3 ms·

I didn't really believe the Apple fanboy effect was real before, but I'm honestly just blown away by this thread. If they were up against any other company, I'

by xg15 3y ago

I didn't really believe the Apple fanboy effect was real before, but I'm honestly just blown away by this thread. If they were up against any other company, I'm absolutely certain this thread would be rooting for Beeper hard, with all the usual arguments about interoperability, open source, the right to control your own devices and own your data. Only for Apple, suddenly all of that falls out of the window and the most blatant anticompetitive behaviour is ok because of "security".

invig 3y ago
Perspective shift, there's an axis of responsibility: Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works. Where you sit on this spectrum from Hacker to User defines your opinion on this. Neither end is wrong, they just want different things.
- xg15 3y ago
  But how is the user of an iPhone being compromised if someone else can use the iMessage protocol?
  - invig 3y ago
    The sender is trusting that Apple isn’t capturing the message content in the iMessages app after it gets decrypted so it can be shown to the receiver. In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to. If you are sending to someone receiving in some other app, you have to trust the receiver, Apple, and who ever makes the thing that is being used to display the decrypted message. You don’t even know what app you’re trusting as the sender. The further you go down this rabbit hole the more ergh it all feels, but actually being able to trust the whole chain from your mind to someone else’s over the internet is quite hard.
midtake 3y ago
I have nothing against open standards but I see this more like an attack on private property. Why should Apple be disallowed from creating a walled garden? It's suddenly not valid to control which devices can participate in your network? Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it.
- xg15 3y ago
  Those are common arguments, but usually this is how open source, interop and reverse engineering are seen from a companies' perspective. I find it just unusual to see this perspective shared by users. > I see this more like an attack on private property Why are the iPhones that people bought the private property of Apple? > Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it. How exactly does it improve the user experience? Probably every company that manufactures smart devices makes that argument. That's how Microsoft justifies Secure Boot with a hardwired key and how John Deere justifies locking up their tractors. What makes Apple special in that regard?
quantumsequoia 3y ago
The /r/beeper subreddit is full of people coming in to complain about beeper. Even if people don't think what beeper is trying to do is worthwhile, I don't understand what makes people emotionally invested to the point where they are would devote a ton of energy to complaining about perceived threats. It's like they see any threats to Apple as a personal attack on them

by xg15 3y ago

invig 3y ago

Perspective shift, there's an axis of responsibility: Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works. Where you sit on this spectrum from Hacker to User defines your opinion on this. Neither end is wrong, they just want different things.

xg15 3y ago
But how is the user of an iPhone being compromised if someone else can use the iMessage protocol?
- invig 3y ago
  The sender is trusting that Apple isn’t capturing the message content in the iMessages app after it gets decrypted so it can be shown to the receiver. In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to. If you are sending to someone receiving in some other app, you have to trust the receiver, Apple, and who ever makes the thing that is being used to display the decrypted message. You don’t even know what app you’re trusting as the sender. The further you go down this rabbit hole the more ergh it all feels, but actually being able to trust the whole chain from your mind to someone else’s over the internet is quite hard.

midtake 3y ago

I have nothing against open standards but I see this more like an attack on private property. Why should Apple be disallowed from creating a walled garden? It's suddenly not valid to control which devices can participate in your network? Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it.

xg15 3y ago
Those are common arguments, but usually this is how open source, interop and reverse engineering are seen from a companies' perspective. I find it just unusual to see this perspective shared by users. > I see this more like an attack on private property Why are the iPhones that people bought the private property of Apple? > Device control is integral to the iMessage service as an offering because it improves the user experience, and people are willing to pay for it. How exactly does it improve the user experience? Probably every company that manufactures smart devices makes that argument. That's how Microsoft justifies Secure Boot with a hardwired key and how John Deere justifies locking up their tractors. What makes Apple special in that regard?

quantumsequoia 3y ago

The /r/beeper subreddit is full of people coming in to complain about beeper. Even if people don't think what beeper is trying to do is worthwhile, I don't understand what makes people emotionally invested to the point where they are would devote a ton of energy to complaining about perceived threats. It's like they see any threats to Apple as a personal attack on them