Sure as a 50000 foot statement I agree. But the law and due process would have to be followed to actually have a finding as such with a court case pending. Can’t just put a wet finger in the air and say guilty.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals Court-Mandated App Store Payment Rule Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think your are saying that Apple has a method to support third party hardware already.
Yes, there is a method to support third party hardware. Even windows doesn’t allow third parties to modify the operating system.
No what I’m saying is exactly what the EU are saying in that Apple gives themselves a deliberate advantage by giving themselves extra software features that competitors are not allowed access to.
That like ford saying you can build a car however we designed the steering wheel so you can’t use it
That’s called innovation and nowhere in the world except the EU it’s a bad thing. Vertical integration gives us the wonderful Apple ecosystem.
That’s bad analogy.
It’s not innovation if you deliberately don’t give access to this software because then you are given yourself a deliberate advantage over your competitors
Not with chips or noise cancellation technology
But with software that helps your products connect better to your OS
So in turn your giving your products an unfair advantage by giving them better access to the OS.
That’s not giving away innovation that’s leveling the playing field
But then as someone said it doesn’t matter if a product is cheaper because people will still buy the dearer product because it’s convenient
Because if for example headphones going forward all had the ability to connect & integrated with iOS like the AirPods do then naturally people will buy the dearer product instead of the cheaper option
Last edited:
That’s the purpose of vertical interaction and innovation. A company INVENTS something their competitor don’t have. That is exactly why innovative companies have a deliberate advantage over their competition that is not as astute. That business 101, build a better mousetrap.
Yes, that is exactly the purpose of innovation. Giving you company an advantage over the competition by developing something and not sharing it with them or providing access it. What you are describing is a process whereby what’s yours is mine and mine is yours.
Okay. It’s a personal decision.
How can you build better headphones that connect better to iOS when Apple controls
The operating system that’s the point
if Apple designed headphones for
harmony OS and it connected seamlessly then this would not be an issue
The other headphone still function on iOS. Connectivity to devices is just one feature of many headphones compete on. Sound quality, noise cancelation, design, comfort, etc. If I want the absolute best sounding headphones no matter what, it doesn't matter one iota that AirPods connect seamlessly, I'm still not buying them.
Bluetooth pairing was a complete cluster for decades before Apple finally fixed it, and now their reward for doing so is "the companies that didn't spend the money to fix it get to benefit because the government says so." So Apple just did free R&D for every other headphone manufacturer. For now on in the EU, if Apple solves a problem like that, their reward is immediately giving it away to competitors for free. Which will absolutely harm innovation. I'm 100% fine with Apple not having exclusivity forever. Say Apple gets to keep the feature to itself for a few years and then has to open up - that gives Apple time to be justly compensated for its innovation. But immediately give it away? That's, IMO, ridiculous and the fact that the government thinks like that does a large part to explain why EU tech companies have such a hard time competing.
What laws like the DMA ultimately say is "Apple isn't allowed to compete in the areas they do best, because they're too good at it". Many of you think that's ok, but you're never going to convince people like me and @I7guy that it is ok or that it doesn't harm innovation.
No
What the EU are saying is because Apple own the operating system then they can create software that allows their products an advantage of the competition
And it doesn’t matter if surferfb or I7GUY make the best headphones on the planet
Apple will still have an advantage because of software integration because they make the OS.
If Apple make the best headphones & other products compared with others then a piece of software will not make a difference because as you have said people will still buy the dearer product regardless for convenience over the cheaper ones
I understand that’s what the EU says, I think what the EU is saying is wrong and hurts innovation.
Again, I think all in all, when features are the same, the vast majority of consumers will choose the cheaper product. So making Apple give away its innovations to all other headphone companies is wrong.
But we’re off topic, and I’m sure there will be another DMA thread here before too long where we can hash these arguments out for the 700th time without changing anyone’s mind 🤣
There has been due diligence when it has come to various antitrust matters including negotiations, concessions, appeals, etc.
My point remains that a product differentiation strategy to unfairly (continue to) "dominate" a market or prevent/discourage competitors from entering that market can indeed be illegal or anticompetitive. A "dominant" company can't intentionally create incompatibility to stifle competition, limit consumer choice, etc. as that could be an antitrust violation.
We agree.
See above”we agree”. Due process has to be followed. As a 50,000 foot statement I agree.
Incorrect. Capital convictions do receive automatic appeals, but criminal defendants and the losing party in civil cases have the right to appeal.