3 ms·
I’m sure they had this coming. It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free. The only positive outcome from this endeavor is recognition, wh
by tambourine_man 3y ago
I’m sure they had this coming. It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free.
The only positive outcome from this endeavor is recognition, which they achieved.
- makeitdouble 3y ago> It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free. People keep repeating this line .... but would Apple have allowed them to pay f or iMessage ? How much ? Would then Google be able to pay to access iMessage ? I see no price or condition where Apple would have let anyone touch their walled garden. Free or not has never been an element of the conversation.
- tambourine_man 3y agoRight, not even paid. It’s their servers, they can choose who uses it.
- makeitdouble 3y agoThe intersting part of this is to find where the line gets blurry. For instance is it ok for legitimate Apple ID owners (e.g. people who actually own an iPhone) to access iMessage through a third party spoofing their devices. I'd say yes, even if Apple can't separate them from the other problematic accesses.
- m463 3y ago> It’s obvious Apple wouldn’t let them use their servers for free This is ridiculous. It's like comcast restricting or charging people for emailing customers with a comcast address.
- tambourine_man 3y agoIf you know how either service works, it’s not like that at all.
- m463 3y agoah but I do. Remember apple's cutomers might WANT to receive the messages others are sending.