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

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be clear, you can use AirPods with an Android device for audio.

It’s the extra convenience features integrated into iOS and macOS to change certain settings that have been reverse engineered here. And you can’t actually even use them without rooting your phone and applying a patch to Android’s Bluetooth stack.

	▲	gf000 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A device sold not in small part due to its noise cancelling ability, yet having no way to turn it on/off when connected to Android is not an extra convenience feature.

▲

Lammy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seeing how much effort this takes makes me feel vindicated for never buying in to the wireless-earbud trend at all. I love love love having one of the few modern Androids with a real TRRS jack (REDMAGIC 9S Pro) and wired earbuds (Etymōtic ER4XR), that I never need to charge, that can't get lost, and that can't spy on me: https://i.imgur.com/4yymgYO.jpeg

What a silly feature list the AirPods have, too. Transparency? I use earbuds to avoid having to hear the outside world. Ear Detection? My phone does the same thing with my default music app when it detects the jack plugged back in. Multiple devices (up to two)? lol. Head Gestures? How many people even answer the phone at all now after years of relentless spam? Conversational Awareness? I got a $3 clip to attach the wire to my shirt collar, and if I talk to someone or someone talks to me I yank one or both buds out and let them dangle freely with no worry of getting lost or stolen: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BL44TW4

I would be totally down to adopt a new paradigm if it was actually better in any way I cared about, but it's just not and never was. People seem to like 'em a lot, though, so I'm still glad to see these supported on non-Apple gear :)

	▲	Aurornis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> What a silly feature list the AirPods have, too. Transparency? I use earbuds to avoid having to hear the outside world. What a silly thing to dismiss a product over. The transparency levels are actually a great feature. You can go from noise cancelling to being able to have a perfect conversation with someone or listen for the kids with a quick squeeze of the earbud. I use it all the time. Likewise your comment that it’s superior to buy a separate clip and attach the wire to yourself so people can yank them out is just asinine. Or is this parody? It’s hard to tell. This whole comment feels like someone trying to convince themselves that the thing they didn’t buy is actually terrible and bad, so they can pat themself on the back for not buying it.

▲

blackqueeriroh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Uhhhh, Apple donates a ton of code to OSS

▲

WD-42 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When the license legally compels them to, and sometimes not even then.

▲

suprjami 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unsurprisingly, you cannot assign a single intent to 166k+ people.

Just like Microsoft there are parts of the company who are hostile to open source, and there parts of the company whose success is attributable to open source.

▲

gf000 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You can absolutely assign intent to a company, it's not an arbitrary grouping of 166k people.

▲

bloppe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True, but you can compare them to, say, Google, which maintains thriving OSS projects like Chromium and AOSP and generally does a way better job at publishing code and research.

	▲	ho_schi 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn’t mention as positive example. I wouldn’t even mention them as example. Apple cooperates within WebKit well with WebKitGtk. They supported LLVM when it is in their interest. Chrome is used as proprietary web-engine to vendor lock-in the web. While often used by others, I’m not aware of a broad cooperation. Android is a shadow of Linux, merely using the Linux-Kernel, not GNU. Plus a lot of closed-source code (PlayServices, App Signatures, Google Cloud, Google Apps). Googles open-source projects seem often exclusive Google only projects? Google works together with others! But especially Chrome and AOSP are…causing worries.

▲

dagmx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

An incomplete list here but most aren’t a license that compels them to contribute anything.

https://opensource.apple.com/projects/

▲

ece an hour ago | parent [-]

I think it's fair to say Apple's cross platform work is a couple of Android and PC apps, the Mac boot loader, and Swift. Even on this page, Apple seems more like a user of the community projects than a contributor and the Apple projects seem to be for internal use or for Apple platforms. Kind of misses the point in being cross platform the way librepod is aiming to be.

	▲	dagmx an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not what this particular thread is about, you’re referencing the parent topic but not the current thread. This is about whether they contribute to open source or not.

▲

Razengan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Look up Swift

▲

bloppe 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You mean the language that approximately nobody uses outside XCode, which requires you to register an Apple developer account to function? The same language that only switched to an OSS license after they realized nobody wanted to contribute to a proprietary language?

Swift is OSS, but it's not a great example to illustrate your point.

▲

raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Swift went open source the day it was released. I don’t think Apple needs outside contributors. I think it has enough resources that it would be okay

Darwin’s underlying code was BSD license and didn’t require releasing source code.

▲

bloppe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"[Swift] was initially a proprietary language, but version 2.2 was made open-source software under the Apache License 2.0 on December 3, 2015"

Darwin is also a bad example:

"On July 25, 2006, the OpenDarwin team announced that the project was shutting down, as they felt OpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects", and that the efforts to create a standalone Darwin operating system had failed.[40] They also state: "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this."[41]"

"PureDarwin is a project to create a bootable operating system image from Apple's released source code for Darwin.[43] Since the halt of OpenDarwin and the release of bootable images since Darwin 8.x, it has been increasingly difficult to create a full operating system as many components became closed source."

▲

laserlight 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

What does OpenDarwin or PureDarwin, independent projects, have to do with the fact that Darwin, Apple’s OS kernel, is open source?

	▲	WD-42 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Because they show that Darwin may be technically open source, but Apple are horrible stewards of it. It's impossible to actually build a usable operating system from it, which is probably their intent.

▲

WD-42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just because the license doesn't require it doesn't mean they aren't a leech.

▲

Razengan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]