Apple’s most valuable intangible asset isn’t its patents or copyrights - it’s an army of people who believe that using products from a $2.89 trillion multinational makes them members of an oppressed religious minority whose identity is coterminal with the interests of Apple’s shareholders.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

1/

  • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is not good for Apple customers. It exposes them to continuous, serious privacy risks. Our mobile devices are keepers of our most intimate secrets, and when mobile security fails, the consequences are grave, as Apple discovered in the hardest way possible, ten years ago:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak

    Apple’s answer to this is grimly hilarious. The company’s position is that if you want to have real security in your communications, you should buy your friends iPhones.

    31/

    • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Presumably, if those friends - or merchants, or colleagues - don’t want to change operating systems and throw away their device and all their apps, you should just stop talking to them:

      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tim-cook-says-buy-mom-210347694.html

      One of the clinical signs that someone is in a cult is that they are encouraged to isolate themselves from people who aren’t also in that cult:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_to_facilitate_abuse#In_cults

      32/

      • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        But there are billions of Apple customers and only a small (but vocal and obnoxious!) minority of those customers are actual cult members, which means that there are billions of people who’d prefer to have private, secure communications with everyone in their lives, not just their fellow Apple customers.

        33/

          • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            This was an immense service to Apple customers, correcting a gaping security vulnerability in Apple’s flagship product, that had been deliberately introduced, putting the company’s profits ahead of its customers’ safety and privacy.

            Apple immediately rolled out a series of countermeasures to block Beeper Mini. When The @verge@mastodon.social’s @davidpierce@mastodon.social asked them why, Apple said they did it to protect their customers’ security (!!):

            https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/9/23995150/beeper-imessage-android-apple-statement

            35/

            • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The company claimed that there was some nonspecific way in which Beeper Mini weakened the security of Apple customers, though they offered no evidence in support of that claim. Remember, the gold standard for security claims is #ProofOfConcept code, not hand-waving:

              https://nostarch.com/gtfo

              36/

                • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Apple used its $3 trillion megaphone to condemn Beeper Mini even after Beeper published source code for Beeper Mini so anyone could verify that nothing nefarious was going on:

                  https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-moving-forward

                  Meanwhile, Apple’s cultists rallied behind the company. Not only would No True Apple Customer ever want to have secure communications with an Android user, but it was unfair for Beeper to profit by accessing Apple’s messaging infrastructure, which Apple has to pay to maintain.

                  38/

                  • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    This is some serious upside-down cult logic. Beeper isn’t accessing Apple’s infrastructure: Apple’s customers are accessing Apple’s infrastructure. If there were no Apple customers trying to talk to Android users, there would be no load on Apple’s servers.

                    But those customers don’t count. They aren’t real Apple customers, because they want to do things that benefit them, not Apple’s shareholders. In other words: they’re holding it wrong.

                    39/

                  • ElSupreme@mastodon.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    @pluralistic@mamot.fr

                    Stupid anecdote but…

                    I’m on a pickup soccer group iMessge. They wouldn’t let me join due to the bubble colors going blue/green (I wouldn’t know or notice as I never use Apple stuff). I had someone volunteer to be my intermediary and let me know when when who was in for 8 months.

                    Eventually I found an iPhone someone was willing to give me and I only use it for that group text now.

                  • big oli facks@geekdom.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    @pluralistic@mamot.fr I seem to recall one passionate pro-Apple commenter specifically argue that Beeper Mini somehow hacked/trespassed on Apple’s infrastructure/IP, thus the weakened security of iMessage.

                    They’re not necessarily wrong in the claim that Beeper Mini is a hack. It is, in the sense it subverts the assumption that only Apple devices can use Apple services. It’s also quite ironic:

                    1. iChat used to support multiple protocols;
                    2. What Beeper did to Apple, Apple did to Microsoft with iWork.
              • Jake Miller@federate.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                @pluralistic@mamot.fr IIRC, I think that the argument was that Beeper was a literal man-in-the-middle. Ergo, the blue bubble which means it’s encrypted was now silently decrypted by a party (Beeper) that users didn’t choose and couldn’t opt out of. Beeper literally made it work by running iMessage on their own Macs and relaying the messages to the app, right? That architecture undermine iMessage security for anyone unknowingly routing messages through that, no?