AirPods live translation blocked for EU users with EU Apple accounts

Posted by thm 9/11/2025

AirPods live translation blocked for EU users with EU Apple accounts(www.macrumors.com)

431 points | 563 comments

pornel 9/12/2025|

Google Pixel Buds have a translation feature, and a bunch of other "Gemini AI" gimmicks, available in the EU.

Apple managed to get approvals for medical devices and studies (highly regulated everywhere), custom radios and satellite communication (highly regulated everywhere).

Apple already has machine translation, voice recognition, voice recording, and dictation features shipped in the EU.

But when EU hurt Apple's ego by daring to demand to give users freedom to run software they want on devices they bought (that could break them out of a very lucrative duopoly), Apple suddenly is a helpless baby who cannot find a way to make a new UI available in the EU.

shuckles 9/12/2025||

The EU has not declared that Android gatekeeps headphone technology, so the comparison to Pixel Buds is totally irrelevant. There is no interop requirement placed on them.

alextingle 9/12/2025|||

So all Apple needs to do is stop gatekeeping headphone technology.

Thorrez 9/12/2025||

What is the definition of gatekeeping technology?

Y-bar 9/12/2025|||

In Apple’s case it mostly means that the API:s Apple use for the AirPods use should be available for others to also use. Apple is not allowed to deny or punish headphones from other manufacturers that want to use those API:s.

bilbo0s 9/12/2025||

This is not quite the problem.

There are multiple issues at play.

The two main issues are:

1 - Sometimes processing is done in private cloud servers for complex translations. Apple is not allowed to do that for EU users. Full Stop. Even if it were not prohibited by EU law, you still have issue 2.

2 - It's unclear whether or not Apple can charge. If another dev uses the APIs, and it triggers a call to the cloud, who pays for the inference? Until Apple gains clarity on that, charging could be considered "punish"-ing a dev for using their APIs.

My own opinion? Issue 2 they will get worked out, but it won't matter because I don't think the EU will move at all on issue 1. I think they see data privacy as serving a twofold purpose. One, protecting their citizens from US surveillance. ie-National Security. And two, part of their long term strategy to decrease the influence of US tech firms in the EU. Both of which I think European policymakers and European common people feel are critical to Europe.

Y-bar 9/12/2025|||

On-device API use is what is relevant here, services such as servers and interference services are out of scope. The DMA clearly allows companies to charge for service use, but they cannot deny API use for any competition who wants for example to use the quick pairing feature or low-latency communication.

legacynl 9/12/2025|||

They can design the API in such a way that you can provide your own interference solution, or just disable the cloud interference. This is purely a business decision.

shuckles 9/12/2025|||

It’s some combination of a market companies in the EU care about where Apple sells a product that has some amount of market share, where the threshold and market definition are totally made up and seem to only impact foreign multinationals.

bigyabai 9/12/2025||

If it's any consolation, Apple is in a league of their own. Any fair, proportional legislation would impact them more than anyone else.

isodev 9/12/2025|||

So Apple is welcome to divest AirPods into a separate company and problem solved. Who knows, "AirPods Inc" may discover there are a great many phone brands out there that could use a nice integration and extra features. Win for consumers.

littlecranky67 9/12/2025|||

I agree, the Beats takeover should have never happened. The US is basically allowing everything to be swallowed by big-tech.

ch4s3 9/12/2025||

> the Beats takeover should have never happened.

I agree from a business perspective, those headphones were all brand and a bad fit for apple from a quality perspective. Do we really need regulators deciding when businesses are wasting their money?

ch4s3 9/12/2025||||

The integration works so well because airpods and apple phones use a protocol that isn't bluetooth, their "Magic protocol". You have to own the whole stack to make it work so well.

nisegami 9/12/2025||||

I wish this would happen. I loved my AirPods Pros 2 but the Android/Windows support was so abysmal that I eventually ditched them.

numpad0 9/12/2025||||

That's literally the Boeing model

wtcactus 9/12/2025||||

So, the problem is indeed the EU.

melesian 9/12/2025||

On the contrary, the EU is the solution.

davemp 9/12/2025||||

Or you know Linux/Windows PCs that would definitely be a big win.

tomalbrc 9/12/2025|||

[flagged]

elAhmo 9/12/2025|||

So many other features, such as iPhone mirroring also don't work. Quite ridiculous.

betaby 9/12/2025||

Vote with your wallet?

elAhmo 9/12/2025||

Easier said than done, but this relatively small annoyance is not a dealbreaker to change the phone. I had it before this feature was announced :D

dktp 9/12/2025|||

Half of the new Google Pixel AI features are not enabled in EU. Magic cue, text image editing... These are on-device features too, so really not sure why

I'm a disappointed Pixel 10 owner living in Germany

weberer 9/12/2025|||

Instead of these conspiracy theories, the more likely answer is that it takes time to get through these additional regulations, and they didn't want that to hold back their US rollout. Its a pattern that we've seen plenty of times already in the tech industry.

epolanski 9/12/2025||

So Samsung could nail the regulation part with their earbuds, but Apple with Airpods can't.

rafram 9/12/2025||

Samsung isn’t a “gatekeeper” under the DMA. The regulations in question here don’t apply to them.

eagleal 9/12/2025|||

Most probably as you say they can't ship the capability yet, so they're blaming the regulations.

Or really the headphones actively register and send data outside of the EU. There's been some pushback recently on this front (ie. recent MSFT case [1]) since it's a known fact in the field that the approved 2023 EU-US DPF is basically BS, as it doesn't really address the core issues for which US companies were deamed not-compatible with GDPR.

[1] https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20250609/ce_co...

no-reply 9/12/2025||

In my quest to check if deamed was the correct spelling, I stumbled upon an interesting read https://reginajeffers.blog/2024/03/04/damned-or-deemed-or-de...

eagleal 9/12/2025||

Indeed. But in my case it’s quite easy as it was a typo. Deemed is the correct one

theshrike79 9/12/2025|||

EU isn't forcing Google to let random 3rd parties replace Gemini AI with TotallyHonestAndNotStealingYourData Corp's AI.

outadoc 9/12/2025|||

You already can replace the default assistant app with any app that declares itself as an assistant on Android, and have always been able to.

benoau 9/12/2025||||

Google is a designated gatekeeper carrying all the same DMA obligations for:

Google Search, YouTube, Chrome, Shopping, Maps, Ads, the Play Store, and Android.

https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en

epolanski 9/12/2025|||

You can replace Gemini with Perplexity or whatever you want on your Android phone, that includes the main system-wide assistant.

tiahura 9/12/2025||

It's almost like you can only shakedown your victims so many times before they say no mas.

baxuz 9/12/2025||

Did you just describe Apple as a victim?

crazygringo 9/11/2025||

This is probably due to concern about legal regulations around temporarily recording someone else's voice so it can be processed for translation. After all, there is no mechanism for the person you're talking to to provide "consent", and the EU does have particularly strong laws on this.

Alternatively it might have something to do with the translation being performed in iOS, and the capability not being exposed to competitor audio devices, and therefore Apple needs assurance the EU won't consider it anticompetitive?

Or both.

theshrike79 9/12/2025||

My theory is that it's #2.

EU has defined Apple (but not Google(!)) as a "digital gatekeeper" and thus Apple has to comply to pretty much any part of their system being replaced with a 3rd party alternative.

So if they bring this system in, something which is listening to people real time and using online AI models to translate things, EU might force them to let _any_ 3rd party AI replace it.

And when someone installs TotallyHonest Co. AI to replace it and there's a massive data leak where they just stored every conversation as-is in an open S3 bucket, who gets the PR flak on HN? Apple, EU or TotallyHonest? The headlines will have "Apple" in them to drive clicks and TotallyHonest is maybe mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, which nobody will read or remember.

The only winning move is not to play.

plst 9/12/2025|||

> EU has defined Apple (but not Google(!)) as a "digital gatekeeper"

Could you explain what you mean? The following article lists Alphabet as a gatekeeper.

https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en

> So if they bring this system in, something which is listening to people real time and using online AI models to translate things, EU might force them to let _any_ 3rd party AI replace it.

If you allow the third party to do that, yes.

> And when someone installs TotallyHonest Co. AI to replace it and there's a massive data leak where they just stored every conversation as-is in an open S3 bucket, who gets the PR flak on HN?

I see this argument often, as often as I hear about leaks. Do you have an instance where Apple was blamed for a leak from a third party? I never heard anybody blaming Apple for Tea app leaks for a recent example, and it is still available on App Store.

Also, an alternative translation app does not have to be provided by a totally random third party vendor. Companies that to me are just as trustworthy as Apple surely will provide alternatives too - Google, OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft or Anthropic.

So I really don't see what's your point here. Don't install the alternatives if you don't trust them.

theshrike79 9/12/2025||

Can't reference a leak or incident specifically, but when Foxconn (a massive company with 3/4 million employees) had workers jumping from their dormitories and installed "suicide nets" the headlines were always "Apple factory..." - and I checked multiple sites at the time.

Even though quite literally every single piece of major western technology is assembled in Foxconn factories.

It's purely because dissing Apple brings clicks and people arguing on comment sections and social media posts.

And about 3rd party translation AI systems. Of course _I_ won't install suspicious ones, but how do you make sure Auntie Liz won't? If you provide an option to do so, grifters will get less tech literate folks to install any kind of crapware.

plst 9/12/2025||

> Can't reference a leak or incident specifically, but when Foxconn (a massive company with 3/4 million employees) had workers jumping from their dormitories and installed "suicide nets" the headlines were always "Apple factory..." - and I checked multiple sites at the time. Even though quite literally every single piece of major western technology is assembled in Foxconn factories.

Apple chose Foxconn. It won't get to choose the third parties implementing alternative translation apps. That's the point.

I see that I wasn't specific, but I thought it's obvious given the context.

> And about 3rd party translation AI systems. Of course _I_ won't install suspicious ones, but how do you make sure Auntie Liz won't?

I think you are switching topics from allowing other vendors to use Apple-only APIs to "sideloading".

Educate her. (yes, that's not Apple's responsibility, and they don't even try. We need people to understand what applications can do when installed on a smartphone or a computer. It's a national education issue IMO). If she can't take care of herself anymore - parental controls.

I see the point in having some entity verify legitimacy of applications, but it does not need to be only Apple/Google, like with TLS.

hopelite 9/12/2025|||

I’m still waiting for the shoe to drop on the #1 matter, because as things like always-on listening devices and interior video surveillance spreads, people are not realizing that unless they are informing their visitors every time they enter their home (or you hang signs everywhere), that they will be recorded, in many states with two party consent laws, you are thereby committing a separate felony by recording them, with every recording. Technically even if you have your phone out and someone else’s voice triggered the “digital assistant” in a way where the recording was captures and sent somewhere (on device cases are an separate matter), you’ve committed a felony, regardless of whether you did so unintentionally. It’s how many crimes are committed, unintentionally.

Because unbeknownst to many, e.g., just because someone is in your home does not mean they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in spaces that are common, i.e., not the bathroom, e.g., a house cleaner or maybe a contractor or even a guest talking while you are not in the room.

This generally only applies to the voice recording, not the video itself.

I have been a bit surprised that some enterprising attorneys with a hunger for getting rich have not jumped on this matter already. Because you, the owner may have consented to being recorded by an always-on listening device, but your family members or your guests will likely not have done so. Or, even if some slick corporate attorney got you to agree to take on responsibility for notifying everyone as is necessary in each jurisdiction, that makes you even, legally speaking, knowingly engaging in felonious activity.

close04 9/12/2025||

Getting rich from a lawsuit about unauthorized recordings requires not only proving many such instances, but also proving the damage they caused.

d1sxeyes 9/11/2025|||

More likely the second than the first. It’s already the case that you technically “record” the audio at one end and then transmit it to the other. I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics.

Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU.

graeme 9/11/2025|||

>Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU.

The EU has threatened massive fines for creating features not available to competitors. And the EU refuses to vet a feature officially in advance.

Under such conditions, how would you distinguish being petty from complying with the law?

The EU probably imagined the outcome would be: change your business practices entirely for the EU, and make all new features open to all, immediately, perpetually, everywhere.

But that's not the norm for the vast majority of companies, for a variety of sensible reasons. Given that it's actually hard to do that, witholding new features until you're told "yes this is ok" is a rational response to the law.

Dylan16807 9/11/2025|||

In terms of feature availability, if the law says they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU, then... that's what they need to do. Waiting for an "ok" to violate the law is not sensible at all. Sure they don't have to allow it worldwide, but they do need to allow it in the EU.

Waiting the way you describe only makes sense if they think the implementation probably follows the law, but they're not sure it will be accepted. We could make that argument for privacy rules, we can't in good faith make that argument for interoperability rules.

graeme 9/11/2025||

That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors.

The law does not say you must make all features available in the EU. Generally speaking business regulations don't force companies to offer services. They instead regulate how the service can be offered if offered.

The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.

Dylan16807 9/11/2025||

> That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors.

You misread me.

"it" in the phrase "they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU" was referring to features they release in the EU.

So yes you're interpreting the law right, and so am I.

> The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.

If the deciding factor in whether something gets built is whether they can lock it to another product, it's usually okay for that thing to not be built.

In this case, they obviously did build it. So now it's a matter of figuring out what the hold up is.

If it's because they don't want to, even though it would make them money and make people in the EU happy, then that's pettiness.

graeme 9/11/2025|||

Ah, I see what you're saying. The thing is if it is a cut and dry violation it ought to be in principle possible to say so. And there have been features that were delayed and released and which function the same in the EU as elsewhere. So presumably the implementation is legal but plausibly wasn't.

Now there's a difference between building a feature and building interoperability. You have to actually work at it. And if you rush to do so on every feature:

1. You may modify features you didn't need to

2. You open yourself up to other countries demanding specific software changes

The simplest thing is just to make one version for the world, and wait for an ok. Big downsides to either rushing to release as is or rushing to make a change you may not need to make.

d1sxeyes 9/12/2025||

Well the question as to whether it’s a “cut-and-dried” violation depends on information Apple probably isn’t willing to share: is there a specific technical reason this technology can’t be enabled on third party headphones? If there’s a good reason (e.g. the AirPods have a chip in them that does processing on the signal without which it wouldn’t work), then it’s probably fine. If it’s just `if (headphones !== “AirPods)`, then that’s probably not

jacobjjacob 9/12/2025|||

As far as I understand, the act can’t control what Apple decides to do outside of the EU. Whether Apple has products or features available outside that market means nothing because it’s scoped to that jurisdiction.

I think that whether or not they built the thing does not matter.

johncolanduoni 9/12/2025||

I don’t know anything about jurisprudence, much less EU jurisprudence. Is there anything that would make the EU demanding that Apple not restrict these features from the EU to avoid allowing competitor products illegitimate in the eyes of the court? The law would still be only directly affecting the requirements for selling their productions under the EU’s jurisdiction. However it would consider facts about their behavior outside of the EU as essential to showing their noncompliance.

interactivecode 9/12/2025||

From what I know, the current rules don't say anything about region locking features like apple is doing. The EU regulations might be slow in reaction time but they are not playing around. You can be sure that they will continually close loopholes and avoidance strategies until Apple (and others) aren't a gatekeeper anymore.

The way Apple and others misuse their market position to get away with anything is ridiculous. At a certain size or influence you shouldn't be both a platform for other companies and products and a participant in that platform while giving yourself all sorts of advantages.

Airpods are decent but they have most of their market share due to the massive integration gap from competitors. So shit it's impossible for anyone to compete.

johncolanduoni 9/12/2025||

I’m not sure I’d call this a loophole per se. I don’t think governments should be refusing to let you take your ball and go home if you don’t want to sell things that create more compliance work/risk. I was just curious if this kind of jurisdictional edge case matters.

Do the relevant provider-agnostic Bluetooth audio standards (in USB they’d be class devices, not sure on Bluetooth terminology) have equivalent features that Apple is refusing to just implement? I think it’s reasonable to ask Apple to support interoperability standards once the industry settles on them, but it seems weird to incentivize them to create bespoke standards that they control in an effort to reduce their market power.

pyrale 9/12/2025|||

You seem to think they’re doing people a favor by selling them their products.

I’m fine with apple looking to exit the market and/or harm their product rather than comply.

ZaoLahma 9/12/2025|||

This won't harm Apple or its AirPod product much, if at all. The Apple brand and its eco system is strong enough for the vast majority of average EU customers to ignore the missing features and buy the products regardless (at full price).

A missing fringe feature won't drive fans of the eco system away.

hnaccount_rng 9/12/2025||

Oh, if I were travelling a lot to other countries speaking to non-english speakers and an alternative offers live translation and AirPods don't. Then this is pretty much the _first_ real argument of not buying AirPods. And once you do start switching out of the ecosystem remaining in it is much less attractive

graeme 9/12/2025|||

>I’m fine with apple looking to exit the market and/or harm their product rather than comply.

It's not clear to me to what extent you disagreed with what I wrote. But, on this point I should point out that every time Apple holds back a feature citing the DMA there is much complaint in Europe.

So regardless of what you think it seems a lot of people do care. You appear to have a better understanding of the law: Apple can bring in a feature if all can use it or they can withhold the feature.

toast0 9/11/2025||||

> I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics.

Voicemail greetings typically inform the caller the message will be recorded, and there'a often a beep which is an indicator of recording as well. If you don't consent to recording, you can hang up without leaving a message.

chatmasta 9/11/2025||||

I wonder if that translation is actually powered by OpenAI and Apple doesn’t want to pay them for inferencing on behalf of app developers.

Or is it powered entirely by local models?

mcny 9/11/2025||

My understanding is live translations do not require an active Internet connection.

> Live Translation is integrated into Messages, FaceTime, and Phone to help users communicate across languages, translating text and audio on the fly.1 Live Translation is enabled by Apple-built models that run entirely on device, so users’ personal conversations stay personal.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-elevates-the-ip...

chatmasta 9/12/2025||

If it works, that is really impressive. I’m looking forward to trying it out. I’ve always wanted a real-life babelfish for eavesdropping on conversations in foreign language :)

tcdent 9/11/2025||||

Isn't noise cancelling technically recording people in your environment in this sense then?

FirmwareBurner 9/11/2025||

Why would it be? Noise cancelling is a DSP over current raw signal, no data storage.

simonh 9/11/2025|||

Pressure on them to do what, if there’s nothing about this proscribed by the EU?

isodev 9/11/2025|||

I think the explanation is a lot simpler - iOS to date does not correctly support most European languages. Using Siri in anything other than English is a pain and using the Translate feature is available in only a handful of countries.

For anything remotely powerful enough, iOS will have to send voice to some server for processing and that’s a privacy shit show.

celticninja 9/11/2025|||

That seems ridiculous, this is a translation feature. Do you think it is aimed at translating American to Canadian? Those pesky niche European languages are hardly spoken in the Americas so maybe that is the case.

walthamstow 9/12/2025|||

Enables tech bros to speak to their street food vendor

anticensor 9/11/2025|||

British to American.

rkomorn 9/12/2025||

Genuinely useful to me.

anticensor 9/12/2025||

I'd prefer American to British, though.

wqaatwt 9/11/2025||||

What languages is it mean to translate then? Different accents of English?

twothreeone 9/12/2025|||

Mostly Spanish and Chinese. Arabic and Hindi will already be difficult.

nedt 9/12/2025|||

German is on the list of supported languages. That can't be the reason why it's not available in Germany. Although as an Austria I must admit their German is a bit weird.

_boffin_ 9/11/2025|||

How would this function in two-party consent states like California? My understanding is limited, but from what I've read, this might still violate consent laws unless explicitly disclosed—even in public spaces.

I recently explored building a real-time STT system for sales calls to support cold-calling efforts. However, the consensus from my research was that, even if audio is streamed live without storage, consent laws could still present significant hurdles.

crazygringo 9/11/2025|||

I think it really depends on the legal definition of recording or what it's used for.

Common sense says that a recording that only exists for a few seconds, and is utilized only by the person a speaker is intending to speak to, and is never permanently stored, should be fine. And we can assume Apple has made sure this is legal in its home state of California.

But EU law might not have sufficient legal clarity on this if it was written in a particularly open-ended way.

consp 9/12/2025||

If you put this in the data processing agreement and make those available ("GDPR" requirement in most countries) it's pretty much fine. You can probably use them for training and improving purposes if destroyed after a short duration as well. Speech is personal information but not medical so no special things apply. The laws in most countries are quite clear about non medical personal information and translation is a good grounds for usage of personal information as far as I can see.

You have to specify usage however. Which is what most companies bark about because they want to store things for later use and unknown purpose. Which is frowned upon. You also need to protect personal data adequately which is deliberately vague. Storing it unencrypted for instance is not considered adequate. This also applies in transit.

johncolanduoni 9/12/2025||||

Is this much different than a hearing aid, even in technical detail? A hearing aid will have a small internal buffer containing processed audio. I’m not sure the law will care that the processing is more substantial as long as it’s on-device and ephemeral.

cyberax 9/11/2025||||

> How would this function in two-party consent states like California?

It won't. Regulations permit sound recording, as long as it's not stored. Speech-to-text and hearing aids for disabled people are an example of permitted uses.

tick_tock_tick 9/12/2025||||

> even in public spaces

Even in a two party state public spaces are fair game. The Constitution supersedes state law.

otterley 9/12/2025||

The Constitution has nothing to do with this. It constrains the Government, not private actors. And there’s no Constitutional right to a translation service.

You’re probably thinking about warrantless recordings of conversations and the reasonable expectation of privacy requirement. This doesn’t apply here.

johncolanduoni 9/12/2025||

The Constitution can definitely restrict the ability of the government to pass laws regulating behavior, and two-party consent statutes are definitely laws that regulate behavior. Whether the object level question is true is a different matter, but I would assume so given that you can point a camera that records audio at people in public at all.

Also, the US Constitution does constrain private actors, all the time. It bans slavery for a very simple example.

otterley 9/12/2025||

The Constitution does not forbid laws that require two-party consent to record a conversation. That’s what we’re talking about here.

The constitutional view of the 13th Amendment is that it withdrew from government the power to promulgate or enforce laws that allowed slavery to exist. If a slave escaped after the 13th Amendment passed, the government then lacked the power to assist the former slaveholder in capturing and returning him. Similarly, without the power to enforce property rights, there became effectively no property interest in a slave.

johncolanduoni 9/12/2025||

I’m finding a lot of literature from NGOs specializing in US jurisprudence saying the first amendment has been interpreted to protect public, obvious recording[1].

If I tried to draw up an indentured servitude contract, what federal or state laws would explicitly forbid enforcing it myself? If state laws, do all states have equivalent laws?

[1]: https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/

otterley 9/12/2025||

The First Amendment protects you against prosecution for filming the actions of law enforcement in a public venue. AFAIK it hasn’t been interpreted to void state laws that might forbid someone from recording a conversation between private individuals who don’t consent. The link you provided says as much.

How do you self-enforce an indentured servitude contract? Or any contract, for that matter? Only a court can compel performance or restitution for a breach of contract.

gtirloni 9/11/2025|||

At the point where you enable this feature (you wouldn't walk around with it enabled at all times because why?) the phone shows a screen asking you to get consent and the other person touches yes/no and that's it? Or would a signed form with a government seal be required?

ffsm8 9/11/2025||

IANAL, but from my understanding the user needs to get consent, not Apple. There would be no consent screen, apple would at most give a small dialog warning to the user that this usage is illegal (for the user). unless every participant has given consent

rsynnott 9/11/2025|||

Also potentially AI Act concerns. Quite a lot of things involving our good friends the magic robots have a delayed launch in the EU, because they need to be compliant, whereas the space is for practical purposes completely unregulated in most other places.

selkin 9/12/2025|||

A device connected to a non-European Apple account can use this feature while physically located in Europe, so it's probably not consent.

adastra22 9/11/2025|||

That same issue would apply in California, which is a two party consent state.

moi2388 9/15/2025||

Nonsense. You are allowed to record any conversation you’re part of. It’s just not usable in criminal court (but it is even in civil court).

You are also allowed to record and film in any public space.

glanzwulf 9/12/2025||

If they wanted to have this in the EU, they would've. Not going to blame brussels for the dirt that apple is throwing at my face.

fastball 9/12/2025||

Is the idea that they hate you because you're European, or...?

jeroenhd 9/12/2025||

Apple doesn't hate European citizens, per se, just EU/EEA customer protection laws.

tacker2000 9/12/2025||

That says something about Apple, doesnt it?

boesboes 9/12/2025||

s/Apple/USA & BIgtech/g

selkin 9/12/2025|||

I'd argue this is true for every corporation that didn't need that regulationas a moat (some have found they could use those regulations to their advantage and block competitors, mostly due to implementation costs)

tacker2000 9/12/2025|||

Sure, i can agree with that.

jajko 9/12/2025||

Its just another heartless corporation focused purely on money, run by typical sociopaths, just like literally every other big megacorp. Profits and carefully crafted PR campaigns also here on HN, nothing more.

It never ceases to amaze me in worst way possible how quite a few people here keep treating them as something more, over and over. Or maybe its just that PR campaign.

Don't take me wrong, they have fine devices for specific type of people and good business strategy overall but above applies hard.

bogdan 9/12/2025|||

> It never ceases to amaze me in worst way possible how quite a few people here keep treating them as something more, over and over

A lot of people are investing in Apple, most likely you are indirectly as well, if not you then your pension. Not surprised some people would defend everything they do. Then you have the die-hard fans and I'm sure there's some PR peeps going around especially how it easy it is nowadays with AI.

parthdesai 9/12/2025||||

It's funny, because Apple was/is HN's darling when it comes to privacy, yet handed over the keys to Chinese government when push came to shove.

philipallstar 9/12/2025|||

It's not that people love Apple necessarily. It's also that not all people love bureaucracy and trust in it implicitly.

rickdeckard 9/11/2025||

Quite clearly the EU DMA.

As part of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) evaluation [0], Apple was found to operate a market for headphones connected to its devices, while competing in the same market with own products and giving itself a competitive advantage by creating OS-features exclusive to them.

The EU found this is not a level playing field for competition and ordered that they have to make such OS features available for other accessory manufacturers as well.

I guess they are currently either trying to make a case for the EU on how it is technically impossible to provide the feature to others, prove that this is somehow not an OS-feature (and should be excluded) or delay any action to maximize the benefit of this competitive advantage in other markets.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are also beats headphones in the pipeline for which they want to use this feature as competitive USP...

[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

rickdeckard 9/11/2025||

Also, Apple cannot name this as reason explicitly, because users may look up the details of that ruling and may find themselves agreeing with the sentiment...

  "[..] The measures will grant device manufacturers and app developers improved access to iPhone features that interact with such devices (e.g. displaying notifications on smartwatches), faster data transfers (e.g. peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections, and near-field communication) and easier device set-up (e.g. pairing).

  As a result, connected devices of all brands will work better on iPhones. Device manufacturers will have new opportunities to bring innovative products to the market, improving the user experience for consumers based in Europe. The measures ensure that this innovation takes place in full respect of users' privacy and security as well as the integrity of Apple's operating systems."

HPsquared 9/12/2025||

Expectation vs reality.

NotPractical 9/11/2025|||

I don't think that the translation feature itself can be considered OS functionality. An API providing on-demand background execution time for apps linked to connected Bluetooth devices would surely be sufficient to comply with the DMA?

As an example, when they were compelled to allow competing browser engines, they didn't open source Safari; they added a multiprocessing/JIT API to iOS (tailored and restricted by policy to browsers). Competitors (web browsers) got access to the OS features (multiprocessing/JIT) that they needed to compete with Apple's product (Safari), but they didn't get access to the product itself and still need to build their own.

In this case, competitors (device makers) might request access to the OS feature (background execution) that they need to compete with Apple's product (live translation on AirPods).

It should also be noted that such functionality only has to be provided if explicitly requested by a developer who is working on a competing product, so they don't have to develop it preemptively.

I'm not saying that this is completely fair or whatever, just that I don't think it's quite as extreme as people are making it out to be?

wazdra 9/11/2025|||

(I’m an EU-based user of Apple products) I see your point. However, Apple already provides a translation API[0], a speech recognition API[1], and a Text2Speech API[2], so not a lot more is needed than the API you describe. Also note that, while I have not looked into that thoroughly, it seems the kind of API you are discussing shares many similarities with the features of the Apple Vision Pro SDK (real time computation introducing new constraints…)

I think this situation also shows a strong divide between two visions of Apple end-game (and I think both exist within the company): exposing those APIs makes the Apple ecosystem better as a whole, with its satellite accessories/app developers; while keeping them private gives them an edge as a hardware selling company. Personally, I prefer when Apple embraces its gatekeeper status.

[0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/translation/transl... [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/speech [2]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/speec...

biztos 9/12/2025|||

> such functionality only has to be provided if explicitly requested by a developer who is working on a competing product

So if I'm Samsung, wouldn't I explicitly request every possible bit of functionality I could force Apple to provide, even if the "competing product" might very slow to market?

Animats 9/11/2025|||

Note that the way Apple is doing this, you can only talk easily to other Apple earphone customers. This is going to be worse than the blue/green message bubble thing.

yreg 9/12/2025|||

How come? If the other person has any other device that translates for them then you can talk to them easily with Airpods.

Animats 9/12/2025||

"The feature becomes more powerful when both conversation participants wear compatible AirPods with Live Translation enabled. Active Noise Cancellation automatically lowers the volume of the other speaker, helping users focus on translated audio while maintaining natural interaction flow."

yreg 9/19/2025||

I don't read there as in there would be any networking involved. If the other user had a competitor device that does the same thing there should be no difference.

I might be wrong of course.

_rs 9/12/2025||||

From what I have seen that is not the case. The AirPods nor connected iPhones are interacting with the other person’s at all.

baxuz 9/11/2025|||

What I don't understand is how there are now probably a dozen features by Apple that aren't available in the EU, allegedly due to regulations, however every other vendor has no issues providing the same or similar features.

rickdeckard 9/11/2025|||

It is not about the features themselves, it's about Apple owning the OS a series of accessories need to connect to and using it as a tool to secure advantages to Apple Headphones/Watches/Payment services/Entertainment.

gms 9/12/2025||||

No. It's a similar situation with certain AI features from Google.

microtonal 9/12/2025||

This is mostly false. Most AI features are available in some EU countries. For instance, Pixel Studio and Pixel Screenshots are available in Germany, but not in The Netherlands. I think they are dragging their feet on localization (though much Dutch people would be fine with these AI apps only accepting English input).

ErikBjare 9/12/2025||

How is it "mostly false"? I can't access the new google.com/ai (as a most recent example). Localization is not the issue, the EU is clearly singled out due to regulation.

microtonal 9/12/2025|||

It is purely out of spite. They like to rant every time how the EU is blocking progress. They are using it to turn sentiment of iDevice-using EU citizens against the EU. It's interesting how Apple rolls over when an autocratic state (e.g. China) asks, but are trying to mobilize their users against regulators, do malicious compliance, etc. when it's democratic states regulating them.

As a Mac user since 2007 and iPhone user since 2009, this behavior of Apple disgusts me. (Yes, I know - vote with your wallet. I switched from Apple Watch Ultra to Garmin Fenix and do have a Pixel with GrapheneOS.)

poemxo 9/12/2025|||

Why should I worry about anti-competitive practice when every third party app is literal spyware mining the everliving crap out of any data source they can get their hands on? We are in a dark age where all apps are borderline malware. Is it anti-competitive to turn my firewall on and to lock my doors too?

In my opinion Apple is the only one acting in the interest of the consumer. These efforts to open up Apple's platform are nothing more than attempts to weaken the security that Apple's customers enjoy by default. How we got here and whether Apple is truly "good" is irrelevant. If you care about your data not being used against you, Apple is your only option.

I doubt I am the only one who feels this level of discomfort with the way other technology companies treat their users (and those who aren't their users).

Seanambers 9/12/2025||

[flagged]

JSR_FDED 9/11/2025||

My understanding is that this works on-device (via the iPhone), so I wonder what the regulatory issue is.

Perhaps the regulations treat is as if you’re “recording” the person you’re speaking with, without their consent?

paxys 9/11/2025||

If it works on device then it should be easy for another headphone maker to integrate it. Except Apple doesn't let them do that.

foobar10000 9/11/2025||

It’s not that simple - when implementing this one runs into the issue that detecting self speech is a solved problem - BUT detecting the speech of a person talking AT you in a restaurant is not nearly that easy - this is known as diarization. This needs custom models - and I am willing to bet the model for the iPhone is tuned specifically to the AirPods . How would they even provide that? And I’d bet that the customer microphones in the AirPods provide a much better time synced stream to the phone than just a random pair of phones - I’d be willing to bet this is not just Bluetooth, but also out of band clock drift, etc. Which allows for much better phase data - which makes training diarization models simpler- and makes the accurate. So - I’d bet there is a per headset model here - and one that probably requires more than just audio.

bootsmann 9/11/2025||

The issue the EU has is much simplr than this. They are not requesting Apple to provide a model that works for their competitors headphones, they are requesting they also allow their competitors to run their own models the same way Apple allows the AirPods to.

SkyBelow 9/12/2025|||

If Apple did this, and it turns out Apple did tune the model to the extent that it works really well with AirPods and really poorly with any other competitor, would there be any possibility of legal action against Apple (by the competitor or by the EU) on the grounds that the model's training is effectively limiting the functionality?

For example, maybe Apple purposefully trained the model to not only optimizing working with AirPods, but to optimize not working with any other input devices? If Apple could be in trouble if it became known they did such specific training, could it also mean there is the potential for them to have legal issues due the potential for them to have done such?

(I think we can also make a similar argument when it comes to the hardware being made to optimally run one specific model and possible allegations it doesn't run other models as well.)

If the government doesn't crack down on this sort of behavior, a company could use it to try to meet the legal requirements technically while also still hurting competitors. But if the government does crack down on it, then a company could be caught up under an accusation of doing this even if they didn't (they just didn't care to optimize for competitors at all, but never negatively optimized for them either).

therein 9/12/2025|||

Quite a burden to provide an ecosystem. I mean doesn't this extend to anything you want it to extend to? From AirDrop to the complete feature set of the AirTag and FindMy ecosystem. Your non Apple airtag has to show up in FindMy or at least be capable of being added? You have ultra-wideband features for AirTag. You need to make that available too?

If I were Apple, I'd say you got what you want EU, it works on ALL earphones in EU. But it will be absolutely terribly shitty because we will use the same model trained for our AirPods on your random headphones.

You're using a third party BLE airtag and clicking on UWB? Enjoy tracking this approximate noisy location that we're basing off of some noise pattern we didn't lock on.

Feature provided, just not well. Goes against Apple's ethos of trying to make things polished but don't let some bureaucrats weaponize that against you.

ImPostingOnHN 9/12/2025||

Nobody is forcing Apple, the gatekeeper to the iPhone and iOS ecosystem, to also make headphones and compete in that totally separate market, but they are of course free to.

The issue arises when Apple leverages their position as gatekeeper to anticompetitively preference their own headphones in the iPhone/iOS ecosystem. Can't do that.

> If I were Apple, I'd say you got what you want EU, it works on ALL earphones in EU. But it will be absolutely terribly shitty because we will use the same model trained for our AirPods on your random headphones.

The problem for Apple is that they have no secret sauce here: absent any ratfuckery, it would probably work just as well with competing headsets, if not better (particularly since many of Apple's competitors' headsets have better sound quality, better microphone quality, and better noise cancellation). That's probably why they aren't taking your suggestion and are instead choosing anticompetitive behavior.

therein 9/12/2025||

> The problem for Apple is that they have no secret sauce here: absent any ratfuckery, it would probably work just as well with competing headsets.

Yeah, I'd believe it. There is a good chance that is very much the case here.

foobar10000 9/12/2025||

Let’s just say there is. Scuttlebutt says there was at least a microphone pick up redesign and a timing redesign because the diarization model loss curve was crap - and given what I hear from the rest of the industry on auto0diarization in conference rooms, I believe that easily. Basically, the AI guys tried to get it working with the standard data they had, and the loss curve was crap no matter how much compute they threw at it. So, they had to go to the HW ppl and say ‘no bueno’ - and someone had to redesign time sync and change a microphone capsule out.

For reference, we are seeing it more and more - sensor design changes to improve loss curve performance - there’s even a term being bandied about : “AI-friendly sensor design”. This does have a nasty side effect of basically breaking abstraction - but that’s the price you pay for using the bitter lesson and letting the model come up with features instead of doing it yourself. (Basically - the sensor->computer abstraction eats details the RL could use to infer stuff)

ImPostingOnHN 9/12/2025||

I'm not sure who scuttlebutt is, but in the architecture of,

audio goes into mic => STT engine => translation model => TTS engine => audio comes out of speaker

a change in hardware would be a change in the "audio goes into mic" component of the model, which is not the critical part of the model.

All the parts of the above architecture already exist: we already have mics, STT, translation models, TTS, and speakers, and they all worked on other systems before apple even announced this, much less came up with a redesign. Most likely the redesign is aesthetic or just has slightly better sound transmission or reception – none of those were necessary for the functioning of the above architecture in other, non-apple systems.

I am, of course, assuming apple's architecture is a rough approximation of above. An alternative theoretical architecture might resemble the one below, but I have seen no evidence apple is doing this.

audio goes into mic => direct audio-to-audio translation model => audio comes out of speaker

foobar10000 9/13/2025||

From what I understand, it is the STT engine that is the issue - and is in fact not a solved problem at all. Specifically, in a conversation where the microphones hear 3 people talking, 1 of them talking _at_ us, we need to pick out _that_ person only to translate.

If we were using Whisper in that pipeline, we could for example generate speaker embeddings for each segment whisper generates, then group by matching the speaker embeddings - and in reality, this doesn't really work all that well.

But we are still left with the question of _WHO_ to feed to the translation model - so, ideally, the person facing us or talking at us - so we'd have to classify the 3 people all talking to each other given their angle in relation to the listener's head, etc.. This is what the diarization model would have to do - and the more sophisticated diarization models certainly could use the precise angle input can only be computed if you have super-close timings.

pornel 9/11/2025||

[flagged]

chneu 9/11/2025|||

Apple is using the conservative approach, which is to misrepresent their starting position by moving the goal posts to an extreme. Then they bargain towards the "middle". It creates the illusion of bargaining.

So Apple is throwing a huge tantrum and withholding features from the EU to act like this is a much bigger deal than it is. This gives Apple a lot more bargaining room after the EU bitch slapped them.

Apple likely already has an API they could enable and be done with this. They won't do that. Apple needs exclusivity with new feature releases because they don't do things all that well anymore(Siri, maps, etc, nobody uses those because there are better alts available on ios).

But yeah Apple is just starting way to the extreme so they have more room to bargain. Hopefully the EU sees through this, again, and doesn't budge.

permo-w 9/12/2025|||

Essentially irrelevant to your main point, but:

>Apple needs exclusivity with new feature releases because they don't do things all that well anymore(Siri, maps, etc, nobody uses those because there are better alts available on ios).

Siri was okay for a very brief window after release and then dreadful ever since and Apple Maps was never good, but has gotten better. Etc maybe more valid idk

dnissley 9/12/2025|||

I keep seeing accusations of tantrums. Can a company say no without it being a tantrum?

jjice 9/11/2025||||

Is there any evidence for this at all? The EU has plenty of regulation surrounding audio recording, as other comments have said. Instead of jumping to the assumption of malicious intent, I think those make more sense up front. I don't think this is a real bargaining chip for Apple to use against the EU for the side loading stuff.

I dislike Apple's malicious compliance with the EU too, but it seems unrelated here, at least without any proof.

layer8 9/11/2025|||

Google Pixel Buds and Samsung Galaxy Buds basically provide the same feature of realtime translation. Either Apple is withholding the feature without any real cause, or the cause lies in some aspect where Apple doesn’t allow third-party manufacturers to provide the same feature under iOS, while Android does. I don’t know which is the case, but both put Apple in a bad light, along with the fact that they don’t explain the exact reason for the limitation.

jen20 9/12/2025||

It would not remotely surprise me to discover that either Google or Samsung were doing something untoward that Apple is not willing to do. In fact, that would be one of the least surprising things I'd ever heard.

ImPostingOnHN 9/12/2025|||

In this case, it's apple doing the untoward thing, by artificially limiting users' devices, seemingly only for anticompetitive reasons.

As this is HackerNews, you should expect to see at least a couple commenters who believe they should have control over devices they own, including interoperability without artificial, anticompetitive limitations.

kergonath 9/12/2025||

> In this case, it's apple doing the untoward thing, by artificially limiting users' devices, seemingly only for anticompetitive reasons.

Not really. They are complying by not offering features that would be considered anti-competitive. It’s not untoward, it’s just following their interpretation of the law. We obviously don’t know the discussions between Apple and the EC, but in public it’s American nerds who are complaining that the EU is bad.

ImPostingOnHN 9/12/2025||

The iOS feature is not anti-competitive, it is apple's choice to artificially restrict the feature if you use non-apple earbuds which is anti-competitive.

It is my understanding that this is what apple has chosen to do in areas where this iOS feature is available. Is that not the case?

layer8 9/12/2025|||

If the “untoward” thing was unlawful, it would be straightforward for Apple to take Google and Samsung to court for anticompetitive practices. If it isn’t, then Apple can’t really blame the EU, and could at least advertise how they’re doing things less untowardly.

This isn’t the first time that Apple has been withholding features from the EU without ever providing a clear and understandable explanation, so there isn’t much basis for giving them the benefit of the doubt.

cenamus 9/11/2025|||

Do no US states have similar laws regarding recording strangers?

int_19h 9/11/2025||

They do, but most states only require one party to consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws

adastra22 9/11/2025||

Notably California, home to apple, is a two party state.

JustExAWS 9/11/2025||||

The EU said that everything that Apple creates for its own devices has to have APIs for third parties. The translation feature only works for AirPods.

hn8726 9/11/2025|||

Ok so it's not "airpods live translation" really, but "ios live translation" and there's no technical reason to limit it to airpods?

JustExAWS 9/11/2025|||

The audio input comes from the AirPods not the iPhone. It’s processed on the iPhone.

The audio is captured by the outward facing microphones used for active noise cancellations. That’s why it only works for AirPods Pro 2, 3 and AirPods 4 with ANC. That wouldn’t just work with any headphones.

Even the AirPods Pro 2 will need a firmware update. They won’t work with just any old headphones and seeing that even the AirPods Pro 2 need a firmware update tells me that it is something they are doing with their H2 chip in their headphones in concert with the iPhone.

StopDisinfo910 9/11/2025||

I mean, technically, any competitors with noise cancelling headphones able to pick up a voice stream would be able to use the same processing on the iPhone to offer an equivalent feature.

That it only works with AirPods is just Apple discriminating in favour of their own product which is exactly what the EU was going after.

JustExAWS 9/11/2025||

Sure if they also want to train a model that supports their sound profile, build an app that captures the audio, etc.

But their $60 ANC headphones with cheap audio processing hardware in the headphones aren’t going to be sufficient.

They may even be able to use the exposed models on the phone.

StopDisinfo910 9/11/2025|||

> But their $60 ANC headphones with cheap audio processing hardware in the headphones aren’t going to be sufficient.

The equivalent feature on Android tells me it would. I mean it already does technically.

Are we supposed to treat Apple being late to the party as usual as some kind of exceptional thing only them could do?

JustExAWS 9/11/2025||

According to the specs - it only works with Google’s own headphones

https://support.google.com/googlepixelbuds/answer/7573100?hl...

Which are the same price as Apple’s AirPods with ANC.

So Google also didn’t try to support the feature with generic earbuds.

StopDisinfo910 9/11/2025||

The contrary is literally written in a large yellow box on the page you linked: “Note: Google Translate works with all Assistant-optimized headphones and Android phones.”

But I mean, you are free to buy overpriced Apple headphones which sounds worse than Sony, only properly works paired with an Apple phone or laptop and whose killer feature was available on their competitors buds years ago if that rocks your boat.

cosmic_cheese 9/11/2025|||

I have both a pair of the over ear Sony XM4’s and AirPods Pro 2 and I’m not sure I’d characterize the Sony’s sound as “better”, even when using lossless audio. They sound good but the sound profile is mostly just different, with the Sony’s leaning more bassy and the AirPods more balanced.

The noise cancellation are neck and neck but the AirPods had much less of that “pressure” sensation when using it. AirPods transparency is just plain better. Comfort for long use sessions is better on the Sony’s. Mic is better on the AirPods.

pelorat 9/11/2025||

There's no EQ in the Sony iPhone app?

cosmic_cheese 9/11/2025||

There is, but I haven’t had the patience to tweak that. My phone also isn’t the device that I usually use those headphones with.

JustExAWS 9/11/2025|||

You didn’t look at the prices of other “Google assistant” compatible headphones did you?

And those Sony ones aren’t cheap.

The first review I found comparing them..

https://wasteofserver.com/sony-wf-1000xm4-vs-apple/

Why would I want to by a none Apple laptop with horrible battery life, loud, and that produces enough heat to ensure that I don’t have offspring if I actually put it on my lap?

ioasuncvinvaer 9/11/2025|||

Over the course of this thread your argument went from "It's not technically possible" and "they will have to train their own models" to "I don't want to buy certain devices".

JustExAWS 9/11/2025||

No I said it wasn’t technically possible on any cheap headphones because while the processing was done on the phone, the audio capture was done by the outside microphones on Apple headphones that have ANC and even the older ones of those required Apple to update the firmware on its own AirPods working in concert.

This is no different than Google not supporting just any old headphones.

Then the argument came that Apple’s AirPods are “overpriced” even though the cheapest AirPods that support it - AirPods 4 with ANC are in the same price range as Google’s and cheaper than the worse sounding and more expensive Sony Earbuds.

renewiltord 9/11/2025|||

I prefer the Apple ecosystem myself but the Sony WF-1000XM are frequently available on sale (refurb WF-1000XM5 are $110 right now). I used to have the WH-1000XM3 (over the ear) and those are good too.

The whole argument seems kind of silly. Just buy the platform you want that has the features you want. If the European thinks Apple is overpriced then it's no harm that they aren't bringing features to Europe. He wasn't going to buy them and now is going to not buy them even harder.

StopDisinfo910 9/11/2025||

As a reminder, the initial argument was that Apple doesn’t bring their feature to Europe because they would have to open it via an API to their competitors. Someone replied that it’s not a refusal but a technical impossibility which is easily countered by Google having done just that for years. The fact that it’s heavily downvoted despite being factually completely correct is actually hilarious to me.

The rest, which is to say that everything Apple sells beside laptops is subpar, their strategy regarding European regulations deprive them of any credibility when they pretend to care about consumers and their prices conversion in Europe is daylight robbery, is just my opinion and accessory to the discussion. I just couldn’t help myself.

raw_anon_1111 9/11/2025||

No one said it’s a “technical impossibility”. The original statement was that it wouldn’t work on any cheap headphones. It’s assumed that you thought the iPhone was capturing the audio. Even then, there was some work done between the headphones and the phone and the firmware of the AirPods 2 had to be updated.

You aren’t going to save any money by getting a pair of $50 ANC headphones and hoping they work with the system - the Android variant doesn’t.

StopDisinfo910 9/11/2025||

> It’s assumed that you thought the iPhone was capturing the audio.

Absolutely not. It assumed the AirPods Pro 2 unique processing was required which it clearly isn’t.

Nobody ever talked about saving money.

The whole discussion is about the EU mandating Apple play fair which would mean letting competitors access their phone processing exactly like Google is already doing.

raw_anon_1111 9/12/2025||

> Nobody ever talked about saving money.

You didn’t say this?

> But I mean, you are free to buy overpriced Apple headphones

> which sounds worse than Sony,

And the Sony headphones sound worse and are more expensive.

> only properly works paired with an Apple phone or laptop

Which also isn’t true.

StopDisinfo910 9/12/2025||

The fact that I rightfully qualify Apple products as overpriced don’t magically make the discussion about saving money.

Sony headphones sounds noticeably better than AirPods Pro 2 by the way and their EQ is better. AirPods have great noise cancellation but their sound quality is not that great.

> > only properly works paired with an Apple phone or laptop

> Which also isn’t true.

Care to explain to me how I set what presses do on AirPods without an Apple product. How do I disable noise cancellation and pass through? Where do I setup the level of noise cancellation?

Yes, exactly.

raw_anon_1111 9/12/2025||

So noise cancelling headphones that are worse at noise cancelling are better?

And the headphones are “overpriced” even though they are the same price as comparable devices that have worse ANC?

And a simple Google search tells you how to pair AirPods to none Apple devices

https://support.apple.com/en-sg/guide/airpods/dev499c9718b/w...

Zak 9/11/2025|||

> But their $60 ANC headphones with cheap audio processing hardware in the headphones aren’t going to be sufficient.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming Apple's motivation isn't pure self-dealing, it's very consistent with Apple's behavior to forbid or impede doing things that are absolutely possible but sometimes result in a sub-par experience.

raw_anon_1111 9/11/2025||

How many $60 headphones work with Google’s version?

Zak 9/12/2025|||

It's oddly difficult to find solid answers to this with a web search, but it appears that it just needs protocol support, not a mic that meets specific standards. The (discontinued?) JBL 110GA is $40 on Amazon.

raw_anon_1111 9/12/2025||

Which I’m not able to find on Amazon…

Zak 9/12/2025||

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07G2LXMDV

raw_anon_1111 9/12/2025||

7 year old used headphones with one in stock using Micro USB in 2025?

bryan_w 9/11/2025|||

All of them.

raw_anon_1111 9/11/2025||

Not according to the official specs….

praseodym 9/11/2025|||

Or other services, such as translation using Google Translate.

whazor 9/11/2025|||

Also the feature doesn't work on Android, so it is not an 'AirPods' feature but a 'iOS'+'AirPods' feature.

tick_tock_tick 9/12/2025|||

> Europe are randomly unknowably illegal for no reason

I mean they absolutely are especially as EU regulators categorically refuse to review anything in advance just in-case their get a budget shortfalls and need to go looking for fines.

AshamedCaptain 9/12/2025||

Note that Samsung has been offering the same feature for at least a year by now. On device LLM. And also restricted to working only on Samsung branded BT headsets for no reason.

I hope you really do not want a future like this.

baxuz 9/12/2025|

I do not, and I wonder why the EU is not coming after Samsung as well if it's the same situation.

gabrielso 9/11/2025||

Yeah make it work in the US where you can fly 4 hours in any direction and still land somewhere that speaks the same language, and not in Europe where a 1:30h drive takes you through 3 different countries that don't know how to talk to each other...

wil421 9/11/2025||

Where do you live? I could easily find people who speak, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Telugu, English, Spanish, Thai, and Portuguese and I haven’t even left the parking lot. It would be harder to find a German or French speaker.

nine_k 9/11/2025||

Do all these people also speak some English?

(I live in NYC where the mix of languages is thick, but I rarely have to reach even for my Spanish, because English is still commonly understood everywhere, at least to some degree.)

adastra22 9/11/2025|||

Not all of them, no. Where I am (California) there are a lot of monolingual or barely functional in English speakers of Spanish and Mandarin. Also where I live specifically, Vietnamese and Cambodian. Those are all seniors though.

nine_k 9/12/2025||

In Chinatown on Manhattan, there are areas like that (though I suppose the senior citizens mostly speak Cantonese there). Many of the store signboards are in Chinese only, and inside, the labels may also be only in Chinese; then only the fact that I still remember a bunch of kanji allows me to tell a duck from a chicken, when both are wrapped in impenetrable dark plastic.

adastra22 9/12/2025||

Yeah I know the area. My wife and I have been through there a few times (she is from Taiwan). Lots of people who barely speak any English at all, but you might not know if you didn’t speak Chinese.

That kindly old man making noodles behind the counter on that restaurant you frequent off Canal St? The one that always has a stoic face and never says a word? He doesn’t speak any English, but try chatting with him in Mandarin and he’ll talk your ear off with his life story.

umanwizard 9/12/2025||||

I have personally been to places in NYC (and surrounding areas like Newark) where the staff does not speak any English at all.

wil421 9/12/2025|||

The area I and in mind the answer is yes. But there are areas where it would be no. I’m in the Deep South.

aegypti 9/11/2025|||

It also works in the entire Rest of World outside the EU

nozzlegear 9/11/2025|||

13-14% of the US population speak Spanish at home.

bdcravens 9/11/2025|||

In Texas and other parts of the US, Spanish is a primary language for many. Even when they speak a second language, better communication comes for all by using the language they're most comfortable with.

JustExAWS 9/11/2025|||

I can easily drive one and half miles in Orlando to my barber shop where half the barbers only speak Spanish. I’m not complaining, it forces me to use my A1-A2 level Spanish fluency.

googlryas 9/11/2025||

Whole neighborhoods in Miami where the primary language is Spanish and many of the inhabitants barely speak English

urda 9/11/2025||

You can blame the EU for that, not Apple.

notrealyme123 9/11/2025||

No you should absolutely blame apple for that. They fear to lose their monopoly and want to set an example for other countries.

urda 9/11/2025|||

[flagged]

notrealyme123 9/12/2025|||

Please make it not ad hominem. That gets old quite quickly.

If the facts are clear please show them. Show the fact that the EU made the decision to not have this feature instead of apple.

urda 9/12/2025||

> Show the fact that the EU made the decision to not have this feature instead of apple.

It is thanks to EU regulations, which are literal facts in front of us. That’s why the feature isn’t shipped in the EU, because of EU’s own choices. At this point it’s clear you’d rather ignore that, so no reason to keep engaging. One last time: this is on the EU, not Apple.

preisschild 9/12/2025|||

> One last time: this is on the EU, not Apple.

No, its on Apple, for being anti-competitive.

notrealyme123 9/12/2025|||

I can't follow the line of your argument here.

You state that I am ignoring the facts, and you counter with an tautology?

Sorry but thats just fighting with dirty arguments.

You can proof me wrong very easily: Look up the Regulations and check where they disallows such a product on the market.

If it's written there then I am wrong and I will take the loss.

LinXitoW 9/11/2025|||

Which facts? Do you have some facts that explain why Apple did this move? Because all the facts I know of paint a picture of Apple throwing a massive tantrum at any kind of consumer protection rulings they might be subject to. They would ABSOLUTELY make their products worse in the EU to make uninformed voters and consumerist victims blame the very government agencies protecting them.

This feature happens on the phone, not the AirPods. There is no reason at all why this shouldn't be available in the EU, except the consumer friendly need to provide the API for the feature to other device manufacturers.

urda 9/11/2025|||

One last time: this is on the EU, not Apple. The feature works everywhere else. You’re mixing up feelings with facts, and it shows in this rant. Take a breather.

yoavm 9/11/2025||

This is because Apple doesn't want to compete in a way that is considered fair in the EU. Fortunately we don't let companies set the rules here.

urda 9/11/2025||

You’re free to have that feeling but that’s not the facts.

tokioyoyo 9/11/2025|||

Like I agree it’s anti-competitive, but it’s not Apple that’s making it illegal in Europe.

It’s alike Chinese cars that are being made and used everywhere, but cannot be imported to US because of huge tariffs that was put by the government. So it’s the government that’s blocking the citizens from the access to the product.

rdl 9/12/2025||

I am in awe. Their cookie banners were consistently annoying but probably didn’t hurt any individual this much. If I were an EU resident I would probably learn about “you can just do things” from this.

vruiz 9/12/2025||

I am an EU resident and I'm about to cancel the APP3 order that I made. If Apple doesn't want to comply with the regulations that protect me(1) I'm not blaming the EU, I'm talking my money somewhere else.

Actually this is the second time I'm frustrated by this, I was surprised to discover that iPhone Mirroring is also blocked. This is strike 2 for me, one more and I won't buy another Apple product.

1) the EU has a lot of stupid regulations but the DMA is not one of them

garrettgarcia 9/12/2025||

How are they not complying with the regulation? This is what compliance looks like.

vruiz 9/12/2025|||

Only they know what they are afraid of. But seems obvious that a feature like that should also be available with third-party headphones, the translation happens in the phone, not the AirPods. There is no technical reason other than locking users into their products.

I'm sure Apple would say that the experience would not be the same with other (lesser) headphones, and that damages the user experience, etc. Some people would believe that's the reason, but the EU won't and neither do I.

gamerdonkey 9/12/2025|||

They are complying in the same way that the rich kid who keeps getting called out for using his hands on the football (soccer) field complies with the rules by taking his ball and going home.

bowsamic 9/12/2025|||

This is exactly what Apple want you to feel like

danielscrubs 9/12/2025||

Might be a blessing in disguise, forcing EU members to learn languages, whilst non EU members watch one more hour of TV with that time given…

Or they just become more inefficient… either way, it’s going to be fun to see the results.

mgoetzke 9/12/2025||

So it wont work in Europe where its needed most ?

What else is it going to do ? Translating Californian to New York English ? Help with ordering from Taipei-Palace ?

Fernicia 9/12/2025||

Tourists visiting EU who don't live there will be able to use the feature. Or EU users when outside the EU.

ecd0fd14 9/12/2025||

[flagged]

smcin 9/13/2025|||

This comment is suggesting that Arabic will become the lingua franca of the EU, in time. Violates guidelines.

smcin 9/13/2025|||

Flagged. Stop.

coderatlarge 9/12/2025|

should disneyland also be required to reserve spaces for competing attractions?

shuckles 9/12/2025||

That's not going far enough. Disneyland should make its IP available to any competing ride vendor for free (sorry, not free, $99/yr) so that they too can build the same special effects people come to expect from Disneyland.

burnerthrow008 9/12/2025||

How dare you assert that Disneyland is working for free in such a scenario?

$99/yr is clearly a fair and reasonable compensation to license all Disney IP for any purpose because Disney has an eleventy bajillion percent margin on ticket sales.

lucketone 9/12/2025|||

If disney would own 60% of all land, then I would say it would be reasonable.

coderatlarge 9/12/2025||

for the sake of debate: if androland is available across the way, must disneyland provide skybridges so its guests can immediately leave its own attractions and frequent its competitors’ instead?

plst 9/12/2025|||

Disney owns the land and their intellectual property, Apple does not and should not own devices and software they already sold. Especially not by imposing artificial software restrictions.

coderatlarge 9/13/2025||

i’m not a fan of apple, but they do build and own their IP and i respect their right to license it on terms they decide. Is it not expropriating them to suddenly say “mighty fine business you made there mister, your competitors who happen to be our citizens would like a piece of that so how about you just hand over some chunks of it so nothing bad should happen to the rest of it?”

plst 9/13/2025||

Their rights to license stuff they sell should not be unlimited, that's the entire point.

I understand that your second sentence refers to the fact, that the limitation is only in EU. Businesses have to respect local laws. Laws often mentioned in the thread (DMA, GDPR, although we can only suspect that these are the reasons for this lock) apply equally to everyone who wants to do business in Europe. If Apple does not want to respect these laws, they are free to leave. Even better, they can make changes to their devices that work only in EU and leave it as it already is in other countries. Said "competitors" do not necessarily need to be EU citizens, I'm sure many US companies would use that opportunity too.

Local regulations are not foreign to Apple, apparently similar laws are in force in Japan.

As for "some chunks" - interfaces are not protected by copyright, even in the US. Assuming DMA is the problem, nobody is asking for Apple to release details of their implementation, just for them to remove artificial software restrictions that lock apps from other vendors from doing (a small subset!) of stuff only Apple can do.

Smartphones are general computing devices. Apple and Google are a duopoly in the smartphone market, while restricting what users can do with their devices more than Microsoft ever restricted what Windows users can do with Windows. If we continue allowing these companies to go in that direction, we will end up with computers that are as limited as game consoles are, Apple and Google will be the only beneficiaries of that situation.

coderatlarge 9/13/2025||

there are just and unjust laws.

i agree that to operate in a country (or block of countries) a company must be prepared to respect even the unjust laws. which apple has obviously been willing to do all day long in many parts of the world.

in this case, it really seems to me like the EU is harming consumers who benefit from the coherently-designed, safe (as compared to androland) walled garden in favor of some fairly overtly xenophobic power play against incumbents local champions cannot compete with on the merits. IMO this type of action directly invites retaliation against European companies and interests abroad.

in the related cases of airdrop interop and alternate stores, it is certainly being required that apple release its proprietary IP to competitors.

there are plenty of hungry competitors in the smartphone market beyond apple and google including Samsung huawei and scores of others.

plst 9/13/2025||

I don't find the laws unjust in any way. Apple did everything they could to take half of the smartphone market, and to me it's totally understandable that the EU government may want to limit their power over this market.

> in this case, it really seems to me like the EU is harming consumers who benefit from the coherently-designed, safe (as compared to androland) walled garden in favor of some fairly overtly xenophobic power play against incumbents local champions cannot compete with on the merits. IMO this type of action directly invites retaliation against European companies and interests abroad.

Apple consumers will still be able to benefit from this amazing walled garden by choosing not to buy non-Apple devices. Other consumers will be able to choose other vendors that will be able to fully interoperate with Apple devices. I don't see any loses for current Apple consumers.

As for the retaliation. Maybe. Remains to be seen. Introducing any regulations brings risk.

> in the related cases of airdrop interop and alternate stores, it is certainly being required that apple release its proprietary IP to competitors

What proprietary IPs?

> there are plenty of hungry competitors in the smartphone market beyond apple and google including Samsung huawei and scores of others.

In terms of operating systems you have these two. I don't think Huawei counts, aren't they sanctioned still? Harmony OS has a very small share in EU either way.

coderatlarge 9/14/2025||

consumers are harmed because Apple is forced to build in a way that expands its qa surface to include hypothetical tbd third-party integrations thus worsening their products, and surely opening up to more fines by the same EU who set them up like this in the first place.

those who stand to benefit from unjust laws are rarely the ones who acknowledge their nature.

in your previous response you seem to claim that samsung is an insignificant player in the smartphone market, and that integrating third-party app stores doesn’t require divulging security-related IP so i’m going to drop the mic right here.

nedt 9/12/2025||

It's not like Disney World wasn't sanctioned. In the US that is. Freedom is always limited by what others decide it is.

coderatlarge 9/13/2025||

i recognize freedom (especially as it relates to commerce) is a social construct and therefore has limits defined by society. At the same time, it does seem like in this instance at least the EU wants to have it both ways: ie it wants to be seen as operating on high-minded “principles” yet be allowed to justify fairly transparently self-interested industrial policy actions under the guise of “protection from monopolists”.

realityking 9/13/2025||

Which domestic competitors do you see them favoring with this industrial policy? Sennheiser might be the only European headphone manufacturer of consequence and I doubt they have this kind of pull.

coderatlarge 9/13/2025||

i wasn’t intending to say that the regulations favor a specific current competitor but rather that they are intended to force apple to build in a way that favors a certain kind of potential competitor who can only operate in Europe. from a pure engineering perspective i think it’s fairly well-established that if you design, build, and test for a limited set of deployment conditions you end up with a higher quality product. which bit of wisdom apple has used decade after decade to deliver systems that delight end-users who do not relish the idea of mixing and matching and hoping the interpretation of “standards“ worked out well enough in their particular case.

More comments...