[HN Gopher] Cross-Platform P2P Wi-Fi: How the EU Killed AWDL
___________________________________________________________________
Cross-Platform P2P Wi-Fi: How the EU Killed AWDL
Author : stusmall
Score : 169 points
Date : 2025-03-28 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ditto.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ditto.com)
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The interesting question is authentication/authorization - at the
| moment, macOS greatly simplifies this as long as both devices
| belong to the same Apple ID. On the opposite side, Samsung does
| the same.
|
| How will that work out?
| bigfish24 wrote:
| For something like AirDrop this will need to be sorted out, but
| already work occurred to reverse engineer this:
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/opendrop
|
| Would be cool if an open standard on auth forms on top of this.
| fire_lake wrote:
| For this to succeed I think we need a C implementation that
| can be used by many languages and runtimes.
| lxgr wrote:
| Not in C, please, since this is something that by
| definition will handle at least some unauthenticated low-
| level protocol traffic.
| ryao wrote:
| The AWDL part is in C:
|
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl
| lxgr wrote:
| How would an open implementation be compatible with this,
| given that Apple's implementation is based on an Apple-
| operated PKI?
|
| Note that this is only a conversation about sender
| identification, which allows sending to a "non-world-visible"
| receiving device and confirmation-less sending to devices
| with the same iCloud account on them. Anonymous sending isn't
| cryptographically gated by Apple, to my knowledge.
| ryao wrote:
| Their documentation suggests that is only needed by
| contacts only mode and they wrote some code to get the
| needed certificates from macOS:
|
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/airdrop-keychain-extractor
| lxgr wrote:
| That still requires you to have (access to) a Mac and an
| iCloud account.
|
| It might be possible to reimplement the required Apple
| API, but as demonstrated by the iMessage/Beeper saga,
| they usually shut such things down pretty quickly.
| api wrote:
| Vanilla P2P Wifi is amazing for the possibilities it unlocks,
| but unfortunately most developers can't do security to save
| their lives. There will be a lot of insecure apps.
| lxgr wrote:
| That's certainly a nice feature, but in comparison to the
| elephant in the room, i.e. wireless file transfers between
| Android and iOS being _completely impossible_ at the moment, it
| 's completely insignificant.
| tsujamin wrote:
| > wireless file transfers between Android and iOS being
| completely impossible at the moment
|
| P2P proximal wireless transfer, sure, but there's half a
| dozen apps on your phone that'll let you punt a document, a
| photo, an invite to someone on the other phone OS platform.
|
| Maybe I'm an edge case, but probably 90% of my Airdrop usage
| is between my own devices, so the platform taking care of the
| authentication story is of more utility than cross-platform
| transfers. If someone isn't on iOS I'll just send them the
| file on Signal since, if the source is my phone in the first
| place, it's probably not a huge transfer anyway.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > P2P proximal wireless transfer, sure, but there's half a
| dozen apps on your phone that'll let you punt a document, a
| photo, an invite to someone on the other phone OS platform.
|
| Yeah, via their server, which means it's slow even if you
| have wifi, requires valuable data credit if not, or it
| requires the installation of a companion app on the other
| device and putting the other device in the same network.
| MaKey wrote:
| The biggest point for me is privacy. I don't want to
| upload private data to some server just to send it to
| another device that's next to mine.
| lxgr wrote:
| > there's half a dozen apps on your phone that'll let you
| punt a document, a photo, an invite to someone on the other
| phone OS platform.
|
| That's exactly my point: Apps - which users have to
| install, which requires an Internet connection.
|
| Also all of them routing data through some centralized
| server, often not end-to-end encrypted.
|
| > If someone isn't on iOS I'll just send them the file on
| Signal
|
| Approximately none of the people that I've Airdropped
| photos to in the past have Signal installed, and even if
| they do, there isn't always an Internet connection
| available. Airdrop also sends the original photo including
| all metadata and resolution, which is another big reason I
| like it.
|
| On top of that, I've Airdropped photos to complete
| strangers (e.g. if I managed to get a nice shot of
| something on a tour) with which I didn't have any desire to
| exchange numbers, and I just would not have been able to
| send the photo to Android.
| sneak wrote:
| https://sneak.berlin/20210425/signal-is-wrecking-your-
| images...
|
| This also roundtrips to the internet, which is slow and
| expensive compared to a LAN transfer.
|
| You also can't attach files >100MB in Signal. No
| transferring an installer .iso.
| simfoo wrote:
| WiFi Aware looks interesting but there seems to be very little
| information out there beyond Android related docs and associated
| links. It seems to be hidden away behind the doors of WiFi
| alliance.
|
| Can anyone familiar with the topic chime in what it would take to
| utilize WiFi Aware in let's say a Raspberry Pi (maybe using a
| different wireless chip connected via usb)? Maybe even to connect
| to Android smartphones
| tambre wrote:
| I recently wanted to do point-to-point Wi-Fi for transferring
| some data but apparently support for the ad-hoc IBSS mode wasn't
| available on my MT7925. Wi-Fi Aware is completely new to me and
| didn't come up while searching on the topic at all. I can't find
| anything about using it on Linux now either. Anybody have any
| references on its support?
|
| There's a single kernel commit referencing Wi-Fi Aware from 2023
| [0]. iw supposedly supports a few commands pertaining to it [1].
| [0] https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/
| linux.git/commit/?h=v6.14&id=9b89495e479c5fedbf3f2eca4f1c4e9dd481
| 265e [1]
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53594406/implementing-a-wifi-
| aware-application-outside-android
| Avamander wrote:
| Any WiFi operation besides STA is in general a crapshoot,
| especially if the card is not meant for use in an AP. WiFi
| hardware vendors can't be bothered to provide fully usable
| stacks for anything else (if even that).
|
| For example Intel's broken Location Aware Regulatory completely
| breaks any use-cases where your device is not the STA (on
| anything besides 2.4GHz). Most cards also have no DFS support,
| meaning you'll be left with a microscopic usable segment. Then
| there's also the problem with incorrect regulatory information.
|
| All of which in the end makes reliable high-speed point-to-
| point operation very annoying to achieve. Even if it'd be
| totally legal. Leaving you with a terribly slow link.
| myself248 wrote:
| Adhoc was the coolest thing, I still miss it. One day in
| 2002-ish, I was showing a friend some photos on my laptop and
| noticed a crowd had gathered over my shoulder, and there simply
| wasn't enough room for everyone to get a good view.
|
| "Fire up adhoc, set it to this ssid, vnc to this address"
|
| Two minutes later, my photos are on five screens around the
| coffee shop and everyone can see.
|
| Adhoc just worked, and that's more than I can say for a great
| many things before or since.
| ryao wrote:
| What stops you from using it today? A wiki claims it is just
| 3 commands and IP configuration:
|
| https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Ad-
| hoc_networking#Manual_me...
| zorgmonkey wrote:
| The WiFi Alliance has a habit of always have a marketing name
| and a different name in the spec, you'll a lot more references
| to it in places like WPA supplicant if you search for Neighbor
| Awareness Networking (NAN). Also here is the link to the spec
| https://www.wi-fi.org/system/files/Wi-Fi%20Aware%20Specifica...
| DecentShoes wrote:
| >The WiFi Alliance has a habit of always have a marketing
| name and a different name in the spec
|
| What, the same people that named a consumer facing product
| 802.11g?
| joshstrange wrote:
| So it's lightning all over again? Lightning was better than
| micro-usb, then USB-C came out and was even better and people get
| pissy at Apple for creating something better than the standard
| (and donating some of that back to the standard).
|
| I know this will not be popular here but I really do not like the
| EU's most recent round of "no, you have to open up this feature".
| meibo wrote:
| ...what use is "donating" back to the standard if you don't
| adopt the standard, practically preventing its adoption through
| your position in the market?
| jeffhuys wrote:
| It wasn't really prevented, though, right? Apple was late to
| the game, yes, but that by definition means that its adoption
| was already well on its way; most of my non-Apple
| acquaintances were mocking me for having a non-usb-c phone
| (such an important issue!)...
| lxgr wrote:
| > mocking me for having a non-usb-c phone (such an
| important issue!)...
|
| It really isn't that irrelevant in a world in which being
| able to charge a phone can mean the difference between
| being able to get on a flight/train etc. or missing it.
|
| Apple switching to USB-C has doubled (or more, based on the
| country) the odds of finding somebody with a compatible
| cable and power bank in a pinch.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> non-Apple acquaintances were mocking me for having a
| non-usb-c phone_
|
| I've not mocked an Apple user purely for having a non-
| standard port on their device, though I have more than once
| mocked the arrogance of an Apple user being put out because
| when they were wanting to borrow a charger/battery/cable I
| only had standard parts, those needed to support my
| devices, in my kit.
| fire_lake wrote:
| Lightning is still better than USB C in terms of physical
| connector design (Lightning puts the male part on the more
| easily replaced cable side). Annoying that it's not a strict
| improvement being imposed.
| lxgr wrote:
| At least as far as I can tell, this seems to be a solved
| problem. USB-C ports on iPhones are holding up just fine.
|
| I'll take a 1% higher chance of a port wearing out over a
| 100% chance of needing to always carry two cables and not
| being able to share accessories with Android users any day.
| literalAardvark wrote:
| The port connector is more reliable on USB-C.
|
| The fine springy wiry bits that are impossible to clean and
| easy to damage are on the cable, which is a massive
| improvement. See: the super common broken Ethernet ports.
| emchammer wrote:
| For those of us who used to fix PCBs and wire
| breadboards, it's nice to see the traces are still there,
| like knowing where your food comes from, even if any hope
| of an analog baseband project is long past. Lightning is
| one of Apple's hits.
| luma wrote:
| The male part isn't necessarily the key here, the idea is
| that you put a softer alloy and/or any sprung contacts onto
| the wear side such that springs and contacts will wear on the
| replaceable bits. This is the key problem micro USB got
| wrong, and it's also what Lightning gets wrong (although I'd
| agree that it was loads better than micro USB).
| kaibee wrote:
| > Lightning is still better than USB C in terms of physical
| connector design (Lightning puts the male part on the more
| easily replaced cable side).
|
| Yeah, basically just repeating what luma said but you have
| this backwards. USB-C does have the female part on the cable
| side. Its just also enclosed in a metal cover for protection.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| So let me get this straight, the male part which is the most
| durable one is on the cable side on lightning while on USB-C
| the durable part is in the phone and the easily ruined female
| pins side is on the cable?
|
| You can keep tooting the Apple horn, Lightning was better
| than micro USB but saying it's better than USB-C is incorrect
| on every measureable point. Lightning is dead, long live
| USB-C!
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > while on USB-C the durable part is in the phone
|
| the problem is, it can snap or be sheared off under
| unfortunate circumstances - say, someone laying their phone
| on their belly in bed, putting strain on the connector, a
| chonky cat deciding to jump down right onto the charger
| cable while the phone is plugged in, or someone dropping
| their phone while it's attached to a power bank.
|
| With Lightning, it's a matter of removing the broken
| connector of the cable and that's it. With USB-C, you gotta
| replace the socket, tough luck on that given that these
| things generally don't come as single spare parts.
|
| (IMHO, that is the next thing the EU should tackle - parts
| that often need to be replaced such as sockets and buttons
| should be mandated to be on a dedicated flex cable that can
| be easily replaced)
| yisonPylkita wrote:
| Port replacement on recent MacBooks is quite easy to do
| since it is a separate part connected to internal port. I
| wish more laptop manufacturers followed Apple's steps
| thowawatp302 wrote:
| It's really not, I've had disproportionately more USB-C
| ports go dodgy because there was repeated tangential force
| on the cable plug than I had with lightning
| chuckadams wrote:
| Lightning's form factor is nice, but there are still a few
| issues with it. Look at any Lightning cable you've used for a
| few years and you'll probably notice one of the contacts is
| darker than the others. That's from arcing every time you
| plug it in, and that just cannot be a good thing.
|
| The springs being on the socket is also not a great feature
| of Lightning, though usually the device itself has a shorter
| lifetime than the socket.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > I know this will not be popular here but I really do not like
| the EU's most recent round of "no, you have to open up this
| feature".
|
| The EU did not ask Apple to open up AWDL to competitors, they
| asked Apple to comply with the Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 standard.
| joshuaturner wrote:
| "Asked" might not be the correct word here, "demanded" is
| more fitting.
|
| I'm pretty torn, and I know this conversation has been beaten
| to death on HN, and I have nothing new or novel to contribute
| to it, but even though this pushes Apple in a direction I'd
| personally like to see them move - it just feels like
| regulatory overreach.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| In Europe we like our regulators to step in and force
| megacorporations to do the right thing every now and then.
|
| What makes this overreaching? We already regulate RF
| heavily since it's a shared space that would all go to shit
| if everyone could roll their own incompatible thing
| joshuaturner wrote:
| The "right thing" is, of course, subjective, but you're
| completely correct in the wider point. This is something
| European elected officials have enacted; they were voted
| into office _by_ Europeans, and if Apple wants to sell
| their products there, they have to abide by the rules
| passed there. I completely agree with that. People have
| the right to decide how companies behave in their
| countries/regions.
|
| I just personally don't like the idea of governments
| dictating product decisions when no harm or risk is
| involved. If Apple wants to sell a product without a
| feature, it's my belief that they should be able to do
| that. This is doubly true when Apple developed and
| patented the feature they're being forced to drop in
| favor of an implementation they would rather not adopt.
| connicpu wrote:
| Apple isn't technically forced to do this, they're an
| American company. They could instead withdraw entirely from
| the EU market and then they don't have to follow any EU
| laws. Of course, Apple will never do that because selling
| their phones in the EU makes _way_ more money than
| complying with the regulations will cost them.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Were you also against the FCC implementing local number
| portability after Verizon etc refused to hand over your
| number to a different provider?
|
| The point is that capital incentives alone do not drive
| interop, and when interop is low, you get stagnating
| innovation and stifling competition, which leads to
| customer choice being limited and high prices during the
| value extraction phase. Just look at the VC world -
| competition with better product is for losers, all that
| matters is dominance and "market share".
|
| Corporations aren't alive, they can't exercise freedoms,
| they move wherever their incentives dictate. Good
| regulations like DMA is a tool to make these entities step
| out of local optima they're stuck in. (It even helps the
| affected companies, long term)
| lxgr wrote:
| I absolutely love it. USB-C is easily among my top 3 changes
| for the better on iPhones in the last 10 years.
|
| If "Wi-Fi Aware" (almost as ridiculous a name as "Bluetooth Low
| Energy", but that's a different topic) ends up allowing Android
| to iOS file transfers without any third-party apps or network
| connectivity - like feature phones could, 20 years ago -
| that'll make the top three too.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Apple was bringing USB-C to their entire line well before the
| EU "mandated" it. They were one of the first to put it on
| their laptops.
| lxgr wrote:
| Yes, and they even co-developed the standard to my
| knowledge.
|
| Still they were stubbornly refusing to bring it to their
| phones, which are their most popular product line by far,
| until the EU forced their hand.
| joshstrange wrote:
| You say "refusing to bring it to their phones", I say
| they were cautious about changing the port for the second
| time ever. I'd bet my retirement fund that Apple was
| going to bring USB-C to the iPhone that year already or
| at most 1 year later. It was slowly working its way down
| the line and I understand them being most hesitant about
| touching their golden goose.
|
| But I understand your viewpoint and, again, I love USB-C
| (and my iPhone). My biases are absolutely playing into my
| viewpoint on this. I just don't think they were dragging
| their feet due to wanting to make more from MFI/Lightning
| as some suggested, it was mostly just being slow to
| change something that would annoy people (and the change
| did annoy many people, even though I don't think they
| should have been annoyed).
| lxgr wrote:
| The longer they waited, the more (now obsolete) Lightning
| accessories were produced and sold as a result, no?
| joshstrange wrote:
| We could spend all day debating this back and forth
| ("What about all the lightning devices that got thrown
| out due to the new iPhone" - A somewhat silly argument
| but...) but I think we probably need to just agree to
| disagree. I absolutely disagree with Apple on a number of
| things but there is a lot of nuance here IMHO and teasing
| it out is well-trodden ground.
| Uvix wrote:
| The longer they waited the longer we could use our
| existing Lightning accessories we've had for years that
| are now trash and often don't have good replacements
| (e.g. docks).
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| Wasn't Apple super "courageous" when they killed the
| headphone jack?
|
| I tend to view Apple's actions (and those of any company
| really) first through the lens of their own self-
| interest. Killing the headphone jack, which was an open
| standard, benefited wireless headphones. And,
| unsurprisingly, Apple's proprietary integration with
| Airpods help make them the best wireless headphone
| choice.
|
| While I don't wholly disagree that Apple would have
| eventually switched to USB-C, I doubt they were slow to
| migrate out of an abundance of caution. Apple is a huge
| fan of lock-in, and never gives in to open standards
| easily.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Apple _did_ switch to USB-C on the iPad, as Lightning was
| showing its age both in max power draw and data rate.
| Putting it on phones was inevitable at that point.
|
| I'm not a huge fan of the EU government making specific
| demands of specific companies to adopt specific
| technologies, but this is Wi-Fi and telecom tech has a
| long history of adoption through legislation. So it's not
| at all unprecedented and is probably the lesser evil in
| this case.
| ryao wrote:
| They had usb 3.0 speeds over lightning on some models
| (e.g. the iPad Pro), but they kept introducing models
| that were usb 2.0 speed only for no apparent reason other
| than cost savings on the rest.
| int_19h wrote:
| And they still do it with USB-C. iPhone 16 and 16 Plus
| are restricted to USB 2.0 speeds; you have to shell out
| for 16 Pro or 16 Pro Max to get USB 3.0.
|
| I don't think it's about cost savings, even. It's just a
| way to differentiate the products, Apple-style.
| MaKey wrote:
| While Apple might have switched to USB-C on their own,
| they would have done so using propriety cables again.
| Thankfully the EU thwarted those plans.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Citation needed.
|
| There is quite literally no evidence for this theory and
| mountains of evidence that USB-C is what they were always
| going to switch to. They had already switched _checks
| note_ almost every other device they make to USB-C. The
| few that weren 't USB-C at the launch of the iPhone 15
| have been moved since then (specifically keyboard and
| mouse). I'm not sure if there are any Lightning devices
| left at this point.
| ryao wrote:
| Not quite. Apple could have removed the port entirely as
| a form of malicious compliance. They would have been in
| compliance with EU regulations without putting USB-C on
| their phones.
|
| A second option would have been to make lightning a data
| only port that would not charge phones.
|
| In either case, the reactions to "in order to comply with
| EU regulations, wired charging capability has been
| removed from iPhones sold in the EU" would have been
| hilarious.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Lightning is proprietary and incurs high per-cable license
| fees. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209924
| OptionX wrote:
| Apple said it didn't ship chargers with their 1k+ phones in
| order to reduce waste right?
|
| Then having the EU force usbc for the same reason shouldn't be
| a problem.
| beeflet wrote:
| lightning was worse by nature of being proprietary
| yapyap wrote:
| Sounds like they'd keep it as yet another Apple exclusive instead
| of y'know, introducing a new industry thing
| renecito wrote:
| Good bye free market.
|
| If a "new industry thing" is far superior and what customers
| want, why other vendors don't do it?
|
| Now, if government sees a benefit in driving and sharing
| technology I'd be happy the government would actively
| participate in R&D.
| tremon wrote:
| What do you mean? The government does actively participate in
| R&D, in the form of research grants, development subsidies
| and tax benefits.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> The government does actively participate in R&D, in the
| form of research grants, development subsidies and tax
| benefits._
|
| They do, it's only bad when China does it.
| subscribed wrote:
| They could develop ALSO their protocol and offer both.
|
| I don't recognise Apple as the proponent of the new _open_
| standards. They didn 't offer lightning to everyone, hell,
| even to make the lightning cable I'd have to pay a heavy
| licensing fee.
|
| Apple is not open and proponent of the common standards,
| hence they must be forced to adapt open standards in the name
| of interoperability.
|
| Personally I'd prefer lightning port on my phone instead of
| this stupid and fragile USB-c, bit since Apple wasn't
| interested in opening their standard.
| int_19h wrote:
| > If a "new industry thing" is far superior and what
| customers want, why other vendors don't do it?
|
| The other vendors do it. The problem is that we then end up
| with a dozen of solutions that do the same thing, but are
| incompatible with each other.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| I do love bureaucrats who could not tell Wifi from InfraRed
| deciding what comms standards are to be used.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Indeed, it's a lot better when the EU bureaucrats in
| collaboration with industry experts decide what comms standards
| should be used instead of profit maximizing megacorporations!
| lxgr wrote:
| For what it's worth, the bureaucrats did just fine with USB-C
| and Lightning.
| viraptor wrote:
| Competent government workers are able to rely on experts to
| deal with various issues. There's lots of regulation around
| tech, environment, animals, health, building requirements, etc.
| that we can't realistically expect everyone to have a deep
| understanding of.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I don't care how dumb the bureaucrats are so long as the end
| result is that when my parents ask me to "AirDrop" them a file
| or picture, the conversation doesn't end with...
|
| - I texted it to you, but it looks like crap, because MMS is
| crap
|
| - I tried to email it to you but it's over 2 megs and I have to
| walk downstairs, get it off my phone and onto a Real
| Computer(tm), then scale it down
|
| - I emailed you a Google Drive link, wait what do you mean you
| don't know how to sign into that? Yeah just use that app... oh
| wait no that's a different Google Account from the one you have
| your Gmail on
|
| - No, I'm not using Messenger, I don't like getting my data
| zucked by Facebook
|
| - Hey, there's this very easy way you can send files, you just
| need to install this app - what do you mean you forgot your
| Apple ID password for the third time this week?
|
| - Let me run downstairs and get my special USB-C flash drive -
| oh god damn it you still have the phones with Lightning ports
| on them
|
| - Let me run downstairs and grab my iPad, chuck the image over
| to it using Dropbox, _then_ AirDrop you
|
| AirDrop _just works_ , not because it's Apple, but because
| having a direct P2P transfer utility built into every phone and
| laptop cuts out all sorts of setup and permissioning issues.
| Apple just decided _their_ protocol was going to be the only
| one they 'd support, and that everyone else who bought the
| wrong phone should pound sand.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Come on, man. I can't say I miss the trillion charger types of
| the late 1990s and early 2000s. We have the EU to thank for
| USB-C. It may not be perfect, but being able to use the same
| charger to power/charge my phone, headphones and laptop is
| awesome. I can't say the same of my retro gear, until I modify
| it myself to have a USB-C charging port. Having a compatible
| wireless communication standard is along the same lines, in my
| opinion.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| > We have the EU to thank for USB-C.
|
| USB-C was the default connector on most devices long before
| the EU mandate.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| > We have the EU to thank for USB-C
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C
|
| > The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed
| in 2012 by Intel, HP Inc., Microsoft, and the USB
| Implementers Forum. The Type-C Specification 1.0 was
| published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) on August
| 11, 2014.[1] In July 2016, it was adopted by the IEC as "IEC
| 62680-1-3".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Implementers_Forum
|
| > USB Implementers Forum, Inc. (USB-IF) is a nonprofit
| organization created to promote and maintain USB (Universal
| Serial Bus), a set of specifications and transmission
| procedures for a type of cable connection that has since
| become used widely for electronic equipment. Its main
| activities are currently the promotion and marketing of USB,
| Wireless USB, USB On-The-Go, and the maintenance of standards
| and specifications for the related devices, as well as a
| compliance program.
|
| > The USB-IF was initiated in 1995[1] by the group of
| companies that was developing USB, which was made available
| first during 1996. The founding companies of USB-IF were
| Compaq, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, Intel, Microsoft,
| NEC and Nortel. Notable current members include HP, NEC,
| Microsoft, Apple Inc., Intel, and Agere Systems.
|
| We have mega corporations to thank for USB-C. Notably none of
| these companies are European. None.
| jokoon wrote:
| Interesting!
|
| Basically the EU is now able to force american companies to do
| things that the US regulator will not do, probably because Apple
| can manage to lobby US congress but not the EU parliament.
|
| That probably means that US companies can probably help "counter"
| Apple on certain things as long as the EU sees that it benefits
| the consumer.
|
| I don't know if Trump somehow caused this situation.
| anilakar wrote:
| EU has been regulating tech companies at least since the
| MicroUSB charger mandate. This has nothing to do with Trump,
| but once he hears about it he'll make sure everyone else knows
| too.
| bux93 wrote:
| Standards are essential for a common market and competition and
| drivers for prosperity. This is nothing new. Your Iphone
| probably also says "RoHS", which marks compliance with the
| Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. Mostly
| manufacturers try to comply with both EU and US standards at
| the same time. Typically the EU environmental and safety
| standards are a bit stricter. For example, in medicine, you
| first get FDA approval and then EMA approval, not just because
| it's a bigger market, but also because it's easier.
| stefan_ wrote:
| You know in a parallel world this headline is just "EU mandates
| Apple-designed P2P Wi-Fi standard". They did submit it for
| standardization after all, keeping to their proprietary one was
| just a transparent segmentation play.
| gpderetta wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
| rubatuga wrote:
| This is good news
| lawlessone wrote:
| >A quietly published EU interoperability roadmap mandates Apple
| support Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in iOS 19 and v5.0,1 thereafter,
| essentially forcing AWDL into retirement.
|
| Whats stopping Apple from doing both?
| bigfish24 wrote:
| I think the EU mandate forces them to do both, so that devices
| with AWDL are not advantaged over non-Apple devices with Wi-Fi
| Aware, so my read is that mandate will mean Apple devices will
| do both modes until they can transition AWDL off entirely.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Nothing, but since Apple is the only user of AWDL and WiFi
| Aware makes it redundant, why support both (in long term)?
| pmontra wrote:
| Because they could want to offer WiFi Aware in the EU and
| AWDL anywhere else, even in the long term. And switch back to
| AWDL everywhere if the EU stops mandating interoperability
| some day in the future.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I dunno what the site is doing (mining crypto?), but it takes two
| cores to fullest throttle for me.
| ecshafer wrote:
| I think it might be the css animation that moves the dots on
| the background.
| Timon3 wrote:
| It's not a CSS animation, it's canvas with p5. It probably
| renders every frame, even though the rendered result doesn't
| change if there hasn't been a click.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I really wish there were some write-ups for doing wifi-p2p aka
| wifi-aware (the wifi alliance's proprietary branding for it) on
| Linux! Incredibly sad that it's just so so so undocumented; such
| a neat sounding suite of capabilities.
|
| Haven't looked in 2-3 years, but found so little ehm last I
| looked. Very dismaying. So many folks doing "p2p" file sharing
| apps, but generally they assume you have setup networking
| already. We really need to own the means of connectivity.
| Especially now!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Unfortunately I believe it requires your WiFi firmware have the
| ability to switch channels with microsecond timing precision.
|
| That means you couldn't do it with off the shelf WiFi hardware.
|
| You might be able to do it whilst dropping existing WiFi
| connections during the transfer.
| snops wrote:
| The article links to a Linux implementation that does it with
| off the shelf WiFi hardware. You do need specific features in
| the hardware/firmware, but there are consumer devices that
| have that e.g. Atheros AR9280.
|
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl
|
| It currently drops connections to an AP, but the authors of
| the implementation seem to believe this could be fixed:
|
| > OWL does not allow a concurrent connection to an AP. This
| means, that when started, the Wi-Fi interface exclusively
| uses AWDL. To work around this, OWL could create a new
| monitor interface (instead of making the Wi-Fi interface one)
| and adjust its channel sequence to include the channel of the
| AP network.
| Calwestjobs wrote:
| " It took the concepts Apple pioneered (timeslot
| synchronization... "
|
| Pioneered does not mean inventing, never seen before concept.
| Pioneered means in this context - taking concepts already used in
| other radio networks and using them in their "wifi stack".
| Concepts used for decades before Apple even had iphone.
|
| I am not sure what / why is there difference between speeds of
| AWDL vs NAN in that table, my understanding was it can transfer
| at same speeds. Speed being limited by upload capability of "wifi
| chip".
| apitman wrote:
| If you've never heard of Ditto before, they're one of the leaders
| in cross platform small-scale mesh networking.
|
| If they're excited about this, I'm excited about this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-28 23:00 UTC)