Live data from Hacker News

Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

ericmigi.com

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#711
post #369
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

The problem is that we're in a duopoly on the most important metaphorical ecosystem on the planet. If the market were competitive and efficient, I'd agree, but it isn't.

The upshot of this is that Apple can unfairly compete in all sorts of verticals just by owning that platform. A lot of companies could make a good Airpod competitor, but without access to the same functions as Apple's they're hamstrung. Watches have this problem even worse.

Say what you want about Microsoft at their zenith, you COULD compete with their browser, in fact, people did. You just can't with iOS. That's more important than some users having poor security. (And really, how are we going to worry about phone security when there's a system as stupid as passwordless social security numbers being the key to your financial life?)

The natural duopoly needs to be regulated such that it doesn't spill over into every tangential market.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#712

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…

> This is crap

I appreciate you sharing your experience, I just wish you could have done it without this bit.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#713
post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a user you should be fine with the ability to restrict access to iMessage. Not locked out of it with hardware you own and interoperability dictated by the vendor who also wants you to buy their watch.

Exactly. It's amazing how often the nuance between may and must is missed by Apple fans.

Apple should be able to lock down their ecosystem as a default -- plenty of people will be happy to use that default experience.

But Apple should absolutely be prohibited from not allowing users the choice of unlocking their own device, for additional functionality, if they choose.

It's also glaringly obvious that many of the "freedoms" Apple affords its users (freedom from iMessage spam!) help drive its revenue...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#714
post #369
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 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.

I do not in fact see that. PCs work pretty damn well, security-wise, even with clueless users. I'll grant you it isn't as secure as phones, but it's by no means horrible.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#715

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…

Oh the irony of how your comment could change a few words and sound like a trump/musk post

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#716
post #364
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 the end user choose its own level of security vs usability?

Isn't the choice to use an android, then?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#717
post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that Apple does not actually care about you on the basis of principles. It only cares about you to the extent that it serves its own financial interests. This is important because Apple could one day decide that caring about you no longer serves its interests. This has already happened with user experience, where even the Settings app now has built-in ads pushing Apple's services. It has also happened wi…

I’m a grown adult who can make my own decisions. If my phone no longer meets my needs, I’ll get a different one, or not use one at all.

I also care about other people, those who might not have the "choice" to do so. (I don't believe "choice" is a coherent concept in the first place.)

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#718
post #430

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.

As a user, I'm not certain I completely agree.

Yes, I don't want apps accessing my messages surreptitiously. Points there.

However, what's wrong with allowing another app to post messages to my messages?

If I don't want it, let me turn them off. Maybe, as a UI expert company, it's easy "block app from sending me messages" when I get a message. Seems like something that should be fairly transparent to the (potentially misbehaving) app.

I use a Garmin, and Android, and I use it for messages all the time, it's great. I can't imagine not taking them. It's easy for me to block stuff I don't want, could it be easier, maybe...

But my point is this isn't something unreasonable for a user to want.

As a general aside, it seems when I hear about Apple products anymore, they are locked down, unintuitive, and generally just unpleasant. I even tried an Apple device again recently...eugh.

Apple is only "nice" for a certain, narrow segment of the population.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, Apple made Lightning because USB-C wasn't a thing yet and MicroUSB is awful. Lightning is a whole lot better than MicroUSB, and they've been using it since 2012 . MiniUSB B was pretty OK, Micro was just way too thin to be stable and would snap off frequently, in addition to being not very secure and hard to orient. Mini was thicker though, so while it worked fine for the HTC Apache and other Windows Mobile phone…

Why didn't they they work with the other actors to create a common standard 13 years ago? You know why, because they don't care about their users! And they even tried to stop the move to a standard many years later when the lightning connectors were outdated, making it even more clear.

Like being a member of the USB committee and help make USB-C a good standard with a reversible connector like they did with lightning?

Because they did that.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#720
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 could say the same about software and app stores. If safety were the top priority, then the safest option is to say no apps, but that isn't competitive or lucrative. Apple's approach is to create safe frameworks and a review process that allows the App Store to exist.

I just want to add that over the last few years Apple has also been teaching its users to ignore security warnings as they make it difficult to verify software and thus lots of stuff never does. Its why there's few free things in the App Store because Apple charges. You install things from GitHub and well you're gonna get that security warning.
Post reply on HN