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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#741

Post by [deleted] »

presentation wrote: post #701
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…

I kind of agree - while I personally don't like to be treated like a dummy because I do feel like I know what I'm doing with tech, I wouldn't trust e.g. my parents with that power. If Apple wants to be the brand for the tech illiterate that's fine—the real problem is that their hardware (and to a lesser extent some of their software) is actually a lot better than the competition, especially every since the M1 CPU cam…

[deleted]

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#743

Post by klabb3 »

crummy wrote: post #625
sneak wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The permissions alerts don’t come from the App Store, they come from sandboxing and the permission model. This is a property of the OS, and everyone agrees that this is better than the anarchy of desktop OSs. But they were created decades earlier, sandboxing was obvious in hindsight only.

> surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything?

Not really. Push notifications is enough. I can send you a push notification and get loads of details from your phone, including cross-app fingerprinting. Iirc Apple allows ~3 silent push notifications per hour so they can be completely hidden.

https://gizmodo.com/iphone-apps-can-harvest-data-from-notifi...

But really, your search is as good as mine. The entire digital economy is based on personal data collected from your devices, and yes, that includes the iPhone. How is this news? What’s your definition of spyware?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#744

Post by rchaud »

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…

Many people are mentally still in 1997, when Apple was the scrappy upstart against the Micro$oft goliath.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#745

Post by hnburnsy »

ericmay wrote: post #452
bigyabai wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector and App Store too, for all the good it does everyone in the EU. If a company uses their power to prevent competition with their own products or services, the market's jurisdiction reserves the right to restore competition to their market and prevent the harms inherent to monopoly abuse.

> You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector They did move to USB-C, but the lightning connector was actually a great product, far superior in usability to the Micro-USB, Mini-USB, and whatever other nonsense standards that existed. When Apple wanted to move to USB-C people complained about them "changing standards all the time". There really isn't a move that pleases everyone and even when they do the "right" t…

>lightning connector was actually a great product

Almost every Apple lighting cable in my household frayed...

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Repair+a+Frayed+Apple+Li...

>Apple charging cables, such as the Lightning to USB Cable, are easily prone to fraying. Most commonly, this fraying occurs from device usage while charging.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#746

Post by julianozen »

meatmanek wrote: post #475
bsimpson wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remembering the uproar when Apple said 3rd party apps would have to be web apps, but didn't ship the features needed to write good web apps on the first iPhone? The term PWA wasn't coined until 8 years later, and Apple has long been accused of hobbling its web stack to incite people to ship on the App Store and pay their 30% tithing.

The term PWA may not have been coined until 2015, but you could definitely save a webpage to your home screen on i(Pad)OS at least as early as 2010. Granted, it was pretty limited, but you could put an icon on your screen, have it open a web view that was somewhat separate from Safari, store data with localstorage, and generally look and feel kinda mostly like a native app.

i think this mightve been as early as 2008 even

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#747

Post by hnburnsy »

judofyr wrote: post #203
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary Is it? My iPhone replicates messages to my mac from where a process can extract that data, it can capture the screen etc. I can use a mac today to set up a relay that would then send those messages to a smart watch if one would do that.

Yes? Imagine a bug where iMessages are leaked over Bluetooth when a user has installed an application that integrates with some watch brand. Bring this to an airport and you can steal hundreds/thousands of messages from a wide range of people. That’s widely different attack vector than targeting macOS. That said, I don’t see why Apple can’t provide toolkit/certification that will make it safe to communicate over Blue…

Imagine a bug where the Apple Passwords app leaks over HTTP. Bring this to an airport and you can steal hundreds/thousands of Passwords from a wide range of people.

https://www.theverge.com/news/632108/apple-ios-passwords-app...

>The lack of encryption meant an attacker on the same Wi-Fi network as you, like at an airport or coffee shop, could redirect your browser to a look-a-like phishing site to steal your login credentials.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#748

Post by fastball »

ethbr1 wrote: post #713
windexh8er wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "fr…

Not sure you understand the argument. If you allow people the ability to access iMessage however they want, how do you prevent iMessage spam? You may not care about this, but a lot of people do.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#749

Post by NotPractical »

crazygringo wrote: post #524
sigmar wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you make that argument for literally any anticompetitive practice? Like in the 1990s: "Microsoft isn't making an OS for people that want to try different browsers"

Only if they're a monopoly. In the 1990's, Microsoft Windows had over 90% of operating system market share. They were a monopoly. iPhones are only 58% versus Android in the US right now. That's nowhere close to monopoly. Globally Android has 71%. Android is thriving. With Windows, you didn't have a choice. With iOS and Android, you have choice.

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Presumably the DoJ wouldn't have sued Apple for being a monopoly if it was impossible for them to legally qualify as one?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/gallery/justice-departm...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#750

Post by shakna »

macrocosmos wrote: post #665
_aavaa_ wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than voting with your wallet is voting with your vote and getting regulations in place.

You state that as if it is fact despite there being no evidence to support that viewpoint.

Is not the EU's regulations largely successful? Some have underestimated maliscious compliance, but for most.
Post reply on HN