That's not how it works. Beeper uses the old binaries, because those come from older iPhones where the hardware signing was not possible yet. It's not circumventing anything as far as I understand, just connecting the way an older iPhone would connect.
I mean, we're splitting hairs on terminology here I feel like?
Apple does not want you to connect to iMessage with non-Apple hardware and Beeper uses old Apple binaries to let you do just that.
That, to me, does fall under the umbrella term of "circumventing" some measures that Apple put in place to stop you from doing that; but I guess I can see the point where you'd object to use of that word?
That's a different argument. I was responding to you saying "This argument doesn't make any sense." to the attestation not being required. Whether you call that circumvention or not, ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
The point was that if you can replicate it in software, then they're not requiring hardware attestation.
