A lot of the replacements are just a "services.grafana.enable = true;" or similar away. Of course, won't have fancy GUIs like in TrueNAS, but honestly, being able to keep it as source code feels better long-term. Otherwise it's all just configuration, like background scrubbing, backups and all that. The biggest reason I initially went with TrueNAS was because it used ZFS and could easily run services I wanna host at home, and NixOS ended up much better at both of those things, but definitively has less hand-holding.
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.
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
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.
Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that. Me too.
Big tech is literally a machine putting a ceiling on your ability to build.
They tax and control everything, lock down distribution, prevent you from operating without rules.
If you get big enough, they self-fund an internal team to compete with you. Or they offer to buy you for less than you're worth. If you don't accept, they buy your competitor.
Capitalism should be brutal. Giant lions that can't compete should starve and give way to nimble new competition.
You shouldn't be able to use your 100+ business units to subsidize the takeover of an entirely unrelated market.
They are an invasive species and are growing into everything they can without antitrust hedge trimming. Instead of lean, starving lions, they're lion fish infesting the Gulf of Mexico. They're feasting upon the entire ecosystem and putting pressure on healthy competition.
Your own capital rewards are cut short because of their scale.
Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute them to customers? It's okay to pay their fee, jump through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to use their payment and user rails, forced to update on their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence and not yours?
Do you like having competitors able to pay money to put themselves in front of customers searching for your brand name? On the web and in the app stores? So you have to pay to even enjoy the name recognition you earned? On top of the 30% gross sales tax you already pay? And those draconian rules?
That's fucking bullshit.
We need more competition, not less.
Winning should not be reaching scale and squatting forever. You should be forced to run on the treadmill constantly until someone nibbles away at your market. That's healthy.
Competition from smaller players should be brutal and unending.
That is how we build robust, anti-fragile markets that maximally benefit consumers. That is how we ensure capital rewards accrue to the active innovators.
Apple and Google are lion fish. It's time for the DOJ, FTC, and every sovereign nation to cull them back so that the ecosystem can thrive once more.
Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute them to customers? It's okay to pay their fee, jump through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to use their payment and user rails, forced to update on their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence and not yours?
Most of this isn’t even true. It’s 15% for most app sellers, you don’t have to use their user auth, you can maintain a direct customer relationship just fine, you’re not locked onto a release train, you only have to update when things change if you want your app to work (like literally any platform).
> They tax and control everything, lock down distribution, prevent you from operating without rules.
You seem to be arguing that the EU should be doing that though. What about those of us who quite like the way Apple does things right now? I'm happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points, I quite like someone to be acting as a firewall between my device and the unfettered soup that is stuff out on the internet.
Apple's product is a well curated walled garden. I certainly understand why there are a lot of people on HN who don't like that - they see 30% that they can't claim. But one of the reasons Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.
>> Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.
I disagree, may be they were at some time. Now they are successful because the walls of the well are so high. It is insanely difficult for us frogs to jump. Happy that governments are trying to bring those walls down
>> I am happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points.
Good for you because you trust them. Problem is I am not. I dont trust apple/google to make that decision for me. But they dont give that choice. They are making you sacrificing freedom, choice by masking them self as secure. But underlying motive is profits and control.
I heard a story that apple asked meta for comission on ads , when meta rejected they introduced features to remove access to usage metrics to 3rd party apps. If meta agreed , you might never see the privacy features app introduced.
The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
> The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
And the plan to make this the consensus view is to ban Apple-style curated app stores. That seems to be cheating. When Apple convinced me their App store model was better than the alternative they had to use, y'know, persuasion.
Nokia sorta died, but at the time back in the 2000s Apple had to get through the entire phone industry to establish the iPhone. If the Europeans had any idea how to manage this sort of ecosystem they'd still be running the show. They had an amazing market position to begin with. They flubbed it because no-one in the entire continent seems to know how to run an app store! Now they're legislating their bad ideas in. It is a very European approach to commercial innovation and success.
yes I agree, but we need to change with the age. in early 2000's it is hard to distribute apps/software, and 30% commission made sense.
now it is not, there are several people/companies who can make the app distribution better, efficient for all consumers. they can bring it down to a fraction (apple itself has by now bought it to a fraction of what it costs in 2000).only reason they are not passed down to consumer is because they made sure there is no competition (by force(google paying samsung to not develop its app store) or by design (Apple limiting 3rd party installs and discouraging webapps) - basically how a monopoly/duopoly behaves). it is bad for us consumers
if apple has developed all the tools libraries itself from scratch , put hardwork and sweat into it, i wont have a issue. we all know thats not the case and how much opensource tools helped.
> Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that. Me too.
Nothing in GP's comment gave any indication that they were a "hyper capitalist". You're just being emotionally manipulative, disingenuous, and acting in bad faith. This is categorically inappropriate for HN.
Hmm well I certainly inferred the same from their comment: it casts “big tech” as the victim of the government, because the latter forced as “overpriced and shitty solution”
It’s possible they’re not a capitalist and just extremely sympathetic to Apple and/or Google specifically, but that seems more of a stretch than what that commenter (to whom you’re replying) has inferred IMO
Your assumption is equally incorrect, because the poster factually did not say anything like that. You can be upset at the EU for making performative regulation without addressing "real issues" or writing the regulation well, and yet still support strong regulation. The implication that criticizing the EU is equivalent to being a "hyper-capitalist" is such an insane belief that it borders on being farcical.
Assumptions like this are what lead to political polarization. Don't do it. Read what the poster wrote, don't try to read their mind, and use your brain responding.
Reading my previous comment, anyone with decent reading comprehension can tell that I'm describing a possible interpretation. I'm clearly not assigning it as fact, as echelon is.
I can also explain exactly why echelon's interpretation is unfounded, yet you cannot make any coherent argument and are forced to resort to allusions and baseless accusations stemming from a failure to read what I wrote. Although, that's consistent with a failure to read what ralph84 wrote, too.
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.
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.
As far as I can understand from the documentation, that doesn't actually specify in that config that one of them is required, does it? That is, if they _all_ fail to install as far as the system is concerned there's nothing wrong? There will be runtime errors of course, but that's sort of disappointing…
Do keep in mind that the binaries are still binaries. Even if your installation process doesn't run any untrusted code from the package, you can't audit the binaries like you might the .js files prior to first run.
I'm struggling to understand why Trusted Publishers is any better.
Let's say you have a limited life, package specific scoped, IP CIDR bound publishing key, running on a private GH workflow runner. That key only exists in a trusted clouds secret store (e.g. no one will have access it from their laptop).
Now let's say you're a "trusted" publisher, running on a specific GitHub workflow, and GitHub Org, that has been configured with OIDC on the NPM side. By virtue of simply existing in that workflow, you're now a NPM publisher (run any publish commands you like). No need to have a secret passed into your workflow scope.
If someone is taking over GitHub CI/CD workflows by running `npm i` at the start of their workflow, how does the "Trusted Publisher" find themselves any more secure than the secure, very limited scope token?
As someone who knows slightly more than the basics, and enough to know about the advanced stuff that I don't know about, this is the correct place to stop.
I would much rather restructure my javascript than do typescript gymnastics to fit it into the type system.
This is exactly what happens when you invest billions and hire the best industry specialists for decades. M-series processors did not magically appear out of nowhere. Apple perfected them for years in iPhones, but people didn't have the ability to compare since Apple doesn't share their processors with anyone.
reply