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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#241

Post by mikepurvis »

bradleybuda wrote: post #102
echelon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you don't like an iPhone, don't buy an iPhone. Don't legislate your consumer preferences on me.

Interoperability is a commons; the market won't protect it on its own, because each individual consumer's best action is to just get an iPhone and an Apple Watch.

But the market (and society at large) is ultimately worse off when Pebble and FitBit and Garmin can't compete on a level playing field with Apple Watch— particularly when Pebble is targeting a completely different feature set, price point, and battery profile from what Apple Watch does.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#242

Post by pipeline_peak »

They don't even offer the same support with BT headphones as their AirPods. Why on earth would they support something that could be a threat to their watches?

What type of company do you people think Apple is, one that pleases hackers at the expense of their competition?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#243

Post by manmal »

> Some features will appear first on our Android app, and then eventually we’ll add them to the iOS app. This is because the majority of our development team uses Android phones, and generally we’re building things for ourselves, so naturally Android comes first.

Up to that paragraph I sympathized. Sometimes it does feel like Apple doesn’t care one bit about me, an iOS developer. But, as a user, I really don’t care what phones the devs use. I use an iPhone and now I feel like I‘d be a second class citizen because of this paragraph. Not because Apple’s restrictions are unnecessarily bad, but because the devs just care less. I guess I‘d go for an Apple Watch instead.

(Was a first gen Pebble owner btw)

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#245

Post by basisword »

Volundr wrote: post #150
ch4s3 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's all well and good. Opting into that knowingly is a reasonable decision. Hopefully knowing you've opted into that you aren't then cursing Google when they don't support some functionality blocked by Apple, or when RCS is poorly supported, but instead recognizing this as a trade-off you made opting into the Apple closed garden.

The reason Apple Maps even exists is because Google intentionally crippled their Maps app on iPhone in order to benefit their own OS.

The reason Google loves RCS is because they spectacularly failed 4 or 5 times at introducing their own iMessage competitors.

Competing companies often act in their best interests. And both Google and Apple offer OS’s which have very different value systems. I think that’s good for consumers. If I want open (and all the pros and cons that come with that) I can buy an Android phone. If I want closed (and the pros and cons that come with that) I can buy Apple. If they Apple starts to open up a bit and Google locks things down a bit we get the worst of both worlds and no true options.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#246

Post by amiga386 »

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…

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.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#247

Post by Avamander »

judge2020 wrote: post #221
wpm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quicktime Player.app gets an entitlement called `com.apple.private.tcc.allow`, giving it unprompted access to the Camera, Microphone, and Screen Capture. An MDM administrator, managing a computer or device owned by an organization, cannot grant those permissions to anything without user consent. For good reason! So why the *fuck* does Apple think they're entitled to?

Replace MDM administrator with ‘malware author’ or ‘spy software’ to get your answer. There is functionally no difference between a regular company doing MDM wanting to bypass camera permission prompts and a hacker who has tricked/forced the user into enrolling into MDM. Now, replace ‘Apple’ with ‘malware author’. What’s the difference? Well, for one, a hacker has nothing to lose and everything to gain from snooping…

It's not very trivial to manage an Apple device and Apple would shut down those ABM tenants real quick. Not to mention, supervision requires enrollment pre-setup, which is really difficult.

So "just replace x with y" does not really work in this context, MDM is vastly more effort than you think and OP-s point still stands.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#248

Post by daedrdev »

mceachen wrote: post #212
eddythompson80 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for translating. I’ve never heard cap used in the affirmative.

It’s often used to call people out. That’s cap = that’s bullshit

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#249

Post by Avamander »

TMWNN wrote: post #214
Lio wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Interesting. This indicates that the inability for my Amazfit Balance to do this is indeed an artificial limitation, and not something that Apple prevents. https://np.reddit.com/r/amazfit/comments/1j3ftbr/why_cant_ba... >

If your watch does not support Bluetooth Classic with the headset profile then you can't pretend to be a mic. So watches with Bluetooth LE only can not utilize Siri.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#250

Post by 9rx »

worik wrote: post #227
EA-3167 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point. If the topic was that, then I'd welcome the discussion, but when you simply bring that to every discussion about Apple... it gets old. After all your statement only really needs to be said once for people to understand it, which makes the repetition over the years very grating. "Single issue posters" are generally the least engaging on the internet.

Apple is a poster child for why there should be limits on the power of wealth Closing your mind to the possibility that Apple is throughly rotton is probably soothing, but the possibility remains that we are right, you are wrong, and each time the conclusion is the same, and correct Big Tech monopolies sniffle innovation and hord resources

Apple and the like are only worth as much as they are because of intellectual property laws. Without that, you'd have a million iPhone clones (perfect copies, minus the dumb stuff) on the market a few days later and Apple would soon be worthless.

Intellectual property laws is not some natural law of the universe. It only exists because the people (i.e. the general public) want it to exist. They could do away with it on a whim, but choose not to. Which isn't irrational as it may first seem. Their own careers probably rely on the status quo, and their retirement savings no doubt rest on companies like Apple being worth a fortune, so there is a lot of incentive to not rock the boat.

Post reply on HN