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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#941

Post by AnthonyMouse »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #346
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ONLY reason that you can't swap Ford/Dodge filters between engines with similar filtration requirements is because each company uses a different thread size and filter interface dimensions. Which is maybe dumb, but it isn't a problem , because of this: > They also make their specifications available to aftermarket filter manufacturers like Wix and Fram. Which is the thing Apple isn't doing, and furthermore is d…

> preventing full compatibility with third party watches What law in any country requires this? Apple is not a public utility and people don't have rights to access. > the argument you're making is that the automakers purposely cause their filters to be incompatible to limit competition No I'm not making that argument. I am arguing that incompatibility is there, could be resolved if the companies chose to. The incomp…

> What law in any country requires this?

Any sane antitrust laws require this. Not that they have to provide compatibility, but they cannot inhibit compatibility. But that's what they do.

> Apple is not a public utility and people don't have rights to access.

Your iPhone doesn't belong to Apple and Apple trying to retain ownership control over it after they've sold it is the evil to be prevented.

> I am arguing that incompatibility is there, could be resolved if the companies chose to.

There are two different kinds of incompatibility.

One is, each model of car has its own type of oil filter, which is an inconvenience but then the third party suppliers just produce all the different kinds, and filters with different specs legitimately should have different interfaces and then you're going to have 100 different filter interfaces regardless and it doesn't matter much if you then need 100 SKUs or 250.

The other is, they purposely thwart compatibility by actively inhibiting third party interoperability, even when the third party is willing to support the vendor-specific interface. There is every reason to prohibit the vendor from doing this because there is no legitimate reason to do it, but a strong illegitimate motive for them to do it in order to inhibit competition.

A strong heuristic for telling the difference between these things is, what percent of the ancillary market is controlled by the seller in the primary market? Third parties being excluded in practice strongly implies malfeasance.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#942

Post by xnx »

chamanbuga wrote: post #191
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…

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…

Does iOS have third-party accessibility software that would have full display and interaction privileges?

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#943

Post by mistercheph »

vessenes wrote: post #913
mistercheph wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an open standard doesn't mean every implementer will do so in good faith and using best practices, the consumer still ultimately has to make a choice about which product they use, and can continue to use apple's solution if they trust in apple to securely implement the spec. The insane strawman you're proposing is that the choice is between a single blessed solution from Apple that's infallible, and a wild wes…

There are maybe three tech companies in the US that have large security groups dealing with persistent threat actors. Apple is one of them. Google is another. Even with that (large) Apple security group, iMessage is difficult to lock down properly, as you note. However, I think that the cost of 0 day subscriptions for iOS vs Android tell a pretty good story: iOS zero day subscriptions sold to intelligence agencies/go…

You are just wrong about 0-day values, e.g. exploit vendor crowdfense's publicly offered rewards for mobile 0-days:

    SMS/MMS Full Chain Zero Click: from 7 to 9 M USD
    Android Zero Click Full Chain: 5 M USD
    iOS Zero Click Full Chain: from 5 to 7 M USD
    iOS (RCE + SBX): 3,5 M USD
    Chrome (RCE + LPE): from 2 to 3 M USDD
    Safari (RCE + LPE): from 2,5 to 3,5 M USD
And "large" tech companies despite having "large" security teams (and "large" scope!) are far from the only ones competent at securing devices/software against PTA. Node.js, linux, bsd's, bitcoin, RoR, firefox, curl, etc. etc. There are dozens of open source projects with 0-day values in excess of 7 figures, (and plenty of private enterprises too!) and apple and google are not in any way specially equipped (or better than others) at dealing with the most dangerous PTA's in the world just because they have the largest armies of overpaid EE/CS grads.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#944

Post by Aaargh20318 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #834
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector and App Store too The App Store was an absolute revolution for mobile app developers. It is hard to overstate how much of an improvement it was over the status quo. People are complaining about Apple taking a 30% cut; it used to be that the operators took a 70% cut. Not for hosting an app store, no, just for sending the reverse-billing SMS message with the install lin…

>People are complaining about Apple taking a 30% cut; it used to be that the operators took a 70% cut. Not in the PC world, back when the App Store was released I was paying 4% to my e-commerce provider.

You’re not required to sell software through the App Store on macOS either. The App Store complaints are only relevant on mobile, which has always been a completely different market.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#945

Post by NotPractical »

crazygringo wrote: post #897
NotPractical wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... Presumably the DoJ wouldn't have sued Apple for being a monopoly if it was impossible for them to legally qual…

The DoJ can sue over whatever they want. They also lose suits all the time. So now it's up to a court decision to make the determination, and it may very well be that Apple is not , contrary to the DoJ's assertion.

Sure, but you claimed that they were definitely not a monopoly, which hasn't been determined yet.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#946

Post by godelski »

musicale wrote: post #770
godelski wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to add that over the last few years Apple has also been teaching its users to ignore security warnings as they make it difficult to verify software and thus lots of stuff never does. Its why there's few free things in the App Store because Apple charges. You install things from GitHub and well you're gonna get that security warning.

I assume you're talking about the Mac App Store since one can't easily install iOS software via github. It's a tricky situation. Windows Vista tried to improve security and then was criticized for having too many UAC pop-ups, and for breaking legacy drivers. I don't like Apple's syspolicyd, but it is also an attempt at improving security.

I'm talking about MacBooks. Sure, this is about iPhones but it's also about a closed garden and other devices in that closed garden which are very likely to also be owned are teaching people a very specific lesson

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#949

Post by dickersnoodle »

Zak wrote: post #366
tremon wrote: post #364

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.

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.

Word. When my kids were pre-teens and teens I moved their computers onto Red Hat because I was tired of cleaning spyware off of it when it was a Wintel box. I moved my wife onto a Macbook Pro for the same reason, and she used to do user support for a community college back in the day.

Re: Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

#950

Post by dickersnoodle »

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.

This sounds like a libertarian take, in the sense of "libertarians are like housecats - convinced of their own fierce independence but totally dependent on systems they neither control nor understand".
Post reply on HN