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

331–340 of 479 posts

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#331

Post by monocasa »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #283
vee-kay wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason Apple ditched Lightning port and finally gave USB-C port in the iDevices, is because EU forced Apple to do so. But do you think your oh-so-common USB-C cables will work with a new iPhone? In my country (India), Apple still doesn't sell charger and cable along with its new iDevices, even though those gadgets are exorbitantly expensive. And Apple doesn't allow custom repair here, even though my country…

The higher end iPads started coming with USB C long before the EU mandate

That seemed like a product segmentation choice to encourage more laptop like use cases out of the higher end iPads.

Less friction for devices like passkeys, external hard drives, etc.

It doesn't seem like they were keen on moving that down the product line since they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#332

Post by monocasa »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #302
littlecranky67 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the EU mandated them to. Just no one seems to want to federate.

And you are perfectly capable of interacting with iMessage users now through SMS/MMS/RCS

Their RCS implementation is so incredibly broken, and I can tell as an Android user.

It seems like every other message gets downgraded to SMS.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#333

Post by peatmoss »

Tunable transparency mode sounds great, and I wish Apple would do something like this as first-party support.

As a casual trombone player, who often plays in louder settings, the airpods pro are almost excellent hearing protection. Passive (even "audiophile" or "concert") earplugs make me feel like I'm under water. Airpods Pro attenuate a lot of sound but don't feel so unnatural.

Unfortunately, they tend to drop my own sound out of the mix when sounds around me get louder.

I'd love a mode that selectively let in more trombone frequencies, or better, that mixed noise cancellation and transparency to give me more of a studio monitor effect. Maybe the airpods could figure out which sounds were mine via the buzzing sounds that propagate through my head from my lips.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#334

Post by intrasight »

thewebguyd wrote: post #313
andrewchambers wrote: post #69

Mark Zuckerberg explicitly called out the airpod pairing being closed as unfair in a semi recent interview, maybe he can throw some dollars that way and get it all working nicely in some meta products.

That's backwards. It's not AirPods being closed that's unfair. Apple should be able to sell first party tech that only works with their own products. What's unfair is Apple locking everyone else out. Not allowing or documenting for third parties to use the same APIs to enable something like automatic device switching in third party bluetooth headphones is the unfair part. Same goes for the watch. That the Apple Watch…

"only works with their own products" == "lock-out"

Or am I missing something that distinguishes between these two in your view?

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#335

Post by monocasa »

okayjustonemore wrote: post #279
potatoproduct wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance reasons LOL. Apple fans love plausible deniability.

And haters love a conspiracy. Truth is, no one has the full facts so any reasons as to why this was made the way it was is pure speculation. Only a fool would move to condemn or endorse what is not yet fully understood.

As someone who's implemented custom Bluetooth protocols, it's actually quite easy to condemn an Apple manufacturer ID check to expose custom services.

And what do you mean by "conspiracy"? I would be shocked to find out this was done by some lone wolf and wasn't built with broad (even if grumbly) consensus in the relevant teams. That's how corporate software is built.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#336

Post by TylerE »

thayne wrote: post #327
CharlesW wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or… just report whichever one is lower, which is the value 99% of people care about 99% of The time.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#337

Post by TylerE »

tshaddox wrote: post #298
MattRix wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take doesn’t make sense unless you’re comparing Flash to current technology, rather than the tech of its time. It’s like saying CD players were awful: sure they’re awful NOW, but they had a time and a place when they were the coolest thing around. Similarly, the only reason Flash had “bad performance” on low end devices is because people were using it to do stuff that web tech could not do. It took over a decade…

No, I’m talking about at the time. CD players were great at the time, so I don’t really see your analogy. Maybe the closest thing would be those brittle CD jewel cases, those always sucked!

The cardboard sleeves that replaced jewel boxes were far worse. At least jewel boxes would line up straight on a shelf.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#338

Post by joeevans1000 »

I've wanted to try AirPods for my dad as hearing aids, but haven't done so because he would have to have the iPhone on hand. He's too old and blind to operate an iPhone. Can anyone here tell me how to take this awesome repo and make a hearing aid possibility for him with a simpler interface?

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#339

Post by thewebguyd »

intrasight wrote: post #334
thewebguyd wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's backwards. It's not AirPods being closed that's unfair. Apple should be able to sell first party tech that only works with their own products. What's unfair is Apple locking everyone else out. Not allowing or documenting for third parties to use the same APIs to enable something like automatic device switching in third party bluetooth headphones is the unfair part. Same goes for the watch. That the Apple Watch…

"only works with their own products" == "lock-out" Or am I missing something that distinguishes between these two in your view?

Only works with their own products is lock-in.

Lock-out is Apple preventing third parties from making accessories that can match the first party ones in feature parity and seamlessness.

Apple Watch only working with iPhones=lock-in

No third party watch being allowed to use the same APIs the Apple Watch does or not being allowed to access iMessage, Apple Pay, etc = lock-out.

Re: AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

#340

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thewebguyd wrote: post #303
talkingtab wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just take apple to small claims court. If everyone who is scammed by Apple takes them to small claims they will have an incentive to change. Without this they have -0.00000000000 incentive to do anything. Even a class action suit won't help. The fundamental question is whether Apple should be able to sell products with lock in. Since there is lockin on all Apple products it is not accidental. In my humble opinion onl…

> The fundamental question is whether Apple should be able to sell products with lock in. Unpopular opinion in these parts, but I think yes, they should be able to (continue) to sell products with lock in. Where Apple should get in trouble is specifically locking others out, rather than locking their own stuff in. If Apple wants to make a smartwatch that only works with iPhones, fine. What they shouldn't be able to d…

I'm not entirely sure if the distinction you're making exists.

Let's say I'm Samsung and I want to make a phone that works with the Apple Watch. Isn't the Apple Watch locking me out? Apple is preventing third party devices from working with the Apple Watch.

Post reply on HN