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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#431

Post by Osiris »

riazrizvi wrote: post #427
josefresco wrote: post #3

I have a very capable smartwatch and it's ridiculously bad how hobbled it is on iOS. I'm glad to see this article specifically highlight the issues, and how it's 100% Apple's intention to make non-Apple wearables on iOS terrible.

Because everyone here commenting knows the reason?! This is all speculation by outsiders. Apple isn’t commenting and if they did, outsiders wouldn’t know if it’s the real reason. It could be that Apple lacks the patents, for some of these key features and they are making the best out of a bad situation. It is what it is and we can’t be sure why.

The reason is irrelevant. Apple watches can do things that Apple doesn't allow other non-Apple devices to do.

The law doesn't care why they choose to do it. The result of the decision is what constitutes illegal monopoly behavior.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#432

Post by kevincox »

rickdeckard wrote: post #73

> "Apple’s “Watch Policy” annoys me, but not enough to switch to Android. I hope Apple will be forced to improve their compatibility with other watches." The conundrum of "[xyz] annoys me, but not enough to [do anything about it], yet I hope [Company] will be forced to improve [xyz]" So where is that 'force' expected to come from...?

Because everyone is on a spectrum. [xyz] wasn't the straw to break this user's back, but it will be the tipping point for some number of users. [xyz] is also moving this user closer to the edge, so when Apple does [abc] the sum of both is now enough to move this user.

You can't expect that everyone who is bothered by an issue switch away from a platform. The switching cost is significant (and Apple works hard to make it as high as possible). Not to mention that the platforms (really one notable competitor) that they are considering switching to also have [def] and [ghi] that the user doesn't like which is also counterbalancing the decision.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#433

Post by frollogaston »

Osiris wrote: post #428
frollogaston wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? Did you have to pair your Apple watch? Did Apple sign the software on the watch? Did Apple build special APIs and tools into iOS to support certain features of the Apple Watch? Apple is demonstrating here that they can control every aspect of what you can do with your phone, including not allowing Pebble to work. Apple doesn't even allow you to replace broken parts in your phone unless it has an Apple approve…

I'm not sure what you mean, I don't have an Apple watch. Also idk what a Pebble is.

> Apple doesn't even allow you to replace broken parts in your phone unless it has an Apple approved signature that can be validated.

That's fine, I don't want to buy a used iPhone and find out it has random parts in it.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#434

Post by Osiris »

snailmailman wrote: post #397
rickdeckard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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” a…

And yet Apple has shown many times a willingness to use vague language of their rules to block apps they don't want. Past behavior can't predict future behavior.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#435

Post by manmal »

bhelkey wrote: post #392
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?

They chose to make an iOS app though, and, it seems to be a second class citizen.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#436

Post by mid-kid »

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…

Yet another example of security without consideration for user experience and freedom. Information security is a careful balance between not using technology at all and getting things done using technology. Sometimes you have to wonder if heavy-handed solutions like this actually helps maintain this balance for users, or just serves to ensure a company's bottom line.

This is the line of reasoning that has resulted in me being unable to sign up with a shocking amount of house rental companies, thanks to Play Integrity on the android side of the coin. Does it improve security for me? I would argue it doesn't, as it would force me to use unpatched versions of Android. If it's not serving the user, who is it for?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#437

Post by captainmuon »

I wonder how much of this is policy, and how much is actually a technical limitation.

For example, could you build an app that would not pass app store review, that would be able to send SMS or manipulate notifications? If so you could just "install" it yourself with Xcode.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#438

Post by tomrod »

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…

If AppleWatch didn't exist, this critique and reasoning would have legs.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#439

Post by alex1115alex »

chamanbuga wrote: post #191
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…

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…

Preach. My team's building an OS for smart glasses and some of our most common feature requests are iOS notifications & being able to reply to them.

We're going to have to do insane things to get them working. Due to how ANCS works, we're considering developing an ANCS "doohicky" (either a BLE pop-socket, smart-ring, or mag-safe wallet) which gets notifications via BLE & relays them back to the iPhone, to then send to the glasses. That would just get us the raw notifications, though, and wouldn't solve the issue of replying. The other option is a Beeper-like system in the cloud to bypass iOS entirely, but that also has downsides.

It's a total mess, especially compared to Android where you can just easily listen for notifications & send them to the glasses without much pushback from the system.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#440

Post by theoreticalmal »

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.

The teeming masses of iOS users are, in general, morons, and should absolutely be infantalized when it comes to their device security
Post reply on HN