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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#791

Post by atmosx »

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.

But the Apple Watch has access to iMessage right? :-)

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#792

Post by inkyoto »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #708
seanp2k2 wrote: post #648

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…

MicroUSB is fine, and Apple should've just used that (like every other phone manufacturer did, with great success). But Apple also has the world's biggest NIH complex, so they decided to invent a proprietary standard rather than go with something interoperable.

Micro-USB connector has been consistently rated as one of the worst connectors ever invented[0], [2]. You can find more on the search engine of your choice.

Also relevant: 19 engineers from Apple worked on the USB-C connector and cable specification[1].

«None of the chargers fit snuggly into socket. The connectors are flimsy and get damaged easily. Just rolling up the charger and putting it in my pocket can cause the tip to break off»[0]

«While on the whole, I am satisfied with the switch to USB Micro, my only major gripe is the less obvious keying. Inserting the plug with good lighting is no problem (if you can see), but trying to plug in your cell phone after you've crawled into bed with the lights off can be a trial. As somebody who works with people with disabilities and medical conditions, I have heard from clients with compromised motor control, those with low vision, and those with distal neuropathies that they do experience a harder time plugging in their devices nowadays»[0]

[0] https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/18552/why-wa...

[1] https://www.docdroid.net/uf3z/typec-pdf

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649405

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#793

Post by lynx97 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #419
pb7 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't people choose which prescription drugs they want to use?

They should be able to.

You can't be serious, right? I don't even want to imagine how many people would accidentally kill themselves or at least seriously damage their health if that was the status quo.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#794

Post by rambambram »

bitpush wrote: post #626
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 restricti…

Read what I write, please. Every word, every sentence. It's not that hard.

Let me spell it out again for you: the wording of the title irks me the wrong way.

If you have anything to reply, than reply to that.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#795

Post by noodletheworld »

rowanG077 wrote: post #786
FabHK wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's wrong with allowing another app to post messages to my messages? That's exactly what spammers would use to send spam.

Why did you choose to ignore the very next statement in their post, that ensures it cannot be spammed? Doesn't seem like you are arguing in good faith here.

I don't think this is a reasonable take (and also doesn't make sense). If you read the other comments here its extremely clear to everyone that no one here is seriously concerned about your watch sending spam.

If you 'opt-out' then it does not fix the problem of spammers having easier access to imessage.

I'll say that again: If you personally, either a) opt out, or b) dont have a watch at all, it makes no difference to spammers. They are not sending spam using your watch.

People are concerned about the result of allowing anyone to send messages in general.

...

The real argument to be made here is, as other people have pointed out, this isn't technically impossible; I mean, apple watch can do it right?

So there is a solution; but Apple isn't allowing other people to use it.

THAT is the issue here.

Pretending there is 'no issue' is flat out wrong. If that what you think, you're wrong and you haven't understood the problem.

The issue is why only Apple is, according to Apple, technically capable of implementing the controls required to do it in a secure manner.

That's a fair question to ask, and there really isn't a strong answer for it.

Certainly, making it easy for anyone to send messages would not be a solution. That would be stupid. That's why they haven't done that.

...but, you have to ask, is there really no certification process that would do the job? Really? None? Only Apple engineers are smart enough and diligent enough to do it without screwing it up? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#796

Post by atmosx »

bigyabai wrote: post #441
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.

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.

The EU was created to integrate and unify social security, pension systems, welfare states, and, ultimately, politics and policy—both foreign and domestic.

I couldn’t care less about Apple’s case, but the fact that this is being touted as the EU’s biggest achievement in decades says a lot about why Europeans don’t like the EU.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#797

Post by pyrale »

The technical illiteracy of comments defending apple here with remarks about spam is staggering for hn.

Ble is a type of network communication that is only used for short distances, in order to save energy. We’re talking about a few meters, here.

The goal of the feature would be for people to pair their device with their iphone, something which users can do explicitly, ensuring that only their device works with their iphone.

Pairing an iphone with a third party device is already something that apple does, for instance in the case of personal hotspot.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#798

Post by simonebrunozzi »

vessenes wrote: post #101

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…

iMessage is a failure on policy. Antitrust and similar govt entities should have forced Apple to open it a long time ago.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#799

Post by shantara »

vv_ wrote: post #579
shantara wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What I had in mind wasn’t iMessage, but the fact that banking and digital ID systems such as Danish MitID are increasingly being built with the assumption that everyone owns a smartphone.

https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#800

Post by _Algernon_ »

threeseed wrote: post #287
amiga386 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want to be able to send messages?" and let the user decide which devices can send their phone messages. Step 2: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want to be able to send messages?" and don't just assume "yes" Both steps would improve security, even if they harm Apple's profits.

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

Where do you draw the line between allowing functioning adults to make their own choices (even if they are mistakes) and tech paternalism?

Currently we seem stuck in a positive feedback loop where tech becomes more and more paternalistic which creates more and more tech illiterate users which is used to justify even more tech paternalism.

It is convenient that this tech paternalism also happens to align with the profit incentive: Easy to trap people in closed ecosystems this way.

Post reply on HN