People here don't complain about Apple? Perhaps we are reading different forums.
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
I wonder how long Apple is going to take it and then withdraw their products from Europe
One of the reasons many of us use Apple products is their walled off systems. I do not care if someone with an Android watch or some headphones cannot get full functionality with iOS. You want iOS, you buy into it. You don't? It's fine, but don't demand Apple to open up their systems. This is ridiculous.
When the EU started pushing on the app store stuff, I would not be surprised if Apple came up with some sort of line in the sand internally about pulling out of the EU market. Whether it's a set of concessions/rules or fines, there's likely a point at which making changes could impact their vision for the device(s) or eat into their profits more than they are willing to take.
Just to remind everyone, thanks to the EU we constantly get spammed by having to accept cookies.
We must be on different forums because many of the posts I read say the dma doesn’t go far enough.
omg, again and again, Spotify is not a "gatekeeper"...
Maybe you don’t understand what they are asking for? Nobody is saying you can’t continue buying everything from Apple. Also, nobody is saying the interoperability between Apple devices needs to be worse.
They are saying that the Operating System should offer similar API’s towards other watches.
The worst I would see coming out of that is more competition and innovation. As a long time Apple Watch user I see that as good. I don’t think the Apple Watch is especially bad, but there are things a Garmin or Suunto does way better - but at the same time the platform locks them out. Giving a more level playing field will force faster innovation in Apple Watch as well.
Right. Because the EU narrowly crafted the defintion of a GateKeeper such that it only targeted the companies it already wanted to target. Gatekeeper is not a universal term in the way it is used in the DMA, it was a manufactured idea.
omg, again and again, only because the EU wrote the law so Spotify wouldn't be impacted (even though they did so for video streaming). Spotify makes more money and has more users in the EU than the App Store does.
What specifically is the issue with Spotifies interoperability? It seems to me like their model is built around maximum compatibility, so almost any speaker you purchase will work smoothly with it (snd have access to the same API’s).
If Spotify also dominated the speaker market and locked their service with their own hardware it could ve a different issue.
Are you kidding me? Bluetooth devices can already connect via Bluetooth standards. Why should third-party external devices have privledged access to the phone's contactless payments sub-system? Seems crazy problematic and puts all the cost on Apple to develop ways to prevent EU customers from getting hack€d via external local vectors on Apple devices....this is crazy!
Europe is their second largest market, not the EU.
Easy ability to export playlists so you could import into competing services is the biggest consumer-facing one. But the issue with Spotify is much more BUSINESS users (i.e. record labels, musicians). Which is actually what the DMA is about if you read the legislation.
(For example, iPadOS doesn't actually meet the quantitative metrics laid out in the law to be considered a Gatekeeping platform, but the EU says the law applies anyway mainly because of the number of business users who use iPadOS. Vestager even noted that they don't meet the metrics in her statement announcing the DMA applies to iPadOS.)
I don't think that it was considered here, but even if there is any super-duper-hidden API Apple is not publishing currently, but will need to publish it under DMA, it is not said, that will publish it globally (they could, as they did for NFC, but they don't need to).
So, what you estimate willing of e.g. smartwatch producers to invest money into feature that will work only in EU, and would work worse or not at all in other markets? It's more rhetorical question ofc
Spotify’s issue is they talked about supporting HomePods and other things and never did. They apparently don’t want to support Airplay 2 which would give them more control, but because they don’t, people can’t use the phones hardware volume buttons to raise and lower volume on third party speakers. At least that is what I read the other day.
gatekeeper is a made up thing by the EU to go mostly after US tech companies it is meanless
Last edited:
But why is Apples to job to make other watches work the same as AW? And again how will making Apple give away the farm to all their competition drive more competition and innovation?
"Won't someone please think of the poor multinational trillion dollar company?"
- this thread
You act like Apple is an innocent victim of schoolyard bullying instead of a 400 billion dollar yearly revenue behemoth playing hardball with third parties because of Tim Cook's undying love for service revenue.
- this thread
You act like Apple is an innocent victim of schoolyard bullying instead of a 400 billion dollar yearly revenue behemoth playing hardball with third parties because of Tim Cook's undying love for service revenue.
To be fair- always up everyones, and apple is the ultimate walled garden
Maybe they should do that in China too? I mean, they sure seem to give in a lot more to that government than others.
Timmay and Apple can preach privacy all they want, but they are full of $$it. It's all about the $$$$
Timmay and Apple can preach privacy all they want, but they are full of $$it. It's all about the $$$$
This idea that nothing bad that happens to Apple is of any concern because they've been financially successful is concerning.
I believe that actions are ethically right or wrong. Obviously there is a large portion of the population that doesn't believe in this. Consequentialism vs deontological ethics.
I know the DMA has circumvented the concept of equality under the law by creating the idea of a "Gatekeeper". So from a legal standpoint there is no amount of regulation that is off limits when a certain level of success is achieved.
However, I think that forcing a small struggling company to provide support and resources to its competitor is wrong. I think that it remains true even if that small company becomes a large company.
The EC has drawn a somewhat fuzzy line with the concept of "gatekeeper", but you mention dollars. So what is the dollar amount in your estimation that makes it ok to force a company to act against itself in order to participate if a region's market?