> Does it matter if an Apple device user (having bought a device and paid Apple for access to iMessage servers) subsequently makes software that mimics this Apple device's interaction with the servers but runs this software on his Android device?
If explicitly forbidden in the terms of service? Yes. The ToS act as your contract with Apple to make use of the service. Violation of the terms of service terminates your access to the service. If you want to stand up your own mimic'd Apple servers then you're free to do that, but you are not free, again, to change the rules set forth by Apple to use Apple's services. I don't understand why you keep returning to this question.
> Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN?
All sorts of websites have all sorts of requirements to use them off certain VPNs, without ad-blockers, and with cookies. Tons of websites simply stop functioning if some or any of those conditions are true for your browser.
> I'm sure websites would indeed love that
They do.
> but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
What do you mean become law? The ability for an online service to not provide functionality if you do not concede to their requirements is so benign as to be barely worthy of note. Apple included! Apple has been "excluding" Android from iMessage since 2011!
> I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it.
I mean, you are! They did! And then Apple found them, and made changes to their protocol that bricked what they made. That is the most likely outcome for this and any subsequent adventures along the same path.
> As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
Because it's their platform and their right to reject it and I'm not going to rehash this point again.
If explicitly forbidden in the terms of service? Yes. The ToS act as your contract with Apple to make use of the service. Violation of the terms of service terminates your access to the service. If you want to stand up your own mimic'd Apple servers then you're free to do that, but you are not free, again, to change the rules set forth by Apple to use Apple's services. I don't understand why you keep returning to this question.
> Should websites then also be allowed to dictate that your browser should not run an ad-blocker, should accept (and persist!) cookies and not run a VPN?
All sorts of websites have all sorts of requirements to use them off certain VPNs, without ad-blockers, and with cookies. Tons of websites simply stop functioning if some or any of those conditions are true for your browser.
> I'm sure websites would indeed love that
They do.
> but I think we'd both agree this would be a very sad day for the internet if this became law?
What do you mean become law? The ability for an online service to not provide functionality if you do not concede to their requirements is so benign as to be barely worthy of note. Apple included! Apple has been "excluding" Android from iMessage since 2011!
> I think the control stops at the protocol. Apple is welcome to change their proprietary, undocumented protocol as they see fit, but people should also be free to reverse-engineer and implement clients for it.
I mean, you are! They did! And then Apple found them, and made changes to their protocol that bricked what they made. That is the most likely outcome for this and any subsequent adventures along the same path.
> As long as the client perfectly mimics the official one (including proving any eventual purchase, using an Apple ID associated with an Apple purchase or the serial number of an Apple device the user purchased) there should be no legal/moral reason it should be rejected.
Because it's their platform and their right to reject it and I'm not going to rehash this point again.