For one, calls became a lot cheaper.
I have an old, pre-divestiture pamphlet somewhere of dialing rates. The rates were insane.
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 Escapes Immediate EU Fines, But Penalties Still Likely
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have an old, pre-divestiture pamphlet somewhere of dialing rates. The rates were insane.
That was the only thing until calls then became more expensive.
And today we have mediocre cell service that trails the world.
Calls did not become cheaper. Long distance calling became a little cheaper, but local calling and especially regional calling which most people used every day became a lot more expense. Phone service in the late '80s and early '90s was extremely expensive as the bells struggled to bring in enough revenue to support their infrastructure with a smaller customer-base and new long-distance providers that did not want to pay realistic call termination fees.
Or Apple could just comply with the law in the regions they operate. Like they did in China. But I guess the EU is too soft and allows Apple to continue breaking the law, unlike China...
My main issue with this is that it's not being enforced proportionally. The EU fined Meta €200M for forcing you to pay to be able to opt out from ad tracking. The EU fined Apple €500M for a warning screen informing the user that 3rd party app stores aren't verified by Apple and so users have to be more careful about what they download.
In other words, holding a user's privacy for ransom will get you fined €200M, but you'll get fined 2.5x that for... a pop up. I don't think anybody would agree that a pop up is somehow 2.5x worse than violating a literal human right.
In other words, holding a user's privacy for ransom will get you fined €200M, but you'll get fined 2.5x that for... a pop up. I don't think anybody would agree that a pop up is somehow 2.5x worse than violating a literal human right.
You are seriously misrepresenting facts and communication by the EU.
Then maybe companies and organisations shouldn’t keep making the smartphone an important part of today’s working society
Oh come on - go to the Passwords app, or the passwords tab in Safari's settings, and all the passwords are right there. Copy them out to whatever device you want.
Most of these issues are done to the sheer geography of the USA. It should never have had one centralised communications company in the first place.
In the EEC we had the development of GSM for things to run cross-border but the management was down to individual nations. Things are a lot smoother and more efficient.
Perhaps popular isn't the most apt word, but I am unable to come up with a better word for now. 😬
The reason that Android and Windows enjoy the market share that they do is because the parents companies (Google and Microsoft) license them to whichever hardware OEM is willing to build a hardware device for them. We see the same thing with xbox now. Microsoft, realising that they have all but lost the console wars, is allowing OEMs to build handheld xbox gaming devices that run Steam as well. My guess is that Microsoft will still earn money from licensing the OS to third parties, but it's anyone's guess as to whether this is "too little, too late" against Sony. There's also the question of what this means for the user experience. With consoles, developers optimise games for whatever hardware spec comes with the console, because there's only 1 permutation. Once you release that control, it's a wild card as to how well your games will run on a particular handheld because Microsoft can no longer guarantee the specs.
I believe Apple did try licensing macOS once upon a time. It was a disaster, with the market being flooded with all manner of Mac clones. Quality control was non-existent, and their profits cratered as well. I see no reason for Apple to fight for profitless market share, since it doesn't monetise itself the same way Google does.
The reason why Apple is able to enjoy the success that they do is because of their closed ecosystem. Apple uses its control over hardware and software to enable unique experiences that a select pool of users are willing to pay a premium for. This means that the user base for iOS and Mac devices will never be as big as Android / Windows, but it is immensely profitable, because you don't have a whole bunch of OEMs competing with each other in a race to the bottom and driving profit margins to zero. That lucrative user base is also what draws developers to the App Store, and the App Store consistently pulls more revenue compared to the Google Play Store despite the latter having more users on paper. Users benefit from having better designed and better optimised apps as well, because the bar is higher.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that market share should be the means, not the end. You chase market share only if you are certain it can make you more money, not as a bragging trophy. Apple's business model means they will make the most money, even with the smaller market share. What they make is not for everybody, and that's fine, because it allows them to sufficiently differentiate themselves from everyone else. Opening up Apple (either by force or otherwise) will spell an end to the integrated ecosystem everyone loves about Apple, because there will be no financial incentive to continue to invest in developing new features which you are expected to then share with everybody else for free.
That will be the real tragedy.
There are a part of the landscape. Not the entire landscape. Maybe modern medicine shouldn’t exist either. And please stop with the Monday morning quarterbacking.
I actually agree with a lot of your reasoning especially that Apple’s success stems from its tight integration. But I don’t think the kind of expanded interoperability the DMA enforces threatens that at all.
Apple isn’t being forced to license iOS like Microsoft did with Windows. They’re not even being told to open their protocols. What’s required is to let others interact with the device in meaningful ways not replicate how Apple does it, just allow access to what it enables. It isn’t about “opening up Apple” in the sense of turning iOS into Android or mandating that proprietary tech be handed over. It’s about ensuring that other hardware including high-quality accessories and competing services can work with iOS devices in a way that’s not artificially crippled
Samsung has equivalents to Airdrop, AirPlay, Continuity etc but Apple’s seamless integration is still the selling point. What the DMA enables is functional parity, not protocol replication.
This is the recurring pattern:
- P2P Wi-Fi aware data sharing 👉 Not AWDL or Airdrop. Just a standards-based alternative.
- Automatic Wi-Fi setup 👉 Not iCloud syncing. Just a way to share saved credentials with already-trusted devices.
- Media casting 👉 Not AirPlay. But a Chromecast device should still be able to appear as a cast target in iOS Settings.
- Audio switching 👉 Maybe not replicable exactly, but third-party headsets could still request context-based handoff logic.
The idea that this “kills integration” misunderstands what’s really going on. Integration isn’t being banned just integration by exclusion. If Apple needs to block all competition to make features appealing, then that’s not integration that’s lock-in. And that’s exactly what the DMA targets.
Integration by craft, execution, latency, seamless UI that’s still 100% legal, and still Apple’s strong suit. Nothing in the DMA stops them from continuing to lead there. If anything, it forces everyone else to earn their place on iOS through quality, not backdoor deals or App Store workarounds.
The DMA doesn’t weaken Apple. It forces Apple to win by being better, not by being the only one allowed.
I will argue that the very nature of integration necessarily leads to lock-in. At the end of the day, everything is a trade-off. First party integration, by its very definition, is bad for third party developers. If you want an open platform like Windows, then nothing is integrated at the hardware / software level. I can't airdrop files from one windows PC to another (at least not without downloading an app).
For example, airdrop is currently available only on Apple devices, which strengths the value proposition for buying, say, an iPad over an android tablet if I already own an iPhone. Say Apple is forced to make the airdrop protocol available to third parties.
Let's consider this scenario:
1) All devices have Airdrop (including iPhones, android phones, iPads, android tablets, Macs, windows PCs). Consumers are indifferent to what device they purchase because they can now freely airdrop files to one another.
2) No devices have Airdrop. Consumers are indifferent to what device they purchase since it makes no difference either way.
Strictly speaking, Apple would be no better off regardless of whether all their devices had airdrop, or didn't have airdrop, because it doesn't offer them a competitive advantage relative to the competition. What exactly is the incentive for Apple to continue to offer airdrop as a feature (or make improvements to it) if anyone can make use of it and include it in their products, thereby removing a key point of differentiation in their products?
There is also the question of why Apple, after having sunk all that resources into developing new features (like airdrop), is obligated to make them freely available to third party developers. Why bother developing any new features even, and financing everyone's R&D in the process? I do enjoy the advantages that come from Apple’s deep level of integration, both in terms of individual devices and also across their ecosystem, and it demonstrates that innovation can come from control and the ability to integrate across non-obvious interfaces (as opposed to openness), especially when the financial benefit is strong enough.
This is why I feel, the laundry list of features that the EU wants Apple to open up to third party developers, reads more like a list of features that will eventually get removed or disabled for users in the EU (kinda like how Apple chose to disable oxygen monitoring in the Apple Watch in the US rather than reach a deal with Masimo).
The DMA is the EU expecting to have their cake and eat it too. In reality, well, equality works both ways (especially when Apple no longer has any incentive to favour one over the other). It's why I also argue that the market needs to tolerate, perhaps even embrace the closed nature of Apple's ecosystem, rather than allow a few bad actors to crack it open for their own financial gain.
Let's see what Apple chooses ultimately. The ball is in their court, and there's always the option of just taking the ball and going home (as is what we are seeing with iPhone mirroring in the EU).
They got fined for showing a warning, that's what it is. Let's not let obfuscation and legalese distract from the fact that that's what it was. Is it a violation of the DMA? Yes, they did in fact violate it. I don't mean to say they shouldn't be fined for violating a rule about not "leading customers to deciding against downloading a 3rd party app store" or whatever. I'm talking proportions here. Apple's violation of the DMA, as true as it might be, is by far not 2.5 times worse than Meta's violation of the DMA.
Maybe one of the issues is if your an older person and you can’t deal with changing of times you still remember back in my day
However if your a younger person then society is geared towards the smartphone being a critical part of today’s society.
So maybe that’s the problem that some don’t understand when it comes to regulation of certain areas that things have changed
certain people keep going on about the Apple ecosystem with being full of beliefs with "cognitive dissonance, classism
when they make the argument against things like the DMA
Then why let 3rd parties on your platform in the first place because if you don’t let them on there is no issue.
How can a 3rd party invest money into creating better connectivity or things like airdrop and to get better notifications on iOS if Apple won’t allow it
Maybe the problem is if you are an older individual then you can think of a time when the smartphone wasn’t important however that is not how society is now when you’re a younger individual in today’s day and age
And maybe that’s the problem that if you’re from an era that the modern smartphone didn’t exist then you don’t fully understand
What it’s like nowadays being from the younger generation
the unelected EU’s autocratic overreach borders on criminality.
They got fined for “a number of restrictions imposed”, of both “technical and commercial” nature.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085
Not just merely a warning sign.
Also, the fine took into account the duration of noncompliance.
You’re right about one thing: integration can lead to lock-in but That’s not inherently bad…until the integration becomes a barrier to others offering competing or complementary products. And that’s precisely what the DMA addresses.
And Well you actually can airdrop a file from one pc to another pc using windows near( it’s built in and not the app)and you’re also able to now airdrop files to an Android device or vice versa.
Windows adds fluid new Nearby Share option for linked Android phones
Utilizing the existing connection between Android phones and Windows with the Phone Link app, Microsoft is now baking Nearby Share...
9to5google.com
You’ve raised a fair concern if Apple must enable anyone to replicate Airdrop, AirPlay, proximity pairing, and more, what incentive does Apple have to innovate, and won’t the result be a bland, undifferentiated market? The short answer is no because the DMA stops exclusionary lock-in, not integration by excellence. Here’s why Apple’s edge remains and why third-party protocols actually expand, not contract, innovation.
By leveling the playing field functionally, DMA actually encourages creativity. If every accessory can connect natively, vendors will invent features Apple never thought of:
- Proximity-Locked Controllers: A gamepad that automatically locks if the paired iPhone (or Watch) moves out of 2 meters. Ideal for split-screen co-op or preventing accidental corporate access.
- Context-Aware Security Keys: A FIDO2 key that only unlocks when held within 10 cm of your iPhone, else it rejects commands. Adds a fresh security layer on top of existing token standards.
- Gesture-Triggered Smart Tags: Hold a tracker near the iPhone’s back-facing camera and instantly read its last GPS log no app, no clunky QR scan. Apple’s NFC and BLE APIs now host novel firmware-based flows.
i would say it rest on a false equivalence. Apple’s edge wasn’t “Airdrop.” It was the experience of Airdrop speed, reliability, UI, findability. Android or Windows already have P2P transfer, they still can’t match Apple’s implementation.
And I would bet you do care about which devices host better implementations, not just any implementation. If Samsung’s Wi-Fi Aware file share takes 30 seconds to connect or drops when you lock your phone, you would return to get an iPhone and use airdrop instead. Let me run with your Airdrop example, because it’s a good one and I think it actually helps illustrate why the DMA doesn’t kill integration, even in the extreme case.
Let’s take your AirDrop scenario seriously and ask what if Apple had to make AirDrop available to everyone? Doesn’t that destroy its competitive value? But here’s the twist:
Apple doesn’t have to make AirDrop available to anyone.
In fact, let’s run your hypothetical even further, let’s say Apple removes AirDrop and the AWDL protocol that powers it entirely from iOS. Gone. The button in Control Center? Dead. The protocol stack? Scrubbed. AirPlay too is discontinued from every device sold to EU users. So apple doesn’t just block the feature, but actually removes the literal code. So what happens?
Not much, really… Because what the DMA requires isn’t Apple’s specific protocol stack, it requires Apple to make available the underlying system capabilities so that third parties can build their own solutions.
And here’s the kicker: those capabilities already exist. iOS has long included Wi-Fi Aware (a.k.a. NAN – Neighbor Awareness Networking), which was itself derived from ideas in AWDL. Until now, Apple simply didn’t allow third parties to use it.
If AWDL is gone but Wi-Fi Aware remains, and is now finally accessible, developers still can:
- Use Wi-Fi Aware for proximity-based peer-to-peer discovery
- Implement their own custom protocol for file transfer, pairing, or streaming
- Appear in the iOS Share Sheet, Control Center, or Settings, just like AirDrop or AirPlay
- Handle permissions, trust dialogs, and background execution via standard APIs
- Brand the experience however they want QuickCast, TagDrop, SecureLink etc
They’re buying how well it works. That’s where the incentive to innovate comes from. Interoperability doesn’t kill integration. It just prevents Apple from making integration artificially exclusive. And that’s a good thing for users, developers, and yes, even for Apple, if they’re serious about competing on quality.
Because the truth is, Airdrop is only useful because it exists. Airdrop between iPhones, iPads, and Macs is valuable because it’s built-in, seamless, fast, and requires no app. If Apple nukes it entirely in Europe just to block a GoPro or Android phone from doing local transfer they’re punishing their own users to make a legal point.
That’s not strategic. That’s self-sabotage. And from a business perspective: the moment you start removing features people paid for just to maintain exclusion, you’re not defending premium integration anymore. You’re signaling that your ecosystem can’t compete unless others are locked out. That’s not integration. That’s weakness.
So yes, Apple could take the ball and go home…but the only message that sends is: we didn’t want to win the game; we just wanted to make sure no one else could play it.
Yet the act wouldn’t change anything because everyone would still continue playing because the question was never whether you could use apples ball, but bringing your own to the football field.
well Apple was forced legally to disable it( Apple did not do it by choice). Just with a jailbreaking iPhone Massimo enabled it again and complained to the courts about it
Jailbreaking an iPhone re-enables blood oxygen measurement on Apple Watch
An interesting look behind the scenes of the court battle between Apple and health tech company Masimo reveals that jailbreaking...
9to5mac.com
And to be equivalent here Apple would have to disable the Wi-Fi chip just to disable airdrop.
All you do is need to look around and see that a smartphone is not a necessity. Not saying it isn’t convenient as a form factor. With the exception of putting it in my back pocket most of what can be done on an other form factor enabled by cellular communications, in fact some do it much, much better. Cellular communications which is the necessity is regulated.
Last edited:
Well I wonder when the internet providers will demand a 30% commission on any revenue generated from smartphones so they can finally end the free riding of their IP.
Apple should do like Google and build Apple fiber.
We need less free riding:
AT&T
T-Mobile
A-mobile and Apple fiber
G-mobile and Google fiber
Don’t know. Ask them. When you opted into a business relationship with your internet provider did you read the fine print? Were you obligated to pay them a 30% commission? Why be disingenuous about this?
I would love Apple fiber and Apple towers. But they wouldn’t become an MVNO and probably wouldn’t get regulatory approval to purchase spectrum.