811–820 of 1001 posts
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.
Spammers sending spam through ble ?! They might just as well beat you up and take your wallet.
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…
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…
There's extremely few reasons why a modern Android phone from Google or Samsung is less secure than an iPhone, against any attack vector that 99.sevennines% of people [1] would ever experience. The worst way I've ever seen the most tech-illiterate person ever mess up an Android phone is by installing some QR Code reader that took over as a home screen launcher so it could (nonmaliciously, but questionably) put its QR code reader as a home screen left of the app icons. It should be way harder for Play Store apps to do that, because this guy needed professional help (me) to figure out where his home screen layout went.
But that was it. That's the worst I've ever seen. Android's security is very good.
While not a security concern, I've had multiple iPhone users ask "what the heck is this screen to the right of my app icons" (referring to the App Library introduced ~2 years ago). One person thought they'd been hacked. Kind of a similar inconvenience vector as that QR code app.
[1] The 100-99.sevenines% of people who might actually find themselves the target of an attack vector that Apple's unique security can help mitigate are, for example, journalists or dissidents who find value in Advanced Data Protection and Apple's generally very good and healthy stance on cloud security and end-to-end encryption. This level of security should be available to everyone, on every cloud provider, even if it only directly advantages a small number of people, but Apple is the only one really doing this right now.
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…
That's the root of the problem right there. As a hardware vendor, how do you achieve a "trusted" status in their ecosystem?
If only Apple devices can do the Appley things, then it really isn't an ecosystem (at least not what I have in mind when applying that term).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
PS, why keep people defending this locked down consumer brand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
This has nothing to do with the plug though, its just the material they make their cables out of. Nothing is inherently different about USB-C that will stop this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've bought a Mac for the first time in my life after 15 or more years on Linux because the hardware is superior than pcs. Software sucks, not sure how people can live with that, especially tech people. I suffer every day poor and weird design decisions. Phone side, I'm an Android user and I've been living with iphone users in the last 10 years, and I must say the software in iphones is getting comparatively worse an…
Like, what in particular? I use Macs for both personal and work activities (software eng) and MacOS has been vastly superior to both Ubuntu and Windows I used before.
0 blue screen type of issues, zero hardware incompatibility, zero issues after system updates (looking at you Ubuntu!).
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.