341–350 of 1001 posts
> If you’re worried about this, the easiest solution is to buy an Android phone. Readers might be interested in our Ultimate iOS to GrapheneOS Migration Guide and Review: https://blog.okturtles.org/2024/06/the-ultimate-ios-to-graph...
I guess I’ll take the contra here on messages integration — moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary and therefore security architecture and therefore security promises that apple makes on iMessage. I do not believe average smartwatch users understand what they’d be doing if they got this. I do not believe vendors…
I think people forget that Apple is not making devices for the Hackernews community. They are making devices for people that just want something that works pretty well and has reasonable security - even to the extent of protecting them from themselves. They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect t…
Apple are making devices for people who want things that look pretty. Functionality is generally not the major concern. Think about it. They are late with most new tech as they will just wait until it becomes cheaper, why? Because they already know it's not a deal breaker. They removed a bunch of fundamental and heavily used ports from the Macbook for years. Because they knew people would just work around it and buy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 1: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want to be able to send messages?" and let the user decide which devices can send their phone messages. Step 2: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want to be able to send messages?" and don't just assume "yes" Both steps would improve security, even if they harm Apple's profits.
We have decades of experience that users will blindly click whatever prompts they need to make the app work.
If they go to a different store, and buy a non-Apple product, that's insecure. What they need to do is return it and go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product. That's secure. Give the money to Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I'm not conflating things- Ford and Dodge filter incompatibility is almost directly comparable to a software company making API changes to be incompatible or to choose not to offer something they could easily include. And it's not just Ford and Dodge; practically every car maker chooses to make some parts that are proprietary. Oil filters are a particular easy one to compare to software practices. Ford and Dodge h…
> The ONLY reason that you can't swap Ford/Dodge filters between engines with similar filtration requirements is because each company uses a different thread size and filter interface dimensions. Which is maybe dumb, but it isn't a problem , because of this: > They also make their specifications available to aftermarket filter manufacturers like Wix and Fram. Which is the thing Apple isn't doing, and furthermore is d…
What law in any country requires this? Apple is not a public utility and people don't have rights to access.
> the argument you're making is that the automakers purposely cause their filters to be incompatible to limit competition
No I'm not making that argument. I am arguing that incompatibility is there, could be resolved if the companies chose to. The incompatibility persists and is not illegal. It has nothing to do with anticompetitive behavior. Apple being incompatible with third party watches should be the same- the incompatibility could be changed, but it is not illegal. Just because some people wish things were different doesn't make it illegal or immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't you make that argument for literally any anticompetitive practice? Like in the 1990s: "Microsoft isn't making an OS for people that want to try different browsers"
Yes, you could. It's indeed troubling to see this mindset on HN. We have an overflow of professional "explainers" these days, we need more doers and fighters.
I guess I’ll take the contra here on messages integration — moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary and therefore security architecture and therefore security promises that apple makes on iMessage. I do not believe average smartwatch users understand what they’d be doing if they got this. I do not believe vendors…
> moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary Is it? My iPhone replicates messages to my mac from where a process can extract that data, it can capture the screen etc. I can use a mac today to set up a relay that would then send those messages to a smart watch if one would do that.
I guess I’ll take the contra here on messages integration — moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary and therefore security architecture and therefore security promises that apple makes on iMessage. I do not believe average smartwatch users understand what they’d be doing if they got this. I do not believe vendors…
This is cap. I worked on heads up glasses, and one of our issues was the lack of integration with Apple's iMessage ecosystem. Device makers are willing to go through several security measures, like deploying the MFi chips and certification. However, at best this gives you access to the notification system, not iMessage itself. You are able to respond to messages via the notification framework, but not integrate direc…
I have a very capable smartwatch and it's ridiculously bad how hobbled it is on iOS. I'm glad to see this article specifically highlight the issues, and how it's 100% Apple's intention to make non-Apple wearables on iOS terrible.
The ONLY answer is antitrust action from every major government. The trillion dollar companies are so massive that they are impinging upon every category of business that touches them. And they're so massive that their sinnew and tendrils touch everything under the sun. Mobile computing is de-facto owned by two companies. It's owned, tightly controlled like an authoritarian government, and heavily taxed. Compared wit…
It's also great that Apple is able to negotiate with countries as an equal wrt. user privacy, iMessage is the only e2e encrypted messenger allowed in China, and is currently able to mobilize a significant political movement against mandatory backdoors in the UK