4 ms·
I mean, sounds great to me. These devices are integral to our daily lives and so complete vendor lock-in and self preference shouldn't be a thing anymore. One
by thewebguyd 1y ago
I mean, sounds great to me. These devices are integral to our daily lives and so complete vendor lock-in and self preference shouldn't be a thing anymore.
One should be able to "mix and match ecosystems" so to speak and expect that any accessory will work to the same level, with the same features as a first party one.
Why shouldn't third parties be able to integrate using AWDL to enable bluetooth earbud device switching and AirDrop across operating systems, for example. Why shouldn't a WearOS watch be able to have the same notification handling and messaging capabilities as an Apple Watch on iOS? Let my windows PC have a shared clipboard with my iPhone just like my mac can, etc.
- cosmic_cheese 1y agoWouldn't that bog development down to a crawl, since any new capability now has to have an entire public standard built around it?
- thewebguyd 1y agoWell, a public standard would be great but not necessary. In the Apple example they just need to document AWDL and let people use those APIs instead of keeping them private. The protocol and APIs already exist they are just gate kept by Apple.
- arlcode 1y agoThe law would probably even allow them certify the vendor, for a reasonable fee, and verify their identity. All they need to do is implement it in a way that still allows competitors to do their thing. Wha