Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[WeLikeVodka]

But if indeed a large subset of consumers are picking a walled garden because that is what they prefer, they will eventually get big enough where it is no longer allowed. What the government is saying is "walled gardens are only ok if not many people want them."

I don't want the government making that decision for me. Particularly when the largest platform, that is over twice the size of the nearest competitor, is open in every way the EU wants.

my goodness you are missing the point, how are you going to switch to android if from a philosophical standpoint, you can't stand Apple's closed ecosystem, yet you spent hundreds on iphone and mac apps for one reason or another and you now can't use them on Android because...?

if you have noticed, you can load parallels on Mac, and use windows and Linux that way, same with virtual machines, however you cannot officially use macOS on non-apple hardware. doesn't that imply there is some sort of power dynamics apple is taking advantage of? I believe so.

The government isn't making the decision for you, the consumer. The government is preventing big tech from gaining too much power. End corporate culture, bring back fun technology.

 

[PlayUltimate]

To conclude, kneecap all other players to stay competitive?

I remember these days but remember them differently. IBM was in no position to make MS-DOS a standard at the time.

IBM, being the big boy in the computer space, made PC-DOS the OS on their IBM PC. But they didn't stop Microsoft from offering MS-DOS to other manufacturers. It was this, the IBM clone, that enabled DOS to become the de facto OS standard. Albeit it did not happen overnight. Lots of others had to go away.

 

[surferfb]

my goodness you are missing the point, how are you going to switch to android if from a philosophical standpoint, you can't stand Apple's closed ecosystem, yet you spent hundreds on iphone and mac apps for one reason or another and you now can't use them on Android because...?

I'm not missing the point, I think your point is wrong. There is a difference. I fundamentally disagree with the idea you're locked into an ecosystem because you previously purchased software for that ecosystem. And, if you bought into a closed ecosystem knowing you were philosophically opposed to closed ecosystems, then you have literally no one to blame but yourself, and fixing that problem is as easy as selling your iPhone and buying an Android.

Don't take away my choice when you have a valid option.

if you have noticed, you can load parallels on Mac, and use windows and Linux that way, same with virtual machines, however you cannot officially use macOS on non-apple hardware. doesn't that imply there is some sort of power dynamics apple is taking advantage of? I believe so.

No, it doesn't imply power dynamics. Apple owns macOS. It's fully within its rights to restrict it however it wants.

The government isn't making the decision for you, the consumer. The government is preventing big tech from gaining too much power. End corporate culture, bring back fun technology.

The government is absolutely making that decision for me. They are saying "closed ecosystems are not welcome here." In my opinion, that's just as wrong as saying "encryption is not welcome here."

If you don't like what a company is doing, the correct answer is to vote with your wallet. The incorrect answer is "buy their products anyway, knowing full well their policies, and then complain they're not running the company the way you want them to"

 

[germanbeer007]

Yes, for gatekeepers. If you're not a gatekeeper, you can maintain your walled garden.

Yes and going back to my original point: there could be good reasons for having a closed platform option.

Clearly if billions of people love walled gardens, billions will buy the walled garden product. But the side effect of that is you become a gatekeeper which effectively kills the walled garden.

Do you understand the problem with that picture? The possibility of the majority of people wanting a walled garden cannot exist with this law.

You didn't actually add anything substantive to the argument there.

You didn't address the point. Limiting consumer choice is bad policy making. You seem to not care.

I set out why I think there are compelling reasons for this, but you're of course free to disagree with them.

Ok. I think you're wrong. Agree to disagree. We'll end it here. Have a good one. 👍

 

[germanbeer007]

my goodness you are missing the point, how are you going to switch to android if from a philosophical standpoint, you can't stand Apple's closed ecosystem, yet you spent hundreds on iphone and mac apps for one reason or another and you now can't use them on Android because...?

If you did zero research on the house you moved into, spent years investing into society, and then realized you made a big mistake, that's your problem. Moving out of the house means you will not enjoy the connections you made in society.

 

[germanbeer007]

To conclude, kneecap all other players to stay competitive?

Are they competing in the same game?

Sounds like they want to just shoot free throws to win the NBA championship against Apple without playing the rest of the game.

 

[Stuwil]

Exactly. The DMA isn’t an enabler is a disabler. It’s a disabler of innovation. Nowhere else in the world are vendors entitled to their suppliers ip, unless by some prior agreement.

Well if apple actually gave companies certain access to the OS then this would not be a problem then would it

 

[surferfb]

Well if apple actually gave companies certain access to the OS then this would not be a problem then would it

"If I just gave the robber my wallet then he wouldn't have to stick his gun in my face."

 

[Stuwil]

Same goes for Amazon: if you want your products to be shown 1st in the search, you build your own store.
Same goes for Tesla Supercharging: if you want your EV to be charged cheaper than Tesla's Supercharging, you build your own charging network
Same goes for Playstation: if you want your games to perform better than Sony's first party video games, build your own gaming console so that you have access to low level APIs generally reserved for first party developers
Same goes for Netflix: if you want your TV show to be recommended at the home page, build your own streaming service

and so on.

Why should people who built the infrastructure/platform let you freeload off of their work? They did the hard work, you should too if you want to compete.

Solution don’t let third parties on your platform them just disable the option

 

[BaldiMac]

Well if apple actually gave companies certain access to the OS then this would not be a problem then would it

Apple gives companies a lot of access, they simply want more. The example Apple discussed couldn't make the issue clearer. These requirements give companies access to data that, by design, Apple doesn't have access to themselves.

 

[Stuwil]

"If I just gave the robber my wallet then he wouldn't have to stick his gun in my face."

Here an easy solution don’t have fake competition on your platform then restrict certain things

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Honestly, probably not. Or at least not on the phone. But "not being able to use bluetooth" would be a huge strike against both AirPods and the iPhone, leading to, what I imagine would be, significantly lower sales for both devices.

Which is how things should work. The market decides, not the government.

Well I don’t see much of the market being of relevance. I find it unfortunate I can’t get my bone conducting shokz from having as a seamless experience on my iPhone as my AirPods.

Remember: the way Apple designed the integration was to work on top of Bluetooth, preserving the same pairing experience that existed before Apple improved on it. Had Apple not bothered to improve it, we'd all be stuck with the same bad experience that we've had for decades. Bose never did anything to try to make it better. They (or some other headphone manufacturer) could have worked to change the bluetooth standard to make it better. They didn't.

Well you’re stuck with the exact same bad experience because it’s seperate from bluetooth. I wish Apple did the same as with CarPlay. Making a great protocol for car makers to integrate with. Making the iPhone a great value product.

There has to be incentive for companies to improve things. If you take that incentive away, innovation won't happen. And when you have the government saying "Apple's competitors get access to literally any hardware or software that gets put into the iPhone or iOS" you're removing all incentive to innovate to make things better. Sure Apple will "keep ups with Android" - but they lose all incentive to go above and beyond, because if they do they're subsidizing the R&D of all of their competitors.

But who is this competition? The devices still need an iOS device. Android doesn’t get access. Not any other phones either. Bose headphones getting access to the protocol doesn’t mean Samsung phones can use the same protocol to connect with.

Sure they can.

And what can they do? They’re limited by the Bluetooth standard and what Apple includes.

 

[Stuwil]

Apple gives companies a lot of access, they simply want more. The example Apple discussed couldn't make the issue clearer. These requirements give companies access to data that, by design, Apple doesn't have access to themselves.

False they only give what suits them & their bottom line

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes and going back to my original point: there could be good reasons for having a closed platform option.

Clearly if billions of people love walled gardens, billions will buy the walled garden product. But the side effect of that is you become a gatekeeper which effectively kills the walled garden.

You have zero data for this assertion tho. How do you know that all the users doesn’t just love the interface, iMessage, the form factor etc and easy of use but hates the walled garden?

Or if it’s the reverse? Perhaps they love the iTunes Store and music integration? You have no poll or data showing any discernments about why they might like it.

Do you understand the problem with that picture? The possibility of the majority of people wanting a walled garden cannot exist with this law.

1: you don’t know this
2: if the vast majority of people is fine with it and will choose to use apples ecosystem anyway?

 

[surferfb]

Well I don’t see much of the market being of relevance. I find it unfortunate I can’t get my bone conducting shokz from having as a seamless experience on my iPhone as my AirPods.

The market isn't always going to result in choices you prefer. But I promise you that "the government deciding how OSes are allowed to work" is going to result in much worse choices.

Well you’re stuck with the exact same bad experience because it’s seperate from bluetooth. I wish Apple did the same as with CarPlay. Making a great protocol for car makers to integrate with. Making the iPhone a great value product.

I mean, ignoring for the moment that as of last year Apple does offer third party Bluetooth integration, it should be Apple's decision to make. They're the ones who spent time and money to make it better, they should be the ones to decide who gets to use it.

But who is this competition? The devices still need an iOS device. Android doesn’t get access. Not any other phones either. Bose headphones getting access to the protocol doesn’t mean Samsung phones can use the same protocol to connect with.

If Apple invents something, it should be able to use that invention to make its products more attractive than its competitors' products. Full stop. If Apple thinks it is in its interests to open it up more widely, it will (as it has). But it should be Apple's choice to make. I'm willing to entertain the idea of some sort of "exclusivity period" before Apple loses rights to its own property, but as the way the DMA is written, Apple can't even launch something in Beta without giving third parties access.

To steal an idea from the Dithering podcast this week, it's magical thinking that Apple is going to turn iOS into a desktop OS and there are going to be no negative consequences whatsoever. Now you can argue that the negative impacts are worth it given the benefits that will supposedly come, but it's frustrating to time and time again be told that it's all upside with the only issues being to Apple's bottom line when there are clear impacts to innovation, privacy, and security. It's the same sort of magical thinking that leads people to say "just invent an encryption backdoor only the good guys can use."

 

[germanbeer007]

Solution don’t let third parties on your platform them just disable the option

Or let them on and if third parties whine too much, they can build their own platform.

 

[I7guy]

Well they can’t even do that either. It’s just the bluetooth stack. Anything else is banned.

[…]

Driver kit.

 

[I7guy]

Well if apple actually gave companies certain access to the OS then this would not be a problem then would it

The above is not irrelevant. Nowhere in the world is a companies up made into a public utility.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The market isn't always going to result in choices you prefer. But I promise you that "the government deciding how OSes are allowed to work" is going to result in much worse choices.


I mean, ignoring for the moment that as of last year Apple does offer third party Bluetooth integration, it should be Apple's decision to make. They're the ones who spent time and money to make it better, they should be the ones to decide who gets to use it.

Well I wasn’t aware of it and find it very interesting and welcome.

If Apple invents something, it should be able to use that invention to make its products more attractive than its competitors' products. Full stop. If Apple thinks it is in its interests to open it up more widely, it will (as it has). But it should be Apple's choice to make. I'm willing to entertain the idea of some sort of "exclusivity period" before Apple loses rights to its own property, but as the way the DMA is written, Apple can't even launch something in Beta without giving third parties access.

I’m largely fine with that. But again nothing in the DMA states this. The requirement of interoperability or access to potentially relevant APIs categories are very limited. It’s not a free for all.

To steal an idea from the Dithering podcast this week, it's magical thinking that Apple is going to turn iOS into a desktop OS and there are going to be no negative consequences whatsoever. Now you can argue that the negative impacts are worth it given the benefits that will supposedly come, but it's frustrating to time and time again be told that it's all upside with the only issues being to Apple's bottom line when there are clear impacts to innovation, privacy, and security. It's the same sort of magical thinking that leads people to say "just invent an encryption backdoor only the good guys can use."

Well I haven’t denied any negative externalities won’t happen. I don’t believe innovation will be negatively affected because it’s platform limited. So irrespective of how open the iPhone becomes, a Google pixel or Samsung galaxy won’t have the ability to implement their inventions if they are unrelated to their interaction with an iOS device as a primary object.

 

[d686546s]

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.

Competition between platforms is just not a good way to create competition between services or other products the platform provider decides to tie deeply into its platform.

You're basically saying that in order to compete with Apple Pay, your new aspiring payment services provider needs to convince potential customers to buy an Android phone and potentially a new smartwatch etc

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.

[edit because pressed send too early] Yes you are right, no one can guarantee that you will be entirely unaffected or that there will only be upsides. Nothing does, including not intervening. The rest remains to be seen.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You have zero data for this assertion tho. How do you know that all the users doesn’t just love the interface, iMessage, the form factor etc and easy of use but hates the walled garden?

Or if it’s the reverse? Perhaps they love the iTunes Store and music integration? You have no poll or data showing any discernments about why they might like it.

1: you don’t know this
2: if the vast majority of people is fine with it and will choose to use apples ecosystem anyway?

Agree with all this.

There is too much assumption in this thread about the "desirability of a walled garden".

There are so many reasons why anyone chooses any product in this space and I'd wager (truly) that a large percentage of folks don't consider the walled garden in any form at all when making the purchase. (pro or con)

People like the cameras, and the interface and the hardware ... and the great marketing and halo around the brand.
They use Apps, like we all do, so I suspect they are mainly concerned with "can it do Apps".

I really truly believe folks are just way more simplistic around all these points and also far more varied in their particular rationale for choosing devices than anything we may be representing in this thread.

It's a little bit like "why did you vote for X for President"?
The answers can be shocking and also extremely narrow in scope.

 

[BaldiMac]

Agree with all this.

There is too much assumption in this thread about the "desirability of a walled garden".

There are so many reasons why anyone chooses any product in this space and I'd wager (truly) that a large percentage of folks don't consider the walled garden in any form at all when making the purchase. (pro or con)

People like the cameras, and the interface and the hardware ... and the great marketing and halo around the brand.
They use Apps, like we all do, so I suspect they are mainly concerned with "can it do Apps".

I really truly believe folks are just way more simplistic around all these point and also far more varied in their particular rationale for choosing devices than anything we may be representing in this thread.

It's a little bit like "why did you vote for X for President"?
The answers can be shocking and also extremely narrow in scope.

What assumption? That some amount of people prefer it? That's a fact.

As far as data, we have plenty of data that when presented with the option to use a single store or multiple stores, more than 95% chose a single store.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What assumption? That some amount of people prefer it? That's a fact.

As far as data, we have plenty of data that when presented with the option to use a single store or multiple stores, more than 95% chose a single store.

That's a really incomplete way to present such a question.

It's a good way to steer for a certain response though.

It's not capturing the overall picture of what you would get or lose in various potential scenarios here.

If you start asking things like:

Would mind getting some Apps directly from those who make them?

What if it also means you'd get lower prices?

What if you could get Apps from multiple stores and they were competing on price so you, the consumer, could benefit from that price and sale competition?

Do you think the Apple App Store should have to compete for your business for 3rd party Apps?

Isn't business about competition and shouldn't there be price competition for software on the iPhone?

There are a lot of ways to envision this situation, and ask about it, that would in fact draw mainstream consumer interest.

Apple knows this.
It's a big part of why they are fighting TOOTH and NAIL to not have to compete on any of these points.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Competition between platforms is just not a good way to create competition between services or other products the platform provider decides to tie deeply into its platform.

Why isn't it? The competition between Mac vs PC is about platform. The fact that this conversation is about iOS vs Android is about platform. Each of the platforms have tradeoffs. I knew many people that chose Android due to its ability to do things that an iPhone couldn't. I knew others that chose an iPhone for security and simplicity. There is an advantage is having there be inherent differences between the platforms.

Going back to the PC days. Most people bought PC because due to business needs, cost, or wealth of software. The Mac had different advantages. But the choice was about the platform and full recognition of the strengths and limitations of that platform. I bought a Mac because I knew that Apple made sure that the peripherals that they supported, which were limited, would work.

Re: the DMA. Apple gives all devices access per the requirements of the protocols. All Bluetooth peripherals can can communicate with an iPhone per the requirements. Apple has created additional software and hardware tweaks that enable their developed devices to do things that are not required by the protocol. That is called creating a market advantage. The protocol requirements were not limited by Apple. But now other manufacturers want to have access to the advantages that Apple created. This is not about protocol access; it is about stifling the innovation and market advantages of Apple.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why isn't it? The competition between Mac vs PC is about platform.

That's only one part of the competition story.

There is also competition ON platform for both mac & PC software/accessory businesses.