11 ms·

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.

by lynx97 2y ago

bigyabai 2y ago
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.
- lynx97 2y ago
  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 only comment with their dev hats on and are apparently unable to see things from user perspectives...
  - rahkiin 2y ago
    To add: when apple switched to lightning they made a deal with hardware makers that they would support this for 10 years in order not to make all their hardware obsolete again. They did eventually change it after exactly 10 years.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      Not because their software would inherently break by switching to a different USB connector, or even by using a converter dongle. Apple signed this agreement because Lightning had a hardcoded DRM protocol baked into it to force third-parties to pay licensing fees. Of course they demanded a 10 year support window, it was a licensing ruse to make manufacturers pay a price premium to use the USB featureset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFi_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFi_Program
      - rahkiin 2y ago
        Not everything has to be a ‘i win, you lose’. It can be a strategy and architecture where multiple parties get something out of it. In different ways.
        bigyabai 2y ago
        Sure, FireWire is an example of Apple using innovation to actually innovate. Lightning is an example of Apple using DRM to paywall an ordinary and freely availible USB 2.0 featureset.
        majormajor 2y ago
        Firewire was a speed/feature innovation. Lighting was a port innovation. Pay to play in either case. Other options available to Apple instead of Lightning: * stick with the iPod connector for longer * switch to micro-USB * never invent the iPod connector in favor of staying with Firewire or going to mini-USB and then switch to micro-USB or something else later anyway None of these are better. I'm EXTREMELY glad they didn't switch to micro-USB. I had no shortage of mini-USB and then micro-USB devices and the micro-USB ports/cables are pretty much the worst I've ever dealt with.
        josephg 2y ago
        Yeah. Also as I understand it, Apple is part of the USB committee and they were actively involved in the development of USB-C. Their experience developing the lightning connector actively led to usb-c being reversible. If not for the lightning connector, we wouldn't have usb-c as we know it today. Its also a stretch to claim apple doesn't like usb-c given how hard they've been pushing it on their laptops. In 2016, they started shipping laptops that only had usb-c ports - which worked around the chicken-and-egg problem we would have had otherwise. Dongle-gate was a real thing that annoyed a lot of people. But my desk is covered in usb-c peripherals - and that might not have happened if not for apple's "brave" choice.
        deleted 2y ago
  - mistercheph 2y ago
    You never needed speeds in excess of usb 2.0? LOL, this is such old hat, guys in IBM t-shirts telling me how nobody ever needed more than 64K, and why go third party with your treasured computation when you can get the best, the infallible, the International Business Machine?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Apple is choosing to limit USB C to USB 2 speeds to encourage people pay for a more expensive model. The iPhone 16 pro max has USB 3 speeds after all...
      - fingerlocks 2y ago
        No, it just shipped with a slower cable. You get high speed transfer with a thunderbolt cable
        saagarjha 2y ago
        No, the device can only do USB 2 speeds. There’s no controller for anything faster.
        fingerlocks 2y ago
        No. The regular pro model (not max) supports usb 3 speeds. I’ve verified myself and its on Apple’s tech site: https://www.apple.com/iphone-16-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-16-pro/specs/
        saagarjha 2y ago
        For iPhones "Max" is basically irrelevant when it comes to SoC specs; the phones are differentiated by whether they are "Pro" or not. The Pro (and Pro Max) support faster speeds, and the regular iPhones do not.
        2y ago
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lynx97 2y ago
      We are not buddies. And I am not confused enough to believe NSO Group would be interested in me. This is plain paranoia you are using to try to win an argument. Calm down. Besides, where is the competitive harm if you are so happy with your Android? Look, I am happy with Apple doing some basic things to make the device relatively safe. I know nothing is absolutely safe. And again, I am not high profile, and I am also not paranoid.
    - jermaustin1 2y ago
      > ... security firm gets a chip on their shoulder, they can install a persistent backdoor on your phone... But a random developer can't exfiltrate my data, which is the WAY WAY more common scenario that the previous poster was worried about. I agree with them. The Apple App Store prevents a lot more malware than the ability to install ANY software. I like the Mac App Store as well, its a large library of software that is virtually guaranteed to be safe from infecting your computer with a virus. Now, I know how to sideload onto my iPhone, I have homebrew on my MBP, but my brother/sister doesn't, my aunt can't, my uncle assumed his phone was facebook, and they are safer (from viruses) for it. Make installing viruses harder! I spent decades as the de facto IT person in my family, and when iPhone and Android came around, family members started buying MacBooks, my load got lightened a LOT.
      - bigyabai 2y ago
        Well, Apple will have to redesign their security model, then. If the iPhone relies on Apple's white-glove curation to stay secure, then European users are enough of a reason to overhaul their security model. It's great that you know how to sideload, I'm not saying everyone has to know how. I'm arguing that the option should exist regardless of if you pay for a $99/year subscription fee. It should be a part of owning the hardware you paid for and purchasing the right to control it as the user.
        2y ago
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    You can't run an ad-blocker and you browse the web with JS turned on in Safari, but your Iphone is secure? yeah ok
    - lynx97 2y ago
      I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium. And I really don't need Safari that often, actually. Besides, if we're really talking JS==insecure, 99% of users on desktop and mobile are insecure. I am sort of on your side, because I spend most of my web-time in Lynx in a tmux. But if I were to argue against JS, people would call me a weirdo. That war is over. I fought it until 2010.
      - bigyabai 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lynx97 2y ago
        Can you please stop verbally spitting at me? I am not an American. I just have a different opinion on some things then you. Ever tried some empathy? Pragmatically speaking, I prefer YouTube Premium because I hate their inability to filter out scammy ads, and I still feel like supporting creators at least a bit. As a customer, its not always my call how much of my money goes to creators. Thats why I refuse to use Apple Music and/or Spotify. I spend my money on BandCamp, which I consider an appropriate compensation for other "sins" I might commit on the net.
        theturtletalks 2y ago
        How does people having the ability to activate alternative app stores on their phones affect you? Or have a Pebble with similar functionality to an Apple Watch? Just don’t activate the App Store or purchase a Pebble and stay in your walled garden. We’re lucky our computers aren’t walled gardens because if Apple knew it would work this well with iOS, MacOS would be the same.
        2y ago
  - seanp2k2 2y ago
    Yup, Apple made Lightning because USB-C wasn't a thing yet and MicroUSB is awful. Lightning is a whole lot better than MicroUSB, and they've been using it since 2012. MiniUSB B was pretty OK, Micro was just way too thin to be stable and would snap off frequently, in addition to being not very secure and hard to orient. Mini was thicker though, so while it worked fine for the HTC Apache and other Windows Mobile phones of the era, it wasn't going to be small enough to work on an iPhone. So many people complaining about a really robust connector that solved real problems and has proven to be pretty reliable for 13 years. I'm no huge Apple fanboi, and I'm happy to have all their stuff use USB-C now, but the hate for Lightning is way inflated IMO.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Why didn't they they work with the other actors to create a common standard 13 years ago? You know why, because they don't care about their users! And they even tried to stop the move to a standard many years later when the lightning connectors were outdated, making it even more clear.
      - rblatz 2y ago
        Like being a member of the USB committee and help make USB-C a good standard with a reversible connector like they did with lightning? Because they did that.
    - The_Blade 2y ago
      don't let facts and data get in the way of rabble rabble rabble rabble if the worst thing is someone else's code then someone else's hardware
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      MicroUSB is fine, and Apple should've just used that (like every other phone manufacturer did, with great success). But Apple also has the world's biggest NIH complex, so they decided to invent a proprietary standard rather than go with something interoperable.
      - 2y ago
  - footlose_3815 2y ago
    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.
- ericmay 2y ago
  > 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" thing people still complain lol. > App Store too, for all the good it does everyone in the EU The Apple App Store is pretty great. There's a large, vocal minority of folks that want changes there, but they also aren't the ones that have to deal with grandma and grandpa doing crazy stuff. If you want another App Store just by an Android phone since that's a feature they offer. Kind of like if I wanted a phone with a larger megapixel camera or something I'd buy something else.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    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't, because then they couldn't foist a proprietary standard onto their most lucrative submarket. > If you want another App Store just by an Android phone since that's a feature they offer. Sorry, this is bullshit. Alternative sources for installing software will always exist, even current iPhone users have to accept Cydia as an option. You don't ever have to leave the Apple App Store, but your preference has no right to enforce an artificial limitation onto other users. The Mac as a product would not exist without third-party software distribution, the iPhone is undeniably stifled by Apple's stance on the matter.
    - riatin 2y ago
      > You don't ever have to leave the Apple App Store, but your preference has no right to enforce an artificial limitation onto other users. So... just buy an Android? This is not an artificial limitation, it's an express preference that the vast majority of iOS users have voted for. > The Mac as a product would not exist without third-party software distribution The Mac is a completely different product servicing a completely different set of needs. Nobody is asking for the iPhone to be able to run Node or Vim so they can do their work, they want to scroll Instagram and reply to their iMessage
- duped 2y ago
  > You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector Thanks Apple, for switching connectors on your mobile devices once in 25 years and enforcing standards on 3p peripheral and cable manufacturers, until a government forced you to change making me throw all my cables away.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ziofill 2y ago
      I hope you learn to respect other users here by moderating the way you talk to them.
- kulahan 2y ago
  Walled gardens are not inherently bad. I DO thank Apple for the App Store. It’s half the reason I have an iPhone. I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. This is not to say every aspect of their walled garden is good, but I’m more than happy to accept those problems in light of the benefits I personally value. This is all to say: it’s not much of an argument to point out that one of their selling points is an aspect of their ecosystem! I don’t think you’ll get through to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
  - sneak 2y ago
    > I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. The Apple ios app store is positively chock full of spyware. You can’t download apps without a care in the world. This is why Apple put a privacy label on the apps (which is still woefully inadequate; it is self-reported).
    - crummy 2y ago
      surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything? do you have any egregious examples?
      - klabb3 2y ago
        The permissions alerts don’t come from the App Store, they come from sandboxing and the permission model. This is a property of the OS, and everyone agrees that this is better than the anarchy of desktop OSs. But they were created decades earlier, sandboxing was obvious in hindsight only. > surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything? Not really. Push notifications is enough. I can send you a push notification and get loads of details from your phone, including cross-app fingerprinting. Iirc Apple allows ~3 silent push notifications per hour so they can be completely hidden. https://gizmodo.com/iphone-apps-can-harvest-data-from-notifications-1851194537 https://gizmodo.com/iphone-apps-can-harvest-data-from-notifi... But really, your search is as good as mine. The entire digital economy is based on personal data collected from your devices, and yes, that includes the iPhone. How is this news? What’s your definition of spyware?
- Bud 2y ago
  [dead]
- op00to 2y ago
  I specifically liked the lightning cable and the App Store. I had no problem getting lightning cables for a fair price, and I have no problem finding all the applications I need on my iOS devices. Compared with the sewer that is the Play Store, the App Store is a breath of fresh air.
- Aaargh20318 2y ago
  > 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 link. You had to host it yourself, there was no store so you had to advertise your app to make it discoverable. You had to arrange (and pay for) a shortcode and SMS provider for every single country you wanted to sell in. You had to write and host code to handle the incoming message on the shortcode and respond with a RB-SMS. Next to that, the SDK’s were absolute dogshit, phone manufacturers didn’t give a shit about apps and the phones themselves were riddled with bugs (with the notable exception of SonyEricsson, their J2ME environment was excellent). Symbian was a PITA to develop for, BlackBerry was actively developer-hostile (unless you happened to be a Fortune-500 company). Samsung phones were an absolute disaster, every single phone model had a unique set of bugs you had to find workarounds for. So in comes Apple, they charge only 30% and for that you get a nice SDK, an App Store that distributes your app, makes it discoverable and handles payments worldwide with zero extra effort. We were thrilled when they announced it, and rightfully so. Google then followed suit with the Play Store, effectively matching what Apple was doing. So yeah, Apple deserves some thanks for what they did with the App Store.
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    >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.
    - Aaargh20318 2y ago
      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.
- atmosx 2y ago
  The EU was created to integrate and unify social security, pension systems, welfare states, and, ultimately, politics and policy—both foreign and domestic. I couldn’t care less about Apple’s case, but the fact that this is being touted as the EU’s biggest achievement in decades says a lot about why Europeans don’t like the EU.
mwinatschek 2y ago
I’m with you on this one. I’d be fine with Apple opening up their ecosystem in a safe and careful way to other companies but only if the security stays, at least, at the same level - and if I’m able to turn off these options in the settings.
bigiain 2y ago
Yep. Same. I do not want 3rd party hardware/software vendors to have unrestricted access to the messaging app on my phone that is the only option my bank and PayPal and a bunch of other critical services use for 2FA. Especially not when the software they want to run is JavaScript, with all it's well known npm dependancy nightmares, _and_ from a founder and team that openly admit iPhones are a second class citizen in their development planning and resources. And especially especially not when the founders have previously shown their colors when they rugpulled all their customers and effectively bricked all the devices they'd sold. Even with the limited iMessage/SMS access they have now, I wonder how long it'll be before we see a supply chain attack against Pebble exploiting some 11th level deep npm dependancy on something dumb like leftpad.js, that exfiltrates SMS 2FA codes and first anybody knows about it will be when a bunch of CryptoBros start complaining about their exchange accounts being emptied...
- fooqux 2y ago
  > And especially especially not when the founders have previously shown their colors when they rugpulled all their customers and effectively bricked all the devices they'd sold. As a Pebble user for a long time, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. If you're talking about Fitbit halting services, I can't exactly blame the founder of Pebble for that. Can I blame him for the poor business decisions that led to needing to sell to Fitbit? I guess, but I'm not a business person nor a CEO and have no idea what transpired to lead up to that. But I'm reasonably sure it wasn't malice as you seem to imply.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Psst…there’s JavaScript running on your phone right now.
  - bigiain 2y ago
    Sure, but so far as I know none of it has access to the contents of SMS or iMessages.
- skeaker 2y ago
  Then don't grant them the access! This isn't all or nothing! It's a matter of being given a choice (to which you can say "no!") or being given no choice at all.
burnte 2y ago
As another user, I don't want you making that decision for me.
zamalek 2y ago
Other users might not want to, such are the reasons for toggles.
- Elidrake24 2y ago
  Other users want a secure design without the ability to shoot oneself in the foot, such is the reason for a market where you have the alternative choice in Android.
CivBase 2y ago
It's absolutely wild seeing comments like this on a supposed hacker community.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  I don't self identify as a hacker despite being an active member of this community. Im not sure it's a fair assumption to make that everyone here identifies as a so called hacker despite the name. I don't generally like the apple ecosystem but I think the choice to lock things down isn't always problematic. users that care for other choices can choose android.
- ianseyer 2y ago
  It’s important to remember this community is under the umbrella of a massive venture capital firm.
- hackburg 2y ago
  [dead]
windexh8er 2y ago
As a user you should be fine with the ability to restrict access to iMessage. Not locked out of it with hardware you own and interoperability dictated by the vendor who also wants you to buy their watch.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Exactly. It's amazing how often the nuance between may and must is missed by Apple fans. Apple should be able to lock down their ecosystem as a default -- plenty of people will be happy to use that default experience. But Apple should absolutely be prohibited from not allowing users the choice of unlocking their own device, for additional functionality, if they choose. It's also glaringly obvious that many of the "freedoms" Apple affords its users (freedom from iMessage spam!) help drive its revenue...
  - fastball 2y ago
    Not sure you understand the argument. If you allow people the ability to access iMessage however they want, how do you prevent iMessage spam? You may not care about this, but a lot of people do.
    - moron4hire 2y ago
      How do you prevent iMessage spam, indeed? Because it's not being prevented right now.
    - protimewaster 2y ago
      Can't you already send iMessage spam using Apple Script on Mac? Would it be that much worse if it was also possible from iPhone? Also, I'm pretty sure you can just set up a click farm to spam from iPhone right now, so there's also that.
      - VogonPoetry 2y ago
        It isn't easy to do with just AppleScript on a Mac. I run a sports team and I wanted to send out a message to people for special situations. Some of the challenges are that you cannot script sending a new message if there isn't already a thread -and- it seems like you must use the same contact info (email or phone number). There isn't much feedback when it goes wrong. Some of these do make sense for preventing spam. I suspect I could have used the accessibility APIs to drive the UI. I eventually gave up.
smaudet 2y ago
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 misbehaving) app. I use a Garmin, and Android, and I use it for messages all the time, it's great. I can't imagine not taking them. It's easy for me to block stuff I don't want, could it be easier, maybe... But my point is this isn't something unreasonable for a user to want. As a general aside, it seems when I hear about Apple products anymore, they are locked down, unintuitive, and generally just unpleasant. I even tried an Apple device again recently...eugh. Apple is only "nice" for a certain, narrow segment of the population.
- wokwokwok 2y ago
  > 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 this isn't something unreasonable for a user to want. This ignores the reality which is that doing it in a way that gives a nice user experience without an enormously painful security issue is really non trivial. Maybe it's OK to have the choice? ... If you love your android phone, don't care about iOS, don't like iphones.... why do you care? I mean, why does it upset android users when they see this sort of thing for people using iphones? It mystifies me. If you love you phone, and you think it's better, then use it. Nothing lost right?
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    Except if you want pebble an iphone, thats the loss.
  - freehorse 2y ago
    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)'
Der_Einzige 2y ago
People like you are why technology sucks. Please stop having this opinion or similar ones.
Ajedi32 2y ago
This perspective is infuriating. It's literally Stockholm syndrome. Your device is being held prisoner in a cell that they refuse to give you the key to unlock no matter how much you beg, and you are actually thanking them for it. How can you not realize that you're being abused?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 1propionyl 2y ago
  Different people evaluate cost/benefit trade offs differently than you do, and don't speak of the matter with metaphorically charged terminology like "abuse", "prison", "Stockholm syndrome", etc.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Normally I'd agree; people overuse the term "Stockholm syndrome", but in this case it's a perfect analogy. Apple has you trapped. You can't use a competing smart watch even if you wanted to, because Apple is blocking critical functionality and there's nothing you can do about it short of ending the abusive relationship entirely and completely leaving the Apple ecosystem. But you don't want to do that, you love Apple too much, so instead you choose to thank your captor for holding you captive. It's your fault they have to do this after all; you can't be trusted to make a decision about which smartwatch you want to use. After all, if you chose a competitor that might be a bad decision that would hurt your security. So Apple is totally justified in preventing you from leaving. Thank you Apple for saving us from ourselves! It would be one thing to acknowledge Apple's doing something bad here but still decide to use their products because you like their hardware. That would be a cost/benefit trade-off. But actually thanking them for the abuse itself? There's really, legitimately no better way that I can think of to characterize the situation than as Stockholm syndrome.
cameldrv 2y ago
It's tricky. As a long time Apple user, I appreciate that they are privacy focused, but I also get a lot of spam text messages, calls, and notifications. It's become more and more annoying to deal with these on my Garmin watch and on my phone. I wish I had some sort of AI filter. For example, I want to get a notification if my Uber is running late, but I don't want one if Uber is offering me 20% off if I subscribe to whatever their monthly service is.
atmosx 2y ago
But the Apple Watch has access to iMessage right? :-)
sirdvd 2y ago
As a user, I'd be totally fine with Apple letting me choose who can access to my iMessages.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  Just like totalitarian regimes, Apple considers its users too stupid to be allowed to make choices for themselves. They must be herded like sheep towards the right path.
footlose_3815 2y ago
"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.

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.

by lynx97 2y ago

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.

bigyabai 2y ago

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.

lynx97 2y ago
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 only comment with their dev hats on and are apparently unable to see things from user perspectives...
- rahkiin 2y ago
  To add: when apple switched to lightning they made a deal with hardware makers that they would support this for 10 years in order not to make all their hardware obsolete again. They did eventually change it after exactly 10 years.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    Not because their software would inherently break by switching to a different USB connector, or even by using a converter dongle. Apple signed this agreement because Lightning had a hardcoded DRM protocol baked into it to force third-parties to pay licensing fees. Of course they demanded a 10 year support window, it was a licensing ruse to make manufacturers pay a price premium to use the USB featureset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFi_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFi_Program
    - rahkiin 2y ago
      Not everything has to be a ‘i win, you lose’. It can be a strategy and architecture where multiple parties get something out of it. In different ways.
      - bigyabai 2y ago
        Sure, FireWire is an example of Apple using innovation to actually innovate. Lightning is an example of Apple using DRM to paywall an ordinary and freely availible USB 2.0 featureset.
        majormajor 2y ago
        Firewire was a speed/feature innovation. Lighting was a port innovation. Pay to play in either case. Other options available to Apple instead of Lightning: * stick with the iPod connector for longer * switch to micro-USB * never invent the iPod connector in favor of staying with Firewire or going to mini-USB and then switch to micro-USB or something else later anyway None of these are better. I'm EXTREMELY glad they didn't switch to micro-USB. I had no shortage of mini-USB and then micro-USB devices and the micro-USB ports/cables are pretty much the worst I've ever dealt with.
        josephg 2y ago
        Yeah. Also as I understand it, Apple is part of the USB committee and they were actively involved in the development of USB-C. Their experience developing the lightning connector actively led to usb-c being reversible. If not for the lightning connector, we wouldn't have usb-c as we know it today. Its also a stretch to claim apple doesn't like usb-c given how hard they've been pushing it on their laptops. In 2016, they started shipping laptops that only had usb-c ports - which worked around the chicken-and-egg problem we would have had otherwise. Dongle-gate was a real thing that annoyed a lot of people. But my desk is covered in usb-c peripherals - and that might not have happened if not for apple's "brave" choice.
        deleted 2y ago
- mistercheph 2y ago
  You never needed speeds in excess of usb 2.0? LOL, this is such old hat, guys in IBM t-shirts telling me how nobody ever needed more than 64K, and why go third party with your treasured computation when you can get the best, the infallible, the International Business Machine?
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Apple is choosing to limit USB C to USB 2 speeds to encourage people pay for a more expensive model. The iPhone 16 pro max has USB 3 speeds after all...
    - fingerlocks 2y ago
      No, it just shipped with a slower cable. You get high speed transfer with a thunderbolt cable
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        No, the device can only do USB 2 speeds. There’s no controller for anything faster.
        fingerlocks 2y ago
        No. The regular pro model (not max) supports usb 3 speeds. I’ve verified myself and its on Apple’s tech site: https://www.apple.com/iphone-16-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-16-pro/specs/
        saagarjha 2y ago
        For iPhones "Max" is basically irrelevant when it comes to SoC specs; the phones are differentiated by whether they are "Pro" or not. The Pro (and Pro Max) support faster speeds, and the regular iPhones do not.
        2y ago
- bigyabai 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lynx97 2y ago
    We are not buddies. And I am not confused enough to believe NSO Group would be interested in me. This is plain paranoia you are using to try to win an argument. Calm down. Besides, where is the competitive harm if you are so happy with your Android? Look, I am happy with Apple doing some basic things to make the device relatively safe. I know nothing is absolutely safe. And again, I am not high profile, and I am also not paranoid.
  - jermaustin1 2y ago
    > ... security firm gets a chip on their shoulder, they can install a persistent backdoor on your phone... But a random developer can't exfiltrate my data, which is the WAY WAY more common scenario that the previous poster was worried about. I agree with them. The Apple App Store prevents a lot more malware than the ability to install ANY software. I like the Mac App Store as well, its a large library of software that is virtually guaranteed to be safe from infecting your computer with a virus. Now, I know how to sideload onto my iPhone, I have homebrew on my MBP, but my brother/sister doesn't, my aunt can't, my uncle assumed his phone was facebook, and they are safer (from viruses) for it. Make installing viruses harder! I spent decades as the de facto IT person in my family, and when iPhone and Android came around, family members started buying MacBooks, my load got lightened a LOT.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      Well, Apple will have to redesign their security model, then. If the iPhone relies on Apple's white-glove curation to stay secure, then European users are enough of a reason to overhaul their security model. It's great that you know how to sideload, I'm not saying everyone has to know how. I'm arguing that the option should exist regardless of if you pay for a $99/year subscription fee. It should be a part of owning the hardware you paid for and purchasing the right to control it as the user.
      - 2y ago
- bboygravity 2y ago
  You can't run an ad-blocker and you browse the web with JS turned on in Safari, but your Iphone is secure? yeah ok
  - lynx97 2y ago
    I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium. And I really don't need Safari that often, actually. Besides, if we're really talking JS==insecure, 99% of users on desktop and mobile are insecure. I am sort of on your side, because I spend most of my web-time in Lynx in a tmux. But if I were to argue against JS, people would call me a weirdo. That war is over. I fought it until 2010.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - lynx97 2y ago
        Can you please stop verbally spitting at me? I am not an American. I just have a different opinion on some things then you. Ever tried some empathy? Pragmatically speaking, I prefer YouTube Premium because I hate their inability to filter out scammy ads, and I still feel like supporting creators at least a bit. As a customer, its not always my call how much of my money goes to creators. Thats why I refuse to use Apple Music and/or Spotify. I spend my money on BandCamp, which I consider an appropriate compensation for other "sins" I might commit on the net.
        theturtletalks 2y ago
        How does people having the ability to activate alternative app stores on their phones affect you? Or have a Pebble with similar functionality to an Apple Watch? Just don’t activate the App Store or purchase a Pebble and stay in your walled garden. We’re lucky our computers aren’t walled gardens because if Apple knew it would work this well with iOS, MacOS would be the same.
        2y ago
- seanp2k2 2y ago
  Yup, Apple made Lightning because USB-C wasn't a thing yet and MicroUSB is awful. Lightning is a whole lot better than MicroUSB, and they've been using it since 2012. MiniUSB B was pretty OK, Micro was just way too thin to be stable and would snap off frequently, in addition to being not very secure and hard to orient. Mini was thicker though, so while it worked fine for the HTC Apache and other Windows Mobile phones of the era, it wasn't going to be small enough to work on an iPhone. So many people complaining about a really robust connector that solved real problems and has proven to be pretty reliable for 13 years. I'm no huge Apple fanboi, and I'm happy to have all their stuff use USB-C now, but the hate for Lightning is way inflated IMO.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Why didn't they they work with the other actors to create a common standard 13 years ago? You know why, because they don't care about their users! And they even tried to stop the move to a standard many years later when the lightning connectors were outdated, making it even more clear.
    - rblatz 2y ago
      Like being a member of the USB committee and help make USB-C a good standard with a reversible connector like they did with lightning? Because they did that.
  - The_Blade 2y ago
    don't let facts and data get in the way of rabble rabble rabble rabble if the worst thing is someone else's code then someone else's hardware
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    MicroUSB is fine, and Apple should've just used that (like every other phone manufacturer did, with great success). But Apple also has the world's biggest NIH complex, so they decided to invent a proprietary standard rather than go with something interoperable.
    - 2y ago
- footlose_3815 2y ago
  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.
ericmay 2y ago
> 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" thing people still complain lol. > App Store too, for all the good it does everyone in the EU The Apple App Store is pretty great. There's a large, vocal minority of folks that want changes there, but they also aren't the ones that have to deal with grandma and grandpa doing crazy stuff. If you want another App Store just by an Android phone since that's a feature they offer. Kind of like if I wanted a phone with a larger megapixel camera or something I'd buy something else.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  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't, because then they couldn't foist a proprietary standard onto their most lucrative submarket. > If you want another App Store just by an Android phone since that's a feature they offer. Sorry, this is bullshit. Alternative sources for installing software will always exist, even current iPhone users have to accept Cydia as an option. You don't ever have to leave the Apple App Store, but your preference has no right to enforce an artificial limitation onto other users. The Mac as a product would not exist without third-party software distribution, the iPhone is undeniably stifled by Apple's stance on the matter.
  - riatin 2y ago
    > You don't ever have to leave the Apple App Store, but your preference has no right to enforce an artificial limitation onto other users. So... just buy an Android? This is not an artificial limitation, it's an express preference that the vast majority of iOS users have voted for. > The Mac as a product would not exist without third-party software distribution The Mac is a completely different product servicing a completely different set of needs. Nobody is asking for the iPhone to be able to run Node or Vim so they can do their work, they want to scroll Instagram and reply to their iMessage
duped 2y ago
> You can thank Apple for the Lightning connector Thanks Apple, for switching connectors on your mobile devices once in 25 years and enforcing standards on 3p peripheral and cable manufacturers, until a government forced you to change making me throw all my cables away.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ziofill 2y ago
    I hope you learn to respect other users here by moderating the way you talk to them.
kulahan 2y ago
Walled gardens are not inherently bad. I DO thank Apple for the App Store. It’s half the reason I have an iPhone. I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. This is not to say every aspect of their walled garden is good, but I’m more than happy to accept those problems in light of the benefits I personally value. This is all to say: it’s not much of an argument to point out that one of their selling points is an aspect of their ecosystem! I don’t think you’ll get through to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
- sneak 2y ago
  > I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences. The Apple ios app store is positively chock full of spyware. You can’t download apps without a care in the world. This is why Apple put a privacy label on the apps (which is still woefully inadequate; it is self-reported).
  - crummy 2y ago
    surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything? do you have any egregious examples?
    - klabb3 2y ago
      The permissions alerts don’t come from the App Store, they come from sandboxing and the permission model. This is a property of the OS, and everyone agrees that this is better than the anarchy of desktop OSs. But they were created decades earlier, sandboxing was obvious in hindsight only. > surely any "spyware" on the app store is going to include a ton of permissions alerts when it does anything? Not really. Push notifications is enough. I can send you a push notification and get loads of details from your phone, including cross-app fingerprinting. Iirc Apple allows ~3 silent push notifications per hour so they can be completely hidden. https://gizmodo.com/iphone-apps-can-harvest-data-from-notifications-1851194537 https://gizmodo.com/iphone-apps-can-harvest-data-from-notifi... But really, your search is as good as mine. The entire digital economy is based on personal data collected from your devices, and yes, that includes the iPhone. How is this news? What’s your definition of spyware?
Bud 2y ago
[dead]
op00to 2y ago
I specifically liked the lightning cable and the App Store. I had no problem getting lightning cables for a fair price, and I have no problem finding all the applications I need on my iOS devices. Compared with the sewer that is the Play Store, the App Store is a breath of fresh air.
Aaargh20318 2y ago
> 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 link. You had to host it yourself, there was no store so you had to advertise your app to make it discoverable. You had to arrange (and pay for) a shortcode and SMS provider for every single country you wanted to sell in. You had to write and host code to handle the incoming message on the shortcode and respond with a RB-SMS. Next to that, the SDK’s were absolute dogshit, phone manufacturers didn’t give a shit about apps and the phones themselves were riddled with bugs (with the notable exception of SonyEricsson, their J2ME environment was excellent). Symbian was a PITA to develop for, BlackBerry was actively developer-hostile (unless you happened to be a Fortune-500 company). Samsung phones were an absolute disaster, every single phone model had a unique set of bugs you had to find workarounds for. So in comes Apple, they charge only 30% and for that you get a nice SDK, an App Store that distributes your app, makes it discoverable and handles payments worldwide with zero extra effort. We were thrilled when they announced it, and rightfully so. Google then followed suit with the Play Store, effectively matching what Apple was doing. So yeah, Apple deserves some thanks for what they did with the App Store.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  >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.
  - Aaargh20318 2y ago
    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.
atmosx 2y ago
The EU was created to integrate and unify social security, pension systems, welfare states, and, ultimately, politics and policy—both foreign and domestic. I couldn’t care less about Apple’s case, but the fact that this is being touted as the EU’s biggest achievement in decades says a lot about why Europeans don’t like the EU.

mwinatschek 2y ago

I’m with you on this one. I’d be fine with Apple opening up their ecosystem in a safe and careful way to other companies but only if the security stays, at least, at the same level - and if I’m able to turn off these options in the settings.

bigiain 2y ago

Yep. Same. I do not want 3rd party hardware/software vendors to have unrestricted access to the messaging app on my phone that is the only option my bank and PayPal and a bunch of other critical services use for 2FA. Especially not when the software they want to run is JavaScript, with all it's well known npm dependancy nightmares, _and_ from a founder and team that openly admit iPhones are a second class citizen in their development planning and resources. And especially especially not when the founders have previously shown their colors when they rugpulled all their customers and effectively bricked all the devices they'd sold. Even with the limited iMessage/SMS access they have now, I wonder how long it'll be before we see a supply chain attack against Pebble exploiting some 11th level deep npm dependancy on something dumb like leftpad.js, that exfiltrates SMS 2FA codes and first anybody knows about it will be when a bunch of CryptoBros start complaining about their exchange accounts being emptied...

fooqux 2y ago
> And especially especially not when the founders have previously shown their colors when they rugpulled all their customers and effectively bricked all the devices they'd sold. As a Pebble user for a long time, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. If you're talking about Fitbit halting services, I can't exactly blame the founder of Pebble for that. Can I blame him for the poor business decisions that led to needing to sell to Fitbit? I guess, but I'm not a business person nor a CEO and have no idea what transpired to lead up to that. But I'm reasonably sure it wasn't malice as you seem to imply.
saagarjha 2y ago
Psst…there’s JavaScript running on your phone right now.
- bigiain 2y ago
  Sure, but so far as I know none of it has access to the contents of SMS or iMessages.
skeaker 2y ago
Then don't grant them the access! This isn't all or nothing! It's a matter of being given a choice (to which you can say "no!") or being given no choice at all.

burnte 2y ago

As another user, I don't want you making that decision for me.

zamalek 2y ago

Other users might not want to, such are the reasons for toggles.

Elidrake24 2y ago
Other users want a secure design without the ability to shoot oneself in the foot, such is the reason for a market where you have the alternative choice in Android.

CivBase 2y ago

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

surajrmal 2y ago
I don't self identify as a hacker despite being an active member of this community. Im not sure it's a fair assumption to make that everyone here identifies as a so called hacker despite the name. I don't generally like the apple ecosystem but I think the choice to lock things down isn't always problematic. users that care for other choices can choose android.
ianseyer 2y ago
It’s important to remember this community is under the umbrella of a massive venture capital firm.
hackburg 2y ago
[dead]

windexh8er 2y ago

As a user you should be fine with the ability to restrict access to iMessage. Not locked out of it with hardware you own and interoperability dictated by the vendor who also wants you to buy their watch.

ethbr1 2y ago
Exactly. It's amazing how often the nuance between may and must is missed by Apple fans. Apple should be able to lock down their ecosystem as a default -- plenty of people will be happy to use that default experience. But Apple should absolutely be prohibited from not allowing users the choice of unlocking their own device, for additional functionality, if they choose. It's also glaringly obvious that many of the "freedoms" Apple affords its users (freedom from iMessage spam!) help drive its revenue...
- fastball 2y ago
  Not sure you understand the argument. If you allow people the ability to access iMessage however they want, how do you prevent iMessage spam? You may not care about this, but a lot of people do.
  - moron4hire 2y ago
    How do you prevent iMessage spam, indeed? Because it's not being prevented right now.
  - protimewaster 2y ago
    Can't you already send iMessage spam using Apple Script on Mac? Would it be that much worse if it was also possible from iPhone? Also, I'm pretty sure you can just set up a click farm to spam from iPhone right now, so there's also that.
    - VogonPoetry 2y ago
      It isn't easy to do with just AppleScript on a Mac. I run a sports team and I wanted to send out a message to people for special situations. Some of the challenges are that you cannot script sending a new message if there isn't already a thread -and- it seems like you must use the same contact info (email or phone number). There isn't much feedback when it goes wrong. Some of these do make sense for preventing spam. I suspect I could have used the accessibility APIs to drive the UI. I eventually gave up.

smaudet 2y ago

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 misbehaving) app. I use a Garmin, and Android, and I use it for messages all the time, it's great. I can't imagine not taking them. It's easy for me to block stuff I don't want, could it be easier, maybe... But my point is this isn't something unreasonable for a user to want. As a general aside, it seems when I hear about Apple products anymore, they are locked down, unintuitive, and generally just unpleasant. I even tried an Apple device again recently...eugh. Apple is only "nice" for a certain, narrow segment of the population.

wokwokwok 2y ago
> 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 this isn't something unreasonable for a user to want. This ignores the reality which is that doing it in a way that gives a nice user experience without an enormously painful security issue is really non trivial. Maybe it's OK to have the choice? ... If you love your android phone, don't care about iOS, don't like iphones.... why do you care? I mean, why does it upset android users when they see this sort of thing for people using iphones? It mystifies me. If you love you phone, and you think it's better, then use it. Nothing lost right?
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  Except if you want pebble an iphone, thats the loss.
- freehorse 2y ago
  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)'

Der_Einzige 2y ago

People like you are why technology sucks. Please stop having this opinion or similar ones.

Ajedi32 2y ago

This perspective is infuriating. It's literally Stockholm syndrome. Your device is being held prisoner in a cell that they refuse to give you the key to unlock no matter how much you beg, and you are actually thanking them for it. How can you not realize that you're being abused?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
1propionyl 2y ago
Different people evaluate cost/benefit trade offs differently than you do, and don't speak of the matter with metaphorically charged terminology like "abuse", "prison", "Stockholm syndrome", etc.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Normally I'd agree; people overuse the term "Stockholm syndrome", but in this case it's a perfect analogy. Apple has you trapped. You can't use a competing smart watch even if you wanted to, because Apple is blocking critical functionality and there's nothing you can do about it short of ending the abusive relationship entirely and completely leaving the Apple ecosystem. But you don't want to do that, you love Apple too much, so instead you choose to thank your captor for holding you captive. It's your fault they have to do this after all; you can't be trusted to make a decision about which smartwatch you want to use. After all, if you chose a competitor that might be a bad decision that would hurt your security. So Apple is totally justified in preventing you from leaving. Thank you Apple for saving us from ourselves! It would be one thing to acknowledge Apple's doing something bad here but still decide to use their products because you like their hardware. That would be a cost/benefit trade-off. But actually thanking them for the abuse itself? There's really, legitimately no better way that I can think of to characterize the situation than as Stockholm syndrome.

cameldrv 2y ago

It's tricky. As a long time Apple user, I appreciate that they are privacy focused, but I also get a lot of spam text messages, calls, and notifications. It's become more and more annoying to deal with these on my Garmin watch and on my phone. I wish I had some sort of AI filter. For example, I want to get a notification if my Uber is running late, but I don't want one if Uber is offering me 20% off if I subscribe to whatever their monthly service is.

atmosx 2y ago

But the Apple Watch has access to iMessage right? :-)

sirdvd 2y ago

As a user, I'd be totally fine with Apple letting me choose who can access to my iMessages.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
Just like totalitarian regimes, Apple considers its users too stupid to be allowed to make choices for themselves. They must be herded like sheep towards the right path.

footlose_3815 2y ago

"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.