[HN Gopher] The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now...
___________________________________________________________________
The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can
support AirDrop
Author : cyclecount
Score : 571 points
Date : 2025-11-26 21:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| k310 wrote:
| I'll be happy when Airdrop works reliably on Apple equipment.
|
| It can't reliably work between two adjacent rooms in my home
| without arm-waving.
|
| A hundred or thousand mile trip through iCloud works tons better.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It depends on Bluetooth to establish the connection so if you
| are out of Bluetooth range it won't work.
| teekert wrote:
| Yes same, you bump, you put iPhones on to op each other, you
| enable "findable by other". And still you may be messing around
| for minutes. Then a larger transfer starts... But fails half
| way for 6 times.
|
| It's the best way (if it works!) to transfer full quality live
| images quickly, but otherwise I'd be happier just using Signal.
| MBCook wrote:
| So they forced Apple to drop an Apple proprietary thing in favor
| of... a Wi-Fi standard Apple helped develop specifically to
| replace their proprietary thing.
|
| Not quite as strong as the headline makes the case sound.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Apple was forced to upstream the standard because the writing
| was on the wall so may as well preempt it.
|
| It'd also a benefit for Apple, since once upstreamed it shares
| the maintenance burden across all participants.
| usrnm wrote:
| Apple also helped develop USB C more than a decade ago, they
| still had to be forced to actually use it in their phones.
| There is no contradiction here
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Users all got to complain that the EU are the meanies
| responsible for their old wires and chargers and accessory no
| longer being compatible, but it seems infinitely more likely
| that Apple was going to adopt USB-C on largely the same
| schedule even if the EU didn't intercede.
|
| To be clear, Apple had already moved their laptops and
| computers to USB-C -- long in advance of almost any one else
| -- and had moved their iPad Pros and Air to USB-C, building
| out the accessory set supporting the same, years before the
| EU decree. Pretty convenient when they get to blame the EU
| for their smartphones making the utterly inevitable move.
| dickersnoodle wrote:
| It's conceivably politically incorrect to use this
| reference, but Apple was begging the EU not to throw them
| into that briar patch.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Begging? Apple filed a couple of light objections --
| basically a "don't regulate us, bro" -- and then moved
| on. Their resistance was laughably superficial
|
| Look, Apple is a predatory, extraordinarily greedy
| company, but these sorts of "thanks EU!" discussions are
| a riot. Thanks EU, for making Apple support a clone of an
| Apple feature that didn't exist until Apple made it, and
| for "forcing" Apple to transition their line to USB-C,
| which they were already almost completely done doing.
| gambiting wrote:
| >> which they were already almost completely done doing
|
| Honest question - why did they stick with lighting on
| iphones for so long, given that usb-c has been ubiquitus
| on phones for years before that point. I mean we can sit
| here and say "duh apple was going to do it anyway" but
| like.....why didn't they? Why did samsung have usb-c
| phones long before apple?
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Apple's resistance was presumably user inertia. Users had
| billions of cables and accessories for lightning, and
| Apple saw during a prior transition that people get
| really pissed off about this sort of change.
|
| And let's be real about Samsung et al -- before USB-C,
| they were using the utter dogshit micro USB connector
| (funfact -- this terrible connector became prevalent
| because the EU made a voluntary commitment with
| manufacturers to adopt it). micro-USB is a horrible
| connector from a user-experience and reliability
| perspective. USB-C was a massive, massive upgrade for
| those users.
|
| In Apple land, everyone already had a bidirectional,
| reliable connector. Even today to most Apple users the
| switch from lightning to USB-C was just a sideways move.
| koyote wrote:
| > In Apple land, everyone already had a bidirectional,
| reliable connector
|
| Wait, I thought the Apple 30-pin connector was not
| reversible?
|
| USB-C has been out for over a decade now. There was only
| a small window of about two years where iphones had
| lightning and other phones did not yet have usb-c.
| MBCook wrote:
| GP meant Lightning. It was reversible.
|
| You are correct, the dock connector for was not.
|
| And they couldn't go to USB-C instead of Lightning
| initially as Lightning came out first.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Samsung released the first USB-C Galaxy S device five
| years after the iPhone moved to lightning (2012 vs 2017).
| They had Galaxy A devices on micro USB a year later in
| 2018.
|
| A couple of devices like the Pixel ( _4_ years after
| lightning - 2012 vs 2016) got it a bit earlier, but no,
| it wasn 't two years.
|
| The iPhone rocking a massively better connector half a
| decade earlier than the vast majority of the competition
| is legitimately a thing.
| systemtest wrote:
| Don't forget the USB 3.0 micro-B on the Galaxy S2, the
| 18-pin connector, the 20-pin connector, mini-USB and
| various barrel connectors. USB-C was a blessing for
| Samsung, they could finally ditch their sub-par
| connectors.
| techpression wrote:
| They openly said why, millions upon millions of devices
| (speakers etc) people wanted to use with lightning
| connectors. There was never a good time and EU putting a
| deadline on it gets Apple free of the e-waste
| accusations.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| No one was accusing Apple of e-waste when for decades the
| world had decided common standards were a great way to
| reduce e-waste.
|
| Outside of America this has been obvious since the mid
| 2000s when people complained about a proliferation of
| chargers with phones because pre-iPhone the non US
| cellphone market was far more advanced.
| MBCook wrote:
| Really? Do you remember the user shit storm when they
| dumped the dock connector and went to lightning? People
| wouldn't shut up for years, even though lightning was way
| way better.
| xp84 wrote:
| So, your position is that some users whined about that...
| so what? Apple knew those users were, quite frankly,
| wrong, the 30-pin was fragile and one-way. And the cables
| themselves were never expensive, and used scarcely more
| resources than many disposable items we throw out every
| day.
|
| Apple never apologized for the changeover, the iPhone 5
| sold like hotcakes, everyone quickly loved having a
| reversible and small cable that was less fragile than
| 30pin, and everyone lived happily ever after. The whiny
| boomers annoyed that they had to finally replace a dock
| they bought in 2004 for an iPod _made zero difference to
| anything._ People whining online are not a problem at all
| unless they stop buying -- and nobody stopped buying.
| After all, switching to Android would have necessitated
| buying a new cable anyway, at any point prior to 2023!
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Because they were getting a reputation for churning the
| ports too quickly
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA&t=19s
|
| and then they went all-USBC on the MBP before the
| ecosystem was ready, got absolutely slammed for it, and
| went back (on magsafe). 4 times bitten, once shy. I'm
| sure the cynical money reason played a role too, of
| course, but nobody else is mentioning the 4 times bitten
| so I felt obliged.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Seriously.
|
| I upgraded my iPad to a USB-C version and discovered I
| couldn't use my 1st-gen (Lightning) Apple Pencil with it
| even though it's compatible -- because I first had to buy
| a special female-female USB-C<->Lightning dongle just to
| be able to plug it in to pair it. (Even though I can keep
| using my Lightning charger to charge it separately from
| my iPad.)
|
| Moving from Lightning to USB-C hasn't been too bad for me
| since I use wireless charging with e.g. my Lightning
| AirPods. But the transition is a _huge pain_. Because of
| weird cases like the Pencil, it 's not even enough to
| just have a USB-C charging cable and a Lightning charging
| cable.
| MBCook wrote:
| I wouldn't blame USB-C for that, personally.
|
| The Pencil situation is a _disaster_. There are at least
| 3 first party versions plus the 3rd party ones. And when
| version X + 1 comes out they don't drop support for
| version X, they use it in a different product for some
| stupid reason. Probably because the tooling already
| exists.
|
| So you can find entire matrices online attempting to
| explain which iPads support which pencils.
|
| It's horrible. The Lightning -> USB-C transition is
| probably one of least objectionable parts of pencil
| history.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The MBP would only be an example if they were scared of
| being too new to USB-C on phones. That stopped being
| possible once a quarter of new phones were USB-C. So they
| weren't scared of that.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I think this whole narrative being spun here that Good
| Guy Apple was Being Oppressed by the lowly end users &
| wanted to do the right thing (be thrown into the briar
| patch) all along, just never could form the political
| will for it and needed EU intervention is some insane
| fucking weird ass made up nonsense. WTF wtf wtf? Surely
| you must be joking.
|
| Apple has had MfI certification on Apple compatible
| products for decades & has actively wanted to protect
| that revenue stream & domain of control. If folks could
| just plug in devices & have them just work, that would
| erode their ownership.
|
| And just as bad, it would raise all sorts of questions
| like "why does this mouse not do anything on my iPhone"
| and obscure the careful market delineations Apple
| vigorously has established between its products (which
| makes people buy more products than they need). Apple
| never wanted to be a good guy, Apple never wanted to
| lower itself to the common market of peripherals and
| standards. Their involvement with USB-C was likely far
| far far before it was apparent their device teams would
| have to give up MfI controls.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFi_Program
| stouset wrote:
| I think you missed GP's point. The briar patch is a
| reference to the story of Br'er Rabbit, which involves
| pretending to object to a punishment that one really
| doesn't mind at all (and might even prefer).
|
| The GP is suggesting that Apple was more than happy to
| have this mandate. I tend to agree: they wanted to switch
| the iPhone to USB-C anyway, but there's always people who
| are going to be upset that their Lightning accessories no
| longer work or need an adapter. But this way they can say
| that the EU forced their hand. They get what they wanted
| all along, but they also get a scapegoat who can take the
| blame for the remaining downsides.
| tristanj wrote:
| My understanding is that Apple didn't add USB-C to
| iPhones because they planned to remove all ports from the
| iPhone entirely. They envisioned it as a wireless only
| device.
|
| EU regulation stopped this from happening, and now once
| they added USB-C it's difficult to take this feature
| away. I predict we'll be stuck with the USB-C port and
| form factor on most phones for the next decade.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| This is completely illogical. There is no world that
| wireless charging or data transfer was going to be as
| good as wired. Was the iPhone all the sudden not going to
| work in the millions of cars that had wired CarPlay?
| tristanj wrote:
| My statements are substantiated by sources going back
| almost a decade. See my other comment for details.
|
| And when you view what Apple is doing from their long-
| term vision of the iPhone becoming a transparent piece of
| glass, it starts making sense.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Substantiated by rumors - isn't that an oxymoron?
| 1718627440 wrote:
| I share that view, but I don't think Apple would care. I
| mean Ethernet is way better than Wifi, yet the iPhones
| don't have an Ethernet port.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| But they can use a standard USB C to Ethernet adapter
| that computers use.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| Sure after plugging in an USB-C extender, an USB-C to
| headphone adapter and an USB-C to HDMI adapter. I'm sure
| that will be as convenient as a phone, that directly has
| these interfaces. At that point you could even design the
| phone without any port and buy a Bluetooth to USB-C
| adapter instead.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| - Ethernet - I have to do the same for every MacBook for
| the past decade - use an adapter. The iPhone can use the
| same adapter.
|
| - I don't need a USB-C to headphone adapter, there are
| plenty of USB C headphones and the mixer my wife uses has
| a USB C interface for computers and it works with her
| iPad and I assume my phone. It shows up as an audio
| input/output device. You plug up a regular old USB C to
| USB C cable.
|
| - you don't need an "HDMI adapter", you use the same USB
| C to HDMI cord that computers have used since USB C was
| introduced on computers over a decade ago.
|
| USB C has supported video natively for over a decade. I
| use the same USB C - USB C cable to plug up my phone to
| my external monitor that I use for my Mac
|
| Bluetooth doesn't transmit data at 10Gbps like USB C does
| on an iPhone Pro or even USB 2 speeds of the cheaper
| iPhones.
|
| You don't need special Apple compatible dongles for any
| of these use cases. They all support the standard USB
| protocols
| LexGray wrote:
| Illogical may not be the right word. We have already
| reached the point of passible.
|
| WiFi speeds are decent for data.
|
| Wireless charging is 2 hours to a full quick charge and
| efficiency gets better every generation.
|
| As for wired CarPlay somebody would make dongles.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Compared to 40 minutes for a charge? Have you used
| wireless CarPlay? There is a noticeable delay from
| pressing a button on the display in your car and your
| phone reacting.
|
| Also the iPhone Pro models support up to 10Gbps wired for
| data transfer. Now let's talk about using external video.
| I don't need a special dongle. I can use a standard USB 3
| cable just like I use with my computer.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/SC6WDri
|
| Or if I need HDMI, again I can use the same USB 3 to HDMI
| cable that works with Mac or the God awful Microsoft
| Surface (not the convertible) I had to use for a year at
| a prior job.
|
| Then we can get into simple things like how do you
| connect mass storage devices to your phone or audio
| equipment?
| xp84 wrote:
| This is a silly reason to hold back if that was their
| plan. You can buy, for $20 and up, little USB-sticks that
| allow wired-CarPlay cars to do wireless CarPlay. Apple
| could manufacture 100 million of those, at a cost of $5
| for the boards and maybe $8 in glass and aluminum, and
| sell them at a huge profit for $79.99 and advertise them
| as a revolutionary breakthrough they invented.
|
| Wired CarPlay is not holding Apple back. I think they
| just figure it'd be harder for them to repair partially-
| bricked iPhones if they had no port to do DFU or
| whatever. That or they actually have done the market
| research and customers said they'd hold off on buying a
| portless iPhone because it's a stupid idea.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| So can you also do 10Gbps data transfers wirelessly like
| the iPhone Pros do? Can I just plug up my phone to any
| old monitor with a USB C port or use a standard video
| cord?
|
| Apple prototypes a lot of stuff including a smart car.
| Despite what people think, Apple doesn't do everything at
| the whim of the EU.
| xp84 wrote:
| I didn't say there were no reasons that smart/pro
| customers should dread a portless phone and appreciate
| the port. Of course there are reasons!
|
| But Apple could definitely make the "non-pro" phone
| portless- exactly the way they arbitrarily force USB 2.0
| speeds (hello 2004!) even on the iPhone 17 non-pro's port
| - rendering it worse than Wi-Fi for data transfers.
|
| They must have market research proving it would cost them
| sales. That's the only thing holding them back.
| stouset wrote:
| This was a common trope on Reddit but makes literally
| zero sense. There are a _ton_ of wired accessories that
| this would make completely useless overnight, including
| things like CarPlay.
|
| And for what?
| tristanj wrote:
| You probably viewed this as a common trope because you
| were not aware of the actual source of the rumors. No,
| these are not claims are not from reddit, they're from
| Mark Gurman in 2018.
|
| > _Apple designers eventually hope to remove most of the
| external ports and buttons on the iPhone, including the
| charger, according to people familiar with the company's
| work. During the development of the iPhone X, Apple
| weighed removing the wired charging system entirely. That
| wasn't feasible at the time because wireless charging was
| still slower than traditional methods._ [0]
|
| Actual rumors include a prototype of said phone making
| rounds around the office.
|
| And again, Mark Gurman from 2025:
|
| > _" But all of these changes were supposed to be just
| the tip of the iceberg: Apple had originally hoped to get
| ever more ambitious with this model... An even bigger
| idea was to make the Air device Apple's first completely
| port-free iPhone. That would mean losing the USB-C
| connector and going all-in on wireless charging and
| syncing data with the cloud."_
|
| > _" But Apple ultimately decided not to adopt a port-
| free design with the new iPhone, which will still have a
| USB-C connector. One major reason: There were concerns
| that removing USB-C would upset European Union
| regulators, who mandated the iPhone switch to USB-C and
| are scrutinizing the company's business practices."_ [1]
|
| [0]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-21/why-
| apple...
|
| [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-03-16
| /apple-...
| stouset wrote:
| Mark Gurman's track record with Apple is spotty at best.
| He may have been the original source of the rumor, but
| Reddit's enormously anti-Apple user base is more than
| happy to grab onto any notion that Apple might do
| something even slightly unpopular and run wild. One dude
| with one report and middling accuracy does not a reliable
| narrative make, no matter how many times it's reposted.
|
| Apple prototypes a _lot_ of shit internally. I am utterly
| certain they had prototypes of wireless-only phones. I am
| wholly unconvinced they had anything resembling firm
| plans at a leadership level to actually move forward with
| such a device. Apple has been more than happy to poke a
| finger in the eye of the EU repeatedly to see what their
| real limits are; I doubt they suddenly got cold feet over
| this one issue.
| frizlab wrote:
| Absolutely. It is excessively obvious and I don't
| understand how not much more of a common take that is.
| icehawk wrote:
| People spent a whole decade complaining about the iPod dock
| -> Lightning change.
|
| I'd wait to blame the EU also.
| ricw wrote:
| Apple probably wouldn't have changed to usbc for their
| phones. Lightning was a mobile phone / other development,
| whilst usbc and its contributions came from their Mac
| department.
|
| They did not like each others standards. I know Apple
| engineers working on the phone who dislike the change even
| up to this day...
| ebbi wrote:
| Did they give reasons for why they don't like the change?
| giantrobot wrote:
| USB-C is a worse mechanical connector for a device
| plugged in thousands of times over its lifetime. The
| female port of a USB-C connector has a relatively fragile
| center blade. Lightning's layout was the opposite which
| makes it more robust and easier to clean.
| KK7NIL wrote:
| > USB-C is a worse mechanical connector for a device
| plugged in thousands of times over its lifetime.
|
| USB-C connectors are usually rated for 10k cycles. Do you
| have any evidence that lighting connectors are rated for
| more cycles than that?
|
| > The female port of a USB-C connector has a relatively
| fragile center blade. Lightning's layout was the opposite
| which makes it more robust and easier to clean.
|
| This is very weak a priori arguing. I could just as well
| argue that USB-C has the center blade shielded instead of
| exposed and so is more durable.
|
| Unless you have some empirical evidence on this I don't
| see a strong argument for better durability from either
| connector.
| jdiff wrote:
| My Pixel 8 certainly hasn't gone through 10k cycles and
| it barely holds on to any USB-C connector I put inside
| it. They all fall out even when laying still on a flat
| surface.
|
| There's always outliers, of course, but I had this issue
| with USB Micro-B on at least one other device and never
| saw it with a Lightning connector.
| nl wrote:
| My lightning connector on my iPhone 12 is completely
| unreliable - I need to twist the phone against the cable
| to get it to change.
|
| Fortunately MagSafe works fine!
| stouset wrote:
| This is probably lint buildup. You can scrape it out with
| any thin and stiff object like a safety pin.
|
| A small amount of lint gets into the hole. You pack it in
| when you plug in the cable. Repeat a thousand times and
| now you have a stiff "plug" of lint that prevents the
| connector from fully entering your device.
| bashkiddie wrote:
| Your Pixel 8 could be about two years old. The connector
| performed way under spec and you should send it in for
| repair (assuming your are in a country with a 2 year
| warranty period)
| jdiff wrote:
| Unfortunately we're nearing the anniversary of the
| warranty's expiration.
| vel0city wrote:
| I find it's often lint in the USB-C port. Cleaning it out
| with a non-conductive tool like a toothpick or a dry
| toothbrush usually solves it for me when that happenens.
| cyberax wrote:
| I've had dozens of devices with USB-C. I've yet to have
| even a single one that had any problems with them. To be
| fair, I'm using iPhones mostly for app testing, so I also
| had very few issues with them.
|
| What do you guys all do with your devices?!?
| yearolinuxdsktp wrote:
| The 10K cycle insertion rating for USB-C is an idealized
| metric that does not include lateral force, torque,
| device movement, or real-world wear patterns. These non-
| axial forces are a known cause of USB-C port failures and
| are explicitly not accounted for in the standard
| 10k-cycle durability claim.
|
| USB-C center tongue female design means that the port
| will break before the cable. With lightning, the cable
| plug takes all the stress.
|
| Apple doesn't publish insertion cycles rating for
| Lightning connectors, so it's impossible to provide
| empirical evidence of that.
|
| In my personal experience, I've had two USB-C ports go
| bad on two MacBooks. I've yet to own a USB-C-charging
| phone, but I've never had a Lightning port fail.
| KK7NIL wrote:
| > These non-axial forces are a known cause of USB-C port
| failures and are explicitly not accounted for in the
| standard 10k-cycle durability claim.
|
| I agree and that's par for the course for any standard,
| they have to limit the requirements to something that is
| economically manufacutrable and testable.
|
| Meanwhile, lightning connectors have no public standard
| to speak of so this is a mute point.
|
| > USB-C center tongue female design means that the port
| will break before the cable. With lightning, the cable
| plug takes all the stress.
|
| This is another a priori armchair expert argument which I
| just put very little weight on without data to back it
| up.
|
| > Apple doesn't publish insertion cycles rating for
| Lightning connectors, so it's impossible to provide
| empirical evidence of that.
|
| That conclusion does not follow. We can still obtain
| empirical evidence through direct testing without Apple
| publishing anything.
|
| > In my personal experience, I've had two USB-C ports go
| bad on two MacBooks. I've yet to own a USB-C-charging
| phone, but I've never had a Lightning port fail.
|
| That's fair, everyone has different anecdotal experiences
| as a foundation for their opinion here. The problem is
| that anecdotal data is just not very informative to
| others, that's all.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| *moot point
| cesarb wrote:
| > USB-C center tongue female design means that the port
| will break before the cable. With lightning, the cable
| plug takes all the stress.
|
| Are you sure it's the center tongue which takes all the
| stress, and not the round shell?
|
| AFAIK, USB-C is designed so that the cable breaks before
| the port, because the parts which wear the most with use
| (the contact and retention springs) are in the cable, not
| on the device.
| stouset wrote:
| My own empirical evidence suggests that USB-C ports stop
| holding tightly onto cables after light to moderate use.
|
| To be fair, Lightning ports were prone to being clogged
| with lint, but that was fixable in twenty seconds with a
| safety pin.
| bdangubic wrote:
| exactly!
| f33d5173 wrote:
| My experience is that plugs from the same manufacturer as
| the device tend to keep holding tightly, but mixing
| makers is unreliable. Apple plugs in particular tend to
| slide out of my samsung phone really easily. I guess
| whoever speced usbc didn't bother with the details of how
| it would stay in, and every manufacturer figured out
| their own solution.
| anamax wrote:
| > This is very weak a priori arguing. I could just as
| well argue that USB-C has the center blade shielded
| instead of exposed and so is more durable.
|
| The unshielded Lightning center blade is on a $5
| connector. If it breaks, I'm out $5 and it's reasonable
| to have spares.
|
| The shielded USB-C center blade is part of an expensive
| device. If it breaks....
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Have you ever seen either kind of port break on the
| inside?
|
| This speculation is just as weak without any evidence.
| tpmoney wrote:
| I did wind up replacing the USB C ports on a 4 year old
| computer recently because it was dodgy as hell. When i
| got it under the microscope it the longer bus power pin
| contacts (and one or two of the others) had been badly
| worn/squished/stretched in a way that I guess was causing
| them to bridge to other pins. I assume some USB-C cable
| had some gunk in the connector which was hard enough to
| damage the contacts on the center blade, and the user
| didn't notice (because how often do you look into the end
| of your USB-C cable?). It probably presented as a cable
| that wasn't seating right or didn't go all the way in and
| whatever was inside probably fell out when it was removed
| and they tried again.
|
| And for what it's worth, damage to the center blade does
| seem to be a common failure mode for USB-C and mini-usb
| connectors. Less frequent for something like HDMI but it
| does seem to happen from time to time. Lightning never
| felt like it locked in as securely as USB connectors do,
| but at the same time, every time I saw a damaged
| lightning connector it was always on the male (and
| therefore usually cheaper accessory) side.
| klausa wrote:
| I've had multiple USB-C chargers broken like this.
|
| Now, admittedly, "being yanked by a robot vacuum and
| falling on the ground" is outside the design parameters
| for a port; but I absolutely had USB-C ports fail in a
| way that Lightning would have not.
|
| (Not the person you're replying to, but also a "Lightning
| was a better physical connector than USB-C" weirdo.)
| lwkl wrote:
| I have seen multiple USB-C ports break on Lenovo and HP
| laptops. About 1 in every 50 laptops over the span of 2-3
| years. I don't know if it was the users fault or a
| manufacturing issue. But the manufacturers fixed these
| under the extended warranty.
|
| It might be an issue with the USB-C port used in these
| laptops since the ports on MacBooks feel less wobbly to
| me. But in the end this is just speculation and
| anecdotal.
| cyberax wrote:
| At the same time, if the springs on the iPhone-side
| connector loosen and can't hold onto the cable, you have
| to replace the whole phone and not just the cable.
|
| So Apple had to use pretty strong springs, resulting in a
| lot of friction on the pins. That made them easier to
| damage, so they had to switch from gold to a crazy super-
| resistant rhodium-based alloy for contact coating.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Incorrect. You want springy bits on part that is easily
| replaceable - the cable. USB-C does that, the springy
| bits are in the connector, not the socket.
|
| My phone is now 6 years old, zero problems on usb-c
| connector
| llm_nerd wrote:
| "I know Apple engineers working on the phone"
|
| Groan. Come on. Cite one. A single "Apple engineer" to
| support this ridiculous claim of insider knowledge. What
| year do you think it is?
|
| You understand that the SoC and I/O blocks are largely
| shared between the Mac and the iPad / iPhone now, right?
| This invention of some big bifurcation is not reality
| based. The A14 SoC (which became the foundation for the
| Mac's M1) had I/O hardware to support USB-C all the ways
| back to the iPhone 12. Which makes sense as this chipset
| was used in iPads that came with USB-C.
|
| Pretty weird for hardware that is largely the same to
| "not like each others standards".
| klausa wrote:
| The I/O blocks are similar, but very much not the same
| between the different Axy/Mz chips.
|
| They're different even between A19 Pro in an iPhone Air
| and the one in 17 Pros! The Air one doesn't support
| 10Gbps USB-C.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Well sure, they're iterating between models. But in many
| cases they're quite literally copy/pasting designs. Any
| imagined separation between the hardware teams is fantasy
| based. The comment I replied to is nonsensical.
|
| "They're different even between A19 Pro in an iPhone Air
| and the one in 17 Pros"
|
| The SoC and I/O blocks are quite literally identical. An
| A19 Pro is an A19 Pro, aside from binning for core
| disables. The difference is in the wiring and physical
| connector on the device which puts a ceiling on the
| features supported, one of which is 10Gbps. The Air
| famously includes some new "3D printed" super thin
| Titanium USB-C port, using the 4 pins rather than the
| "pro" 9 pin 10Gbps capable connector. The SoC is
| identical, they just only wired it up for USB 2.0.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| > but it seems infinitely more likely that Apple was going
| to adopt USB-C on largely the same schedule even if the EU
| didn't intercede
|
| There is no reason to believe this at all given how hard
| Apple fought the EU on this.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Apple likely didn't want the precedent or bad press of
| the EU mandating changes in their supply chain.
| systemtest wrote:
| Do you have any sources that "Apple fought the EU"
| regarding USB-C?
| morshu9001 wrote:
| They had Macs on USB-C for like 7 years before the iPhone.
| It was going to stay like that. Mac on USB-C meant more
| dongles to sell, iPhone on Lightning meant cable fees and
| control.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| >iPhone on Lightning meant cable fees and control.
|
| Strange, then, that Apple already moved the iPad Pro and
| iPad Air to USB-C, right? Didn't they get the memo about
| "cable fees and control"? It's _almost_ like they were
| incrementally moving all their platforms over.
|
| The cable fees conspiracy has always been a weird one. At
| the absolute highest, MFi fees were estimated at some
| $80M per year. Do you know how utterly irrelevant that
| number is to Apple? It's like 0.02% of their revenue. Far
| more logically they literally intended it as a quality
| assurance given that the company was very focused on user
| satisfaction.
| JimDabell wrote:
| You think Apple is going to make the user experience on
| iPhones - a product that makes them hundreds of billions
| of dollars a year - to sell more _cables_ !? How much
| profit do you think they can possibly make with those
| cables?
|
| Apple came under fire when they moved from 30-pin
| connectors to Lightning because people wanted to keep
| their 30-pin connectors. At the time, Apple said that
| they wouldn't make people switch for another decade. They
| switched to USB-C eleven years later.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > You think Apple is going to make the user experience on
| iPhones - a product that makes them hundreds of billions
| of dollars a year - to sell more cables?
|
| Seems like it's more a matter of conveniently waiting
| until it's clearly some kind of explicit competitive
| disadvantage not to switch, or otherwise have their hand
| forced, rather than making their products worse.
|
| That said, Apple makes their products worse all the time
| for a variety of reasons, it shouldn't be so hard to
| believe, and they also let their products stagnate until
| they may as well be discontinued, like someone who stops
| engaging in a relationship until you eventually break up
| with them.
|
| > How much profit do you think they can possibly make
| with those cables?
|
| A lot. I'd wager somewhere in the realm of a % of
| hundreds of billions
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > You think Apple is going to make the user experience on
| iPhones - a product that makes them hundreds of billions
| of dollars a year - to sell more cables!?
|
| Uh yes, of course they would. They happily would do that.
| morshu9001 wrote:
| Yes. They did it with the headphone jack too. Nobody will
| switch to Android for either of those, in fact the more
| Apple-specific stuff the more lockin.
| kakacik wrote:
| Yes of course. How much did the cables cost with
| replacements for fraing ones. Revenue is revenue, same as
| with consoles - main device is not the main income
| source, its the ecosystem and additional devices and
| services people buy and keep paying for.
|
| This is business 101.
| xp84 wrote:
| > "Apple came under fire ... [for 30-pin]"
|
| So freaking what? Since when does Apple care about what
| customers whine about? They didn't actually give a flying
| fig when users moaned about 30-pin to Lightning, did
| they? Show me how they apologized or walked that back.
| Same for the headphone jack. Same for the one-port
| MacBook 12". And the MacBook keyboard - until class
| action got them - they put that garbage in several
| generations of laptops! The point being, they could have
| adopted USB-C whenever they wanted to and let the whiners
| whine -- they just didn't want to.
|
| Stop anthropomorphizing Tim Cook. Apple doesn't do
| anything because they feel bad about customer complaints.
| Apple does things for _profit._ Profit only. If you
| disagree, may I point to their recent zeal to buddy up
| with DJT. Is that a principled embrace of that dude? Or
| are they just weighting anything that isn't profit at
| zero and then making the rational decision from there.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| There were hundreds of devices on Amazon that never paid
| Apple a fee to use Lightning.
|
| And as far as USB C on Macs, are you complaining that
| Apple used an industry standard port?
| cyberax wrote:
| No, there weren't. Lightning cable have an authentication
| chip, and while it was cloned towards the end of the
| lifecycle, most accessories still utilized official
| chips.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I have been buying cheap knockoff lightning devices since
| my iPhone 5 at least. I can guarantee that random Chinese
| manufacturer wasn't selling lightning cables in bundles
| of 5 for $10 using officially licensed anything from
| Apple.
| morshu9001 wrote:
| Same here. They tended to stop working, not because of a
| shoddy cable but because the phone rejects it.
| morshu9001 wrote:
| USB-C wasn't exactly standard when Apple put it in Macs.
| Nothing else used it yet, and they didn't have any
| transition period. Its sole purpose for years was to get
| adapted to other ports. And if you wanted to use it as
| Lightning, you basically needed the Apple cable.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| EU kinda failed with it once before, they pushed for phone
| vendors to get to common standard https://ec.europa.eu/comm
| ission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_1...
|
| didn't work, apple still did their own thing so EU went
| "ok, fuck you, usb-c"
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Apple also helped develop ARM, but I believe nobody likes to
| talk about that.
|
| I wonder when the Europe is going to open up European
| companies like ASML, who are pretty much the de facto
| monopolies in their field. I believe the Nexperia incident
| showed that there's also a lot of political and national
| reasons behind such decisions, not just creating open and
| fair markets.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Who is stopping someone from competing against ASML?
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Who's stopping anyone from competing with Apple?
|
| Let's force ASML to open up its manufacturing line and
| cancel their patents for squandering innovation, but wait
| they're an incredible company that dominated the field
| with their hard work and diligence, so it's not fair for
| them.
|
| Similarly, the open markets should apply to everyone, not
| just dominant American firms.
|
| Though, I'm not saying they're innocent and I think they
| have to be even broken up due to their monopolistic
| behaviors.
| lmm wrote:
| > Who's stopping anyone from competing with Apple?
|
| Apple's dominant market position and abuse of network
| effects via their proprietary standards, like the one
| we're talking about from this article.
|
| > Let's force ASML to open up its manufacturing line and
| cancel their patents for squandering innovation
|
| No-one's arguing for any equivalent of that to happen to
| Apple. Just that when there's an open standard for inter-
| device communication, they should follow that. Imagine if
| ASML-manufactured processors wouldn't work with standard
| DDR5, only with some special memory chips that only ASML
| could manufacture, that would be the equivalent to what
| Apple is doing.
|
| Apple should enjoy the profits from when they make better
| products that win on their merits. But they should have
| to compete fairly.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| I think it is wrong to force Apple to support various
| "open standards". Other device manufacturers should make
| better devices and have people switch naturally to them
| because they are better.
|
| Like Google cried to every possible regulator that Apple
| is the big bad wolf that doesn't want to support RCE.
| Why? If it was that good, more people would use Androids
| for that.
|
| The problem, as I see it, is that everyone else besides
| Apple spends very little on physical devices build
| quality and software polishing, and you end up with crap
| devices that are slow, with weird interfaces and so on.
| cyberax wrote:
| ASML provides their devices to any (eligible) company.
|
| If you want an Apple analogy, imagine ASML requiring that
| they get 30% of all the income generated by devices that
| use ASML-produced chips.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| ASML isn't selling hundreds of millions of units to
| people like you and me.
| talideon wrote:
| That's not right. They were an early investor in ARM Ltd.,
| but they in no way "helped develop ARM". That was all
| Acorn. ARM Ltd was created because Apple thought ARM was a
| good fit for the Newton, but didn't want to be beholden to
| a competitor, which Acorn was.
| ladberg wrote:
| Apple is the leader of nearly all new developments to the
| ARM ISA, which has evolved considerably since Acorn died.
| stephen_g wrote:
| That did turn a huge number of chargers and accessories into
| e-waste though...
| adzm wrote:
| With the benefit of reduced waste in the future, though
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| Lightning is just the snowcap on a mountain of Mini- and
| Micro-USB.
| systemtest wrote:
| Chargers of that era typically had a USB A port and can
| still be used with an A to C cable
| avh02 wrote:
| probably offset by travellers hauling less proprietary
| cables with them on holidays/business trips/commutes, i now
| travel with basically one cable to charge almost every
| device
|
| yes, this is a little tongue in cheek, but i do appreciate
| the standardization around USB-C
|
| edit: people need to just admit their lives got better with
| this forced change. (this is not a reply to you, general
| observation)
| gruturo wrote:
| You know you can get a lightning-to-C adapter for very
| little, right? Here you go, under $2 each:
| https://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Adapter-Charging-
| Transfer-C... (probably under $1 each if you have the
| patience to look for them in other sites)
|
| And a lot of chargers don't have a cable built-in, they
| just have a USB-A or -C port - so it's just a matter of
| replacing the cable. But - again, if you'd rather not do
| even that, you're welcome to keep using your old cable with
| a USB-C converter
| xp84 wrote:
| LIghtning due to its DRM chips (and the delicateness of
| Apple's "aesthetics-first" first-party cables) was not a
| long-lived cable. We threw away probably 2-3 per year
| during the whole era. Throwing away the last couple before
| their natural death, when I finally eradicated Lightning
| from our home, was no great loss.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Apple said from the day that they made lightning cables that
| it would be supported for 10 years. They literally
| contractually guaranteed that to third party manufacturers in
| exchange for them creating a massive availability of cables
| for Apple users.
|
| The EU "forced them" to switch to the standard they helped
| develop (USB C) on the 11th year after developing lighting.
| I'm sure it was all the EUs doing.
| monocasa wrote:
| I haven't seen Apple say anything like that, all I saw were
| analysts saying that Apple's long term commitment to the
| format meant that you could expect a decade or so of
| lifetime like the previous 30pin connector.
|
| Do you have a citation for what you're saying?
| systemtest wrote:
| Phil Schiller announced Lightning as the modern connector
| for the next decade back in September 2012 during the
| release of the iPhone 5.
| monocasa wrote:
| That's not a contract.
| ciupicri wrote:
| Here's a video of that moment:
| https://youtu.be/CqOZBearWd4
| xp84 wrote:
| Shocker, they never responded to back up their claim!
| pavlov wrote:
| Chinese cable manufacturers don't need contract guarantees
| to compete for the lucrative iPhone user market...
| vineyardmike wrote:
| The cables have proprietary chips that need to be
| purchased from apple. And the target is companies that
| join their "Made For Apple" (MFI) program.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| Those proprietary chips were cloned very quickly...
| kristofferR wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/video/apple-executive-on-adoption-of-
| usb...
|
| Apple argues that the law was dumb environmentally due to
| many people having Lightning-cables that wouldn't work in
| the future, so they obviously can't have intended to do the
| same changeover at the same time as the EU forced them to
| xp84 wrote:
| That was hilarious, as though Lightning cables on average
| outlasted the devices they were used with. Meanwhile in
| the real world, Apple's delicate "strain relief" started
| to fray and tear in 6-12 months of use, and thanks to
| their weird unnecessary DRM chip for MFi enforcement,
| third-party Lightning cables tended to become flaky for
| purely DRM reasons in a few months.
|
| Show me anyone who had more than a couple of _working_
| Lightning cables left when they eliminated their last
| Lightning device.
| HugoTea wrote:
| There are many things they do which Apple argues benefits
| their users, but end up benefitting themselves in
| suspiciously manipulative ways. I'm not shocked they
| entered a 10 year contractual agreement, and that just so
| happened to allow them to make a lot of profit by using a
| proprietary cable.
|
| They lock down individual parts to device serial numbers,
| this helps prevent fraudulent repair services with poor
| quality parts, it also ensures Apple is always involved in
| the repair process and they can make a lot of money on
| that.
|
| They use a proprietary RAM design, this significantly
| improves hardware speeds but also stops you replacing or
| upgrading the modules yourself. They also just happen to
| charge a serious premium on RAM capacity, and don't sell
| the modules on their own. Even if a third-party did
| manufacture the modules and sell them separately, they are
| also locked down to serial numbers.
|
| This is Apple's bread and butter, enforcing consumer
| hostile practices and spinning it into a benefit, usually
| filled with half-truths to muddy the waters. In all of
| these situations, it's possible to do better by the
| consumer but why would they? At the end of the day they're
| here to make money, as much as they possibly can, and
| they're uncontested in their own vender hardware, doesn't
| mean we shouldn't call them out for their awful practices
| every time they appear.
| Aefiam wrote:
| The iphone could have had both usbc and lightning, so if
| they cared about that they would have done it.
| systemtest wrote:
| Apple used USB-C on the iPhone 15 and 16 without being forced
| to do so. If Apple was indeed forced to use USB-C they would
| have postponed it to the 17.
|
| Do you also think Apple was forced to use USB-C on the iPad
| and MacBook?
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| Wow , you need lot of homework to do. You missed the whole
| timeline of events, backlash with apple and usbc and just
| looking at headlines.
|
| Or either misrepresenting the facts because you are a fan
| boy of a trillion dollar company. Please dont if its
| latter.
| systemtest wrote:
| Do you have any source that states that Apple was forced?
| Given that they switched the iPhone to USB-C multiple
| product iterations before it was required makes it seem
| to be that they were not forced.
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| Apple cerifies/recieves licensencing fee for every
| thunderbolt cable. Apple only did move to usb-c when
| backlash is so high and eu law will certainly pass.
|
| It is good for their pr to advertise that they moved to
| usbc because they wanted to rather than forced to by a
| government.Apple still tries/atleast tried to control usbc
| cable usage for iphones. Cables need to get certified.
|
| Apple supported usbc on mac because it is superior and the
| impact to their revenue is very low. It is also jump from
| usb-a to usb -c
| CharlesW wrote:
| The EU: Sacrificing constituents' privacy rights with one hand,
| while courageously fighting for the sacred right to AirDrop
| with the other.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Don't worry, the United States is always eager to prove that
| you can neglect _both_ consumer rights and user privacy at
| the same time.
| CharlesW wrote:
| This wasn't a "meanwhile, the U.S. is good" post. Let's
| hope this massive AirDrop "win" eases the sting of the
| rights that the EU is eroding.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I don't think it was an _anything_ post. You are an Apple
| customer upset at the status quo, which is
| understandable, but your post is not.
|
| If "think of the children" feels like manufactured
| consent for the erosion of rights, spending money
| supporting Tim "Client Side Scanning" Cook isn't going to
| yield some moral reprisal from Apple. Emotionally
| manipulating you into accepting conditional surveillance
| is part of Apple's security model. They're the "good
| guys" and they don't need to prove it.
| concinds wrote:
| The national governments are to blame, not the EU.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| If a law forced Apple to do good for everyone, not just a
| small group of people, isn't that a good thing? It wasn't
| exactly that AirDrop got legislated, but thanks to the DMA,
| AirDrop (and other things) are within scope and they now have
| to make things more seamless for everyone. Win-win no?
| lysace wrote:
| The headline is 100% correct.
| MBCook wrote:
| It is literally correct. My point was I think it implies the
| EU had to force a totally belligerent Apple (which we've
| certainly seen) instead of Apple already working on this and
| EU perhaps speeding the timeline a little.
| gnulinux996 wrote:
| I feel like your take is what an Apple PR person might say in
| order to downplay Apple's defeat.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Hah, right? Everyone understands that Apple wouldn't have
| done anything by themselves if it wasn't for the DMA.
|
| The whole selling point of Apple was that as long as you're
| inside the ecosystem, you'll get the smoothest experience.
| Well, now the law says that devices, apps and products from
| third parties should be able to be used on an iPhone as
| seamlessly as Apple's own products, of course they wouldn't
| have given that up willingly.
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| It is also worth noting that Android wasn't using the standard
| as well. If they had, this would have been day 0
| interoperability for Android phones. Instead, it is a single
| phone model released a couple months after iOS 26.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| And that's how regulations work. The very companies targeted by
| regulations often design and push for them. By doing so they
| gain a competitive advantage, price out smaller rivals, and
| move closer to becoming a monopoly. Michael Porter, Harvard
| Business School professor, talks about this in his book
| Competitive Strategy.
| AdamN wrote:
| The moat gets mighty large when the government regulators
| start making it bigger. That's one of the advantages that the
| Mag 7 has now - it's not just the scale but it's also the
| compliance burden for new entrants.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| Well they forced a standard that anybody can use to support
| wirelessly sending files to nearby devices. That's a huge chain
| and taking a few bricks out of the garden wall.
|
| I literally do not care about the wanky culty Android this
| Apple that stuff. I just want to plug my phone into my Mac and
| have it be able to read it, regardless of what phone that is.
| When someone needs to send me a document, I don't want them to
| have to change how they send it based on what device I have.
| Regulation and enforcing common interoperability standards is
| good for consumers; I don't care whose implementation wins out,
| just that all my devices support it.
| joejohnson wrote:
| I wonder if it's related to Apple's change from AWDL to Wi-Fi
| Aware, but AirDrop seems much more reliable on iOS 26. I can send
| to multiple people at once and they often all succeed, but most
| importantly, if one transfer fails or is cancelled, I can retry
| and it works. In older versions of iOS, a failed transfer seemed
| to block all future attempts until the phone was restarted.
| fragmede wrote:
| the weird one for me is that if I hit share, and then hit the
| airdrop target, it doesn't work, but if go into airdrop and
| then select the same target, then works. Apple, fix your shit,
| yo.
| jaffa2 wrote:
| Yep seen this before too.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| Have you tried the NFC-bumping the tops of the iPhones together
| yet? So far I've had superb success rate on iOS18.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Is there any proof that this change actually happened?
| star-glider wrote:
| I'm libertarian, but I have to say watching the EU torment Apple
| has been delightful and one of the stronger arguments for
| muscular regulatory action.
|
| The USB-C thing just made everything better. It cost Apple
| basically nothing---maybe a few million/year of profit, which for
| a company that's worth $3 trillion is nothing, and it made my and
| many other people's lives quite a bit more convenient.
|
| Same with this Airdrop thing, and same with RCS (although there's
| some reporting that RCS had more to do with China than the EU).
|
| Eventually, someone is going to break open iMessage, and poor
| Apple will actually have to compete again for customers. Maybe
| they'll innovate something more interesting than Airpods Ultra
| Mega Pro Max or a thinner phone.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| You're a libertarian but regulatory intervention made
| everything about the market better and a better world for
| everyone involved with a relatively small change that was being
| stubbornly refused by a company for a small marginal benefit to
| themselves?
| CharlesW wrote:
| We call them "LINO"s.
| firefax wrote:
| Left libertarianism is compatible with such views.
|
| Basically, libertarian on social issues paired with a
| preference for a decentralized economy, as opposed to a
| "tankie" (Stalinist) style centrally planned economy.
| baiac wrote:
| What is "left libertarianism" supposed to look like? I
| find this concept baffling. The end result of
| libertarianism is nothing like what the left is supposed
| to support.
| firefax wrote:
| >What is "left libertarianism" supposed to look like? I
| find this concept baffling
|
| Here you go:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Or... You know... We also like watching one giant
| corporation that benefits from distinctly authoritarian
| policies get wrecked by another authoritarian entity to the
| benefit of better competition in the market.
|
| But apparently unless you're a suckup to the authoritarian
| entity that you like is now a LINO.
| star-glider wrote:
| Bingo.
| star-glider wrote:
| Sure, because I think that, _ultimately_ excessive regulation
| stifles innovation. I mean, heck, the EU is looking to
| effectively dismantle GDPR because they 're worried that it's
| going to cause them to miss out on the AI boom.
|
| My point was just that Apple is such an outrageously bad
| actor (and the USB-C and Airdrop rules so beneficial) that
| these rules were getting even a very pro-market person like
| me to at least be open to the idea of regulating some of
| these out-of-control giants.
| GenerWork wrote:
| Your last paragraph doesn't really make you come off as a
| libertarian at all. If Apple is truly a bad actor, then the
| libertarian response isn't to have the EU force them to use
| USB-C on iPhones, it's for people to move away from iPhones
| to other choices, which means Androids.
| intrasight wrote:
| Libertarian ideals only work if there is more freedom of
| choice than we have here.
| timeon wrote:
| > EU is looking to effectively dismantle GDPR
|
| The reason is lobby, not innovations.
| wat10000 wrote:
| "Excessive regulation stifles innovation" is pretty much a
| tautology. The point of argument is what constitutes
| "excessive." Libertarians generally consider almost any
| amount to be excessive. What you're describing just sounds
| like being aware of tradeoffs, which should be true of
| anyone paying attention.
| fingerlocks wrote:
| Apple made major contributions to USB-C and adopted it a decade
| ago in their MacBooks. They were committed to lightning for 10
| years starting in 2012-ish, so usb-c was likely inevitable in
| iOS devices.
|
| However I would preferred a backwards compatibility lightning
| 2.0 upgrade. Cleaning a usb-c port is a huge pain and they are
| more prone to pocket lint clogging than lightning.
| lsaferite wrote:
| Plastic dental picks work great for cleaning USB-C ports.
| dijit wrote:
| just don't apply too much pressure or the center segment
| can bend over time, becoming weak and prone to potentially
| snapping off.
|
| It happened to me at least.
| lsaferite wrote:
| Haven't encountered that yet. But I always try to be
| extra careful and also look for the thinnest ones I can
| find. Seems like a product niche right there. Rigid,
| thin, non-conductive picks.
| AdamN wrote:
| Yeah you want to focus on the outside corners of the port
| and be gentle with the inside contacts.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| I've never had an issue with this with Samsung. Hell, I
| don't think I've even cleaned out lint once on my current
| S24U over a couple years. Idk how you other people are
| brutalising your phones tho.
| lsaferite wrote:
| If you put your phone in your pocket, little bits of lint
| get in the port. Just tiny little bits. Then, when you
| use a USB-C plug, those tiny bits get compacted. Over
| time this results in a thin layer of compacted lint in
| the bottom of the port. Eventually this layer is thick
| enough that the USB-C cable won't positively lock onto
| the port. It'll still work, but it'll disconnect if you
| move it sometimes and just start to feel finicky.
|
| I have to clean my port maybe once a year or so. I wait
| until the cables aren't locking and then I clean it out.
| The dental pick makes it easy and you are just dislodging
| that compacted mat of lint and removing it. Conversely,
| my wife never has the problem. Her phone never goes into
| a pocket, just her purse.
| ebbi wrote:
| While I really like the convenience of not having multiple
| different cables to charge my devices when travelling, I
| agree with you on cleaning the usb-c port. In that respect,
| the lightning design was a lot more elegant and made more
| sense for a pocketable device.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The usb C to hdmi adapter is 100x less reliable than the
| lightning to hdmi adapter (having talked to many that used
| both).
|
| Not sure why that is, but something to ponder.
| yyyk wrote:
| Careful on what you wish for. The same regulatory action can be
| (is) being used for Chat Control (that dropped off the main
| page for some reason). Ultimately neither power center acts for
| the general interest.
| baiac wrote:
| From reading this comment it doesn't sound like you're a
| libertarian at all.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> The USB-C thing just made everything better. It cost Apple
| basically nothing_
|
| It made all the iPhone docks/speakers/etc. obsolete. The last
| time that happened, when Apple swapped the old 30 pin connector
| for lightning, it pissed off a fair number of customers.
|
| This time they could blame the EU which was likely a huge plus.
| kcb wrote:
| iPhone docks and speakers were already obsolete. They had a
| moment during the 30-pin era, but its been long since
| Bluetooth, Carplay took over in any mainstream use.
| fmajid wrote:
| iMessage escaped DMA because it has marginal market share
| anywhere outside the US. WhatsApp is the dominant messaging
| platform and is opening up:
|
| https://developers.facebook.com/m/messaging-interoperability...
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| The iPad Pro got USB-C in 2018, well before the EU legislation.
| It seems inevitable the iPhone would have got it even without
| the EU getting involved.
| eastbound wrote:
| So what is it? Comanagement between EU representatives and Apple
| employees? It looks like the German model where unions co-manage
| the companies.
|
| On the paper it looks great, but the problem is the EU is not
| necessarily representing its citizens. It's great for my Apple
| products, but I'm also paying for an entire lavish class of
| superior citizen in Brussels who implement laws written by
| lobbies.
| lxgr wrote:
| > the problem is the EU is not necessarily representing its
| citizens.
|
| Yes, EU citizens probably absolutely love not being able to
| conveniently share files between Android and iOS.
|
| > I'm also paying for an entire lavish class of superior
| citizen in Brussels who implement laws written by lobbies.
|
| What lobbies, in this particular case? Google? Samsung?
| kergonath wrote:
| > Comanagement between EU representatives and Apple employees?
|
| Whatever gave you this impression? That's not what the story is
| saying at all.
|
| > the EU is not necessarily representing its citizens
|
| It is not supposed to. The EU is a group of states, not
| citizens. If you want your voice to really count, lobby your
| national government, which has more say in the councils of
| ministers or the council of Europe than the MEPs have.
|
| > I'm also paying for an entire lavish class of superior
| citizen in Brussels who implement laws written by lobbies.
|
| How big is that "entire lavish class"? Just to know how upset I
| need to be. Also, which law was "written by lobbies"?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| An additional benefit is that the Wi-Fi standard also means that
| the weird account requirements on Google's Nearby Share can be
| avoided by independent implementations (i.e. on Windows or Linux
| or maybe rooted Android, iOS and macOS already have it of
| course).
|
| "Contacts only mode" will always be a challenge, but at least the
| "I just want to share a file without Google watching me" use case
| is now resolved by Google implementing a standard that doesn't
| involve them.
|
| Unfortunately, this is Pixel 10 exclusive for now, for some
| reason. I expect Samsung to pick this up eventually as well, but
| I'm not sure if Google will be able to backport this tech through
| Google Play Services the way they did with Nearby Share on older
| phones.
| gertop wrote:
| Have you confirmed that the new feature works without an
| account or is that speculation?
|
| The account requirement for nearby share never made sense yet
| they still did it the way...
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The account requirement for nearby share is, as I understand
| it, to enable "contacts only" mode, which is how you prevent
| people from receiving random dickpics the second they try out
| the protocol and permanently turn the feature off afterwards.
| I think NS also has some kind of cloud transfer backup
| connection in case local transfers don't work (using
| Samsung's cloud), but I'm not 100% sure if that's related.
|
| The account requirement can already be avoided using existing
| implementations of standard QuickShare (i.e.
| https://henriqueclaranhan.github.io/rquickshare/) but those
| are limited to devices sharing the same WiFi connection.
| However, as there is no contact sharing between iOS and
| Android, interoperability basically forces Google to pick
| between "Google account optional" and "doesn't work with
| iOS".
| sorenjan wrote:
| Qualcomm has confirmed it's coming to Snapdragon phones
| soon[0], which maybe hints that it's dependent on the SoC
| drivers? Samsung uses a mix of Snapdragon and their own Exynos,
| but I can't see them not releasing it to their Snapdragon
| phones when others do, and then they pretty much have to
| release it to their Exynos phones too.
|
| [0] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Qualcomm-confirms-Quick-
| Share-...
| tech234a wrote:
| An implementation of AWDL on Linux requires a Wi-Fi card that
| supports "active monitor mode with frame injection". [1] I
| looked into using it with an Intel Wi-Fi card I had and it
| appeared mine wasn't supported. I'm guessing the situation is
| similar on Android in terms of SoC support.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl?tab=readme-ov-
| file#require...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Will this help or hinder the CCP's strong arming of Apple to
| hinder airdrop?
| thinkindie wrote:
| > If I had to guess why neither of Google's Quick Share posts
| mentions Wi-Fi interoperability standards or the DMA, it may be
| because Google has been complaining about various aspects of the
| law and its enforcement since before it was even passed
|
| This is telling a lot about US companies complaining about EU
| laws.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| People keep mentioning Wi-Fi Aware with this, but so far haven't
| seen anyone actually _prove_ that this is the case.
|
| Apple undoubtedly added Wi-Fi Aware support to iOS
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/WiFiAware, but its not
| clear whether iOS actually supports AirDrop over Wi-Fi Aware.
| Apple clearly hasn't completely dropped AWDL for AirDrop, because
| you can still AirDrop from iOS 26 to earlier devices.
|
| Note that the Ars Technica article never directly makes the claim
| that Apple supports Airdrop over Wi-Fi Aware. The title is two
| independent statements - "The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi
| standards, and now Android can support AirDrop" - that's true.
|
| > _Google doesn't mention it in either Quick Share post, but if
| you're wondering why it's suddenly possible for Quick Share to
| work with AirDrop, it can almost certainly be credited to
| European Union regulations imposed under the Digital Markets Act
| (DMA)._
|
| Again, they're just theorising. They never directly make the
| claim. Would love on Hacker News for someone to do some Hacking
| and actually figure it out for real!
| internet2000 wrote:
| It's frustrating how much people want this to be an EU win
| they'll fabricate evidence. The same happened with RCS in iOS,
| everybody jumped in to credit it to the EU, when you can find
| the document spelling out how RCS is a requirement for China.
| echelon wrote:
| I don't care which sovereign state or union forces the
| trillion dollar tech giant to behave. I'm just glad it
| happened. And I applaud China if this was their victory.
|
| I want it to happen with a thousand times more intensity for
| Apple _and_ Google.
|
| We should own these devices. We shouldn't be subsistence
| farmers on the most important device category in the world.
|
| They need to be opened up to competition, standards, right to
| repair, privacy, web app installs, browser choice, messaging,
| etc. etc.
|
| They shouldn't be strong arming tiny developers or the entire
| automotive industry. It's vastly unfair. And this strip
| mining impacts us as consumers.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > They shouldn't be strong arming [...] the entire
| automotive industry.
|
| Yes they should, the automotive industry is much shittier.
| I have a 23 Chevy Bolt EUV with wireless CarPlay. Chevy/GM
| have been emailing and snail mailing me relentlessly trying
| to get me to pay for their $150 update to my car's
| navigation maps, which no longer work in my vehicle
| (presumably because they're out of date). This is quite the
| deal, according to their marketing materials, but I won't
| be paying for it because I've never used those maps thanks
| to CarPlay.
|
| With all this emphasis they're putting on upselling these
| $150 map updates, it doesn't take a genius to understand
| why GM is no longer making vehicles with CarPlay or Android
| Auto.
| echelon wrote:
| > With all this emphasis they're putting on upselling
| these $150 map updates, it doesn't take a genius to
| understand why GM is no longer making vehicles with
| CarPlay or Android Auto.
|
| Because cars are a low margin, high capital business with
| ruthless competition.
|
| Because a trillion dollar duopoly gets to spend a billion
| dollars on mapping software and give it away completely
| for free as part of an ecosystem / platform play, which
| they then use to strong arm automotive manufacturers. If
| you had to bear the true cost, it would be $150. More car
| companies should ban Apple and Google.
|
| Fuck Apple and Google. They are not the heroes in this
| story. They're not Robin Hood here, even if that's what
| they're masquerading as. They're the child-enslaving
| "Land of Toys" from Pinocchio - they're using you and
| lured you in with a promise of freedom, but they have an
| ulterior motive.
|
| All of that "freedom" just gets added to the purchase
| price of your car, and you don't even realize it. You
| also get Google ads for McDonalds and shit.
| ralph84 wrote:
| The EU mindset in a nutshell. It doesn't matter how
| shitty and expensive the solution is, as long as they get
| to say they owned big tech.
| echelon wrote:
| Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that. Me
| too.
|
| Big tech is literally a machine putting a ceiling on your
| ability to build.
|
| They tax and control everything, lock down distribution,
| prevent you from operating without rules.
|
| If you get big enough, they self-fund an internal team to
| compete with you. Or they offer to buy you for less than
| you're worth. If you don't accept, they buy your
| competitor.
|
| Capitalism should be brutal. Giant lions that can't
| compete should starve and give way to nimble new
| competition.
|
| You shouldn't be able to use your 100+ business units to
| subsidize the takeover of an entirely unrelated market.
|
| They are an invasive species and are growing into
| everything they can without antitrust hedge trimming.
| Instead of lean, starving lions, they're lion fish
| infesting the Gulf of Mexico. They're feasting upon the
| entire ecosystem and putting pressure on healthy
| competition.
|
| Your own capital rewards are cut short because of their
| scale.
|
| Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute
| them to customers? It's okay to pay their fee, jump
| through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay
| 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to
| use their payment and user rails, forced to update on
| their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence
| and not yours?
|
| Do you like having competitors able to pay money to put
| themselves in front of customers searching for _your_
| brand name? On the web and in the app stores? So you have
| to pay to even enjoy the name recognition you earned? On
| top of the 30% gross sales tax you already pay? And those
| draconian rules?
|
| That's fucking bullshit.
|
| We need more competition, not less.
|
| Winning should not be reaching scale and squatting
| forever. You should be forced to run on the treadmill
| constantly until someone nibbles away at your market.
| That's healthy.
|
| Competition from smaller players should be brutal and
| unending.
|
| That is how we build robust, anti-fragile markets that
| maximally benefit consumers. That is how we ensure
| capital rewards accrue to the active innovators.
|
| Apple and Google are lion fish. It's time for the DOJ,
| FTC, and every sovereign nation to cull them back so that
| the ecosystem can thrive once more.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that.
| Me too.
|
| _Nothing_ in GP 's comment gave any indication that they
| were a "hyper capitalist". You're just being emotionally
| manipulative, disingenuous, and acting in bad faith. This
| is categorically inappropriate for HN.
| frank_nitti wrote:
| Hmm well I certainly inferred the same from their
| comment: it casts "big tech" as the victim of the
| government, because the latter forced as "overpriced and
| shitty solution"
|
| It's possible they're not a capitalist and just extremely
| sympathetic to Apple and/or Google specifically, but that
| seems more of a stretch than what that commenter (to whom
| you're replying) has inferred IMO
| throw10920 wrote:
| Your assumption is equally incorrect, because the poster
| factually _did not say anything like that_. You can be
| upset at the EU for making performative regulation
| without addressing "real issues" or writing the
| regulation well, and yet still support strong regulation.
| The implication that criticizing the EU is equivalent to
| being a "hyper-capitalist" is such an insane belief that
| it borders on being farcical.
|
| Assumptions like this are what lead to political
| polarization. Don't do it. Read what the poster _wrote_ ,
| don't try to read their mind, and use your brain
| responding.
| darkwater wrote:
| Reading the original comment, I would say that's _you_
| giving it a creative interpretation.
| throw10920 wrote:
| Reading my previous comment, anyone with decent reading
| comprehension can tell that I'm describing _a_ possible
| interpretation. I 'm clearly not assigning it as fact, as
| echelon is.
|
| I can also explain exactly why echelon's interpretation
| is unfounded, yet _you_ cannot make any coherent argument
| and are forced to resort to allusions and baseless
| accusations stemming from a failure to read what I wrote.
| Although, that 's consistent with a failure to read what
| ralph84 wrote, too.
| roenxi wrote:
| > They tax and control everything, lock down
| distribution, prevent you from operating without rules.
|
| You seem to be arguing that the EU should be doing that
| though. What about those of us who quite like the way
| Apple does things right now? I'm happy to pay extra for a
| lot of your dot points, I quite like someone to be acting
| as a firewall between my device and the unfettered soup
| that is stuff out on the internet.
|
| Apple's product is a well curated walled garden. I
| certainly understand why there are a lot of people on HN
| who don't like that - they see 30% that they can't claim.
| But one of the reasons Apple is so successful is because
| they know how to create a great phone experience.
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| >> Apple is so successful is because they know how to
| create a great phone experience.
|
| I disagree, may be they were at some time. Now they are
| successful because the walls of the well are so high. It
| is insanely difficult for us frogs to jump. Happy that
| governments are trying to bring those walls down
|
| >> I am happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points.
| Good for you because you trust them. Problem is I am not.
| I dont trust apple/google to make that decision for me.
| But they dont give that choice. They are making you
| sacrificing freedom, choice by masking them self as
| secure. But underlying motive is profits and control.
|
| I heard a story that apple asked meta for comission on
| ads , when meta rejected they introduced features to
| remove access to usage metrics to 3rd party apps. If meta
| agreed , you might never see the privacy features app
| introduced.
|
| The security you are thinking is a believable mirage.
| There are several users who have lost thousands of
| dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions
| and apple is doing shit to stop this.
| roenxi wrote:
| > The security you are thinking is a believable mirage.
| There are several users who have lost thousands of
| dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions
| and apple is doing shit to stop this.
|
| And the plan to make this the consensus view is to ban
| Apple-style curated app stores. That seems to be
| cheating. When Apple convinced me their App store model
| was better than the alternative they had to use, y'know,
| persuasion.
|
| Nokia sorta died, but at the time back in the 2000s Apple
| had to get through the entire phone industry to establish
| the iPhone. If the Europeans had any idea how to manage
| this sort of ecosystem they'd still be running the show.
| They had an amazing market position to begin with. They
| flubbed it because no-one in the entire continent seems
| to know how to run an app store! Now they're legislating
| their bad ideas in. It is a very European approach to
| commercial innovation and success.
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| yes I agree, but we need to change with the age. in early
| 2000's it is hard to distribute apps/software, and 30%
| commission made sense.
|
| now it is not, there are several people/companies who can
| make the app distribution better, efficient for all
| consumers. they can bring it down to a fraction (apple
| itself has by now bought it to a fraction of what it
| costs in 2000).only reason they are not passed down to
| consumer is because they made sure there is no
| competition (by force(google paying samsung to not
| develop its app store) or by design (Apple limiting 3rd
| party installs and discouraging webapps) - basically how
| a monopoly/duopoly behaves). it is bad for us consumers
|
| if apple has developed all the tools libraries itself
| from scratch , put hardwork and sweat into it, i wont
| have a issue. we all know thats not the case and how much
| opensource tools helped.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| _Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute
| them to customers? It 's okay to pay their fee, jump
| through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay
| 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to
| use their payment and user rails, forced to update on
| their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence
| and not yours?_
|
| Most of this isn't even true. It's 15% for most app
| sellers, you don't have to use their user auth, you can
| maintain a direct customer relationship just fine, you're
| not locked onto a release train, you only have to update
| when things change if you want your app to work (like
| literally any platform).
| daedrdev wrote:
| > Because cars are a low margin, high capital business
| with ruthless competition.
|
| Then why are they making such terrible carplay systems?
| f33d5173 wrote:
| When companies compete, consumers win. Don't make the
| error of thinking that because they're doing it for
| selfish reasons, it doesn't benefit you.
|
| > If you had to bear the true cost, it would be $150.
|
| That might be true, but it probably isn't. A larger
| company can spread the cost out over a larger number of
| customers, meaning the cost per customer is lower.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| CarPlay doesn't show me ads for McDonald's, it doesn't
| show me ads at all.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Yet :(
| DANmode wrote:
| Fork.
| yourusername wrote:
| When standalone GPS units for $500 were popular the big
| car manufacturers were still trying to sell GPS as a
| $2000 option. We've seen time and time again car
| companies will charge whatever they can get away with. So
| i'm very skeptical that maps actually cost $150 for the
| companies that charged me $800 to enable bluetooth
| calling.
| lwkl wrote:
| Before CarPlay and Android Auto we had TomTom for $130
| and map updates costing about $40. The map updates from
| car manufacturers were always sold at a premium.
|
| I bet Google Maps pays for itself through ads alone. In
| addition Google Maps gains a lot of invaluable data from
| its users like new businesses, reviews, pictures, updated
| opening times, traffic data and more. So no Google Maps
| isn't really "free" it's paid for by its users with ads
| and free labor to improve the mapping data.
|
| Having the users split between different navigation
| software is a worse user experience because the mapping
| data will be worse. So I welcome a monopoly in this case.
|
| The hard work of mapping is done by the government in
| most countries and paid for by the tax payers. So you are
| just paying the car company to convert the mapping data
| you already paid for into their proprietary format.
| xp84 wrote:
| Why can't we hate both greedy and shitty GM, and greedy
| and shitty Apple and Google?
|
| Both infotainment and phones should be open to run the
| software users choose. The biggest problem with tech
| today is how everyone with control of some kind of choke
| point expects everyone else to pay them to "allow" the
| user to use anything that isn't in the first party's
| strategic interest.
|
| We saw this when Apple violently crushed that Android-
| compatible iMessage solution a couple years ago. It was
| portrayed as that developer "hacking" Apple - not as the
| users of the iMessage service choosing a different client
| than Apple likes. This shift in thinking is wild.
|
| Since the AT&T breakup the phone company was forced to
| allow customers to choose their client hardware (phones).
| Now in the modern day critical infrastructure, we're back
| to the same old tricks where powerful parties (platform
| owners) want to dictate the hardware and software
| customers are allowed to use based purely on their own
| greedy interests.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The sad thing is that you and the person you are arguing
| with are both right: Apple and Google are lock-in
| monopolists, _and_ the legacy telcos were much worse
| monopolists (remember paying for ringtones?), _and_ the car
| manufacturers want to foist terrible software on people
| with their own brand of lock-in.
|
| Really there should be something like DIN rails for car
| electronics other than audio, so you can just swap out the
| manufacturer kit if you don't like it. Then there would be
| an actual _market_.
|
| (DIN being a German standards body..)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| There is very little literature about Chinese requirements
| rolled out
|
| and when there is, its talked about as American tech
| companies bowing to an authoritarian regime as opposed to
| fighting a burgeoning market force acting on behalf of
| consumers and the American tech companies losing that fight
|
| the latter is how the EU work is syndicated
|
| in between is that there likely is no fight with Chinese
| regulators alongside an unwillingness to alter access to that
| market
| gmueckl wrote:
| Don't forget that Apple is feeling sore and playing the
| petulant child in their PR regarding EU regulations,
| especially regarding the digital markets act. They don't want
| to appear to give in the EU, so I wouldn't be surprised to
| learn that Apple doesn't want to admit that the EU forced
| them.
| matwood wrote:
| Same with usb-c when Apple was one of the main drivers of
| usb-c adoption.
| monocasa wrote:
| Apple had to be dragged kicking and screaming into
| supporting usb-c on the truly mobile devices.
| matwood wrote:
| Apple was clearly moving towards usbc (which they helped
| develop). Their laptops and iPad pros had moved along
| with the pro phones. To think the EU the reason usbc came
| to the iPhone is ignoring the clear path Apple was on. At
| best they put it in the rest of the phone line a
| generation early.
|
| Any fight that Apple put up was performative and them not
| wanting any sort of precedence to be set.
| monocasa wrote:
| Their laptops never had lightning, so there was no
| "moving along". And iPad Pros moved because they're
| trying to create a product niche that people use like a
| laptop/desktop, but where Apple actually gets that sweet,
| sweet App Store money for all software on the device. In
| that niche, people expect actual expandibility to access
| stuff like large disk storage, and the App Store money
| greatly outweighs the patent money from lightning.
|
| If apple had planned to drop lightning, we wouldn't still
| have rhe crappy USB2 controllers backing that port on
| those SoCs that would still would have been under
| development when the EU decision came down.
| xp84 wrote:
| You're joking, right? 2015: USB-C adoption began
|
| 2023: first USB-C iPhone launched.
|
| Compared to the iPhone, nothing else matters. Apple dragged
| their feet on this for eight years and the only reason the
| Apple fans give is that poor widdle Apple had their
| feelings hurt so bad when dummies whined about the 30-pin
| to lightning transition in 2012, that they were too scared
| to face that scary backlash again and therefore needed 8
| years to work up the courage. It definitely wasn't the MFi
| revenue that influenced them. Apple doesn't care about
| profits.
| tech234a wrote:
| I'm fairly sure the article is wrong.
|
| For example, someone found strings in Google's implementation
| that mentioned AWDL:
| https://social.treehouse.systems/@nicolas17/1155847323390351...
|
| Also people have mentioned having success Airdropping to macOS
| devices, which are not listed as being supported on the Wi-Fi
| Aware page.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Yeah, people have confirmed it works with iOS 15, so it seems
| more likely that Google implemented AWDL.
| est wrote:
| > macOS devices, which are not listed as being supported on
| the Wi-Fi Aware page.
|
| Not listed, but shipped with some Wifi Aware library
|
| /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/DeviceToDeviceManager.frame
| work/Plugins/WiFiAwareD2DPlugin.bundle
| varenc wrote:
| Just `tcpdump -i awdl0` while Airdrop-ing to a Mac to
| observe it's still using AWDL. (unless the interface named
| awdl0 is actually using WiFi Aware...)
|
| Another fun thing to do: `ping6 ff02::1%awdl0`. Pings all
| nearby Apple devices with AWDL active. Including things
| like your neighbor's phone that's not even on your local
| network. (but addresses rotate I believe so can't track
| persistently)
| darkwater wrote:
| > (but addresses rotate I believe so can't track
| persistently)
|
| But maybe you can infer presence tracking the response
| time? Could be exploited anyway, no?
| varenc wrote:
| yes! I've had the same thought. If you have only one
| neighbor in range, seems like you could definitely infer
| their presence and approximate range based on latency.
| Phones don't keep AWDL active all the time, but every
| time you swipe control center it perks up I think.
|
| Could also detect when someone is hosting a party or
| something.
| varenc wrote:
| In 2020 Google's Project Zero found a zero-click remote RCE
| in Apple's AWDL implementation. So at least some folks at
| Google are fully equipped to build a reverse engineered
| implementation. Discussion on that awhile back:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270184
| fulafel wrote:
| Both can still be true. The interop may be motivated by the
| EU regulator's intention so and to stave off further
| regulation.
| isodev wrote:
| It's funny how we're all trying to piece together the stack
| from bits and obscure clues. Would be so cool if Apple and
| Google finally embrace their role as "essential public
| infrastructure" and release their specs, interoperate, etc.. so
| one doesn't end up trapped one way or another when picking a
| personal device.
| Longhanks wrote:
| > "essential public infrastructure"
|
| If people wanted these devices and services to be public
| infrastructure, they should be developed and maintained using
| public funds.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Once something becomes so widely used that almost everyone
| has one, the public interest is involved. In the same way
| that cars are essential public infrastructure and have to
| comply with public safety standards, interoperable fuel
| nozzles, etc.
| isodev wrote:
| Indeed, especially with heavy vertical integration - when
| a company is both the phone, the tv, the tablet, the
| music, the headphones, the watch, the glasses, etc...
| they all become subject to the expectation that I as a
| citizen can change my mind and pickup a different brand
| of glasses and be able to move my data or use it with my
| phone of choice.
| LexGray wrote:
| Public interest does not seem to be the driving factor.
|
| Everyone owns kitchen appliances and even if there is
| network support it generally requires a specific app that
| is out of support very early in the device lifetime.
| Vehicles barely support operability with phones at all
| and there is no standard UI or phone side vehicle
| monitoring.
|
| At least personally I would like enforced open device
| standards on home appliances and vehicles far before I
| care about something like AirDrop that has work arounds.
| isodev wrote:
| It would be unfortunate if we have to fight this for
| every category of gizmos separately. It would be best if
| the next iteration of the consumer rights directive
| codifies this in general e.g. connected devices (even if
| the connection is just peer devices), anything that
| generates or stores user related information etc.
|
| If tomorrow someone invents smart glasses that can
| trigger a home robot to do the laundry when I look at the
| pile of dirty clothes on the floor, the orchestration
| should be based on capabilities, not brand or ecosystem.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Manufacturers fucking _hate_ being made to be
| interoperable and will try to swing a lock-in whenever
| they can.
|
| They only do it in a green field when:
|
| * They have big customers who demand it to avoid lock-in.
| Either the fear being left with orphaned equipment (e.g.
| car chargers being specified with MODBUS rather then a
| custom fieldbus), or they think their own gear will sell
| better with standard widgets (e.g. computer builders and
| USB). Militaries are especially keen on these
| requirements, and MIL standards drove loads of 20th
| century standardisations by economies of scale.
|
| * They are forced to at regulatory gunpoint (some overlap
| with the above when the customer is a government).
|
| * They think it'll be cheaper than the return from lock
| in, (e.g. easily cloned/replaced commodities like screws)
|
| In a brown field where there are other standards or
| implementors around, they may also
|
| * want to break into someone else's walled garden
| (everyone else wanting into Tesla chargers)
|
| * Figure that there's a win-win as an attempted lock-in
| opportunity has passed (e.g. car makers trying to do a
| proprietary nozzle for lead free fuels would have just
| made their cars get a reputation for being a hassle to
| fuel).
|
| When it comes to consumer goods, the asymmetry in the
| relationship is severe and regulators are constantly
| playing catch up. Everyone from Soda Stream to car
| charger manufacturers are trying to throw up walls and
| lock in customers before anyone can do anything about it.
|
| Regulators only have limited bandwidth and if they act
| too early they get dragged by the companies (and their
| lackeys) for market interference.
| jb1991 wrote:
| This comment reflects the phenomenon of conflation of
| orthogonality.
| sambuccid wrote:
| And the huge revenue would also be public
| ulfw wrote:
| Apple usually gatekeeps their EU required features with a
| strong region lock.
|
| If Airdrop was changed to use Wifi-Aware due to EU regulation
| it very likely wouldn't be enabled worldwide.
| quitit wrote:
| If the EU forced Apple to adopt Wi-Fi Aware then Apple would
| just fence it to EU users.
|
| The attempt of trying to paint this as a powerplay by the EU is
| tenuous:
|
| - Apple, along with Microsoft and Intel are founding members of
| the Wi-Fi Alliance, whose objective was to introduce a standard
| of interoperability through Wi-Fi Aware.1
|
| - This work commenced long before the EU showed any interest in
| regulating tech.
|
| - Apple have a pretty solid history of fencing EU-mandated
| changes to EU devices.
|
| - Microsoft's Windows, also deemed by the EU as a "gatekeeper"
| hasn't deployed Wi-Fi Aware in Windows. With no public plans to
| do so.2
|
| 1. https://www.washingtoninformer.com/wi-fi-aware-aims-to-
| conne...
|
| 2. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/answers/questions/2284386/...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple _did_ adopt and support Wi-Fi Aware as a protocol iOS
| supports. It just doesn't use it for AirDrop.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45994854
| IshKebab wrote:
| The DMA also forces them to have interoperable end-to-end
| encrypted group video call support in like 5 years or something
| insane. No idea how that's supposed to happen!
| SoKamil wrote:
| Telegram implemented such feature.
|
| https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end/group-calls
| Aloisius wrote:
| The problem isn't E2E encrypted group video calls. FaceTime
| supports that. The issue is _interoperability_ with E2E
| encryption.
|
| If Apple says sure, implement this FaceTime spec. Facebook
| does the same thing, go ahead and implement Messenger video
| chat.
|
| Now you have the Android NewVideoChat app which supports its
| own protocol, Facebook's and Apple's. A user with
| NewVideoChat tries to invite a NewVideoChat user, an Apple
| user and a Facebook user to a video chat.
|
| Except Facebook Messenger's app doesn't support Apple's
| Facetime app doesn't support Facebook Messenger, so you run
| into some issues. Something needs to dupe the stream out to
| all three services which use radically different payloads and
| encryption methods - and they have to do it without breaking
| end-to-end encryption. Do it at the client-side and the
| Android app users will need to dupe their own streams three
| times _and_ at least one user will need to relay the other
| two other streams, with all the bandwidth and latency issues
| that entails. Do it on the server side and you somehow need
| to translate between protocols (and possibly codecs!) without
| decrypting them.
|
| And if your video group chat supports private messaging
| between a subset of participants, you can end up in a
| situation where a Facebook user wants to send something to a
| Facetime user without the NewVideoChat user seeing it.. which
| is a bit of a problem.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45994854
| input_sh wrote:
| [dupe] of your own comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46062963
| e12e wrote:
| The better dupe (linked in TFA) - from March:
|
| > Cross-Platform P2P Wi-Fi: How the EU Killed AWDL
|
| https://www.ditto.com/blog/cross-platform-p2p-wi-fi-how-the-...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43505022
| nova22033 wrote:
| can the EU pass a law forcing apple to make AirDrop work between
| two ios devices?
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Look, I don't like some of the things the EU is doing and I think
| Apple should consider (along with other tech companies) selling
| products tailed to the EU, Asia and rest of the world. In the
| long-run, it might be cheaper.
|
| That said, they are setting a good example of legislating for
| tech. We should be doing a lot of that here in the US. I don't
| need a bulletproof, ultra-secure, end-to-end encrypted, formally
| verified phone (although that would be nice). As a boring regular
| person, I want to not have to need all of that because my
| government will imprison people that violate my rights. But more
| on-topic, the FTC (EDIT: FCC) exists to regulate among other
| things, wireless comms, so this would be something they should be
| legislating.
|
| Although, putting on my tech hat, I need to re-state that I
| disagree with this move. I want tech companies to experiment and
| use faster, more secure, more reliable comms tech without having
| to worry about compatibility. It is in my interest as a consumer.
|
| Lightning was a superior technology to USB-C, we don't have it
| now because the EU forced apple's hands. I don't want to lose out
| on good tech. The EU should have instead forced everyone else to
| use lightning if they want things simpler.
|
| Why is the EU intent on having inferior tech, inferior
| capability, inferior pay, inferior innovation-friendly
| environment. They have the power to demand better things and
| provide them for their people. The compromise isn't needed. At
| the risk of offending the HN crowd, I'll even say that the EU
| shouldn't support open-source things unless they are actually the
| superior tech. You can't eat or pay your bills with ideals. If
| commercial/properietary tech is better for europeans, that is
| what the EU should focus on.
|
| I will drive European or Japanese cars that are better than
| American cars, I don't mind doing the same with tech, except with
| Europe that's getting more and more rare. What happened to Nokia
| and Ericsson. NL has ASML, wouldn't it be nice if we had a TSMC
| competitor in Europe as well? I don't want to keep going on, but
| I hope my point is clear.
|
| Competition is good, Android shouldn't need to support AirDrop,
| it should come up with a better alternative and leave iPhone
| users wondering why Android's solution is faster and works at
| greater distances. Same with iMessage compatibility.
|
| Instead competition, the EU is wanting forced mediocrity. They
| are within their rights for sure, but it isn't the best thing to
| do.
|
| I only wish they did the same thing with electrical outlets and
| forced the world to use one mediocre standard :)
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > the FTC exists to regulate among other things, wireless comms
|
| FCC purview?
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| oops, I meant FCC, edited it.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > it should come up with a better alternative and leave iPhone
| users wondering why Android's solution is faster and works at
| greater distances. Same with iMessage compatibility.
|
| Okay, so, why don't we see competition in places where it
| matters, like Airdrop, iMessage and the App Store?
|
| The answer seems to be pretty simple, to me; Apple considers
| themselves above competition. It doesn't matter if a superior
| system exists, they ultimately decide what is righteous and
| anyone who disagrees buys a different phone. It's a lose/lose
| situation between consumers and the economy, who neither get
| superior software solutions nor cheaper products.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| We do see competition there, iMessage is superior, so many
| android apps try to emulate it. thunderbolt was around before
| USB 4, lightning was before USB-C, the Apple appstore is
| still a model of better quality/security. You can see google
| trying to emulate that and requiring devs to id themselves
| (competition isn't always pleasant). Why would you spend
| making something better, if it doesn't give your company a
| competitive edge? If you're forced to help your competition
| have the same capability, where is the ROI?
|
| > Apple considers themselves above competition
|
| In literally every market apple is in, they have intense
| competition!?
|
| > they ultimately decide what is righteous and anyone who
| disagrees buys a different phone
|
| Ugh.. yeah.. shouldn't they be allowed to sell things that
| they believe will sell well? I mean on one hand people
| complain about cheap devices engineered with planned
| obsolescence, and then you complain about what.. better
| quality? If they believe it is a superior system, then
| certain, I want that as a consumer. Why don't you? And I also
| thing being able to buy a different phone is great, that
| means no monopolies, that's what we all want right?
|
| > neither get superior software solutions nor cheaper
| products.
|
| I am getting a superior hardware and software for apple. What
| his happening now is, for no amount of money I could possibly
| earn can I get a good quality product, I have to settle with
| EU's forced mediocrity even though I don't live in the EU.
| People who can't afford apple products have alternatives, but
| that isn't enough for you, you want everyone to get
| participation trophies? that's what it sounds like, i could
| be wrong, it sounds like you don't want to feel envious of
| people who get superior products? Even though there are many
| android phones more expensive than iPhones, so it isn't even
| a question of affordability. it's just forced mediocrity.
| With no upsides to anyone other than people who feel great
| about "america bad" "middle finger to apple".
| bigyabai wrote:
| Problem is, what you're describing is not competition.
| Apple is not exposed to any commercial threat, their
| products like iMessage, Safari and the App Store are
| artificially segregated from free-market pressures. Nothing
| can dethrone them, period. The only way to create a true
| competitor to these apps is to receive Apple's private
| entitlements. If you cannot understand that, you won't be
| able to interpret _anyone 's_ antitrust allegations against
| Apple.
|
| Apple giving equal footing to competitors changes nothing
| about the products you love. I don't care if you think
| Apple's brand appeal is diminished by prosecuting their
| anticompetitive zeal. That's not my problem. You _will_
| have to "settle" for it anywhere iPhones are sold, because
| when you buy an iPhone you don't get to choose things like
| your charging cable. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a mass
| wave of iPhone defectors after they ruined the thing with
| USB-C.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Apple is already dethroned, the only market they're doing
| well at is the US. And even then Android phones are still
| the majority, apple just tends to make a lot more money
| in the US. I can't think of a single product where apple
| is the leader of the market share, but by all means
| correct me if I'm wrong.
|
| Whatsapp, Signal, Viber, etc.. they're all threats to
| iMessage. These apps even make themselves the default SMS
| handler so that the only thing iMessage is good for is
| native iMessage messages. It isn't distributed outside of
| Apple ecosystem either unlike its competition, Apple is
| doing the opposite of dominating the market there.
|
| How is Safari segregated? Most Mac users (including me)
| install Firefox or Chrome typically. Are you saying Apple
| doesn't face competition, or are you saying Apple doesn't
| compete enough (which I don't see how that's a fault?)
|
| I don't think the appstore is particularly more
| competitive than android's.
|
| The appstore is the only area where there might be
| legitimate antitrust allegations. Even then, I'm with
| apple there because it is in the interest of their
| consumers. You already have the bland and mediocre
| android, don't ruin apple for the rest of us. Monopoly is
| exactly what you're advocating for, monopoly of the
| mediocre and bland. There is absolutley no service or
| product apple makes where there aren't enough
| alternatives, or where apple has created an anti-
| competitive dependency.
|
| > Apple giving equal footing to competitors changes
| nothing about the products you love
|
| Yes it does. Give me back my lightning charger. Now I
| have USB-C where male port is on the phone and the
| connector is exposed to wear and tear. Apple did it the
| opposite way, because they make products that last and
| are durable! with lightning the wear and tear impacts the
| cable (male) end the most, so it's a matter of replacing
| cables. with USB-C, the device end needs repair and
| replacement. Now i'm stuck with your bland mediocre
| thing. Why am i paying the price for android users'
| envy?? Same with app store, I don't want b.s. crap
| android apps, i used android long enough and i hated it,
| i don't poor quality crap.
|
| Why don't you get that freedom means everyone gets an
| option, everyone gets to do what they want without
| harming others. Apple users love apple products. Even
| when you tell us how android phones have better specs,
| better hardware, more up to date, we still like apple
| precisely because of Apple's business practcies that
| improve the user experience for us. And now you want it
| to be just like android, why? You have the choice to use
| android already, why do you need to take away my freedom
| to use the kind of products apple creates?
|
| I want an extremely closed and gated app store. I want
| background checks on app developers, forget just ID'ing
| them. I want it to be a costly endeavor to write iOS
| apps. I liked lightning, I love iMessage, I recommend it
| over Signal. I used signal and I have lost a LOT due to
| it's backup/recovery mess, I've suffered a lot under
| crappy android apps. airdrop works prefectly, I don't
| want someone with a buggy/malwared android phone sending
| airdrops to me, I don't want shoddy android messaging
| clients sending me imessage messages. Apple is doing what
| we as its users want. You the majority android users are
| taking away the choice of the minority apple users.
|
| > because when you buy an iPhone you don't get to choose
| things like your charging cable. Unfortunately, we
| haven't seen a mass wave of iPhone defectors after they
| ruined the thing with USB-C.
|
| Of course not, but you were hoping for a mass defection.
| Apple still makes superior products and we get that it is
| crappy EU law making that is forcing this. What would I
| defect to if I didn't like USB-C? You took away the one
| choice I had. Every android device uses USB-C. Your
| entire platform here is taking away people's choices and
| freedoms.
|
| You're not helping anyone get on an equal footing,
| because by your own admission, they were unequal before
| right? All you've done is take away the choice of apple's
| users. Did android messages gain anything with iMessage
| compatiblity? Did android phones gain anything by apple
| using usb-c? Do android phones benefit from apple
| allowing more app stores? No, the only people that
| benefit are crappy developers that spread their
| mediocrity everywhere. No apple competitor is gaining a
| competitive advantage by these measures.
|
| There have always been third party lightning cable
| makers, I can't think of any major app that isn't
| available on the app store. Consumers aren't complaining
| about this. I'll concede that having to store both
| lightning and usb-c is annoying, but hey.. don't buy
| apple and avoid USB-C!!?? You literally don't have to use
| apple products. If product design was considered freedom
| of speech (is it?) you'd be coercing speech and banning
| speech you disagree with because it annoys you.
|
| This is weaponized enshittification!
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| > Yes it does. Give me back my lightning charger. Now I
| have USB-C where male port is on the phone and the
| connector is exposed to wear and tear. Apple
|
| I have one of every Apple device category except the
| HomePod. But this is a horrible take. I can now use my
| same USB C cables everywhere.
|
| But more importantly, I can use standard USB C
| peripherals from network adapters USB C external
| monitors, standard USB C to HDMI cords, plug a USB C
| storage device in etc
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| No, I get there are a lot of people like you, but you did
| have the choice of just using android didn't you?
| Governments are not ways to enforce your personal
| preference or force it on others. Apple felt their
| lightning tech was better, isn't having better tech and
| an environment where different ideas can be explored
| better? EU is already anti-innovation, you don't succeed
| with startups easily there, it's precisely because of
| this sort of close minded unimaginative thinking.
|
| I don't care if apple required manually splicing wires to
| charge your phones (safely), how is it the government's
| right to force them to not do that? The whole point of
| having a free society is small things like this. I keep
| posting long posts on HN, so let me cut it short and say
| that lots of freedoms can be taken away in the name of
| convenience to others. Companies should be punished for
| monopolistic practices, but they shouldn't be punished
| for imagining alternative ways of doing things and
| succeeding with that. I've had android phones where the
| USB connector on the phone end broke or degraded, you can
| hopefully see my perspective as well? How can we have a
| free society like this if we can't even resolve and
| tolerate very small differences of opinion like this?
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| The lightning tech wasn't better, it could only do USB 2
| speeds - yes I know there was one iPad that could do USB
| 3 with one special dongle - and it couldn't even do video
| out well with the dongle. The video adapter had hardware
| to decompress a compressed video stream and convert it.
|
| Even before the EU mandate lightning was showing its age
| and they started replacing it with USB C on the iPads.
|
| You've had cheap Android phones if you had that problem.
| Have you heard reports of that being a problem with
| iPhones?
|
| As far as compatibility, I carry around an external USB C
| powered external monitor for my laptop. It gets power and
| video from one cord on a computer.
|
| I can take that same monitor and that same USB C cord and
| plug it up to my iPhone.
|
| This is me sitting at a Delta lounge watching either
| Breaking Bad or Better Caul Saul with my phone connected
| to my second monitor
|
| https://imgur.com/a/SC6WDri
|
| The iPhone by itself can only power it to 50% brightness.
| But there you see if I plug in a battery to the second
| USB C port, it can power the monitor at full brightness
| and charge my phone.
|
| USB C is better in every way.
| dwaite wrote:
| > yes I know there was one iPad that could do USB 3 with
| one special dongle - and it couldn't even do video out
| well with the dongle. The video adapter had hardware to
| decompress a compressed video stream and convert it.
|
| Those are two separate things.
|
| These iPad models had USB 3.0 over lightning. Lighting
| however was designed to solve the 30 pin connector "alt
| mode" problem. USB-C recreated the "alt mode" problem.
|
| In the original 30-pin iPod, iPhone and iPad days, you
| had multiple video out adapters to support RCA, VGA,
| composite, and so on. These were also _different_ with
| the different i-device models - the adapters were not
| backward compatible, so when they came out with a new
| higher-resolution model of dongle, it wouldn't work on
| older devices. Conversely, the complexity of supporting
| various hardware mappings onto the 30 pin connector meant
| that older dongles could get deprecated from new devices.
|
| There weren't a lot of people who invested in video
| output for their I-devices, but for those who did this
| was a very frustrating issue.
|
| So for lightning, they went to serial protocols. So
| rather than negotiate a hardware mode where certain pins
| acted like HDMI pins in a pass-through mode, they
| streamed a H.264 video to the dongle - the dongle then
| rendered it and used its own HDMI output support.
|
| Since this was software negotiation, a newer dongle could
| support new video formats and higher resolutions while
| still supporting older devices. There were also examples
| of improvements pushed to more complicated dongles like
| the HDMI adapter via software updates. But fundamentally,
| the complexity of supporting a broad hardware accessory
| ecosystem wasn't pushed into the physical port - it could
| evolve over time via more complex software rather than
| via increasingly complicated hardware in every phone.
|
| With USB-C we are back to guessing whether the connector
| is expecting the phone to support HDMI alt mode,
| DisplayPort alt mode, MHL alt mode, or to output a
| proprietary system like DisplayLink data.
|
| USB 3.0 (which is what these iPads supported) never had
| these alt modes. It was USB-C which became a connector
| for (optionally) supporting a lot of other, non-USB
| protocols. The lack of USB-C support is why these iPads
| only supported video out with the lightning to HDMI
| adapter.
|
| USB-C is decent, but it suffers quite a bit from there
| not being strong certification. This is partly why
| Thunderbolt 5 has shifted to becoming a compatibility-
| and capability- oriented certification mark. You know for
| example that thunderbolt 5 video will always work,
| because the cables have all the data pins and the devices
| are going to support DisplayPort alt mode.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| >Okay, so, why don't we see competition in places where it
| matters, like Airdrop, iMessage and the App Store?
|
| Honestly, because Apple has always had the major advantage of
| being one company, whereas and Android market is fragments,
| with both prod and cons. That Samsung competes decently with
| Apple because they've created kind of their own ecosystem
| shows exactly why it is important to regular interoperability
| and prevent walled garden behaviours.
|
| Otherwise we'll end up with just Apple/Samsung. Or perhaps
| even just Apple...which I know the cult will argue would be a
| great thing.
|
| It's the same everywhere; countries with a 2 party political
| system always experience huge problems because of it.
| fleahunter wrote:
| Regulators never manage to design good products, but they're
| weirdly good at accidentally clearing technical roadblocks that
| incumbents had no incentive to touch.
|
| This is what "interoperability" actually looks like in practice:
| nobody forces Apple to ship AirDrop-for-Android, they just force
| them off a proprietary stack and onto a public standard, and
| suddenly Google can meet them on neutral ground. The EU didn't
| create a feature, it removed Apple's ability to say "we
| technically can't."
|
| Also notice the asymmetry: once both sides sit on Wi-Fi Aware,
| Apple gets basically nothing by embracing Quick Share, but Google
| and users get a ton from being able to talk to AirDrop. So the
| market on its own would never converge on this, because the only
| player who could unlock the value had the least reason to. You
| need a regulator to make the defection from proprietary to
| standard mandatory, then "open" just looks like someone finally
| flipping a bit that was always there.
| yaro330 wrote:
| Google most likely reimplemented AWDL, and the article is
| wrong. Sure the EU's actions will affect the optics, but Apple
| will be in the clear if they decide to nuke this.
| fundatus wrote:
| If that is true it now is much harder for Apple to nuke this
| though. Because all eyes would be on them.
| anomaly_ wrote:
| If you want to airdrop android users just buy an android mate
| foxandmouse wrote:
| Pretty sure this was debunked:
| https://androiddev.social/@MishaalRahman/115593737977641823
| shevy-java wrote:
| The more tragic thing is that the US government really does not
| care about consumers in general - otherwise they would have
| ensured standards even for the big megacorporations to adhere to.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Nothing could support this more than eliminating the department
| that was setup to financially protect consumers.
| MBCook wrote:
| We were staring.
|
| People voted against it. Bigly.
| cbeach wrote:
| And the consequences? The World's favourite technology is
| designed by Americans in America by America-headquarted
| companies. And then the rest of the world buys it and loves it.
|
| The UK has ARM. The Netherlands has ASML. But those are B2B
| suppliers. Europe, with it's regulatory overreach, has very few
| consumer technology companies of any consequence
| dzonga wrote:
| the real kick to the teeth for apple is when they will be forced
| to adopt different browser engines across all markets.
|
| btw safari is a fine browser but on iOS it seems crippled a bit.
|
| we are already getting there with support for web-gpu.
| sillyfluke wrote:
| >btw safari is a fine browser but on iOS it seems crippled a
| bit.
|
| it's not a fine browser if laymen have to update the OS just to
| get a new browser update.
| dzonga wrote:
| sadly, I agree with your take.
| accrual wrote:
| Imagine the worldly gains of allowing such an amazing technology
| to permeate society. Ah, well, that's against the interests of
| the shareholders. It's better to lock shit down and earn a dollar
| than precipitate betterment for human kind. The dollar! All hail!
| daft_pink wrote:
| Airdrop support is a really weak reason to switch to Android.
| Just sayin'
| grimblee wrote:
| Oh, look what "over-regulation" does, forcing companies to comply
| to standards so they can't vendor lock-in their users (this
| happened with the iphone charging port too, from the apple
| specific port to usb-c).
|
| Guess this type of consumer-benefic changes wouldn't happen in
| the land of "freedom".
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| A positive effect from regulation does not rebut the general
| argument against government regulation of industry.
|
| The problem with regulation isn't that there are never any
| positive effects, of course there are.
|
| The problem is it's impossible to reliably avoid adding
| substantial friction to life via overly broad regulation that
| is not applicable but has to be followed anyway, or outdated
| but still-in-effect regulation that is not applicable but has
| to be followed anyway, at least.
|
| If this only bothered huge companies then I would say cost of
| doing business, who cares, etc, but it actually affects things
| like how cities and towns are designed, how expensive housing
| is, how expensive medical treatment is, etc.
| compootr wrote:
| Even though overly broad regulation is a risk, I don't
| believe little/no regulation is an option either. I don't
| think the US's consumer protection mechanisms work, and I'm
| happy to accept the downsides of the EU's systems that come
| with the upsides of regulation.
| kelnos wrote:
| It's unclear exactly what you're arguing, but I think if you
| are arguing that, because of the unavoidable substantial
| friction caused by regulation, we shouldn't have any
| regulation of industry at all... I think it's trivial to find
| examples where banning all regulation of industry would make
| the world a much, much worse place. Much worse than the
| friction.
| nickpp wrote:
| > It's unclear exactly what you're arguing
|
| Actually, it's perfectly clear to me.
|
| > we shouldn't have any regulation
|
| Nope, he's not saying that at all. He's just saying that
| any regulation (no matter how necessary, well intended or
| even perfect it is) has a cost. And that cost is
| accumulating across all regulations.
|
| Furthermore, that cost is easily supported by large
| incumbents (big fans of regulation, btw) but it hurts
| startups the most. Thus the more regulations a market has,
| the fewer startups will have. Fewer startups means less
| competition. Less competition means less innovation, fewer
| products and higher prices. We can easily see this effect
| unfolding in the housing, education or health markets.
|
| Bottom line is: we _must_ take those second order effects
| of regulation into consideration when talking about it.
| grimblee wrote:
| I mean, housing and medical treatment are more expensive in
| the US because the market is unregulated and so the capital
| exploits the poor who can't do otherwise for those basic
| needs.
|
| You defeated your own argument ? Thanks !
| leosanchez wrote:
| > housing and medical treatment are more expensive in the
| US because the market is unregulated
|
| Is it really unregulated though?
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| Pretty sure pricing isn't. Can't US medical companies
| essentially charge what they like? As long as they don't
| align with each other to price gouge customers...even
| though I imagine they do anyway (just very carefully).
| pjc50 wrote:
| There is definitely a third option of "badly regulated
| through regulatory capture that favors incumbents, prevents
| competition _and_ makes things worse for the public, while
| protecting actual malfesance ". The US has a lot of this.
| The EU version tends just to protect the incumbent too
| much.
| Diesel555 wrote:
| I really wish microeconomics was a high-school or secondary
| school required course. It's one of the most applicable to
| life and voters well-studied disciplines that describes the
| effects of certain actions towards or away from a competitive
| market, market elasticity and barriers to entry, explains
| positive and negative externalities of government action, and
| how those actions affect consumer pricing and supply (a lot
| of the topics here and below). Without studying this topic we
| view words with different underlying assumptions or
| definitions and it's a lot more effort / time / replies to
| not talk around each other. It's like two people who only use
| Windows for Instagram trying to argue about why Apt requiring
| Rust is good or bad. I'm not weighing in for or against the
| topic in this thread or its replies, just a plug to study
| Microeconomics if this stuff interests you!
| sharperguy wrote:
| It's likely that without laws such as the DMCA, there would
| already be easier, legally legitimate ways to circumvent Apples
| technology preventing interoperability. So as usual the new
| regulations try to cancel out the problems caused by the
| previous regulation, while having their own side effects that
| require future regulation to cancel out, ad infinitum.
| kubb wrote:
| That's unlikely.
| kouru225 wrote:
| Why would that be likely
| kalterdev wrote:
| I think the land of "freedom" knows that "Those who would give
| up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
| deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
| poolnoodle wrote:
| This is false. Google just reverse-engineered it.
| fmajid wrote:
| I've ditched AirDrop for LocalSend, which is universally cross-
| platform (iOS, macOS, Linux, Android) and works very well. It's
| not a complete substitute, it doesn't work in the case of
| completely casual sharing between devices that are not connected
| to a shared WiFi network, however.
| chasil wrote:
| I did not know that LocalSend had been ported to iOS and MacOS.
|
| I had previously used the built-in webserver for transfers from
| Android to Apple.
|
| I do have much greater luck with LocalSend transfers when I
| tether them to my own WiFi prior to transfer.
| fmajid wrote:
| Yes. The only caveat is that since LocalSend isn't blessed by
| Apple, it isn't automatically invoked and you have to start
| it manually to receive.
| amaccuish wrote:
| Next up please do streaming. Chromecast seems so locked down so
| take AirPlay and make it a standard.
|
| Then instead of just opening up NFC, make Google and Apple Wallet
| support plugins, so users can have one interface with all their
| cards but not tied to one payment system.
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| >Chromecast seems so locked down so take AirPlay and make it a
| standard
|
| Weird thing to say given that AirPlay is also locked down as
| well...they're both the same. But I agree with the overall
| sentiment; a common wireless streaming standard would be
| amazing. It would mean I can use more devices to throw Samsung
| DEX at.
|
| Hell, if all monitors/TVs/displays came with basic "receive a
| standard stream from wifi" support that would be so great for
| consumers, reduces friction so much.
| flobosg wrote:
| Discussion from last week:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45994854
| ptx wrote:
| So apparently they use Bluetooth to establish the connection and
| WiFi for the data transfer. This sounds a lot like the
| "Alternative MAC/PHY" feature which was added in Bluetooth 3.0
| and then removed in Bluetooth 5.3 [1] due to low uptake.
|
| Why didn't the standard Bluetooth way of doing this gain any
| traction? What was wrong with it?
|
| [1] https://www.bluetooth.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/01/Bluetoo...
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| Great! Apple is happy to use the regular Wifi standard, regular
| Bluetooth standard, USB standard (which they were "planning to
| anyway" even tho it perfectly lined up with being forced to).
| They support media standards like mp4, jpeg, png etc.
|
| ALL companies should be beholden to common standards of
| interoperability. It infuriates me that I can plug my Android
| phone into Windows and it reads it just fine but that plugging it
| into my Mac does nothing because a bunch of executives are circle
| jerking each other; this stuff isn't good for US, the consumers.
|
| How can we have that cool future where we swipe a media file over
| towards a person in AR and have it automatically sent to them
| when we're allowing companies to use the standards they like and
| dodge ones they don't so that they can create a "platfoooorm"
| hurr de durr. The "platform" is the entire fucking ecosystem of
| devices out there.
| noname120 wrote:
| Has already been possible for a while:
| https://github.com/aylishime/WarpShare
|
| The trick is that it doesn't use AWDL: macOS (but not iOS) also
| supports AirDrop via local network, although it's not enabled by
| default: https://github.com/vinint/MoKee-
| WarpShare/issues/3#issuecomm...
| closingreunion wrote:
| This is honestly one of those tiny things that make it really
| hard to even consider looking outside of the Apple ecosystem. I'm
| beginning to divest from apple, and this is a big help.
| masonwan wrote:
| Rally can't trust Apple making any standard. They always want to
| make more money than it is worth, and create demands which
| eventually causes monopoly and waste.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Perhaps there is another article with a title something like
|
| "Evidence that self-regulation works: Apple, Google adopt new
| WiFi standards"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-27 23:02 UTC)