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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#351

Post by Avamander »

refulgentis wrote: post #317
Avamander wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> that I'd like to claim wasn't an issue when I was making them circa 2015-2017,

Well, I wouldn't say that the standards for (software) security were anywhere near as high as they are now. It makes sense that our requirements for things change.

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

Sure there are ways, but without regulation I struggle to see why should/would Apple ever bother. Nor do I think that a forced way would be held to the same standards as the rest.

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

Because they can't do much, if anything at all?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#352

Post by SR2Z »

mystified5016 wrote: post #285
spiderice wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Apple had their way, they would LOVE to sell you a $2000 aluminum brick with no screen, speakers, microphone, etc., that still required a proprietary cable to charge.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#353

Post by frollogaston »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #158
culi wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 frequentl…

The main difference is that with Firefox no one can use the API. Apple seems to be happy to implement APIs... but only their own products can use them.

Like with headphones. Only AirPods and Beats (owned by Apple) headphones can use their proprietary extensions on top of Bluetooth for improved pairing or better headset-mode quality. Then they removed the jack to wipe out the rest.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#354

Post by dns_snek »

EA-3167 wrote: post #159
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.

Something I learned a while ago is that there's a particular brand of very vocal person online who has a bone to pick with Apple. Sometimes it's for a good reason, sometimes less so, but the point is that they come to discussions of any Apple topic with a conclusion ready in hand and then work backwards from that. In this case the conclusion is, "Apple is wicked, perfidious, and monopolistic." Truthfully there isn't…

Interesting conclusion given that pro-Apple comments with provably incorrect claims routinely end up at the top of the HN's comment section, this thread included. Information directly refuting those claims often gets downvoted and suppressed. Why is that?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#355

Post by alterom »

efdee wrote: post #313
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. An…

To add: if the goal is to make a system where the yes/no answer is irrelevant, then it's a system when very horrible UX: the pop-up shouldn't be there in the first place!

This also doesn't address the obvious solution: safe and easy defaults, and an option for manual overrides in advanced "I know what I'm doing" settings.

And no pop-ups at all.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#356

Post by frollogaston »

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…

The only hard part of automating either iMessage or SMS spam is getting a clean account to spam with. The input source is easy.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#357

Post by wat10000 »

sigmar wrote: post #293
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…

Couldn't you make that argument for literally any anticompetitive practice? Like in the 1990s: "Microsoft isn't making an OS for people that want to try different browsers"

Making your own products interoperate better than competitors' products is pretty typical and I don't think it rises to the level of "anticompetitive practice."

If you don't like it (and I can totally understand why), there are numerous other smartphone makers out there with products that allow better integration with these watches and you're free to buy one.

MS didn't get into trouble because they went after competing browsers, they got into trouble for doing that while also having a monopoly on PC OSes. Apple doesn't have anything like a monopoly in this market (their US market share is about 50%, worldwide is around 28%).

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#358

Post by frollogaston »

sigmar wrote: post #293
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…

Couldn't you make that argument for literally any anticompetitive practice? Like in the 1990s: "Microsoft isn't making an OS for people that want to try different browsers"

I honestly don't care about Microsoft bundling a browser. The real problem was that they intentionally broke web standards to push websites to "work best on Internet Explorer," so even those who chose not to use Windows were caught up in it. Whereas, Android users aren't affected by what Apple does here.

They still bundle Edge, and keep setting it to default. But idc, it's just one of 1000 reasons I don't use Windows.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#359

Post by nehal3m »

xyst wrote: post #28

One of the many reasons I have been exiting out of the Apple ecosystem. They are so damn hostile to any third party integration, reserve apis for first party usage, and give middle finger to developers with their abusive fee structure (Apple takes a 30% cut …). Only thing left is for my devices to age out (I am in deep with phone, watch, mbp, mba, and even Mac Studio M1 “ultra”)

You can always sell them, they hold their value pretty well.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#360

Post by skyyler »

distrill wrote: post #172
skyyler wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of trouble does she have managing rcs conversations? It works fine for my partner on their iPhone.

the thing i hear most frequently is naming group chats with mixed device users

Weird, that seems to work for my partner. I wonder what's breaking for your wife.
Post reply on HN