5 ms·
Step 1: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Pebble watch> to be able to send messages?" and let the user decide which devices can send their phone messa
by amiga386 2y ago
Step 1: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Pebble watch> to be able to send messages?" and let the user decide which devices can send their phone messages.
Step 2: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Apple watch> to be able to send messages?" and don't just assume "yes"
Both steps would improve security, even if they harm Apple's profits.
- spiderice 2y agoHow would step 1 improve security over not allowing third party devices to send messages at all?
- mystified5016 2y agoWhy let users send messages in the first place? Tell me how you can get any more secure than that.
- SR2Z 2y agoIf Apple had their way, they would LOVE to sell you a $2000 aluminum brick with no screen, speakers, microphone, etc., that still required a proprietary cable to charge.
- bunabhucan 2y agoNow come on, that's not fair. The apple pro display stand is an inert piece of metal with a hinge and some springs and it only costs $999.
- amiga386 2y agohttps://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-wheels-kit https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-w... A set of four castors. Like the bottom of a shopping trolley. Yours for $699 Tell your friends! "Each castor costs one hundred and seventy five dollars. It costs four hundred thousand dollars to run this computer... for twelve seconds. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!" (https://youtu.be/jHgZh4GV9G0?t=19 https://youtu.be/jHgZh4GV9G0?t=19)
- jm4 2y agoWhy would you charge an aluminum brick?
- consteval 2y agoFor the thrill
- VibrantClarity 2y agobecause the charger is sold separately
- ada1981 2y agoBecause it refused to become the 51st state.
- ada1981 2y ago[flagged]
- BetaDeltaAlpha 2y agoHumane Pin still does this.
- godelski 2y agoDon't forget that the founder used to work for Apple and used that fact to demonstrate their expertise. Are we sure Humane Pin wasn't Apple testing if this was possible? (I'm joking. Apple already knows the answer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Chaudhri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Chaudhri
- threeseed 2y agoWe have decades of experience that users will blindly click whatever prompts they need to make the app work.
- amiga386 2y agoAh, but you see, they need to go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product, then with no clicking at all the app will work. If they go to a different store, and buy a non-Apple product, that's insecure. What they need to do is return it and go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product. That's secure. Give the money to Apple.
- ketzo 2y agoYou're being sarcastic, but isn't this all just... correct? Yes, I do trust the company that developed Secure Enclave more than I trust random BLE firmware in a $49 Alibaba watch. More importantly -- my great-uncle can trust the same thing, because Apple has spent decades building that trust. Consumers generally should not trust random hardware. Apple is not random hardware.
- amiga386 2y agoGoogle, Samsung, Pebble, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, etc. have also spent decades building trust and don't build random hardware. But that doesn't matter because Apple locks them all out and insists you remain within their walled garden where it alone profits from you. If you don't want a future where you have to buy Apple milk to put in your Apple fridge (because the fridge stops refrigerating if you try putting any other brand of milk in it, citing "security issues") -- or worse, you can't get your Amazon fridge in your Apple house because it cites nebulous reasons and refuses to open the door - get out of the reality distortion field and accept that it is in people's interests for one item to work correctly with another, and to call venal vendors on their "oh but it wouldn't work or it wouldn't be secure" bullshit.
- ketzo 2y agoThat’s not the point, though. Any method by which apple exposes APIs to Samsung, Google, etc: - requires immense development effort and expansion of security surface area - STILL offloads trust to Samsung, Google, etc The hyperbole here is a little hysterical. Apple doesn’t totally lock out third parties. In the smartwatch example, it is a very specific set of features which involved passing data (which users expect to be e2e encrypted!) back to Apple. That’s an extremely hostile security environment! Product tradeoffs would absolutely have to be made in order to support arbitrary third parties! I don’t think it’s fair to just demand that Apple make their product worse without at least exploring the balance.
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y agoI absolutely hate these sorts of nagging popups and I’m happy that a vendor I already have to trust doesn’t pop them up when I acquire a new product and sign it into my Apple account. Imo, if this were to happen, it should happen by allowing devices like the pebble watch to sign into an Apple account and acquire permissions through that process rather than nagging on my phone on pairing.
- dns_snek 2y agoWhat are you proposing exactly? What can be simpler than a single Yes/No prompt?
- recursive 2y agoNo prompts. No interoperability with non-Apple products or services. Maximum security. Minimum interaction with unwashed masses.
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y agoI think I was pretty clear. You setup your pebble watch via openid connect/oauth like any other API client. No nag popups, manual Bluetooth pairing, etc.
- dns_snek 2y agoThat's way more steps, making it more annoying to set up, not less.
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y agoOnly if you consider connecting to a single phone. The advantage of what I’m proposing is the watch would automatically work with whichever other Apple devices are on your account.