Another company that would like Apple to donate R&D resources to them to add iOS API for free.
Isn't that included in the price of the device you buy?
Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
111–120 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously this is going to be up for debate, but in your comment you acknowledge that "go build one for Android" is an option. This is an indication that your complaint is not in Apple's behavior, but your regret that the competition sucks and it's not Apple's fault. Apple is not a market on their own from the perspective of smart phones and watches, every person making a purchasing decision has options (This is diff…
> It's not like anyone is suing Ford or Dodge for only making accessories that work on their own cars and trucks. It's not like anyone can legitimately complain that Ford is anticompetitive because they aren't making themselves compatible with Dodge oil filters. You're conflating two different things here. One is, are their oil filters compatible ? That isn't a problem; they can be incompatible. They're often incompa…
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 have ranges of similar size engines with similar flow rates in their cars and trucks (treat Ram as if it were Dodge). They both specify the use of filters that follow industry standards like SAE/USCAR-36 and ISO 4548-12. 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. Any company could adopt a common standard and simplify the choices at the auto parts store but none of them do, because they all want to exercise some amount of control. The funny part is, they all participate in creating industry standards and they make very little money off the sale of filters. They also make their specifications available to aftermarket filter manufacturers like Wix and Fram. There is no patent protection on a particular thread size or the diameter of a rubber gasket. There is NOTHING stopping Ford and Dodge from unifying the filtration interfaces in their similar sized V-8 truck engines. Why is this part brand specific? You can buy a range of tires that work with either brand as long as you get the right size and durability ratings. You can buy batteries that work with either brand. You can find a whole slew of parts that are standard and interchangeable across brands, but some parts aren't.
This is equivalent to saying, "these two watches both have Bluetooth, a microprocessor, and touch screen, the only reason one watch works with Apple and the other works with Google is because of the software." Apple could open up their software to allow both watches to work with iPhone. But they don't do it. Apple does allow Bluetooth headphones to work fine with iPhones even though they offer the Apple AirPods. So even in the phone market you have analogs to "certain parts can work interchangeably across brands, but these don't." In the automotive world nobody is complaining about anti-trust, so maybe we need to think about whether Apple's actions regarding their watches is actually anti-trust.
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the classic "Oh, that 3rd party app/feature is so popular, I bet we could build a identical/slightly less useful thing ourselves so people don't have to use other things than Apple software ever"
I've never understood this Apple criticism (scherlocking). Someone built a search for your files, so it's not right for Apple to build a pretty key feature into the OS? There's a lot of fair criticisms of Apple, but they don't have to be absolutely first at everything or never enter the market.
The key criticism is the final step. They don't only duplicate the functionality. They then ban the original implementation from their stores because it can create "customer confusion".
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is true. Apple could drop smart watch support entirely and I still wouldn't use an Android phone. I personally find the user experience infinitely better on iOS than on Android, and Apple would have to drop the ball very bad to get me to switch. (Note: This isn't because Apple is without faults. iOS and macOS are both a mess right now, and iPadOS is even worse. I just think that Android is worse th…
what's so bad about android
I don't like that it's made by an advertising company, like the other commenter said. But more than that it's that it's wildly unpolished and inconsistent.
OEMs and carriers shove in their own apps (Samsung is especially bad about this: I don't want two apps for photos, and files, and messages, and calling, and browsing, etc etc). You can (sometimes) disable or uninstall them, but they can pop up again after updates, and I don't want to have to clean up my device just to use it.
And visually, apps look and feel radically different, all over the place. There are apps that still look like they're running on Jelly Bean, apps that use modern material designs, apps that roll their own UI, and web apps in wrappers. Every new app I have to learn how to use it. This is an occasional problem on iOS, but it's very rare compared to my experience with it on Android.
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#115I 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…
The problem is that this argument happens to conveniently align with Apple's financial interests.
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#116This article is 100% weapons-grade FUD > It’s impossible for a 3rd party smartwatch to [...] or perform actions on notifications (like dismissing, muting REALLY? Why not RTFM? https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Co... >Notification Actions > Starting with iOS 8.0, the NP can inform the NC of potential > actions that are associated with iOS notifications. On the > user’s behalf, the NC can then r…
Where is the part where you can reply to a message?
I'd assume it would be a notification action?
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there are effectively two choices and both of them do things you don’t like, “it’s your fault for not switching to the other one” isn’t a very useful argument
The question is more, where is that 'force' expected to come from which should make them change their way? Just hopes and prayers?
Regulation?
When a market is stuck in a local maximum, an external force would be beneficial to push it out of it.
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operating system made by advertising company is why it's a deal breaker for me
GGP mentions "user experience" being "infinitely better". I don't think Android being made by an advertising company has much if anything to do with it. I also don't see iOS and Android having much of a usability gap. At this point, they have very similar feature sets, and the UX is fairly well-polished, even on Android -- where yes, it took them a lot longer to get there. For the most part, if you think that either…
> iPhone users are there mainly because they've always been there, and there's fairly strong lock-in and switching costs
Or perhaps it's because we like iPhones?
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#119I 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 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…
Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones
#120Apple has been restricting iPhones from being awesome since 2007.
Remembering the uproar when Apple said 3rd party apps would have to be web apps, but didn't ship the features needed to write good web apps on the first iPhone? The term PWA wasn't coined until 8 years later, and Apple has long been accused of hobbling its web stack to incite people to ship on the App Store and pay their 30% tithing.