Software integration ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the product. Just because you don't value it as highly as sound quality or whatever doesn't mean it isn't a valid thing to compete on.
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
It is up to Apple to define it. It’s fully within the rules and requirements.
Apple isn’t obligated to share something they don’t have. It’s seems to just be API access ( something that already exist in iOS.
And this important part ”These measures are preliminary and might be adjusted subject to feedback from third parties and Apple as well as further investigative steps.”
And this regulation is absolutely not going to require apps to be able to be installed as it’s completely outside the scope of relevance at most a companion app can communicate from the iPhone to the other device.
The EU wants Apple to open AirDrop and AirPlay to Android and other platforms
A new mandate from the EU may force Apple to open AirDrop and AirPlay, among other features, to Android and other platforms.
9to5google.com
The EU is determined for Apple to be as terrible as Windows. There has to be a balance between what's good for consumers and what's good for companies. Forcing a company to abandon innovation doesn't really help the consumer in the long run.
regulations/restrictions are not created in order to limit the few power users, but to protect the many, technically mostly illiterate ones. you're smarter, more experienced than them. you cannot expect them to behave the same way as yo do, to make the same informed decisions, etc. please keep that in mind.
the success of apple can be also attributed to these business practices (which clearly benefited themselves) that also provided a safe, easy to use way for the everyday Joe/Jane to use these new portable computers called smartphones.
This is some bizarre pretzel logic
It really isn't.
Current choice: iOS (closed), Android (open).
New choice: iOS (open), Android (open).
You've taken away the choice of those who prefer a closed ecosystem and made iOS like Android, thereby reducing consumer choice. Even if you personally don't value the choice, that doesn't mean it hasn't been taken away.
Android doesn't allow 'any and all' integration and Google and Samsung equally lock stuff behind their ecosystem walls. Again, I agree that it's a delicate balance between stifling companies from differentiating their products and making sure platform operators don't lock anyone else out through 'convenience,' but it's definitely not an Apple-exclusive problem and the DMA doesn't apply to Apple alone.
I mean we probably would agree that if the EU were to say that, but I think we can also agree that the EU is unlikely to say that because the physical appearance of a device and the availability of certain platform features are two entire different things.
There is a fundamental power imbalance here that goes beyond software design. Going back to your earlier example, Bose will never ever be able to offer competitive alternatives to some of the AirPods' features no matter how much they innovate just because it's in Apple's gift to just lock them out. I personally like initiating messages via Siri or Siri reading responses while I'm on a crowded train, how is Bose going to offer this if they simply can't? Do they now have to compete with Apple and Google and make smartphones
And like I said, it's not just Apple. Google and Samsung are doing the exact same things.
I don't know where the line is, but the question of access when certain technologies become standards is not entirely unprecedented -- take FRAND for example.
It's absolutely discussing what needs to be offered for free and whether there is room -- should be room -- for fair compensation. Personally I do agree that there needs to be a reward for innovation, but I also strongly believe that increasing vertical integration and the rise of the ecosystem creates issues that need to be addressed, particularly if there is realistically room for maybe 2-3 platform providers in the mobile operating system space.
Let me offer up a semi-absurd example in return: let's assume the big telco providers of the early 2000s, who all wanted to be more than just dumb pipes, had been just been (allowed to be) a tiny bit smarter and locked their networks to their own handsets, or at least only allowed internet traffic for all the fantastic services that ultimately enabled the iPhone for their own products. Would that have been a fair moat for all of their billions of investment in the networks? I'd think not, but as you say reasonable people can disagree. In any case the iPhone would have never happened.
Best case we enable innovation between the competing platforms, while still making it harder for all the third party companies.
Are there any features a competing office suite couldn't offer on Windows because it's limited by the OS?
The choice I'm worried about is "users (and developers) being able to have more options on their particular device/ecosystem".
Ecosystems are chosen for more reasons than "are they closed or locked down".
In many cases people are choosing in SPITE of that. It can be a drawback people are begrudgingly living with.
when you add ingredients to make one product similar to something else, you literally have less variety of products.
it's pretty straight forward, actually.
Fortunately, as the success of iOS and Android show, there is no true lock-in. It wasn't so long ago that Motorola, Nokia and Blackberry dominated the cell phone market. iOS and Android became "dominant" due to their innovative offerings. And to state otherwise, take a look at Apple. Apple's financials were so bad that Michael Dell suggested shutting in down in 1997. They then released the iPod, with 0% marketshare and few believing that it would succeed, in 2001. They then released the iPhone, with 0% marketshare and even fewer believing that it would succeed, in 2007. For some reason, many on here seem to have this inaccurate belief that Apple has always been "powerful" and "successful." Through my history with Apple, most seemed to think that Apple was always on the verge of failure.
at the cost of reducing options of the device/ecosystem itself. no longer will people be able to purchase a device/ecosystem that they enjoy because you simply refuse to buy an android device.
now do you understand?
It’s centimetres and metres in Europe 😛
You don’t need to have full locking. Had Motorola, Microsoft, Blackberry, noli etc perhaps had exclusive rights with ATT, Verizon or T-mobile etc then there would never been an iPhone to be successful launched.
Had they implemented some completely legal restrictions and business dealings then we wouldn’t have had the iPhone today.
I sure enjoy:
- Steam asking me to reboot the app to update
- Epic Games store using their own UI for notifications coming from the bottom right instead of the top right
- Resilio Sync completely freezing my macOS until I force quit it for some reason
- Apps autolaunching upon boot even though I never explicitly told it to do that
- Hidden processes being installed without my consent
- Apps requiring full disk access in order to function
- Microsoft asking me to update Office
- Adobe "Creative Cloud" to manage a suite of apps which installs many little sub processes in the background (some of which deleted critical mac system files, rendering the workstation useless)
- Apps leaving behind trace files even after deleting the app from the system
etc...
wow so good for consumers.
Imagine having millions of choices and arguing that the problem is a lack of choice.
What app doesn’t require reboot or shutdown to be updated?
And sounds more you describe windows than Mac?
Why use resiliosync? You have iTunes and Apple devices?
You don’t need tongues epic. Stay with steam or the AppStore.
You want to know what I tend to do on my windows computer as well as my Mac when I had it? Use the Microsoft/Mac store, the steam store or known developer I know. Or third options if what I need isn’t anywhere else.
Perhaps don’t install unnecessary stuff from questionable places if it’s causing these problems for you. And refrain from accepting every single thing on the install.
You're not understanding. Apps that updated in the background while I sleep require zero interaction from me when I need to use it. This is done through a single process on the iPhone.
Nope. I'm describing my Mac experience.
Syncing video production work. What does itunes have to do with anything?
Or just stick with AppStore alone and don't change into this nonsense of having a Mac on an iPhone.
And when your game goes timed exclusive on Epic store? At least with the App Store it's either you can buy or not buy a game. It's never "you can buy it if you install this store on your phone".
What happens when Adobe pulls all of their apps from the App Store and requires you to install their "Creative Cloud" store? Perhaps you should think this through on the consequences of turning an iPhone into a Mac.
Starting with an untrue premise/conclusion (that Apple is a monopoly) is called begging the question. In other words, you concluded that Apple is a monopoly, therefore anyone defending Apple is defending a monopoly. However, the EU has not established that Apple is a monopoly because Apple isn't according to EU laws.
Last edited:
Socialist regime? Do your homework please. It is a liberal regime, leaning towards the right.
I wonder what is best for Apples bottom line? To force people to buy the complete Apple package with the risk of fewer users or fully support 3:rd party devices and having more users? Fully supporting 3:rd party devices does not make the Apple earphones or watches less safe so I guess Apple is afraid of real competition in the headphone or wearable space.
The DMA is not what might be called classical liberalism (closer to libertarian) or even neoliberalism. It's what can be viewed as an authoritarian, economically "left" policy. "Leaning right" would be more laissez-faire (i.e., less regulation) in this case. Of course, none of this is simple enough to label as "liberal", "left", or "right", but "socialist" is much closer to the truth than this being the action of a "liberal, right learning regime".
The other commenter might have been using socialism as a sort of a bad word, but the simple fact of the matter is that this implementation of governmental regulation is not right leaning.
Last edited: