I guess I’ll take the contra here on messages integration — moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary and therefore security architecture and therefore security promises that apple makes on iMessage.
I do not believe average smartwatch users understand what they’d be doing if they got this. I do not believe vendors integrating with such a thing can do it safely, or even that all vendors integrating are good actors.
One reason iMessage is less of a total cesspit than SMS is that the ecosystem is closed, and makes automation difficult. It used to be impossible nearly, and in that era we had almost no iMessage spam. Now it’s difficult, and we have moderate iMessage spam. But adding hooks to make this automation easy, and worse, leave the trust environment as a feature is just wrong.
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.
> moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary
Is it? My iPhone replicates messages to my mac from where a process can extract that data, it can capture the screen etc. I can use a mac today to set up a relay that would then send those messages to a smart watch if one would do that.
Step 1: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Pebble watch> to be able to send messages?" and let the user decide which devices can send their phone messages.
Step 2: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Apple watch> to be able to send messages?" and don't just assume "yes"
Both steps would improve security, even if they harm Apple's profits.
> moving a message over BLE to untrusted hardware and worse accepting them back into iMessage is a massive, massive change in the security boundary
Anyone can already screenshot iMessages and move them out of the "security boundary"... which btw doesn't exist much, as if you have any Mac connected to your iCloud account then those messages are being synced to an SQLite DB any process running under your user can access.
> "One reason iMessage is less of a total cesspit than SMS is that the ecosystem is closed"
I don't think that's the main reason. iMessage is available on macOS, so by definition isn't that tightly locked down. Anyone can automate/script the desktop app to try and fire off as many messages as you like.
But of course that won't really work because Apple has security algorithms in the network that detect unusual behaviour. Did that user/device suddenly start to fire off 1000 messages to users they've never contacted before? Activity flagged, user blocked.
There are also functions in the iMessage app itself to block and report unwanted/inappropriate/spam messages. So even low-volume spammers will not get away with it for long.
Besides, in the UK, SMS spam is almost non-existent in my experience. Unlike in some other countries I've visited where it's a huge problem. That's not because the ecosystem is any different - it's because there's strict rules that are actively enforced (see TPS: www.tpsonline.org.uk).
Apple makes a mockery of their own "security promises" for iMessage by not end-to-end encrypting iMessages in iCloud by default. Ridiculous to use that as a justification to prevent users from choosing to send their messages to watches that happen to be made by someone other than Apple.
Only letting Apple Watch have this functionality is what is wrong. It's clearly anti-competitive, in my opinion their hand-waving about security is just that.
They could implement something that works for other smartwatch vendors, they haven't because they don't want to.
my Chinese smartwatch can get imessages. It can't send messages, but it can use the AI voice (SIRI) to send messages. It can't delete messages either.
PebbleOS is asking for the ability to respond to messages with reply or user interactions. This is not a security breach. And it won't leak from encryption anymore than it is leaking now.
Counterpoint: SMS is not a spam cesspit in Romania. My phone number is public (company information is public). And I get 1 completely unsolicited messages per month and 1 per week from companies that I bought something from. That's not even enough to get me to try to get rid of those messages.
If you don't think that a walled garden locked into an ecosystem of hardware isn't already a cess pool - then I don't know what is.
Hardware should be able to be interoperable. Apple chooses not to, it's in their best interest because they claim "security" and "privacy" for it's users. Security theater for the masses.
I truly don’t understand how these types of comments keep appearing under any discussion of apple’s blatantly anti-competitive behavior with messages. This doesn’t even make sense on technical grounds; it would be trivial to require such message passing to be encrypted/signed securely if that’s your real concern. After all, the Apple Watch does exist and does have these capabilities, so it’s clearly possible to do it and maintain the “security boundaries” you’re so concerned with.
Then every single one of these comments inevitably turn towards spam messages which no longer even makes sense since iMessage has been filled with spam lately. I really don’t see how allowing smartwatch manufacturers to also interface with iMessage (in the same way Apple Watches do) will inevitably increase spam on the platform which can’t be detected/mitigated in other ways.
I’d love to see some technically rigorous explanation for why apple can’t support any third-party anything instead of hand wringing about “security” with no real explanation but I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.
I get the security concerns, and you're right - opening up iMessage integration to third-party devices would require a serious rethink of Apple's security model. But at what point does -security- become a convenient excuse for anti-competitive behavior?
And I'll be the contra to your take: the iMessage ecosystem is so closed that everyone without iphones can barely even interact via sms with iphone users. This is overall such a huge problem that it makes the closed ecosystem security solution not a practical solution
I want to say thank you for writing this. 100% same opinion. I've stuck with Apple - despite their downsides - specifically for their zeal in areas like this.
My phone works, I'm glad it blocks others from integrating because I need it to always just work. That's why I still have an iPhone over all the often paper superior alternatives.
The idea that device pairing can and must only be secured at hardware level is a fallacy whose goal is to ensure that only apple products work well with apple products.
For the spam example, nothing prevents apple from offering a ble api with auth that ensures that only devices manually paired by the user access it.
As for automating spam... when we’re discussing ble, we’re talking about a device a few meters away from your phone. What are spammers going to do, send a jogger right behind you that spams you after somehow hacking apple’s auth system?!
I don't know much about ios. But in macos there are ways to access imessage chat logs or send imessages programmatically. You can create an applescript and do all sorts of stuff. So while I do get that giving this sort of access to an app on your iphone should at least be done through explicit intentful consent from the user, I do not see the impossibility in it. And the fact that there is all this crapp around should not make it impossible for us to have good things, either.
>I do not believe vendors integrating with such a thing can do it safely, or even that all vendors integrating are good actors.
Well, Apple will sure make sure the hard task is impossible. That's where the fault lies. It can be a bit tiring hearing security used as a smokescreen to maintain a monopolistic structure over uhh... green bubbles?
Do you have a problem with SMS spam? I can't remember the last time I got a spam SMS message, and I had my phone number on public on my personal website for a number of years.
So sick of this strawman dialectic from the apple-brained, where the alternative to the walled garden is the worst possible implementation of an open standard.
Apple is fine with any customer retention benefits from security and I don’t agree (with the article author) that they are merely pretending their strategy is primarily focused on security
I have a very capable smartwatch and it's ridiculously bad how hobbled it is on iOS. I'm glad to see this article specifically highlight the issues, and how it's 100% Apple's intention to make non-Apple wearables on iOS terrible.
I think people forget that Apple is not making devices for the Hackernews community. They are making devices for people that just want something that works pretty well and has reasonable security - even to the extent of protecting them from themselves. They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect things to keep working. Because they know that they are not qualified to answer that yes/no popup question. And those people do not care much about lock-in and walled gardens. They are not interested in jailbreaking and sideloading apps. They've never heard of Pebble or have any interest in it.
This is 90% of humanity, including people we all know and love.
I think, we fundamentally lack a mechanism to enforce secure / privacy aware APIs without resorting to trusted inner-circle type of things. I am already not comfortable with Apple picking winners (such as giving Zoom special entitlement but not the VOIP apps you want to distribute by your own). Apple trusting their own apps more than other apps is another symptom of this and it is not helping their anti-trust situation even if it is with good-will.
And "giving people choice" won't work neither because people will just tap whatever checkbox you give them (the internet should never forget that Facebook SDK just forces to accept "The App is Tracking You" notification and most users tapped yes).
There's nothing new here. From AirDrop to AirPods, Apple's MO is to lock you into their ecosystem and be as belligerent as possible toward any non-Apple gizmo. Couple that with social and network effects, and you have a perfect formula for monopolizing a market without continuously improving the tech.
Some 6 years ago I bought new bluetooth headphones.
Every time I'd put them on, my macbook would open apple music (I didn't even know it was installed). Every time. No way to disable it, I really tried. Stopped shy of doing some kernel stuff.
Sold that laptop, and have never touched anything apple since. Probably never will. The hardware's good, everything else is an embarrassing mess.
> "Apple’s “Watch Policy” annoys me, but not enough to switch to Android. I hope Apple will be forced to improve their compatibility with other watches."
The conundrum of "[xyz] annoys me, but not enough to [do anything about it], yet I hope [Company] will be forced to improve [xyz]"
So where is that 'force' expected to come from...?
If there's a case to make on Apple hindering a competitive landscape, then it would possibly be a case of violation of the European Union's DMA (Digital Markets Act), as Apple is not allowed to favor their own services over those of competitors in visibility, functionality, or integration within iOS.
But the EU is a blunt instrument that needs to be sharpened sufficiently with explicit facts. And then still, possibly a very slow instrument...
As for the US justice system.....not sure whether there is any interest to pursue such a case these days...
I used an apple watch since the first one, updated twice, but stopped using it a few months ago. Siri got slower an more unreliable. Automatic sport detection became annoying. And still having to charge it every single day became pretty old. I miss being able to pay with my watch without having to unlock my phone. But thats about it. Anything else about that product just became annoying.
I'm 100% certain that if 3rd party watches could integrate like apple watch could, that apple watch could be way better. But the lack of alternatives conceals how mediocre of a product it became. I wish apple wasn't such a control freak.
I know people love Apple products, as do I, but at a certain point it must get exhausting arguing that the wealthiest company with the largest market share is also, somehow, the one that should be exempt from anti-trust action and/or exempt from developing simple 3rd party integrations.
> It’s very difficult to enable other iOS apps to work with Pebble. Basically iOS does not have the concept of ‘interprocess communication’(IPC) like on Android.
Actually, let me make this worse. iOS has plenty of IPC, you're just not allowed to define your own IPC protocols. IPC is solely for your app to talk to Apple's code, not for apps to talk to each other.
The best decision I made was to switch to Linux Mint and Samsung Z Fold 6. I can't believe I was ever a fan of apple products. Hobbled walled garden products. If you're in tech you should not use apple products. Unless you're building an iphone app.
It's honestly amazing how Apple managed to dodge anti-trust in the United States.
The fact you cannot build a competing watch is unacceptable and the idea that "well go build one for Android" is refusing to acknowledge that Apple is its own market in and of itself.
Throw in the fact that even getting an app that isn't a game into the App store is not trivial, especially if it dares include some form of payment processing outside of the Apple-verse.
The Floatplane Saga, where Linus Tech Tips didn't want to use Apple payment processor because they would have to charge 30% more is another example. It took months and dozens of app resubmissions, only to have to use their massive YouTuber influence to get into contact with someone at Apple should be proof enough that the App Store has gone too far.
[+] [-] vessenes|11 months ago|reply
I do not believe average smartwatch users understand what they’d be doing if they got this. I do not believe vendors integrating with such a thing can do it safely, or even that all vendors integrating are good actors.
One reason iMessage is less of a total cesspit than SMS is that the ecosystem is closed, and makes automation difficult. It used to be impossible nearly, and in that era we had almost no iMessage spam. Now it’s difficult, and we have moderate iMessage spam. But adding hooks to make this automation easy, and worse, leave the trust environment as a feature is just wrong.
[+] [-] chamanbuga|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|11 months ago|reply
Is it? My iPhone replicates messages to my mac from where a process can extract that data, it can capture the screen etc. I can use a mac today to set up a relay that would then send those messages to a smart watch if one would do that.
[+] [-] amiga386|11 months ago|reply
Step 2: Have the iPhone pop up saying "do you want <Apple watch> to be able to send messages?" and don't just assume "yes"
Both steps would improve security, even if they harm Apple's profits.
[+] [-] tadfisher|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Nextgrid|11 months ago|reply
Anyone can already screenshot iMessages and move them out of the "security boundary"... which btw doesn't exist much, as if you have any Mac connected to your iCloud account then those messages are being synced to an SQLite DB any process running under your user can access.
[+] [-] Reason077|11 months ago|reply
I don't think that's the main reason. iMessage is available on macOS, so by definition isn't that tightly locked down. Anyone can automate/script the desktop app to try and fire off as many messages as you like.
But of course that won't really work because Apple has security algorithms in the network that detect unusual behaviour. Did that user/device suddenly start to fire off 1000 messages to users they've never contacted before? Activity flagged, user blocked.
There are also functions in the iMessage app itself to block and report unwanted/inappropriate/spam messages. So even low-volume spammers will not get away with it for long.
Besides, in the UK, SMS spam is almost non-existent in my experience. Unlike in some other countries I've visited where it's a huge problem. That's not because the ecosystem is any different - it's because there's strict rules that are actively enforced (see TPS: www.tpsonline.org.uk).
[+] [-] sunshowers|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] modeless|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] conradev|11 months ago|reply
This is just about sending.
[+] [-] cmiles74|11 months ago|reply
They could implement something that works for other smartwatch vendors, they haven't because they don't want to.
[+] [-] nashashmi|11 months ago|reply
PebbleOS is asking for the ability to respond to messages with reply or user interactions. This is not a security breach. And it won't leak from encryption anymore than it is leaking now.
[+] [-] rolisz|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] windexh8er|11 months ago|reply
Hardware should be able to be interoperable. Apple chooses not to, it's in their best interest because they claim "security" and "privacy" for it's users. Security theater for the masses.
[+] [-] maximusdrex|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] HexPhantom|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] stemlord|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] RockRobotRock|11 months ago|reply
Would like to add my personal experience: I get way more spam iMessages coming from random Apple IDs than I do spam SMSes.
[+] [-] Jyaif|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] frollogaston|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Royce-CMR|11 months ago|reply
My phone works, I'm glad it blocks others from integrating because I need it to always just work. That's why I still have an iPhone over all the often paper superior alternatives.
[+] [-] rkagerer|11 months ago|reply
That's the root of the problem right there. As a hardware vendor, how do you achieve a "trusted" status in their ecosystem?
If only Apple devices can do the Appley things, then it really isn't an ecosystem (at least not what I have in mind when applying that term).
[+] [-] Osiris|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tomrod|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrale|11 months ago|reply
For the spam example, nothing prevents apple from offering a ble api with auth that ensures that only devices manually paired by the user access it.
As for automating spam... when we’re discussing ble, we’re talking about a device a few meters away from your phone. What are spammers going to do, send a jogger right behind you that spams you after somehow hacking apple’s auth system?!
[+] [-] freehorse|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ig1|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnyanmac|11 months ago|reply
Well, Apple will sure make sure the hard task is impossible. That's where the fault lies. It can be a bit tiring hearing security used as a smokescreen to maintain a monopolistic structure over uhh... green bubbles?
[+] [-] nicoburns|11 months ago|reply
Perhaps SMS spam is a US thing?
[+] [-] mistercheph|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dwighttk|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] josefresco|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Nifty3929|11 months ago|reply
This is 90% of humanity, including people we all know and love.
Apple serves these people pretty well.
[+] [-] liuliu|11 months ago|reply
And "giving people choice" won't work neither because people will just tap whatever checkbox you give them (the internet should never forget that Facebook SDK just forces to accept "The App is Tracking You" notification and most users tapped yes).
[+] [-] rednafi|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] sabellito|11 months ago|reply
Sold that laptop, and have never touched anything apple since. Probably never will. The hardware's good, everything else is an embarrassing mess.
Sent from my Ubuntu.
[+] [-] rickdeckard|11 months ago|reply
The conundrum of "[xyz] annoys me, but not enough to [do anything about it], yet I hope [Company] will be forced to improve [xyz]"
So where is that 'force' expected to come from...?
[+] [-] tacker2000|11 months ago|reply
see this discussion, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/1h6qmrw/spotify...
[+] [-] vrosas|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rickdeckard|11 months ago|reply
But the EU is a blunt instrument that needs to be sharpened sufficiently with explicit facts. And then still, possibly a very slow instrument...
As for the US justice system.....not sure whether there is any interest to pursue such a case these days...
[+] [-] sod|11 months ago|reply
I'm 100% certain that if 3rd party watches could integrate like apple watch could, that apple watch could be way better. But the lack of alternatives conceals how mediocre of a product it became. I wish apple wasn't such a control freak.
[+] [-] gslepak|11 months ago|reply
Readers might be interested in our Ultimate iOS to GrapheneOS Migration Guide and Review:
https://blog.okturtles.org/2024/06/the-ultimate-ios-to-graph...
[+] [-] standardUser|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kmeisthax|11 months ago|reply
Actually, let me make this worse. iOS has plenty of IPC, you're just not allowed to define your own IPC protocols. IPC is solely for your app to talk to Apple's code, not for apps to talk to each other.
[+] [-] conradev|11 months ago|reply
https://www.engadget.com/2013-02-14-hack-brings-all-iphone-n...
https://github.com/conradev/btnotificationenabler
This has been a problem for a long time.
[+] [-] freddydumont|11 months ago|reply
iMessage has been targeted for years with zero click exploits, most notably by the NSO group.
Apple’s restrictions aren’t meant to protect consumers, their purpose is to protect Apple’s profits.
[+] [-] sergiotapia|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] seba_dos1|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bearjaws|11 months ago|reply
The fact you cannot build a competing watch is unacceptable and the idea that "well go build one for Android" is refusing to acknowledge that Apple is its own market in and of itself.
Throw in the fact that even getting an app that isn't a game into the App store is not trivial, especially if it dares include some form of payment processing outside of the Apple-verse.
The Floatplane Saga, where Linus Tech Tips didn't want to use Apple payment processor because they would have to charge 30% more is another example. It took months and dozens of app resubmissions, only to have to use their massive YouTuber influence to get into contact with someone at Apple should be proof enough that the App Store has gone too far.
[+] [-] dcchambers|11 months ago|reply