[exikyut]

So then install Android-x86 on your laptop. Use it for a bit, verify the mic fails.

Call them up and tell them that you're performing a hardware compatibility evaluation to the same standard of due-diligence that would be used ahead-of-time in any competent enterprise-scale hardware accessory rollout - and that a prerequisite step in this process is to validate candidate accessories on Android in unusual environments, to exhaustively verify interoperability considering the known variability of the Bluetooth landscape (on both sides of any given connection).

"But that's a computer."

"Yes, running Android, an OS explicitly supported by logos on your packaging, specific instructions in the user manual and support in the official app."

"Using this hardware on a computer is not supported."

"Your official product communications clearly convey that you unilaterally support Android regardless of device type. The type of Android device I am using here is an x86 laptop, precisely to facilitate wide-range compatibility testing, and to catch potential compatibility issues early on. I'm interested in using this hardware, but after only 20 minutes of testing I've found I experience dropouts while using the officially supported app and running on an officially supported operating system."

I would be very interested to know how the conversation would continue...

Sadly this would be one of those Weird Thing In Instruction Manual-generating events ("why does this say it's not compatible with Android on PC???") but it might work.

(And if the person on the other end of the phone is mostly listening for keywords and they actually think you might be doing some sort of enterprise rollout (*cough* and want to buy a lot more hardware *cough*)... they might suddenly be very interested...)

[evan_]

This fails at the “call them up” step. Nobody you get on the phone is going to understand or care about any of this.

[exikyut]

They might, best-case-scenario, just be listening for keywords, and actually think I want to do a rollout. It's kind of sad one has to think this way, and I wouldn't push things to the point of actively deceiving, but what if something like the above worked?

I admittedly don't care about any of it either. My goal would be to introduce chinks in the armor in the arguments presented and try and carry that as far as possible in the hope a solution presents itself. The idea in the GP popped into my head as one entirely-throwaway potential solution to that bigger-picture problem. It's quite possible a different approach may work better.

[sudosysgen]

You don't tell them it's Android-x86 until you get escalated, I suppose.

[Bud]

At which point they'd say "Android-x86 is not Android" and hang up.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Ironically, AOSP has an x86 build target.

[pjerem]

You can be as right as you want once they hang up.

[janoc]

And there were actual phones shipping Android on Atom (i.e. x86) CPUs.

[regularfry]

Here's the thing: what does "it might work" result in? 'Cos I can't see a version of this that ends up with you having a pair of working Jabra 85 earbuds.

[quantumsequoia]

OP said the mic stopped working properly after a macos update. So the mic will probably work using Android-x86

[rattray]

I think the only thing they'll find interesting would be a letter from a lawyer