I doubt Beeper will ever see any legal action (or settlement for that matter) directly with Apple from this. I do think it will be a strongly referenced bullet point as regulators look towards something like the DMA for the US or other corps challenge Apple though.

That is my thought as well. This was a winning scenario for Beeper because either the iMessage integration kept working, or Apple forced its own hand on very directly locking down messaging to the devices it sells.

> or Apple forced its own hand on very directly locking down messaging to the devices it sells

But that’s not really any different? Even if they hadn’t technically implemented it that way that is the intended way the service is supposed to be used. Locked to Apple devices.

It's a bit like being in an HOA where you think the president would tell you to take your specific flag down vs putting up a flag and having them tell you to take it down. Regardless of whether the flag is actually right or wrong in the law (or should/shouldn't be) nobody can take the HOA to court about it because they think the HOA intends for such a flag to be taken down... but they can easily bring it up if it's something the HOA has explicitly done and explicitly messaged about.

I don’t understand this at all. Messaging is not locked down on Apple devices. You can message with android just fine via sms, and you can install dozens of other messaging solutions.

Why does having specific Apple only features outside of the core message set mean it’s now locked down?

There is no judge on the planet who will take the position that a 3rd party is allowed to circumvent a service’s security controls and TOS to build a monetized product using a backend that neither they nor their users pay for.

Absolutely zero chance.

Imagine reverse engineering AWS keys, using AWS services for free, reselling them, and then trying to sue AWS when they fix the security hole.

Maybe lack of imagination?

There are handsomely VC funded successful startups that do exactly this in banking, for example Teller:

https://jobs.lever.co/teller/ebf503af-bb82-49fb-97bd-6d9bcbb...

This is not “exactly this.”

Teller is giving users additional access modalities to services they’re already separately “paying for.” The directly analogous format would be if Teller was allowing you to store your money at Bank of America but Teller was preventing BOA from collecting revenue from you.

No. It's like if teller allowed you to make a boa account as well. As if this one small feature makes it some egregious criminal activity.

Many beeper mini users already have apple devices + Eric in his post said he's willing to pay some reasonable fee.

Nobody pays for iMessage directly.

Nobody pays for bank accounts directly either.

Oh Eric said he’s willing to pay? Guess that counts as a deal then!

However, there is every chance that circumventing a service's security controls is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

That's something I've been wondering about myself. People have run afoul of the CFAA with less egregious actions than these. I guess the Beeper guys talked to their lawyer at least, before taking this course of action.

This type of project is protected from CFAA by Van Buren. AFAIK the only untested precedent is ToS violation.