reasons: 1. most other devices don't provides access to low level wi-fi drivers to actually support AWDL.
2. Airdrop is authenticated using Apple accounts on both sides.
3. legal foo
This is wrong. Wi-fi direct has always been possible with Android phones. Android even supports wi-fi direct connections simultaneously with wifi ap connections. Abdroid also supports the new wi-fi aware, euch simplifies initial contact via broadcasts.
I am not sure why the device manufacturers wouldn't implement it. Maybe they target iPhone first as the more premium users (which might only be true in the US), and then think they cannot support that feature for lowly Android users.
If enough devices supported this, Apple may be incentivised to follow?
I found that forced namegrab by the original autor quite rude in the beginning, but now I made peace with that and like the name hyphanet even more. That whole drama backfired for him: First, there will be always this discussion. Second, the term Freenet is quite unusable in search engines, whereas hyphanet is nice and unique to find in search engines.
The SCD30 also is a dual channel or dual beam NDIR sensor, meaning it doesn't really drift. Unlike most other ones that need the room to have outdoor-level CO2 once a day or week or so to calibrate.
Yes, but also a reminder that those older, well supported ones are Freescale i.mx.
After that, Kobo used Allwinner from sunxi (who have a general history of GPL violations) and now something from Mediatek (who had a history of not providing good driver update support). Those are likely completely different, might need a lot of new work to properly get a kernel running on, let alone mainline. Who knows if the bootloader can even be unlocked this time?
It's their first iteration and I applaud their effort. It takes at least a year to develop something like this and the sales quantities will be lower compared to the big brands, so the price is understandable.
You seem to belong to group of consumers that wants to compromise lifespan and sustainability in favor of features and price. That's fine, but it simply means you are not their target audience for this product.
Isn't more advanced codecs just software? The hardware support should be there, given its bluetooth 5.3. Is it just a case of them not licensing the advanced codecs?
Think about the device that is performing the decoding.
At its core, It's an ultra-low-power microcontroller, and the low-power requirements to hit the battery life specification while maintaining audio quality may or may not allow the kind of software abstractions that make these codecs "just software". Once you've licensed the codec, you then have to implement it on the micro's architecture, in a way that's actually performant. Which in turn may or may not require actual Assembly work.
You wouldn't be implementing anything in software. The hardware would have decoding built in, so it's really just a question of choosing a bluetooth audio soc with the codecs you want and paying the licensing fees.
I didn't know that codec handling was done at the hardware level. Interesting.
So the underlying idea of my post ("you can't just add new codecs in software") is ultimately correct, but for reasons completely unrelated to what I mentioned. That is, I'm wrong, but sort of stumbled into the right answer. Doubly interesting.
Now I have a ton of questions about how bluetooth audio is produced on the phone side, so that headphones only have to decode one (or a few) codec on the other side.
It is their second wireless earbud model. The first was non-repairable. And a current feature set would be especially important if the product should be used for a prolonged time. No need to be snarky. I just don't want to buy that stuff now and throw it away 2 years later when the next iteration comes out.
Please read my full comment. First, AAC is not even used for duplex audio such as in telephony. For that, the Bluetooth standard downgrades to SBC mono 16khz at best. Additionally, AAC is high-latency, even it is used. So it is not "perfectly fine" at all.
AAC is perfectly fine for listening to music transparently, and watching video.
And no one cares enough about the duplex audio stuff for it to matter. Phone and Zoom calls sound decent enough with pretty much all bluetooth devices now. If you care about that you'll be using a real microphone anyway and can have the headphones not in duplex mode.
reply