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

AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 479 posts

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#321

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

nerbert wrote: post #317
KolibriFly wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet if someone likes the sound quality, fit, or ANC of AirPods (which are genuinely good), why should they lose out on functionality just because they're not using an iPhone?

I'm all for everything being compatible with everything, but why should apple invest resources in testing/debugging android compatibility for something that they make?

There is a vast difference between testing and debugging and not intentionally making your product worse when on a standard BT connection which is basically what Apple is doing.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#322

Post by ece »

boxfire wrote: post #314
WD-42 wrote: post #20

Cool project, not cool that it needs to exist. Apple isn’t only content to leech off OSS software, they have to force the existence of more of it to workaround what they closed off.

It’s exactly the same to try to use pixel buds on an Apple phone too. I don’t blame Apple or Google so much as the ridiculous pissing matches of a society that refuses to find ways to cooperate efficiently. So much energy is wasted in the name of vendor lock-in and related. Would it take more energy for Google and Apple to share in expanding into the Bluetooth capabilities in a shared way? Sure for their developers,…

I wonder which APIs aren't accessible on the iPhone so the same features can't be implemented on a iOS pixel buds app.

Whataboutism and cynicism about the status quo notwithstanding, I do agree BT protocol and adherence to it could be improved though.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#323

Post by dagmx »

ece wrote: post #278
dagmx wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what this particular thread is about, you’re referencing the parent topic but not the current thread. This is about whether they contribute to open source or not.

Contributing to open source isn't a substitute for having cross platform products, features and support.

Again, I repeat, not what this thread is about.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#324

Post by fingerlocks »

bubblethink wrote: post #239
fingerlocks wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isn’t. I’ve said this a million times before, but usually just downvoted: this is about reducing support costs, not increasing revenue from lock-in. This is not a theory, I’ve sat in meetings at Cupertino and been told first hand. Support is very expensive. Say what you want about Apple, but they provide absolutely stellar support, especially with the stupidly inexpensive Apple Care insurance. This is only c…

That's tautological. Everything that is not supported is so because supporting it has a cost. The question is what is the cost? It seems quite obvious that the marginal revenue from airpods would be overshadowed by the revenue of getting a user in the ecosystem.

Customer support costs are higher at Apple than its competitors, because they provide a better support experience. This is not a tautology, it’s one of their core value propositions

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#325

Post by monocasa »

mgh95 wrote: post #158
zozbot234 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should indeed be reported as illegal product tying to regulators (U.S. FTC/EU Competition commission/others?) so that Apple is legally deterred from breaking this interoperability effort with future AirPods updates.

Worse, now device manufacturers can now make their devices identify as "apple" out of the box and advertise it as "compatibility with Apple AirPods features X, Y, X" and be legally permissible. It's basically the consequence Google v. Oracle and the cases leading to it.

I think that's against the Bluetooth spec, and if you do that you won't be certified.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#326

Post by encom »

oofbey wrote: post #297
bloppe wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're commenting on a post where a random guy provides this "nightmare of supplying and supporting an app" in his spare time, except he actually has to work around Apple's malicious obfuscation and standards non-compliance, so it would actually be way easier for Apple to do it themselves.

It is in fact significantly harder for Apple. Because nobody expects random spare time GitHub project to work perfectly. Or even very well. Apple’s reputation, and trillion dollar market value, is based on the idea that their stuff works perfectly.

It's not so much an idea, it's more of an illusion. One that Apple marketing spends billions to maintain.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#327

Post by thayne »

CharlesW wrote: post #315
xps wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't report battery status to non-Apple devices. This is a pretty basic feature and without this I wouldn't consider them to perform "on par" with other Bluetooth headphones.

You're proving the parent commenter's point that "this is about availability of special features which require a dedicated driver non-Apple devices are not expected to have", because there is no standard way in BLE to report more than one battery value. Wireless earbuds are a device pair, each with its own battery. Apple, like every other vendor, does not have a choice but to implement this as a proprietary character…

> Apple, like every other vendor, does not have a choice but to implement this as a proprietary characteristic. Pre-BLE, other vendors copied Apple's de-facto `HFP

They could publish the details, and not block other manufacturer details, so that it is easier for other platforms to develop drivers for them. Or develop a new standard that works for their earbuds.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#328

Post by russianGuy83829 »

mgh95 wrote: post #158
zozbot234 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should indeed be reported as illegal product tying to regulators (U.S. FTC/EU Competition commission/others?) so that Apple is legally deterred from breaking this interoperability effort with future AirPods updates.

Worse, now device manufacturers can now make their devices identify as "apple" out of the box and advertise it as "compatibility with Apple AirPods features X, Y, X" and be legally permissible. It's basically the consequence Google v. Oracle and the cases leading to it.

like every browser identifying as Mozilla in the user agent

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#330

Post by monocasa »

dwaite wrote: post #261
hu3 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't function as a regular bt headphone. They don't even report battery life among other artificially blocked basic functions.

Which of the three battery level values should be reported in the one slot Bluetooth provides?

The different devices look like one device by being a "coordinated set" in Bluetooth parlance.

Each member of a coordinated set gets its own Bluetooth battery level slot, so there's no problem here. The spec supports this use case natively.

Post reply on HN