821–830 of 1001 posts
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'd be totally fine with Apple letting me choose who can access to my iMessages.
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.
Because the end user aren't computer scientists. End users should have NO capability in determining their own security, since they could LITERALLY BE infants playing with the iPad. It is the responsibility of the systems designer to make sure the system is secure, not the end user. And if you require instructions on how to secure your system, then you have already failed. A properly designed system is secure with zer…
Hopefully, AI generation will get to a point where people can very easily generate a strong (secure) open-source competitor to iOS with equally good UX and ease of use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I've heard it all before, both of these are simple to refute. Apple designed the USB-C connector, they knew it was an option. But as is Apple tradition, they created a new licensed serial and power connector specifically for their phones to promote MFi, their arbitrary USB DRM. Apple could have switched to USB-C at any time; they had no issue shipping millions of peripherals and Macs with them onboard. But they didn'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 differenc…
Imagine a world where they allow Pebble to go through certification process for it to get jailbroken half a year down the road opening the gateway to iMessage for all the spammers in the world. What then? Should Apple now play whac-a-moll with the spammers forever, or block the access to all Pebble watches creating another scandal? And what if this happens to next 10 different watch makers down the road?
They own Apple Watch and if it gets jailbroken its their mess to deal with, but if they open it to the world then they have zero control over it.
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…
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh whatever :P Don’t be condescending about a mindset you don’t experience yourself. I ran debian as my daily driver for like half my life; now I’m on mac and never have to worry about my friggin wifi driver.
I haven't had a problem with my Wi-Fi in Linux since 2006, what are you on about?
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 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…
> "One reason iMessage is less of a total cesspit than SMS is that the ecosystem is closed" I don't think that's the main reason. iMessage is available on macOS, so by definition isn't that tightly locked down. Anyone can automate/script the desktop app to try and fire off as many messages as you like. But of course that won't really work because Apple has security algorithms in the network that detect unusual behavi…
This is not my experience. Perhaps 3-5 years ago was the peak of SMS spam, but I still regularly (1/week minimum) get one of the various "package delivery" | "tax refund" | "diesel emissions" scam/spam texts.
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…
This statement doesn't make sense except if you are implying that Android doesn't have reasonable security despite not being a walled garden like iOS, and allowing e.g. interactions with smartwatches.