You're responding in a sub-thread where others have specifically called out the fact that you can't get battery status from AirPods on non-Apple platforms. This is, to my knowledge, a feature that is supported natively by the Bluetooth stacks on every mainstream OS and requires no "apps" at all. For example, I can connect my Bluetooth mouse to my Linux machine and it happily reports the state of the battery.
Care to offer a justification for why this is the case without resorting to "the multi-trillion-dollar behemoth can't be bothered to build an app"?
The multi battery levels thing is native proprietary on every platform since there is no Bluetooth spec for more than one battery level and even that just uses uint8.
As I posted elsewhere in the thread, this is incorrect. The Bluetooth Battery Service spec allows for a single device with multiple batteries and individual battery reporting for each. [0] They even give the example in that doc of earbuds which are one “logical device” but two physically separate pieces, each with its own battery.
As additional evidence, there are "AirPods-like" earbuds on the market such as the Sony WF-C700N, which have no problem reporting three battery levels over standard Bluetooth on e.g. Linux.
The Bluetooth Battery Service spec allows for a single device with multiple batteries
As of version 1.1 of the battery service which was finalized at the end of 2022. Given Bluetooth's track record, who knows what kind of interoperability landmines exist.
If you don't like the Apple device, use something else. It's not like a messaging platform where you'd need compatibility with other peoples' phones.
If you'd bothered to dig into the spec, v1.0 basically says do what you want. v1.1 defines a proper namespace and well known descriptions for multiple batteries. Apple did well to avoid the interoperability minefield.
> If you don't like the Apple device, use something else. It's not like a messaging platform where you'd need compatibility with other peoples' phones.
I own and use lots of devices, for both work and personal tasks, including Apple and non-Apple devices. I own a pair of AirPods. I'd like them to work well across all the platforms that I use. There is nothing technically preventing Apple from achieving this, aside from Apple's arguably illegal tying behavior.
> If you'd bothered to dig into the spec, v1.0 basically says do what you want. v1.1 defines a proper namespace and well known descriptions for multiple batteries. Apple did well to avoid the interoperability minefield.
I have read the spec; please don't accuse me of not reading it. Have you written Bluetooth device firmware before? In case you haven't, at a high level:
* The BT device exposes a "profile," which defines one or more "services", which are essentially different types of data that can be read from or written to the device.
* Multiple instances of the same type of service (the Battery Service in this case) can be exposed in the profile. I don't know if this ability was always present in the spec or was added after the fact, but it was, at minimum, present in 2011 when the BAS 1.0 spec was released.
* So, if your device has more than one battery, its profile will have an instance of the Battery Service defined for each one.
I will grant that the 1.1 spec document is a lot clearer and provides lots of diagrammed examples, but the only net new functionality in 1.1 are a set of new battery-related fields (these are called out near the beginning).
When a device has more than one instance of the Battery service, each Battery
Level characteristic shall include a Characteristic Presentation Format
descriptor that has a namespace/description value that is unique for that
instance of the Battery service.
1.1 says:
When a device has more than one instance of the Battery Service, each Battery
Level characteristic shall include a Characteristic Presentation Format descriptor
(Volume 3, Part G, Section 3.3.3.5 in [1]) that has the Name Space field set to
”Bluetooth SIG” and the Description field set to a valid value from the GATT
Namespace Descriptors [4] and that is unique among all instances of the Battery
Service exposed by the GATT Server.
1.0 was a mess and your anger over a poorly defined and relatively minor feature seems quite misplaced. Bluetooth interoperability has historically been a mess (still is from my experience). But go ahead be big mad that Airpods only play audio from third party devices and don't provide battery status in a way that adheres to a recent revision of the standard. Meanwhile I'm sure Sony would never use a proprietary format ever…
I had posted a reply addressing your points, but I don't think this discussion is productive and you don't seem to want to engage honestly with what I'm saying and stay on topic. So I'll just say have a good day.
So they refuse to report anything useful rather than make use of the single battery level. Amazingly every other brand of Bluetooth earbuds manage to report a useful battery level despite them having a separate battery in each side.
The Bluetooth spec only supports one battery status. AirPods have three batteries. Is 1 < 3 a satisfactory enough answer to you?
On the subject of the multi-trillion-dollar behemoth, Apple is a private company. If you have the capital, you can acquire a controlling interest and then they’ll work on whatever you like. Until then, you’re out of luck.
> The Bluetooth spec only supports one battery status. AirPods have three batteries. Is 1 < 3 a satisfactory enough answer to you?
No, it's not. The Bluetooth Battery Service spec allows for a single device with multiple batteries and individual battery reporting for each. [0] They even give the example in that doc of earbuds which are one “logical device” but two physically separate pieces, each with its own battery.
> On the subject of the multi-trillion-dollar behemoth, Apple is a private company.
Apple is, by definition, a public company.
> If you have the capital, you can acquire a controlling interest and then they’ll work on whatever you like. Until then, you’re out of luck.
No. Anticompetitive behavior such as tying (what I would argue is happening here) can and should always be subject to examination, criticism, and possible litigation by the public.
Always this sad argument that X is a private company and they can do what they like.
Companies are not acts of God or nature. They are a private company operating on a society that allows it to exist because it is believed to be the for the public good. The public has very much the right to question it's practices, and if they are anti consumer, monopolistic, or a list of other things, to correct them. Shareholders be damned.
So what's your argument then? Companies can't release a product unless each and every feature works with their competitors products? By that logic most of the software and hardware you use today simply would not exist.
Like a lot of parts of the (especially earlier revisions of) Bluetooth spec the battery status took a slapdash approach to defining things. Look at anyone who's used Bluetooth on Windows to see what a nightmare interoperability still is. So Apple released ear buds that implement poorly defined parts of the spec but otherwise work with third party bluetooth devices, and that's bad?
Yikes.
Meanwhile, the Bluetooth SIG released an update at the end of 2022 that actually starts to require some sort of standardization. You know who's name was on that little update? Big bad awful anticompetitive Apple.
Yeah, there are two batteries, the one in the earbuds and the one in the container. There's no way in BLE to transmit both values - and choosing either one is lying to the user about something.
It's not uncommon (at least for me) to have a low earbud battery level (because I've just binged Slow Horses) or a low container battery (because I've just charged the earbuds from the container for the third time and drained the container). There's a suggestion above that you should "just choose the lowest one because 99% of the time that's what you're interested in", except that's not true in the second case.
I'm fairly sure that if you could report both, then Apple would report both using this hypothetical standard method, but since you can't, and there's no easy way to just "choose one" without misleading the user about something, they choose to do it properly, even though that means it's an Apple-only thing.
See my other replies in this thread — it’s totally possible to do with standard Bluetooth, yet Apple doesn’t do it. So your “fairly sure” assumption that Apple would make use of this feature if it existed seems to be wrong.
The memory is not on-die, it’s separate (completely standard) memory chips, either DDR4 or DDR5 depending on which M-series CPU you’re looking at. So binning doesn’t really apply.
Seems like there's a misunderstanding on my part here. <reads more>
Ah, the memory is integrated in the same package (the "chip" that gets soldered onto the motherboard) as the integrated CPU/GPU, and I had understood that correctly. However, I had incorrectly surmised that it was built into the same silicon die.
Thanks for the correction!
Lesson: TIL about the difference between System-In-a-Package (SIP) and System-On-a-Chip, and how I had misunderstood the Apple Silicon M series processors to be SoCs when they're SiPs.
No worries! It’s made more difficult to understand by 1) Apple’s marketing, which does a great job of tricking people into thinking that the memory is actually integrated into the die without actually saying so, and 2) the fast-and-loose use of the SoC and SiP terms, which are often used interchangeably, including by Apple in official marketing materials [1].
Well, it's a wealth distribution from adults in a community to kids in the community, but a very good one that almost always benefits the whole community.
I do get what you're saying, but at the risk of being overly pedantic, this doesn't really make sense as written.
Usually "wealth redistribution" implies actual money or other liquid or semi-liquid assets being transferred from one group to another, and the kids in the community aren't receiving any of the money being put into school taxes.
I suppose one could argue that school taxes are wealth redistribution from the community to the _teachers and staff_. As someone who counts quite a few teachers among my friends and family, I wholeheartedly support this redistribution of wealth.
Okay, but you haven't answered the question either.
Do you not think I'm not aware that Apple is bending the knee? I'm pretty confident JumpCrissCross knows that too.
The question isn't about what's underneath the mask. The question is about what the mask is. What they're pretending the actual reason is. No one here is asking for the real reason because we're already aware. We're indicating it in the comments too. So by trying to tell us what's beneath the mask you're just creating more noise and making it harder to identify the mask
Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for:
> In an email to ICEBlock creator Joshua Aaron, Apple wrote that “upon re-evaluation,” the app does not comply with its app store guidelines around “objectionable” and “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content,” according to a copy of the message viewed by CNN.
> Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for
The reason I made the first comment was not because I was unable to find the answer myself but because I wanted to push back against this type of commenting. To respond to what people are actually asking. Pressure to help push the culture of our community to be more productive.
It seems to me that the best way to "help push the culture of our community to be more productive" is to be more productive yourself, instead of engaging in meta-discussion about the community not being productive enough for your tastes. In other words, you could have just actually posted the answer to the question instead of scolding two other commenters for not doing so.
Please show where these apps have been used to commit targeted violence.
Your second paragraph reads to me like you’re equating the desire to protest and document the atrocities being committed by government agents to physical threats and violence being committed by unhinged private citizens against minority groups. This is a disingenuous argument.
You do not understand. I am equating the desire of unhinged private citizens to commit violence to the desire of other unhinged private citizens to commit violence. Reasonable people aren't the problem.
"An app that gives you real-time updates on the location of people you deeply dislike" is
It's extremely unlikely that there are not more people out there
The point is that If you're in Apple's position it doesn't especially matter who is being targeted and how many people are actually using the app that way. If they don't want to be in the anonymous people-reporting app game on the basis that it may make people unsafe vis a vis said unhinged private citizens, that's not unreasonable or inconsistent, and it doesn't necessarily take an extraordinary government threat to the business for Apple to want to distance themselves from that kind of app.
However, you said: "If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, ..."
Was this a pure hypothetical? If so, I don't think it needs to be addressed until it actually becomes a real problem. Apple itself ships an app that alerts me when a police officer is nearby (Maps), but I haven't heard about any police being targeted with violence because of that.
If it was not a pure hypothetical, I'd be interested to see a link, as I'm not aware of any violence committed due to the existence of ICE-tracking apps. To my previous point though, I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets with kidnapping and trafficking.
It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
While it might better satisfy our sense of justice to wait until we can definitely say that a enabled b, the hazard is obvious, and Apple can reasonably determine that they don't want to be party to it.
> I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets ..
Of course. Does Apple host apps whose primary purpose is reporting the location of those groups?
> It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
Cool, then I stand by what I said previously: it doesn't need to (and actually shouldn't) be addressed now. The app has value for journalists, protesters, people looking to prevent family or friends from being kidnapped, and others. All of those benefits outweigh purely hypothetical concerns around possible violence.
If you can buy individual stocks, then you absolutely do have access to the Dow in the form of a myriad of ETFs [1][2][3]. There are also numerous standard mutual funds which consist of all the companies in the DJIA. This is what I thought you were referring to when you said you'd invest in the Dow, hence my comment.
Care to offer a justification for why this is the case without resorting to "the multi-trillion-dollar behemoth can't be bothered to build an app"?
reply