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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#361

Post by shagie »

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.

A statement from f.lux about Apple's recent announcement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10904798 ( 366 points | Jan 14, 2016 | 193 comments )

The actual reason behind F.lux for iOS being pulled - https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3smf15/the_actual_re...

> Sure, it uses private APIs, but thousands of popular projects on Github (like game simulators) or that Apple TV web browser project all use private APIs and they are just fine.

> The issue is F.lux for iOS is not a true source-available download. It includes a full app bundle with pre-compiled binary (which in a nutshell, is an extracted .IPA file) packed within Xcode to utilize Apple's new free signing policy.

> And to making things worse, the same F.lux Xcode project does not only allow side loading F.lux itself, but also any unsigned IPA file. The only thing a user needs is to extract an unsigned IPA and drag all resources into the project. This allows pirates to install any stolen app, without the need to buy a developer certificate. I have tested and believe this is the true reason for F.lux project being pulled.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#362

Post by bunabhucan »

SR2Z wrote: post #352
mystified5016 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now come on, that's not fair. The apple pro display stand is an inert piece of metal with a hinge and some springs and it only costs $999.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#363

Post by simion314 »

threeseed wrote: post #287
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.

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

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

Really, how is Apple protecting you from clicking Allow on a webbrowser if it asks permissions for WebCam and Microphone? I am asking since I do not have a Mac and really want to know how well are Apple users protected compared to Linxu users from web and microphone on browsers.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#364

Post by tremon »

Retric wrote: post #216
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…

Every device you let in is another attack surface, and no certification process can eliminate it. Allowing devices to view and respond to messages is inherently lower risk than allowing them to freely communicate with anyone.

You do realize this is a very infantilizing attitude? Why can't the end user choose its own level of security vs usability? Letting a corporation decide this for all users is just creating a nanny state in different clothing.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#365

Post by CivBase »

frollogaston wrote: post #333
CivBase wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The customer has plenty of choice here, including just not having a smartwatch. It's a toy.

Plenty of choice... so long as that choice has been approved by Apple. It's a very convenient position for a company with a competing product.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#366

Post by Zak »

tremon wrote: post #364
Retric wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every device you let in is another attack surface, and no certification process can eliminate it. Allowing devices to view and respond to messages is inherently lower risk than allowing them to freely communicate with anyone.

You do realize this is a very infantilizing attitude? Why can't the end user choose its own level of security vs usability? Letting a corporation decide this for all users is just creating a nanny state in different clothing.

While I agree with you (I daily a rooted Android phone), anyone who cleaned up a few Windows machines for non-technical people 20 years ago probably at least understands where Apple is coming from. The average person is really bad at system administration, and it doesn't take many bad actors creating malware and scams to have a big impact.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#367

Post by frollogaston »

CivBase wrote: post #365
frollogaston wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The customer has plenty of choice here, including just not having a smartwatch. It's a toy.

Plenty of choice... so long as that choice has been approved by Apple. It's a very convenient position for a company with a competing product.

Apple doesn't approve of me not having an Apple Watch.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#368

Post by polyaniline »

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…

Sorry for going out of subject but I had to ask - how did Apple take you from waiter to developer?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#369

Post by sbarre »

tremon wrote: post #364
Retric wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every device you let in is another attack surface, and no certification process can eliminate it. Allowing devices to view and respond to messages is inherently lower risk than allowing them to freely communicate with anyone.

You do realize this is a very infantilizing attitude? Why can't the end user choose its own level of security vs usability? Letting a corporation decide this for all users is just creating a nanny state in different clothing.

I tend to agree with this, but if you look at the PC ecosystem, you'll see that 'leave users to figure out their own security' is a shit show.

Phones, for better or worse, contain much more private and personal information about users than their computer I would bet on average.

So I understand the urge to make phones more secure by default and to help users avoid foot guns, even if it means restricting their choices.

You are likely not the average user, and I think it's a bit selfish to demand total freedom, that you can manage safely, when for most users they would be worse off.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need this but we certainly don't have one of those.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#370

Post by rambambram »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #208
mceachen wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Gen Z speak? I thought it was 'hood speak' or something. Like: I'm going to cap your sorry ass. I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know.
Post reply on HN