Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

ericmigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#511

Post by frollogaston »

closewith wrote: post #295
holmesworcester wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need any major government intervention. What we need is a law that requires companies like Apple to allow their customers to install and run the software they wish, and provide external developers with the same OS features their internal teams have access to. Europe and Brazil already have such laws, though they could go farther. In the US we had this bill, which would have covered most of these issu…

> What we need is a law that requires companies like Apple to allow their customers to install and run the software they wish, and provide external developers with the same OS features their internal teams have access to. So major government intervention.

Like, government deciding the entire API for their operating system.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#512

Post by lynx97 »

bboygravity wrote: post #502
lynx97 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…

You can't run an ad-blocker and you browse the web with JS turned on in Safari, but your Iphone is secure? yeah ok

I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium. And I really don't need Safari that often, actually. Besides, if we're really talking JS==insecure, 99% of users on desktop and mobile are insecure. I am sort of on your side, because I spend most of my web-time in Lynx in a tmux. But if I were to argue against JS, people would call me a weirdo. That war is over. I fought it until 2010.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#513

Post by mrlambchop »

bigyabai wrote: post #460
ericmay wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector They did move to USB-C, but the lightning connector was actually a great product, far superior in usability to the Micro-USB, Mini-USB, and whatever other nonsense standards that existed. When Apple wanted to move to USB-C people complained about them "changing standards all the time". There really isn't a move that pleases everyone and even when they do the "right" t…

I've heard it all before, both of these are simple to refute. Apple designed the USB-C connector, they knew it was an option. But as is Apple tradition, they created a new licensed serial and power connector specifically for their phones to promote MFi, their arbitrary USB DRM. Apple could have switched to USB-C at any time; they had no issue shipping millions of peripherals and Macs with them onboard. But they didn'…

Lightning development started in 2008 as I was there!

USB-C development started in 2012 (I was not there!), but from wiki, the ever helpful source of truth: "The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, HP Inc., Microsoft, and the USB Implementers Forum. The Type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) on August 11, 2014.[1] In July 2016, it was adopted by the IEC as "IEC 62680-1-3".[3]"

I not sure of the logic here, but Lightning solved a problem way before USB-C existed and I'm sure, led to support of USB-C standards such as reversible connectors etc...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#515

Post by frollogaston »

apatheticonion wrote: post #507
frollogaston wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't care about Microsoft bundling a browser. The real problem was that they intentionally broke web standards to push websites to "work best on Internet Explorer," so even those who chose not to use Windows were caught up in it. Whereas, Android users aren't affected by what Apple does here. They still bundle Edge, and keep setting it to default. But idc, it's just one of 1000 reasons I don't use Windows…

Apple do this too with their products - but in more subtle ways. For instance, try to play a video game on MacOS. While Vulkan is available on every playform, it's not available on MacOS or iOS despite the fact that it would take an engineer at Apple a weekend to implement (figuritively speaking). Apple are also killing off OpenGL support for MacOS. Generally, Apple deliberately build a "dependence ecosystem" for the…

Oh yeah, Mac video games sorta don't exist. The dev can jump through all those hoops and still have random OS updates break it constantly. Almost as bad just for regular apps.

Re executives being mad: The thing is, they make money off Mac hardware, and even then its profits are dwarfed by iPhone and iPhone accessories. Which are of course locked down.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#516

Post by _atyler_ »

This makes sense for large-scale deployments where cost control is paramount, but I wonder how it holds up in environments with unpredictable traffic patterns. Have you found any practical workarounds for the lag introduced by dynamic scaling? In my experience, the trade-off between cost efficiency and real-time performance isn’t always worth it.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#517

Post by bmicraft »

threeseed wrote: post #296
Nextgrid wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary Anyone can already screenshot iMessages and move them out of the "security boundary"... which btw doesn't exist much, as if you have any Mac connected to your iCloud account then those messages are being synced to an SQLite DB any process running under your user can acces…

> any process running under your user can access You will need to grant that app explicit Full Disk Access permissions in order for it to access that folder.

Okay then let me grant "Full Notification Access permissions" on iPhone and we're good.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#518

Post by csours »

shuckles wrote: post #508
csours wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Love it or leave it" - why not make it better?

Allowing support for a rich ecosystem of mediocre smart watches does not move the needle on making it better for me personally. And Apple probably has done the market research to confirm most of their customers are like me and not like Pebble users.

> And Apple probably has done the market research to confirm most of their customers are like me and not like Pebble users.

I'm sure. The customers they do not have are like Pebble users, and they don't want customers like Pebble users. They want customers like Apple Watch users.

It is a bit 'masque of the red death' to defend anti-competitive practices, is all I'm saying.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#519

Post by LeifCarrotson »

9rx wrote: post #225
Nextgrid wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation? When a market is stuck in a local maximum, an external force would be beneficial to push it out of it.

Unless regulation is the problem[1], you need the will of the people[2] to see regulation come into force. But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. No need for regulation. [1] Which it is in the case of computing. Intellectual property law makes direct competition against the law. [2] Assuming a democracy.

The idea that if the people had the will they would see it through assumes efficient markets with negligible startup costs and informed and rational consumers, which is not the way the real world works.

Microsoft - a multi-trillion dollar company, number 2 in the world by market cap, second to AAPL and several positions above Google - tried really hard for several years to wedge their way into the mobile phone OS game with Windows Phone, adding a third entrant to the market. They had name recognition, an easy win for integration with user PCs, several compelling features, partnerships with huge, vertically integrated hardware manufacturers, and an enormous base of IP for programming. But, in the end, they failed.

Just because people have a desire for a thing to exist does not make that thing exist.

I'd love it if there were another company - call it Pear or something - that was just like Apple but allowed my Garmin watch to reply to encrypted messages, integrated smoothly with my Windows and Linux PCs, allowed sideloading apps, alternative browsers, adblock, and which gave me a whole lot more customization options. I've got the will. Now where's my phone?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#520

Post by jahewson »

bigyabai wrote: post #460
ericmay wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector They did move to USB-C, but the lightning connector was actually a great product, far superior in usability to the Micro-USB, Mini-USB, and whatever other nonsense standards that existed. When Apple wanted to move to USB-C people complained about them "changing standards all the time". There really isn't a move that pleases everyone and even when they do the "right" t…

I've heard it all before, both of these are simple to refute. Apple designed the USB-C connector, they knew it was an option. But as is Apple tradition, they created a new licensed serial and power connector specifically for their phones to promote MFi, their arbitrary USB DRM. Apple could have switched to USB-C at any time; they had no issue shipping millions of peripherals and Macs with them onboard. But they didn'…

Apple did not design the USB-C connector, Intel did.
Post reply on HN