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 directly with iMessage even after taking all security and certification efforts. This isn't a security play. This is a walled garden play.

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.

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.

> what's wrong with allowing another app to post messages to my messages?

That's exactly what spammers would use to send spam.

Spammers sending spam through ble ?!

They might just as well beat you up and take your wallet.

No, they would on their own phones automate sending spam to the iMessage network using ble at the interface.

Or just send spam through their iPhone.

I don't get this argument that Apple making it difficult for their paying customers to send and receive messages is somehow a good thing. It's also not like Apple is helpless, they managed to shut down Beeper.

You can already use a Mac to automate iMessage. It supports Applescript.

They can already use USB rubber ducks to automate the iMessage user interface, even if they don't have a Mac.

Regardless, they would need to be a few meters from you (spec says <100m, but that’s very generous).

If they are right next to you, there are many criminal activities more lucrative than sending an imessage...

...Which wouldn’t be possible anyway, because devices using ble to communicate typically require to be paired together by their owner.

Why did you choose to ignore the very next statement in their post, that ensures it cannot be spammed? Doesn't seem like you are arguing in good faith here.

I don't think this is a reasonable take (and also doesn't make sense). If you read the other comments here its extremely clear to everyone that no one here is seriously concerned about your watch sending spam.

If you 'opt-out' then it does not fix the problem of spammers having easier access to imessage.

I'll say that again: If you personally, either a) opt out, or b) dont have a watch at all, it makes no difference to spammers. They are not sending spam using your watch.

People are concerned about the result of allowing anyone to send messages in general.

...

The real argument to be made here is, as other people have pointed out, this isn't technically impossible; I mean, apple watch can do it right?

So there is a solution; but Apple isn't allowing other people to use it.

THAT is the issue here.

Pretending there is 'no issue' is flat out wrong. If that what you think, you're wrong and you haven't understood the problem.

The issue is why only Apple is, according to Apple, technically capable of implementing the controls required to do it in a secure manner.

That's a fair question to ask, and there really isn't a strong answer for it.

Certainly, making it easy for anyone to send messages would not be a solution. That would be stupid. That's why they haven't done that.

...but, you have to ask, is there really no certification process that would do the job? Really? None? Only Apple engineers are smart enough and diligent enough to do it without screwing it up? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Have you considered the fact it could be because Apple Watch itself is closed, walled garden and Apple has full control over its security (and therefore trust in it)?

Imagine a world where they allow Pebble to go through certification process for it to get jailbroken half a year down the road opening the gateway to iMessage for all the spammers in the world. What then? Should Apple now play whac-a-moll with the spammers forever, or block the access to all Pebble watches creating another scandal? And what if this happens to next 10 different watch makers down the road?

They own Apple Watch and if it gets jailbroken its their mess to deal with, but if they open it to the world then they have zero control over it.

It is easier to automatically send messages from a Mac today than it ever will be from a hypothetical Pebble/iMessage bridge.

If they block access to all Pebble watched AFTER it has been shown to be opening a dangerous gateway to spammers despite valiant attempts by all to engineer it to be safe, then that would be a lot less of a scandal.

If they further block it by default but allow Pebble users to bypass the block with some very scary warning message then My God there wouldn't be a scandal at all. People who know and accept the risks can use the thing they paid money for as they please then.

revoke the certificate, push that out in the next update. It will take time to propagate but that's how it is.

Apple doesn't get to be a major player in the market without playing fair.

I don't see this at all. No one is talking about anyone being able to access to iMessage. No one has a problem for example if you simply require an apple account. No one expect to just be able to do post(number, message).

> 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?

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)'

So similar to democracy vs authoritarianism argument. If I live in Europe, why should I care that Russia is a dictatorship?

Because it affects my life, and can be fatal even, thats why.

Except if you want pebble an iphone, thats the loss.

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 only comment with their dev hats on and are apparently unable to see things from user perspectives...

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.

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

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.

The 3rd parties are not getting anything out of it. You literally pay for access to a tech stack that has nothing better than you would be able to do with USB. I mean the other side of connection was USB so it was a necessity anyway. If at least they upgraded the speed over the years, but nope stuck at USB 2.

For a hardware project I looked briefly at the MFi terms and they just don't make any sense. This is why any good lightning cable was always more expensive (at least before you get some from China with contraband auth chips)

Lightning is a major cash crab from Apple and revealed their actual playbook. Microsoft passed as a very bad players in the 90's but Apple is even worse. The only people not accepting that are deranged fans.

USB-C is a car crash of an implementation landscape, just because the interface is a single design, doesn't mean that you can rely on it. It is better than it was, but we've had several instances of issues with the USB-C, including my own personal favourite of my Nintendo Switch charging socket burning out because I used a non-Nintendo charger - an Apple one, completely compliant and as good as they get - to charge the Switch. A £50 repair.

Some USB-C cables aren't data compliant. They just send power. There's all kinds of foibles with USB-C that have taken years to work on and this just isn't clear to tech folks, let alone non-tech consumers.

The Lightning port has never done this to me, the device just charges and that's it. It transfers files and that's it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think USB C is perfect nor that it would have been my choice. In fact, from a mechanical standpoint, I prefer Lightning.

What I'm saying is that Apple didn't have to take a cut from every item sold by 3rd parties who wanted to use their specs. They could even have sold the spec at a fair price but instead they went on a full rent-seeking strategy.

This is why, when there is chatter about Qualcomm/Apple feud on licensing, I laugh my ass off because this is exactly the same behavior they impose on their partners. Can dish it out but can't take it. My complaint is mostly about the hypocrisy of Apple's behavior.

But the real motivator was making as much money as possible, the fact that their specifications had some desirable qualities is nice but not very relevant (since you don't get a choice if you wanted to make an iThing accessory anyway). Their previous port (30-pin) had the same problem and it was rather terrible. I had the first iPod with FW400 and they could have very well gone with mini-USB when they switched to their 30-pin to make it compatible with most PC who mostly had USB 2 and rarely FireWire. I used mini-USB for plenty of things from external hard-drive to digital cameras passing by digital mini-disc players and it was a fine port.

Yet they chose to make their completely proprietary 30-pin port, to rent-seek as much as possible on the accessory market. When they switched to Lightning, the goal was exactly the same, trying to pretend it's because it was better is disingenuous and very ignorant of Apple's history and behavior.

Plenty of corporations do things like that but the difference is that with Apple there is an army of zealots eating the bullcrap and justifying their behavior in a fanatical way.

You could turn lightning connectors upside down and plug them in before you could do that with USB

> The 3rd parties are not getting anything out of it.

Except all the profits from selling all those cables, connectors, and converters.

They would have the same profit (in fact more) if they didn't have to pay a percentage of their sales to Apple.

The 3rd party manufacturers didn't make profit because of Apple but because of their customers choosing their products.

The way you try to reverse the situation and try to pretend Apple is entitled to a percentage of revenue from other companies making things to work with their products is pure insanity.

Do you think the brand of your car should get a cut of every compatible thing you buy to use with it? Should they get a cut on brake pad, tires, cables to their entertainment system, carpet of the right size for the particular car, etc. The list can be almost infinite.

Do you realize how absurd what you are trying to defend is?

> You literally pay for access to a tech stack that has nothing better than you would be able to do with USB.

Tech stack has the customers. You pay for access to customers.

This is a relative comparison versus USB. If it was USB, it would have the same customers behind it (plus more).

Best interpretation of that is rent-seeking. Not strictly illegal, but prone to regulation at the very least. Another way to put it is racketeering. I guess that Apple has been toying with the line for so long that people don't even understand where their interests lies...

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.

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.

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.

The same thing happened with the original USB. Windows machines, even laptops, shipped with serial and even parallel ports for years after the first iMacs went all in on it. That gave the market for USB devices an enormous boost.

Without that, USB might have died.

People have really bad memories of Mini- and Micro-USB, or aren't old enough to have experienced that era. Those things were fragile. At that point in time, it made all the technical and business sense in the world to replace their existing proprietary connector with a new, improved proprietary connector. The MFi program was a thing before Lightning, it's still a thing today, and has nothing to do with the specific connector.

The open alternative to 30-pin when Lightning was introduced was micro-USB and micro-USB is ass, but not switching away from 30-pin wasn’t an option for the phone they wanted to build at the time, that being the iPhone 5.

All in all, Lightning was a net benefit that overstayed its welcome by a few years. Even once USB-C was introduced a few years later, it took a few more years than that to become as pervasive as it did.

Overstaying its welcome was intentional to avoid burning peripheral developers who had been promised 10 years of compatibility after Lightning replaced the 30-pin dock connector, which was used from 2003-2012.

As noted in other comments, Apple was part of the USB working group, contributed to USB-C, and introduced USB-C/Thunderbolt-only laptops in 2016. There was backlash against this so they have since backtracked and reintroduced MagSafe and HDMI ports. Personally I would have preferred more USB-C/Thunderbolt ports.

No I get that and I know the history too; but that doesn’t mean it didn’t overstay its welcome as far as users are concerned. Speaking as someone that personally was never got hung up over the shape of the charge cable and certainly not for the flimsy e-waste arguments that were put forth: just in terms of transfer rate (at least on the higher end models) and device compatibility, USB-C has been an upgrade that users could have been enjoying 3 to 5 years earlier when USB-C was a bit more widespread.

I never paid more for a lightning cable than I did for any other usb cable. Why would I care?

I haven't paid for all that many lightning cables period, since they tended to be included with most devices that needed them, and aside from some strain reliefs that I've added myself in the form of heat shrink, they've been largely reliable too.

The issue I have with Lightning is that over time they tend to develop side to side wobble, to the point the connection becomes unreliable.

This was usually due to lint clogging up the port on the device. You could easily remove it with a toothpick and then everything was back in working order. Took just a few seconds at most.

Sadly such remedy is not possible with USB-C due to the thin piece inside. :(

Try a paperclip or bobby-pin. Had to do that recently due to my cable not charging my phone reliably.

Nope, it’s not that. I’ve seen this behavior with a worn cable and a brand new device.

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

You can run ad blockers in mobile Safari. This one works great: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browser/... -- it's both a browser itself as well as acting as a content blocker for Safari and does a fantastic job at blocking ads.

I'm talking system-wide add blocker which also blocks in-app ads.

You absolutely can run an ad-blocker.

You can block ads in iPhone apps?

That wasn't what was asked, but yes you can (through the various VPN-based ad-blocking apps)

I have youtube premium and still need an ad blocker. What a stupid remark.

> I don't need an ad-blocker. I have YouTube Premium.

This cannot be your actual stance.

You know there is a lot more to the Internet than that one website, right?

I already said I dont use Safari that much. If you hadn't shortened the quote your reply would be moot. Maybe I need to rephrase, to make you happy: I don't use the web so much on my iPhone. The primary ad-offender in my world is YouTube, which I fixed by paying for Premium.

Surely you jest.

Ever feel like you're talking to some gaslighting AI ? The Grandparent comment seems like it is one of those moments.

> And I really don't need Safari that often, actually.

Yeah you're an exception.

Thankfully people like you don't get to decide what EU rules as best for people.

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.

I have no issue with Apple inventing a new, superior connector; I applaud them for it. My issue is with them making it a closed proprietary standard with authentication chips to lock out unapproved third-party vendors. They could have just invented Lightning and made it an open standard. We might not have even needed USB-C then; the industry could have just iterated upon Lightning.

As I understand it, the USB standard is licensed, and you have to pay for it to use the USB logo and to get a vendor ID if you are not already a paying member of the USB Association. Licensing requires passing a compliance test, which is a very good idea.

Apple was also part of the working group that developed USB-C.

USB-C pushed whatever it was doing too far; it's now necessary to know what kind of USB-C cable you have. There's one kind for data transfer and a different kind for rapid power draw. And they look exactly the same.

That has nothing to do with USB-C, but with the USB 3+ standard, AFAIK Apple uses Thunderbolt protocol that is compatible with USB but it has less optional features than USB protocol.

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.

MicroUSB was absolutely not fine. The connectors were difficult to insert and very vulnerable to damage.

MicroUSB is a terrible connector. Every time I have to use one, it's impossible to get into the slot; it's finicky, breakable and has a one way orientation. Lightning is delightful to use.

Micro-USB connector has been consistently rated as one of the worst connectors ever invented[0], [2]. You can find more on the search engine of your choice.

Also relevant: 19 engineers from Apple worked on the USB-C connector and cable specification[1].

«None of the chargers fit snuggly into socket. The connectors are flimsy and get damaged easily. Just rolling up the charger and putting it in my pocket can cause the tip to break off»[0]

«While on the whole, I am satisfied with the switch to USB Micro, my only major gripe is the less obvious keying. Inserting the plug with good lighting is no problem (if you can see), but trying to plug in your cell phone after you've crawled into bed with the lights off can be a trial. As somebody who works with people with disabilities and medical conditions, I have heard from clients with compromised motor control, those with low vision, and those with distal neuropathies that they do experience a harder time plugging in their devices nowadays»[0]

[0] https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/18552/why-wa...

[1] https://www.docdroid.net/uf3z/typec-pdf

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649405

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.

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.

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.

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?

In the 15 years that I use iPhones now, I never needed the USB port for any data transfer except for one time when I used an external sound card to record things. Maybe I am a simpleton when it comes to mobile. I guess I deserve being LOLed at.

Apple didn't continue to iterate on Lightning because of the obvious future migration to USB-C connectors.

I will die on the hill that the Lightning plug is superior to the USB-C plug. Lightning could some day have supported USB-3.2+ speeds, if they'd chosen to work further on it.

Still, I have never once transferred data to my iPhone over a USB cable. I have used an iPhone since the first generation. For me, it has only ever been a means to charge the phone and to connect it to CarPlay. With wireless CarPlay and MagSafe charging, they could remove the port and I wouldn't miss it all that much (except for fast charging).

Agreed. I really miss lightning after getting a usb-c iPhone. The best part of lightning port was how easy it is to clean. You can get lint and sawdust out of the clogged port with a toothpick. With usb-c, I can’t find a rigid non-metallic pick small enough to clean dust out of a usb-c port.

I'm pretty sure Apple switched to USB-C to comply with EU requirements. I don't think the success of USB-C has much to do with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/26/iphone-us...

You would be demonstrably wrong.

Apple was already well under way on their USB-C transition. They literally shipped the first all-USB-C laptop in 2015. Not the first Apple laptop. The first laptop full stop. The iPad Pro switched to USB-C from Lightning in 2018. Every year since, fewer and fewer devices released with Lightning and more and more with USB-C.

If you need more evidence, literally just consider that Apple never bothered to invest further in Lightning. There were no further speed bumps. No updates in the USB protocol version supported. Even charging, USB-A to Lightning has been capped at a pitiful 12W. Does this seem like the behavior of a company that wants to stay on Lightning?

The iPhone would undoubtably have been USB-C in a generation or two even without the EU’s involvement.

Does the iPhone show up as a USB media device nowadays or do they still force you to jump through hoops?

I've had tremendous trouble trying to get my iPhone SE to show up as a USB device. Never did figure it out, but the macOS app iMazing has served me well as a workaround.

Some iPad Pros used USB3 lightning that used pins on both side of the lightning cable.

No, the device can only do USB 2 speeds. There’s no controller for anything faster.

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/

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.

Op specifically called out “Max”. Most people would find that technically incorrect. But go ahead and draw lines in the sand wherever you wish if it makes you feel like you’re winning an argument.

I gave the max as an example. I did not say it was the only model that could get USB 3 speeds so you are "technically incorrect" and just want to win the argument.

The two models combined account for half of all iPhone sales. And nobody refers to them as anything but iPhones.

It is not just technically wrong to say “the iPhone doesn’t support a thing” when it the statement only applies to a fraction of the product line and actual user experience.

You seem confused. I never said “the iPhone doesn’t support a thing”.

> Thunderbolt on iPhones are USB 2 speeds.

OP also specifically called out USB 2 speeds.

Thunderbolt on iPhones are USB 2 speeds. Just because Thunderbolt could go faster, doesn't mean Apple actually allows it on their phones.

> 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.

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.

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.

I never understand this viewpoint — I understand what you're saying but there's no advantage to this over the Play Store model on Android.

You can have the walled garden, and also not restrict people's freedom — on Android I'm sure the number of people that use any other store than the play store or even side load apps are vanishingly small.

To even be able to do it you have to enable it deep in the settings. And even then, if a new app tries to install an apk you have to manually approve that app's ability to do that before reinitiating the entire process.

That's to say, the default experience is very wall gardened, and I do feel somewhat more protected when downloading something from the play store than not, and the vast majority of people will never leave the Google walled garden. But there exists a way to go around that walled garden when you need to, and that doesn't subtract from that walled garden mode in any way IMO.

For myself, the point is that I don't have to download another app store ever. If fortnite wants to get me (and roughly 50% of US mobile users) to play their game, they _have_ to follow the rules of the app store we have decided suits us best. If, however, other app stores are allowed, then there are no rules. No gatekeeper.

I prefer the gatekeeper, in this case.

> 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).

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?

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-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?

> I WANT to be able to download any stupid thing in there without a care in the world re: viruses or other damaging experiences

That's rich knowing that most of the money Apple gets from the Appstore is made from predatory casino-like games

> 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.

>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.

>lightning connector was actually a great product

Almost every Apple lighting cable in my household frayed...

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Repair+a+Frayed+Apple+Li...

>Apple charging cables, such as the Lightning to USB Cable, are easily prone to fraying. Most commonly, this fraying occurs from device usage while charging.

This has nothing to do with the plug though, its just the material they make their cables out of. Nothing is inherently different about USB-C that will stop this

But the licensing fees effectively introduced a price floor onto lightning cables. Apple's implementation having issues is a problem because other manufacturers could produce a very cheap alternative, but they would be unable to sell it a low cost due to having to pay the licensing fees.

I have a grandma and grandpa and I deal with their devices directly. I’m want an iPhone that lets me do more and I can set up (with their consent, of course) a more limited experience for them. Their phones currently have purchases turned off, for example, because they have a set of apps they need and there’s no reason for new apps, because even with the App Store not all of them are actually good enough to have on their phones.

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.

Lightning development started in 2008 as I was there!

USB-C development started in 2012 (I was not there!), but from wiki, the ever helpful source of truth: "The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, HP Inc., Microsoft, and the USB Implementers Forum. The Type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) on August 11, 2014.[1] In July 2016, it was adopted by the IEC as "IEC 62680-1-3".[3]"

I not sure of the logic here, but Lightning solved a problem way before USB-C existed and I'm sure, led to support of USB-C standards such as reversible connectors etc...

> 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

Both your statements are just arbitrary You are not representative of all iPhone users.

Plenty of people are asking for that, actually. I suggest you look through the App Store for developer tools and report back what you find.

I'm sure if it was really that much of an unmet need, Apple would be jumping out of their skin to go and build it and thus rake in the billions of unrealised revenue that must be out there

But they're not, so I'm continue to assume they know what they're doing. Again, go buy an Android if that's what you want

You're sure that the company of "a thousand nos for every yes" is going to go out and make every single thing that people might possibly want?

No... which is why they've been such a great company for so long.

The point is that they offload a lot of the things to third parties.

Apple did not design the USB-C connector, Intel did.

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.

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.

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...

How does connecting to a smartwatch enable spam? None of the comments here explain in detail how that would happen. The messages still get sent through an iPhone and through Apple servers. It's not like Apple is giving up any control over those.

How do you prevent iMessage spam, indeed? Because it's not being prevented right now.

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.

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.

Do you think using a watch bridge would be easier?

Not really, but that really wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to counter what I thought was a faulty equivalence argument; AppleScript allows unrestricted use of iMessage today, so giving watches an API won't make it worse.

I do think that the state of AppleScript automation is the result of trying to break the mechanisms that were being used to generate SPAM. Could you agree that automation capable interfaces do increase the chances of bad actors taking advantage? Right now, with a lack of information, I don't know how I could make an iMessage automation interface "safe by design".

I do see a direct path from the mandated AT&I breakup and interoperability rules to SIP / VOIP services and the resulting levels of Phone spam and caller-id fraud. This has cost a lot of people, life changing amounts of money and much wasted effort and time.

Un-nuanced tech laws or mandates have a terrible track record for having bad side effects. Those effects often never get addressed, which makes me wonder a bit about the original motivation of why the laws came to be in the first place.

I also see a narrative that company X will automatically refuse to work with company Y or community Z and are de-facto always acting in bad faith. Even if company X was never approached or asked - yeah, companies do tend to isolate themselves making direct communication very, very difficult. I cannot deny that there are some company X's that do seem to behave very poorly. A counter example, in my opinion, is the recent Bambu labs API issue. As a tinkerer, a few minutes of looking at how people had built interactions with their printers strongly suggested to me that Bambu introducing an actual API endpoint was a really, really sane thing for them to do. (I did comment this way). Only time will tell if Bambu was actually trying to improve things or was acting in bad faith.

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

> 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.

Psst…there’s JavaScript running on your phone right now.

Sure, but so far as I know none of it has access to the contents of SMS or iMessages.

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.

I'm still using my pebble today, and never stopped. What bricking?

Preach. My team's building an OS for smart glasses and some of our most common feature requests are iOS notifications & being able to reply to them.

We're going to have to do insane things to get them working. Due to how ANCS works, we're considering developing an ANCS "doohicky" (either a BLE pop-socket, smart-ring, or mag-safe wallet) which gets notifications via BLE & relays them back to the iPhone, to then send to the glasses. That would just get us the raw notifications, though, and wouldn't solve the issue of replying. The other option is a Beeper-like system in the cloud to bypass iOS entirely, but that also has downsides.

It's a total mess, especially compared to Android where you can just easily listen for notifications & send them to the glasses without much pushback from the system.

Every device you let in is another attack surface, and no certification process can eliminate it.

Allowing devices to view and respond to messages is inherently lower risk than allowing them to freely communicate with anyone.

You could say the same about software and app stores. If safety were the top priority, then the safest option is to say no apps, but that isn't competitive or lucrative. Apple's approach is to create safe frameworks and a review process that allows the App Store to exist.

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

Poor security implementations harm security, because they train users to click through them. It’s certainly an “attempt” but I wouldn’t say it improves security.

They're likely to be regulated into allowing third party app stores with review processes that they don't control.

What third party apps can see notifications and send via iMessage?

You could argue for only allowing communication through selected carriers, or connections to selected brand computers, and connecting to selected manufacturer Wi-Fi hotspots too

Yeah, but while Apple might consider the hardware to be "untrusted", at some point I trust the hardware I bought. Apple telling me I cannot decide what devices are trusted or not is annoying.

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.

I tend to agree with this, but if you look at the PC ecosystem, you'll see that 'leave users to figure out their own security' is a shit show.

Phones, for better or worse, contain much more private and personal information about users than their computer I would bet on average.

So I understand the urge to make phones more secure by default and to help users avoid foot guns, even if it means restricting their choices.

You are likely not the average user, and I think it's a bit selfish to demand total freedom, that you can manage safely, when for most users they would be worse off.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need this but we certainly don't have one of those.

> I understand the urge to make phones more secure by default and to help users avoid foot guns

There's secure by default, and then there's stuff users can't override even with great effort. Android restricts some dangerous operations by default and makes users jump through a couple hoops to acknowledge the risk. iOS usually forbids them entirely.

Yep agreed that this would be a better approach. I think this is where iOS uses security as an excuse to maintain their walled garden.

> I tend to agree with this, but if you look at the PC ecosystem, you'll see that 'leave users to figure out their own security' is a shit show.

I do not in fact see that. PCs work pretty damn well, security-wise, even with clueless users. I'll grant you it isn't as secure as phones, but it's by no means horrible.

Were you around for the first 10-15 years of the widespread consumer Internet?

I actually disagree with you that things are good, security-wise, today.. They are still pretty bad.

Back then was extremely bad.. Back then, Windows was never designed to be a networked operating system and was just full of security problems like you wouldn't believe.

The problem is that we're in a duopoly on the most important metaphorical ecosystem on the planet. If the market were competitive and efficient, I'd agree, but it isn't.

The upshot of this is that Apple can unfairly compete in all sorts of verticals just by owning that platform. A lot of companies could make a good Airpod competitor, but without access to the same functions as Apple's they're hamstrung. Watches have this problem even worse.

Say what you want about Microsoft at their zenith, you COULD compete with their browser, in fact, people did. You just can't with iOS. That's more important than some users having poor security. (And really, how are we going to worry about phone security when there's a system as stupid as passwordless social security numbers being the key to your financial life?)

The natural duopoly needs to be regulated such that it doesn't spill over into every tangential market.

Without that "shit show" you would never end up with devices like iPhones and useful software that drove last decades of innovation and progress.

The ability to build better things is the reason why you can now sit here, using technologies built on that "shit show" machine, and bloviate how new generations aren't allowed to build new things anymore because a megacorp needs to feed its greed.

I believe the point being made was that “the few” are the people making what’s next.

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.

Just like your comment was not really about providing anything new, but insulting people who use technology?

Have you done a lot of tech support for people? If not, you really don't know the extent of it. It's not insulting, it's just how people are. You should meet the guy who had a lot of issues on his MacBook Pro, related to low storage left (barely a few gigs) that was entirely due to his extremely large porn collection.

When asked about it, he doesn't have too many files. What do you do in that case? Isn't he a moron both for storing so much porn and at the same time (somehow) believing a tech support person wouldn't find the root of the problem. It was in a "hidden" folder, so not only he is a moron for the first offense, but doubly so for thinking a competent person wouldn't find something so obvious.

So, I reiterate, most people are morons, and technology just reveals their ineptitude in plain sight, it's simple as that.

You are free to believe in your idealized version of the world, but it doesn't match my experience at all.

Yes, I do. In fact I had someone visit my house literally today because she needed to fix her SMS setup for her phone and I have been her tech support for years (as I am for most of my family and their friends). The people I help are quite smart but they have better things to do than figure out exactly how technology works. I explain what they need to understand and they know they can always ask me when they are confused.

I actually think your example illustrates this: people use their computers for porn. There's nothing wrong with that. If it's so large that he has no space left, I mean that's a pretty actionable thing to tell him. He's not an idiot for not figuring it out himself. That he "hid" the folder from you–I mean, people hide things from professionals all the time. Nobody volunteers to their doctor that they wipe in the wrong direction and thus have chronic UTIs. It's your job to work around the reasonable things people do that make your work harder and bring them to "oh, that makes sense, thanks" perspective.

So you are telling me that someone who doesn't make the connection between low storage on their computers and their large porn collection which is the reason of this low storage causing issues is not an idiot. They could have deleted their stach (or at least part of it) anytime to see if things would improve, which is how not moronic people work (you know, the try and see feedback loop of proper learning).

You are just of bad faith, pretending to be outraged about what I said even though it only describes the reality of the world. Your newfound religion is so bad that you find offensive something that doesn't even have any moral implication to it and is factual proven by so many statistics that it is not even worth arguing about.

If you what you mean is "not every computer user is a moron" you need to work on reading comprehension because that's not what I said. I stand by my original statement and you are somewhat proving me right.

Maybe they’re just smarter than you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43447194

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.

Modern computers are complicated to build and to use for complicated stuff but they have been extremely easy to use for regular stuff since the late 90s.

Pretending otherwise is nonsensical, since the richest economies in the world depend on it and surely not everyone is at a genius level.

There are some things important and complicated that I don't understand very well but they are not about basic operation of relatively simple things. It's like saying operating a washing machine or using a knife is something special.

And I do understand people very well; in fact, much more than I wish, by necessity. Your average person is frustratingly basic to the point of being extremely annoying on top of boring. I just choose to not pretend and "be nice" anymore, because it just hides reality and doesn't help anyone. The fact that we have some people designing complex computers or sending people to the moon while others are barely able to cook a meal is largely a testament to that.

You might want to get rid of your ideologies if you believe what I said is controversial or wrong. Most people, by statistical definition, are idiots. Technology just reveals that fact very clearly, it's as simple as that.

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.

> The average person is really bad at system administration

the average person doesn't even understand the basic concept of what the average HN reader considers system administration, and we're wrong anyway eh

Because with iMessage, it's not about your own security, it's about the security of everybody that you're allowed to message from a given device.

I suspect Apple can significantly cut down on abuse prevention measures just by making it harder to automatically send iMessage spam.

If any random Bluetooth smartwatch was allowed to send those, there's no telling how that capability could be abused, we all know how IoT vendors are with device security.

> Because with iMessage, it's not about your own security, it's about the security of everybody that you're allowed to message from a given device.

You do realize that you're implying that Apple is insecure by design? Because I can easily (locally) root my iPhone and get raw access to iMessage.

> we all know how IoT vendors are with device security.

Couldn't agree more: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord/SearchResults?query=apple+watc...

The adverse consequences are not limited to the end user that made that choice, and few people will subsequently admit culpability for the external consequences of poor choices. Which is to say, people are hypocrites. How surprising. Thus is the boundary of rational individualism identified.

Not all corporations make better choices, however, which motivates a regulatory role. Thus is civilisation identified.

At some point you need to accept that there are sufficient hoops necessary to jump through to disable security that no one would accidentally do it. If you really think that security is so paramount that no level of compromise is acceptable, then you should be outraged that devs can test their apps on their iPhones. You should be up in arms at the existence of the App Store that lets you install software written by third parties. You should be petitioning Apple to remove safari as what could be more insecure that downloading and running arbitrary code from a completely unknown website? And you should be happy paying $1500 for a function-less, featureless, slab of Titanium with an Apple logo etched on the back, secure in the knowledge that it has no security vulnerabilities whatsoever.

You do understand that “make it work by default” and “customization” are not exclusive, right? you can definitively pick defaults and allow customization for those who want it.

Why can't people choose which prescription drugs they want to use?

They should be able to.

That would be a good way to reduce the efficiency of the remaining antibiotics very quickly.

(But also, this kind of thing is exactly why the analogy doesn't even make sense.)

You're right. This is a good reason to restrict this class of drugs. There is a finite usefulness, oh which each person who uses them consumes a tiny little bit.

They should not, because the adverse consequences are not limited to the individual.

You can't be serious, right? I don't even want to imagine how many people would accidentally kill themselves or at least seriously damage their health if that was the status quo.

Is that my job to prevent? If someone wants to do the most damaging things possible, to intentionally kill themselves, should I feel entitled to stop it?

People should be free to do stupid things, so long as they don't hurt others (the antibiotics example that another poster gave us a much stronger argument)

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".

I'd be interested to hear your original thoughts on why my position is incorrect.

There are prescription drugs with side effects that cause real second-order societal problems (OxyCodone and related opioids are one the come to mind immediately). Amphetamines can cause psychotic behavior (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis for an accessible read). If the person using and abusing those drugs were isolated from others and couldn't harm them it would be one thing but they usually aren't.

The teeming masses of iOS users are, in general, morons, and should absolutely be infantalized when it comes to their device security

> Why can't the end user choose its own level of security vs usability?

Isn't the choice to use an android, then?

What are the limitations of integrating via notifications? That seems like the user-respecting method. For example, I don't use iMessage or SMS, but WhatsApp.

I'm just guessing, but notification suggests you could respond to an incoming message but maybe you can't initiate an outgoing message?

Haven't looked into this, but along with that:

- Multiple replies

- Edits

- Scheduled send

- Voice message

- Tapbacks

- Message history

- Message order is reliant on notification order

- Delays in the notification system could be different than the messaging system

- Opaque nature of message going from notification system -> messaging system, difficult if message is lost/not sent with no indication of why

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.

The framework that lets you collect messages and ship them god-knows-where but not send them?

Might be a little bit of both but nothing you said there contradicts the original point--opening up iMessage integration to arbitrary bluetooth connections is a bad idea. It blows open access to all your messages...who knows, maybe even the e2ee keys. Law enforcement would have a brand new frictionless way into all your messages

I don’t think Apple would ever expose the encryption keys to your messages. Nobody would want it anyway: why reimplement the protocol when you actually just want to send and receive messages? And I fail to see why it would be frictionless for law enforcement, as they’d need to have access to your device.

And what happens when the MFi chip is cracked, as it has been before, and Apple has to choose between permanently compromising their ecosystem or disabling support for a bunch of 3rd party peripherals?

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

s/cap/crap/?

Or they mean cap as 'lie' in genz speak. 'No cap' = 'No lie'. in a sentence "I saw an alligator today. No cap"

Thanks for translating. I’ve never heard cap used in the affirmative.

It’s often used to call people out. That’s cap = that’s bullshit

Gen Z speak? I thought it was 'hood speak' or something. Like: I'm going to cap your sorry ass. I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know.

A lot of slang comes from street language, so that thought may still be right. :)

It's a decades old word that used to mean trying to one up someone with tough talk, exaggerating, topping someone. That talk would be so high above the others, it would be the cap on top.

Now to have a good story, to have that cap, people could be... flexible with the truth, so eventually, over the years, to cap started to mean that you were telling a tall tale, a lie.

Thanks, now I also know where the word comes from.

That's a different old meaning of cap. Modern meaning is "lie".

Thanks!

Etymology: like others said, the old version of cap was short for a bullet. And that term most likely comes from “cap guns” which are/were you guys for kids that had a tiny tiny amount of gunpowder/similar so they made a small noise when fired.

So a bit of speculation, but it’s possible that the word cap has inverted twice over the years, from a toy/fake bullet, to a real bullet, and now back to being a synonym for fake, which it originally was.

both have roots in urban culture. but busting a cap in someone means cap like cap-gun, aka gun, aka shooting someone.

cap in the true/lie sense also has roots there, but more in a superlative sense and not guns