←back to thread

1424 points moonleay | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
moonleay ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
a13n ◴[] 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 #
potatoproduct ◴[] No.45943236[source]
Performance reasons LOL. Apple fans love plausible deniability.
replies(1): >>45946226 #
okayjustonemore ◴[] 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 #
monocasa ◴[] No.45947310[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 #
1. okayjustonemore ◴[] No.45958457[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 #
2. monocasa ◴[] No.45970073[source]
What a fantastic way to keep from addressing anything I said while still allowing you to act condescendingly.