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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#721

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

kulahan wrote: post #608
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft couldn't compete themselves out of a wet paper bag (it may be a slightly different script, but they're anti-competitivists just like Apple). Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it, and buy into the whole ecosystem. And, most crucially: contort yourself yourself enough. (="If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right.")

> Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this sentence. It comes across as missing the fact that high quality goods… cost more than low quality ones? Not to mention they have plenty of affordable tech. Their phones have always been roughly the same cost when adjusted for inflation - something pretty commendable. The iPods back in t…

I qualified the air-quoted "great" in the subsequent text, which was really intended to be the main point.

(And high price and high quality may sometimes correlate, but high quality is obviously not definitionally high cost (nor vice-versa).)

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#722

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Generally speaking I agree and accept everything here, except the idea that 40% of the respondents "still" use an iPhone: I switched to one, because Android is absolutely atrocious for privacy and security, and running a hacked up custom OS is no longer something I have spoons for.

I long for a better alternative, but until then, yeah, here I am accepting my current PineTime is... a little bit worse, until Tim Sweeney manages to bust up Tim Cook's little garden.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#723

Post by godelski »

BetaDeltaAlpha wrote: post #396
SR2Z wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple had their way, they would LOVE to sell you a $2000 aluminum brick with no screen, speakers, microphone, etc., that still required a proprietary cable to charge.

Humane Pin still does this.

Don't forget that the founder used to work for Apple and used that fact to demonstrate their expertise. Are we sure Humane Pin wasn't Apple testing if this was possible? (I'm joking. Apple already knows the answer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Chaudhri

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#724

Post by fingerlocks »

stouset wrote: post #640
mistercheph wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 didn't continue to iterate on Lightning because of the obvious future migration to USB-C connectors. I will die on the hill that the Lightning plug is superior to the USB-C plug . Lightning could some day have supported USB-3.2+ speeds, if they'd chosen to work further on it. Still, I have never once transferred data to my iPhone over a USB cable. I have used an iPhone since the first generation. For me, it has…

Agreed. I really miss lightning after getting a usb-c iPhone. The best part of lightning port was how easy it is to clean. You can get lint and sawdust out of the clogged port with a toothpick. With usb-c, I can’t find a rigid non-metallic pick small enough to clean dust out of a usb-c port.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#725

Post by surajrmal »

CivBase wrote: post #705
lynx97 wrote: 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.

It's absolutely wild seeing comments like this on a supposed hacker community.

I don't self identify as a hacker despite being an active member of this community. Im not sure it's a fair assumption to make that everyone here identifies as a so called hacker despite the name. I don't generally like the apple ecosystem but I think the choice to lock things down isn't always problematic. users that care for other choices can choose android.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#726

Post by wokwokwok »

smaudet wrote: post #718
lynx97 wrote: 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, 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…

> 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.

Can you it off for anyone sending you messages too?

That's the issue; you not wanting to use it does not mean that spammers won't use it.

That's the problem. You can't have nice things if some people can use it to abuse the system; and there are a lot of people who will.

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

This ignores the reality which is that doing it in a way that gives a nice user experience without an enormously painful security issue is really non trivial.

Maybe it's OK to have the choice?

...

If you love your android phone, don't care about iOS, don't like iphones.... why do you care? I mean, why does it upset android users when they see this sort of thing for people using iphones?

It mystifies me. If you love you phone, and you think it's better, then use it.

Nothing lost right?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#727

Post by dangisautism »

whyenot wrote: post #712
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…

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

[dead]

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#728

Post by [deleted] »

cyberax wrote: post #611
miki123211 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because with iMessage, it's not about your own security, it's about the security of everybody that you're allowed to message from a given device. I suspect Apple can significantly cut down on abuse prevention measures just by making it harder to automatically send iMessage spam. If any random Bluetooth smartwatch was allowed to send those, there's no telling how that capability could be abused, we all know how IoT ve…

> Because with iMessage, it's not about your own security, it's about the security of everybody that you're allowed to message from a given device. You do realize that you're implying that Apple is insecure by design? Because I can easily (locally) root my iPhone and get raw access to iMessage.

[deleted]

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#729

Post by [deleted] »

presentation wrote: post #698
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.

Yeah, but while Apple might consider the hardware to be "untrusted", at some point I trust the hardware I bought. Apple telling me I cannot decide what devices are trusted or not is annoying.

[deleted]

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#730

Post by bmandale »

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...?

There's very little an individual can sensibly do. You can't pick and choose every feature you want; you're given bundles of features and you have to pick which bundle you like best. This sort of bundling is deliberate anti-competitive behaviour, which the EU and other countries have recently taken steps to crack down on. So there is hope that apple will be reigned in here.
Post reply on HN