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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#571

Post by maest »

lynx97 wrote: post #512
bboygravity wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't run an ad-blocker and you browse the web with JS turned on in Safari, but your Iphone is secure? yeah ok

I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium. And I really don't need Safari that often, actually. Besides, if we're really talking JS==insecure, 99% of users on desktop and mobile are insecure. I am sort of on your side, because I spend most of my web-time in Lynx in a tmux. But if I were to argue against JS, people would call me a weirdo. That war is over. I fought it until 2010.

> I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium.

This cannot be your actual stance.

You know there is a lot more to the Internet than that one website, right?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#573

Post by JoshTriplett »

shuckles wrote: post #493
JoshTriplett wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of the cost difference, but the cost of internal-only functions is potentially measured in antitrust actions. Microsoft, post-antitrust action, made a very careful point of ensuring new functionality in first-party products like Office only used things that had public APIs.

Yeah it does seem like antitrust is the wedge employed by 3rd parties who would like Apple to do free R&D for them, most ironically by Spotify which holds are arguable monopoly on music streaming. I’m glad that antitrust enabled a rich ecosystem of Microsoft Office alternatives and competitors.

Apple certainly doesn't have to do free R&D for third parties. They could, instead, not ship features that work exclusively with other Apple products. Or, hey, there's also the other valid option of "don't be the exclusive gatekeeper of the platform", they're welcome to take that one too.

When Apple goes up against governments over encryption, I'll cheer them on with everyone else. When Apple is engaging in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) , I have zero sympathy for them.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#574

Post by rickdeckard »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #319
rickdeckard wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is not a market on their own from the perspective of smart phones and watches. Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices, because they provide core platform services as a gateway for these products to operate and communicate with end-users, but define rules and restrictions which don't apply for Apple smart watches themselves. > Apple is its own market from the…

> But isn't that's the case Pebble is making here? No, the case they are making is that Apple is making things worse for Apple users. They haven't done anything to effect the Android watch experience. > They create a market They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch. > Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices Wrong- they…

> But isn't that's the case Pebble is making here?

>> No, the case they are making is that Apple is making things worse for Apple users. They haven't done anything to effect the Android watch experience.

What? Pebble is making the case that Apple is making things worse for Pebble users on iOS devices than for Apple users on iOS devices. That's the case. Android Wear is in the same boat as Pebble here.

> They create a market

>> They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch.

They created a product to sell in the market they already created, because an iOS user is free to buy any competing watch he wants, but Apple sets the rules for those competitors while setting other rules for itself.

> Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices

>> Wrong- they act as a gatekeeper to developers, not to users.

What's wrong? What users? Thanks for confirming what I wrote. You agree that Apple acts as a gatekeeper to developers, which means that they control access to the market these developers are trying to reach.

> If the new Pebble's core product was their app, then all of this would indeed be anticompetitive behavior

For a Smart watch, Apple requires that the core product of competitors must involve an App, and Apple is the gatekeeper for that App and thus also the gatekeeper of the competing watch-product.

Their own product requires no dedicated App and can offer features of iOS not accessible to competitors

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#575

Post by babypuncher »

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...?

I think the problem is that nobody makes a smart watch as good as the Apple Watch, so people already in the ecosystem have no real reason to care that it's their only option. There's a reason Linus Sebastian has been wearing Apple Watches for years despite being a self-proclaimed Android fanboy.

This is only getting attention now because these new Pebble devices are offering an Apple Watch alternative people actually want.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#576

Post by bigyabai »

bfrog wrote: post #565

More like Apple restricts data being shared with 3rd party devices as it then loses all hope of curtailing abuse. As someone who uses Apple because of their MO is not selling everything about me to advertisers this is great news.

Yet Apple is fine letting users browse Safari with an unfiltered internet. If their APIs can't facilitate safe permissions for user data, maybe they need to re-configure their security model to look more like the Mac. UNIX solved this decades ago.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#577

Post by sbarre »

Zak wrote: post #385
sbarre wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> I understand the urge to make phones more secure by default and to help users avoid foot guns There's secure by default, and then there's stuff users can't override even with great effort. Android restricts some dangerous operations by default and makes users jump through a couple hoops to acknowledge the risk. iOS usually forbids them entirely.

Yep agreed that this would be a better approach. I think this is where iOS uses security as an excuse to maintain their walled garden.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#578

Post by bhelkey »

mulderc wrote: post #544
bhelkey wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two reasons: One, adding hardware to connect to WiFi and cellular increases size and power requirements. Notably, the new Pebble 's battery is projected to last 30 days. Two, people use phones. They want their watch to work with their phone instead of around it.

WiFi and Cellular are avialble on the smallest of apple watches. I don't care if my smartwatch can go 30 days between a charge, none of that matters if it can't do what I want it to do. I had a pebble back in the day and I thought it was useless as it was such a limited device and it sounds like they want to replicate that experience. I'm happy the people that want such a device are getting it, but I don't get the ap…

> I'm happy the people that want such a device are getting it

That's the important bit. I personally don't see the value in a wifi/cellular watch when I already carry a phone that has wifi and cellular.

I get a lot of value in a watch with extended batter life. For example, I don't need to pack a dedicated watch charger when I travel.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#579

Post by vv_ »

shantara wrote: post #336
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…

We’re rapidly approaching the point where having a smartphone is becoming a necessity for being a functional part of the society. You could argue that is some countries we’re already past that point. A device of this social importance that’s also locked into one of the two American megacorps absolutely needs as much scrutiny as possible, since the interests of those megacorps are not aligned with the interests of the…

> having a smartphone is becoming a necessity for being a functional part of the society

This is correct, as in some countries, you use your phone to authenticate access to banking applications and payments (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart-ID). However, I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that having iMessage access on a smartwatch is essential for being a functional member of society.

Corporations will always take steps to ensure their profitability. Apple, for example, is incentivized to keep its systems locked down to maintain its ecosystem. There are likely other justifiable considerations behind these decisions. While laws exist to regulate what corporations can and cannot do, there should be a reasonable balance. That said, I don’t think this is a battle worth fighting - people can simply switch to an Android phone, which offers better support for a wider range of smartwatches.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#580

Post by bigiain »

lynx97 wrote: post #430
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…

As a user, I am totally fine with Apple restricting access to iMessage. In fact, now that I read this, I want them to do this, thanks Apple.

Yep. Same.

I do not want 3rd party hardware/software vendors to have unrestricted access to the messaging app on my phone that is the only option my bank and PayPal and a bunch of other critical services use for 2FA.

Especially not when the software they want to run is JavaScript, with all it's well known npm dependancy nightmares, _and_ from a founder and team that openly admit iPhones are a second class citizen in their development planning and resources.

And especially especially not when the founders have previously shown their colors when they rugpulled all their customers and effectively bricked all the devices they'd sold.

Even with the limited iMessage/SMS access they have now, I wonder how long it'll be before we see a supply chain attack against Pebble exploiting some 11th level deep npm dependancy on something dumb like leftpad.js, that exfiltrates SMS 2FA codes and first anybody knows about it will be when a bunch of CryptoBros start complaining about their exchange accounts being emptied...

Post reply on HN