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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#901

Post by ubermonkey »

sigmar wrote: post #293
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…

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"

Well, no, at least not honestly, because in the 1990s Microsoft was sitting on a true monopoly. Apple is one of several (3, at least) players in desktop computing, and one of two in mobile. Nobody has the kind of power Redmond wielded now.

And that's a key part of the discussion.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#902

Post by Zak »

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.

That's unfair. Modern computers are extremely complicated to the point that even the most knowledgeable person has only a partial understanding, and nearly everyone is required to use them to function in western societies.

There's probably something important and complicated in the world you have to interact with regularly that you don't understand very well. Based on this comment, I think it might be people.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#903

Post by freehorse »

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…

I don't know much about ios. But in macos there are ways to access imessage chat logs or send imessages programmatically. You can create an applescript and do all sorts of stuff. So while I do get that giving this sort of access to an app on your iphone should at least be done through explicit intentful consent from the user, I do not see the impossibility in it. And the fact that there is all this crapp around should not make it impossible for us to have good things, either.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#904

Post by ianseyer »

CivBase wrote: post #705
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.

It's absolutely wild seeing comments like this on a supposed hacker community.

It’s important to remember this community is under the umbrella of a massive venture capital firm.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#905

Post by footlose_3815 »

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.

"Apple knows best for us" is something I've gotten very tired of over the years.

This example might be apples-and-oranges when it comes to the protecting Apple protecting iMessage, but they often rob the user of the choice that other manufacturers offer.

For example: Hotspot. Android hotspot can be perma-on. iPhone hotspot cannot. It will always switch itself off after some time of non-use. When I asked an Apple employee about this (This was not his dept), his understanding was that it was for not-clogging up Wifi at-scale, and for users who forget to turn it off. But what about the users who want it on always, who pay their cell provider for the biggest pacakge? My computer goes to sleep, and the hotspot turns off and I have to go manually switching it back on because "Apple knows better". I want those choices.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#906

Post by freehorse »

wokwokwok wrote: post #726
smaudet wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I'm not certain I completely agree. Yes, I don't want apps accessing my messages surreptitiously. Points there. However, what's wrong with allowing another app to post messages to my messages? If I don't want it, let me turn them off. Maybe, as a UI expert company, it's easy "block app from sending me messages" when I get a message. Seems like something that should be fairly transparent to the (potentially…

> However, what's wrong with allowing another app to post messages to my messages? > If I don't want it, let me turn them off. Can you it off for anyone sending you messages too? That's the issue; you not wanting to use it does not mean that spammers won't use it. That's the problem. You can't have nice things if some people can use it to abuse the system; and there are a lot of people who will. > But my point is thi…

Automating imessages has been an official thing in macos since ages that i know of, but it is done on a computer rather than a phone. The argument that opening up automation for imessage will increase spam does not hold, just because automation is already opened up, thus whatever spam this allows or not is already here.

EDIT: example script to run from a mac terminal:

    osascript -e 'tell application "Messages" to send "$message" to buddy "+12345678" of (1st service whose service type = iMessage)'

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#907

Post by bfrog »

bigyabai wrote: post #576
bfrog wrote: post #565

More like Apple restricts data being shared with 3rd party devices as it then loses all hope of curtailing abuse. As someone who uses Apple because of their MO is not selling everything about me to advertisers this is great news.

Yet Apple is fine letting users browse Safari with an unfiltered internet. If their APIs can't facilitate safe permissions for user data, maybe they need to re-configure their security model to look more like the Mac. UNIX solved this decades ago.

I wasn't aware safari allowed unfettered access to my phone and provided that to completely untrustworthy web apps and javascript. You have a source for this information? Would love to read more.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#908

Post by maccard »

liquid_thyme wrote: post #309
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"

Yes, you could. It's indeed troubling to see this mindset on HN. We have an overflow of professional "explainers" these days, we need more doers and fighters.

If you want an alternative, android exists. I actively want a tightly integrated system that I know works well together. I don’t want to worry “does this device really work with this other device, even if it says it’s compatible” which was a constant source of issues I had on Android.

Your desire for Apple to become an open system removes my choice to opt into a closed ecosystem, when you already have an open ecosystem to play in.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#909

Post by footlose_3815 »

lynx97 wrote: post #448
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.

I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…

Proprietary, and for the first half of its run, they were insanely expensive. Thin flimsy, always breaking. Short by default. They got nasty and stained quickly.

Over the years, third party cheap ones were risky. May damage port or device.

Has a stupid chip in the connector so people can't easily replicate it like a USB cable.

It was the purest example of proprietary capture in an age where the "The correct universal port" has been around for decades. The massive irony is not missed on me as they used USB mouses and keyboards to engineer a step backwards.

There's things I like about Apple, but I could never bring myself to defend the lightning cable.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#910

Post by vessenes »

maximusdrex wrote: post #551
snailmailman wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just the transmission over Bluetooth. It’s the entirety of what happens with the message. Apple fully controls and trusts the code that’s running on the apple watch. But they have no control over what third parties do with all the data they can collect in notifications. Bluetooth devices on iOS that display notifications already are getting more information than normal by simply even reading all notification…

Again there is no technical rigor behind these notions. Video providers didn’t like the idea of untrusted HDMI devices scraping video from DRM protected content so they came up with HDCP, which allows anyone to develop and certify solutions as trusted software/hardware. There’s no reason apple can’t do something similar, it doesn’t have to be completely open vs. completely closed. There are always alternative solutio…

True. But why? Why should Apple spend a bunch of money hardware certifying, and adding liability? There was a compelling reason to add HDCP -- content makers required it, and had criminal penalties as threats to go after infringement.

Apple doesn't need outside ecosystem builders here; what is the business reason for them to add process expense, risk, and possibly incorporate timelines from other vendors into their supply chain?

As the many comments in this thread indicate, lots of people seem to feel Apple "owes it" to the world to open up. Happily, there is a (more) open ecosystem available with Android for people who value that. I don't think the tradeoffs Apple makes are perfect for me as a consumer, but I prefer them to the Android tradeoffs, and I can always switch when I like.

Post reply on HN