I’d suggest the EU to build their dream phone system, but we seen how they dropped the ball with Ericsson and Nokia. Dominated the mobile phone industry on a global scale…and reduced to a mere shadow of their former selves because they were strangled to corporate death by regulations. EU should make some concessions to Apple, it’s a two way street.
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
Yes, my phone "needs" it.
Apple doesn't.
If Wi-Fi history is solely used on-device, i.e. enabling my iPhone (and nothing else!) to connect to automatically reconnect to known networks, Apple doesn't need access to my history. And neither do they have to provide access to third parties.
Yup, the same EU was warned about forcing Microsoft to give over the keys to its security back end and that caused millions in losses not only to EU companies, but to companies around the world. Apple’s goal at this point is to ensure that if anyone is affected by decisions they’re forced to make in the EU, it’s only citizens/companies of the EU.
But they have to give them access to a feature Apple developed, that it wants to use to differentiate its products. I don't understand how anyone thinks this is ok. If this was expanded to all products worldwide innovation would CEASE. The EU is effectively saying "Apple has to perform R&D for all its competitors any time it introduces a software feature." Apple gets put at a competitive disadvantage by doing the hard work. They spent the money to develop it, but then their competitors get access for free. In what world does that make sense AT ALL. There is literally no reason Bose or B&O or whoever can't build a translation into their own app. This is straight up theft by the EU.
And on top of that, Apple can't guarantee will work well with other manufacturers microphones and headphones. Say a cheap headphone manufacturer gets access to it, and it works terribly because the microphone in the cheap headphones are bad. Consumers are going to say "oh, Apple's translation doesn't work" not "my headphones aren't good enough to have this work." So Apple gets the blame for having it's innovations getting nationalized by a bunch of bureaucrats who aren't qualified to answer the phones at Apple, let alone design the OS.
Again, that distinction doesn’t hold up. “Your iPhone” is Apple’s OS and frameworks in action. Apple designed and controls iOS. Whether the data stays local or not, iOS (i.e. Apple’s software) has to access and manage Wi-Fi history for auto-connect, prioritization, diagnostics, etc.
The DMA is explicit: if Apple’s own software uses a feature, Apple as the gatekeeper has to make it available for interoperability requests. iOS is Apple's own software. That’s why third parties have already asked for Wi-Fi history and why Apple is pushing back. The issue isn’t whether Apple “needs” it as some separate corporate entity, the fact that iOS uses it at all is what triggers the DMA obligation.
Indeed. One of the biggest benefits of using Apple, since forever, is that controlling hardware and software leads to Apple being able to guarantee that smooth and reliable experience, versus the wide ranges of experiences of using Windows on computers of varying spec.
It’s not hard to follow well written legislation. DMA is not that. GDPR IS well written. And, for such a focused bit of legislation nowhere near as wide reaching as the DMA, GDPR took YEARS longer to get passed. DMA was a rush job.
Remind me how locking features of the phone behind the purchase of additional hardware is innovative?
Because, as previously explained by someone else, the AirPods are only necessary because Apple said so. They're just the mic and earbud component.
Why are we pretending this is about anything besides making money?
Exactly, 100% agree with you that people that want the feature should buy a Google supported phone! Show that American company what happens when the EU buys products made by a DIFFERENT American company!
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this borders on FUD. Just because one company tried to get this information does not mean that Apple will be obliged to provide this kind of access. I don't know of any mass market operating system where Wifi secrets would be treated this way.
You like to quote this one paragraph from the DMA which suits your argument very well. But how about you also quote the next two paragraph which significantly qualify the gatekeepers obligations:
...and they can maintain that differentiating feature of their iPhones, gaining an advantage in the smartphone market.
Nothing is stopping Apple from having that feature exclusively work on iPhones.
"If you want live Apple's live translation, you have to purchase an iPhone.
Can't get it with your competing Android phone, sorry."
👉 Perfectly legal.
They may only be prohibited from leveraging it to gain an anticompetitive advantage on the market for speakers and head-/earphones. That, again, don't actually process the live translation audio.
...but iOS does not "interoperate" with itself. Neither is the Wi-Fi history shared with (or required to be shared with) access point manufactures.
It is for connected wireless devices, e.g. smartwatches.
The EU's decision measures on the implementation measures make that clear.
Note that Apple, in contesting them, asked for an exemption: They wanted to be able to share Wi-Fi information with their own connected devices without explicit user consent - while requiring explicit consent from third parties.
Yet another instance of attempted self-preferencing.
Here is what Apple had to say about "Live Translation with AirPods" specifically:
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly930y90lro
From a technical perspective providing access to the iPhone's microphone does not seem like a huge obstacle. I'm not sure what the fuss is about to be honest.
Apple get's a competitive advantage in the products that actually provide the functionality and do the processing: iPhones.
Given there's a duopoly in operating systems, there's no reason to also let them leverage that on the - somewhat related but distinctly different - market for audio devices that do NOT provide such feature.
No, they're not. They'd be blaming the audio equipment manufacturer - of whose product they know that it's cheap.
And same is true for wireless connectivity: Why does Apple allow Bluetooth connections to non-Apple products in the first place? Products that may have shoddy wireless implementation or connection problems?
Oh, I forgot - it's allowed and no problem as long as it benefits Apple (people wouldn't buy an iPhone otherwise, if they couldn't use their preferred headphones).
I wouldn't be surprised it there is. Namely Apple restrictions on background audio recording capabilities (I suppose, without having looked into it in detail).
This is the truth that only serves to prove even further, this has NOTHING to do with consumerism and EVERYTHING to do with Apple protecting its 30% cut. You are NOT forced to install third party app stores but can stay totally in the Apple system if you so choose to. It is all about choice but Apple, to protect it's 30% cut, will try to gaslight consumers into believing choice and freedom is bad.
Last edited:
Now, objectively, there's no technical reasoning confining live translation to AirPods Pro.
Yes, it may work worse with non-Apple audio devices due to audio quality - then again, it may work better, if, for instance, they have better noise cancelling. After all, it's just human speech being processed, under a variety of background noise scenarios.
Question is: Why is it restricted to AirPods Pro then?
And does the DMA - which I believe surferfb was alluding to with mentioning B&O and Bose - require to allow competing earphone manufacturers similar interoperation with the feature?
It doesn't seem like a huge obstacle.
That is such a funny comment.. so full of irony too. Considering European cellular networks are made of equipment developed by, patented by, and manufactured and sold by Nokia and Ericsson... and the US market also uses their equipment too as the backbone of major cellular networks, with Apple or any other cell phone manufacture being required to pay licensing fees to Ericsson, not sure about Nokia, for the phone part will not work legally, because Ericsson invented it. So yes, quite the shadow of three former selves, pioneering cellular networks with their equipment dominating global Western markets these days.
Complaining is much more satisfying for some people. It helps them avoid accountability for what they have done or how they have acted.
Companies should be allowed to preference their own products. This idea that it should be prohibited from doing so is anti-free market bunk, and does a really good job of explaining why innovation is dying in the EU.
There is literally no reason that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict a feature it developed to its devices. Unless you think Apple's hard work should belong to everyone. Which again, points to why the EU is a virtual wasteland when it comes to successful tech companies.
Fear mongering? How naive to say that. I haven't read it that thoroughly, but from what I have and the comments here, EU DMA requires Apple to cough it up if a third party requests it.
Technically speaking, if Apple disagrees they can take it to the EU who decides. So while it's not a guarantee, given the EU's track record, I wouldn't expect them to save you.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sign of weakness and a complete lack of substance to a position.