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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#391

Post by badc0ffee »

wpm wrote: post #184
liuliu wrote: post #81

I think, we fundamentally lack a mechanism to enforce secure / privacy aware APIs without resorting to trusted inner-circle type of things. I am already not comfortable with Apple picking winners (such as giving Zoom special entitlement but not the VOIP apps you want to distribute by your own). Apple trusting their own apps more than other apps is another symptom of this and it is not helping their anti-trust situati…

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?

Think about why they ask for access in the first place - it's because camera access or screen access might be unexpected for the app you've just started. Or maybe you don't trust the app with your camera (looking at you, Instagram).

QuickTime Player is already on your Mac and you already know what it does when you launch it.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#392

Post by bhelkey »

manmal wrote: post #243

> 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 w…

Apple creates significant roadblocks for 3rd party accessories. Android does not.

Is it really surprising that developers who love building third party accessories would choose Android?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#393

Post by consteval »

jm4 wrote: post #381
SR2Z wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you charge an aluminum brick?

For the thrill

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#394

Post by [deleted] »

Pfhortune wrote: post #335
9rx wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless regulation is the problem[1], you need the will of the people[2] to see regulation come into force. But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. No need for regulation. [1] Which it is in the case of computing. Intellectual property law makes direct competition against the law. [2] Assuming a democracy.

> But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. How does this work in the context of this discussion?

[deleted]

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#395

Post by VibrantClarity »

jm4 wrote: post #381
SR2Z wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you charge an aluminum brick?

because the charger is sold separately

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#396

Post by BetaDeltaAlpha »

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.

Humane Pin still does this.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#397

Post by snailmailman »

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...

I’m pretty sure this rule is only there to stop the hundreds of “flashlight” apps that used to exist. (Although, they appear to still exist) There isn’t tons of innovation or competition in “flashlight app” other than adding advertisements. There used to be a bunch of them that would only get popular out of necessity. The ones I’m seeing now in the App Store do seem to have non-default behaviors like “strobe light” at least, so they aren’t true clones of native functionality.

Apple isn’t using that rule to take down alternate weather apps, despite them having their own native weather app. There’s still plenty of QR code scanning apps, despite that being built into default camera app.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#398

Post by jorvi »

ch4s3 wrote: post #198
lelandbatey wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not good enough. If you're Apple, and you're worth 3 trillion dollars, you can both do security and behave in a way that isn't anti-competitive. They could interoperate securely. Is it easier to just lock out your competition and use proprietary everything? Yes, duh. It's also blatantly anti-competitive, which is a thing that societally and (arguably) morally is not acceptable. I hope to read this blog post in…

It isn't anti-competitive to not open up your hardware and software security stack to any other OEMs who wander by. You can simply just buy a competitor's product, for less money even.

It literally is, which is why the EU took a crowbar to iOS its built-in limitations.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#399

Post by pb7 »

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.

Why can't people choose which prescription drugs they want to use?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#400

Post by consteval »

Spivak wrote: post #229
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?

I mean the reason is because Apple, the people who made the security boundary, and Apple the people who made Quicktime are the same people. I'm not saying it's not anti-competitive but it's fine from a security context. Apple knows exactly how Quicktime behaves, that it doesn't act maliciously, and can't be updated to do so.

> it's fine from a security context

No, it’s not. For example, even if you know every device on your network you STILL need network segmentation.

Running your card readers and corporate computers on the same subnet is asking for trouble - regardless of if you control both.

Post reply on HN