Its the same with Magsafe - only worked on Apple-sanctioned devices, but now we have Qi2 which is the same. In this case, Apple provided Magsafe to be part of Qi2: I wonder if they have provided know-how from FindMy to the BlueTooth consortium too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bluetooth 6 Launches, Could Enhance iPhone's Precision Finding Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its the same with Magsafe - only worked on Apple-sanctioned devices, but now we have Qi2 which is the same. In this case, Apple provided Magsafe to be part of Qi2: I wonder if they have provided know-how from FindMy to the BlueTooth consortium too.
So what? There’s no point in hindering development because just previous developments haven’t been widely adopted. Manufacturers are going to choose the cheapest option that provides the required functions.
The current version of Find My that only works with the latest devices, only works on newer Apple-sanctioned devices because the solution that they developed and spent money on requires a special chip that can handle UWB transmissions. This works on most newer iPhones (e.g. my iPhone 13 and iPad 11 Pro 3rd gen). As for older devices, they can't go into your house and upgrade your older physical device like a tech Santa.
I've tried other third-party solutions and didn't find a comparable solution that was as accurate (e.g. The other day, it directed me to the exact spot in the specific couch cushion where my keys are lodged...), battery efficient, and widespread. If you've got beef, take it up with other manufacturers and the Bluetooth consortium for moving so slow.
Last edited:
I'm for regulating Apple to allow more marketplaces and to use USB C, but this argument doesn't make any sense. Apple is years ahead of the competition on this and the Bluetooth consortium only just released a spec that is comparable.
What should Apple be regulated to do in this case?
Also, Apple does support Matter's full spec on their Matter-compatible devices...
EDIT: Updated to clarify support for Matter is obviously only on Matter-compatible devices
How is seeing a list of Bluetooth devices a privacy problem? I can see a parking lot full or cars...I can see all the WIFI spots nearby...I can see all the houses on the street. What's the "privacy" issue?
I'm not directing this at you: I really hate when people say "it's a privacy concern" with absolutely no examples. I am a huge privacy advocate. But when folks just throw out the Privacy Card without any examples, it instantly defeats their argument.
Bluetooth is truly edging the competition with their new sounding features
I mean, it’s better than only supporting AirPlay right now? That’s like saying no tech should exist in the first place because it’ll be replaced
Did you read the post I was replying to? Apple chooses to make certain Bluetooth spec features Apple Device only, exactly the same as them wanting Apple devices to only work with AirPlay…they could support matter casting at any time
Remember when new technology like this was announced and days or weeks later new Apple products were announced that already had the new technology, because Apple actually cared enough to be working with those other manufacturers behind the scenes the entire time. Today it feels like Apple reads about these announcements online at the same time that we do.
That makes sense. It takes 2-3 years before the component becomes “affordable” for Tim.
You ever notice new standards come out really fast on paper then take years to implement?
Must be a Lawyer thing slows it all down.
Wifi 7
Bluetooth 6.0
PCIe-7
Thunderbolt 5
Must be a Lawyer thing slows it all down.
Wifi 7
Bluetooth 6.0
PCIe-7
Thunderbolt 5
This is because you have no idea how the standards process works...
Pretty much every "consumer facing" standard has two elements. Take, for example, 802.11
There is the IEEE which puts together the technical standard. This process takes many many years, in part because the IEEE is trying to ensure that every weird edge case that the spec is supposed to cover is in fact covered, and covered correctly. This, in turn, is because some elements of the spec are very niche, only of interest to a few specific use cases, but those elements still have to be correct, and to work correctly with the rest of the spec,
Then there is the WiFi Alliance, which is a group of companies selling hardware to consumers. The WiFi Alliance is not interested in niche cases, they are interested in INTEROPERABILITY. So what they will do is, once the IEEE DRAFT spec is solid enough with respect to the elements that matter to consumers, the WiFi Alliance will essentially lock down which of the (many many elements, most of them optional) of the new spec MUST be present in "WiFi" equipment.
The IEEE will say things like "an 802.11 device may choose methods A, B, or C for indicating that it wants to switch modulation modes"; WiFi will say "a WIFI device MUST support method A" and doesn't care if B and C are supported, they are for specialist use of some sort, not for the consumer market.
And so depending on exactly what you are interested in, standards become "available" at very different times.
At a certain point the WiFi Alliance will decide on the elements of WiFi 7, based on a particular version of the draft IEEE 802.11be spec. They will announce this, because these details matter to SOME people (for example companies writing SW targeting WiFi 7, and companies planning chipsets to be labelled WiFi 7). There will still be a year or two before you can buy anything because it takes time to convert the agreed upon WiFi 7 spec into hardware+software.
Meanwhile, on a different track, the IEEE will continue wrangling about ever more esoteric and specialized elements on the 802.11be spec and at some point (generally a year or two later than when WiFi7 HW is available) the final 802.11be spec will be released.
This basically works because the adults in the process understand that consumers have one set of needs, while various specialized users have a very different set of needs, and they're all working together to sync these different use cases.
Where it fails to work is when whiny twits can't tell the difference between one group (802.11 vs WiFi) or pretend that their super-specialized use case is in fact a generic consumer use case, and then get angry that the WiFi 7 equipment they bought is, in fact WIFI 7 spec and not 802.11be spec (specifically that it doesn't support some, by definition OPTIONAL, part of the 802.11be spec).
There can be legal elements that slow this down, submarine patents and such like, but USUALLY that is not the case. It's simply a fact that this stuff is astonishingly complex (and by definition more so with every spec - if something was easy we would have done it in version 2 of the spec, not version 7!)
Last edited:
For inventing things that the industry hasn't adopted? Are you claiming that every private company should be making their new technologies industry standards? You can't simply go after a company for having a proprietary, even if open proprietary, product. It's not that I'm against regulation, just ridiculously shortsighted regulation like this would have been.
There is no open standard that does what Apple has been doing, so should have Apple waited for someone else to do it? I just can't make this make any sense...
If it can provide 5 Mbps of bandwidth, it can handle lossless audio. Which would also mean nearly latency free audio. Rumors range from 2-8 Mbps right now, so we don't know yet.
youre mad at apple cus third parties hadn't invented a widespread precision finding tech yet? All apple can do is add it to their own products which they have...
That's the downside of being so focused on the supply chain and (seemingly) planning 3+ generations of iPhones years in advance.
But then I doubt many consumer tech products fail to sell because the Bluetooth specs are 1-2 iterations too old?
Like, I get there's a legit difference. But I bet you I could ask 1000 tech enthusiasts what the difference between Bluetooth 5.2 and 5.3 is and none of them would be able to tell me.
name99: Kudos for Explanations. Very in-depth.
I appreciate that and always love to learn.
Helps out others as well.
I appreciate that and always love to learn.
Helps out others as well.
Correct, I, for one, have no idea. Despite my multiple efforts to learn more about the different versions of Bluetooth, I can never remember anything. They all seems to do the same thing, and generally poorly. I don’t even have Bluetooth enabled in my car anymore and generally try to avoid Bluetooth speakers.