I feel ya .. I have a digital only XBox and hate how I get hosed on pricing (relative to disc offers and preowned, etc)
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 EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I feel ya .. I have a digital only XBox and hate how I get hosed on pricing (relative to disc offers and preowned, etc)
But it does work, so I'm not clear on the issue.
There is no law prohibiting apple from having it's products work better with it's ecosystem. My Samsung remote cannot control my LG tv. It's a farce I say.
That's exactly what vertical integration means and every manufacturer does it. It is not illegal.
And there could be good reasons for having a closed platform option. For example, consumer choice. It's possible consumers need a walled garden to simplify the experience. Talk about "otherwise not available in a market", you're advocating for reduced options.
Ignoring all of this because you seem to advocate that only open platforms should exist feels like bad policy to me.
Unless you have data, the majority of people didn't really decide that "only open platforms should exist".
Weird how you decide that the law should exist for one side but not the other and have zero data to backup either side.
The DMA doesn't prevent walled gardens, it says that platforms in some defined areas and of a certain reach and above must be interoperable in certain ways because of the wider impact this has on competition.
Yes, this will limit consumer choice in some ways to enable consumer choice in different ways. That's the idea at least.
You're sidestepping the point. I'm asking you whether you think there are compelling reasons to prevent consumers from making choices they obviously want to make. That's the point. If I had wanted to argue something else I would have done that.
Interopability, third party app distribution/ecosystems makes it more open than closed.
That's bad policy making.
You mean like choosing between an open platform and a completely closed platform? There are no compelling reasons to prevent this and I'm 100% advocating for keeping both platforms.
You on the other hand are advocating for preventing consumers from being able to choose one platform or the other.
Last edited:
Which is basically saying you can’t have a walled garden.
They already have a choice - android. I am honestly not a fan of how Google runs things, and if the state of affairs on the other side is any indicator of what it means to run an open platform (eg: higher rates of piracy, malware, greater app fragmentation), I am honestly having a very hard time seeing how anyone can possibly advocate for this unless they are some sleeper agent tasked with weakening the Apple experience for competitors.
Saying all this won’t affect me if I choose not sideload is like drawing some imaginary line between the smoking and non-smoking corner at a restaurant and saying “just keep to your side”. It doesn’t work. The only solution if I want a totally smoke-free environment is to ban smoking altogether. Some won’t be happy of course.
I am sorry. I am convinced that the people claiming that this has only pure upside (while refusing to acknowledge the potential downsides) are either delusional or outright liars.
Is that not the point
Regarding this that you don’t see the issue by the maker of the operating system who claims we have all these 3rd party products that people can use but not just as good as ours because we give it additional software that nobody will ever get access to
So then in turn we want competition on our platform for products but just give the competition a disadvantage by having something that nobody can compete with so in turn that gives you an advantage over the competition
I thought telling someone to buy the option that supports the purchase method you prefer was unreasonable. So you can tell me to just “buy a normal PS5” but telling you to “buy an Android” is somehow verboten?
Software isn’t the end all and be all of products. I use Bose headphones in most cases because they sound better, the noise cancellation is better, and are more comfortable. They’re literally better than my AirPods.
Again how exactly can Bose headphones not compete if I’m using them everyday with my Apple products?
That’s you as an individual case
However the average consumer is going to look more favourable on devices that have seamless integration with the product
So basically, Apple cannot have any product advantage that is based on them making the product. Ergo, no more walled garden. 🙄
No apple can make any product they like
Within reason
However don’t have fake competition on your platform
There’s no other product that supports ps5 games. If I was unreasonable I would say you should go and buy an Xbox or Pc. Aka a completely different market that can’t run the goods in question
It’s what’s being regulated. And software is the important part without you can’t even use the hardware.
Well they can’t compete with Bears either. The function of connecting to iOS can’t ever be done better because iOS doesn’t support any better methods than the one they have implemented
One of those posts that completely misunderstands the point of the existence of the DMA.
Walled gardens should be banned by law - they shift the power dynamics in favor of the manufacturer, Apple in this case, and I see the EU moving towards this if trump keeps doing trump things. Buying a Samsung fridge should have little to no effect on my TV purchase.
It is morally wrong to go poke the law so you can basically sell a restrictive experience just because you have competition. Which by the way, it barely exists in the first place. Android and who else?
Only open platforms should exist because they allow every policy to be transparent and user accessible, open to input and criticism, safe and secure. In the Soviet Union each piece of equipment used to come with a ton of documentation and schematics in order to fix your device before electronics became so disposable. Ironically, ultra-capitalist companies like Apple now don't allow the user to do this, because "security and privacy".
End corporate culture, bring back fun technology.
It depends what you mean by any product they like?
And there is a big difference in your argument
It’s only a farce because you don’t get the point
It doesn’t matter if I7GUY makes a better product than apple however a selling point for things like AirPods are the seamless connectivity with iOS so that in turn makes them a selling point to the consumer
I think most on here understand the point of DMA; I just disagree that everyone should be granted a free license to everything. Apple created the iPhone and the software associated with it. They created a store that have had few changes in its pricing structure since it was opened. The store enabled developers to increase their reach and scope for less money than it would have cost them previously. The store has been relatively open to most with limited restrictions. When the iPhone came out and when the store opened most assumed it would fail. And somehow it succeeded without resorting to unscrupulous means. Now, no one wants to pay for what Apple created from scratch. Their terms, which are nominally unchanged, are now considered greedy. And governments believe that anyone should have unfettered access to Apple's technology. IMO, I just think it is unfair.
BTW, fun technology still exists. You can still go to Heathkit and buy/build their electronic kits.
This have never been the case in the history of government. We don’t live in anncapistan. Some minimum quality standards exist. Warranty etc etc
We understand the point. We just think your point is wrong. From our point of view software integration is just another feature like design or sound quality.
To me, saying Apple isn’t allowed to compete on software is as ridiculous as saying “Bose isn’t allowed to compete on sound quality.”
Business 101. Build a better product than your competitors. I can’t understand how such a simple concept is misunderstood and turned into an anti competition spin. Your competitors do not have an inherent right to your intellectual property.