Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#131

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:47 PM UTC

distrill wrote: post #100

josefresco wrote: post #3

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.

it's pretty frustrating how "apple people" just don't care that it's apples fault. i routinely hear my wife mutter "i hate google so much!" when a google maps integration is being intentionally hobbled to keep her using apple maps. or when she has trouble managing rcs conversations because somebody in our social world has the gall to be on an android phone.

I am aware that apple blocks certain functionality to maintain a cohesive and secure experience. It is THE reason I buy their products, I want the curation. Otherwise I'd buy an android device.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#132

Post by wobfan » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:47 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #125

sunshowers wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that this argument happens to conveniently align with Apple's financial interests.

If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.

This is (I guess) not what OP meant. Apple obviously also gains financially from blokcing everything outside of there ecosystem, mainly because the majority of Apple users will only buy Apple hardware. Obviously, yeah, keeping the hardware a bit more safe also helps, but the main financial gain is definitely not coming from this.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#133

Post by sunshowers » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:47 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #125

sunshowers wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that this argument happens to conveniently align with Apple's financial interests.

If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.

Why doesn't Apple openly market that it's doing stuff in its financial interest? Is it too embarrassed to point that out?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#134

Post by mistercheph » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:47 PM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #101

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…

So sick of this strawman dialectic from the apple-brained, where the alternative to the walled garden is the worst possible implementation of an open standard.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#135

Post by culi » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #110

vessenes wrote: post #101

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 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…

In what world is screenshotting an iMessage enough to move them out of the security boundary

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#136

Post by abhinavsharma » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

between the restrictions, apple dropping the ball on AI, and Gemini slowly improving, the idea of Google significantly leapfrogging Apple in end-user experience is not that unfathomable any more.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#137

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

sunshowers wrote: post #133

ch4s3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.

Why doesn't Apple openly market that it's doing stuff in its financial interest? Is it too embarrassed to point that out?

I'm not sure I follow? Every company does what is in their own financial interest. Even b-corps and non-profits have to keep an eye on their balance sheets.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#138

Post by culi » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

mistercheph wrote: post #134

vessenes wrote: post #101

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…

So sick of this strawman dialectic from the apple-brained, where the alternative to the walled garden is the worst possible implementation of an open standard.

Firefox is also frequently criticized for not implementing certain APIs because of security concerns. There was a post on this site just the other day about their lack of support for WebUSB for exactly this reason

It's not unique to Apple. And we should take security seriously. To people who are technically literate and think they can navigate security risks it's not a big deal but people's entire lives are frequently turned upside down by scams and security loopholes

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#139

Post by rednafi » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

There's nothing new here. From AirDrop to AirPods, Apple's MO is to lock you into their ecosystem and be as belligerent as possible toward any non-Apple gizmo. Couple that with social and network effects, and you have a perfect formula for monopolizing a market without continuously improving the tech.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#140

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

rickdeckard wrote: post #104

wlesieutre wrote: post #87

Earlier 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?

The issue is, suppose you want a phone with A, B, C, D and E.

In a competitive market, there are a hundred phone OEMs providing every combination of those things for various prices with various trade offs etc.

In a duopoly, there is one company providing A, another providing B and C, and nobody providing D or E. If you chose the company providing B and C, but you still want A, D and E, what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want?

What you need is more competition.