The issue throughout -- and I'm not saying there are easy answers -- is that 'software integration' obviously stops being 'just another feature' when you control the dominant hardware and operating system platforms, such as Apple and Google, and then also want to sell other products that have to tie in with that platform.
I'd argue that having one platform (that has over 70% of the market) that allows any and all integration and one smaller player that doesn't meets the needs of consumers without requiring government intervention, but obviously reasonable people feel differently on that.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one is actually saying that Bose has to make their noise cancellation algorithm available to competitors and neither does Apple have to make its algorithm for the Airpods Pro available to anyone else -- free or otherwise.
Neither can or should we expect Bose to create a smartphone platform just so they can provide additional convenience features to sell their headphones, which is the business they're actually in. That's the thing with 'ecosystems,' they slowly and gradually push people out.
Agree to an extent here, but in my opinion, that's just the government interference in the free market. It's "deciding" that Apple isn't allowed to differentiate its products using arguably its (arguably) strongest selling point, just because the EU says so. I think we'd all agree that if the EU said "Apple can't copyright its hardware designs because it's not fair its products are so much more attractive than other companies'. Therefore any company can copy the iPhone's physical appearance" it would be a huge overreach, but I'd argue that's exactly what they're doing here - just for software design.
I'm going to use an absurd example to argue my point, so bear with me. Suppose Apple develops a neural input technology that allows users wearing AirPods to control their iPhone with subtle facial movements. It’s especially life-changing for users with physical disabilities, and Apple spends billions miniaturizing the sensors into AirPods and building secure software integration with iOS. Because it's deeply integrated into iOS and literally reads your mind, it is designed to only work with AirPods paired with iPhones for stability, latency, battery, and privacy reasons.
Under the DMA, Apple would be required to open this new technology to any third-party headphones that asks even if:
- The third party didn’t invest one cent in the underlying research.
- The third party hardware is less secure or doesn't work as well as Apple's. (Apple isn't allowed to block it from Meta or Google devices that literally read your mind to serve you ads)
- Apple’s unique experience is degraded by lower-quality integrations. (In other words, people blame Apple for the feature not working well or killing battery life, when the fault is actually Samsung/Bose/Whoever's device using Apple's technology).
Oh, and now Apple bears support, compatibility, and regulatory burdens for this new system. It can't change APIs to make them better for AirPods users if the change breaks third party hardware, for example. So the reward for years of R&D isn’t a new moat, it’s an obligation to build competitors a bridge and continue to maintain the bridge for them. In what world is that fair?
There is absolutely an element of truth in that and hence I don't think there's an easy solution, but conversely it's becoming less and less appealing for many consumers to buy anything -- whether it's headphones, smartwatches etc -- outside of their ecosystem because key functions are just cordoned off. I know it's fashionable to say on this site that this is justified because Apple worked hard to create their ecosystem and others should just do the same, but that's neither desirable nor feasible, and hence if we want to maintain a certain level playing field then there need to be limits to what platform providers such as Apple, Google or Samsung can do.
In the long run, walled garden ecosystems will just as much kill innovation because there's equally no incentive to spend money on R&D if people are locked in, even if it's a 'soft lock.'
I disagree. Apple has a strong competitor that has over 70% of the market worldwide. The idea that Apple isn't going spend on R&D and just rest on its laurels while Android devices get more and more capable is just not a realistic argument. And even if it WAS the case, Apple would start losing customers. If you believe people who post on MacRumors, they're already losing customers who were huge fans because of their supposed recent "lack of innovation."
