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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apparently 8 with some gotchas? But in principle this should not be gated to a hardware, what is stopping one from making a bluetooth device that muxes all the signals and sends it to the audio device? Is there any reason thats not happening other than greed of the headphone makers to try to upsell "higher models"?
I don't even get the point of these hardcore Apple defenders tbh man. You are not Apple, and you only gain to benefit from if supposedly they have good hardware and software, it also becomes more open for you or others to find better uses for it. You only gain not lose from that. Here on an HN linked article I was reading how Asahi managed to find and fix some audio bug in a macbook model. When multiple people are working on drivers often the foss can end up being superior to the drivers made by the manufacturer.
This website is not a serious place. Intelligent people are not attracted to a platform calling itself "Hacker News" - roleplayers and onlookers get sucked in instead. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs get tricked into thinking that this is problem-solving. DogTV™ gets funded and busts out, destitute shareholders and makers go looking for the next big thing. The cycle continues.
With some people, I have no idea where they fall on the spectrum of self-serious argumentation. I usually don't even care; pretty much all feedback is valuable on a forum like this. When people preclude good-faith discussion around Apple hardware with weaksauce rhetoric though, it's pretty obvious that they're putting their emotions first. I'll field any discussion around Apple and their altruism, but I won't accept petty greed or speculation as a defense. They're an opaque company that deserves the scrutiny they recieve, regardless of the unofficial rationale people roll out.
This problem isn't specific to Apple hardware, or really the tech industry as a whole. Every field has it's pundits; you can usually identify them when they use weak rhetoric and avoid directly addressing your argument. It's still especially bad with Apple technology though, since so little of it is documented well enough to definitively refute any claim. You can't corroborate behavior on your iPhone with source code, or visit the iCloud datacenters to ensure everything is being handled with white gloves. People who know the platform well usually know that there is no definitive answer, and inflammatory riff-raff discussions float to the top.
What do you gain from it remaining closed? Why are you so defensive about the idea of Apple being forced to open it up? Are you an Apple employee or do you have Apple stocks or is there any other reason? You lose literally nothing and gain lots from them being opened up. I don't care about any "trouble" Apple has with it because I am not Apple. I am a person who thinks of his needs first, just as Apple is an entity that thinks of their needs first. They don't need your help for that. Just like Apple my needs come first, and my needs definitely think its more enjoyable to see Apple (and other hardware makers) opened up because it benefits me. I always advocate for and practice things that benefit me, I don't care if it benefits Apple, if it does, good for them, if it doesn't its not my problem either. And Apple thinks the same of you and me and all is customers.
Even if we ignore the fact that other manufacturers have it too, you won't lose this Apple product should Apple be forced to open it up. Its very telling you simply refused to answer that point blank question completely and tried to change the topic. I am asking you again, even more point blank: what exactly do you lose if Apple is forced to open up this product and release its driver sources, etc? How does it change anything at all with how the device is already working for you? Why are you unable to give a straight answer to such an extremely simple question?
You get that with or without Apple technology. There's not a single 'gotcha' you've named yet.
Furthermore, Apple's integrated solution quite literally depends on the Open standard of Bluetooth to operate. Whether or not you consider it a bad thing, quite obviously the integration and open solution both work fine alongside one another.
Yes and the phone also depends on standards when it comes to electricity. The fact is that Apple’s work on top of the standard provide a more robust more user friendly implementation.
Please answer the sibling question above, what is the difficulty in answering such a simple, clearly stated question? Why are you refusing to answer that and trying to change the topic each time?
Which question is that? Apple implemented things on top of the standard to make Apple headphones work better than standard BT devices with their own hardware. But they still implement the standards.
This shows the power of an integrated solution. Apple released a better way to pair Bluetooth headphones with their devices and at the same time got the better method implemented across their computers, phones, tablets, watches and set top boxes.
That’s something you couldn’t do with an open standard as quickly.
I pair my headphones to one device that I’m signed into and they automatically get recognized by all my devices.
> That’s something you couldn’t do with an open standard as quickly.
We have been saying this for days, across 30 fucking comments in this godforsaken chain, but you do not listen. Let me spell it out. If you ignore me this time, I won't bother responding.
You could do this with an Open Standard, just as quickly. This technology relies on Bluetooth MAC addresses and iCloud file sync, not fairy dust.*
Since you seem to have trouble with even simple English, I will ask again. What do you lose from Apple being forced to make the drivers etc open and devices compatible with other devices? I don't care if it causes apple more or less work, I care how it affects me. Why are you not answering if you think you have anything at all to lose from Apple being made to open stuff up?
I see you refused to answer this question. You are busy in other threads after this. Says a lot you repeatedly refuse to answer an extremely simple question stated multiple times, in many different ways.
Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
Again, why do I care why it happens. Your “open” standards leads to a shittier experience.
> Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose
It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people” considering how PACs work or that you think they are “democratically” elected considering how gerrymandered most districts are.
Then you got to consider how each state has an equal number of senators regardless of population.
> Again, why do I care why it happens. Your “open” standards leads to a shittier experience.
Again, why do you? Apple's products have worked just fine implimenting open standards (eg. HTML, TLS, AES, RSA, etc.). You could easily argue that the iPhone wouldn't be popular without open standards like Bluetooth and the Internet.
> It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people”
Does the unregulated market represent it any better? I'd rather let gerrymandered electors regulate the market than allow the market to regulate itself.
Apple products work fine working on top of those standards and adding its own features where it can make sure those features work consistently because it is an integrated environment.
Well, if I have a choice between a corporation - which I can choose not to support and a government with guns and the ability to take away my rights by force having power, I’ll choose private corporations every time.
> Well, if I have a choice between a corporation [...] I’ll choose private corporations every time.
To have a choice in the first place, you can't participate in a regulated market. Right now, you're complaining that your favorite player can't "win" a game of Blackjack by overruling the dealer. I don't know what to tell you; those are the rules of the game. Apple can go play their Calvinball economy in some other developing market, and so can you.
Its not open enough. If it was open enough I could feed it any signal I want into the audio interface, including from any bluetooth device to MUX them how I want.
