Great example of regulation overreach hindering innovation and hurting the customer. I hope Apple continues to withhold features like this in the future.
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 Explains Why iPhone Mirroring Remains Unavailable in the EU on macOS Tahoe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m waiting for them (Huawei and Ericsson) to install kill switches into their telco equipment and demand a 30%
But hey, nothing preventing them from buying Huawei instead.
You got it wrong.
EU regulation does not prevent Apple from launching this (so-so) innovative feature in the EU.
Nor require them to “hurt” their customers.
Explain...Why he got it wrong.
The one that is hurting customers is the one that withhold features - without the law requiring them to.
Seems very hyperbolic, just another way Apple tries to turn public opinion against the App Store regulations which were badly needed. EU hasn't forced the existing Continuity features to work with Android or Windows, has it?
LOL
Oh so now you accept the market forces at work. Sounds like whatever EU is doing with DMA + gatekeeping status weren't necessary at all to begin with 😂
As someone who seems to have at least some technical knowledge you should know, that there is only one alternative. Google has such a tight grip on Android, that it does not really matter what other phone brand you choose. Theoretically there is also Huawei's HarmonyOS, but I'm not sure if there are phones available with it in Europe or the US.
And there are hundreds of phones and probably a dozen forks of Android, some of which are de-googled. Again, plenty of choices if you don't want to use Apple because of its policies. A much better solution than the government saying "closed ecosystems aren't allowed to exist because we say so" removing that option from tens of millions of consumers who prefer it, and despite the clear security and privacy benefits said system provides.
I wasn't aware that iPhones already used Wi-fi aware in their tech stack. It would explain how they were able to make the API available so quickly.
All this did not matter though until now, since third-party apps were not allowed to use those private APIs.
If it wasn't for the EU, Apple would still be selling their proprietary Lighting cables at 10 times the price and not using Type-C.
Every time your phone runs low on battery, and you use a Type-C available nearby remember, it's thanks to the EU.
They don't always go everything right, when it comes to regulating and keeping American companies in check, I fully support the EU.
If it wasn't for the EU, tech companies would own you, from top to bottom.
so you're rather be owned by politicians - to each their own
yea, typically after 4 years ...
with tech, I can return it the day after I bought it ...
We have plenty of access to them. Just bought an Honor Magic v3 recently. Works 100% as it should. So I guess we still get access to mirroring and quality chinese phones whereas the EU doesn’t - shrugs -
Yep, and now the doom and gloom of giving away their AirPlay and airdrop…. And now we out of the blue can use custom protocols and even provide better services and force them to have competition
EU is not demanding, but could ask for the AirDrop to work with Android. Right now, the
EC’s interoperability requirements are feature agnostic but instead require Apple to expose APIs on the phone. This was the result of extensive requests by other companies, e.g. META, and to be honest a good thing for the final consumer. Right now, we are talking about Notifications, messages, calls, etc.
So no, Apple holding this back or offering this changes nothing in terms of the interoperability requirements enforcement as they do not target specific features but APIs. The only way for Apple to not have to expose this feature is to completely remove any APIs from iOS.
I disagree wholeheartedly that it’s good that the government can dictate what free stores Apple is forced to give its competitors access to, particularly when Android has 78% of the market and is open. It will absolutely chill innovation and harm consumers in the long run.
The EU has shown it lacks any ability to think through the consequences of its regulations when it comes to tech, a shame they haven’t learned their lesson after Crowdstrike and ruining everyone’s internet with a plague of cookie popups.
But I suspect we’ll never agree on this.
Crowdstrike was misguided FUD and an attempt by Microsoft to shift the blame.
First, developing insecure operating systems, then acquiring and monetising third-party security tools used by customers the secure these insecure Windows systems, while competing with other third-party security companies unfairly, by withholding information about APIs etc…
In other words:
Selling a faulty (“core”) product
And achieving a dominant market position
Then selling tools for good money to fix or mitigate your product’s faults and deficiencies
While withholding information or interoperability from third parties to prevent them from offering competing tools…
That‘s just scummy business conduct and does not deserve exclusivity or legal protection of IP.
And it poses a moral hazard, where Microsoft is incentivised to keep Windows insecure - because of their lucrative sales of aftermarket security products/services.
👉 If Microsoft weren‘t competing with other security companies (for tools to secure insecure Windows installation), I‘d fully agree with you that they shouldn‘t have been forced to document or allow access to their APIs for third parties.
But since they willingly entered that market, and because, let‘s face it, general purpose operating systems are never perfect and have vulnerabilities, the EU was absolutely correct in allowing others interoperability to create security tools. And malformed configuration provided to such tools doesn‘t have to mean that your system is unbootable.
„better security isn’t consolidated security. It isn’t your application provider picking who your security vendor must be. It’s open competition across many providers“
Last edited:
You should read the article - Apple did say they withheld this feature bc of anticipating further regulation based on recent regulations in the EU.
…and? 🤷♀️
That “further regulation” is not going to prevent them from offering the feature in the future.
Neither does it prevent them from offering it today (as it has been programmed and implemented already).
If anything, they may be required to make it interoperable.
It’s would only be their refusal (or whatever other considerations) and ultimately Apple’s choice hurting the customer.
And I don’t think it’s effort or cost either. Take AirPlay, for instance: bunch of open source software and standard protocols/formats - that Apple arbitrarily “paywalled” behind some “proprietary” encryption keys.
Last edited:
The fact of the matter is had the EU not intervened, the outage wouldn't have happened. Kind of like how had the EU not intervened, we wouldn't be subject to a plague of cookie popups. The inability to think through consequences of their actions or admit even the tiniest bit of fault when there are bad outcomes is mind boggling. My three year old does a better job of accepting responsibility for his actions than the EC and its defenders do - it's always someone else's fault, not theirs.
And if the EU hadn’t intervened, we’d have had other incidents that third-party security software would have prevented.
If you hadn’t met your wife, your son wouldn’t have damaged other people’s property, or whatever he did when he did something wrong that affected others.
It was primarily Crowdstrike’s fault.
Then Microsoft’s, for theirand others’dependencies on kernel access for so much.
The causality with regards to the EU is very weak.
And would need to be weighed against the (unknown) amount of damage prevented by third-party security tools that were only enabled to exist and compete through EU intervention.
Last edited: