YouTube: Another Big Cost Black Hole?
March 25, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
I read “Google Is in Trouble… But This Could Change Everything – and No, It’s Not AI.” The write up makes the case that YouTube is Google’s big financial opportunity. I agree with most of the points in the write up. The article says:
Google doesn’t clearly explain how much of the $40.3 billion comes from the YouTube platform, but based on their description and choice of phrasing like “primarily include,” it’s safe to assume YouTube generates significantly more revenue than just the $36.1 billion reported. This would mean YouTube, not Google Cloud, is actually Google’s second-biggest business.
Yep, financial fancy dancing is part of the game. Google is using its financial reports as marketing to existing stakeholders and investors who want a part of the still-hot, still-dominant Googzilla. The idea is that the Google is stomping on the competition in the hottest sectors: The cloud, smart software, advertising, and quantum computing.
A big time company’s chief financial officer enters his office after lunch and sees a flood of red ink engulfing his work space. Thanks, OpenAI, good enough.
Let’s flip the argument from Google has its next big revenue oil gusher to the cost of that oil field infrastructure.
An article appeared in mid-February 2025. I was surprised that the information in that write up did not generate more buzz in the world of Google watchers. “YouTube by the Numbers: Uncovering YouTube’s Ghost Town of Billions of Unwatched, Ignored Videos” contains some allegedly accurate information. Let’s assume that these data, like most information about online, is close enough for horseshoes or purely notional. I am not going to summarize the methodology. Academics come up with interesting ways to obtain information about closely guarded big company products and services.
The write up says:
the research estimates a staggering 14.8 billion total videos on YouTube as of mid-2024. Unsurprisingly, most of these videos are barely noticed. The median YouTube upload has just 41 views, with 4% garnering no views at all. Over 74% have no comments and 89% have no likes.
Here are a couple of other factoids about YouTube as reported in the Techspot article:
The production values are also remarkably modest. Only 14% of videos feature a professional set or background. Just 38% show signs of editing. More than half have shaky camerawork, and audio quality varies widely in 85% of videos. In fact, 40% are simply music tracks with no voice-over.
And another point I found interesting:
Moreover, the typical YouTube video is just 64 seconds long, and over a third are shorter than 33 seconds.
The most revealing statement in the research data appears in this passage:
… a senior researcher [said] that this narrative overlooks a crucial reality: YouTube is not just an entertainment hub – it has become a form of digital infrastructure. Case in point: just 0.21% of the sampled videos included any kind of sponsorship or advertising. Only 4% had common calls to action such as liking, commenting, and subscribing. The vast majority weren’t polished content plays but rather personal expressions – perhaps not so different from the old camcorder days.
Assuming the data are reasonably good Google has built plumbing whose cost will rival that of the firm’s investments in search and its cloud.
From my point of view, cost control is going to become as important as moving as quickly as possible to the old-school broadcast television approach to content. Hit shows on YouTube will do what is necessary to attract an audience. The audience will be what advertisers want.
Just as Google search has degraded to a popular “experience,” not a resource for individuals who want to review and extract high value information, YouTube will head the same direction. The question is, “Will YouTube’s pursuit of advertisers mean that the infrastructure required to permit free video uploads and storage be sustainable?
Imagine being responsible for capital investments at the Google. The Cloud infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The AI infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The quantum computing and other technology-centric infrastructures must be upgraded an enhanced. The adtech infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. I am leaving out some of the Google’s other infrastructure intensive activities.
The main idea is that the financial person is going to have a large job paying for hardware, software, maintenance, and telecommunications. This is a different cost from technical debt. These are on-going and constantly growing costs. Toss in unexpected outages, and what does the bean counter do. One option is to quit and another is to do the Zen thing to avoid have a stroke when reviewing the cost projections.
My take is that a hit in search revenue is likely to add to the firm’s financial challenges. The path to becoming the modern version of William Paley’s radio empire may be in Google’s future. The idea that everything is in the cloud is being revisited by companies due to cost and security concerns. Does Google host some sketchy services on its Cloud?
YouTube may be the hidden revenue gem at Google. I think it might become the infrastructure cost leader among Google’s stellar product line up. Big companies like Google don’t just disappear. Instead the black holes of cost suck them closer to a big event: Costs rise more quickly than revenue.
At this time, Google has three cost black holes. One hopes none is the one that makes Googzilla join the ranks of the street people of online dwell.
Net net: Google will have to give people what they will watch. The lowest common denominator will emerge. The costs flood the CFO’s office. Just ask Gemini what to do.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2025
The Gentle Slide Down the Software Quality Framework
March 21, 2025
Yep, another dinobaby original.
I listened to a podcast called “The WAN Show,” featuring a couple of technology buffs who sell T shirts, mugs, and screwdrivers. What was notable about the program which is available on Apple podcasts was the opening story. In a nutshell, the two fellows made clear some problems with Apple’s hardware. The key statement made by one of the fellows was, “I will pay my way to Cupertino and help you Apple engineers to fix the problems. I will do it for free.” A number of people younger than I believe that an individual can overcome a bureaucracy.
Someone is excited about taking the long slide down in software quality. Thanks, OpenAI, definitely good enough.
I forget about the comment and the pitch to buy a backpack until I read “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis: When Premium Hardware Meets Subpar Software.” The write up hit upon some of the WAN grousing and introduced a number of ideas about Apple’s management focus.
Here’s a comment from the write up I circled:
The performance issues don’t stop at sluggish response times. During these use cases, my iPad overheated, making it uncomfortable to hold or even rest the palm on, raising concerns about potential long-term hardware damage. What made this particularly frustrating is that these aren’t third-party applications pushing the hardware to its limits. These are Apple’s own applications that should be theoretically optimized for their hardware. After demonstrating the issues in person to Apple Store staff (that were courteous and professional), the support representative that was handling my case suggested a hardware replacement. However, after further discussion, we both concluded this was likely a software problem rather than a hardware defect.
To a dinobaby like me, I interpreted the passage as saying, “The problem can’t be fixed. Suck it up, buttercup.”
I then discovered more than 1,000 comments to the “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis” article. I scanned them and then turned to one of the ever reliable smart software systems to which I have access and asked, “What are the main themes of the 1,000 comments.
Here’s what the smart software output, and, please, keep in mind, that smart software hallucinates, goes bonkers, and if a product of Google, really has trouble with cheese-related prompts. The found points output are:
- Persistent Bugs: Users report long-standing issues, such as date-handling errors in Contacts that have remained unresolved for years. ?
- Declining User Experience: There’s a sentiment that recent design changes, like the macOS Settings app, have led to a less intuitive user experience. ?
- Inconsistent Quality Across Platforms: Some users feel that Apple’s software quality has become comparable to other platforms, lacking the distinctiveness it once had.
- Ineffective Bug Reporting: Concerns are raised about Apple’s bug reporting system, with users feeling their feedback doesn’t lead to timely fixes.
Okay, we have a sample based on one podcast, one blog essay, and a number of randos who have commented on the “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis” article. Let me offer several observations:
- Apple, like Amazon, Facebook (Metazuck or whatever), Google, and Microsoft cannot deliver software that does much more than achieve the status of “good enough.” Perhaps size and the limitations of humans contribute to this wide spread situation?
- The problem is not fixable because new software comes out and adds to the woes of the previous software. Therefore, the volume of problems go up and there is neither money nor time to pay down the technical debt. In my experience, this means that a slow descent on a quite fungible gradient occurs. The gravity of technical debt creates the issues the individuals complaining identify.
- The current economic and regulatory environment does not punish these organizations for their products and services. The companies’ managers chug along, chase their bonuses, and ignore the gentle drift to quite serious problems between the organizations and their customers.
So what? Sorry, I have no solutions. Many of the “fixes” require deep familiarity with origin software. Most fixes are wrappers because rewrites take too long or the information required to fix one thing and not break two others is not available.
Welcome, to the degrading status quo.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2025
Good News for AI Software Engineers. Others, Not So Much
March 20, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. No AI involved which could be good or bad depending on one’s point of view.
Spring is on the way in rural Kentucky. Will new jobs sprout like the dogwoods? Judging from the last local business event I attended, the answer is, “Yeah, maybe not so much.”
But there is a bright spot in the AI space. “ChatGPT and Other AI Startups Drive Software Engineer Demand” says:
AI technology has created many promising new opportunities for software engineers in recent years.
That certainly appears to apply to the workers in the smart software power houses and the outfits racing to achieve greater efficiency via AI. (Does “efficiency” translate to non-AI specialist job reductions?)
Back to the good news. The article asserts:
Many sectors have embraced digital transformation as a means of improving efficiency, enhancing customer experience, and staying competitive. Industries like manufacturing, agriculture, and even construction are now leveraging technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning. Software engineers are pivotal in developing, implementing, and maintaining these technologies, allowing companies to streamline operations and harness data analytics for informed decision-making. Smart farming is just one example that has emerged as a significant trend where software engineers design applications that optimize crop yields through data analysis, weather forecasting, and resource management.
Yep, the efficiency word again. Let’s now dwell on the secondary job losses, shall we. This is a good news blog post.
The essay continues:
The COVID-19 pandemic drastically accelerated the shift towards remote work. Remote, global collaboration has opened up exciting opportunities for most professionals, but software engineers are a major driving factor of that availability in any industry. As a result, companies are now hiring engineers from anywhere in the world. Now, businesses are actively seeking tech-savvy individuals to help them leverage new technologies in their fields. The ability to work remotely has expanded the horizons of what’s possible in business and global communications, making software engineering an appealing path for professionals all over the map.
I liked the “hiring engineers from anywhere in the world.” That poses some upsides like cost savings for US AI staff. That creates a downside because a remote worker might also be a bad actor laboring to exfiltrate high value data from the clueless hiring process.
Also, the Covid reference, although a bit dated, reminds people that the return to work movement is a way to winnow staff. I assume the AI engineer will not be terminated but for those unlucky enough to be in certain DOGE and McKinsey-type consultants targeting devices.
As I said, this is a good news write up. Is it accurate? No comment. What about efficiency? Sure, fewer humans means lower costs. What about engineers who cannot or will learn AI? Yeah, well.
Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2025
AI: Apple Intelligence or Apple Ineptness?
March 20, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. No AI involved which could be good or bad depending on one’s point of view.
I read a very polite essay with some almost unreadable graphs. “Apple Innovation and Execution” says:
People have been claiming that Apple has forgotten how to innovate since the early 1980s, or longer – it’s a standing joke in talking about the company. But it’s also a question.
Yes, it is a question. Slap on your Apple goggles and look at the world from the fan boy perspective. AI is not a thing. Siri is a bit wonky. The endless requests to log in to use Facetime and other Apple services are from an objective point of view a bit stupid. The annual iPhone refresh. Er, yeah, now what are the functional differences again? The Apple car? Er, yeah.
Is that an innovation worm? Is that a bad apple? One possibility is that innovation worm is quite happy making an exit and looking for a better orchard. Thanks, You.com “Creative.” Good enough.
The write up says:
And ‘Apple Intelligence’ certainly isn’t going to drive a ‘super-cycle’ of iPhone upgrades any time soon. Indeed, a better iPhone feature by itself was never going to drive fundamentally different growth for Apple
So why do something which makes the company look stupid?
And what about this passage?
And the failure of Siri 2 is by far the most dramatic instance of a growing trend for Apple to launch stuff late. The software release cycle used to be a metronome: announcement at WWDC in the summer, OS release in September with everything you’d seen. There were plenty of delays and failed projects under the hood, and centres of notorious dysfunction (Apple Music, say), and Apple has always had a tendency to appear to forget about products for years (most Apple Watch faces don’t support the key new feature in the new Apple Watch) but public promise were always kept. Now that seems to be slipping. Is this a symptom of a Vista-like drift into systemically poor execution?
Some innovation worms are probably gnawing away inside the Apple. Apple’s AI. Easy to talk about. Tough to convert marketing baloney crafted by art history majors into software of value to users in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2025
AI: Meh.
March 19, 2025
It seems consumers can see right through the AI hype. TechRadar reports, “New Survey Suggests the Vast Majority of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy Users Find AI Useless—and I’m Not Surprised.” Both iPhones and Samsung Galaxy smartphones have been pushing AI onto their users. But, according to a recent survey, 73% of iPhone users and 87% of Galaxy users respond to the innovations with a resounding “meh.” Even more would refuse to pay for continued access to the AI tools. Furthermore, very few would switch platforms to get better AI features: 16.8% of iPhone users and 9.7% of Galaxy users. In fact, notes writer Jamie Richards, fewer than half of users report even trying the AI features. He writes:
“I have some theories about what could be driving this apathy. The first centers on ethical concerns about AI. It’s no secret that AI is an environmental catastrophe in motion, consuming massive amounts of water and emitting huge levels of CO2, so greener folks may opt to give it a miss. There’s also the issue of AI and human creativity – TechRadar’s Editorial Associate Rowan Davies recently wrote of a nascent ‘cultural genocide‘ as a result of generative AI, which I think is a compelling reason to avoid it. … Ultimately, though, I think AI just isn’t interesting to the everyday person. Even as someone who’s making a career of being excited about phones, I’ve yet to see an AI feature announced that doesn’t look like a chore to use or an overbearing generative tool. I don’t use any AI features day-to-day, and as such I don’t expect much more excitement from the general public.”
No, neither do we. If only investors would catch on. The research was performed by phone-reselling marketplace SellCell, which surveyed over 2,000 smartphone users.
Cynthia Murrell, March 19, 2025
What Sells Books? Publicity, Sizzle, and Mouth-Watering Titbits
March 18, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post.
Editor note: This post was written on March 13, 2025. Availability of the articles and the book cited may change when this appears in Mr. Arnold’s public blog.
I have heard that books are making a comeback. In rural Kentucky, where I labor in an underground nook, books are good for getting a fire started. The closest bookstore is filled with toys and odd stuff one places on a desk. I am rarely motivated to read a whatchamacallit like a book. I must admit that I read one of those emergence books from a geezer named Stuart A. Kauffman at the Santa Fe Institute, and it was pretty good. Not much in the jazzy world of social media but it was a good use of my time.
I now have another book I want to read. I think it is a slice of reality TV encapsulated in a form of communication less popular than TikTok- or Telegram Messenger-type of media. The bundle of information is called Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism. Many and pundits have grabbed the story of a dispute between everyone’s favorite social media company and an authoress named Sarah Wynn-Williams.
There is nothing like some good old legal action, a former employee, and a very defensive company.
The main idea is that a memoir published on March 11, 2025, and available via Amazon at https://shorturl.at/Q077l is not supposed to be sold. Like any good dinobaby who actually read a dead tree thing this year, I bought the book. I have no idea if it has been delivered to my Kindle. I know one thing. Good old Amazon will be able to reach out and kill that puppy when the news reaches the equally sensitive leadership at that outstanding online service.
A festive group ready to cook dinner over a small fire of burning books. Thanks, You.com. Good enough.
According to The Verge, CNBC, and the Emergency International Arbitral Tribunal, an arbitrator (Nicholas Gowen) decided that the book has to be put in the information freezer. According to the Economic Times:
… violated her contract… In addition to halting book promotions and sales, Wynn-Williams must refrain from engaging in or ‘amplifying any further disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments… She also must retract all previous disparaging comments ‘to the extent within her control.’”
My favorite green poohbah publication The Verge offered:
…it’s unclear how much authority the arbitrator has to do so.
Such a bold statement: It’s unclear, we say.
The Verge added:
In the decision, the arbitrator said Wynn-Williams must stop making disparaging remarks against Meta and its employees and, to the extent that she can control, cease further promoting the book, further publishing the book, and further repetition of previous disparaging remarks. The decision also says she must retract disparaging remarks from where they have appeared.
Now I have written a number of books and monographs. These have been published by outfits no longer in business. I had a publisher in Scandinavia. I had a publisher in the UK. I had a publisher in the United States. A couple of these actually made revenue and one of them snagged a positive review in a British newspaper.
But in all honesty, no one really cared about my Google, search and retrieval, and electronic publishing work.
Why?
I did not have a giant company chasing me to the Emergency International Arbitral Tribunal and making headlines for the prestigious outfit CNBC.
Well, in my opinion Sarah Wynn-Williams has hit a book publicity home run. Imagine, non readers like me buying a book about a firm to which I pay very little attention. Instead of writing about the Zuckbook, I am finishing a book (gasp!) about Telegram Messenger and that sporty baby maker Pavel Durov. Will his “core” engineering team chase me down? I wish. Sara Wynn-Williams is in the news.
Will Ms. Wynn-Williams “win” a guest spot on the Joe Rogan podcast or possibly the MeidasTouch network? I assume that her publisher, agent, and she have their fingers crossed. I heard somewhere that any publicity is good publicity.
I hope Mr. Beast picks up this story. Imagine what he would do with forced arbitration and possibly a million dollar payoff for the PR firm that can top the publicity the apparently Meta has delivered to Ms. Wynn-Williams.
Net net: Win, Wynn!
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2025
Management Insights Circa Spring 2025
March 18, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
On a call today, one of the people asked, “Did you see that excellent leadership comes from ambivalence?” No, sorry. After my years at the blue chip consulting firm, I ignore those insights. Ambivalence. The motivated leader cares about money, the lawyers, the vacations, the big customer, and money. I think I have these in the correct order.
Imagine my surprise when I read another management breakthrough. Navigate to “Why Your ‘Harmonious’ Team Is Actually Failing.” The insight is that happy teams are in coffee shop mode. If one is not motivated by one of the factors I identified in the first paragraph of this essay, life will be like a drive-through smoothie shop. Kick back, let someone else do the work, and lap up that banana and tangerine goodie.
The write up reports about a management concept that is that one should strive for a roughie, maybe with a dollop of chocolate and some salted nuts. Get that blood pressure rising. Here’s a passage I noted:
… real psychological safety isn’t about avoiding conflict. It’s about creating an environment where challenging ideas makes the team stronger, not weaker.
The idea is interesting. I have learned that many workers, like helicopter parents, want to watch and avoid unnecessary conflicts, interactions, and dust ups. The write up slaps some psycho babble on this management insight. That’s perfect for academics on tenure track and talking to quite sensitive big spending clients. But often a more dynamic approach is necessary. If it is absent, there is a problem with the company. Hello, General Motors, Intel, and Boeing.
Stifle much?
The write up adds:
I’ve seen plenty of “nice” teams where everyone was polite, nobody rocked the boat, and meetings were painless. And almost all of those teams produced ok work. Why? Because critical thinking requires friction. Those teams weren’t actually harmonious—they were conflict-avoidant. The disagreements still existed; they just went underground. Engineers would nod in meetings then go back to their desks and code something completely different. Design flaws that everyone privately recognized would sail through reviews untouched. The real dysfunction wasn’t the lack of conflict—it was the lack of honest communication. Those teams weren’t failing because they disagreed too little; they were failing because they couldn’t disagree productively.
Who knew? Hello, General Motors, Intel, and Boeing.
Here’s the insight:
Here’s the weird thing I’ve found: teams that feel safe enough to hash things out actually have less nasty conflict over time. When small disagreements can be addressed head-on, they don’t turn into silent resentment or passive-aggressive BS. My best engineering teams were never the quiet ones—they were the ones where technical debates got spirited, where different perspectives were welcomed, and where we could disagree while still respecting each other.
The challenge is to avoid creating complacency.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2025
AI May Be Discovering Kurt Gödel Just as Einstein and von Neumann Did
March 17, 2025
This blog post is the work of a humanoid dino baby. If you don’t know what a dinobaby is, you are not missing anything.
AI re-thinking is becoming more widespread. I published a snippet of an essay about AI and its impact in socialist societies on March 10, 2025. I noticed “A Bear Case: My Predictions Regarding AI Progress.” The write is interesting, and I think it represents thinking which is becoming more prevalent among individuals who have racked up what I call AI mileage.
The main theme of the write up is a modern day application of Kurt Gödel’s annoying incompleteness theorem. I am no mathematician like my great uncle Vladimir Arnold, who worked for year with the somewhat quirky Dr. Kolmogorov. (Family tip: Going winter camping with Dr. Kolmogorov wizard was not a good idea unless. Well, you know…)
The main idea is a formal axiomatic system satisfying certain technical conditions cannot decide the truth value of all statements about natural numbers. In a nutshell, a set cannot contain itself. Smart software is not able to go outside of its training boundaries as far as I know.
Back to the essay, the author points out that AI something useful:
There will be a ton of innovative applications of Deep Learning, perhaps chiefly in the field of biotech, see GPT-4b and Evo 2. Those are, I must stress, human-made innovative applications of the paradigm of automated continuous program search. Not AI models autonomously producing innovations.
The essay does contain a question I found interesting:
Because what else are they [AI companies and developers] to do? If they admit to themselves they’re not closing their fingers around godhood after all, what will they have left?
Let me offer several general thoughts. I admit that I am not able to answer the question, but some ideas crossed my mind when I was thinking about the sporty Kolmogorov, my uncle’s advice about camping in the winter, and this essay:
- Something else will come along. There is a myth that technology progresses. I think technology is like the fictional tribble on Star Trek. The products and services are destined to produce more products and services. Like the Santa Fe Institute crowd, order emerges. Will the next big thing be AI? Probably AI will be in the DNA of the next big thing. So one answer to the question is, “Something will emerge.” Money will flow and the next big thing cycle begins again.
- The innovators and the AI companies will pivot. This is a fancy way of saying, “Try to come up with something else.” Even in the age of monopolies and oligopolies, change is relentless. Some of the changes will be recognized as the next big thing or at least the thing a person can do to survive. Does this mean Sam AI-Man will manage the robots at the local McDonald’s? Probably not, but he will come up with something.
- The AI hot pot will cool. Life will regress to the mean or a behavior that is not hell bent on becoming a super human like the guy who gets transfusions from his kid, the wonky “have my baby” thinking of a couple of high profile technologist, or the money lust of some 25 year old financial geniuses on Wall Street. A digitized organization man man living out the theory of the leisure class will return. (Tip: Buy a dark grey suit. Lose the T shirt.)
As an 80 year old dinobaby, I find the angst of AI interesting. If Kurt Gödel were alive, he might agree to comment, “Sonny, you can’t get outside the set.” My uncle would probably say, “Those costs. Are they crazy?”
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2025
Wizard Snarks Amazon: Does Amazon Care? Ho Ho No
March 13, 2025
Another post from the dinobaby. Alas, no smart software used for this essay.
I read a wonderful essay from the fellow who created a number of high-value solutions. Remember the Oxford English Dictionary SGML project or the Open Text Index? The person involved deeply in both of these projects is Tim Bray. He wrote a pretty good essay called “Bye, Prime.” On the surface it is a chatty explanation of why a former Amazon officer dropped the “Prime” membership. Thinking about the comments in the write up, Dr. Bray’s article underscores some deeper issues.
In my opinion, the significant points include:
First, 21st century capitalism lacks “ethics stuff.” The decisions benefit the stakeholders.
Second, in a major metropolitan area, local outlets provide equivalent products at competitive prices. This suggests a bit of price exploitation occurs in giant online retail operations.
Third, American companies are daubed with tar as a result of certain national postures.
Fourth, a crassness is evident in some US online services.
Is the article about Amazon? I would suggest that it is, but the implications are broader. I recommend the write up. I believe attending to the explicit and implicit messages in the essay would be useful.
I think the processes identified by Dr. Bray are unlikely to slow. Going back is difficult, perhaps impossible.
PS. I think fixing up the security of AWS buckets, getting the third party reseller scams cleaned up, and returning basic functionality to the Kindle interface are indications that Amazon has gotten lost in one of its warehouses because smart Alexa is really dumb.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2025
NSO Group the PR of Intelware Captures Headlines …. Yet Again
March 13, 2025
Our reading and research have lead us to this basic rule: Unless measures are taken to keep something secret, diffusion is inevitable. Knowledge about systems, methods, and tools to access data is widespread. Case in point—Today’s General Counsel tells us, "Pegasus Spyware Is Showing Up on Corporate Execs’ Cell Phones." The brief write-up cites reporting by The Record’s Suzanne Smalley, who got her information from security firm iVerify. It shows a steep climb in Pegasus-infected devices over the second half of last year. We learn:
"The number of reported infected phones among iVerify corporate clients was eleven out of 18,000 devices tested in December last year. In May 2024, when iVerify first began offering the spyware testing service, a study found seven spyware infections out of 3,000 phones tested. ‘The world remains totally unprepared to deal with this from a security perspective,’ says iVerify co-founder and former National Security Agency analyst Rocky Cole, who was interviewed for the article. ‘This stuff is way more prevalent than people think.’ The article notes that business executives are now proving to be vulnerable, including individuals with access to proprietary plans and financial data, as well as those who frequently communicate with other influential leaders in the private sector. These leaders engage in sensitive work out of the public eye, including deals that have the potential to impact financial markets."
But how could this happen? Pegasus-maker NSO Group vows it only sells spyware to whitelisted governments for counterterrorism and fighting crime. It does do that. And also other things, reportedly. So we are unsurprised to find business executives among those allegedly targeted. We think it best to assume anything digital can be accessed by anyone at any moment. Is it time to bring back communications via pen and paper? At least someone must get out from behind a desk to intercept snail mail or dead drops.
Cynthia Murrell, March 13, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
