6 ms·

> As a side note why won't apple make it's watch work well with android This is the way Apple works. You don't own enough products so you aren't worthy of full

> As a side note why won't apple make it's watch work well with android This is the way Apple works. You don't own enough products so you aren't worthy of full functionality. Last time I checked you can't update Airpods firmware without another Apple device nor can you change settings on the pro XDR display without a device running macOS.

imoverclocked 4y ago
This is the way a lot of companies work and have historically worked. Why spend a ton of resources supporting every operating system and hardware combination out there for all of your devices when you have a perfectly good way of doing it in house?
- PaulsWallet 4y ago
  > Why spend a ton of resources supporting every operating system and hardware combination... Making it so Android users can update their bluetooth headphones is not supporting every hardware combination. Adding a OSD to your monitor so people don't need OS X specific software to change their monitor settings is not supporting every operating system or hardware combination.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    They aren't just bluetooth headphones, they are airpods, you bought airpods because you are in the iecosystem. Who buys airpods and expects them to work well with anything other than an apple device? You buy them because it'll work well in their ecosystem, really well. I have some cheap earbuds that work decent everywhere, as well as a generic bluetooth speaker, but I generally use my apple earbuds because they work the best with what I have. When you support only your ecosystem you can improve the connectivity that bluetooth alone doesn't allow.
    - Morgawr 4y ago
      > Who buys airpods and expects them to work well with anything other than an apple device? You buy them because it'll work well in their ecosystem, really well. This feels like a hindsight kind of statement. We are conditioned to think that since it's Apple it won't work well with other ecosystems, so "you don't buy apple if you don't have everything apple" which... I mean, it makes sense but it's the reverse logic. I bought my pixelbuds and I can use them on a wide range of bluetooth devices that aren't Google-specific, and they work as you'd expect them to. It's fine if Apple wants to have Apple-specific features if you use them with Apple devices, just like Google pixelbuds have specific integration with google home app and similar google-specific devices, but at least the core bluetooth functionality (+ settings) should be provided to be able to work on any device. Disclaimer: I've never used airpods so I have no idea how they work, just commenting on the logic of the original statement alone.
      - imoverclocked 4y ago
        > I have no idea how they work There is definitely some proprietary “glue” in there. One nice thing about them is that you pair them to one device and then all of your other iCloud devices can see them. I would not expect that kind of feature to work elsewhere for obvious reasons. I could be wrong? They also support spatial audio which is now supported with Android. There are definitely features of the AirPods which are new or were new when they were released. It’s up to Apple to support those features on their own hardware/OS. It’s up to others to add support to their own operating systems if they deem it worthwhile. Similar goes for other hardware. Yes, the hardware works differently than so many generic components out in the world but that’s kind of the point.
        chesc 4y ago
        I have airpods and an android phone. They work well now (I really am not interested in spatial audio). They did however work pretty badly until I connected them to an iphone to allow the firmware to update. I dislike the ecosystem argument. They are just Bluetooth earphones... Quite expensive ones at that.
      - 4y ago
- Teever 4y ago
  What I'm hearing from you is that we need to regulate companies to mandate interoperability. Could you imagine a world where telephones couldn't make calls to each other or cars needed special gasoline that was only available from gas station chains that licensed it from your car maker? What a terrible world that would be. Why do we accept similar things with computers?
  - projektfu 4y ago
    Although, Tesla continues to equip a proprietary charging port and an adapter is required to use CCS1. Futuristic companies seem to hate standards.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Luckly EU put a boot to the neck of that dumbass idea and EU Teslas have CCS2 port. I wonder if mandatory opening of interoperability protocols for popular products would improve health of electronics markets.
    - imoverclocked 4y ago
      > Futuristic companies seem to hate standards. A standard is just something that gets adopted by a bunch of people. There are competing standards for all kinds of things… the market generally decides what standards win. Any company doing something new is by definition attempting to set a new standard.
      - projektfu 4y ago
        There was a time when standards would be developed voluntarily by the major players for the parts that are tangential to their innovation. Apple's success with the iPhone isn't because they use a connector that is prone to shorting and susceptible to lint. Tesla's success in electric cars isn't because they didn't help develop a standard connector. However maybe they plan to pivot to overpriced electricity at their proprietary stations if they lose their competitive advantages, who knows? When innovation was occurring in integrated circuits the companies standardized on the 0.1" DIP. Then as needs for smaller packages came they worked together on TSSOP and others. Obviously the innovation isn't a matter of packaging.
lloeki 4y ago
> nor can you change settings on the pro XDR display without a device running macOS. You can't even natively change brightness nor volume on non-Apple displays, even though DDC/CI is a thing and third party apps can do just that. The Mac Mini M1 HDMI port is even crippled at the hardware level and DDC/CI flat out doesn't work there (works fine via USB-C which uses DP). The usual public rationale from Apple is that a perfect experience can only be achieved within a fully owned ecosystem. I don't quite buy that the core strategic intent is intentionally using this to push people into owning only/buying more of Apple stuff, I bet it's more about not having to handle dev, fixes, workarounds, and a storm of support cases for third party hardware that may be of less than stellar quality, and then Apple being blamed for things not working. IOW brand image control + dev resources, not a sales ploy.

imoverclocked 4y ago

This is the way a lot of companies work and have historically worked. Why spend a ton of resources supporting every operating system and hardware combination out there for all of your devices when you have a perfectly good way of doing it in house?

PaulsWallet 4y ago
> Why spend a ton of resources supporting every operating system and hardware combination... Making it so Android users can update their bluetooth headphones is not supporting every hardware combination. Adding a OSD to your monitor so people don't need OS X specific software to change their monitor settings is not supporting every operating system or hardware combination.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  They aren't just bluetooth headphones, they are airpods, you bought airpods because you are in the iecosystem. Who buys airpods and expects them to work well with anything other than an apple device? You buy them because it'll work well in their ecosystem, really well. I have some cheap earbuds that work decent everywhere, as well as a generic bluetooth speaker, but I generally use my apple earbuds because they work the best with what I have. When you support only your ecosystem you can improve the connectivity that bluetooth alone doesn't allow.
  - Morgawr 4y ago
    > Who buys airpods and expects them to work well with anything other than an apple device? You buy them because it'll work well in their ecosystem, really well. This feels like a hindsight kind of statement. We are conditioned to think that since it's Apple it won't work well with other ecosystems, so "you don't buy apple if you don't have everything apple" which... I mean, it makes sense but it's the reverse logic. I bought my pixelbuds and I can use them on a wide range of bluetooth devices that aren't Google-specific, and they work as you'd expect them to. It's fine if Apple wants to have Apple-specific features if you use them with Apple devices, just like Google pixelbuds have specific integration with google home app and similar google-specific devices, but at least the core bluetooth functionality (+ settings) should be provided to be able to work on any device. Disclaimer: I've never used airpods so I have no idea how they work, just commenting on the logic of the original statement alone.
    - imoverclocked 4y ago
      > I have no idea how they work There is definitely some proprietary “glue” in there. One nice thing about them is that you pair them to one device and then all of your other iCloud devices can see them. I would not expect that kind of feature to work elsewhere for obvious reasons. I could be wrong? They also support spatial audio which is now supported with Android. There are definitely features of the AirPods which are new or were new when they were released. It’s up to Apple to support those features on their own hardware/OS. It’s up to others to add support to their own operating systems if they deem it worthwhile. Similar goes for other hardware. Yes, the hardware works differently than so many generic components out in the world but that’s kind of the point.
      - chesc 4y ago
        I have airpods and an android phone. They work well now (I really am not interested in spatial audio). They did however work pretty badly until I connected them to an iphone to allow the firmware to update. I dislike the ecosystem argument. They are just Bluetooth earphones... Quite expensive ones at that.
    - 4y ago
Teever 4y ago
What I'm hearing from you is that we need to regulate companies to mandate interoperability. Could you imagine a world where telephones couldn't make calls to each other or cars needed special gasoline that was only available from gas station chains that licensed it from your car maker? What a terrible world that would be. Why do we accept similar things with computers?
- projektfu 4y ago
  Although, Tesla continues to equip a proprietary charging port and an adapter is required to use CCS1. Futuristic companies seem to hate standards.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Luckly EU put a boot to the neck of that dumbass idea and EU Teslas have CCS2 port. I wonder if mandatory opening of interoperability protocols for popular products would improve health of electronics markets.
  - imoverclocked 4y ago
    > Futuristic companies seem to hate standards. A standard is just something that gets adopted by a bunch of people. There are competing standards for all kinds of things… the market generally decides what standards win. Any company doing something new is by definition attempting to set a new standard.
    - projektfu 4y ago
      There was a time when standards would be developed voluntarily by the major players for the parts that are tangential to their innovation. Apple's success with the iPhone isn't because they use a connector that is prone to shorting and susceptible to lint. Tesla's success in electric cars isn't because they didn't help develop a standard connector. However maybe they plan to pivot to overpriced electricity at their proprietary stations if they lose their competitive advantages, who knows? When innovation was occurring in integrated circuits the companies standardized on the 0.1" DIP. Then as needs for smaller packages came they worked together on TSSOP and others. Obviously the innovation isn't a matter of packaging.

lloeki 4y ago

> nor can you change settings on the pro XDR display without a device running macOS. You can't even natively change brightness nor volume on non-Apple displays, even though DDC/CI is a thing and third party apps can do just that. The Mac Mini M1 HDMI port is even crippled at the hardware level and DDC/CI flat out doesn't work there (works fine via USB-C which uses DP). The usual public rationale from Apple is that a perfect experience can only be achieved within a fully owned ecosystem. I don't quite buy that the core strategic intent is intentionally using this to push people into owning only/buying more of Apple stuff, I bet it's more about not having to handle dev, fixes, workarounds, and a storm of support cases for third party hardware that may be of less than stellar quality, and then Apple being blamed for things not working. IOW brand image control + dev resources, not a sales ploy.