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

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#201

Post by rickdeckard »

bsimpson wrote: post #93
rickdeckard wrote: post #60

If there's a case to make on Apple hindering a competitive landscape, then it would possibly be a case of violation of the European Union's DMA (Digital Markets Act), as Apple is not allowed to favor their own services over those of competitors in visibility, functionality, or integration within iOS. But the EU is a blunt instrument that needs to be sharpened sufficiently with explicit facts. And then still, possibly…

Apple has also shown its not shy about geofencing the remedies to only help people physically located in the EU's jurisdiction, with a billing address to match.

Indeed. But i.e. India followed with similar demands based on EU's DMA Regulation, and so could other countries then.

In a ideal world US would lead the way, as it's the most influential market especially for US companies. But I don't expect this to happen...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#203

Post by judofyr »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #148
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 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.

Yes? Imagine a bug where iMessages are leaked over Bluetooth when a user has installed an application that integrates with some watch brand. Bring this to an airport and you can steal hundreds/thousands of messages from a wide range of people. That’s widely different attack vector than targeting macOS.

That said, I don’t see why Apple can’t provide toolkit/certification that will make it safe to communicate over Bluetooth. They already have it in-place for Apple Watch.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#204

Post by stemlord »

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…

And I'll be the contra to your take: the iMessage ecosystem is so closed that everyone without iphones can barely even interact via sms with iphone users. This is overall such a huge problem that it makes the closed ecosystem security solution not a practical solution

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#205

Post by nashashmi »

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…

my Chinese smartwatch can get imessages. It can't send messages, but it can use the AI voice (SIRI) to send messages. It can't delete messages either.

PebbleOS is asking for the ability to respond to messages with reply or user interactions. This is not a security breach. And it won't leak from encryption anymore than it is leaking now.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#206

Post by stefan_ »

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…

I think you just don't understand the point. I don't care for choosing between 15 different brands making differently colored RAM either when it's all the same standardized thing, but you bet we're in a lot of trouble when it's only one brand at all. Competition isn't always "technically pure" and "elegant" or meaningful.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#207

Post by agloe_dreams »

tadfisher wrote: post #103
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…

Opening up a BLE API for iMessages is not going to impact iMessage spam whatsoever. It will impact Apple Watch sales though.

Hey, there we are.

That's exactly it.

You've always been able to use Applescript to send iMessages on a Mac.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#208

Post by eddythompson80 »

mceachen wrote: post #200
chamanbuga wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

s/cap/crap/?

Or they mean cap as 'lie' in genz speak. 'No cap' = 'No lie'. in a sentence "I saw an alligator today. No cap"

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#209

Post by internetter »

mceachen wrote: post #200
chamanbuga wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

s/cap/crap/?

cap (noun, verb, slang)

(n.) A falsehood, exaggeration, or lie. "Saying you climbed a V10 after a month? That’s cap."

(v.) To lie, exaggerate, or be deceitful. "He said he coded the whole app in a day, but we know he capping."

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#210

Post by Lio »

film42 wrote: post #13

iOS wearable integrations are bad, but somehow Meta Ray-Bans are very good. Voice assist to start a call, send a text, read a notification, etc. Did Meta get special access to do this?

For voice integration, you can just provide a bluetooth microphone on you device and have it access Siri. Garmin have tried the same strategy on some of their watches.

What you can't do is reply to a text without using voice, which is what I'd like.

Post reply on HN