Most active commenters
  • gf000(3)

←back to thread

AirPods libreated from Apple's ecosystem

(github.com)
1424 points moonleay | 28 comments | 16 Nov 25 00:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.009s | source | bottom
Show context
moonleay ◴[16 Nov 25 00:02 UTC] No.45941605[source]▶
A cool project, when you want to use AirPods outside of Apples ecosystem. Sadly, you have to use a rooted android device with a small patch due to a bug in the Android Bluetooth implementation. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/371713238
replies(6): >>45942063 #>>45942373 #>>45942451 #>>45943437 #>>45943943 #>>45944340 #
jmgao ◴[16 Nov 25 03:12 UTC] No.45942451[source]▶
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.
replies(7): >>45942490 #>>45942736 #>>45942932 #>>45943032 #>>45943140 #>>45944246 #>>45944276 #
1. a13n ◴[16 Nov 25 04:20 UTC] No.45942736[source]▶
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
replies(7): >>45942851 #>>45942878 #>>45943031 #>>45943234 #>>45943236 #>>45943578 #>>45943875 #
2. indentit ◴[16 Nov 25 04:50 UTC] No.45942851[source]▶
Specifications are there for a reason... Why use Bluetooth at all if they don't actually use it properly?
replies(4): >>45942971 #>>45943014 #>>45943123 #>>45943227 #
3. wolpoli ◴[16 Nov 25 04:57 UTC] No.45942878[source]▶
Apple is a promoter member of the Bluetooth standard organization for a while now, so it could submit that as an enhancement.
4. helsinkiandrew ◴[16 Nov 25 05:19 UTC] No.45942971[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>45943582 #
5. Aurornis ◴[16 Nov 25 05:33 UTC] No.45943014[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>45943734 #>>45944523 #
6. Aurornis ◴[16 Nov 25 05:37 UTC] No.45943031[source]▶
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.
7. binkHN ◴[16 Nov 25 06:05 UTC] No.45943123[source]▶
This is Microsoft's playbook from many years ago: embrace, extend, extinguish.
8. fouc ◴[16 Nov 25 06:35 UTC] No.45943227[source]▶
Perhaps Apple correctly implemented the specification here
9. fouc ◴[16 Nov 25 06:37 UTC] No.45943234[source]▶
Assuming they even went off spec at all.
10. potatoproduct ◴[16 Nov 25 06:38 UTC] No.45943236[source]▶
Performance reasons LOL. Apple fans love plausible deniability.
replies(1): >>45946226 #
11. gf000 ◴[16 Nov 25 08:23 UTC] No.45943578[source]▶
if (name == 'APPLE') will surely improve performance.
12. gf000 ◴[16 Nov 25 08:24 UTC] No.45943582{3}[source]▶
You can't even change noise cancel's mode.
replies(1): >>45944454 #
13. dabinat ◴[16 Nov 25 09:11 UTC] No.45943734{3}[source]▶
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_...

replies(2): >>45951069 #>>45952455 #
14. fingerlocks ◴[16 Nov 25 09:45 UTC] No.45943875[source]▶
No there isn’t. I’ve said this a million times before, but usually just downvoted: this is about reducing support costs, not increasing revenue from lock-in. This is not a theory, I’ve sat in meetings at Cupertino and been told first hand.

Support is very expensive. Say what you want about Apple, but they provide absolutely stellar support, especially with the stupidly inexpensive Apple Care insurance. This is only cost effective if they can make reasonable predictions about how their devices will behave in any given scenario. Interfacing Apple hardware with non-certified (MFi, BLE, etc) third party hardware has a non-trivial risk of unpredictability high support costs, either from excessive Apple Care claims, customer support communications, or just overloading the Genius Bar.

Reducing support cost could easily explain the motivation of the entire walled garden if they are sufficiently high.

replies(2): >>45944506 #>>45944883 #
15. gf000 ◴[16 Nov 25 12:01 UTC] No.45944454{4}[source]▶
It's just on and off, and doesn't let you choose between the different ones (transparency, conversation aware, etc)
16. pbhjpbhj ◴[16 Nov 25 12:09 UTC] No.45944506[source]▶
They couldn't just write (and make people aware at point of sale, ofc) 'no support for using devices with non-Apple Computers products' into Apple Care. They had to purposely break compatibility?
17. pbhjpbhj ◴[16 Nov 25 12:12 UTC] No.45944523{3}[source]▶
>doubt they got together and tried to scheme a way to break Bluetooth in this one tiny little way for vendor lock in.

No conspiracy needed, surely it would be unilateral? It seems exactly the sort of thing Apple Computers would do to protect their ecosystem.

18. bubblethink ◴[16 Nov 25 13:13 UTC] No.45944883[source]▶
That's tautological. Everything that is not supported is so because supporting it has a cost. The question is what is the cost? It seems quite obvious that the marginal revenue from airpods would be overshadowed by the revenue of getting a user in the ecosystem.
replies(2): >>45947133 #>>45948405 #
19. okayjustonemore ◴[16 Nov 25 16:22 UTC] No.45946226[source]▶
And haters love a conspiracy.

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

replies(1): >>45947310 #
20. fingerlocks ◴[16 Nov 25 18:15 UTC] No.45947133{3}[source]▶
Customer support costs are higher at Apple than its competitors, because they provide a better support experience. This is not a tautology, it’s one of their core value propositions
21. monocasa ◴[16 Nov 25 18:40 UTC] No.45947310{3}[source]▶
As someone who's implemented custom Bluetooth protocols, it's actually quite easy to condemn an Apple manufacturer ID check to expose custom services.

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

replies(1): >>45958457 #
22. rangestransform ◴[16 Nov 25 21:08 UTC] No.45948405{3}[source]▶
Having to test the AirPods with more standards compliant devices, having to waste time to tell customers to fuck off if their phone/laptop/toaster is not standards compliant, having to waste engineering time to investigate non compliant aliexpress phones/laptops/toasters, wasting time to implement additional functionality for Apple customers because it has to go into the spec first
replies(1): >>45949437 #
23. bubblethink ◴[16 Nov 25 23:30 UTC] No.45949437{4}[source]▶
Yes, all that is a part of the cost equation, which points to the same thing, namely, that $200-$300 widgets are not worth selling to the general public; they would rather sell them to a customer who will spend a lot more in the ecosystem. Same as razors and blades or consoles and games.
24. raw_anon_1111 ◴[17 Nov 25 05:33 UTC] No.45951069{4}[source]▶
Did you even bother about reading the comments on your own citation?
replies(1): >>45952102 #
25. dabinat ◴[17 Nov 25 09:29 UTC] No.45952102{5}[source]▶
Yes, I did actually. I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to?
26. dwaite ◴[17 Nov 25 10:47 UTC] No.45952455{4}[source]▶
Yes, USB extenders are not spec-legal (because the device isn't built expecting to be extended).

But you can have an extension cord which accepts USB on one end but doesn't accept USB on the other.

So the keyboard has a superset connector so that it can go in regular USB and notched USB, because it is verified to work right when using the extension cord.

This design also means you can't plug one extension cord into another to get an even longer distance (which the keyboard wouldn't expect). Pretty clever solution.

27. okayjustonemore ◴[17 Nov 25 21:20 UTC] No.45958457{4}[source]▶
Every time someone opens an argument with the classic appeal to authority “as someone who has…” you can almost certainly expect to have that person miss the point of the discussion entirely.
replies(1): >>45970073 #
28. monocasa ◴[18 Nov 25 18:27 UTC] No.45970073{5}[source]▶
What a fantastic way to keep from addressing anything I said while still allowing you to act condescendingly.