Apple's imposed limitations hinder the Pebble smartwatch's functionality on iPhones. Features like interactive notifications, sending canned replies, and using the microphone for dictation or voice notes are blocked by Apple's restrictive APIs. While Pebble can display notifications, users can't interact with them directly from the watch, forcing them to pull out their iPhones. This limited integration significantly diminishes the Pebble's usability and convenience for iPhone users, compared to the Apple Watch which enjoys full access to iOS features. The author argues that these restrictions are intentionally imposed by Apple to stifle competition and promote their own smartwatch.
The Register reports that Google collects and transmits Android user data, including hardware identifiers and location, to its servers even before a user opens any apps or completes device setup. This pre-setup data collection involves several Google services and occurs during the initial boot process, transmitting information like IMEI, hardware serial number, SIM serial number, and nearby Wi-Fi access point details. While Google claims this data is crucial for essential services like fraud prevention and software updates, the article raises privacy concerns, particularly because users are not informed of this data collection nor given the opportunity to opt out. This behavior raises questions about the balance between user privacy and Google's data collection practices.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Google's data collection on Android even before app usage. Some highlight the irony of Google's privacy claims contrasted with their extensive tracking. Several express resignation, suggesting this behavior is expected from Google and other large tech companies. One commenter mentions a study showing Google collecting data even when location services are disabled, and another points to the difficulty of truly opting out of this tracking without significant technical knowledge. The discussion also touches upon the limitations of using alternative Android ROMs or de-Googled phones, acknowledging their usability compromises. There's a general sense of pessimism about the ability of users to control their data in the Android ecosystem.
Ggwave is a small, cross-platform C library designed for transmitting data over sound using short, data-encoded tones. It focuses on simplicity and efficiency, supporting various payload formats including text, binary data, and URLs. The library provides functionalities for both sending and receiving, using a frequency-shift keying (FSK) modulation scheme. It features adjustable parameters like volume, data rate, and error correction level, allowing optimization for different environments and use-cases. Ggwave is designed to be easily integrated into other projects due to its small size and minimal dependencies, making it suitable for applications like device pairing, configuration sharing, or proximity-based data transfer.
HN commenters generally praise ggwave's simplicity and small size, finding it impressive and potentially useful for various applications like IoT device setup or offline data transfer. Some appreciated the clear documentation and examples. Several users discuss potential use cases, including sneaker authentication, sharing WiFi credentials, and transferring small files between devices. Concerns were raised about real-world robustness and susceptibility to noise, with some suggesting potential improvements like forward error correction. Comparisons were made to similar technologies, mentioning limitations of existing sonic data transfer methods. A few comments delve into technical aspects, like frequency selection and modulation techniques, with one commenter highlighting the choice of Goertzel algorithm for decoding.
This webpage does not exist. I cannot provide a summary of a webpage that is not accessible to me. Please provide a valid URL or the text of the article itself.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of the iPhone 16e's value proposition. Several express disappointment that it uses the older A16 Bionic chip rather than the A17, questioning the "powerful" claim in the press release. Some see it as a cynical move by Apple to segment the market and push users towards the more expensive standard iPhone 16. The price point is also a source of contention, with many feeling it's overpriced for the offered specifications, especially compared to competing Android devices. A few commenters, however, appreciate Apple offering a smaller, more affordable option, acknowledging that not everyone needs the latest processor. The lack of a USB-C port is also criticized.
A UK watchdog is investigating Apple's compliance with its own App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, questioning why Apple's first-party apps seem exempt from the same stringent data collection rules imposed on third-party developers. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is particularly scrutinizing how Apple gathers and uses user data within its own apps, given that it doesn't require user permission via the ATT pop-up prompts like third-party apps must. The probe aims to determine if this apparent double standard gives Apple an unfair competitive advantage in the advertising and app markets, potentially breaching competition law.
HN commenters largely agree that Apple's behavior is hypocritical, applying stricter tracking rules to third-party apps while seemingly exempting its own. Some suggest this is classic regulatory capture, where Apple leverages its gatekeeper status to stifle competition. Others point out the difficulty of proving Apple's data collection is for personalized ads, as Apple claims it's for "personalized experiences." A few commenters argue Apple's first-party data usage is less problematic because the data isn't shared externally, while others counter that the distinction is irrelevant from a privacy perspective. The lack of transparency around Apple's data collection practices fuels suspicion. A common sentiment is that Apple's privacy stance is more about marketing than genuine user protection. Some users also highlight the inherent conflict of interest in Apple acting as both platform owner and app developer.
Pixel 4a owners who haven't updated their phones are now stuck with a buggy December 2022 battery update as Google has removed older firmware versions from its servers. This means users can no longer downgrade to escape the battery drain and random shutdown issues introduced by the update. While Google has acknowledged the problem and promised a fix, there's no ETA, leaving affected users with no immediate solution. Essentially, Pixel 4a owners are forced to endure the battery problems until Google releases the corrected update.
HN commenters generally express frustration and disappointment with Google's handling of the Pixel 4a battery issue. Several users report experiencing the battery drain problem after the update, with some claiming significantly reduced battery life. Some criticize Google's lack of communication and the removal of older firmware, making it impossible to revert to a working version. Others discuss potential workarounds, including custom ROMs like LineageOS, but acknowledge the risks and technical knowledge required. A few commenters mention the declining quality control of Pixel phones and question Google's commitment to supporting older devices. The overall sentiment is negative, with many expressing regret over purchasing a Pixel phone and a loss of trust in Google's hardware division.
iOS 18 introduces a new feature that automatically reboots devices after a prolonged period of inactivity. Reverse engineering revealed this is managed by the SpringBoard process, which monitors user interaction and triggers a reboot after approximately 72 hours of inactivity. The reboot is signaled by setting a specific flag in a system property and is considered a "soft" reboot, likely to maintain device state where possible. This feature seems primarily targeted at corporate devices enrolled in Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems, as a way to clear temporary states and potentially address performance issues resulting from prolonged uptime without requiring manual intervention. The exact conditions for triggering the reboot, beyond inactivity time, are still being investigated.
Hacker News users discussed the potential reasons behind iOS 18's automatic reboot after extended inactivity, with some speculating it's related to memory management, specifically clearing caches or resetting background processes. Others suggested it could be a security measure to mitigate potential exploits or simply a bug. A few commenters expressed concern about the reboot happening without warning, potentially interrupting ongoing tasks or data syncing. Some highlighted the lack of official documentation on this behavior and the author's reverse engineering efforts to uncover the cause. The discussion also touched on similar behavior observed in other operating systems and the overall complexity of modern OS architectures.
Summary of Comments ( 693 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that Apple intentionally crippled Pebble's functionality on iOS. Several users share anecdotes of frustrating limitations, like the inability to reply to messages or use location services effectively. Some point out that Apple's MFi program, while ostensibly about quality control, serves as a gatekeeping mechanism to stifle competition. Others discuss the inherent tension between a closed ecosystem like Apple's and open platforms, noting that Apple prioritizes its own products and services, even if it means a degraded experience for users of third-party devices. A few commenters suggest the limitations are technically unavoidable, but this view is largely dismissed by others who cite examples of better integration on Android. There's also cynicism about Apple's purported security and privacy concerns, with some suggesting these are merely pretexts for anti-competitive behavior.
The Hacker News post titled "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" (linking to an article on ericmigi.com) has generated a moderate number of comments, largely focusing on Apple's historical approach to third-party app integration and the motivations behind it.
Several commenters echo the sentiment of the original article, highlighting Apple's tendency to initially restrict third-party functionalities and later implement similar features themselves. One commenter suggests this pattern demonstrates Apple's strategy of letting others explore the market and then incorporating successful features into their own ecosystem, sometimes even acquiring the pioneering companies. Another user mentions that Apple likely holds back third-party integrations to maintain a tight control over the user experience and ensure a consistent, polished feel across their devices. This control, they argue, allows Apple to refine the feature before broader adoption, preventing a fragmented user experience with potentially buggy implementations from third-party developers.
Another line of discussion revolves around the specific limitations imposed on the Pebble smartwatch. Commenters mention restrictions on replying to notifications and accessing certain iPhone APIs. They speculate that Apple's tight control over notifications stems from security concerns and a desire to protect users from malicious apps. This control is also seen as a way for Apple to maintain its platform's value proposition, keeping users within their ecosystem.
One commenter offers a slightly different perspective, arguing that Apple's restrictiveness is not necessarily malicious but rather a result of prioritizing their own hardware and software development. They suggest Apple simply lacks the resources to thoroughly vet and support every potential third-party integration, leading them to focus on their own products and services.
A few commenters share personal anecdotes about their experiences with Pebble and other smartwatches on iOS, illustrating the practical implications of Apple's limitations. They express frustration with the inability to fully utilize their smartwatches due to these restrictions.
Finally, some commenters mention alternative approaches Pebble could have taken, such as developing their own app store or focusing on Android integration. However, these suggestions are met with counterarguments pointing out the challenges and limitations of such alternatives, like the smaller market share of Android users at the time and the difficulties of competing with Apple's established app ecosystem.
Overall, the comments section reflects a general understanding of Apple's strategy while also acknowledging the frustrations of users and developers seeking deeper integration with iOS. The most compelling comments provide nuanced perspectives on the motivations behind Apple's approach, balancing arguments about user experience, security, and business strategy.