Europe is not alone... The USA are just a bit slower with everything... https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/us-files-landmark-antitrust-suit-against-apple.html
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 Challenges EU Digital Markets Act Over Feature Delays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m a bit surprised they mention pornography apps… when you have all the porn available on the web through your browser.
PS: I didn’t know there were porn apps in the alternative app stores…
PS: I didn’t know there were porn apps in the alternative app stores…
Last edited:
Most independent experts think that case will go nowhere because Apple doesn’t meet the definition of monopoly that has been long established in the US.
The specific features Apple is holding back are just those calibrated to create a fuss without driving buyers to the competition. Screen sharing impossible due to DMA? Route finding? Really?
Ultimately it's just a tussle between who is more powerful: Apple (representing 'big tech' generally) or the EU.
I'm actually not sure who will win.
Ultimately it's just a tussle between who is more powerful: Apple (representing 'big tech' generally) or the EU.
I'm actually not sure who will win.
So Apple has to invest time and money developing their operating systems so that third-party manufacturers can experience the same or similar experiences as those provided by Apple's own AirPods, and those third-party manufacturers just get this for free? (Can Apple charge via the MFi program, or is charging for their effort asking too much?)
Should LG be forced to pop up that white box so I can connect my AirPods to my TV and experience the same features that I get with my iPhone?
A set of Bose Bluetooth headphones do not currently have "a much worse experience". They are advertised as doing A, B and C, and they do A, B and C very well. They are Bluetooth headphones that can connect to multiple devices, one of which is an iPhone. AirPods are advertised as doing A, B and C, but they also do X, Y and Z if you have an iPhone. Two Apple products working together; that's all.
What else do the Bose headphones need? Live Translation? That requires trusted hardware that the Bose headphones don't contain. Oh, Bose could add such hardware? Great, so now Apple has to certify that a hundred other manufacturers' chips are compliant.
As I said, not every device needs to contact every other device. They certainly don't need to be doing the same things.
Isn't that a good thing from a consumer perspective? More choice, better experience with accessories.
I fail to see the downside ...
Then you aren't looking closely enough.
When Apple has to support every piece of hardware out there, what is there for Apple to innovate on? They released AirPods, and showed how they work with an iPhone. People buy AirPods because of what they do with the iPhone and the Apple ecosystem - auto-switching to the Mac etc. If Apple has to offer these innovations to every other headphone manufacturer they would have to insist that other manufacturers use specific protocols and hardware, and then what does the market look like? Every set of headphones does exactly the same thing, and no one can stand out.
If one manufacturer tries to introduce an entirely new feature, does Apple have to implement it before that new set of headphones can be released, or can the 'phones be released and people have to wait for Apple to release the software update? How does that reflect on Apple?
Can Apple innovate in their AirPods, invest in a new feature, and release the hardware and software on their own, or do they have to tell the other manufacturers first? Can they release first and then let the others catch up? Apple just does everyone else's R&D now?
If Apple has to certify a ton of chips just so some feature on some other manufacturer's products work properly on an Apple device, what does Apple get out of it? It's not like Windows where Microsoft had to support practically every motherboard and chipset out there so that people could install Windows on their hardware. This would force Apple to spend money on supporting other manufacturers' devices just so those manufacturers can sell more devices.
No one is going to buy an iPhone because their Sony headphones would work fully with it. People buy iPhones for various reasons, but they currently buy them knowing full well that their Sony headphones don't do the same things that Apple's AirPods do.
Not really, the EU had promise until they allowed corrupt individuals to be representatives of their member governments. I am looking forward to the EU being disbanded.
This is what happens with technology over time. It's called commoditization. Today's innovations will become tomorrow's baseline features that more people can afford. Sound like a good thing to me.
It’s true. Headphones as an entire product line are a commodity. TVs as an entire product line are a commodity. Cars are commodities. Smartphones are commodities.
And yet individually every product within each different category does something different than its competition. Each product is not a commodity unto itself.
How do these kind of issues on iOS compare to MacOS where you can basically do what you want with your device?
There are no real issues.
Apple just doesn't want to lose any of their control over the revenue lock down for Apps on iOS/iPadOS.
It’s a weird dichotomy where their (Apple’s executives) are forced to throw one under the bus for lack of security, to justify their … measures and restrictions elsewhere.
This dissonance can be easily resolved by the explanation that their “walled garden” approach on iOS enables them to rake in juicy commissions (services revenue!) on one system - while keeping the other system relevant in the marketplace because it allows for installation of apps from other sources.
Either way, it’s only about the money they’re making.
Security is pretext, consistency is dangerous.
And honesty harms the bottom line.
Last edited:
Couple of differences. First of all iOS was designed with lessons learned from the PC era. Anyone around in the late 90s/early 2000s should remember why “users should be able to install anything from anywhere” is a terrible idea.
Secondly, macOS and iOS were built in different eras with fundamentally different assumptions. macOS has been open for 40 years, serves ~100M (with a large contingent of power-users and developers), and was designed to tolerate complexity and risk. A vulnerability that hit only 10% of iPhone users would be equivalent to a vulnerability affecting all Macs. The scale is totally different and so stricter control is warranted. In other words: what makes sense for a niche, power-user platform does not necessarily make sense to a mass-market consumer platform.
Third, iOS was deliberately built as a closed, tightly-managed ecosystem to serve 1–2B everyday consumers who expect security, privacy, and simplicity out of the box. It’s always been the deal, is why a lot of people pick iOS, is better for the vast majority of Apple’s customers, and shouldn’t be taken away from everyone just because a subset of nerdy power users are selfish and would rather normal users suffer than use the open option that already exists for them.
Finally, smartphones are users' wallets, health trackers, ID cards, kid devices, and the only computer many people own. The cost of compromise is far higher, so, again, stricter control is warranted.
…as is the cost of and barrier of switching for consumers to switch.
They aren’t anything like burger joints, where consumers have lots of alternatives, tiers and alternative business models to choose from, with negligible costs/barriers to switch.
Nope. Buy a new phone. Done. Switching is as easy as walking out of Burger King and into McDonalds. But you don’t want to compromise so selfishly are forcing McDonalds to for the Big Mac for free even though it makes thing worse for the vast majority of customers.
People aren’t reorganising and setting up their “wallets, health trackers, ID cards” anew, having to (re)learn how to use them.
Let alone do it at all at once and spend hundreds of dollars on a hardware product “platform” to run them on.
It would be disingenuous to deny people are committed to such platforms and face considerable barriers/hurdles and disincentives to switching. Especially when making such claim in the context of hundreds of billions less tech-savvy users that use such devices - and/or analogies to burger and fast food restaurants or supermarkets.
Last edited:
The downside probably won’t be apparent right away. The key concern would be if Apple chose not to develop a particular feature, or at least withhold it from the EU, because making it readily available to competitors would cause them to lose a key point of differentiation.
Everyone waxes lyrics about levelling the playing field, but nobody is willing to entertain the possibility of everyone being equally behind.
That’s the thing about equality. It works both ways.
You completely missed my point about tomorrow's innovations, or deliberately avoided answering it.
...and we don't want to live in a world where everyone has to buy the same headphones just to have them particular things.
Which is why every headphone manufacturer deserves a chance to work to make headphones that work well and connect well with the duopoly of smartphone platforms people happened to have to converged on.
PS: ...although on second thought (and observation): Many people don't only acquiesce to that form of "tech totalitarianism" - they're actively supporting and applauding it.
Yes, why not? That would give people an honest and competitive choice for the headphones they like.
No need to integrate it into Bose headphones (they'd lack the processing power anyway).
But they can connect to an iPhone that does the processing - just as Apple's AirPods do.
No, it evidently does not.
At least not in headphones.
Because processing is done on iPhones.
Having to delay this feature due to the DMA is clearly BS purported by Apple.
Lies to stoke consumers' anger against the DMA.
Last edited:
Not getting into the rest of your post, which as usual I disagree with completely, but this part is crazy. Apple isn’t lying. They’re assuredly going to lose a lot of sales of AirPods in the EU because of this. And Apple certainly doesn’t think their website is pointing out the ridiculousness of the law is going to get droves of people to reach out to their representatives to overturn the DMA.
Withholding the feature is the rational result of the legislation. Remember, even if Apple were planning to release this to everyone to use, but only have it working well on AirPods, they can’t release it today in the EU if it’s not ready for everyone. Else they risk getting fined more money than revenue they making the EU.
So they should hold off on releasing the feature worldwide until they ensure it works acceptably on their competitors devices? Or release it half baked and risk tarnishing the reputation of Apple’s feature when it works poorly on cheap devices? Or risk cries of “malicious compliance” and billions in fines? Which one should they choose?
This is a prime example of the DMA slowing innovation and harming consumers. Apple withholding it because of the DMA isn’t “BS” or “lies.” It’s the truth you and the EU can’t bring yourselves to recognize because it clearly shows the downsides of the law.
But I know, I know. Any negative result of EU regulations, even if they are unintended, are the regulated’s fault, not the regulation. Regulation is perfect and cannot fail. It can only be failed. It’s the only infallible thing humans do.
Yes, they are.
That's not their priority.
1. They're in the long game of attacking the DMA.
2. They're unwilling to admit publicly that the feature does not require AirPods.
Why? Because not only would it create negative brand perception if they don't release it elsewhere.
They'd also lose AirPods sales in other regions.
Probably more than they're going to lose in Europe now. I mean... you yourself did point out multiple times how small a share of Apple's business the EU accounts for, didn't you?
👉 Why are they doing it then? They're mounting public pressure, that's it.
Remember, even if Apple were planning to release this to everyone to use, but only have it working well on AirPods, they can’t release it today in the EU if it’s not ready for everyone.
The premise is wrong.
There's literally no technical reason that would only remotely be plausible for not working with other devices.
Don't let yourself be fooled by Apple's disingenuous public spin on this.
They don't want to release it working with other headphones.
They absolutely want to gatekeep the feature, to promote sales of their top-of-the-line in-ear phones.
👉 Admitting that the feature works with other headphones - that's what they want to avoid at all costs.
PS: We can confidently deduce this from Apple's own website and documentation and three facts:
👉 ...which, a Sony or Bose headset to make that call, is what the other party of that live-translated phone call (or FaceTime call) may in fact be using. And yet, Live Translate is supposed to be able to transfer the audio stream received from them. To a degree that Apple deemed acceptable.
- It works with AirPods 2 - earphones that were released more back in 2022
- "all processing takes place on your iPhone where all of your conversation data remains private" (see here)
- They even document Live Translations as working on cellular calls over the mobile network.
"On your iPhone, tap the Phone app to start a phone call like usual
During the call, tap the More button, then tap Live Translation to translate your voice"
- The translation processing does take place on a phone (not on the tiny earbuds, obviously)
- It can accept audio from a "non-Apple-controlled source", e.g. someone using a non-Apple phone, non-Apple microphone.
- ...and over a bloody cellular phone line. I don't know about the U.S. - but normal phone calls here in Europe certainly have lower audio quality than FaceTime. Live Translation can accept "degraded" audio input that has not been processed by AirPod Pros (2 or above).
👉 ...which, a Sony or Bose headset to make that call, is what the other party of that live-translated phone call (or FaceTime call) may in fact be using. And yet, Live Translate is supposed to be able to transfer the audio stream received from them. To a degree that Apple deemed acceptable.
Last edited:
Last remark:
Now, call recording isn't available in the EU - among some other countries - either.
I'm not (yet?
) sure what the legal situation about that is in the EU. I suppose it's a matter of member states' legislation, unless there is an EU privacy regulation/directive that forbids it.
👉 If you told me that Live Translation is unavailable due EU privacy laws, I'd consider that possible (without further looking into the matter).
But because of the DMA? Nonsense!
Now, call recording isn't available in the EU - among some other countries - either.
I'm not (yet?
) sure what the legal situation about that is in the EU. I suppose it's a matter of member states' legislation, unless there is an EU privacy regulation/directive that forbids it.👉 If you told me that Live Translation is unavailable due EU privacy laws, I'd consider that possible (without further looking into the matter).
But because of the DMA? Nonsense!