If we’re presuming that the end-user has not agreed to any term of service, then why are we assuming that they have the right to use the service in anyway whatsoever? It’s basically the definition of unauthorized use at that point.

Maybe I have an Apple laptop but an Android phone and would like to use a unified messaging solution across both.

But we shouldn't have to get to such specific examples to discuss the issue at play here—Apple is fighting against adversarial interoperability. I'm amazed to see people arguing in their favor on Hacker News.

In this case I wasn’t arguing in their favor but arguing that the lack of agreement to a TOS does not somehow imply authorization.

> Beeper isn't marketed at Apple users

Does that mean they are therefore not competing with Apple? And if their users are using Beeper Mini to access iMessage, are they not implicitly accepting the ToS?

> are they not implicitly accepting the ToS?

Courts generally do not find that ToS can be accepted implicitly, even in situations where they are actually shown to the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browsewrap#Case_law