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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#481

Post by enragedcacti »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #307
enragedcacti wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your complaint is not in Apple's behavior, but your regret that the competition sucks and it's not Apple's fault Apple uses their dominant position in the smartphone market to exert leverage over the smartwatch market and block other companies' access to a huge chunk of potential smartwatch buyers. Reduced addressable market->reduced potential returns->reduced investment->worse products for everyone. This same patt…

> Apple uses their dominant position in the smartphone market to exert leverage over the smartwatch market and block other companies' access to a huge chunk of potential smartwatch buyers. They also don't make the Apple Watch compatible with Android, so they are also giving up their own access to a huge chunk of potential buyers (70% of worldwide smartphone users are on Android). So maybe we're missing something. > I…

> They also don't make the Apple Watch compatible with Android, so they are also giving up their own access to a huge chunk of potential buyers (70% of worldwide smartphone users are on Android). So maybe we're missing something.

If smartwatches were an essential part of everyday life for the majority of people on the planet (or in ) as smartphones are then I would want regulation mandating interoperability there as well. As it is they are a relatively niche product so if Apple wants to limit the watch to their phones then I'm fine with that as I don't see it being a very powerful market distortion in the other direction.

> In your view, what would happen if only one smart phone manufacturer ever offered any watch integration API? Would that make all of the others (who don't offer an API) anti-competitive?

Only if those others have significant market penetration such that their closed API has the effect of harming consumer choice considerably in the smartwatch market.

> Companies are not obligated to deliver privileged access to their products. It's not a right you have to build a product off of someone else's product.

If you mean in principle, then IMO a sane legal system should absolutely confer some limited right to, for instance, build and sell software and hardware that runs on or interfaces with Windows. If you mean in practice, then it is absolutely a subject of debate in both the EU under DMA and the US under antitrust law:

> Connected devices are a varied, large and commercially important group of products, including smartwatches, headphones and virtual reality headsets. Companies offering these products depend on effective interoperability with smartphones and their operating systems, such as iOS. The Commission intends to specify how Apple will provide effective interoperability with functionalities such as notifications, device pairing and connectivity.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

https://siliconangle.com/2024/03/20/doj-sues-apple-antitrust...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#482

Post by lynx97 »

bigyabai wrote: post #474
lynx97 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…

[flagged]

We are not buddies. And I am not confused enough to believe NSO Group would be interested in me. This is plain paranoia you are using to try to win an argument. Calm down. Besides, where is the competitive harm if you are so happy with your Android? Look, I am happy with Apple doing some basic things to make the device relatively safe. I know nothing is absolutely safe. And again, I am not high profile, and I am also not paranoid.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#483

Post by bigyabai »

incanus77 wrote: post #479

Whenever I go to this one restaurant, they insist on feeding me the bread that they make. I bring my own dough, but they won't let me into the kitchen to use their equipment. It's a hobbled experience and they are doing it entirely in the name of increased profits. The bread could be awesome! The problem is, I want to eat at this restaurant. They are ruining my bread experience.

This is more like shopping for bread, selecting the bread you want, taking it home, slicing off a piece and being told you can't eat it since it didn't come from the right store.

It's all just software. You can download IPA files onto your iPhone, just not install them without an arbitrary feature-flag enabled.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#484

Post by jermaustin1 »

bigyabai wrote: post #474
lynx97 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…

[flagged]

> ... security firm gets a chip on their shoulder, they can install a persistent backdoor on your phone...

But a random developer can't exfiltrate my data, which is the WAY WAY more common scenario that the previous poster was worried about.

I agree with them. The Apple App Store prevents a lot more malware than the ability to install ANY software. I like the Mac App Store as well, its a large library of software that is virtually guaranteed to be safe from infecting your computer with a virus.

Now, I know how to sideload onto my iPhone, I have homebrew on my MBP, but my brother/sister doesn't, my aunt can't, my uncle assumed his phone was facebook, and they are safer (from viruses) for it. Make installing viruses harder!

I spent decades as the de facto IT person in my family, and when iPhone and Android came around, family members started buying MacBooks, my load got lightened a LOT.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#485

Post by ImJamal »

mistercheph wrote: post #466
lynx97 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…

You never needed speeds in excess of usb 2.0? LOL, this is such old hat, guys in IBM t-shirts telling me how nobody ever needed more than 64K, and why go third party with your treasured computation when you can get the best, the infallible, the International Business Machine?

Apple is choosing to limit USB C to USB 2 speeds to encourage people pay for a more expensive model. The iPhone 16 pro max has USB 3 speeds after all...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#486

Post by bigyabai »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #484
bigyabai wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> ... security firm gets a chip on their shoulder, they can install a persistent backdoor on your phone... But a random developer can't exfiltrate my data, which is the WAY WAY more common scenario that the previous poster was worried about. I agree with them. The Apple App Store prevents a lot more malware than the ability to install ANY software. I like the Mac App Store as well, its a large library of software tha…

Well, Apple will have to redesign their security model, then. If the iPhone relies on Apple's white-glove curation to stay secure, then European users are enough of a reason to overhaul their security model.

It's great that you know how to sideload, I'm not saying everyone has to know how. I'm arguing that the option should exist regardless of if you pay for a $99/year subscription fee. It should be a part of owning the hardware you paid for and purchasing the right to control it as the user.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#488

Post by snailmailman »

maximusdrex wrote: post #164
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…

I truly don’t understand how these types of comments keep appearing under any discussion of apple’s blatantly anti-competitive behavior with messages. This doesn’t even make sense on technical grounds; it would be trivial to require such message passing to be encrypted/signed securely if that’s your real concern. After all, the Apple Watch does exist and does have these capabilities, so it’s clearly possible to do it…

It’s not just the transmission over Bluetooth. It’s the entirety of what happens with the message. Apple fully controls and trusts the code that’s running on the apple watch. But they have no control over what third parties do with all the data they can collect in notifications.

Bluetooth devices on iOS that display notifications already are getting more information than normal by simply even reading all notifications. Normal apps on iOS can’t do that, they have no reason to. This api was added because smart watches kinda need that functionality to be useful. I think it’s still locked behind a “this device will see all your stuff” permissions box.

I do think they should add in more iMessage/sms/replying capabilities to smart watches though. I think they are extremely hesitant to make it even easier to automate iMessages. iMessage spam is definitely increasing, but it’s NOT as prevalent as normal sms spam for instance. The barriers are much higher, and Apple can basically blacklist devices/appleIDs that send out too much spam, partly because they’ve kept iMessage so locked down.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#489

Post by shuckles »

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…

And what happens when the MFi chip is cracked, as it has been before, and Apple has to choose between permanently compromising their ecosystem or disabling support for a bunch of 3rd party peripherals?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#490

Post by bloppe »

sbuk wrote: post #387
bloppe wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RCS on iPhone just sucks though. All I have is anecdotal evidence, but it feels like I only get late or out-of-order delivery from iPhones. Plus iMessage doesn't allow you to send RCS messages from your laptop, whereas it's easy to do that with Google messages. That makes people with iPhones think RCS is worse than it really is. It's just iMessage that's intentionally hobbled. Not to mention the hostile UI decisions…

Arguably, that's more to do with the standard and Google's proprietary extensions. The colors thing has been discussed ad nauseum. SMS messages have been green from day one - see https://youtu.be/G8d7E26WLsY?t=1723 . If colors were reversed, there'd be the same complaints. If the difference between iMessage and SMS were highlighted any other way, there'd be complaints too.

The standards issue is only relevant to E2EE. It has no bearing on the usability issues here. The E2EE issues should be fixed soon according to Apple. I'd bet a good amount of money the usability issues will remain.

It used to be black text on green: https://mobiforge.com/files/iphone-sms-1.jpg

The white-on-acid-green color combination would not make it through any accessibility review. It's literally impossible for a lot of color-impaired people to see, and objectively unpleasant otherwise.

Apple gets plenty of complaints about it. Just look at the Apple forums. Their literal advice to fix it is "make your friends buy an iPhone".

Post reply on HN