| ▲ | jmgao 7 hours ago |
| It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is actually a bug in the Android implementation, it seems like this is due to AirPods violating the spec and requiring a special handshake before responding to standard requests. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect Android to work around a device that appears to be intentionally breaking the spec for vendor lock-in purposes: the possibility of them just OTAing an update that breaks in some other way means that you'd have to be entirely bug compatible with iOS's bluetooth implementation. |
|
| ▲ | itsnoone 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It not that hard to imagine Apple going out of their way to do something that would break functionality on Android, honestly. Although, I believe Fluoride also is to be blamed here because a simple timeout can not possible cause any issues (it seems that a timeout is there, but never called- at least from my tinkering). I am not planning to spend a single second tracing back the actual problem and suggesting a fix, given that Google just asked me to reproduce twice (!!) and did nothing about it. |
|
| ▲ | baxtr 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| when you’ve worked long enough in any given industry you know that all companies "violate" standards to satisfy requirements of their product management. |
|
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple have been ‘extending’ the Bluetooth stack for quite awhile. They introduced some BLE features before the spec was finished (I think some 3rd party hearing aids were also compatible). I haven’t used non apple earphones for awhile but the seamless connectivity performance of AirPods would suggest this was done for performance, not to deliberately lock in devices. This 2020 paper is great at breaking down some of the extensions: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/woot20-paper-heinze.pdf |
| |
| ▲ | xethos 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They introduced some BLE features before the spec was finished In their defence, they went with Lightning shortly before the USB-C spec was finalized. Then, to avoid their customers being screwed over by constantly changing the connector, they kind of had to stick with it for a decade. People will complain if they push features that are ahead of the spec, and they'll complain if they let the spec be finalized before they use it. Being guided by "What's the best we can do for UX, assuming out users are our users in every product category we enter" seems to be their reasonable middle ground. | | |
| ▲ | vee-kay 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The only reason Apple ditched Lightning port and finally gave USB-C port in the iDevices, is because EU forced Apple to do so. But do you think your oh-so-common USB-C cables will work with a new iPhone? In my country (India), Apple still doesn't sell charger and cable along with its new iDevices, even though those gadgets are exorbitantly expensive. And Apple doesn't allow custom repair here, even though my country mandated the Right to Repair, like EU did so. My old Mac Mini 2012 is gathering dust in a cupboard, because Apple service center refused to upgrade it to new RAM and new SATA SSD, citing Apple policies. | | |
| ▲ | monerozcash 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >But do you think your oh-so-common USB-C cables will work with a new iPhone? They seem to work just fine, yeah. | |
| ▲ | ffsm8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Couldn't you just upgrade yourself in the pre Apple silicone days? Like within minutes, with no big changes? I didn't think it's rare that a company refuses to do any work on devices they no longer support. Their employees will no longer be trained to do this work, hence they'd have a nontrivial chance of causing damages. That's exactly why a right to repair is so important, so that other people can pick up their slack | | |
| ▲ | lloeki 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Back when RAM and HDD were using standard parts, Apple packaged manuals with documentation as to how to proceed to such upgrades. |
| |
| ▲ | theodric 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? Upgrade it yourself! Swapping the RAM in a mini 2012 doesn't even require tools. Both SoDIMMs are right under the bottom cover. The SSD is a bit more fiddly, but can also be done at home. Check iFixit. https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac+mini+Late+2012+Hard+Drive+R... |
| |
| ▲ | binkHN 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If Apple wasn't forced by the EU, they would try to preserve their walled garden as much as possible. iMessage is the prime example of this. | |
| ▲ | bmandale 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | both scenarios speak to either an incredible impatience, or deliberate incompatibility to tie people to their ecosystem. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a13n 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| is there evidence it’s for vendor lock in purposes? airpods have a pretty stellar connection for bluetooth, wouldn’t be surprised if there were performance reasons for them going off spec |
| |
| ▲ | fingerlocks 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I doubt it’s for any reason at all. The obvious explanation is that they just developed and tested these extra firmware features against Apple devices because that was the product decision. Since nobody was tasked with targeting Android they might not have even noticed that it wasn’t perfectly spec-compliant if those states were never encountered, nor expected to be encountered. | |
| ▲ | gf000 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | if (name == 'APPLE') will surely improve performance. | |
| ▲ | fouc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Assuming they even went off spec at all. | |
| ▲ | wolpoli 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apple is a promoter member of the Bluetooth standard organization for a while now, so it could submit that as an enhancement. | |
| ▲ | indentit 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Specifications are there for a reason... Why use Bluetooth at all if they don't actually use it properly? | | |
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can still connect AirPods to an android device using Bluetooth, you just don’t get the seamless connection or support for Spatial Audio that use the extended protocols | | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Why use Bluetooth at all if they don't actually use it properly? Because they needed a way to get audio to the AirPods wirelessly and to work with their devices? That’s a pretty good reason to use Bluetooth. I doubt they got together and tried to scheme a way to break Bluetooth in this one tiny little way for vendor lock in. You can use the basic AirPod features with other Bluetooth devices. It’s just these extended features that were never developed for other platforms. HN comments lean heavily conspiratorial but I think the obvious explanation is that the devs built and tested it against iPhone and Mac targets and optimized for that. This minor discrepancy wasn’t worked around because it isn’t triggered on Apple platforms and it’s not a target for them. | | |
| ▲ | dabinat 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It reminds me of the USB keyboard extender that came with old Macs. There’s a little notch in the socket so you can only use it with Apple keyboards. At the time I thought it was a petty way of preventing you from using it with any other device, but apparently the reason they didn’t want you to use it with other devices is because the cable didn’t comply with the USB spec. Some pictures here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/b1u08k/this_... |
| |
| ▲ | fouc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Perhaps Apple correctly implemented the specification here | |
| ▲ | binkHN 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is Microsoft's playbook from many years ago: embrace, extend, extinguish. |
| |
| ▲ | potatoproduct 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Performance reasons LOL. Apple fans love plausible deniability. |
|
|
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In general, rigidity of stack is a malfeasance. Over protecting the user brings fragility, un-adaptability, that curses the world. Android certainly is a rigid narrow protective stack that refuses to accommodate, again and again. Different genre, but decades latter and it still won't work on many ipv6 networks because for no clearly stated reason it won't support DHCPv6: Android is full of these weirdly unstated "principled" anti-compatibilities, and I can't excuse blaming the devices or networks for being what they are: it's the unbending rigid OS that offends me. I do rather hope perhaps perhaps perhaps the EU & DMA or other may perhaps bend Apple off their rotten course of making non-standard bespoke systems. It seems like very recently the EU is getting ready to cave & abandon all their demands for trying to use standards, that their fear of the US is about to make them fold on insisting upon better. Demanding Apple stop doing everything in bespoke incompatible ways is something that should have happened a long time ago, imo, and it's so horrifying to see one of the only stands in my lifetime against the propeietarization & domination of systems by a bespoke corporate lord abandoned. There's some rays of hope here & there. Seemoo Lab has a ton of amazing reverse engineering efforts, figuring out how many many many undocumented locked down Apple systems & protocols work & trying to give control back. This is the highest virtue, the best hacker nature. Here's Open Wireless Link, but they have so many other amazing projects they've similarly figured out out to pry open. Amazing best human spirit.
https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl |