so...the only way that a closed platform can exist is when people refrain from voting with their wallet too much? how is this regulation representative of the will and desires of the people?
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
so...the only way that a closed platform can exist is when people refrain from voting with their wallet too much? how is this regulation representative of the will and desires of the people?
Literally nothing is preventing anyone from innovating in Smart Watches. Least of all Apple.
Your claim: Apple is preventing innovation in the smart watch market.
Please explain how Apple is preventing Samsung from innovating in Smart Watches.
I didn't realize that, thank you for sharing that.
I like it!
Things connecting with Bluetooth should and could all benefit the user with the AirPod style of it.
I'd agree that there is a conversation to be had regarding what fair terms for interoperability could look like, but the point I'd think is that Apple (and, for the record, other big platform providers) just doesn't offer access to certain 'ecosystem features' where these are used to push other products or services.
I think Apple would have probably saved itself from a lot of scrutiny if it had offered better interoperability on (semi-) fair and reasonable terms.
Apple are more about making as much money as possible, so if their appeals fail they'll be complying with EU law in order to be able to continue selling their products into the EU's single market.
Appeals are worthwhile though because services revenue is crucial for Apple, and they don't want any major hurdles to achieving the growth Wall Street expects. It also serves as a warning to other governments that Apple will fight you, and the US government may even support Apple in that fight.
It's the integration part, which is a big deal and huge competitive edge with that type of accessory.
(you know this
-- I assume you're being coy to draw out an articulation from that user )
This is incredibly spot on, with so much of this.
Even with across the board very level playing field on integrations, a TON of people would still be buying AirPods because they are REALLY good in a whole host of ways.
For innovations to grow you want them to be used by as many people as possible, Apple is dissuades iOS users from using innovation watches (or other devices) by preventing them to use basic functionality.
It also prevents Apple Watch innovation, because other watches can’t compete on basic functionality. This all is a clear show case of Apple misbusing its market power.
Well, since market share and two split markets aren’t factors in determining gatekeepers under the DMA, it seems like we should ignore it.
Well, for one we don't actually know why some people buy Apple products. I totally get that it being a closed ecosystem will be a deciding factor for some, but others will buy despite it being closed or not be aware one way or another. The 'will of the people' is therefore a bit murky.
Second, even then it's always a balance of competing interests and not all wills and desires can be met.
Exactly, showing how little interest they have in arguing in good faith, and just protecting their favourite mega corp.(you know this
A really good point is made by @d686546s above.
Running with the assumption that a vast majority of iPhone buyers are doing it because it's "locked down" and/or "has a closed ecosystem" is just accepting a framing that Apple is pushing for their own business reasons.
We should not be just accepting that as a "fact".
Running with the assumption that a vast majority of iPhone buyers are doing it because it's "locked down" and/or "has a closed ecosystem" is just accepting a framing that Apple is pushing for their own business reasons.
We should not be just accepting that as a "fact".
Wouldn't it be prudent to know if majority of people buy Apple products because of its closed nature BEFORE EU enacts the law that effectively kills any major closed system?
It seems selfish to not even know if closed nature is the majority of the will of people before killing it off.
ha! I can see how it feels that way.
It's probably a little harsh though to be fair.
I know @surferfb and he's a great guy ... a very passionate one on this general topic and he strongly disagrees with my views and it sounds like yours.
I'm just out of energy and interest on much deference to mega corporations.
These are entities that are allowed to exist, not some per-ordained "right" in the universe and I just think many of them have gone too far for too long with interests in their own direction.
I'm just a general person/customer/user.
I care about what is good for me and people like me.
If that makes a mega corp "number not go up quite as much", so be it.
Samsung can totally integrate smartwatches with their smartphones which they can totally integrate with their smart TVs, computers, tag finders, bixby, cameras, tablets, washing machine, cooking appliances, refrigerators, vacuums, projectors, earbuds, smart speakers, etc...
Apple isn't preventing any of that from happening.
iOS is a core platform, so yes it is. I guess you can read why here:
Competition case search
Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.
Same. I thought I’d use it, but the mirroring is stuck at 60 Hz and a bit laggy, and a few of my apps block it for “security”.
That’s the point of value added features, which is a standard in the business world looking to attract customers.
The vast majority of people don't even think of it as being locked down, or being a closed ecosystem, they just love the products and how great it is how all the Apple stuff works seamlessly together.
If Apple was forced to open up access to Wear OS devices, it wouldn't change much. Look at AirPods. Tons of competition there that can connect to iPhones, but AirPods are still comfortably outselling everything.
It is sort of hilarious to me that we're supposed to pretend like any disruption to Apple App Store financial control will "harm innovation".
As if they've been so innovative on this front in the last many years.
It's been textbook resting on their laurels because "they can".
As if they've been so innovative on this front in the last many years.
It's been textbook resting on their laurels because "they can".
Sure, the DMA is used to justify the DMA. That’s why there is circular reasoning in this thread.iOS is a core platform, so yes it is. I guess you can read why here:
Competition case search
Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu
The WSJ thinks innovation is dead in the eu. The DMA is a shining example why.
iOS is a core platform, so yes it is. I guess you can read why here:
Competition case search
Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.
No, the DMA is based on number of EU users, corporate revenue, and a listing of services that suspiciously didn’t include product/service categories where EU companies are doing well (like music steaming).
Market share isn’t listed in the law as a criteria at all. (Probably because it generally requires 40% in the EU and as far as I could find, has never been used on a company with less than 35%)
No, ignoring the facts is what causes you coming back to your opinion all the time. The DMA has been approved by the EU Court, and so can Apple try to make its case there.
Booking.com is listed as a gatekeeper. Spotify is targeted elsewhere, don’t worry.
And you are right about the first bit. But doesn’t that just mean market share? A significant number of users on the market? Including the other criteria.