Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 11:04 AM UTC

seec wrote: post #840

Zak wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you (I daily a rooted Android phone), anyone who cleaned up a few Windows machines for non-technical people 20 years ago probably at least understands where Apple is coming from. The average person is really bad at system administration, and it doesn't take many bad actors creating malware and scams to have a big impact.

It's not really about system administration. The average person is a low effort moron who will do whatever he pleases without thinking about the consequences. The difference with computing is that since it's "new" and sometimes it has bugs, they will blame the hardware/OS any chance they get.

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 11:07 AM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #451

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…

The attack vector is a 3pt app being compromised - maliciously or otherwise - that logs/collects the messages - i.e, the apps themselves can be a threat vector. To be blunt and honest, I’m not sure I disagree. The notification framework seems like an okay compromise to me. I have used it with my Garmin bike computer and I’m more than happy with the level of integration.

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 11:10 AM UTC

apimade wrote: post #684

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 someone who has found a lot of holes both in design and implementation, which have been reviewed and vetted by excellent people and companies, which have all the appropriate certifications - no thank you. I understand the benefit of an open ecosystem. Use your web browser, or a third-party app. The tech adopted by the masses needs guard rails and secure defaults. I hated Apple’s ecosystem growing up, now I think i…

Post by wffurr » Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 11:10 AM UTC

singularity2001 wrote: post #16

vrosas wrote: post #5

You'll one day hear Apple's lawyers argue in court that "security" never meant cybersecurity, only share price security.

or job security

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 11:13 AM UTC

greggsy wrote: post #826

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.

Your phone and Mac have strong trust at the OS, hardware, and manufacturing level.