Cory is talking about it in the sense that the tech industry at large said “adversarial interop” is stupid and lobbied against it. It seems HN has lost the plot judging by the number of people on this thread defending Apple engaging in such a slimy practice.
> Big Tech climbed the adversarial ladder and then pulled it up behind them.
Anyway the comment I was replying to was implying that Beeper is the adversary which is not a correct use of the term.
> Anyway the comment I was replying to was implying that Beeper is the adversary which is not a correct use of the term.
You can't have a single-party adversarial system. Each party is an adversary of the other: party A wants to interop against the wishes of party B, and party B wants to lock party A out. OP wasn't implying that Beeper is "the" adversary and Apple is in the clear, OP was just saying that trying to build a business around adversarial interoperability is extremely difficult and the outcome is unsurprising.
Noting that the results are unsurprising does not imply that we condone the system that makes such results nearly inevitable.
Are you trying to ignore the state of what's going on? Beeper's business model was as interoperable with Apple as my neighbors cracking my wifi password to use for their household. The interoperability wasn't intended.
Forcing someone to interoperate with you doesn't immediately make it all collaborative any more than a stranger walking up to me at lunch and declaring they're my friend now makes me want to invite them home after.
The adversary is the incumbent that’s working to artificially stifle innovation, strong arm the market, and exclude competition.
Beeper is not someone who hacked your wifi. Beeper is sending legitimate packets to your router and Apple is saying “I don’t like those packets because they threaten my artificial hold on the market”.
In what world is interoperability adversarial? What the actual?