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

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#311

Post by threeseed » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:10 PM UTC

rickdeckard wrote: post #90

diggan wrote: post #61

Earlier 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"

Conveniently, Apple's App Store Review Guidelines also include several rules that restrict apps from duplicating features that the OS already provides. So if they detect a trend early enough, they implement it as first-party feature, dry out the existing competitors while restricting new competitors to enter based on the App Store Review...

The guideline says:

"Apps that copy basic iPhone or iPad functionality (including but not limited to its UI, gestures, core features) will be rejected unless the app provides a clearly different purpose or adds unique functionality."

Note the "basic" line. And there are plenty of Photos, Notes, Streaming etc apps so not seeing where this is being used to exclude competitors.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#312

Post by that_guy_iain » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

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…

Apple are making devices for people who want things that look pretty. Functionality is generally not the major concern. Think about it.

They are late with most new tech as they will just wait until it becomes cheaper, why? Because they already know it's not a deal breaker.

They removed a bunch of fundamental and heavily used ports from the Macbook for years. Because they knew people would just work around it and buy dongles.

They put the charging port for their wireless mouse on the bottom of the mouse so it wasn't possible to charge and use the mouse at the same time. Because they knew people would put up with it because it was pretty.

For a lot of people, it's not that it works well or anything. It's about the brand and the design. It's about the marketing. And when it's about that and not the actual product you can do whatever you want to your product and it doesn't really matter. And compatibility with other brands doesn't matter because they've already bought into Apple's brand over everything else including basic functionality.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#313

Post by efdee » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

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…

> They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them.

You're making that statement as if iPhones don't have security issues and people using Android definitely have to learn about those things.

> They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect things to keep working. Because they know that they are not qualified to answer that yes/no popup question. And those people do not care much about lock-in and walled gardens.

What exactly is it that Apple does that makes it not matter whether you click 'yes' or 'no' on these popups?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#314

Post by threeseed » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #222

sunaookami wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has never happened.

Not explicitly (because that might be too openly anti-competitive even for Apple) but Apple refused to allow f.lux into the App Store, and it had to be sideloaded - and Apple leaned on them to stop offering that. When Apple did offer Night Shift in iOS 9.3 it made the APIs to do this Apple-only, for ... reasons. As of today, no non-Apple app can modify color temperature of the display.

> Apple refused to allow f.lux into the App Store

It was using private APIs.

This is never acceptable as it undermines the entire security architecture.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#315

Post by CivBase » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

IMO, Apple's position as part of a duopoly disqualifies them that kind of defense.

When customers aren't empowered to choose which company they engage with, companies should not be allowed to choose which customers they support.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#316

Post by dns_snek » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:14 PM UTC

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #289

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.

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.

What are you proposing exactly? What can be simpler than a single Yes/No prompt?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#317

Post by refulgentis » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:14 PM UTC

Avamander wrote: post #237

lern_too_spel wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluetooth is encrypted.

Should be, but BT stacks are super crap and it's hard to truly guarantee that. Pretty sure they do not currently require the highest (actually proper) security level from everyone.

This whole thread is chockful of thought-terminating cliches, and I say that as someone who grew from a waiter to a developer thanks to Apple and made a lot of these arguments.

I also worked on Android Wear's iOS app for working with iPhones.

The major problem I see now with these excuses, that I'd like to claim wasn't an issue when I was making them circa 2015-2017, is they're cargo cult (a la Apple likes making things that just work) or boogeymen (if they did anything different, a bluetooth connection would be used, unencrypted, sending all your data into the ether).

The watch has been out for 10 years.

Software is software. Where there's a will, there's a way.

It's very, very, very, hard to believe there's 0 way for Apple to ensure an encrypted connection.

Put another way, avoiding the global observations: If it's impossible, why allow watches to be paired at all?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#318

Post by 0xEF » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:14 PM UTC

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…

It's crazy that so many don't realize this. I am not an Apple user, likely never will be, but I recommend their tech frequently. They meet that market's needs with aplomb and I respect that.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#319

Post by parsimo2010 » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:15 PM UTC

rickdeckard wrote: post #154

parsimo2010 wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

> Apple is not a market on their own from the perspective of smart phones and watches. Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices, because they provide core platform services as a gateway for these products to operate and communicate with end-users, but define rules and restrictions which don't apply for Apple smart watches themselves. > Apple is its own market from the…

> But isn't that's the case Pebble is making here?

No, the case they are making is that Apple is making things worse for Apple users. They haven't done anything to effect the Android watch experience.

> They create a market

They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch.

> Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices

Wrong- they act as a gatekeeper to developers, not to users. If the new Pebble's core product was their app, then all of this would indeed be anticompetitive behavior (see recent European court cases against Apple). But Pebble's product is their watch, and there is nothing saying that Pebble has the right to integrate into another company's product. Apple could choose to do this, but they don't, and that's okay. Consumers can consider these facts when they are buying a phone.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#320

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 7:15 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]