Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 352 posts

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#291

Post by morshu9001 »

deaux wrote: post #279
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they're not entirely wrong, but it's actually the lack of a capital markets union that causes the issues here. So in fact, this is a case where the answer is more EU (specifically, a better set of cross-country capital markets). Depressingly, the obvious place to build this is no longer in the EU.

They're wrong in everything but a meaningless "well technically" sense. People spouting "EU regulations strangle business" nonsense are never talking about the lack of capital markets union. Let alone in a thread about "iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA". > So in fact, this is a case where the answer is more EU (specifically, a better set of cross-country capital markets). Ca…

Right, I'm not talking about capital markets, just regulations. Overall tech doesn't thrive in the EU. Their attitude probably predates EU founding too. And I'm not just saying that because of this relatively small AirPods situation (where I actually agree with EU).

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#292

Post by TheDong »

wzdd wrote: post #274
TheDong wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has presented a remotely correct fix anywhere on that issue, or elsewhere to my knowledge. You're welcome to write an actually correct patch for android if you want, one that isn't just commenting out code and probably breaking some spec-compliant bluetooth devices. Make sure to test your patch against all the bluetooth devices in existence to make sure it doesn't regress. Do that, make a PR, wait the average…

https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/371713238#comment829 seems fine and only has the potential to break other Apple BT hardware, which is relatively easy to test. Nobody actually productively commenting in the thread thinks it's a conspiracy theory and everyone acknowledges that the Apple hardware is off-spec. It would be nice to see Android add this workaround.

You have linked me to what sounds like an AI generated comment. AI comments cannot be trusted. AI will make up believable sounding gunk and cannot be trusted.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#293

Post by rafram »

heavyset_go wrote: post #257
commandersaki wrote: post #234

Does proximity pairing also mean seamless switching between iDevices? As it stands non Apple earphones need to disconnect from the currently paired device to only then connect with another. My Beats Studio pro on the other hand can control primary device and on secondary device I can prompt it to connect and it will switch.

This is already part of the Bluetooth spec that Apple didn't implement: multipoint pairing.

This is wrong - Apple did implement multipoint pairing. I’ve had Bose headphones and cheapo Amazon headphones and both switched perfectly between various Apple devices.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#294

Post by ExoticPearTree »

avianlyric wrote: post #280
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the only point of discussion here. Because all the EU requires is that Apple open up their internal protocols so others can implement them. Apple supports Bluetooth just like Android phones do and does not degrade that. A fair way of dealing with this is to ask Apple to license its technology to third parties, not be forced to give it away for free.

We’re talking about a UI interface here. How exactly would you ask Apple to “license its technology” there? Apple needs tell people how to trigger that interface, and Apple needs to support 3rd parties trigging that interface. Apple could “license its technology”, but what use would that be. Having other phone manufacturers implement the same UI doesn’t change the market distorting effects of the iPhone.

Device manufacturers could pay Apple to register their devices to be recognized by the iPhone that they know how to use the advanced features it is capable of, for example.

Also, device manufacturers can create apps for their devices and trigger those apps when a device is close by.

I am against the idea of having a company spend resources on designing and implementing features for its devices and then being forced to give them away for free.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#295

Post by whynotmaybe »

morshu9001 wrote: post #217
whynotmaybe wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still don't get your point. How can the failures to innovate from privates companies be the responsibility of a political union of different governments?

EU regulations strangle corporate innovation there

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Most of the EU corpus of law is based on culturally acceptable actions from their members. The EU regulations don't strangle, the EU culture is just different.

Innovation for the sake of innovation and the pursuit of money isn't deeply entrenched in European culture.

So yes, innovation based on "go fast and don't care if you break stuff" comes mainly from outside of EU.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#296

Post by bigyabai »

WA wrote: post #268
rock_artist wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the EU and now traveling my family outside the EU. Today I’ve tried updating AltStore but it won’t let me. Even VPNing to my home won’t do it. So until there will be more incentive to make it globally, the UX is intentionally crippled not only by making the minimal viable but also by region locking. Imagine pairing headphones working great in EU and then you’re traveling somewhere and it’s broken.

This is the future of the internet. More and more countries have their local laws and international companies need to comply with local laws. This has been the case forever for companies selling products and (physical) services and some digital services restricting music and movie rights in certain countries, but it will expand to more and more services and apps in the future.

Good. It was hubris to think that the internet would forever be segregated as an American asset.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#297

Post by bigyabai »

llmslave2 wrote: post #154
array_key_first wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but regulations are necessary. And ideological opposition to regulation, as a concept, in inherently wrong and always will be. Some regulations are good, some are bad. In order to have a free market, you MUST have some regulations. It's not optional. The reason is simple and intuitive - if you don't regulate the free market, it will just make itself un-free, which is what we're seeing with Apple. You need to a…

Thank you for your response :) I would push back a bit on the ideological comment, just to say that ideological acceptance of regulation is also probably wrong. This is different from a philosophical opposition/acceptance of political authority, although it often appears the same. I think it's fairly obvious that the base prerequisites for market economies are property rights and some form of legal system to handle d…

> for example the big companies are lobbying for regulation on AI to help cement their position at the top

And pray tell, how did that work out? It didn't. The worst of it came from OpenAI snatching up long-term federal contracts, but it's not illegal or anticompetitive to waste taxpayer money on debt-encumbered AI outfits. You're citing an example that works against your broader point.

> doesn't mean that it's possible to sustain a monopoly position for a significant amount of time.

> Unlike other competitive activities there isn't a time clock with winners declared at the end.

Neither the SEC nor the FTC has ever argued either of these points to my knowledge. Maybe this is true for other economies, but not America.

> Economists have shown that absent of external cofounders

We don't live in a world absent of confounding factors. Simple cartel logic is enough to loophole around this little theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

  ---
I personally don't take offense at people who prefer anarchist economics. But you have to understand that your opinion about regulation is not shared by even the most hardcore conservative politicians. US courts have proven that it is possible to hold an indefinite monopoly and incur billable damages onto the market, hurting consumers and competitors alike.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#298

Post by bigyabai »

chongli wrote: post #208
array_key_first wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but regulations are necessary. And ideological opposition to regulation, as a concept, in inherently wrong and always will be. Some regulations are good, some are bad. In order to have a free market, you MUST have some regulations. It's not optional. The reason is simple and intuitive - if you don't regulate the free market, it will just make itself un-free, which is what we're seeing with Apple. You need to a…

which is what we're seeing with Apple Apple is the result of a broad class of regulations: IP laws. Would Apple even exist without IP laws? I doubt it.

That's besides the point. If Apple isn't viable as a business without the ability to misinterpret copyright law, then they shouldn't exist at all.

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#299

Post by aprilnya »

heavyset_go wrote: post #226
aprilnya wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there’s been a bug open to make a simple harmless change to fix this in Android for 9 months, with no response from Google other than asking for reproduction steps as far as I can tell. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/371713238 Some comments on the bug accuse Google of intentionally not fixing it to make people buy Pixel Buds instead of AirPods. I wouldn’t say that myself, but then again I a…

"The bug", aka not implementing spec violating behavior, also exists in BlueZ, the Linux Bluetooth stack. Is the BlueZ team taking kickbacks to make sure earbuds don't work on Linux, too? They were Google Summer of Code partners, too, so this potentially goes pretty deep.

Does it? The LibrePods readme doesn’t mention any special patching required on Linux but maybe I’m missing something

Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA

#300

Post by nutjob2 »

hopelite wrote: post #285
llmslave2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted but it's absolutely true that people simply don't want to (or are incapable) of considering second and third order effects that arise from applying interventions on systems that they do not understand.

HN should really just do away with the down/negative voting or at the least only use it for order sorting, not “points”. The point-punishment only enables abusive and toxic people and behaviors. I for one believe every human has equal worth and right to speak whatever they want. It may not be relevant, important, smart, or even benevolent; but I still think they should be allowed to say it and even more importantly t…

> The point-punishment only enables abusive and toxic people and behaviors.

Actually that's what it's fighting, people like you.

> I for one believe every human...

People can say what they like, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. Freedom of speech also means the ability to silence speech you don't like.

You don't have the right to spread hate and division on a company's website any more than pedophiles have a right to talk to people's children about sex. In both cases the ability to silence speech is fundamental.

HN chooses what kind of discussion it wants to have because doing otherwise would block the sort of speech it wants to host.

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but if you think about it for a while it makes perfect sense.

Post reply on HN