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

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#621

Post by rambambram »

burnte wrote: post #609
rambambram wrote: post #605

There's something about the title that irks me the wrong way. X restricts Y from being awesome. Apple also restricts me from being awesome because they didn't give me a million dollar. I get what the message is and I think I agree with Pebble on the iPhone being more closed off, but putting the blame on some outside thing for yourself not being awesome just feels immature. It's just as easy to turn it around: by deve…

> Apple also restricts me from being awesome because they didn't give me a million dollar. This is a disingenuous argument. The two are nothing alike. One is about how they artificially limit their platform for their own dominance, and the other is literally just giving away money. One hurts consumers and competitors, the other is a nonsense expectation that no reasonable person has.

That disingenuous argument is an example, of course. I already put that inside my argument. It's the chosen words that irk me. Apple does things, yes. But it not only restricts Pebble, as they make it seem, it restricts everybody.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#622

Post by zamalek »

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.

Other users might not want to, such are the reasons for toggles.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#623

Post by Phrodo_00 »

Avamander wrote: post #351
refulgentis wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> that I'd like to claim wasn't an issue when I was making them circa 2015-2017, Well, I wouldn't say that the standards for (software) security were anywhere near as high as they are now. It makes sense that our requirements for things change. > It's very, very, very, hard to believe there's 0 way for Apple to ensure an encrypted connection. Sure there are ways, but without regulation I struggle to see why should/wo…

> Because they can't do much, if anything at all?

But the Apple Watch can, and a lot of the same arguments apply to it as much as any third party watch.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#624

Post by ketzo »

rezonant wrote: post #557
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.

So Apple's BT stack is crap? Because that's the one that is in control here...

No, the vendor's BT stack would be responsible for broadcasting any responses back to the device -- like, in the article, "send text messages, or perform actions on notifications (like dismissing, muting, replying)"

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#625

Post by crummy »

sneak wrote: post #602
kulahan wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walled gardens are not inherently bad. I DO thank Apple for the App Store. It’s half the reason I have an iPhone. I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. This is not to say every aspect of their walled garden is good, but I’m more than happy to accept those problems in light of the benefits I personally value. This is all to say: i…

> I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. The Apple ios app store is positively chock full of spyware. You can’t download apps without a care in the world. This is why Apple put a privacy label on the apps (which is still woefully inadequate; it is self-reported).

surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything? do you have any egregious examples?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#626

Post by bitpush »

rambambram wrote: post #605

There's something about the title that irks me the wrong way. X restricts Y from being awesome. Apple also restricts me from being awesome because they didn't give me a million dollar. I get what the message is and I think I agree with Pebble on the iPhone being more closed off, but putting the blame on some outside thing for yourself not being awesome just feels immature. It's just as easy to turn it around: by deve…

Sometimes I wonder whether people are willfully ignorant, or just simply trying to pick a fight.

Please read what you wrote yourself, and put yourself in the shoes of someone who might actually be affected. If you cant think of any failure cases ("edge cases", in programming parlance), please read on -

You've essentially reduced every monopolistic tendancies companies exhibit into a positive thing.

- Amazon restricting smaller third-party vendors - according to you, not a problem - Microsoft ensuring their favored browser (IE) is successful unfairly - according to you, not a problem.

Those are just 2 examples I could think of at the top of my head.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#627

Post by Brian_K_White »

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 have youtube premium and still need an ad blocker. What a stupid remark.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#628

Post by bitpush »

rambambram wrote: post #621
burnte wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple also restricts me from being awesome because they didn't give me a million dollar. This is a disingenuous argument. The two are nothing alike. One is about how they artificially limit their platform for their own dominance, and the other is literally just giving away money. One hurts consumers and competitors, the other is a nonsense expectation that no reasonable person has.

That disingenuous argument is an example, of course. I already put that inside my argument. It's the chosen words that irk me. Apple does things, yes. But it not only restricts Pebble, as they make it seem, it restricts everybody.

I dont fault Apple. A company exists to make maximum money. Most monopolistic actions look like normal business decision, dare I say, even obvious.

In this case, Apple is 100% exhibiting those tendencies. They are not acting maliciously, but their actions have that effect.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#629

Post by yalogin »

I empathize with both Pebble and Apple here. We all understand the issue from Pebble's point of view. For Apple though, security will be lost by allowing one bad actor. To allow an external watch they need to set up a full org for interoperability. Every app/service on the phone or for that matter anywhere in their ecosystem must be designed and potentially reimplemented to allow for outside interaction. That puts a whole new spin on security and privacy requirements. Yeah regulation is one way to force them to prioritize, but outside of that I cannot see them supporting these.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#630

Post by ketzo »

amiga386 wrote: post #345
threeseed wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, but you see, they need to go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product, then with no clicking at all the app will work. If they go to a different store, and buy a non-Apple product, that's insecure. What they need to do is return it and go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product. That's secure. Give the money to Apple.

You're being sarcastic, but isn't this all just... correct?

Yes, I do trust the company that developed Secure Enclave more than I trust random BLE firmware in a $49 Alibaba watch.

More importantly -- my great-uncle can trust the same thing, because Apple has spent decades building that trust. Consumers generally should not trust random hardware. Apple is not random hardware.

Post reply on HN