The list you show is more a market capital list.
These days innovation is often measured by the amount of unique patents granted.
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 Gets EU Warning to Open iOS to Third-Party Connected Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These days innovation is often measured by the amount of unique patents granted.
From the list:
"Based on a survey of over 1,000 innovation executives who were polled in Dec 2022 and Jan 2023. Company performance was assessed on four dimensions, (1) Global Mindshare, (2) Industry Peer View, (3) Industry Disruption, (4) Value Creation.
It behaves monopolistic because it only favors one company (Apple) to work communicate with iPhone iOS well. That’s intentional and anti competitive.
That's not what the press release says. They just say they have to enable enhanced interoperability with connected devices - it does not specify what form that takes, like mandating access to private APIs.
If it's dying without a connected smartwatch, you might just have a bad battery. If it's dying with a connected Apple Watch, Apple needs to fix their products.
Weird that Android phones don't suffer from worse battery life with a connected smart watch. Even when you mix and match brands.
Which should be completely within its rights to do as long as it isn't actually a monopoly. And last time I checked, having 27% of the smartphone market doesn't make you a monopoly.
That's why we're never going to agree here - we fundamentally disagree on whether or not Apple should be prohibited from doing what the EU says it should be prohibited from doing.
AT&T and lucent labs would disagree. Look up bell labs Holmdel New Jersey.
Yep, you’re right. Let those people who’ve studied for this make those decisions for us.
Oh wait, those are the ones who made those rules in Europe. 😂🤣😂
Exactly. It’s already there. iOS 18 in EU is a joke. Sequoia the same. If EU will continue with all this BS, soon there will be no point to have any Apple devices in EU. No new features or very very delayed.
But hey we can now have another App Store wow 😮
What are the dangers of a monopoly?
Monopolies can hurt consumers because they lead to inefficiencies, a lack of innovation, and higher prices.
Seriously? “Suffer”? You, my friend, really love your phone.
Who is “we” and why not “I”?
I respect your preferred choice. That’s your choice out of free will. When you’re happy with that, I’m happy for you.
Can I also have a free choice and use my iPhone with whatever brand earbuds I choose?
They didn't study anything. They came in with a predetermined notion that Apple and other big tech firms were being anti-competitive, and then set rules based on that pre-determined notion. They didn't do any checking for findings of consumer harm, etc. Seriously, read the background behind the law.
To get you started, here's an article from a European professor:
Last edited:
You said monopolies hurt innovation. I gave you an example to look at an award winning monopolist. It’s clear AT&T(bell) wasn’t inefficient, didn’t lack innovation. Ah yes I agree about prices - except today the companies that emerged form an oligopoly.
Now if only apple were a monopoly and if the App Store was a monopoly according to case law. But the kangaroo court at MR have already decided apple is a monopoly.
The EU would have been much better off saying you can no longer use micro and mini USB versus saying you must use USB-C. One gets rid of a horrible ports; the other stifles future ports being created.
Well… let Apple go to the highest court and let them fight this out. If you believe in democracy than you have to settle with the outcome.
The money Apple loses in court they’ll charge you anyway 😊
What if I told you lighting and USB-C are very similar and Apple did a lot of work on USB-C.
If I am understanding your point correctly I would say: from my perspective Apple should not be forced to give a competitors device access to "stock apple apps" such as the weather app. The manufacturer of the competing smartwatch would need to provide their own weather source to be fed to their watch via their app on the iphone. I don't know how this really works but my thought is Apple pays someone for access to weather data, therefore Apple shouldn't be forced to give that data away for free via access to the stock app via an API. Same for any other Apple created stock app, like contacts or email or phone. The manufacturer of the competing device can provide that functionality via their own app.
From my perspective all Apple needs to do is provide a way to pair the competing device to the iPhone and allow communication between the device and competing app on the iPhone. Apple should not be forced to allow access to things like iMessage for alerts, the competing company can of course pay Apple for that access but it shouldn't be provided for free. One could argue that "free" data could/should be provided by APIs, like time, that could easily be shared with a competing device by the iPhone versus forcing it to be through the competing app.
LOL, it is easy to make jokes.
You appear to be from the US so I will ask you this: If you had an idea for a better home electrical outlet, how easy to you think it would be to get funding for your endeavor? The NEMA 1-15 has been the standard since I believe the 1960s. While it does function I am fairly sure that there are better ideas out there but no one is going to invest in them because the chances of getting a successful standards change are like winning the Powerball.
Lightning isn’t similar to usb-c. Thunderbolt is. And yes I know that Apple did a lot of work together with intel on usb-c. Also with thunderbolt. I even remember the first Mac’s to arrive with usb. Back then it was great. How time flies 😊
Correct. The device vendor will need to provide software for whatever capabilities their device has. Samsung, as an example, would need to connect to whatever service they choose and then send that data via their app.
I would argue that notifications and their actions should be accessible and actionable to apps using whatever Wearable API Apple builds. So that actions like clearing notifications or deleting an email work seamlessly. Implement a policy that these notifications cannot be transmitted to a vendor server for privacy and security reasons.
If the device vendor wants to allow replies to messages, they should need to use their own speech to text software on the device and then send the response via the wearable API. This should also reduce the phone-side impact on battery life since it would not need to stream the raw audio to the phone for interpretation.
And Apple could charge to use their own services on these devices if they want. That would make it easy for startup wearable companies.
Now that I think about it, Wearables would be an obvious way to expand the MFi program.
TL;DR: Apple should make good wearables for iOS possible, but not make it easy.
Last edited:
Obviously, my post about that was sarcastic. People here complain about everything except AAPL, whereas the anticompetitive bully is Tim Cook!
Fortunately, we have some many successful EU based smartwatches brands, they will really benefit from opening Apple APIs... Ah, we don't have... what a pity.
Funny, but so far, the only visible effect of DMA is feeding some American bigtechs at expense of other American bigtechs.