Hacker News Reader

Comment by ftth_finland | Hacker News Reader

What would be the upside to Apple for this?

Apple has a vested interest in IPv6 working on mobile, but benefits nothing from disabling IPv4.

If they can ensure most Apple devices have IPv6 connectivity, there are a bunch of device-to-device connectivity benefits. For example, they can do video calling without having to host expensive proxy/STUN/TURN servers. Peer-to-peer data distribution and storage starts to make sense. Peer to peer gaming stops requiring server infrastructure.

It also means that typically all the other devices in a users home will be able to get IPv6 - so they can for example continue to remote control your Apple TV even if you walk a little out of wifi range.

Sure - for any IPv6 feature they build, they will need IPv4/proxied fallback. But if they can make sure 90% of users use IPv6 and direct connections, then the money and user experience costs of having to run the fallback servers becomes manageable.

I do not think any of those things would even remotely make up for the brand damage and bad will Apple would garner from breaking their customers’ Internet connectivity.

Maybe not, but remember it will mostly be the ISP taking the brand damage. "Hi tech support: The router you sent me isn't working properly! My iPhone won't connect to it, but the iPhone worked fine with the old router!"

No ISP would hesitate for a second to call out Apple on this kind of BS.

Every pundit on the planet would make hay of the matter and everybody and their dog would know to not purchased Apple products since it breaks their Wi-Fi.

All Apple would get out of this is a huge black eye and no upside.

Mobile operators want to deploy something like NAT64/DNS64 and they're the ones pressuring Apple.

You app can require access to IPv4-only servers, as long as if your app looks up the DNS and finds a 64: AAAA record it will connect to that. That is fine by Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com