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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#281

Post by joshstrange »

Avamander wrote: post #247
judge2020 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MDM is not easy but you can enroll devices after the fact, pre-enrollment isn’t the only option. But yes, it’s a PITA to deal with even at the best of times.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#282

Post by jimbokun »

Lio wrote: post #210
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.

So Pebble needs to open a Siri connection, ask it to read the latest text, then speech-to-text the response and show it on the watch.

And then the same in the other direction.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#283

Post by glitchc »

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…

What is the problem here that a standardized cryptographic algorithm would not solve?

I can understand if media poses concerns, but inbound and output text consisting entirely of UTF-8 characters?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#284

Post by avgDev »

jmb99 wrote: post #266
avgDev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. I don't need apple to hold my hand. They could inform me in the app store or when I install the app. Here apple is making that decision for me.

> As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. You can. There are dozens (hundreds?) of phones you can buy that aren’t an iPhone. It’s been well known for nearly 20 years at this point that iPhones are more closed than the competition (of which, again, there is a lot). They are successful because of this, not in spite of it, contrary to internet belief.

I know.

However, apple devices have been just more reliable for me and retain better resale.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#285

Post by mystified5016 »

spiderice wrote: post #273
amiga386 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would step 1 improve security over not allowing third party devices to send messages at all?

Why let users send messages in the first place? Tell me how you can get any more secure than that.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#286

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER »

sroussey wrote: post #194
tacker2000 wrote: post #65

Similar thing is going on with the Spotify Apple Watch app, probably so that people migrate to Apple Music... see this discussion, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/1h6qmrw/spotify...

I dunno, I use the spotify apple watch app just fine

Do you listen without your phone? Ime the app is fine with phone nearby, but for independent playback from just the watch it’s trash.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#287

Post by threeseed »

amiga386 wrote: post #246
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.

We have decades of experience that users will blindly click whatever prompts they need to make the app work.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#288

Post by jimbokun »

petemir wrote: post #45
kemayo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to say that it can do it: https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/647079267216457/

On (FB) Messenger and WhatsApp. It's not the same.

So just like Apple they are leveraging integration with other products they own.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#289

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

amiga386 wrote: post #246
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.

I absolutely hate these sorts of nagging popups and I’m happy that a vendor I already have to trust doesn’t pop them up when I acquire a new product and sign it into my Apple account.

Imo, if this were to happen, it should happen by allowing devices like the pebble watch to sign into an Apple account and acquire permissions through that process rather than nagging on my phone on pairing.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#290

Post by zamadatix »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #268

I think people forget that Apple is not making devices for the Hackernews community. They are making devices for people that just want something that works pretty well and has reasonable security - even to the extent of protecting them from themselves. They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect t…

The post has a section regarding these concepts and why the author disagrees, why not respond to that directly instead?

I tend to side somewhat with what the author is saying: they can be both relatively true statements and a way to abuse market power at the same time so identifying it as fitting the mold of one or the other is only the start of the conversation. People against the practices tend to care more about the latter and I think that's why we've seen the EU, Japan, and now Brazil regulate the behavior based on that rather than asking "what's Apple's target usage type".

Post reply on HN