People keep mentioning Wi-Fi Aware with this, but so far haven't seen anyone actually prove that this is the case.
Apple undoubtedly added Wi-Fi Aware support to iOS https://developer.apple.com/documentation/WiFiAware, but its not clear whether iOS actually supports AirDrop over Wi-Fi Aware. Apple clearly hasn't completely dropped AWDL for AirDrop, because you can still AirDrop from iOS 26 to earlier devices.
Note that the Ars Technica article never directly makes the claim that Apple supports Airdrop over Wi-Fi Aware. The title is two independent statements - "The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop" - that's true.
> Google doesn’t mention it in either Quick Share post, but if you’re wondering why it’s suddenly possible for Quick Share to work with AirDrop, it can almost certainly be credited to European Union regulations imposed under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Again, they're just theorising. They never directly make the claim. Would love on Hacker News for someone to do some Hacking and actually figure it out for real!
In 2020 Google's Project Zero found a zero-click remote RCE in Apple's AWDL implementation. So at least some folks at Google are fully equipped to build a reverse engineered implementation. Discussion on that awhile back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270184
Just `tcpdump -i awdl0` while Airdrop-ing to a Mac to observe it's still using AWDL. (unless the interface named awdl0 is actually using WiFi Aware...)
Another fun thing to do: `ping6 ff02::1%awdl0`. Pings all nearby Apple devices with AWDL active. Including things like your neighbor's phone that's not even on your local network. (but addresses rotate I believe so can't track persistently)
yes! I've had the same thought. If you have only one neighbor in range, seems like you could definitely infer their presence and approximate range based on latency. Phones don't keep AWDL active all the time, but every time you swipe control center it perks up I think.
Could also detect when someone is hosting a party or something.
It’s funny how we’re all trying to piece together the stack from bits and obscure clues. Would be so cool if Apple and Google finally embrace their role as “essential public infrastructure” and release their specs, interoperate, etc.. so one doesn’t end up trapped one way or another when picking a personal device.
Once something becomes so widely used that almost everyone has one, the public interest is involved. In the same way that cars are essential public infrastructure and have to comply with public safety standards, interoperable fuel nozzles, etc.
Public interest does not seem to be the driving factor.
Everyone owns kitchen appliances and even if there is network support it generally requires a specific app that is out of support very early in the device lifetime. Vehicles barely support operability with phones at all and there is no standard UI or phone side vehicle monitoring.
At least personally I would like enforced open device standards on home appliances and vehicles far before I care about something like AirDrop that has work arounds.
It would be unfortunate if we have to fight this for every category of gizmos separately. It would be best if the next iteration of the consumer rights directive codifies this in general e.g. connected devices (even if the connection is just peer devices), anything that generates or stores user related information etc.
If tomorrow someone invents smart glasses that can trigger a home robot to do the laundry when I look at the pile of dirty clothes on the floor, the orchestration should be based on capabilities, not brand or ecosystem.
Manufacturers fucking hate being made to be interoperable and will try to swing a lock-in whenever they can.
They only do it in a green field when:
* They have big customers who demand it to avoid lock-in. Either the fear being left with orphaned equipment (e.g. car chargers being specified with MODBUS rather then a custom fieldbus), or they think their own gear will sell better with standard widgets (e.g. computer builders and USB). Militaries are especially keen on these requirements, and MIL standards drove loads of 20th century standardisations by economies of scale.
* They are forced to at regulatory gunpoint (some overlap with the above when the customer is a government).
* They think it'll be cheaper than the return from lock in, (e.g. easily cloned/replaced commodities like screws)
In a brown field where there are other standards or implementors around, they may also
* want to break into someone else's walled garden (everyone else wanting into Tesla chargers)
* Figure that there's a win-win as an attempted lock-in opportunity has passed (e.g. car makers trying to do a proprietary nozzle for lead free fuels would have just made their cars get a reputation for being a hassle to fuel).
When it comes to consumer goods, the asymmetry in the relationship is severe and regulators are constantly playing catch up. Everyone from Soda Stream to car charger manufacturers are trying to throw up walls and lock in customers before anyone can do anything about it.
Regulators only have limited bandwidth and if they act too early they get dragged by the companies (and their lackeys) for market interference.
Indeed, especially with heavy vertical integration - when a company is both the phone, the tv, the tablet, the music, the headphones, the watch, the glasses, etc... they all become subject to the expectation that I as a citizen can change my mind and pickup a different brand of glasses and be able to move my data or use it with my phone of choice.
It's frustrating how much people want this to be an EU win they'll fabricate evidence. The same happened with RCS in iOS, everybody jumped in to credit it to the EU, when you can find the document spelling out how RCS is a requirement for China.
Don't forget that Apple is feeling sore and playing the petulant child in their PR regarding EU regulations, especially regarding the digital markets act. They don't want to appear to give in the EU, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Apple doesn't want to admit that the EU forced them.
I don't care which sovereign state or union forces the trillion dollar tech giant to behave. I'm just glad it happened. And I applaud China if this was their victory.
I want it to happen with a thousand times more intensity for Apple and Google.
We should own these devices. We shouldn't be subsistence farmers on the most important device category in the world.
They need to be opened up to competition, standards, right to repair, privacy, web app installs, browser choice, messaging, etc. etc.
They shouldn't be strong arming tiny developers or the entire automotive industry. It's vastly unfair. And this strip mining impacts us as consumers.
> They shouldn't be strong arming [...] the entire automotive industry.
Yes they should, the automotive industry is much shittier. I have a 23 Chevy Bolt EUV with wireless CarPlay. Chevy/GM have been emailing and snail mailing me relentlessly trying to get me to pay for their $150 update to my car's navigation maps, which no longer work in my vehicle (presumably because they're out of date). This is quite the deal, according to their marketing materials, but I won't be paying for it because I've never used those maps thanks to CarPlay.
With all this emphasis they're putting on upselling these $150 map updates, it doesn't take a genius to understand why GM is no longer making vehicles with CarPlay or Android Auto.
Why can’t we hate both greedy and shitty GM, and greedy and shitty Apple and Google?
Both infotainment and phones should be open to run the software users choose. The biggest problem with tech today is how everyone with control of some kind of choke point expects everyone else to pay them to “allow” the user to use anything that isn’t in the first party’s strategic interest.
We saw this when Apple violently crushed that Android-compatible iMessage solution a couple years ago. It was portrayed as that developer “hacking” Apple - not as the users of the iMessage service choosing a different client than Apple likes. This shift in thinking is wild.
Since the AT&T breakup the phone company was forced to allow customers to choose their client hardware (phones). Now in the modern day critical infrastructure, we’re back to the same old tricks where powerful parties (platform owners) want to dictate the hardware and software customers are allowed to use based purely on their own greedy interests.
> With all this emphasis they're putting on upselling these $150 map updates, it doesn't take a genius to understand why GM is no longer making vehicles with CarPlay or Android Auto.
Because cars are a low margin, high capital business with ruthless competition.
Because a trillion dollar duopoly gets to spend a billion dollars on mapping software and give it away completely for free as part of an ecosystem / platform play, which they then use to strong arm automotive manufacturers. If you had to bear the true cost, it would be $150. More car companies should ban Apple and Google.
Fuck Apple and Google. They are not the heroes in this story. They're not Robin Hood here, even if that's what they're masquerading as. They're the child-enslaving "Land of Toys" from Pinocchio - they're using you and lured you in with a promise of freedom, but they have an ulterior motive.
All of that "freedom" just gets added to the purchase price of your car, and you don't even realize it. You also get Google ads for McDonalds and shit.
Before CarPlay and Android Auto we had TomTom for $130 and map updates costing about $40. The map updates from car manufacturers were always sold at a premium.
I bet Google Maps pays for itself through ads alone. In addition Google Maps gains a lot of invaluable data from its users like new businesses, reviews, pictures, updated opening times, traffic data and more. So no Google Maps isn't really "free" it's paid for by its users with ads and free labor to improve the mapping data.
Having the users split between different navigation software is a worse user experience because the mapping data will be worse. So I welcome a monopoly in this case.
The hard work of mapping is done by the government in most countries and paid for by the tax payers. So you are just paying the car company to convert the mapping data you already paid for into their proprietary format.
When companies compete, consumers win. Don't make the error of thinking that because they're doing it for selfish reasons, it doesn't benefit you.
> If you had to bear the true cost, it would be $150.
That might be true, but it probably isn't. A larger company can spread the cost out over a larger number of customers, meaning the cost per customer is lower.
When standalone GPS units for $500 were popular the big car manufacturers were still trying to sell GPS as a $2000 option.
We've seen time and time again car companies will charge whatever they can get away with. So i'm very skeptical that maps actually cost $150 for the companies that charged me $800 to enable bluetooth calling.
The sad thing is that you and the person you are arguing with are both right: Apple and Google are lock-in monopolists, and the legacy telcos were much worse monopolists (remember paying for ringtones?), and the car manufacturers want to foist terrible software on people with their own brand of lock-in.
Really there should be something like DIN rails for car electronics other than audio, so you can just swap out the manufacturer kit if you don't like it. Then there would be an actual market.
There is very little literature about Chinese requirements rolled out
and when there is, its talked about as American tech companies bowing to an authoritarian regime as opposed to fighting a burgeoning market force acting on behalf of consumers and the American tech companies losing that fight
the latter is how the EU work is syndicated
in between is that there likely is no fight with Chinese regulators alongside an unwillingness to alter access to that market
Imo kinda same about usb-c on iphone. The writing was on the wall that they were transitioning devices away from lightning to usb-c, a standard they too had their hands in.
Especially so when wanting to position the pro model iphones as professional cameras with external storage capable of doing decent levels of prores to boot, they werent about to make lightning ssds to do the job.
The only thing perhaps expedited was the push to have it on base model iphones sooner.
Apple was clearly moving towards usbc (which they helped develop). Their laptops and iPad pros had moved along with the pro phones. To think the EU the reason usbc came to the iPhone is ignoring the clear path Apple was on. At best they put it in the rest of the phone line a generation early.
Any fight that Apple put up was performative and them not wanting any sort of precedence to be set.
Their laptops never had lightning, so there was no "moving along". And iPad Pros moved because they're trying to create a product niche that people use like a laptop/desktop, but where Apple actually gets that sweet, sweet App Store money for all software on the device. In that niche, people expect actual expandibility to access stuff like large disk storage, and the App Store money greatly outweighs the patent money from lightning.
If apple had planned to drop lightning, we wouldn't still have rhe crappy USB2 controllers backing that port on those SoCs that would still would have been under development when the EU decision came down.
I remember when usb c first came out and Apple went all in on their laptops and everyone was pissed about that. So much complaining about adapter dongles. So pissed that apple had to bring back the MagSafe connector instead of straight usb c for charging.
Compared to the iPhone, nothing else matters. Apple dragged their feet on this for eight years and the only reason the Apple fans give is that poor widdle Apple had their feelings hurt so bad when dummies whined about the 30-pin to lightning transition in 2012, that they were too scared to face that scary backlash again and therefore needed 8 years to work up the courage.
It definitely wasn’t the MFi revenue that influenced them. Apple doesn’t care about profits.
If the EU forced Apple to adopt Wi-Fi Aware then Apple would just fence it to EU users.
The attempt of trying to paint this as a powerplay by the EU is tenuous:
- Apple, along with Microsoft and Intel are founding members of the Wi-Fi Alliance, whose objective was to introduce a standard of interoperability through Wi-Fi Aware.1
- This work commenced long before the EU showed any interest in regulating tech.
- Apple have a pretty solid history of fencing EU-mandated changes to EU devices.
- Microsoft's Windows, also deemed by the EU as a "gatekeeper" hasn't deployed Wi-Fi Aware in Windows. With no public plans to do so.2
I never said they didn't. They did, they announced they would, and it's now shipped.
This entire thread is about whether or not they were forced to do so by the EU.
As another dot point: We also don't have Margrethe Vestager or Thierry Breton (or other EU figures) doing a victory lap on social media as they usually do.
Oh, look what "over-regulation" does, forcing companies to comply to standards so they can't vendor lock-in their users (this happened with the iphone charging port too, from the apple specific port to usb-c).
Guess this type of consumer-benefic changes wouldn't happen in the land of "freedom".
I think the land of “freedom” knows that “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
It's likely that without laws such as the DMCA, there would already be easier, legally legitimate ways to circumvent Apples technology preventing interoperability. So as usual the new regulations try to cancel out the problems caused by the previous regulation, while having their own side effects that require future regulation to cancel out, ad infinitum.
A positive effect from regulation does not rebut the general argument against government regulation of industry.
The problem with regulation isn’t that there are never any positive effects, of course there are.
The problem is it’s impossible to reliably avoid adding substantial friction to life via overly broad regulation that is not applicable but has to be followed anyway, or outdated but still-in-effect regulation that is not applicable but has to be followed anyway, at least.
If this only bothered huge companies then I would say cost of doing business, who cares, etc, but it actually affects things like how cities and towns are designed, how expensive housing is, how expensive medical treatment is, etc.
It's unclear exactly what you're arguing, but I think if you are arguing that, because of the unavoidable substantial friction caused by regulation, we shouldn't have any regulation of industry at all... I think it's trivial to find examples where banning all regulation of industry would make the world a much, much worse place. Much worse than the friction.
Nope, he's not saying that at all. He's just saying that any regulation (no matter how necessary, well intended or even perfect it is) has a cost. And that cost is accumulating across all regulations.
Furthermore, that cost is easily supported by large incumbents (big fans of regulation, btw) but it hurts startups the most. Thus the more regulations a market has, the fewer startups will have. Fewer startups means less competition. Less competition means less innovation, fewer products and higher prices. We can easily see this effect unfolding in the housing, education or health markets.
Bottom line is: we must take those second order effects of regulation into consideration when talking about it.
Even though overly broad regulation is a risk, I don't believe little/no regulation is an option either. I don't think the US's consumer protection mechanisms work, and I'm happy to accept the downsides of the EU's systems that come with the upsides of regulation.
I really wish microeconomics was a high-school or secondary school required course. It's one of the most applicable to life and voters well-studied disciplines that describes the effects of certain actions towards or away from a competitive market, market elasticity and barriers to entry, explains positive and negative externalities of government action, and how those actions affect consumer pricing and supply (a lot of the topics here and below). Without studying this topic we view words with different underlying assumptions or definitions and it's a lot more effort / time / replies to not talk around each other. It's like two people who only use Windows for Instagram trying to argue about why Apt requiring Rust is good or bad. I'm not weighing in for or against the topic in this thread or its replies, just a plug to study Microeconomics if this stuff interests you!
I mean, housing and medical treatment are more expensive in the US because the market is unregulated and so the capital exploits the poor who can't do otherwise for those basic needs.
There is definitely a third option of "badly regulated through regulatory capture that favors incumbents, prevents competition and makes things worse for the public, while protecting actual malfesance". The US has a lot of this. The EU version tends just to protect the incumbent too much.
Pretty sure pricing isn't. Can't US medical companies essentially charge what they like? As long as they don't align with each other to price gouge customers...even though I imagine they do anyway (just very carefully).
These industries are objectively heavily regulated in the US. I don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe you would like them to be more regulated, and that’s a position one can hold, but that doesn’t make them unregulated today.
So they forced Apple to drop an Apple proprietary thing in favor of… a Wi-Fi standard Apple helped develop specifically to replace their proprietary thing.
Not quite as strong as the headline makes the case sound.
Apple said from the day that they made lightning cables that it would be supported for 10 years. They literally contractually guaranteed that to third party manufacturers in exchange for them creating a massive availability of cables for Apple users.
The EU “forced them” to switch to the standard they helped develop (USB C) on the 11th year after developing lighting. I’m sure it was all the EUs doing.
I haven't seen Apple say anything like that, all I saw were analysts saying that Apple's long term commitment to the format meant that you could expect a decade or so of lifetime like the previous 30pin connector.
Apple argues that the law was dumb environmentally due to many people having Lightning-cables that wouldn't work in the future, so they obviously can't have intended to do the same changeover at the same time as the EU forced them to
That was hilarious, as though Lightning cables on average outlasted the devices they were used with. Meanwhile in the real world, Apple’s delicate “strain relief” started to fray and tear in 6-12 months of use, and thanks to their weird unnecessary DRM chip for MFi enforcement, third-party Lightning cables tended to become flaky for purely DRM reasons in a few months.
Show me anyone who had more than a couple of working Lightning cables left when they eliminated their last Lightning device.
There are many things they do which Apple argues benefits their users, but end up benefitting themselves in suspiciously manipulative ways.
I'm not shocked they entered a 10 year contractual agreement, and that just so happened to allow them to make a lot of profit by using a proprietary cable.
They lock down individual parts to device serial numbers, this helps prevent fraudulent repair services with poor quality parts, it also ensures Apple is always involved in the repair process and they can make a lot of money on that.
They use a proprietary RAM design, this significantly improves hardware speeds but also stops you replacing or upgrading the modules yourself. They also just happen to charge a serious premium on RAM capacity, and don't sell the modules on their own. Even if a third-party did manufacture the modules and sell them separately, they are also locked down to serial numbers.
This is Apple's bread and butter, enforcing consumer hostile practices and spinning it into a benefit, usually filled with half-truths to muddy the waters. In all of these situations, it's possible to do better by the consumer but why would they? At the end of the day they're here to make money, as much as they possibly can, and they're uncontested in their own vender hardware, doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out for their awful practices every time they appear.
Apple also helped develop ARM, but I believe nobody likes to talk about that.
I wonder when the Europe is going to open up European companies like ASML, who are pretty much the de facto monopolies in their field. I believe the Nexperia incident showed that there's also a lot of political and national reasons behind such decisions, not just creating open and fair markets.
That's not right. They were an early investor in ARM Ltd., but they in no way "helped develop ARM". That was all Acorn. ARM Ltd was created because Apple thought ARM was a good fit for the Newton, but didn't want to be beholden to a competitor, which Acorn was.
Let’s force ASML to open up its manufacturing line and cancel their patents for squandering innovation, but wait they’re an incredible company that dominated the field with their hard work and diligence, so it’s not fair for them.
Similarly, the open markets should apply to everyone, not just dominant American firms.
Though, I’m not saying they’re innocent and I think they have to be even broken up due to their monopolistic behaviors.
> Who’s stopping anyone from competing with Apple?
Apple's dominant market position and abuse of network effects via their proprietary standards, like the one we're talking about from this article.
> Let’s force ASML to open up its manufacturing line and cancel their patents for squandering innovation
No-one's arguing for any equivalent of that to happen to Apple. Just that when there's an open standard for inter-device communication, they should follow that. Imagine if ASML-manufactured processors wouldn't work with standard DDR5, only with some special memory chips that only ASML could manufacture, that would be the equivalent to what Apple is doing.
Apple should enjoy the profits from when they make better products that win on their merits. But they should have to compete fairly.
probably offset by travellers hauling less proprietary cables with them on holidays/business trips/commutes, i now travel with basically one cable to charge almost every device
yes, this is a little tongue in cheek, but i do appreciate the standardization around USB-C
edit: people need to just admit their lives got better with this forced change. (this is not a reply to you, general observation)
LIghtning due to its DRM chips (and the delicateness of Apple’s “aesthetics-first” first-party cables) was not a long-lived cable. We threw away probably 2-3 per year during the whole era. Throwing away the last couple before their natural death, when I finally eradicated Lightning from our home, was no great loss.
And a lot of chargers don't have a cable built-in, they just have a USB-A or -C port - so it's just a matter of replacing the cable. But - again, if you'd rather not do even that, you're welcome to keep using your old cable with a USB-C converter
Users all got to complain that the EU are the meanies responsible for their old wires and chargers and accessory no longer being compatible, but it seems infinitely more likely that Apple was going to adopt USB-C on largely the same schedule even if the EU didn't intercede.
To be clear, Apple had already moved their laptops and computers to USB-C -- long in advance of almost any one else -- and had moved their iPad Pros and Air to USB-C, building out the accessory set supporting the same, years before the EU decree. Pretty convenient when they get to blame the EU for their smartphones making the utterly inevitable move.
They had Macs on USB-C for like 7 years before the iPhone. It was going to stay like that. Mac on USB-C meant more dongles to sell, iPhone on Lightning meant cable fees and control.
You think Apple is going to make the user experience on iPhones – a product that makes them hundreds of billions of dollars a year – to sell more cables‽ How much profit do you think they can possibly make with those cables?
Apple came under fire when they moved from 30-pin connectors to Lightning because people wanted to keep their 30-pin connectors. At the time, Apple said that they wouldn’t make people switch for another decade. They switched to USB-C eleven years later.
Yes. They did it with the headphone jack too. Nobody will switch to Android for either of those, in fact the more Apple-specific stuff the more lockin.
> You think Apple is going to make the user experience on iPhones – a product that makes them hundreds of billions of dollars a year – to sell more cables?
Seems like it's more a matter of conveniently waiting until it's clearly some kind of explicit competitive disadvantage not to switch, or otherwise have their hand forced, rather than making their products worse.
That said, Apple makes their products worse all the time for a variety of reasons, it shouldn't be so hard to believe, and they also let their products stagnate until they may as well be discontinued, like someone who stops engaging in a relationship until you eventually break up with them.
> How much profit do you think they can possibly make with those cables?
A lot. I'd wager somewhere in the realm of a % of hundreds of billions
Yes of course. How much did the cables cost with replacements for fraing ones. Revenue is revenue, same as with consoles - main device is not the main income source, its the ecosystem and additional devices and services people buy and keep paying for.
So freaking what? Since when does Apple care about what customers whine about? They didn’t actually give a flying fig when users moaned about 30-pin to Lightning, did they? Show me how they apologized or walked that back. Same for the headphone jack. Same for the one-port MacBook 12”. And the MacBook keyboard - until class action got them - they put that garbage in several generations of laptops! The point being, they could have adopted USB-C whenever they wanted to and let the whiners whine — they just didn’t want to.
Stop anthropomorphizing Tim Cook. Apple doesn’t do anything because they feel bad about customer complaints. Apple does things for profit. Profit only. If you disagree, may I point to their recent zeal to buddy up with DJT. Is that a principled embrace of that dude? Or are they just weighting anything that isn’t profit at zero and then making the rational decision from there.
> You think Apple is going to make the user experience on iPhones – a product that makes them hundreds of billions of dollars a year – to sell more cables‽
Uh yes, of course they would. They happily would do that.
USB-C wasn't exactly standard when Apple put it in Macs. Nothing else used it yet, and they didn't have any transition period. Its sole purpose for years was to get adapted to other ports. And if you wanted to use it as Lightning, you basically needed the Apple cable.
No, there weren't. Lightning cable have an authentication chip, and while it was cloned towards the end of the lifecycle, most accessories still utilized official chips.
>iPhone on Lightning meant cable fees and control.
Strange, then, that Apple already moved the iPad Pro and iPad Air to USB-C, right? Didn't they get the memo about "cable fees and control"? It's almost like they were incrementally moving all their platforms over.
The cable fees conspiracy has always been a weird one. At the absolute highest, MFi fees were estimated at some $80M per year. Do you know how utterly irrelevant that number is to Apple? It's like 0.02% of their revenue. Far more logically they literally intended it as a quality assurance given that the company was very focused on user satisfaction.
Their own cables were the most fragile things ever invented. There's no reason for that other than selling more cables. And it's not just about revenue, it's about control/lockin.
It's striking, iPhones have always been top except for charging. They were always dead cause the cables were so unreliable and difficult to find. Finally that's fixed, rare thanks to the EU.
Apple probably wouldn’t have changed to usbc for their phones. Lightning was a mobile phone / other development, whilst usbc and its contributions came from their Mac department.
They did not like each others standards. I know Apple engineers working on the phone who dislike the change even up to this day…
USB-C is a worse mechanical connector for a device plugged in thousands of times over its lifetime. The female port of a USB-C connector has a relatively fragile center blade. Lightning's layout was the opposite which makes it more robust and easier to clean.
> USB-C is a worse mechanical connector for a device plugged in thousands of times over its lifetime.
USB-C connectors are usually rated for 10k cycles. Do you have any evidence that lighting connectors are rated for more cycles than that?
> The female port of a USB-C connector has a relatively fragile center blade. Lightning's layout was the opposite which makes it more robust and easier to clean.
This is very weak a priori arguing. I could just as well argue that USB-C has the center blade shielded instead of exposed and so is more durable.
Unless you have some empirical evidence on this I don't see a strong argument for better durability from either connector.
Incorrect. You want springy bits on part that is easily replaceable - the cable. USB-C does that, the springy bits are in the connector, not the socket.
My phone is now 6 years old, zero problems on usb-c connector
Groan. Come on. Cite one. A single "Apple engineer" to support this ridiculous claim of insider knowledge. What year do you think it is?
You understand that the SoC and I/O blocks are largely shared between the Mac and the iPad / iPhone now, right? This invention of some big bifurcation is not reality based. The A14 SoC (which became the foundation for the Mac's M1) had I/O hardware to support USB-C all the ways back to the iPhone 12. Which makes sense as this chipset was used in iPads that came with USB-C.
Pretty weird for hardware that is largely the same to "not like each others standards".
Begging? Apple filed a couple of light objections -- basically a "don't regulate us, bro" -- and then moved on. Their resistance was laughably superficial
Look, Apple is a predatory, extraordinarily greedy company, but these sorts of "thanks EU!" discussions are a riot. Thanks EU, for making Apple support a clone of an Apple feature that didn't exist until Apple made it, and for "forcing" Apple to transition their line to USB-C, which they were already almost completely done doing.
>> which they were already almost completely done doing
Honest question - why did they stick with lighting on iphones for so long, given that usb-c has been ubiquitus on phones for years before that point. I mean we can sit here and say "duh apple was going to do it anyway" but like.....why didn't they? Why did samsung have usb-c phones long before apple?
I think you missed GP’s point. The briar patch is a reference to the story of Br’er Rabbit, which involves pretending to object to a punishment that one really doesn’t mind at all (and might even prefer).
The GP is suggesting that Apple was more than happy to have this mandate. I tend to agree: they wanted to switch the iPhone to USB-C anyway, but there’s always people who are going to be upset that their Lightning accessories no longer work or need an adapter. But this way they can say that the EU forced their hand. They get what they wanted all along, but they also get a scapegoat who can take the blame for the remaining downsides.
Apple used USB-C on the iPhone 15 and 16 without being forced to do so. If Apple was indeed forced to use USB-C they would have postponed it to the 17.
Do you also think Apple was forced to use USB-C on the iPad and MacBook?
Apple cerifies/recieves licensencing fee for every thunderbolt cable.
Apple only did move to usb-c when backlash is so high and eu law will certainly pass.
It is good for their pr to advertise that they moved to usbc because they wanted to rather than forced to by a government.Apple still tries/atleast tried to control usbc cable usage for iphones. Cables need to get certified.
Apple supported usbc on mac because it is superior and the impact to their revenue is very low. It is also jump from usb-a to usb -c
Do you have any source that states that Apple was forced? Given that they switched the iPhone to USB-C multiple product iterations before it was required makes it seem to be that they were not forced.
It is also worth noting that Android wasn’t using the standard as well. If they had, this would have been day 0 interoperability for Android phones. Instead, it is a single phone model released a couple months after iOS 26.
Hah, right? Everyone understands that Apple wouldn't have done anything by themselves if it wasn't for the DMA.
The whole selling point of Apple was that as long as you're inside the ecosystem, you'll get the smoothest experience. Well, now the law says that devices, apps and products from third parties should be able to be used on an iPhone as seamlessly as Apple's own products, of course they wouldn't have given that up willingly.
And that's how regulations work. The very companies targeted by regulations often design and push for them. By doing so they gain a competitive advantage, price out smaller rivals, and move closer to becoming a monopoly. Michael Porter, Harvard Business School professor, talks about this in his book Competitive Strategy.
The moat gets mighty large when the government regulators start making it bigger. That's one of the advantages that the Mag 7 has now - it's not just the scale but it's also the compliance burden for new entrants.
Well they forced a standard that anybody can use to support wirelessly sending files to nearby devices. That's a huge chain and taking a few bricks out of the garden wall.
I literally do not care about the wanky culty Android this Apple that stuff. I just want to plug my phone into my Mac and have it be able to read it, regardless of what phone that is. When someone needs to send me a document, I don't want them to have to change how they send it based on what device I have. Regulation and enforcing common interoperability standards is good for consumers; I don't care whose implementation wins out, just that all my devices support it.
It is literally correct. My point was I think it implies the EU had to force a totally belligerent Apple (which we’ve certainly seen) instead of Apple already working on this and EU perhaps speeding the timeline a little.
If a law forced Apple to do good for everyone, not just a small group of people, isn't that a good thing? It wasn't exactly that AirDrop got legislated, but thanks to the DMA, AirDrop (and other things) are within scope and they now have to make things more seamless for everyone. Win-win no?
I don't think it was an anything post. You are an Apple customer upset at the status quo, which is understandable, but your post is not.
If "think of the children" feels like manufactured consent for the erosion of rights, spending money supporting Tim "Client Side Scanning" Cook isn't going to yield some moral reprisal from Apple. Emotionally manipulating you into accepting conditional surveillance is part of Apple's security model. They're the "good guys" and they don't need to prove it.
I wonder if it's related to Apple's change from AWDL to Wi-Fi Aware, but AirDrop seems much more reliable on iOS 26. I can send to multiple people at once and they often all succeed, but most importantly, if one transfer fails or is cancelled, I can retry and it works. In older versions of iOS, a failed transfer seemed to block all future attempts until the phone was restarted.
the weird one for me is that if I hit share, and then hit the airdrop target, it doesn't work, but if go into airdrop and then select the same target, then works. Apple, fix your shit, yo.
An additional benefit is that the Wi-Fi standard also means that the weird account requirements on Google's Nearby Share can be avoided by independent implementations (i.e. on Windows or Linux or maybe rooted Android, iOS and macOS already have it of course).
"Contacts only mode" will always be a challenge, but at least the "I just want to share a file without Google watching me" use case is now resolved by Google implementing a standard that doesn't involve them.
Unfortunately, this is Pixel 10 exclusive for now, for some reason. I expect Samsung to pick this up eventually as well, but I'm not sure if Google will be able to backport this tech through Google Play Services the way they did with Nearby Share on older phones.
Qualcomm has confirmed it's coming to Snapdragon phones soon[0], which maybe hints that it's dependent on the SoC drivers? Samsung uses a mix of Snapdragon and their own Exynos, but I can't see them not releasing it to their Snapdragon phones when others do, and then they pretty much have to release it to their Exynos phones too.
An implementation of AWDL on Linux requires a Wi-Fi card that supports "active monitor mode with frame injection". [1] I looked into using it with an Intel Wi-Fi card I had and it appeared mine wasn't supported. I'm guessing the situation is similar on Android in terms of SoC support.
The account requirement for nearby share is, as I understand it, to enable "contacts only" mode, which is how you prevent people from receiving random dickpics the second they try out the protocol and permanently turn the feature off afterwards. I think NS also has some kind of cloud transfer backup connection in case local transfers don't work (using Samsung's cloud), but I'm not 100% sure if that's related.
The account requirement can already be avoided using existing implementations of standard QuickShare (i.e. https://henriqueclaranhan.github.io/rquickshare/) but those are limited to devices sharing the same WiFi connection. However, as there is no contact sharing between iOS and Android, interoperability basically forces Google to pick between "Google account optional" and "doesn't work with iOS".
The more tragic thing is that the US government really does not care about consumers in general - otherwise they would have ensured standards even for the big megacorporations to adhere to.
And the consequences? The World's favourite technology is designed by Americans in America by America-headquarted companies. And then the rest of the world buys it and loves it.
The UK has ARM. The Netherlands has ASML. But those are B2B suppliers. Europe, with it's regulatory overreach, has very few consumer technology companies of any consequence
Yes same, you bump, you put iPhones on to op each other, you enable "findable by other". And still you may be messing around for minutes. Then a larger transfer starts... But fails half way for 6 times.
It's the best way (if it works!) to transfer full quality live images quickly, but otherwise I'd be happier just using Signal.
It's within range because it works, but requires some twisting and arm waving to get it to work from one room to the next, no Faraday shields in the home.
Then again, I transferred 4 iPhone photos to the imac 2 feet away and it failed. Worked on the next try. It's flakey as hell, and this is a 3rd generation iPhone SE and M2 mac mini. Not exactly old. I really hate bluetooth.
I got an old Time Capsule at the thrift store, that checked out but I haven't made use of it. It might be time. FWIW, I got PhotoSync app (not free) long ago so as to share photos with "everything" and it runs in the background on the mac, but I stupidly hold to the notion that whatever comes with the operating system otta work.
I'm libertarian, but I have to say watching the EU torment Apple has been delightful and one of the stronger arguments for muscular regulatory action.
The USB-C thing just made everything better. It cost Apple basically nothing---maybe a few million/year of profit, which for a company that's worth $3 trillion is nothing, and it made my and many other people's lives quite a bit more convenient.
Same with this Airdrop thing, and same with RCS (although there's some reporting that RCS had more to do with China than the EU).
Eventually, someone is going to break open iMessage, and poor Apple will actually have to compete again for customers. Maybe they'll innovate something more interesting than Airpods Ultra Mega Pro Max or a thinner phone.
Apple made major contributions to USB-C and adopted it a decade ago in their MacBooks. They were committed to lightning for 10 years starting in 2012-ish, so usb-c was likely inevitable in iOS devices.
However I would preferred a backwards compatibility lightning 2.0 upgrade. Cleaning a usb-c port is a huge pain and they are more prone to pocket lint clogging than lightning.
While I really like the convenience of not having multiple different cables to charge my devices when travelling, I agree with you on cleaning the usb-c port. In that respect, the lightning design was a lot more elegant and made more sense for a pocketable device.
I've never had an issue with this with Samsung. Hell, I don't think I've even cleaned out lint once on my current S24U over a couple years. Idk how you other people are brutalising your phones tho.
If you put your phone in your pocket, little bits of lint get in the port. Just tiny little bits. Then, when you use a USB-C plug, those tiny bits get compacted. Over time this results in a thin layer of compacted lint in the bottom of the port. Eventually this layer is thick enough that the USB-C cable won't positively lock onto the port. It'll still work, but it'll disconnect if you move it sometimes and just start to feel finicky.
I have to clean my port maybe once a year or so. I wait until the cables aren't locking and then I clean it out. The dental pick makes it easy and you are just dislodging that compacted mat of lint and removing it. Conversely, my wife never has the problem. Her phone never goes into a pocket, just her purse.
Haven't encountered that yet. But I always try to be extra careful and also look for the thinnest ones I can find. Seems like a product niche right there. Rigid, thin, non-conductive picks.
Careful on what you wish for. The same regulatory action can be (is) being used for Chat Control (that dropped off the main page for some reason). Ultimately neither power center acts for the general interest.
> The USB-C thing just made everything better. It cost Apple basically nothing
It made all the iPhone docks/speakers/etc. obsolete. The last time that happened, when Apple swapped the old 30 pin connector for lightning, it pissed off a fair number of customers.
This time they could blame the EU which was likely a huge plus.
iPhone docks and speakers were already obsolete. They had a moment during the 30-pin era, but its been long since Bluetooth, Carplay took over in any mainstream use.
You're a libertarian but regulatory intervention made everything about the market better and a better world for everyone involved with a relatively small change that was being stubbornly refused by a company for a small marginal benefit to themselves?
Or... You know... We also like watching one giant corporation that benefits from distinctly authoritarian policies get wrecked by another authoritarian entity to the benefit of better competition in the market.
But apparently unless you're a suckup to the authoritarian entity that you like is now a LINO.
Left libertarianism is compatible with such views.
Basically, libertarian on social issues paired with a preference for a decentralized economy, as opposed to a "tankie" (Stalinist) style centrally planned economy.
What is “left libertarianism” supposed to look like? I find this concept baffling. The end result of libertarianism is nothing like what the left is supposed to support.
Sure, because I think that, ultimately excessive regulation stifles innovation. I mean, heck, the EU is looking to effectively dismantle GDPR because they're worried that it's going to cause them to miss out on the AI boom.
My point was just that Apple is such an outrageously bad actor (and the USB-C and Airdrop rules so beneficial) that these rules were getting even a very pro-market person like me to at least be open to the idea of regulating some of these out-of-control giants.
“Excessive regulation stifles innovation” is pretty much a tautology. The point of argument is what constitutes “excessive.” Libertarians generally consider almost any amount to be excessive. What you’re describing just sounds like being aware of tradeoffs, which should be true of anyone paying attention.
Your last paragraph doesn't really make you come off as a libertarian at all. If Apple is truly a bad actor, then the libertarian response isn't to have the EU force them to use USB-C on iPhones, it's for people to move away from iPhones to other choices, which means Androids.
So apparently they use Bluetooth to establish the connection and WiFi for the data transfer. This sounds a lot like the "Alternative MAC/PHY" feature which was added in Bluetooth 3.0 and then removed in Bluetooth 5.3 [1] due to low uptake.
Why didn't the standard Bluetooth way of doing this gain any traction? What was wrong with it?
The DMA also forces them to have interoperable end-to-end encrypted group video call support in like 5 years or something insane. No idea how that's supposed to happen!
The problem isn't E2E encrypted group video calls. FaceTime supports that. The issue is interoperability with E2E encryption.
If Apple says sure, implement this FaceTime spec. Facebook does the same thing, go ahead and implement Messenger video chat.
Now you have the Android NewVideoChat app which supports its own protocol, Facebook's and Apple's. A user with NewVideoChat tries to invite a NewVideoChat user, an Apple user and a Facebook user to a video chat.
Except Facebook Messenger's app doesn't support Apple's Facetime app doesn't support Facebook Messenger, so you run into some issues. Something needs to dupe the stream out to all three services which use radically different payloads and encryption methods - and they have to do it without breaking end-to-end encryption. Do it at the client-side and the Android app users will need to dupe their own streams three times and at least one user will need to relay the other two other streams, with all the bandwidth and latency issues that entails. Do it on the server side and you somehow need to translate between protocols (and possibly codecs!) without decrypting them.
And if your video group chat supports private messaging between a subset of participants, you can end up in a situation where a Facebook user wants to send something to a Facetime user without the NewVideoChat user seeing it.. which is a bit of a problem.
> If I had to guess why neither of Google’s Quick Share posts mentions Wi-Fi interoperability standards or the DMA, it may be because Google has been complaining about various aspects of the law and its enforcement since before it was even passed
This is telling a lot about US companies complaining about EU laws.
Rally can't trust Apple making any standard. They always want to make more money than it is worth, and create demands which eventually causes monopoly and waste.
Great! Apple is happy to use the regular Wifi standard, regular Bluetooth standard, USB standard (which they were "planning to anyway" even tho it perfectly lined up with being forced to). They support media standards like mp4, jpeg, png etc.
ALL companies should be beholden to common standards of interoperability. It infuriates me that I can plug my Android phone into Windows and it reads it just fine but that plugging it into my Mac does nothing because a bunch of executives are circle jerking each other; this stuff isn't good for US, the consumers.
How can we have that cool future where we swipe a media file over towards a person in AR and have it automatically sent to them when we're allowing companies to use the standards they like and dodge ones they don't so that they can create a "platfoooorm" hurr de durr. The "platform" is the entire fucking ecosystem of devices out there.
I've ditched AirDrop for LocalSend, which is universally cross-platform (iOS, macOS, Linux, Android) and works very well. It's not a complete substitute, it doesn't work in the case of completely casual sharing between devices that are not connected to a shared WiFi network, however.
Imagine the worldly gains of allowing such an amazing technology to permeate society. Ah, well, that's against the interests of the shareholders. It's better to lock shit down and earn a dollar than precipitate betterment for human kind. The dollar! All hail!
This is honestly one of those tiny things that make it really hard to even consider looking outside of the Apple ecosystem. I'm beginning to divest from apple, and this is a big help.
Next up please do streaming. Chromecast seems so locked down so take AirPlay and make it a standard.
Then instead of just opening up NFC, make Google and Apple Wallet support plugins, so users can have one interface with all their cards but not tied to one payment system.
>Chromecast seems so locked down so take AirPlay and make it a standard
Weird thing to say given that AirPlay is also locked down as well...they're both the same. But I agree with the overall sentiment; a common wireless streaming standard would be amazing. It would mean I can use more devices to throw Samsung DEX at.
Hell, if all monitors/TVs/displays came with basic "receive a standard stream from wifi" support that would be so great for consumers, reduces friction so much.
Look, I don't like some of the things the EU is doing and I think Apple should consider (along with other tech companies) selling products tailed to the EU, Asia and rest of the world. In the long-run, it might be cheaper.
That said, they are setting a good example of legislating for tech. We should be doing a lot of that here in the US. I don't need a bulletproof, ultra-secure, end-to-end encrypted, formally verified phone (although that would be nice). As a boring regular person, I want to not have to need all of that because my government will imprison people that violate my rights. But more on-topic, the FTC (EDIT: FCC) exists to regulate among other things, wireless comms, so this would be something they should be legislating.
Although, putting on my tech hat, I need to re-state that I disagree with this move. I want tech companies to experiment and use faster, more secure, more reliable comms tech without having to worry about compatibility. It is in my interest as a consumer.
Lightning was a superior technology to USB-C, we don't have it now because the EU forced apple's hands. I don't want to lose out on good tech. The EU should have instead forced everyone else to use lightning if they want things simpler.
Why is the EU intent on having inferior tech, inferior capability, inferior pay, inferior innovation-friendly environment. They have the power to demand better things and provide them for their people. The compromise isn't needed. At the risk of offending the HN crowd, I'll even say that the EU shouldn't support open-source things unless they are actually the superior tech. You can't eat or pay your bills with ideals. If commercial/properietary tech is better for europeans, that is what the EU should focus on.
I will drive European or Japanese cars that are better than American cars, I don't mind doing the same with tech, except with Europe that's getting more and more rare. What happened to Nokia and Ericsson. NL has ASML, wouldn't it be nice if we had a TSMC competitor in Europe as well? I don't want to keep going on, but I hope my point is clear.
Competition is good, Android shouldn't need to support AirDrop, it should come up with a better alternative and leave iPhone users wondering why Android's solution is faster and works at greater distances. Same with iMessage compatibility.
Instead competition, the EU is wanting forced mediocrity. They are within their rights for sure, but it isn't the best thing to do.
I only wish they did the same thing with electrical outlets and forced the world to use one mediocre standard :)
> it should come up with a better alternative and leave iPhone users wondering why Android's solution is faster and works at greater distances. Same with iMessage compatibility.
Okay, so, why don't we see competition in places where it matters, like Airdrop, iMessage and the App Store?
The answer seems to be pretty simple, to me; Apple considers themselves above competition. It doesn't matter if a superior system exists, they ultimately decide what is righteous and anyone who disagrees buys a different phone. It's a lose/lose situation between consumers and the economy, who neither get superior software solutions nor cheaper products.
We do see competition there, iMessage is superior, so many android apps try to emulate it. thunderbolt was around before USB 4, lightning was before USB-C, the Apple appstore is still a model of better quality/security. You can see google trying to emulate that and requiring devs to id themselves (competition isn't always pleasant). Why would you spend making something better, if it doesn't give your company a competitive edge? If you're forced to help your competition have the same capability, where is the ROI?
> Apple considers themselves above competition
In literally every market apple is in, they have intense competition!?
> they ultimately decide what is righteous and anyone who disagrees buys a different phone
Ugh.. yeah.. shouldn't they be allowed to sell things that they believe will sell well? I mean on one hand people complain about cheap devices engineered with planned obsolescence, and then you complain about what.. better quality? If they believe it is a superior system, then certain, I want that as a consumer. Why don't you? And I also thing being able to buy a different phone is great, that means no monopolies, that's what we all want right?
> neither get superior software solutions nor cheaper products.
I am getting a superior hardware and software for apple. What his happening now is, for no amount of money I could possibly earn can I get a good quality product, I have to settle with EU's forced mediocrity even though I don't live in the EU. People who can't afford apple products have alternatives, but that isn't enough for you, you want everyone to get participation trophies? that's what it sounds like, i could be wrong, it sounds like you don't want to feel envious of people who get superior products? Even though there are many android phones more expensive than iPhones, so it isn't even a question of affordability. it's just forced mediocrity. With no upsides to anyone other than people who feel great about "america bad" "middle finger to apple".
Problem is, what you're describing is not competition. Apple is not exposed to any commercial threat, their products like iMessage, Safari and the App Store are artificially segregated from free-market pressures. Nothing can dethrone them, period. The only way to create a true competitor to these apps is to receive Apple's private entitlements. If you cannot understand that, you won't be able to interpret anyone's antitrust allegations against Apple.
Apple giving equal footing to competitors changes nothing about the products you love. I don't care if you think Apple's brand appeal is diminished by prosecuting their anticompetitive zeal. That's not my problem. You will have to "settle" for it anywhere iPhones are sold, because when you buy an iPhone you don't get to choose things like your charging cable. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a mass wave of iPhone defectors after they ruined the thing with USB-C.
Apple is already dethroned, the only market they're doing well at is the US. And even then Android phones are still the majority, apple just tends to make a lot more money in the US. I can't think of a single product where apple is the leader of the market share, but by all means correct me if I'm wrong.
Whatsapp, Signal, Viber, etc.. they're all threats to iMessage. These apps even make themselves the default SMS handler so that the only thing iMessage is good for is native iMessage messages. It isn't distributed outside of Apple ecosystem either unlike its competition, Apple is doing the opposite of dominating the market there.
How is Safari segregated? Most Mac users (including me) install Firefox or Chrome typically. Are you saying Apple doesn't face competition, or are you saying Apple doesn't compete enough (which I don't see how that's a fault?)
I don't think the appstore is particularly more competitive than android's.
The appstore is the only area where there might be legitimate antitrust allegations. Even then, I'm with apple there because it is in the interest of their consumers. You already have the bland and mediocre android, don't ruin apple for the rest of us. Monopoly is exactly what you're advocating for, monopoly of the mediocre and bland. There is absolutley no service or product apple makes where there aren't enough alternatives, or where apple has created an anti-competitive dependency.
> Apple giving equal footing to competitors changes nothing about the products you love
Yes it does. Give me back my lightning charger. Now I have USB-C where male port is on the phone and the connector is exposed to wear and tear. Apple did it the opposite way, because they make products that last and are durable! with lightning the wear and tear impacts the cable (male) end the most, so it's a matter of replacing cables. with USB-C, the device end needs repair and replacement. Now i'm stuck with your bland mediocre thing. Why am i paying the price for android users' envy?? Same with app store, I don't want b.s. crap android apps, i used android long enough and i hated it, i don't poor quality crap.
Why don't you get that freedom means everyone gets an option, everyone gets to do what they want without harming others. Apple users love apple products. Even when you tell us how android phones have better specs, better hardware, more up to date, we still like apple precisely because of Apple's business practcies that improve the user experience for us. And now you want it to be just like android, why? You have the choice to use android already, why do you need to take away my freedom to use the kind of products apple creates?
I want an extremely closed and gated app store. I want background checks on app developers, forget just ID'ing them. I want it to be a costly endeavor to write iOS apps. I liked lightning, I love iMessage, I recommend it over Signal. I used signal and I have lost a LOT due to it's backup/recovery mess, I've suffered a lot under crappy android apps. airdrop works prefectly, I don't want someone with a buggy/malwared android phone sending airdrops to me, I don't want shoddy android messaging clients sending me imessage messages. Apple is doing what we as its users want. You the majority android users are taking away the choice of the minority apple users.
> because when you buy an iPhone you don't get to choose things like your charging cable. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a mass wave of iPhone defectors after they ruined the thing with USB-C.
Of course not, but you were hoping for a mass defection. Apple still makes superior products and we get that it is crappy EU law making that is forcing this. What would I defect to if I didn't like USB-C? You took away the one choice I had. Every android device uses USB-C. Your entire platform here is taking away people's choices and freedoms.
You're not helping anyone get on an equal footing, because by your own admission, they were unequal before right? All you've done is take away the choice of apple's users. Did android messages gain anything with iMessage compatiblity? Did android phones gain anything by apple using usb-c? Do android phones benefit from apple allowing more app stores? No, the only people that benefit are crappy developers that spread their mediocrity everywhere. No apple competitor is gaining a competitive advantage by these measures.
There have always been third party lightning cable makers, I can't think of any major app that isn't available on the app store. Consumers aren't complaining about this. I'll concede that having to store both lightning and usb-c is annoying, but hey.. don't buy apple and avoid USB-C!!?? You literally don't have to use apple products. If product design was considered freedom of speech (is it?) you'd be coercing speech and banning speech you disagree with because it annoys you.
> Yes it does. Give me back my lightning charger. Now I have USB-C where male port is on the phone and the connector is exposed to wear and tear. Apple
I have one of every Apple device category except the HomePod. But this is a horrible take. I can now use my same USB C cables everywhere.
But more importantly, I can use standard USB C peripherals from network adapters USB C external monitors, standard USB C to HDMI cords, plug a USB C storage device in etc
>Okay, so, why don't we see competition in places where it matters, like Airdrop, iMessage and the App Store?
Honestly, because Apple has always had the major advantage of being one company, whereas and Android market is fragments, with both prod and cons. That Samsung competes decently with Apple because they've created kind of their own ecosystem shows exactly why it is important to regular interoperability and prevent walled garden behaviours.
Otherwise we'll end up with just Apple/Samsung. Or perhaps even just Apple...which I know the cult will argue would be a great thing.
It's the same everywhere; countries with a 2 party political system always experience huge problems because of it.
So what is it? Comanagement between EU representatives and Apple employees? It looks like the German model where unions co-manage the companies.
On the paper it looks great, but the problem is the EU is not necessarily representing its citizens. It’s great for my Apple products, but I’m also paying for an entire lavish class of superior citizen in Brussels who implement laws written by lobbies.
> Comanagement between EU representatives and Apple employees?
Whatever gave you this impression? That’s not what the story is saying at all.
> the EU is not necessarily representing its citizens
It is not supposed to. The EU is a group of states, not citizens. If you want your voice to really count, lobby your national government, which has more say in the councils of ministers or the council of Europe than the MEPs have.
> I’m also paying for an entire lavish class of superior citizen in Brussels who implement laws written by lobbies.
How big is that "entire lavish class"? Just to know how upset I need to be. Also, which law was "written by lobbies"?
Apple undoubtedly added Wi-Fi Aware support to iOS https://developer.apple.com/documentation/WiFiAware, but its not clear whether iOS actually supports AirDrop over Wi-Fi Aware. Apple clearly hasn't completely dropped AWDL for AirDrop, because you can still AirDrop from iOS 26 to earlier devices.
Note that the Ars Technica article never directly makes the claim that Apple supports Airdrop over Wi-Fi Aware. The title is two independent statements - "The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop" - that's true.
> Google doesn’t mention it in either Quick Share post, but if you’re wondering why it’s suddenly possible for Quick Share to work with AirDrop, it can almost certainly be credited to European Union regulations imposed under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Again, they're just theorising. They never directly make the claim. Would love on Hacker News for someone to do some Hacking and actually figure it out for real!