[smaudet]

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.

[FabHK]

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

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

[pyrale]

Spammers sending spam through ble ?!

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

[msh]

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

[cmiles74]

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.

[Wowfunhappy]

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

[wizzwizz4]

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

[pyrale]

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.

[rowanG077]

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.

[noodletheworld]

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...

[shoo_pl]

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.

[saagarjha]

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

[DirkH]

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.

[VagabundoP]

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.

[rowanG077]

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).

[wokwokwok]

> 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?

[freehorse]

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 "[phone]" of (1st service whose service type = iMessage)'

[theragra]

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.

[worthless-trash]

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