charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for Apple is free to charge for them. In fact, I think it would be the best outcome and
by Nextgrid 3y ago
> charging users by piggy backing off of servers they don’t own or pay for
Apple is free to charge for them. In fact, I think it would be the best outcome and a mitigation to the upcoming spam onslaught now that the protocol has been documented.
> But that wouldn’t be profitable for them.
Is it a problem to profit off creating a tool that some other manufacturer intentionally doesn't want to create (since Apple is more than capable of building an Android iMessage client)? Isn't that the whole point of a competitive market?
- junofan 3y agoApple does charge for access to their servers. Or are you saying they’re free to pick another business model?
- Nextgrid 3y agoIt currently doesn't because Beeper Mini users are able to get access without paying. This should change, if anything just to make the upcoming onslaught of spam unprofitable.
- misnome 3y ago> Apple is free to charge for them But I don’t think anyone disagrees that Apple is (currently) free _not_ to charge for them. > Is it a problem to profit off creating a tool that some other manufacturer intentionally doesn't want to create I’d say ethically no - not a problem - up _until_ the point where they are actively, continuously using resources of that manufacturer. Legally? If you or your customers have agreed to a TOS then that’s probably bad either way. Nobody would care about (or be interested in) beeper if they were running their own servers.