14 comments

  • otterley 7 hours ago ago

    Google didn't "crack" anything. This was done with Apple's cooperation.

    I realize you're quoting the article title verbatim, but The Verge ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    • mikestew 7 hours ago ago

      And the Google rep says otherwise:

      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,”

      • stefanfisk 6 hours ago ago

        Couldn’t that just be interpreted as ”this is 100% our code, but Apple helped us sort out the technical details”?

        • izacus 5 hours ago ago

          No, where do you see anything remotely close to your assertion?

  • renecito 8 hours ago ago

    hacked? LOL! Apple and Google had worked before together, remember Covid contact alerts?

    • bitpush 7 hours ago ago

      > 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.

      • jdibs 7 hours ago ago

        That they wrote their own implementation does not mean that they reverse-engineered the protocol.

      • 7 hours ago ago
        [deleted]
  • jauntywundrkind 8 hours ago ago

    There was a snarky comment yesterday about hackers hating governments, being unable to trust them.

    But this is the counterpoint.

    More Anti-Anti-Circumvention Laws! Please! Defend our ability to explore & interoperate & extend! The world ought be open to mankind & unfurling possible futures. It's so grand seeing governments finally putting some points on the board for improving access to systems, letting us see & grasp the constructed technological world we are submersed in.

    • aeonfox 6 hours ago ago

      People who are categorically against government intervention get weird when such an intervention shown to be An Undeniably Good Thing™. In contrast, for such people the idea that libertarianism might have Bad Consequences™ for personal liberties, or even their sacred financial system, isn't entertained.

  • jeffwask 8 hours ago ago

    And then Apple will change it and we'll have another quiet compatibility war like with text messages.

    • bitpush 7 hours ago ago

      > Under pressure from the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple is being forced to ditch its proprietary peer-to-peer Wi-Fi protocol – Apple Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) – in favor of the industry-standard Wi-Fi Aware, also known as Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN). A quietly published EU interoperability roadmap mandates Apple support Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in iOS 19 and v5.0,1 thereafter, essentially forcing AWDL into retirement. This post investigates how we got here (from Wi-Fi Direct to AWDL to Wi-Fi Aware), what makes Wi-Fi Aware technically superior, and why this shift unlocks true cross-platform peer-to-peer connectivity for developers.

      Apple cant do anything without angering EU.

      • hshdhdhj4444 6 hours ago ago

        Apple can’t do anything <to entrench its monopoly> without angering EU.

        Ironically one of Apple’s biggest selling points in the last 4-5 years of iPhone releases, the switch to USB-C, was pretty much forced by the EU.

        So far it appears Apple benefits more than it’s hurt by the EU’s anti-monopolistic decisions.

  • ChrisArchitect 9 hours ago ago