5 ms·

> * How will it make my everyday experience better as an Apple customer without the integration of software and hardware between my Mac, iPads Watch, Airpods an

> * How will it make my everyday experience better as an Apple customer without the integration of software and hardware between my Mac, iPads Watch, Airpods and phone?* "Open Standards" - There is no reason that your Mac or iPhone should only work with other Apple products through closed and proprietary standards. With adoption of open standards, all devices (irrespective of their manufacturer) can offer a decent integrated experience.

scarface_74 3y ago
Yeah and that works out well with Android and Bluetooth.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Yeah, it did. Your point?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    You can seamlessly share standard Bluetooth devices between 5 devices just by pairing it to one like I do with my iPhone, iPad, Watch, MacBook and AppleTV and it automatically switches?
    - tonoto 3y ago
      "seamlessly". I've had trouble between just an Apple-branded mobile phone and their branded all-in-one computer when it comes to the Apple-branded wireless headphones. The ping-pong between active sound channel/device had me disable the "seamless" handover, as it were a subpar experience for me. Better to manually decide which device that actively "owns" the channel.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Yeah. Multipoint connection has been a part of the Bluetooth spec since 4.0. Compatible devices will connect to anything available nearby and negotiate audio to whichever device pressed 'play' last. No iCloud mumbo-jumbo required, it was smoother than the Airpods experience when I was using it.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        And how many “multipoint” devices support an unlimited number of devices? I currently have 2 AppleTVs, a MacBook, iPad, an iPhone and an Apple Watch all paired to my AirPods . What’s the pairing process like? Mine is just - sign into iCloud and my AirPods show up.
        vetinari 3y ago
        I have JBL headphones currently paired with Samsung phone, tablet, Intel NUC running Ubuntu and MacBook Pro running macOS. No problem, no cloud login necessary.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        That’s still less than the 6 devices I have..
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Next you're going to ask how high into the air I can piss?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        No, it’s still a substandard “solution” and not exactly a great argument. I told you the devices I use with my AirPods.
        donkeybeer 3y ago
        And how is he supposed to tell how it will work with your devices? He already said examples of how many devices he has and that it works with, and you did the same for yours. You haven't presented any standard spec and pointed to the part where the spec states the figure that lists the max number of devices. He shared some spec, I am sure you could find some number there.
- happymellon 3y ago
  Isn't that literally the point. Crappy drivers and no hardware documentation?
krick 3y ago
It is a great idea, but with a caveat: communism is a great idea too, and pretty much in the same sense. I can say that about most of the propositions in this thread. I, as a user (and a vim-user, may I add), would like it very much if all the software and hardware in the world would be fully open, customizable, community-maintained. I, as a manufacturer, am less keen on that idea. So, to make it happen, every manufacturer has to be forced to make that happen. So, literally, we are stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom under a promise of a bright happy future. And the realness of that promise is as questionable, as the means necessary to achieve the goal. As I've said, personally, I'm very excited about that promise. But it really is just a promise, and if it can be fulfilled is a very, very big question. Ultimately, nobody really sells hardware or software. Everybody sells user-experience. It is very obvious in Apple's case, but it is always true. It's easy to forget that when you are choosing the cheapest light bulbs on the market, because the user-experience of having electric light in your house has been sold to you so long ago, there are so many basically identical products that the only apparent difference to you is the price. Now you perceive GPUs (or bluetooth, or whatever) as light bulbs. But at some point selling a GPU or a light bulb was quite similar to selling a novel iSomething. The seller had to explain to you, not so much what iSomething is, but how iSomething makes your life better. And if the technology that makes this promise of the user-experience a reality is hardware, software or just exceptional marketing — really is just details. So, as much as I hate that my fitness-watch is basically a spying device and I don't even own the data it produces (and I mean, I really hate that), I don't feel like forcing Garmin to open-source the firmware is the right thing to do. Maybe I would support some more forceful moves to make the generated data my property, but even here the line is blurry. But forcing them (and better think: you, as a manufacturer) to make something other than you wanted to make — …why the fuck should I? Who decides what is that common standard I don't want in my product, but I have to, to be legally allowed to sell that? I think, I just like the idea of personal freedom a bit too much to support that. I'd much prefer Garmin just losing to competition that chooses open firmware, than legally forcing them to produce anything they didn't want to produce.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  If only there were some company that made a watch that stored your health data e2e encrypted and didn’t use it to spy on you…

scarface_74 3y ago

Yeah and that works out well with Android and Bluetooth.

smoldesu 3y ago
Yeah, it did. Your point?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You can seamlessly share standard Bluetooth devices between 5 devices just by pairing it to one like I do with my iPhone, iPad, Watch, MacBook and AppleTV and it automatically switches?
  - tonoto 3y ago
    "seamlessly". I've had trouble between just an Apple-branded mobile phone and their branded all-in-one computer when it comes to the Apple-branded wireless headphones. The ping-pong between active sound channel/device had me disable the "seamless" handover, as it were a subpar experience for me. Better to manually decide which device that actively "owns" the channel.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Yeah. Multipoint connection has been a part of the Bluetooth spec since 4.0. Compatible devices will connect to anything available nearby and negotiate audio to whichever device pressed 'play' last. No iCloud mumbo-jumbo required, it was smoother than the Airpods experience when I was using it.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And how many “multipoint” devices support an unlimited number of devices? I currently have 2 AppleTVs, a MacBook, iPad, an iPhone and an Apple Watch all paired to my AirPods . What’s the pairing process like? Mine is just - sign into iCloud and my AirPods show up.
      - vetinari 3y ago
        I have JBL headphones currently paired with Samsung phone, tablet, Intel NUC running Ubuntu and MacBook Pro running macOS. No problem, no cloud login necessary.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        That’s still less than the 6 devices I have..
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Next you're going to ask how high into the air I can piss?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        No, it’s still a substandard “solution” and not exactly a great argument. I told you the devices I use with my AirPods.
        donkeybeer 3y ago
        And how is he supposed to tell how it will work with your devices? He already said examples of how many devices he has and that it works with, and you did the same for yours. You haven't presented any standard spec and pointed to the part where the spec states the figure that lists the max number of devices. He shared some spec, I am sure you could find some number there.
happymellon 3y ago
Isn't that literally the point. Crappy drivers and no hardware documentation?

krick 3y ago

It is a great idea, but with a caveat: communism is a great idea too, and pretty much in the same sense. I can say that about most of the propositions in this thread. I, as a user (and a vim-user, may I add), would like it very much if all the software and hardware in the world would be fully open, customizable, community-maintained. I, as a manufacturer, am less keen on that idea. So, to make it happen, every manufacturer has to be forced to make that happen. So, literally, we are stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom under a promise of a bright happy future. And the realness of that promise is as questionable, as the means necessary to achieve the goal. As I've said, personally, I'm very excited about that promise. But it really is just a promise, and if it can be fulfilled is a very, very big question. Ultimately, nobody really sells hardware or software. Everybody sells user-experience. It is very obvious in Apple's case, but it is always true. It's easy to forget that when you are choosing the cheapest light bulbs on the market, because the user-experience of having electric light in your house has been sold to you so long ago, there are so many basically identical products that the only apparent difference to you is the price. Now you perceive GPUs (or bluetooth, or whatever) as light bulbs. But at some point selling a GPU or a light bulb was quite similar to selling a novel iSomething. The seller had to explain to you, not so much what iSomething is, but how iSomething makes your life better. And if the technology that makes this promise of the user-experience a reality is hardware, software or just exceptional marketing — really is just details. So, as much as I hate that my fitness-watch is basically a spying device and I don't even own the data it produces (and I mean, I really hate that), I don't feel like forcing Garmin to open-source the firmware is the right thing to do. Maybe I would support some more forceful moves to make the generated data my property, but even here the line is blurry. But forcing them (and better think: you, as a manufacturer) to make something other than you wanted to make — …why the fuck should I? Who decides what is that common standard I don't want in my product, but I have to, to be legally allowed to sell that? I think, I just like the idea of personal freedom a bit too much to support that. I'd much prefer Garmin just losing to competition that chooses open firmware, than legally forcing them to produce anything they didn't want to produce.

scarface_74 3y ago
If only there were some company that made a watch that stored your health data e2e encrypted and didn’t use it to spy on you…