Apple Challenges EU Digital Markets Act Over Feature Delays

[surferfb]

Yes, they are.

I cannot believe you continue to buy products from a company that you think lies to its users as much as you claim Apple lies to everyone.

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?

I seriously doubt it. In rational parts of the world, “we created a great new feature and it only works on our product, not our competitors’ products” is how things work. I believe it’s Cuba, North Korea, and I guess the EU where that works differently.

👉 Why are they doing it then? They're mounting public pressure, that's it.

I suspect they’re trying to 1) get favorable press coverage (or at least a line that says “Apple says EU regulations prevent them from offering the feature”) in any article about it 2) appeal to sane legislators in the EU / EU courts 3) probably appeal to the US administration trade negotiators 4) have something they can point to if customers complain about not getting a feature

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.

Sure there are. Quality of microphones and connection latency are two off the top of my head. It doesn’t work on all AirPods, mind you.

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.

As is their right, because you know, they did the work to create the feature. Everyone would rightly laugh if the EU said “It’s not fair Bose noise cancellation algorithm is better than everyone else’s, so let’s give it to Apple for free even though Apple could develop their own.”

👉 Admitting that the feature works with other headphones - that's what they want to avoid at all costs.

Tell me you don’t understand how Apple operates and has always operated without telling me you don’t understand how Apple operates and has always operated.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sure there are. Quality of microphones and connection latency are two off the top of my head. It doesn’t work on all AirPods, mind you.

If it was limited to AirPods Pro and "finely tuned" to their noise cancelling capability... maybe, just maybe.
Though still hard to believe, given the different noise environments people may be in.

But it's supposed to work over a cellular call - that's what their own support site says.
With interlocutors that may be using a $15 cheap-ass dumbphone bought on Temu or out of a vending machine.

Tell me you don’t understand how Apple operates and has always operated without telling me you don’t understand how Apple operates and has always operated.

Yeah, they've always been crooks a bit (in many ways).
Still made popular and great products overall.

I've disliked many of their business practices for many years.
It's just become more grating as they're defying the law - and keep b***sh***ing everyone about it.

But yeah, undeniably great products.
That's why I've been buying them.

Nowadays, they're just the lesser evil.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In rational parts of the world, “we created a great new feature and it only works on our product, not our competitors’ products” is how things work
As is their right, because you know, they did the work to create the feature

Look, if you're of the opinion that Apple should be free to "gatekeep" the feature and restrict it to the purchase of AirPods Pro for commercial reasons, I'd respect that opinion. Even though I may disagree with it.

On second thought: I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it that much.
I’d at least have to pause and give it some thought 🙂
I'd almost consider it "fair game" to bundle the Live Translation "license" with purchase of certain AirPods.

Two reasons though why I don't (and I'm going back to an earlier post of yours):

There is literally no reason Bose or B&O or whoever can't build a translation into their own app.

There literally is a reason: Their apps can't make phone calls with other people.
Because... Apple doesn't allow alternative phone apps.

Oh, and also, I hate being b***sh*ted about something.

veryone would rightly laugh if the EU said “It’s not fair Bose noise cancellation algorithm is better than everyone else’s, so let’s give it to Apple for free even though Apple could develop their own.”

Well, neither is Apple (or Bose) forced to give away their noise cancellation algorithms.
Nor are they forced to give away their Live Translation algorithms for implementation in competitor's devices.

Were it confined to AirPods, i.e. the translation processing done on the AirPods themselves, Apple wouldn't be subject to any regulation at all. 👉 Probably technically feasible during our lifetimes.

 

[BaldiMac]

PS: We can confidently deduce this from Apple's own website and documentation and three facts:

• 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"

Again:

1. The translation processing does take place on a phone (not on the tiny earbuds, obviously)
2. It can accept audio from a "non-Apple-controlled source", e.g. someone using a non-Apple phone, non-Apple microphone.
3. ...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).

👉 Given that, there is no even remotely plausible technical explanation why the live translation feature should not work with any other microphone-equipped Bluetooth headphones that can make normal calls.

👉 ...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.

Confidently deducing something without enough information is how conspiracy theories come into being.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Confidently deducing something without enough information is how conspiracy theories come into being

Yes. But in this case, I’m convinced we have sufficient information.

We’re increasingly living in a post-truth world - and so is “your” government and president.
That doesn’t mean we can’t or should give up deducing truth from facts.

Rather than vague doubts, I’m still waiting for a plausible technical explanation to the contrary.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes.

But here we have sufficient information .

What is Apple’s technical explanation for why they require AirPods?

 

[AppliedMicro]

What is Apple’s technical explanation for why they require AirPods?

👉 Is there one?

I’m not disputing that the translation feature may work a bit better and somewhat more reliably with AirPods and their (microphone input) audio processing than some other earbuds. I’m just saying Apple developed it and it deemed it acceptable to work without them. And also, other manufacturers make earphones with similarly good microphones that would work just as well. And button (or earphone stem) to activate it isn’t precluding it from working.

PS: I haven’t seen the press calling them out on it or asking them either. That’s how good their marketing (RDF) is.

 

[BaldiMac]

👉 Is there one?

I’m not disputing that the translation feature may work a bit better and somewhat more reliably with AirPods and their (microphone input) audio processing. I’m just saying Apple developed it and it deemed it acceptable to work without them.

Case in point. You don’t know why they require it, so you don't have enough information to call their explanation a lie. Confident deduction based on nothing but assumptions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You don’t know why they require it, so you don't have enough information to call their explanation a lie. Confident deduction based on nothing but assumptions.

Nonsense. it is based on facts, which I already cited above.
Not merely assumptions.

Feel free to enjoy the blue pill and live in a post-fact world all you want.
Or take the red pill, and I’m more than happy to hear your factual counterargument (or at least: plausible explanation).

But I’m not subscribing to “nobody knows anything, conclusions can’t be inferred and facts don’t exist”.

 

[surferfb]

Look, if you're of the opinion that Apple should be free to "gatekeep" the feature and restrict it to the purchase of AirPods Pro for commercial reasons, I'd respect that opinion. Even though I may disagree with it.

On second thought: I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it that much.
I’d at least have to pause and give it some thought 🙂

Appreciate you giving it consideration! And yes, to be clear I absolutely think they should be able to gatekeep it for commercial reasons. And if they want to give it away they should be able to give it away. But it should be Apple’s decision, not the government’s.

I'd almost consider it "fair game" to bundle the "license" with purchase of certain AirPods.
Two reasons though, why I don't (and I'm going back to an earlier post of yours):

There literally is a reason: Their app can't make phone calls with other people.
Because... Apple doesn't allow alternative phone apps.

To be clear, I am referring to the live translation via headphones feature Apple advertised at the keynote. Not on a phone call. But, as someone who calls my brother in Germany on WhatsApp at least weekly, I do want to push back on the “Apple doesn’t allow alternate phone apps.” And there is nothing preventing WhatsApp, or Teams, or Zoom, or Google Voice, or even Bose from introducing a live translation feature into their App.

Well, neither is Apple (or Bose) forced to give away their noise cancellation algorithms.
Nor are they forced to give away their Live Translation algorithms for implementation in competitor's devices.

But they are forced to give away the result of that algorithm. Would people pay extra for Bose if they could get the exact same Noise Cancellation on devices that cost half the price because the manufacturer didn’t have to spend any money to get it, but just had Bose do all the R&D and then the competitor just got it for free? I’m sure some would still buy Bose, but a lot of people would say “I’ll save the money and buy the cheaper alternative.”

Which means Bose makes less money to do things like design better noise cancellation algorithms, and the ROI for improving noise cancellation is massively reduced, so they don’t bother improving it, and innovation slows. Because Bose has no incentive to spend money to improve it when it actually puts them at a competitive disadvantage because they spent the money and then can get undercut on price. Why don’t you think that won’t happen here? Honestly.

Because the only reason I can think of is “Google will offer that feature on Android and Apple will fall behind” which kinda blows up the argument there is no competition in mobile platforms, which is supposedly the reason the DMA is needed.

Were it confined to AirPods, i.e. the translation processing done on the AirPods themselves, Apple wouldn't be subject to any regulation at all. 👉 Probably technically feasible during our lifetimes.

Agree totally. And I would rather get the feature now, vs. having to wait until they can be run on device.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nonsense. it is based on facts, which I already cited above. the facts.
Not merely assumptions.

Sure, but you don’t know if your facts have anything to do with Apple’s issue. You seem to be assuming it’s about audio quality, but you don’t know if that’s true.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To be clear, I am referring to the live translation via headphones feature Apple advertised at the keynote. Not on a phone call.

It wasn’t immediately evident tome either, only when I found out that it’s supported through non-Apple audio equipment (on the other end of the line).

But, as someone who calls my brother in Germany on WhatsApp at least weekly, I do want to push back on the “Apple doesn’t allow alternate phone apps.”

Well, they can’t call using your SIM card - and sometimes you do have to call a landline or normal phone number, don’t you?

But they are forced to give away the result of that algorithm

…as a mere audible sound that’s played to the phone users.
They’re not giving it away to Bose.

I reject the idea playing a sound through and audio device is “giving away” IP to a competitor (though it may of course be copyrighted content. But it’s played to the iPhone user).

Would people pay extra for Bose if they could get the exact same Noise Cancellation on devices that cost half the price? I’m sure some would, but a lot of people would say “I’ll save the money and buy the cheaper alternative.”

I mean, there is a difference: noise cancellation is an inherent feature of their headphones and earphones.
Live Translation isn’t one of the AirPods (it’s just marketed as such).

Which means Bose makes less money to do things like design better noise cancellation algorithms, which means the ROI for improving noise cancellation is massively reduced, so they don’t bother improving it, and innovation slows

On the flip side, what’s incentivising Apple to keep innovating and improve, once they’ve made their own accessories the “only” viable choice - cause they’re the only ones that can do something? Who is ever going to improve earphones and headphones to be used with phones - if none of them can be used for live translation?

We’re not there (yet) in audio products, to be sure - but I do believe we’re seeing slowing innovation in smartwatches, for instance.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sure, but you don’t know if your facts have anything to do with Apple’s issue

Do I know why Apple isn’t offering the feature in the EU? No.
I suspect it’s just a commercial reason and/or possibly privacy laws.

What I know:
It’s not about technically requiring AirPods hardware (such as requirement isn’t plausible in light of facts).
What I assume:
Enforcement of the DMA would force Apple to allow it to function with other manufacturers’ headsets.

The DMA certainly doesn’t preclude them from offering it in Europe, if the feature is work through other manufacturers’ connected wireless devices (earbuds).

Also: they don’t have to provide translation data/algorithms to other manufacturers if translations are processed on the iPhone (as they say). Merely interoperability, if anything.

 

[BaldiMac]

Who is ever going to improve earphones and headphones to be used with phones - if none of them can be used for live translation?

Huh? Nothing is stopping any other headphone manufacturer from offering a live translation competitor through their own iOS app.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nothing is stopping any other headphone manufacturer from offering a live translation competitor through their own iOS app.

It still wouldn’t work on calls though.
Neither on cellular, FaceTime nor WhatsApp.
Can’t just route audio from one app to another on iOS as would be required.
Which Apple would - yet again - refuse to allow, pretending due to privacy concerns.

And as I said above: there’s still healthy competition on the “smartphone earbuds” market.
That may well come to and end though if Apple (and Google) are gatekeeping interoperability to their own earbuds.

 

[BaldiMac]

What I know:
It’s not about technically requiring AirPods hardware (such as requirement isn’t plausible in light of facts).

Again, you don’t know why they require it, so you have no idea if it’s plausible. You have no idea if there are technical reasons. You’re assuming audio quality is the only possible technical reason.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, you don’t know why they require it, so

I can assume why:
Accessory sales, keeping an “exclusive” ecosystem and brand loyalty.

What I know: there’s no technical requirement for AirPods.
We can infer that from facts.

You’re assuming audio quality is the only possible technical reason.

Processing power is another.
That’s why it it’s processed on a phone, not the AirPods themselves.

You have no idea if there are technical reasons.

Please stop beating around the bush and name them then.
What technical reasons possibly?

Speech recognition and speech synthesis have been around for many years. On much less powerful hardware. When translation is processed on the phone and it accepts degraded/non-controlled audio input, there do not remain plausible technical reasons for requiring AirPods.

A mere “…but, but, but no one knows or has any idea” isn’t making me reconsider or convince me otherwise.

 

[BaldiMac]

It still wouldn’t work on calls though.

It already works on calls.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It already works on calls.

Apple’s translation does.
Third-party manufacturers’ translation apps (that you spoke of above) wouldn’t.

Because, as I already said, Apple doesn’t allow third-party apps to make normal phone calls over cellular. Nor FaceTime. And neither WhatsApp (though that’s of course also on Meta). And neither bidirectional rerouting of audio from and such the translation app.

That is (quoting you) “stopping any other headphone manufacturer from offering a live translation competitor through their own iOS app” with comparable functionality to Apple’s.

 

[BaldiMac]

I can assume why:
Accessory sales, keeping an “exclusive” ecosystem and brand loyalty.

What I know: there’s no technical requirement for AirPods.
We can infer that from facts.


Processing power is another.
That’s why it it’s processed on a phone, not the AirPods themselves.


Please stop beating around the bush and name them then.
What technical reasons possibly?

Speech recognition and speech synthesis have been around for many years. On much less powerful hardware. When translation is processed on the phone and it accepts degraded/non-controlled audio input, there do not remain plausible technical reasons for requiring AirPods.

A mere “…but, but, but no one knows or has any idea” isn’t making me reconsider or convince me otherwise.

You’re just repeating yourself. No point in starting the discussion over again.

Apple’s translation does.

Exactly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No point in starting the discussion over again.

Exactly.

 

[I7guy]

...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.

It's called product differentiation. Why invent a new method when a company is compelled to turn over the ip to a competitor?

Yes, why not? That would give people an honest and competitive choice for the headphones they like.

Sure, on the backs of Apple that has spent $$$ on r&d to differentiate their devices.

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.

It's clearly Apple protecting it's ip, so it doesn't have to give it away to competitors for free. The EU asked regulated it and they got it.

Lies to stoke consumers' anger against the DMA.

I'd say the anger is well placed.

 

[surferfb]

It wasn’t immediately evident tome either, only when I found out that it’s supported through non-Apple audio equipment (on the other end of the line).

Well, they can’t call using your SIM card - and sometimes you do have to call a landline or normal phone number, don’t you?

I honestly was not aware WhatsApp couldn’t call a landline. But, I also don’t think “When I have to make a phone call on the phone I bought, I have to use the phone app created by the company who made the phone I bought” is an issue.

…as a mere audible sound that’s played to the phone users.
They’re not giving it away to Bose.

I reject the idea playing a sound through and audio device is “giving away” IP to a competitor (though it may of course be copyrighted content. But it’s played to the iPhone user).

I know we disagree on this but you’ll never convince me that “giving a competitor the benefits of the feature for free” is any different than giving them the feature.

Apple developed the live translation feature (primarily) to sell AirPods. Saying they have to let other headphone manufacturers use it for free absolutely changes the ROI in developing the feature in the first place.

Maybe live translation is “important” enough that it happens anyway. But what about less important features? Does Apple develop the hearing aid capabilities if it has to make them work on Samsung headphones, even if Apple can’t confirm the results are accurate using non-AirPods?

What about easy pairing? I mean, Bluetooth pairing was a terrible UX for decades and no one did anything about it until Apple fixed it with AirPods. And it was one of, if not the, primary selling feature of Gen 1. And if Apple introduced that feature today, they’d have to give it to every headphone manufacturer for free.

And before you say “well it sells iPhones, so yes they still make it” consider that 1) Android is going to quickly copy the feature and 2) in a universe where Apple can’t use easy pairing as a differentiating feature of the AirPods do they bother even making them? Is there a large enough market for “$200 wireless earbuds that sound worse than the competition’s $200 headphones, and the competition is going to get the signature feature for free” to even exist? And if Apple is not making wireless headphones, do they bother improving headphone pairing? I’d argue almost certainly no.

I mean, there is a difference: noise cancellation is an inherent feature of their headphones and earphones.
Live Translation isn’t one of the AirPods (it’s just marketed as such).

I don’t think that makes a difference. If Bose had to process noise cancellation on an app it still is a defining feature of Bose headphones. And, as you admit, if Apple put that feature in a chip on the headphones they’d be a OK to keep it exclusive. So why should it change when the exact same software Apple developed runs on the phone instead? Would you honestly prefer Apple wait until it can put the translation on the headphones to release it? Because that’s what the EU is going to get.

And remember, this law only applies to Apple. Samsung can make the same feature, and keep it exclusive to Galaxy Buds when paired with a Galaxy phone, and it is 100% allowed under the DMA. Oppo could build the communicator from Star Trek into their phone, and can keep it exclusive to Oppo buds, but if Apple does it, it has to be able to work on Samsung and Oppo headphones. In what universe is that fair or ok? How does that not discourage Apple’s innovation?

On the flip side, what’s incentivising Apple to keep innovating and improve, once they’ve made their own accessories the “only” viable choice - cause they’re the only ones that can do something? Who is ever going to improve earphones and headphones to be used with phones - if none of them can be used for live translation?

We’re not there (yet) in audio products, to be sure - but I do believe we’re seeing slowing innovation in smartwatches, for instance.

Because Android exists. Samsung exists. Chinese manufacturers exist.

Apple has incredibly fierce competition. Just because you or I won’t consider using them doesn’t mean 95% of consumers won’t. Apple is absolutely going to lose sales of AirPods and iPhones in the EU over this.

And many of those who buy the Android device instead will click yes on the “let us translate in the cloud” pop-up, not realizing it also gives permission to mine content for ads, and have their privacy compromised without realizing it. All because the EU thinks Bose shouldn’t have to put in the effort to develop the translation feature themselves.

 

[DaveTheRave]

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

Sorry, you’re losing me on this one. You think Apple knew from the beginning it was going as going to have a billion users? The iPhone was pretty expensive at first release. Yes lots of hype but actual sales was anyone’s guess.

 

[surferfb]

Sorry, you’re losing me on this one. You think Apple knew from the beginning it was going as going to have a billion users? The iPhone was pretty expensive at first release. Yes lots of hype but actual sales was anyone’s guess.

Well, technically the iPhone wasn’t designed to have any third party apps at all, and Steve had to be talked into it after release. But yes, I suppose I could have written that better. Let's try:

was deliberately built as a closed, tightly-managed ecosystem to serve everyday consumers who expect security, privacy, and simplicity out of the box, and now has 1-2 billion users.

The point was 1) Mac was designed to be open, and has a (relatively) small number of users and 2) iOS was designed to be closed, in large part because of lessons learned from the Mac/PC-era and has a massive number of users.

Look at the letter from Steve announcing the iPhone SDK. Bold is from me:

It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once – provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones – this is simply not true.

There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than “totally open,” we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.