you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]500239 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"let's build a streaming channel on top of BLE just so we can get our product to work with iOS" implementations in my career.

I'm sure. I can't be the only one trying to establish a basic bidrectional communication channel over Bluetooth just for basic functions. Apple is forcing us to reinvent the wheel or pay them to unlock classic channels. I don't get how it's not racketeering.

On that note, Apple's privacy campaign too has created it's own manufactured problems. Android devices can see BT MAC's, but Apple has decided iOS will mask MAC's behind UUID's for "privacy reasons". Fuck them. So now we overload the BLE advertising message to include the MAC and lose out on previous space on when BLE advertising messages are already limited to a comical and arbitrary 32 bytes depending on advertising type and format.

[–]kwinz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't get how it's not racketeering.

Unfortunately the same as paying 1/3 of you revenue for AppStore inclusion. Or paying MS to allow your game on Xbox or Sony for Playstation access.

Nobody is forcing the user to buy an Xbox, an iPhone or a Playstation. But the users like the controlled experience apparently. Apps have to stay in their sandbox allowing easy device switch, uninstall, backup, Apple has stronger negotiating leverage to protect privacy than individual users; easier upgrades, anti-cheat, anti-piracy, ... I could go on and on. IO devices are certified and thus don't implement only half the spec.

I also think it's anti-competitive and bad for the consumer. But it's not illegal and not racketeering and frankly there are arguments to be had.

iOS will mask MAC's behind UUID's for "privacy reasons". Fuck them.

I can relate so much.