Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

d686546s said:
A new solution could of course emerge and, as long as it doesn't grow beyond a certain level, still give you what you want.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ToothBlueth said:
Back to the old ways, ignoring the fact that 28% is a significant share in a two split market.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Abazigal said:
The DMA seems to imply that Apple has to open up their platform and make available the full benefits to third parties for free (essentially).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Abazigal said:
I get that if you are the owner of a headphone company looking in from the outside, it can seem like an unfair advantage (though I argue that too many people these days are too eager to cry “unfair” when they really just mean “not to my advantage”). But at the same time, is it really “fair” to expect Apple to just give away the fruits of their R&D for nothing? What then is the incentive to continue coming up with new ecosystem features if Apple is not allowed to charge a premium for them?

Even Qualcomm and Nokia are allowed to charge for their patents, in the very least, but the idea of Apple charging a licensing fee for access to core iOS features is somehow anathema?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fender2112 said:
I'm with Apple on this one. Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software to create a cohesive environment, The Walled Garden. There's a reason this appeal to millions of users.

It's kind of like telling Chevy their engines have to work in their competitor's vehicles.
Click to expand...

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.
 
surferfb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 )
 
d686546s said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
surferfb said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
germanbeer007 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
 
d686546s said:
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 but despite it being closed or not be aware one way or another. The 'will of the people' is therefore a bit murky.
Click to expand...

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?

d686546s said:
Second, even then it's always a balance of competing interests and not all wills and desires can be met.
Click to expand...
It seems selfish to not even know if closed nature is the majority of the will of people before killing it off.
 
ToothBlueth said:
Exactly, showing how little interest they have in arguing in good faith, and just protecting their favourite mega corp.
Click to expand...

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.
 
turbineseaplane said:
It's the integration part, which is a big deal and huge competitive edge with that type of accessory.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BaldiMac said:
Well, since market share and two split markets aren’t factors in determining gatekeepers under the DMA, it seems like we should ignore it.
Click to expand...
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 digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu
 
turbineseaplane said:
I still can't figure out what people do with this.

The only thing I've enjoyed and used from it so far in 2025 is the phone notifications coming over.

I find the actual "interacting" with the phone way more cumbersome than just picking up my phone sitting on my desk right next to me.
Click to expand...
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”.
 
turbineseaplane said:
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".
Click to expand...

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".
 
ToothBlueth said:
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 digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu
Click to expand...

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%)
 
I7guy said:
Sure, the DMA is used to justify the DMA. That’s why there is circular reasoning in this thread.
Click to expand...
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.
 
surferfb said:
No, the DMA is based on number of EU users, corporate revenue, and a listing of services that suspiciously didn’t include product categories where EU companies are doing well (like music steaming).
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top