▲reply▲I'm pretty sure this is just incorrect. According to the linked report[1], they tested it for compatibility with OpenDrop, so I think they simply implemented AWDL.
That might also explain the limited Pixel 10 rollout, if it required a specific WiFi chipset/firmware.
[1] https://www.netspi.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/google-fea...
gumby27140 minutes ago
[-] That's what was confusing to me. It's one thing for Apple to add wifi aware by force, it would be another for them to completely reimplement Airdrop with it. I don't think they were required to do that.
reply▲felipeerias13 hours ago
[-] reply▲ricardobeat12 hours ago
[-] Waayy back in 2009 we had Bump [1], which allowed transfer between devices and later web apps as well – by banging your phone against the spacebar. It worked 98% of the time and was faster than AirDrop is today, even though we only had 3G.
Google acquired it and immediately killed it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(application)
Bump didn't use direct device-to-device communication. A central server correlated the two bumping phones, based on geolocation and accelerometer data, then swapped the data via the server. At least that's how it worked in the early days. (Wiki page confirms)
Since it's relying on your internet connection, skeptical it'd be faster than AirDrop for a large amount of data like photos. But for swapping contacts I bet it was faster since it didn't have to spend time establishing a new direct connection.
ricardobeat3 hours ago
[-] That's true, I should have mentioned it did not use device-to-device communication. It was the best possible experience for the time though, BT was not viable and wifi direct did not exist. 3G averaged at maybe 10Mbps, and photos were 2 megapixels (if you had a camera at all), more than enough speed. We were mostly sharing URLs and contacts.
By faster I mean the initial connection, it was instant despite the server-based pairing, which made it feel even more magical. With AirDrop you sometimes experience quite a bit of signal hunting.
A comparable experience would be when you touch phones to share a contact with NFC, it was in that ballpark of responsiveness.
Waaay back when in Japan, sekigaisen (infrared) was a verb meaning to transfer contact details or photos or whatever between phones via infrared. It was amazing how fast the iPhone took over Japan and killed off their quirky phone ecosystem.
Edit: want to emphasize that it was totally ubiquitous. Every phone has it
I wonder if this was driven by the Palm Pilots in the early 2000s. We beamed contacts, calendar entries, whole apps via IR. At trade shows exhibitors had terminals that would constantly send out contact informations via OBEX (?).
reply▲parl_match12 hours ago
[-] yes, "beaming" in the us was also used for quite a while. as in IR beam
japanese phones were buggy, feature packed monstrosities. a bunch of companies fighting to check as many boxes as they could. it's not a surprise that they got wiped out by an attempt to make a holistic internet communicator.
but for a while, there was nothing like them and their ability to get information on the internet
Microsoft Zune had the ability to send music wirelessly to other Zunes, it was called squirting
reply▲That's appalling. "Yo let me squirt you"
reply▲Somehow "squirting their users" perfectly defines Microsoft to this day
reply▲edbaskerville8 hours ago
[-] In the US (edit: and elsewhere!), "beaming" worked great between Apple Newton devices, including the pretty cool eMate 300 (an early Jony Ive creation, I just found on Wikipedia).
In 1993.
I remember being blown away by the Gameboy Colour IR link. You could use it to trade Pokemon. That makes a bit more sense now if sekigaisen was already a popular ecosystem.
reply▲My friends in school would send ringtones, wallpapers, and other small files through Bluetooth. It normally worked pretty well no matter the device.
reply▲I do wonder how many great little user-friendly bits of software got destroyed in aquishutdowns. Incredible way to deploy capital to delete software, but that's the big internet world for you.
reply▲When I was pretty early in my career, I inherited a legacy project from the CTO who didn't want to maintain it anymore. We decided as a team that I'd just recreate the project with a modern tool chain.
A few weeks later, the CTO looked at my work and asked why it was missing xyz features from his legacy project, saying that if I'm gonna take a project and rewrite it, it better be at least as good as the old project.
It was a pretty good lesson for me to get early in my career, and I've carried it with me ever since. Don't break or rewrite that which already works.
It's evident that no one at Google ever got that lesson.
NB: I know Google definitely has other reasons for acquiring and killing off Bump — they were probably building a competing technology that was shitty and bump was doing it better and sooner than them so better to buy and kill than to make their own product better. But I think my the lesson from my anecdote still stands from a purely product point of view, and I feel like it should make business sense but apparently you can make bad micro business decisions as long as you can convince shareholders they were good macro business decisions.
felipeerias6 hours ago
[-] If I am not mistaken, Bump still required a connection to the Internet. WiFi Aware does not, because the phones create an ad-hoc link on the spot.
The connection can be very fast. In this example, a 280 MB file is transferred in less than 10 seconds:
https://vimeo.com/418946837
What's sad is what largely replaced device to device transfers was just messaging apps. But messaging apps compress media horribly. iMessage isn't so bad, but send a photo through almost anything else and all meta data is stripped, and the image resolution and bitrate are the absolute bare minimum to look ok on a phone. But try to print it and it will be horrible.
reply▲Stripping the metadata on a photo is probably a feature though. For privacy reasons the default should most likely be that location, device info etc are taken out of photos that might go viral or be shared beyond what the original user intended.
reply▲There could probably be a niche market (until platforms implement the functionality) for enhancing the metadata of Whatsapp pictures from family & friends and guess it from the context. i.e. your auntie sending you now a picture of yourself 30 years ago which will show up as dated 2025 by default, which totally sucks.
reply▲whywhywhywhy9 hours ago
[-] > iMessage isn't so bad
iMessage is very bad in certain circumstances, think if the recipient is on 3G or 4G it really compresses videos. It's not obvious and doesn't tell the recipient or offer an option so if you're working in video you keep being told "Can you make it higher res" when this happens
Very cool, didn't know such app had existed, thank you! Wanted to use a similar approach to connect people in a smaller friends-only social network.
reply▲Bump was like magic.
The only app I have ever truly thought “this is the future”
I can almost guarantee it wasn’t faster than airdrop (when it works) is today. I remember using bump on wifi, and it was limited to (shocking) wifi speeds at the time. I have as recently as last week transferred 1GB video files in under 20 seconds using airdrop. That simply was not possible in 2009.
reply▲airdrop uses wifi direct... so
reply▲This is great! I notice that’s on the ditto blog. I can see why the ditto developers are watching with keen eyes!
I have a modern digital camera complete with wifi and bluetooth. There’s an app that lets me connect the camera to my iPhone for monitoring, remote shooting and copying photos. Very useful! But right now the only way for the camera to connect to my phone is through some super complicated song and dance, involving my phone requesting a connection over Bluetooth, then the camera running a wifi access point that my phone connects to (during which time my phone disconnects from my home wifi). It’ll be wonderful when my camera can use wifi aware instead, and this can all happen instantly, without permission prompts and without booting me off wifi in the process.
I really hope we see a resurgence in local-first networking. My wife and I can't even play a LAN game of Age of Empires 2 on a plane unless the flight has wifi.
reply▲zelphirkalt3 hours ago
[-] AoE2 is not known for great network code, so I think the hopes for that specifically are pretty slim.
reply▲Do we know for a fact that DMA has anything to do with it? According to Google, Apple had nothing to do with this announcement. The way I have read it is a bunch of Google hackers reverse engineered Airdrop and that's that. And it's coming to other Android devices, so the Pixel 10 lock-in is just a marketing move.
reply▲The DMA forced Apple to move all of their P2P Wi-Fi stuff from their proprietary AWDL stack to the current Wi-Fi Aware-based implementation. Whatever work Google did to reverse engineer Airdrop was based on the Wi-Fi Aware implementation of Airdrop, rather than the older AWDL. They didn't get the whole stack for free, but it's not nothing either.
reply▲Do we have proof this actually happened, or theorising based on EU requirements?
reply▲You can read the actual ruling at
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...This is the "smoking gun" section:
5.4.8. Implementation timing
(245) Apple should provide effective interoperability with the P2P Wi-Fi connection
feature by implementing the measures for Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in the next major iOS
release, i.e. iOS 19, at the latest, and for Wi-Fi Aware 5.0 in the next iOS release at
the latest nine months following the introduction of the Wi-Fi Aware 5.0
specification.
(N.B. The decision calls it "iOS 19" because it predates Apple announcing that "iOS 19" would actually be called iOS 26)
It is possible, I suppose, that Apple intended all along to release this feature with iOS 26. You'd have to be an Apple insider to know for sure. But the simpler explanation is that they did it because the EU told them to.
But does Apple use/allow Airdrop over Wi-Fi Aware? It's not clear to me that's something they shipped.
reply▲madeofpalk12 hours ago
[-] Is it actually? Apple supports AirDrop over Wi-Fi Aware? Any source or confirmation?
reply▲It's hilarious that such a simple thing has taken this long for the world to build, and it's only because Apple was forced to allow it.
reply▲Oh, I fully expect Apple to have a hissy fit about this. <queue in incoherent ramblings about privacy and user choice in 3... 2... 1...>
reply▲Apple's users bought iPhones en masse without them having this feature.
reply▲I understand that. But "this feature" is simply sending a file around between the two big mobile operating systems. It's absurd to me how this is a big product launch in 2025.
reply▲Pretty sure that ditto article is written by AI ... there's an entire section dedicated to the imagined 5.0 spec..
reply▲It's interesting that apple released 3rd party Wi-Fi Aware SDK for iOS and iPadOS but no for MacOS...
reply▲MacOS doesn’t have a gatekeeper status in the Digital Markets Act (DMA), so Apple doesn’t need to provide it. This shows that they only provide the SDK because of regulatory pressure, and try to maintain their vendor lock-in where possible.
reply▲Not necessarily, Since 2015 launch NAN has been vaporware outside android, nobody else support it. Windows does not do so today either [1].
In Linux iw and the new cfg80211 NAN module has support for some hardware. There are few chips in desktop/laptop ecosystem that have the feature, but it is hard to know which ones today, it is more common not to have support than to.
AFAIK no major distros include UI based support that regular users can use. Most Chromebooks do not have the hardware to support, ChromeOS[2] did not have support OOB, so even Google does not implement it for all their devices in the first place.
For Apple to implement is easier than Microsoft or Google given their vertical control, but not simple even if they wanted to. They may still need a hardware update/change and they typically rollout few versions of the hardware first before they announce support so most people have access to it, given the hardware refresh cycle it is important for basic user experience which is why people buy Apple. What is the point if you cannot share with most users because they don't have latest hardware? Average user will try couple of times and never use it again because it doesn't "work".
Sometimes competing standards / lack of compliance are political play for control of the standards not about vendor lock-in directly. Developers are the usual casualties in these wars, rather than end users directly. Webdevs been learning that since JScript in the mid 90s.
All this to say, as evidences go this is weak for selective compliance due to regulatory pressure.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2284386/...
[2] I haven't checked recently
Look, you might be right. But you might be wrong. We don't know for sure.
One of my first jobs was in infosec, and there was a sign above one of the senior consultant's door quoting Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". That quote is right.
There's so much going on at any medium-to-large organisation, from engineering to politics and personalities. All that multiplied across hundreds of thousands of people in thousands of teams. Its possible you're right. Apple might have provided an iOS-only SDK for wifi aware because of regulatory pressure. Its also possible they want to provide it on all platforms, but just started with an ios only version because of who works on it, or which business unit they're part of, or politics, or because they think its more useful on ios than on macos. We just don't know.
Whenever I've worked in large organisations, I'm always amazed how much nonsense goes on internally that is impossible to predict from the outside. Like, someone emails us about something important. It makes the rounds internally, but the person never gets emailed back. Why? Maybe because nobody inside the company thought it was their job to get back to them. Or Steve should really have replied, but he was away on paternity leave or something and forgot about it when he got back to work. Or sally is just bad at writing emails. Or there's some policy that PR needs to read all emails to the public, and nobody could be bothered. And so on. From the outside you just can't know.
I don't know if you're right or wrong. Apple isn't all good or all bad. And the probability isn't 100% and its not 0%. Take off the tin foil hat and have some uncertainty.
Your reply makes sense in a vacuum, but in reality we have the context of having seen Apple comply with regulation maliciously before, so we do know for sure that there's no macOS in the sdk because they weren't forced to by regulation.
reply▲> we do know for sure that there's no macOS in the sdk because they weren't forced to by regulation.
Unless you have insider knowledge, we don't know anything for sure here. Apple isn't a person. Apple doesn't have a single, consistent opinion when it comes to openness and EU regulation. (And even a person can change their mind.) All we know is that some teams at apple responded in the past to some EU regulation with malicious compliance. That doesn't tell us for sure what apple will do here.
Apple is 165 000 people. That's a lot of people. A lot more people than comment regularly on HN, and look at us! We don't agree about anything. I'm sure plenty of apple's employees hate EU regulation. And plenty more would love to opensource everything apple does.
That sort of inconsistency is exactly what we see across apple's product line. The Swift programming language is opensource. But SwiftUI is closed source. Webkit and FoundationDB are opensource. But almost everything on iOS is closed source. Apple sometimes promotes open standards - like pushing Firewire, USB and more recently USB-C - which they helped to design. But they also push plenty of proprietary standards that they keep under lock and key. Like the old 20-pin ipod connector, that companies had to pay money to apple to be allowed to use in 3rd party products. Or Airdrop. Or iMessage. AFS (apple filesystem) is closed source. But its also incredibly well documented. My guess is the engineers responsible want to support 3rd party implementations of AFS but for some reason they're prohibited from open-sourcing their own implementation.
We don't know anything for sure here. For my money, there's even odds in a year or two this API quietly becomes available on macos, watchos and tvos as well. If you "know for sure" that won't happen, lets make a bet at 100-1 odds. If you're sure, its free money for you.
I largely agree with you but want to highlight a few points.
> Apple doesn't have a single, consistent opinion when it comes to openness and EU regulation.
But it does have a greedy leader who can and does override everyone else.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/24/apple-exec-phil-schiller-t...
> Apple is 165 000 people. That's a lot of people. A lot more people than comment regularly on HN
How do you know the HN numbers? I’m not doubting you, I’m curious about the data.
> and look at us! We don't agree about anything.
At the same time, anyone can join HN. There’s no “culture fit” or anything like that. It is possible to have a larger difference of ideas in a smaller pool of people.
> AFS (apple filesystem)
APFS, not AFS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
It’s a few million page views on the front page and a small fraction commenting.
reply▲Again, what’s the source of the data? Anyone can throw around vague numbers. “A few million” and “a small fraction” provide no useful information for the context.
reply▲Thank you for the pro-consumer regulation, EU.
reply▲~a month ago I saw a comment on HN someone stating that the only possible way to send data from computer to phone is to convert it to base64, open it in a text file (several pages), photo them, OCR them and convert them back on the phone.
The comment got deleted shortly after, but I like the idea of someone actually trying to send data from computer to phone, failing, and settling on this method
Possibly relevant comment from a few years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26893693>AirDrop also shares your full name (seemingly the one associated with your Apple ID, not what you have set for yourself in your contacts), both by displaying it in the sharing interface on the involved devices and by attaching it as an extended attribute to uploaded files.
>So if you AirDrop some files to your computer and then zip them up, anyone you send that zip to (a journalist, a public file-hosting site, w/e) will have your full legal name to go with them.
Linked article from that thread is moved to https://medium.com/@kieczkowska/introduction-to-airdrop-fore... (but is archived).
I wonder if Google is adding metadata as well. Otherwise there does seem to be the problem of, for example, threats being AirDropped in a public place.
Using macOS 26 and iOS 26 I was unable to reproduce their findings. I airdropped a photo from my iOS device to my laptop, and nothing in `mdls`, `xattr -l`, `exiftool -s`, `rg -i` showed my name.
reply▲It wouldn't surprise if Apple had fixed this, it's the sortof thing they would fix, but it may be worth trying with 2 devices not from the same iCloud account. Wouldn't surprise me if the code paths were subtly different in that case.
reply▲They would seem to contain identifiers as law enforcement have been able to follow up on instances where there has been airdropping of perverse images, but as noted by others the files don't include names.
The problem with airdrop (and likely why the 10 minute setting now exists) is that it includes a preview image as part of the notification request.
So other than being able to subject someone to perverse images, preview images have also been used in state-sponsored zero-click attacks to infect the phones of their targets. While that vector seems to be muted for now, the 10 minute setting provides a layer of defence against both potential future zero-clicks and receiving unsolicited previews images.
NaomiLehman15 hours ago
[-] Just a tip - You can put any string as your name for your Apple ID. you can also change it at any time. I have it as Mac Book. It's not checked when making any credit card payment, AFAIK.
reply▲Just keep in mind, if you give your device to the Apple Store for repairs, they'll automatically expect the person who is picking up to have a matching ID to the Apple account.
It was a fun misunderstanding to resolve when I went to pick up my repaired Macbook Pro and they expected my ID to say Mark Suckerberg. It was resolved relatively uneventfully but still had to get the manager over.
Another fun side effect, if you put an emoji in your name, you'll need to manually edit it every time you use Apple pay or it breaks the transaction.
reply▲Is anything but the zip code actually checked ever? Besides the number and cv2 or whatever.
reply▲No. Credit card transactions cannot check for name or billing a part from the zip code. Also the zip code validation only works in certain countries like the US, and Canada.
The way to validate that works is Visa 3DS or MasterCard 3D Secure. Those sent an OTP from the issuer to the cardholder on the issuer database, usually an email or SMS. The issuer of the card is the only who really knows the owner of the card.
They get compared yes, and it feeds into the fraud likelihood score that the merchant gets sent. And then usually chooses to ignore, because they make more from going ahead with the transaction than from stopping because it's suspicious, but it makes it easier for the credit card industry to put the liability on them.
reply▲NaomiLehman16 minutes ago
[-] Well, for example, I can set Stripe Radar to hard match the name on the CC, for example. Very granular control is possible, but doing stuff like checking zip codes, names leads to false negatives and isn't worth it, in my experience.
reply▲justsomehnguy11 hours ago
[-] Number, date (though I never bothered to check if it's actually checked, besides stupid frontend shenanigans when I couldn't enter it because it had a whole whooping month ahead of the current date) and CVC.
As soon as I learned what BANK NAME is acceptable name I used it almost everywhere.
I’ve never heard of this. Are you saying I could enter “MyLocal Bank” as the payer name instead of my own when transacting online with a credit card? This seems like the kind of fact that should be essential privacy knowledge if true!
reply▲justsomehnguy10 hours ago
[-] Well, try it. But don't blame if some over zealous merchant would deny you without refund despite receiving you money.
reply▲This might not work super well if your package is crossing border either. Sure it's your billing address and not your shipping address, but sometimes they are all the same.
reply▲"... then zip them up, anyone you send that zip to (a journalist, a public file-hosting site, w/e) will have your full legal name ..."
A bit of a leap to assume that your Apple ID (or the name you give your iphone) is your full legal name ... or related to any name at all ...
My apple ID is built specifically for just that phone and is jettisoned when I upgrade/change the phone. The apple ID is not related to my own name.
I don't consider this an aggressive - or even interesting - privacy practice.
Did you use your full legal name when you signed up with Blizzard for WoW ? Why would you do anything different for Apple ?
They are not the IRS. They are not a passport agency. They are not the government. Stop treating them that way.
paranoidrobot10 hours ago
[-] If you're someone who's bought into the Apple ecosystem over multiple devices, or ave a partner or children who are also using devices in the Apple ecosystem, then your Apple ID is something that is very definitely tied to you and probably difficult to change/give up when you replace your phone.
I don't think it would be at all surprising to find that the vast majority of people use their legal name or something closely associated with their identity, and that it persists over multiple devices.
As defensible as it may be, your behavior is very far from the norm. You may not consider this a aggressive privacy practice but demographically speaking, it absolutely is.
reply▲So you repurchase your entire App Store library when you upgrade your phone?
reply▲It's amazing how seemingly trivial things turn out to be really hard to be in practice. Like:
- sharing files between two phones
- printing a page on that printer over there
- getting the projector to display my screen (correctly, or at all)
- getting my wife not to click on a link in a random email
For the first 3, that's mostly because technology has stopped being a productivity tool and became an ad delivery vehicle with some vestigial (and deteriorating) productivity features.
reply▲I am still think that transfering state between devices is the next big thing(tm) waiting to happen. I am working on a file on my macbook, now I want to seamslessly move the whole application working on it to my nearby Windows machine and just continue. Seems impossible right now.
reply▲Apple has been iterating on Handover and Continuity for many years and it’s still not perfect (maybe it’s better on a newer stable of devices, I couldn’t say). But it’s clearly challenging even within a tightly coordinated ecosystem; I suspect crossing the platform divide reliably would be extremely hard.
reply▲- sharing files between two phones when Apple's monopolistic tendencies are involved
I've been using Quick Share to send files between different makes of Android phone for ages. This is entirely on Apple.
I wish that would work when you don't have internet.
Had to fall back to old school bluetooth, and like 1 MB/s to share a video with a friend.
I’ve been using AirDrop to send files between different mames of iOS phone and tablet for ages.
reply▲zelphirkalt3 hours ago
[-] Though I think it is important to point out, that the reasons are very different ones. It is not due to some technological difficulties. It is more. about ruthless companies throwing logs between our legs in some cases, then just lack of skill and quality in some cases, and people not being very high on the computer literacy scale.
reply▲I don’t understand why printing is still so difficult in 2025
reply▲It’s not if you pay the price. I have a Brother printer (inkjet) and it literally just works. I can go months without printing anything, then I just print a document from my phone or laptop and it just works.
This is something that should be normal but I’m still amazed every time I use it because I had an Epson before and the experience was… not the same.
mystifyingpoi40 minutes ago
[-] +1 for Brother. Works flawlessly without any drivers. The only pain point is the setup - I have the cheapo laser one without any screen, and AFAIK you need Windows software for the initial WiFi setup. After this, it's not needed anymore.
reply▲> It's amazing how seemingly trivial things turn out to be really hard to be in practice
There is nothing "amazing" there, just big tech trying to lock you up in their ecosystem and make your use of "other" devices as difficult as it can be.
And of course deny it along the way.
> getting my wife not to click on a link in a random email
Hot take: MUAs should simply not make links clickable/copyable on render, or even strip any URI away completely.
Incredible! In an astounding feat, it has only taken a mere two decades to enable the world's largest tech companies to provide the most basic levels of interopability.
At this breakneck speed of technological development, one can only imagine what wonderful boons await consumers in the next few decades.
They're might have exhausted their centennial budget of cooperation on trivial things!
reply▲Apple could have implemented this a long time ago but decided not to implement Bluetooth file sharing.
reply▲I feel like we have finally entered the 21st century! Next stop moon bases and flying cars!
reply▲reactormonk18 hours ago
[-] reply▲LocalSend requires the devices to be on the same local network. TFA is about file sharing using a direct device-to-device wireless connection.
reply▲We've had ad-hoc WiFi for about 3 decades, but that requires a level of device access that no gatekeeper will agree to anymore.
reply▲gumby27135 minutes ago
[-] Well, one gatekeeper. Wifi direct/aware seems to work fine outside of iOS and Mac os.
reply▲One of those apps that "just works". Been using it recently to share files between an Android phone and my Mac. Turns out it works better than Airdrop itself when I couldn't send a file from my iPhone to my Mac. Great user experience as well.
reply▲reply▲85392_school18 hours ago
[-] reply▲serial_dev17 hours ago
[-] I’m using FilePizza when I need it, saw it on HN recently. All this AI magic allegedly taking our jobs, but we still can’t transfer files from one device to another, or print a document reliably.
https://file.pizza/
doublerabbit17 hours ago
[-] > we still can’t transfer files from one device to another
Nor send text message with images.
stronglikedan17 hours ago
[-] Or react to images sent by those that can.
reply▲throwaway29017 hours ago
[-] Is replying not enough? I always feel like react is a lazy way to avoid replying
reply▲Forgeties7910 hours ago
[-] A well placed react can be quality comedy. Also very easy way to communicate to somebody you saw what they sent/are doing what they asked.
reply▲A text is already a lazy way to avoid speaking.
reply▲One level of laziness should be enough for anyone.
reply▲throwaway2904 hours ago
[-] idk, for me text is more hard. talk is easiest. voice messages is top lazy and I hate them.
reply▲Why would a text message support images?
reply▲To continue to continue the thread relaysecret.com and relaysecret.com/tunnel
Found it on hn years ago, still use it all the time. Perfect replacement for Firefox send, rip
reply▲worldsavior18 hours ago
[-] It's slow as suffering in hell.
reply▲Really? It has been by far the fastest and simplest option I've found and use across all my devices these days. Not that I looked very deep though, like pairdrop and such.
So what's better than this?
+1. Easy to use and works on every platform. Also supports sending plain text between your devices (into clipboard of recipient).
reply▲I use this app called LocalSend between my Mac, my phone, and my Windows. It's genuinely a godsend, and I hope whoever reads it tries it
reply▲Why only the pixel 10? What piece of hardware is the pixel 9 (one year old) missing?
reply▲I think specifically latest Pixels are often Google's beta testers. The enthusiasts owning them are happy to get features first and won't complain too much if it's rough around the edges. The phone is also not big enough revenue driver for them to be afraid that too many people would abandon it due to buggy new features
Then I assume they'll roll it out further
For better or worse, I do own Pixel 10
That's just how they roll out features these days, in about 6 months it'll be on every Pixel and in about a year or so on every Android.
reply▲evanjrowley19 hours ago
[-] The answer to your 2nd question might be Google's custom silicon:
https://blog.google/products/pixel/tensor-g5-pixel-10/The answer to your first question may simply be they want to sell more Pixel 10 phones.
The investment into custom silicon is more likely to pay off when new and exiting features are exclusive to the newer platform.
That hardware is completely unrelated to such a simple feature. Something like AirDrop will only use fairly trivial crypto, which most likely ciphers with full acceleration available but even without it would work fine with plenty of performance headroom.
Neither Apple nor Google is doing anything revolutionary with their silicon for such a standard compute task. It's really mostly minor tuning to get a more optimal part instead of an off-the-shelf chip catering to other uses too, with die area and power consumption "wasted" in your setup.
Could be special needs for the radios
reply▲Could it be that this process needs to be running in a secure enclave
reply▲No, not at all. Someone even implemented AirDrop in Python before[1]. In fact, nothing ever needs such special hardware. It's a decision of the implementer if they'd like to get fancy and rely on such hardware in their implementation to change its security profile, but the iPhone at the other end or any Apple infrastructure would be none the wiser - they just see that they're getting appropriately signed or encrypted, and neither knows nor cares
how that came to be. Use of a hardware security module would just make the process more tamper resistant but would not otherwise change the outcome.
1. https://github.com/seemoo-lab/opendrop
walletdrainer1 hour ago
[-] Relies on OWL which does have specific hardware requirements
reply▲No, OWL only appears to have specific driver requirements, namely that they expose to userspace functionality that any remotely modern WiFi chip should already have.
reply▲russianGuy8382919 hours ago
[-] previous pixel phones also had custom Google silicon, just with some Samsung IP
reply▲Yay if you pay additional fee you will maybe get Bluetooth file sending to PC
reply▲We've reached the point where a program that simply links file selection dialog APIs with network identity broadcast and file transfer APIs is so difficult to get working, that you can't expect it to be functional without the exact specified hardware and software version it was written for.
reply▲We get the early worm. At the same time, as a screenreader user, I wished that I didn't miss the responsiveness and ease of use of my old Samsung Galaxy S9+. I fail to comprehend how Google managed to make a phone which is harder to use than something produced 7 generations ago.
reply▲At the same time as we have companies trying to push their humanoid robots with AI and all, we finally have devices able to communicate with each other again. Vendor locking is such a stupid thing.
reply▲Finally in 2025, a revolutionary advancement in technology.
reply▲We didn't have the processing power for this before!
AI made some PhD productive enough for this to finally be possible.
profsummergig4 hours ago
[-] Why is it still so dodgy to share my clipboard between my cheap brand (i.e. non-Pixel) 4-year old Android phone and my Windows 11 PC? It's a failure on both Google's and Microsoft's part.
reply▲KDE Connect handles that and a ton more very seamlessly imo. Not sure if the solution has to be first-party to qualify as "non-dodgy" but for a third-party solution it's pretty damned good
reply▲Throwing in my support for kde connect. It's just super convenient and it's FOSS + cross platform too. kde should honestly advertise it aggressively. There's nothing like it anywhere else.
reply▲Because functional clipboard sharing would make you more productive and so you'll generate less "engagement" and screen time. Neither of those companies benefits.
reply▲somanyphotons19 hours ago
[-] Am I right to assume that they simply implemented AirDrop without discussing with Apple?
reply▲I remember reading somewhere Apple had/has to make AirDrop interoperable due to EU's DMA.
reply▲How long until Apple disables it outside of the EU?
reply▲jack_tripper15 hours ago
[-] They won't, they'll just do another Green-Bubble/Blue-Bubble shenanigan to signal when Apple royalty is transferring a file with an unwashed Android peasant via a gimped experience.
reply▲brokenmachine7 hours ago
[-] There's teams of people having meetings about how they can degrade people's experience right now.
reply▲raw_anon_111117 hours ago
[-] Well since absolutely no one buys Pixeld to a first approximation and mostly in the US. Looking at different sites it’s from 3-6% marketshare.
I doubt this was done for the DMA.
> Developers will be able to integrate alternative solutions to Apple’s AirDrop and AirPlay services on the iPhone. As a result, iPhone users will be able to choose from different and innovative services to share files with other users and cast media content from their iPhones to TVs.
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...
raw_anon_111116 hours ago
[-] You realize that doesn’t say what you think it says
in your own quote of the citation?
Apple has to allow alternate solutions on the iPhone - not that they have to allow AirDrop interoperability.
Feel free to click on a PDF directly below that quote, I don't have to serve you everything on a silver platter.
I promise you you will find what you're looking for right there.
raw_anon_111115 hours ago
[-] So you posted a citation supposedly refuting my comment then when you are called out about it instead of admitting you misinterpreted your own citation, you say “look somewhere else”…
reply▲So instead of admitting you were wrong and that DMA did indeed strongarm Apple into doing this, you're doing what? Arguing I should've given you a different quote with that info instead of a primary source I've already linked to you?
Weird man, weird.
That's a different thing, but the EU did force Apple to implement Wi-Fi Aware which is what allows Google to do this.
reply▲But this works with the existing airdrop client on the iOS side right? Did Apple change airdrop to use wifi aware, and now Google can build the airdrop protocol on Android?
reply▲tencentshill17 hours ago
[-] So is Airdrop now less secure or private? I don't trust any standard Google had their hands in.
reply▲On every Apple interoperability thread this argument comes up and at this point I'm convinced it's part of some coordinated effort; surely no one can be that clueless to actually believe this, especially on a technical forum?
AirDrop is a peer-to-peer protocol, both the recipient and initiator need to explicitly take action, and even in Apple's implementation provides no authentication (recipient device is chosen by name, which anyone can change in their settings app). There is no way the existence of this Android client would reduce Airdrop security on iOS.
Do you also believe that TLS between an Apple device and a Windows device not secure either, since the Windows device uses a different, non-Apple-sanctioned TLS implementation, and the mere existence of which would somehow weaken Apple's TLS stack?
First time I hear about Google tech being insecure or not private. Sure they siphon all the info THEMSELVES, but never have I heard about them implementing insecure protocols.
reply▲thewebguyd16 hours ago
[-] > but never have I heard about them implementing insecure protocols.
That's because they don't. Google takes security seriously. There's a reason GrapheneOS is only supported on Pixel devices currently as well, because of certain hardware security features.
Nothing you do with Google is private from Google but it's certainly designed to belong only to Google, your data is one of their most important assets. Of course they are going to secure it and prevent others besides themselves from getting or using it.
It's the most common misconception with Google, that they "sell your information." They don't, they never have. They use your info, aggregated with all other Google users, to sell targeting for ads. They don't sell the actual data.
zelphirkalt2 hours ago
[-] It is more precise to say, that they sell the idea, that they know better due to the fact that they have the data about you.
reply▲The walled garden is breached, run for the hills!
reply▲I don't think it's possible for it to get less secure or private.
reply▲Did you read the security analysis that was done on this implementation?
reply▲jhogervorst18 hours ago
[-] I was wondering the same. Looking at the statements in the posts, I think so?
reply▲do_not_redeem18 hours ago
[-] Reading between the lines, it seems like Google is playing a bit of chess here. Reminds me of the Beeper Mini stunt, except this time by a trillion-dollar company they can't just sweep under the rug.
> we welcome the opportunity to work with Apple to enable “Contacts Only” mode in the future.
> I applaud the effort to open more secure information sharing between platforms and encourage Google and Apple to work together more on this.
Your move, Apple.
thewebguyd16 hours ago
[-] That's how it reads to me. They made a big deal during the Pixel 10 launch to talk about Apple/iOS features, and switching from iPhone to Pixel. They called the blue/green bubbles childish, and they put Magasafe in the Pixel and explicitly said "you can use all your Apple accessories."
Google is going hard after iPhone users by trying to punch holes in Apple's walled garden anytime they can. AirDrop is another hole in the wall, as was Magsafe, and RCS.
If Google can get other AWDL features working between macOS and Android, particularly universal clipboard and universal control, I'd seriously consider switching back to Android after many, many years on iOS purely for the ecosystem integration. iMessage doesn't bother me, but I use AirDrop, AirPods auto switching on calls, and universal clipboard daily and those are all blockers for my considering a switch.
I am reminded of Microsoft implementing a YouTube app for Windows Phone, and Google repeatedly blocking it.
reply▲Because Google is an underdog here. In your memory Google is Microsoft and Apple is Google.
reply▲somanyphotons18 hours ago
[-] I think Apple will be ok with this, it clearly shows Android being less capable/compatible than other iPhones, a bit like blue/green bubbles
reply▲standardUser16 hours ago
[-] Key quote from The Verge article:
When we asked Google whether it developed this feature with or without Apple’s involvement, Moriconi confirmed it was not a collab. “We accomplished this through our own implementation,” he tells The Verge. “Our implementation was thoroughly vetted by our own privacy and security teams, and we also engaged a third party security firm to pentest the solution.” Google didn’t exactly answer our question when we asked how the company anticipated Apple responding to the development; Moriconi only says that “…we always welcome collaboration opportunities to address interoperability issues between iOS and Android.”
https://www.theverge.com/news/825228/iphone-airdrop-android-...
trollbridge17 hours ago
[-] And if Google does this as well as the RCS rollout, I can look forward to attempts to use AirDrop to send me viruses and other spammy junk.
reply▲If it was profitable to spam bad things using AirDrop, bad guys would just buy iPhones and use them to spam. No alternative implementations necessary.
reply▲thewebguyd16 hours ago
[-] AirDrop & QuickShare are "contacts only" by default. You have to explicitly enable "receive from anyone" and it's only active for 10 minutes.
The old days of being able to AirDrop something to everyone on a plane because it was set to "everyone" by default are over.
Do we know yet whether this will require Google Play Services and the like on Android? Or, worse, SafetyNet? I dream of using this on GrapheneOS without any Google stuff.
reply▲I'd be surprised if it did, there's no technical reason to require those. Also, SafetyNet is deprecated in favor of Play Integrity, so you're not likely to see the former in any new apps/services.
reply▲> I'd be surprised if it did, there's no technical reason to require those.
That has never stopped Google from requiring Play Services.
QuickShare already requires Google Play Services, so I don't think that will change
reply▲The fact that I get excited about this is actually a good representation much vendor lock there is.
We used to be able to send files over Bluetooth before the iPhone came out.
creaturemachine18 hours ago
[-] Ever since the iphone apple has been trying to make you believe files aren't a thing.
reply▲The file system is the ultimate API, and it gives the user an enormous amount of control to take data, copy it, back it up, transform it, encrypt it, send it places, restore it, etc.
Apple likes to have far more control than that.
raw_anon_111110 hours ago
[-] You realize that you can copy files gl and from other providers like Google Drive, Dropbox etc from the files app on iOS just like you do on any GUI and you can also copy files from the iPhone by just plugging in a USB C mass storage device?
reply▲Because Apple realised that phone users are interested in photos, videos, contacts, documents, appointments etc. not files
reply▲Despite others thinking you’re crazy, I think you are right. I remember the start of the smartphone era where many of my relatives switched to iPhone because "you know where the pictures are going and where to find them". The worst offender was my dad that had a Samsung phone running windows phone 6 (with an actual start menu) where you had to dig through folders to find jpeg files.
reply▲Desktop OSs are the worst for mixing random system files with the users own documents. Theres a better balance now where the “Files” app has your documents, downloaded stuff and similar, while system and app data is hidden.
reply▲Isn't that pretty much just Windows? That basically never occurs on Linux and it's not common on macOS, either. All the garbage I have on my work computer (a Mac) in ~/Documents is stuff that OneDrive synced over from when I used to have a Windows computer there. (If I could turn the OneDrive feature that takes over ~/Documents and ~/Downloads, I would.)
reply▲Linux software is notorious for spewing crap all over the user's home directory. Delete everything inside your /home/name and see how well the system still works. On iOS/iPadOS nothing happens other than not having the documents you saved in there.
I'm not sure there even is a good place where programs can store their internal system files without requiring root other than mixed in with the user Home.
Yes and no. Some older conventions for dotfiles are a bit messy in that they're not necessarily contained under top-level directories like ~/.config or ~/.local, but the hijacking of non-hidden directories for contents unrelated to their purposes, like using ~/Documents for game saves, is basically unheard of (except for some ports of Windows games that retain this bad habit).
> On iOS/iPadOS nothing happens other than not having the documents you saved in there.
That is, frankly, a ridiculous test for the issue under discussion. Even if everything was stored under a top-level subdirectory set aside for application data in a perfectly orderly way, nuking $HOME would still break things.
Besides all that, hidden directories in the root of ~ are conventional¹ places to store application config files and so on, and can't be mistaken for conventional places to store documents. On most Linux-based operating systems, the conventional place to store documents is (obviously) ~/Documents, which is created ahead of time for all users. That folder doesn't generally end up polluted with things that aren't documents.
> On iOS/iPadOS nothing happens other than not having the documents you saved in there.
If you delete /var/mobile or any of the things that $HOME points to in the context of some app, you'll definitely lose app settings.
The app sandboxing on iOS does something nice by sort of forcing app configuration data to live within conventional directories, but none of that is captured in the "what if you delete ~" test. (The fact that $HOME isn't really directly exposed to the user sort of does; the local files you're comparing to $HOME on Linux are actually $HOME/Media on iOS.)
----
1: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s08.htm...
2: https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki//private/var/mobile
Weird story...people open up their gallery app and there are the pictures.
Never have been different. What did your relatives doing?
That's the thing, this was the very beginning of the smartphone era, 2007-2009. UX was not fleshed out yet. Conventions neither. Simple gallery apps were an Apple and iPhone thing.
There were cases where phones were not consistent. Pictures from the camera, or saved from MMS, or saved from the Web, or screenshots, did not all go in the same place. Just like you would have on a desktop :) I don't remember that well the pre-2010 android, but it had some issues too.
Even to this day, WhatsApp saves photos to the gallery, but in its own album. At least on iOS those are part of the regular gallery so you'll always find them (an album is just a "tag" on the photo). Android has a dedicated album too, but the picture set is distinct from the main picture gallery. So are screenshots. That's more control and power, but utterly confusing for older people. Younger relatives are fine, older fail to navigate around this and find "the picture your auntie sent to me through whatsapp". Yup, it's there, but not in the main camera roll.
This is what I mean by "you know where the pictures are going".
PS: Apple botched the UX of the gallery app in the last two iOS versions so much that even I, a young tech-inclined person, loses my way around. So do my relatives. They're sorta catching up /s
standardUser16 hours ago
[-] But what they own is files. Most users aren't interested in mutual funds, but that doesn't mean they don't want them in their retirement portfolio.
reply▲One reason I'll never own an apple device, and prefer buying more expensive more open competition. Its just a red line - I own the device by law, if you bend backwards to prevent me from using it via ways that it supports by principle, your product doesn't exist for me.
reply▲You are not Apple's target audience, and there is nothing wrong with that.
reply▲brokenmachine7 hours ago
[-] The problem is that because fleecing dummies is so profitable, it encourages the same scummy behavior by other companies.
reply▲vovavili17 minutes ago
[-] Calling an extremely broad user segment dummies is unreasonably condescending.
reply▲babypuncher18 hours ago
[-] A file system and its files are a very simple abstraction that lets us organize these exact things.
I understand that some people get confused and overwhelmed by a directory structure, but I see that as an education problem, not a UX problem. I was taught all of this in elementary and middle school computer classes in the '90s and early '00s. Having this knowledge early on made me less afraid of my computer, made it feel less like a magical black box, and gave me the confidence to learn more complex topics on my own.
Computers become way more capable when the people using them understand fundamentals like directory structures and command line usage. I don't think either of these things are as difficult to learn as reading, writing, and arithmetic (especially if you already have a base level education in those three things).
If more "everyday people" just had a little bit more knowledge about these things, they would be able to do way more with their computers with less of a reliance on proprietary solutions that funnel them down whatever path makes someone else the most money.
its a UX probpem insofar as service providers will decide that since they give you a view over the file system, thats enough.
i want file system access, but as a power tool. the 50 clicks through different folders is irrelevant to my most common 5 patterns of use. those should be a single click, or 0 clicks
brokenmachine7 hours ago
[-] I tried out zoxide and fzf ctrl-r history on linux (zsh) recently. Game changers.
Where is zoxide for my phone? Why is there so little innovation?
Trillion dollar companies can't come up with a single new thing. Or rather, won't come up with a single new thing because they're just useless rent seekers.
It's absolutely pathetic.
digdugdirk18 hours ago
[-] ... This is a joke... Right?
reply▲supertrope17 hours ago
[-] "Dad, download the PDF and then email it to me."
"The file disappeared. I can't find it."
"Look in the download folder."
"How do I get to that?"
iOS isn't just a phone OS.
reply▲It is. The other OSes have different names.
reply▲iknowstuff17 hours ago
[-] Only so they could pretend that iPhones and iPadas are separate platforms under DMA
reply▲I generally agree that iOS/iPadOS aren't two different operating systems, but "iPadOS" predates the DMA.
reply▲Barely... the iPadOS brand was introduced in 2019, the European Commission proposed the DMA in 2020, and even prior to this there were obvious noises being made in Europe with regards to future regulation. Maybe its coincidence, but the timing still lines up for this being a response to the threat of EU changes.
reply▲raw_anon_111110 hours ago
[-] So Apple preemptively split the names because they knew exactly how the unreleased DMA was going to affect them?
reply▲Steve Jobs, 2007: "iPhone runs OS X"
reply▲kube-system11 hours ago
[-] And it indeed was running a fork of OSX… which was later renamed.
reply▲lots of things have happened since then.
reply▲sussmannbaka18 hours ago
[-] Im not sure if Android has caught up but the iOS file explorer app is excellent.
reply▲Saying "I'm not sure if Android has caught up" when Android is decades ahead of Apple in that regard is some kind of... something.
reply▲sussmannbaka18 hours ago
[-] Certainly wasn’t ahead with the stock file manager that came with my last Android phone.
reply▲What about after you spent the two seconds to install a different file manager?
reply▲sussmannbaka17 hours ago
[-] Ghost Commander was better but I think I still prefer the iOS Files app.
reply▲Your Samsung or whatever manufacturer bloated trash ≠ Android.
reply▲sussmannbaka17 hours ago
[-] I used the AOSP app I think? I’d usually agree with you but in this case I really wanted some more bloat because that one was dire :)
reply▲That also could have been from the phone manufacturer OR from the carrier.
This is why I've avoided non Pixel phones since the Pixel5 came out. None of that 2 or 3 apps for the same thing so everybody can get their ad cut payout.
Whenever I'm forced to help with iPhones, I'm baffled how hard everything is. And I had my own iPhones previously. Download a file, unpack it and open in an app is an exercise is frustration, and that's just hoping that I will find the file due it being newest. Working with directories and old files properly, like on Android, I'm not sure if its even possible on iOS. And all that with a crappy keyboard with hidden numbers and special symbols, making searching even harder.
reply▲Was the list time you had an Android pre-2017?
It was around that time it (Files app) got a major refresh.
rcMgD2BwE72F18 hours ago
[-] Try connecting to a WebDAV server on File. It's possible but it's shitty. And try using Syncthing on iOS to keep your files synced across devices without having them uploaded to servers you don't control.
Also, on Android, you can choose any file explorer. You're stuck with Files and it sucks (but it looks nice).
raw_anon_111110 hours ago
[-] The difference is that the Files app works with third party cloud storage providers.
reply▲sussmannbaka18 hours ago
[-] I don’t have one of those! I do have an SMB share mounted that I’m currently playing music from, though, and it’s working perfectly fine.
reply▲I'm pretty sure that iOS only has a file explorer app because Android supported it.
There was almost a whole decade there where Apple pretended that the feature just didn't need to exist.
kevin_thibedeau18 hours ago
[-] To be fair, Android lacked a stock file browser for much of its existence.
reply▲The difference is that iOS still doesn't show you the files on your device. It only shows you files in a small area.
reply▲I love Android but Android does that too. Apps have their internal storage area which you can't access unfortunately (not without root anyway). Nor system files.
reply▲TheGoddessInari17 hours ago
[-] There's a difference between "can't see 'special' folders" & "can't access anything but the app-specific storage". iOS loves the latter, while Android lets you organize files mostly normally even if doing highly stupid/discouraging things for power users & some app developers making questionable non-default choices.
reply▲sussmannbaka17 hours ago
[-] While I bet there’s some technicality I’ll get gotcha’d on, iOS apps do the exact same nowadays.
reply▲iOS apps
didn't, for the majority of the iPhone's lifespan. I explained this "technicality" upthread:
> There was almost a whole decade there where Apple pretended that the feature just didn't need to exist.
sussmannbaka14 hours ago
[-] The history lesson is appreciated but how does this relate to the current state of the stock file explorer that ships with the OS? I’m using my phone now and not ten years ago.
edit: oh, I think I get it. My original post wasn't intended to be read "iOS invented the file explorer, has Android also a file explorer app" (which would be silly, of course) but "when Files app released, the AOSP file explorer that commonly ships as the default was lacking, has this improved (caught up to Files app)"
When I had an iPhone (a few months ago), there was no way for apps to see files in the filesystem. I wanted to play some music and I had to copy it over to each of the music player apps separately. Is that not the case any more?
reply▲VLC for iOS uses the filesystem. You can add files with Finder (newer macOS), iTunes (older macOS), or the Files app on the phone.
You are correct that each app can only see a specific part of the filesystem, unless the apps are by the same developer and part of an App Group.
sussmannbaka18 hours ago
[-] That’s entirely up to the app developer. Of course apps can see files if they’re developed to do that.
reply▲sussmannbaka17 hours ago
[-] Am I supposed to be mad about them not supporting a feature during a time when I didn’t use iOS or is this somehow supposed to impact my current day use of Files app?
reply▲creaturemachine18 hours ago
[-] Remember folks, the iphone was released in 2007, and the files app in 2017.
Cut & paste? Apple didn't give ios a clipboard until 2021.
reply▲joshstrange17 hours ago
[-] > Apple didn't give ios a clipboard until 2021.
Apple added copy/paste in iOS 3.0 in 2009
raw_anon_111110 hours ago
[-] Yes - it’s not like they have had a literal app called “Files” since 2017 and if you install apps like Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive etc they all show up in the Files app and are choosable destinations from any app that uses the Files dialog…
reply▲They have rolled it back over the years. Theres a full files app now, USBs can be easily plugged in to the iPhone, every app that allows exporting allows saving to the files section, etc.
reply▲It goes farther than that. It dates back to at least iPod and iTunes library synchronizing.
reply▲They did a pretty hard reverse on that. There's now a full Files app with integration with other apps (cloud storage, asset managers like Adobe, terminals for SSH transfers, etc). Unfortunately a lot of apps have never caught up and will only save stuff in the pre-Files sandboxes and not the shared local or cloud containers.
reply▲MangoToupe17 hours ago
[-] Ios has an app called "Files".
Now "bluetooth" I could buy (and I do not miss at all).
Until reading this thread, I had no idea that iPhones did not support Bluetooth for file transfer. I had expected comments like "we can do this with an entry-level phone via Bluetooth already".
On the other hand, with the ubiquity of always-on Internet access and cheap data plans, in most situations where Bluetooth would have been used, I now see WhatsApp being used instead.
Looks like this is an Apple problem that can ve solved by not using Apple products. Every once in a while I look at some Apple device and think it's nifty. Shortly after I'm made aware of some thing or other that they can't do because Apple just doesn't like standards, open source, or just freedom itself.
reply▲It's not enough to not use Apple products. You either have to convince everyone around you to not use them either, or you have to have compatability.
reply▲Like what?
reply▲Lets just zoom into a single use case. The ability of the user to buy a 3rd Party watch that integrates with their phone:
* Apple doesn't allow 3rd Party watches to send text messages. The Apple Watch is allowed to do so.
* Apple doesn't allow 3rd Party to take actions on notifications. The Apple Watch is allowed to do so.
* If you want to use the internet on your watch, you must: 1) install a 3rd party app, 2) keep that app open. Closing the app closes the connection to the internet. The Apple Watch does not have this restriction.
* 3rd Party watches cannot detect if you are using your phone. This means that they will notify users of notifications even if the user is looking at the notification. The Apple Watch does not have this restriction.
* Apple does not have ‘interprocess communication’(IPC) like Android.
* Apple restricts making 3rd Party App Stores. This makes it difficult to make a community of people making watch faces.
All points come from Pebble's blog [1]. This is just a single type of integration that Apple intentionally makes difficult, there are many others (e.g. 3rd Party Photos App, ...)
[1] https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
On iPhones you can't install software except through the app store
reply▲Well Android is going to be the same way now, too.
reply▲No, that's not true - the change was that you could only install software from verified developers, not only from the app store, and now they've partially walked that back too and "are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified." (
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de... )
Nah, they rolles that back.
reply▲StopDisinfo91018 hours ago
[-] Certainly not. Google is only mandating signing. That’s already extremely bad but that’s still infinitely better than what Apple offers.
reply▲Like sharing your WLAN. It works great between iPhones,
if you know how it works and the preconditions are fulfilled (it's undiscoverable). You can't share with Android devices by showing them a QR code – which I would consider the "usual" way and which is easy to do on Android devices.
Edit:
Here is the procedure I was talking about and all prerequisites for it to work:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/102635
cosmic_cheese18 hours ago
[-] iOS hotspots are discoverable by non-Apple devices if you have "Allow Others to Join" enabled and have the Personal Hotspot settings panel open on the iOS device. Otherwise, it's hidden to help prevent unintended connection attempts.
reply▲rootusrootus18 hours ago
[-] I suspect they mean sharing the password for a regular wifi network, not running a hotspot.
reply▲That feature hardly works between iPhones anyway. It’s easier to just open the passwords app and show the QR code.
reply▲It has never worked for me on iOS. Everyone kept saying "I can just share the password" but the prompt never popped up, and there was no way to do anything.
reply▲rootusrootus18 hours ago
[-] IIRC it only works if you are on their contact list. And I think you need to be in the settings app. Something like that. It's a handy feature but Apple could make it easier to understand, and they could do way better communicating why it isn't working, when it does not work.
reply▲let me list some things I can do on android which I cannot do on iOS:
* Install real mobile firefox, including installing firefox addons I've built for myself. Firefox on iOS is a safari skin
* Install web browser security updates without also updating my entire OS. On Android, firefox is an app. on iOS, safari is a part of the OS that cannot be updated independently
* Install an open source app my friend built without paying $100/year or having to reload it every 7 days
* Build and install an app without owning a macbook or other macOS device, just using linux
* Filter notifications to my garmin smartwatch by-app
* Change the messenger app that handles SMS
* Have a notification center that syncs between linux and my phone (i.e. KDE Connect doesn't work https://invent.kde.org/network/kdeconnect-ios#known-behavior... )
* Have reliably working file-syncing (i.e. syncthing for iOS) because background tasks are something you can do well in android, and barely at all in iOS
* Have access to the source code to debug and fix problems
* Have the ability to flash my own custom kernel / rom (not all android devices, but many)
.... Really, not being able to write and install my own app without paying apple $100, and without owning a macbook is the big dealbreaker, followed by iOS restricting APIs needed to do all sorts of things like proper notification handling, proper NFC, etc etc.
It amazes me that so many people on the "hacker news" forum are okay with their primary computing device being wildly hostile to the hacker spirit, to the desire to tinker around for fun and learn and hack on things.
Bluetooth LDAC would be cool.
reply▲It's really an embarrassment to our society that it took this long. And still only by seemingly by reverse engineering with no cooperation from Apple.
reply▲Vendor lock has been here forever.
Here is a more hilarious attempt to break Vendor lock from the 90s!: https://youtu.be/TcJBXgmdX44?t=98
Things were more fun back then. Now Google vs Apple is so BORING! :D
> We used to be able to send files over Bluetooth before the iPhone came out.
Cross platforms, really? So for example between a Blackberry and a Windows CE phone?
_shantaram18 hours ago
[-] reply▲It always kind of sucked though. You had to go through the pairing process, and then the transfer was incredibly slow since Bluetooth is very low bandwidth.
It’s still a classic Apple “the open standard sucks so build a proprietary one that’s great but only on iPhone”
It worked and it was good enough
reply▲At 1Mbit. It was good enough but it absolutely sucks today. Meanwhile AirDrop is hundreds of megabit to a gigabit.
Trying to send a video file over Bluetooth would be miserable.
You could do it even before phones came with Bluetooth via Infrared. Granted, the two phones had to be placed perfectly for the IR sensors to connect, if you moved them the file transfer would break.
Bluetooth was a huge upgrade because you no longer needed to do that.
magicalhippo17 hours ago
[-] I recall getting very surprised when my sister got one of the first Windows phones (one with the tile menu) and it didn’t support this feature.
reply▲i think microsoft really messed up. windows phone could have been huge. i thought they were going to be. i guess things like this didn't help. they really didn't play their cards right.
reply▲adrianmonk18 hours ago
[-] Yes. When my mom got her first Android phone, she wanted to transfer all her photos from her Motorola Razr flip phone. She said the guy at the AT&T store had a device that would plug in to the data ports of various phones and transfer stuff between them, but it wouldn't do it, so he declared it impossible.
My mom was upset that she would lose her photos, so I puzzled over it for a long time trying to figure out a way. Finally, I realized I was being stupid and missing the obvious: both phones had Bluetooth! I paired them with each other, dug through Razr menus, selected the photos, and did a Bluetooth file send. As expected, the photos went right over. Well, I shouldn't say right over because it was very slow, but it worked just as it should.
When I was in high school we chatted exchanging notes/txt files between Nokias, LGs, Samsungs and Sony Ericsson feature phones and Windows Mobile (I had an HP one) and Symbian (two friends who had a N95) smartphones.
This was just as broadband was getting popular, so those who had it usually downloaded MP3s and then distributed them at school through Bluetooth. I remember one friend using her phone as a bridge to copy files from me using Bluetooth and sending to another friend's phone using IR.
This was across all the classroom, this definitely wasn't restricted to the nerdy clique. We found out that chatting through notes exchange worked pretty well and then it spread like wildfire. SMSes were expensive in my country!
This was like 20 years ago. Maybe 2006-2007. Twenty years later we're commemorating that Bluetooth File Exchange over WiFi is now interoperable between the only two major mobile OS as if it were a revolutionary technology. How backwards it is.
marcodiego18 hours ago
[-] Most of what are called "dumbphones" allowed easy file sharing over bluetooth. Even the cheapest ones.
reply▲Yes, even "dumb" phones could share files with computers back then. Apple users have no idea how much harm their masters have done to society.
reply▲Is this really a problem with Apple?
Phones other than iPhones can still share files with each other and with computers using Bluetooth. But people instead use apps like WhatsApp or e-mail for file transfers, even in places where iPhone's market penetration is near zero.
And you could tether, though it was complicated. And slow (1xRTT)
reply▲I still do this regularly because bluetooth uses less energy both for the laptop and for the phone, than wi-fi.
reply▲I don’t know about blackberry, but it worked fine between feature phone Nokias and windows pdas / phones (before windows phone 7).
reply▲Not just phones, the Mac as well. So it’s not like Apple doesn’t know about this feature of Bluetooth. They just chose not to do it on the iPhone.
reply▲Yea, there's a Bluetooth protocol for it called OBEX.
reply▲I miss being able to plug my phone (of any kind) in and getting it mounted as a drive letter.
Android misses the mark so much with MTP and iPhone… waves frantically at iTunes.
(At least, in a weird bizarre twist, the iPhone’s Files app is actually really useful for me. I find myself formatting flash drives, copying stuff from network shares, etc, all from my phone and it’s so nifty to have nearly-first-class features there.)
cosmic_cheese18 hours ago
[-] MTP is really, really bad. I have a better experience managing files on iOS devices using Linux than I do managing files on Android devices using macOS simply because available MTP implementations are so awful.
I know that read/write conflict concerns are what got USB Mass Storage mode removed from Android, but surely there's some way to resolve that. Like it wouldn't bother me a bit if Android just locked the device and put it in "file transfer mode" when it's mounted on a computer, similar to how iPods used to and how Kobo e-readers do now. It'd be worth the universal robust multi-platform support.
Dylan1680710 hours ago
[-] Or they could have figured out a new version of MTP that supports basic features like concurrent access and normal metadata. Or they could have gone for SMB/NFS over a virtual network link. Anything but this horrible interface they've doubled down on.
reply▲You can still send files over bluetooth on devices that aren't iPhones. Even Macs support this
reply▲i am still sending files over bluetooth between android phones or between phones and computer
reply▲Only took 18 years for apple and google, good work! See you in 2043 for next common feature.
reply▲marcodiego18 hours ago
[-] Around 2008 I saw two girls, not too versed in technology, share a mp3 song over bluetooth. At the time I thought that if technology finally arrived at the point where "normal people" could be able to do things that required lots of technical knowledge just a few years ago then we were very close to a future where technology could be a giant enabler of powers to everyone.
I am really ashamed by how wrong I was and how WE allowed things to became so artificially limited.
MiddleEndian18 hours ago
[-] In high school (2003-2007) it was super easy for any of my friends and I (varying technical levels) to send arbitrarily large files to each other with AOL Instant Messenger's Direct Connect. Honestly not even sure how a non-technical person would do that nowadays.
reply▲In Europe, people use WhatsApp for this. Ridiculous to go through a chat app for this, but it works.
reply▲They wouldn’t.
This is intentional.
The closest I've seen is 'send file over message service or e-mail', but this has a decently low maximum file size.
The alternative for larger files is Dropbox or Google Drive or similar and share a link, but there are limits to how full you can have those be, so sending a 5 GB file might be inconvenient if you don't pay for the upgraded service.
For anything larger than that again, I don't think I would do anything than pass a physical flash drive, since there's nothing else that has a lower barrier of entry and I can rely on a random person to be able to use and understand.
MiddleEndian16 hours ago
[-] I have upgraded dropbox and google accounts and also a VPS, so it wouldn't be hard for me. But for people who aren't big fucking nerds, nothing exists that's as easy as that. Email's limit is crazy low.
reply▲array_key_first16 hours ago
[-] Nowadays it's done by uploading something to Google drive and then sharing the link so someone can then download it.
Expensive, overly complex, and stupidly slow.
and deeply surveil-able.
reply▲Sadly for "normal people" you just share links now. You don't have an MP3 to even send.
reply▲It seems that this is directional, flowing from Android to Apple but not necessarily back (e.g., me airdropping a photo to my parent who uses Android). I'd love for this to work in the other direction as well.
reply▲The demo shows it working both ways, so you're in luck
reply▲commandersaki16 hours ago
[-] I came to the same conclusion when I clicked the link to try it out, just watching the video now to verify that the flow is both ways.
reply▲1970-01-0112 hours ago
[-] Is iPhone still abstracting files away into some kind of seamless data experience for the end user or does is finally understand what files are for?
reply▲They have a shiny file system abstraction, but ever since they introduced that, they have allowed downloading arbitrary files into it AFAIK.
reply▲Aman_Kalwar17 hours ago
[-] Finally! Interoperability like this should’ve existed years ago. Curious how they’re handling privacy & bandwidth
reply▲And Pixel phones still not support Miracast because Google want to push their own proprietary tech.
reply▲Well that’s nice but given my still extremely poor experiences with Airdrop between 2 iPhones, I remain somewhat skeptical.
reply▲TheAceOfHearts18 hours ago
[-] Long overdue, there should really be an open standard for wireless sharing of files. Windows? macOS? Linux? Android? iOS? Switch2? PS5? Doesn't matter, just open the wireless file transfer window and it should just work. Having to install third-party apps for such basic functionality is ridiculous.
If we had a functional government every major tech CEO would get called by congress, grilled about this bullshit, and told to sort it out unless they want to get some bullshit legislation shoved down their throat.
nicolaslem18 hours ago
[-] I am with you. How is it that in the past we got major successes like TCP/IP, 802.3, HTTP and WiFi but somehow in the past decade big tech decided that was too much collaboration and it would be better for everyone to stop doing that?
reply▲thewebguyd12 hours ago
[-] > big tech
That's why.
TCP/IP was DARPA, so publicly (taxpayer) funded. The first HTTPd was public domain. WiFi was a bit of a combo of Vic Hayes & Bell Labs, IEEE and a research org so not exactly a public or public domain project.
Big tech and profit/rent seeking is literally the problem. Things don't interoperate because it's not profitable for them to interoperate.
We stopped undertaking large public works projects in tech and outsourced it all to private companies. Big tech is literally the problem.
This is why free and open source software is so important.
How different would things look if httpd wasn't public domain, and Tim instead started a tech company, made it proprietary, etc.
So does this constitute an example that the liberal ideal of companies competing for the best product -with no or minimal amount of public money forced to go this way for public development- ends up becoming basically a miserable and lacking experience for end users during decades? (admittedly it sounds to me like if private companies had invented TCP-IP, the consequences would basically be terrible connectivity products nowadays)
reply▲I don't necessarily think so. It doesn't have to be this way. The problem is big tech doesn't have any incentive to compete to make the best product because there's no market pressure to do so.
We've failed, over the past ~25+ years to do any meaningful trust busting and allowed monopolies and duopolies to abuse their market positions and destroy any potential competitors.
Seriously this should be a thing. Would be so much easier.
reply▲One of my many side projects was a thing called ODO .. linux box hooked up to the TV, running a web browser provided and intranet web page where you can browse media and files tree and thus share files.
Could also use it to play media - so a phone or tablet could act as a remote control from anywhere in wifi reach, and play music on the main TV screen / speakers or on the local device.
Was pretty cool, but didnt have the funds to commercialize it.
At this point I don't even want to share files with Apple users.
reply▲averysmallbird19 hours ago
[-] What are the chances that this is made possible because of the DMA?
reply▲Around 1.0, I would say.
reply▲reply▲If implemntations have been around for a while but it only happened now, then it's 99% chance that's it's Apple backpedalling and trying to weasel their way around DMA.
They got smoked in court, see ruling at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
5.4.8. Implementation timing
(245) Apple should provide effective interoperability with the P2P Wi-Fi connection
feature by implementing the measures for Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in the next major iOS
release, i.e. iOS 19, at the latest, and for Wi-Fi Aware 5.0 in the next iOS release at
the latest nine months following the introduction of the Wi-Fi Aware 5.0
specification.
opendrop works without asking Apple
reply▲alistairSH18 hours ago
[-] Is the benefit transferring "local" via BT instead of across the internet as a text message attachment? Because I do the latter plenty, but pretty much never AirDrop anything to anybody, even if they're sitting next to me.
reply▲cosmic_cheese18 hours ago
[-] AirDrop uses P2P wifi for the actual transfer which can make it significantly faster than transferring through the internet, which makes a big difference for photos, videos, and other large files. It also works out in the middle of a forest where there are no wireless connections as well as it works in the middle of NYC.
reply▲kayodelycaon17 hours ago
[-] It’s great. I used it to move entire folders from my Mac to an account-less iPad with no Internet connection.
I thought it was going to be slow, but hundreds of gigabytes was fully transferred in less than a minute.
> hundreds of gigabytes was fully transferred in less than a minute.
yeah right
If it was a few large files as opposed to many small ones, this is totally believable. iPhones have Wi-Fi 6E chips, and an ad hoc network where the devices are right next to each other can actually reach the theoretical max speed of the protocol (as opposed to real-world connections to a base station, which never do). I've never measured it precisely but I've transferred ~1 GB disk images over AirDrop in a couple seconds.
reply▲It's fast, but it's not that fast.
My son regularly borrows my iPhone 14 Pro for shooting video, and I inevitably have to do a large AirDrop transfer to him of all his footage. We usually see about 10 GB per minute, which is really fast
I used them. Compression is an issue in other protocols (sending via WhatsApp, for example). Another benefit is that photos sent by Airdrop get automatically backed up. It also works well in areas with poor internet connectivity. For example, some beaches have weak cellphone signals due to their surroundings, so when meeting friends, we generally use Airdrop.
reply▲I'm sitting in the beach with no data connectivity whatsoever, much less any WiFi network anywhere close; my partner just asked me to send a copy of the photos we just took with my phone 10 mins ago. That's the use case. Not outside reach of a WiFi or 4G network much for you, then?
Another easy example of use case is wanting to share a file during a flight or while being overseas on a boat.
t-writescode18 hours ago
[-] I AirDrop files between my different Apple devices pretty regularly.. I guess everyone has their own system for doing things.
reply▲Did you guys notice the number of steps that need to happen to share something as simple as a photo?
reply▲Just one extra step: upload all your files to our servers. Trust us, this is for your security.
reply▲Huh, so assuming this will work with macOS as well, this eventually makes NearDrop, my macOS app that goes the other way around by implementing Google's Quick Share, obsolete.
reply▲supportengineer13 hours ago
[-] Does anyone remember the old YouSendIt? That was a really easy way to share files with anyone. You uploaded a file to their site, and you should share a secret link.
reply▲That’s more or less how iMessage works when you send a file. It encrypts the file on your device, uploads it to iCloud, and then sends a link and the decryption key as an iMessage (so it’s E2EE) to the recipient.
reply▲What would it take to make it work when reception is set to "contacts"?
reply▲bilal4hmed19 hours ago
[-] not supported right now, but seems they might be able to make it work in the future
https://security.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-quick-share-...
To ensure a seamless experience for both Android and iOS users, Quick Share currently works with AirDrop's "Everyone for 10 minutes" mode. This feature does not use a workaround; the connection is direct and peer-to-peer, meaning your data is never routed through a server, shared content is never logged, and no extra data is shared. As with "Everyone for 10 minutes" mode on any device when you’re sharing between non-contacts, you can ensure you're sharing with the right person by confirming their device name on your screen with them in person.
This implementation using "Everyone for 10 minutes” mode is just the first step in seamless cross-platform sharing, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Apple to enable “Contacts Only” mode in the future.
That would probably require cooperation with Apple.
The contact-only mode is authenticated using an Apple-signed device certificate and a signed record of those contact identifiers (as hashed UUIDs) that have been registered for a particular Apple ID associated with the device.
Someone with a Mac can extract those from the keychain (the people behind OpenDrop have a tool to do this), but otherwise you'd need to register a new apple ID, get Apple to register the contact information, register a device of some sort and then do all the key exchanges.
Why is quick share buried in the settings menu, instead of being an app?
Especially when receiving a file, it makes no sense to start by going into settings.
Generally, you don't have to open settings. The the built-in share menu from a file has quick share as an option and if someone shares something with you, you'd get a notification.
reply▲You can add it to the quick settings tiles in the notification shade, they show that exact flow in the blog post.
reply▲jamescrowley15 hours ago
[-] I wonder if this works more reliably than airdropping between my iPhone and MacBook… which seems to be 50% success rate at best.
reply▲I was never able to make it work, for some reason.
reply▲urbandw311er15 hours ago
[-] This sounds great but I can’t even get Airdrop to work reliably between my Apple devices, let alone Android.
reply▲marcodiego18 hours ago
[-] reply▲hackernewds17 hours ago
[-] but I have to download and app which is the same as downloading Google drive
reply▲thewebguyd12 hours ago
[-] and more importantly, AirDrop works without network, it's P2P. There's situations where the devices you want to share to/from aren't on the same network or can't put them on the same network for various reasons.
reply▲hollow-moe15 hours ago
[-] is it just the proprietary quickshare that no other rom or even os can implement ? sure won't care to open to read that shit from g**gle and assume it is.
reply▲This makes me wonder what concessions Google were able to get out of Apple for access to Gemini.
reply▲hshdhdhj444418 hours ago
[-] Of course, AirDrop is absolutely awful.
Is the Android equivalent any better?
sahaskatta17 hours ago
[-] Curious, why do you think AirDrop is so bad?
As for Android, it works fine, but I’ve probably used that feature only once in the past ten years. I haven't seen others use it either.
ChadNauseam15 hours ago
[-] AirDrop works very infrequently for me. I will open AirDrop and not see someone who's sitting right next to me, or then I'll send them the file and it'll get stuck on "waiting" and they'll never get the notification, or it'll send some of the files then seem to get stuck partway through.
This is all with modern day iPhones, like iPhone 15 and above, and just using it in what should be the happy path. I'm actually really surprised every time I hear people say it's so good, because I almost always have to end up just imessaging a picture instead and finding that it works much better.
I've had the same issue as a more recent iOS convert.
I remembering looking into it and I think there's actually two forms of airdrop - one is local only (I think it negotiates over Bluetooth then does actual transfer over a direct WiFi connection). The other is a fallback or something and goes over cellular.
And for some reason it seems to always want to fall back to cellular when you have one bar of shit 3G in the middle of nowhere and are trying to send your friend 2 feet away a shitload of photos from your trip.
One thing I like about Android Quick Send is that you can generate a QR code, that the other person scans, and it'll send the file to them. I use it so rarely, and most people I know are the same, so usually it's just turned off and I find a lot of other Android users are the same.
reply▲Airdrop is great when it works.
reply▲Fucking finally. I just really hope is also lands in AOSP and will be available on all Android phones in the future.
reply▲Ah, makes me think of MacOS system 7 days. MacOS formatted the 3.5" disks with its own filesystem, so if you copied a file onto it, and put the disk in a Windows PC (or DOS?), the PC would go "Huh?".
3 decades later, hooray, now we can share files between Android and iPhone!
What does this have to do with System 7?
Operating systems have always used their own filesystems, and it persists to this day.
The only obvious exceptions that come to mind are iso9660 as a standard for CDs, and people generally go out of their way to use FAT/FAT32/whatever on USB keys and SD cards for compatibility with cameras or whatever device they're plugging the card into. But the latter is a choice users actively make to ensure the FS is compatible with the device, rather than a default.
coupdejarnac19 hours ago
[-] I distinctly remember how it was the bare minimum. You'd mount a disk or open a plain text file, and there'd be a lot of strange characters that weren't decoded properly.
reply▲swiftcoder18 hours ago
[-] And that's why we all had to buy a copy of MacLinkPlus!
reply▲thunfischtoast5 hours ago
[-] Now fix Direct Share on android, which is a highly broken feature and has been for years.
reply▲leshenka59 minutes ago
[-] Why, I think you'd be able to send files between two androids via airdrop implementation.
reply▲What I want to know is under what circumstances Quick Share will send the files over the internet, and how exactly I can prevent that and force it to go solely over the local network. Nearby Share had the ability to control this, and it seems they deliberately removed it from Quick Share.
reply▲AirDrop compatible Quick Share isn't even going over the local network. It create an adhoc device-to-device wireless connection and the files are sent that way. So the two phones don't even need to be on wifi or be on the same network at all. The local network isn't involved.
Given this, I think there's minimal risk of it sending files over the internet.
lloydatkinson17 hours ago
[-] In some ways we’re gone backwards. Sharing MP3 via Bluetooth on non-smart phones in 2007 was a common event when I was at school, that and burning CDs.
reply▲It's odd that I'm far more likely to use standard internet protocols to transfer files when I'm within Bluetooth range of other phones, when the Bluetooth option works faster and more efficiently.
reply▲SilverElfin9 hours ago
[-] I can’t believe iPhone interoperability is still so bad. The group chats on iMessage have weird effects when you switch to android, where your friends will send messages that don’t reach you because they’re still sending it as iMessage to the whole group. The iCloud on windows doesn’t work and won’t sync files properly will use up your CPU. The entirety of iTunes is terrible and awkward. And of course, the functionality on AirPods is crippled outside of their ecosystem. These companies need more regulations not less.
reply▲How did Apple agree to this?
reply▲Until they decide we can't again.
reply▲reply▲LocalSend requires devices to be on the same local network, which this doesn’t, it establishes a direct Wi-Fi connection.
reply▲Now we just need universal clipboard between Android and OSX
reply▲Why is this part of the OS?
reply▲Because it can't be implemented without low level hardware access. But also, it seems like it's a part of GMS, not of the OS itself.
reply▲Low level hardware access for opening a file and a network port? Those are some of the first lessons in any programming tutorial. If they aren't available, what is the OS even doing?
Also, for all intents and purposes, GMS is part of the Android OS, but Google had to branch it off, to keep it closed source.
AirDrop doesn't open a network port, it creates a WiFi Aware advertisement and a WiFi Direct connection. However I thought this also should not need OS-level changes, just android.permission.NEARBY_WIFI_DEVICES permission.
reply▲Just use Wormhole for file transfer. Small and easy to use. I have put on all my computers, laptops and phones.
reply▲100% of the time when I want to share a file from my phone to another phone, the other phone is not owned by me and I can’t just install some software on it
reply▲polishdude2018 hours ago
[-] Wormhole can be run in the browser easily.
reply▲That’s cool, I actually didn’t know that!
reply▲Granted, this is an edge case: I'm a musician. I use an Android tablet for sheet music. That's great when I have WiFi access, otherwise, file transfer is hard. Not impossible, but awkward when show time is in 5 minutes and someone has brought some brought some new material that they want the band to play.
The almost universal solution is "should have gotten Apple."
prmoustache19 hours ago
[-] Aren't most people just sending files over whatsapp/signal/whatever instant messaging apps they use?
reply▲vscode-rest19 hours ago
[-] AirDrop is cool because it works offline with relatively high bandwidth using local RF. If you want to wait for you and the target to transmit all the data to/from some server 1000 miles away (using up your precious bandwidth quota along the way) that’s always been an option.
reply▲I just airdropped 130 photos from my phone to my coach and I was sure it would take forever. The preparing stage on my phone took maybe 10 seconds, and the actual transfer took what looked like 2 seconds. I couldn't believe it.
reply▲array_key_first16 hours ago
[-] Yes, it turns out computers are extremely fast when we're not doing backflips through networks and servers all over the country to do simple tasks.
reply▲skunkworker18 hours ago
[-] I've used it multiple times while hiking and outside normal cell phone tower range. Need to transfer 500mb of images and videos? easy.
reply▲Another use case is to share pictures with people you just met / don't know without giving them your phone number.
reply▲prmoustache14 hours ago
[-] I know there are better ways to transfer stuff. I am just saying that a majority of people don't tend to use them regardless of how easy/compatibles alternatives are.
They naturally choose to transfer stuff from the same app that they are using to communicate with others.
vscode-rest14 hours ago
[-] Not everything needs to be tailored only to the most trivial use case.
reply▲rcMgD2BwE72F18 hours ago
[-] Of course, only because Apple and Google did everything in their power to prevent people sending files directly between devices. When you have a duopoly that splits the population in two parts and they can't send files between them, of course users will rely on messaging apps to share stuff.
Short story: I did a long trip across two continent with my wife. Me with an Android devices, her on iOS. We did backup our photos in our own private cloud but guess how we had to quick exchange photos while in the wild (no wifi and sometimes no network)? We couldn't. Because Google and Apple did everything so we couldn't.
Google wants to your data and fought for the cloud. Apple don't want Android users to easily partake in some data exchange with iOS users (you gotta buy your ticket to their jail). So sad you don't realize how backward that is.
prmoustache14 hours ago
[-] I don't think that is the reason. I think people tend to choose by default the same app they are communicating on. It just feels more natural and straightforward.
The same thing used to happen (and still continues) with emails. Even with shared cloud drives synchronized to their computers an awful lot of people are still sending files by email/teams/ticketing systems.
Yes, because it's almost the only cross-platform way to do it. It used to be email, then pictures become almost too big to fit into attachments (and bandwidth, think about the days of 3G) and messages have less friction anyway.
reply▲Besides what others have mentioned, it's also nice for moving files between your own devices - I use AirDrop all the time for transferring files between my iPad and Mac.
reply▲rahimnathwani19 hours ago
[-] Large files.
reply▲swiftcoder19 hours ago
[-] or images, which WhatsApp insists on recompressing, which tends to really impact the quality
reply▲Almondsetat18 hours ago
[-] Whatsapp doesn't insist anything. You just send the photos as files
reply▲swiftcoder15 hours ago
[-] You can indeed! For some reason, I'm having trouble teaching various relatives how to do that
reply▲add-sub-mul-div19 hours ago
[-] That's my first thought too, as an Android user. But Apple culture is about using what's built in, the path of least resistance, and Android/Windows are more for tinkerers who seek out their favorite solutions from a wide variety of third party options.
reply▲… and sharing files locally at high speed when you aren’t on a network
reply