The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

AirDrop Reliability and User Experience

  • Multiple commenters report AirDrop being flaky even between nearby Apple devices or rooms, with transfers failing mid-way and requiring retries or device “gymnastics.”
  • Others note recent iOS versions (26/“18”) feel more reliable, including multi-recipient sends and NFC “bump” initiation, but UX quirks remain (e.g., share sheet vs opening AirDrop first).
  • Some users abandon AirDrop for apps like Signal or LocalSend, which work cross-platform but typically require being on the same Wi-Fi network and lack system-level integration.

AWDL vs Wi‑Fi Aware: What’s Actually Happening

  • Thread debates whether interoperability stems from Apple moving AirDrop from its proprietary AWDL to the Wi‑Fi Aware standard.
  • Evidence is contradictory:
    • Apple has published Wi‑Fi Aware APIs, but AirDrop still works to older iOS/macOS devices that don’t list Wi‑Fi Aware support.
    • Packet captures show AirDrop still using the awdl0 interface, and strings in Google’s implementation reference AWDL.
  • Several argue Ars’ framing (“EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop”) is speculative; some think Google simply reimplemented AWDL.

Role of the EU, DMA, and Regulation

  • One camp credits EU regulation (USB‑C mandate, DMA interoperability rules) for breaking Apple’s ecosystem walls: USB‑C on iPhones, RCS, and now AirDrop/Quick Share interop.
  • Others argue Apple already led or contributed to these standards (USB‑C, Wi‑Fi Aware) and was on track to adopt them; the EU mainly accelerated timing and provided a scapegoat for unpopular transitions.
  • Broader regulatory debate:
    • Supporters see this as necessary counterweight to platform lock‑in and a win for consumers and competition.
    • Critics worry about overregulation, hypocrisy (e.g., chat control and privacy), and regulation becoming a moat that entrenches big incumbents.

USB‑C vs Lightning and Hardware Politics

  • Long subthread on why Apple kept Lightning so long: user inertia, huge installed base of Lightning accessories, fear of “port churn” backlash, and possible MFi/licensing/control incentives.
  • Conflicting claims about connector quality:
    • Some praise Lightning’s mechanical robustness (spring in cable, center blade on plug) and easier cleaning; others report unreliable Lightning ports and praise USB‑C’s universality.
  • Many acknowledge short‑term e‑waste (obsolete docks, cables) but argue long‑term gains from standardization, simpler travel, and shared peripherals across phones, tablets, and laptops.

Lock‑In, Monopolies, and Interoperability

  • Numerous comments frame Apple (and to a lesser extent Google) as gatekeepers abusing ecosystems: proprietary cables, closed AirDrop/iMessage, App Store control, and fees.
  • Others counter that Apple competes fiercely on device quality and UX, and that tightly curated, integrated systems are exactly what many customers want.
  • DMA’s future requirements for interoperable, E2E‑encrypted messaging and group video are seen as both promising and technically very hard (multi‑protocol, multi‑service routing without breaking E2EE).

Broader Ecosystem and Alternatives

  • Discussion of Google’s Nearby Share/Quick Share: account requirement (for “contacts only” and cloud fallback), and how the new Wi‑Fi standard may allow account‑less local transfers and third‑party implementations.
  • Some want similar standardization for casting/streaming (AirPlay/Chromecast) and NFC wallets, so all devices and TVs/terminals interoperate.
  • Several express a simple desire: plug any phone into any computer/TV or send files to any nearby device without thinking about brand or ecosystem.