No -- words like punishment and retaliation have a connotation of being personal and being emotional, or punishment can be linked to the justice system.

They're not appropriate words for mere policy. Like if you damage your apartment and don't get your security deposit back, that's not punishment or retaliation. It's just policy.

Same thing if you try to return something after thirty days and that's against policy. When they don't take the return, they're not punishing you.

Does that help clarify?

> Words don't stop applying because you don't like their connotation.

Yes they do. The world is full of shills and boiled frogs.

> when, say, HP remotely bricks working printers because someone used unauthorized ink

There is evidence of intent and immutability, i.e. nobody has shown Apple won’t reverse the ban when shown the device is legitimately accessing iMessage.

You cannot argue with Apple users on any topic that is critical of Apple. For them, Apple can do no wrong. If Apple hardware breaks due to manufacturing fault, they will criticize the person for not buying Apple-care and then suggest just buying another Apple device. Apple is their identify. In this case iMessage is the safe haven that they can trust and allowing external (non-Apple) users would violate that feeling of safety.