For one, calls became a lot cheaper.The breakup of AT&T did not benefit the consumer.
I have an old, pre-divestiture pamphlet somewhere of dialing rates. The rates were insane.
For one, calls became a lot cheaper.The breakup of AT&T did not benefit the consumer.
That was the only thing until calls then became more expensive.For one, calls became a lot cheaper.
And today we have mediocre cell service that trails the world.I have an old, pre-divestiture pamphlet somewhere of dialing rates. The rates were insane.
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.For one, calls became a lot cheaper.
I have an old, pre-divestiture pamphlet somewhere of dialing rates. The rates were insane.
You are seriously misrepresenting facts and communication by the EU.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
Then maybe companies and organisations shouldn’t keep making the smartphone an important part of today’s working societyand from a technology perspective smartphones will be outdates in 20 years, there will be another form factor ... yet regulating today's technology to the extent it is driven in the EU will make sure that smartphones will still be relevant for society in 20 years when they really shouldn't be ...
did you read this: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.They make great products but they do still operate a hideous amount of lock-in. Every time Safari suggest a strong password you'll never remember if asked to type it on another device you've put an extra lock on the gate.
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.There were a series of studies on this done 1, 5, 10, and 20 years after the break up and the conclusion was the government realized none of their stated objectives and consumers paid on average 30-40% more for home telephone service and had a measurable decrease in service. This was specifically true for rural customers. Broadband internet was delayed about decade and fragmentation sidelined other innovation as newly independent local operators had no capital or revenue to upgrade and maintain their infrastructure to support it. This is why you had insane local long-distance rates and they nickel-and-dimed you for basic a la carte series like *69, call waiting, and caller ID.
Most of the innovation you cite came after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 where Congress allowed for consolidation of the former baby bells and most of them were immediately bought up which gave them AT&T economies of scale allowing for deployment of broadband and cheap wireless services subsidizing rural areas on urban revenue.
Perhaps popular isn't the most apt word, but I am unable to come up with a better word for now. 😬Well…. I’m not sure it’s the argument you’re making but the fact Android has a larger market would kind of argue the opposite no?
If iPhones was as open as the Mac it would have had a larger marketshare than Android.
If Mac was as open as windows it would be more successful etc.
And I don’t think that’s what you’re arguing right?
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.Then maybe companies and organisations shouldn’t keep making the smartphone an important part of today’s working society
One company made a gamble and it paid off. Can’t play Monday morning quarterback.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.
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.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.
This is the recurring pattern:HIGH-BANDWIDTH PEER-TO-PEER WI-FI CONNECTION
Apple still keeps their AWDL, its proprietary protocol used for AirDrop but it must expose Wi-Fi Aware, which has been part of iOS for over a decade, just never allowed to be used by other. By opening up the Wi-Fi Aware (part of the standard Wi-Fi Alliance specs), Apple lets accessory makers build their own P2P-capable firmware or companion stacks that behave like AWDL without peeling back Apple’s secret code. That same P2P foundation then powers:
And others if they want to interact with an idevice can build their own solution.
- Close-Range Wireless File Transfer (AirDrop alternative)
- Media Casting (AirPlay alternative)
- Automatic Wi-Fi Credential Sharing (Watch-style Wi-Fi pass-through)
Perhaps it only uses the latest WiFi protocol, or just UWB in close proximity etc.
PROXIMITY-TRIGGERED PAIRING
The same logic applies to proximity-triggered pairing. Apple Watch uses Bluetooth and the camera for setup. Developers could now implement similar out-of-box pairing flows say, to connect a headset or hardware key without needing an app cluttering the UX. But they’d still need to build it to interact with an iPhone.
but it doesn’t allow Samsung to do the same thing using apple’s proprietary protocols to connect with other devices. It’s still in relation to an Apple device.
Once you unlock native, zero-app-download pairing via BLE + camera/QR or UWB, you can dream up accessories Apple never did. For example:
Apple’s own “Made for iPhone” program never contemplated these behaviors, but DMA-enabled APIs let innovators fill in the gaps.
- Proximity-Locked Game Controllers
Your partner borrows your Bluetooth gamepad—but if they stray more than a few meters from your iPhone (or Apple Watch), the controller locks down until you come back. Perfect for shared living rooms or couch-co-op: no accidental multi-account hijacks.- Secure Hardware Keys
Your FIDO2 security key only activates when you have your iPhone on you, if it’s elsewhere it rejects commands. That leverages the same proximity trigger Apple uses for Watch Unlock, but applies a novel security policy.- Gesture-Triggered Smart Tags
Bring a tag close to the rear camera and it instantly pairs and sends its last GPS ping. No separate app, no QR-scanning chore just a subtle tap or hover.
BACKGROUND EXECUTION
Example now you want to use another more sophisticated health related device it can provide its data to the iOS health app without requiring a clunky app being active in the background or potentially even installed.
They don’t get to make their own thing but to work better with an iOS device.
5. CLOSE-RANGE WIRELESS FILE TRANSFER
Here someone could make it possible for an iPhone to share data easily with let’s say a PC or older Mac computer.
Making the experience forniphone users more comfortable. If I had an action camera it could implement a P2P file transfer to the idevice without needing to have the companion app open or using a central WiFi device.
Apples limited implementation of airdrop doesn’t mean other developers can’t provide a similar functionality in a superior way or in more novel applications that Apple might not have thought about.
6. AUTOMATIC WI-FI CONNECTION
If your Xbox, pc, or other device has been securely linked you could share the WiFi password without needing to manually type it out and keep a secure password.
But this would just be if you have an iPhone.
7. MEDIA CASTING
Here if you don’t have let’s say an AirPlay enabled device. Perhaps you only have cromecast. You might get an alternative casting app and when you want to cast from settings you will have the functionality without having to open the app.
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).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.
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.You are seriously misrepresenting facts and communication by the EU.
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 dayThere 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.
certain people keep going on about the Apple ecosystem with being full of beliefs with "cognitive dissonance, classismI 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).
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 ageIt's great that a consumer oriented, for profit company who makes discretionary products can be this popular. Not one person on the face of this earth needs an iphone to live and yet apple rakes it in. It's customers spend, spend spend. And yet one can easily throw away their iphone and buy another. It's wild, just wild.
the unelected EU’s autocratic overreach borders on criminality.They are elected and accountable. Read up on it.
All major EU institutions are either directly elected (like the Parliament) or composed of officials accountable to elected national governments. The Commission can be dismissed by the elected Parliament, and its President must be approved by it. The EU is complex, but not “unelected” or autocratic.
- EU Parliament = directly elected by EU citizens every 5 years
- President of the EU Parliament = elected by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
- EU Commission President = nominated by elected EU leaders (European Council), then elected by the European Parliament
- EU Commissioners = nominated by elected national governments, then approved by the European Parliament
- EU Council = composed of elected Heads of State or Government from each Member State
- Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) = composed of ministers from national governments, which are elected in their home countries
It’s a parliamentary system.
They got fined for “a number of restrictions imposed”, of both “technical and commercial” nature.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.
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.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).
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.Apple would be no better off if everyone had Airdrop, because they lose a differentiator.
Why would Apple keep innovating if third parties benefit?
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… (kinda like how Apple chose to disable oxygen monitoring in the Apple Watch in the US rather than reach a deal with Masimo)…
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.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
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.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 a smartphone is enabled by cellular communications, which is the necessity.
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?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.
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.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