That’s exactly what I’m doing. In the vein of government overreach, which there seems to be a swarm of people supporting it. (But only if it’s directed to apple)
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
Next up. EU fines apple for features it’s NOT delivering. /s
Look, I’ve been a long term macrumors reader, but i usually don’t bother to comment on forums. But i will admit that i got a little bit triggered by the one-sided EU hate posts, event though the issues discussed are far from black and white, I think the responses here are pretty much exactly that - black and white responses. I wanted to provide some nuanced view on the topic. I hope my status as macrumors newbie will not impact your view of my original post, content wise.
I did try to make it clear that EU‘s stance is not the be all end all, the EU has A LOT of problems, but i do believe that in terms of inter-operability of devices, a good argument can be made for that approach. And this comes from me, typing away on my iPad, while connected to my iPhone personal hotspot, checking for the delivery status of my iPhone 16 Pro, all while glancing at notifications on my Apple Watch.
are people being this vindictive in the comments?
iPhones would become basically useless if they use Android over iOS since there'd be no reason to buy one over a Samsung. The labor theory of value would also play a role here if you ask me considering Apple probably wouldn't lower their prices.
The point is that once you buy a device it's yours. Whoever owns the operating system is irrelevant. You don't own Google or DuckDuckGo either but you still have the ability to choose your favourite search engine.
Of course, the closed ecosystem argument would apply in other industries. Say I want to make my own brand of tomatoes - in that case I can crop them and make my own brand, then it can't be used by anyone else without my permission.
It's ok here because I'd be just a local producer - I don't have huge worldwide impact over society on multiple levels.
iPhones would become basically useless if they use Android over iOS since there'd be no reason to buy one over a Samsung. The labor theory of value would also play a role here if you ask me considering Apple probably wouldn't lower their prices.
The point is that once you buy a device it's yours. Whoever owns the operating system is irrelevant. You don't own Google or DuckDuckGo either but you still have the ability to choose your favourite search engine.
Of course, the closed ecosystem argument would apply in other industries. Say I want to make my own brand of tomatoes - in that case I can crop them and make my own brand, then it can't be used by anyone else without my permission.
It's ok here because I'd be just a local producer - I don't have huge worldwide impact over society on multiple levels.
Apple is dealing with similar issues in the U.S. as a DOJ lawsuit was filed against them in March. Time will tell where it goes.
Mac should be "locked down" more if that's the deepest core of Apple's identify.
The DMA isn't preventing Apple's products from continuing to work much better together.
Still doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to unfairly target it and its property.
I'm a consultant. The way we win work is writing a proposal that explains why we're the client's best value for the money they'll spend; often the reason we are best is because of certain tools or proprietary techniques we've developed. Imagine if the government and came in and said "you have to let your competitors have access to your tools and techniques without paying you."
Now, not only do we win significantly fewer contracts because our product isn't differentiated anymore, we also can't charge what we think our services are worth to recoup the cost of developing the tools and techniques because we'll be undercut on price. Why would we bother creating new tools and techniques if we just have to give them to our competitors? It gives them an advantage because they get to use it without any of the costs.
That's exactly what's happening here.
Poor analogy. There are only two major mobile operating systems compared to many car companies. Also, the EU isn’t asking Apple to allow customers pick their own chip, modem, camera, etc.
The situation here would be more like a customer going to a Ford dealership and wanting an infotainment system to work with iPhone and Android phones and/or an aftermarket infotainment system. The car being able to use tires from many different tire companies. The car being able to have aftermarket electronics/accessories installed from many different companies. Diagnostics being able to be done by many different code readers. AND there only being two major car companies.
Just because alternatives exist doesn't mean a company isn't blocking competition or can't be subject to antitrust/competition laws. For example, there were several alternatives to Windows in the 1990s (Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, AmigaOS, etc.) yet that didn't stop Microsoft from being ruled a monopoly with Windows and engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
As far as car analogies go, this situation here would be more like having infotainment system work with iPhones and Android phones and/or other devices or being able to install tires from many different tire companies or being able to install aftermarket electronics/accessories from many different companies or diagnostics being able to be done using several different code readers, etc. AND there being only two major car companies.
Nothing unfair about it when it targets your competitors as well.
No need to act like it's only Apple that has to obey the law.
What?
You are utterly confused with who the DMA works, so get your own facts straight before lambasting others.
Apple simply have allow competitors tech comunicate with ios the same way their own tech can.
Thats not at all what it's about.
Pretty sure you're being wilfully ignorant by now.
Very little on this subject is genuine within these forums. If you want a solid explanation, look elsewhere.
But it doesn't target most of their competitors!
Is Samsung a Gatekeeper? No.
Is Xiaomi a Gatekeeper? No.
Is Garmin a Gatekeeper? No.
Is Huawei a Gatekeeper? No.
Moreover, the one competitor who is a Gatekeeper, Google, already allows everything that the EU is asking for, and for YEARS advertised the fact that they were open as a product differentiator.
And again, Apple has 27% OF THE MARKET IN THE EU. Not a Monopolist. Not even close. How on Earth anyone thinks its appropriate for the government to stick their thumb on the scale to make a minority competitor in a market act like the one with over 70% of the market I will never understand. Well I do, it's because you want an open system but don't want to be forced to use Android. Again, you don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Like everyone else on the planet, pick what's most important to you and move on - don't force a private entity to do what you want at the expense of the entity and others who prefer the status quo.
Last edited:
No, it’s not similar issues. A DOJ lawsuit is completely different and could mean radical changes if they lose or walk away unharmed if they win, or anything in between.
There is no US version of the DMA.
I never said corporations were people. A corporation is simply paperwork that organizes a group of people.
That said, what is the max limit of people in a group for the concepts of right and wrong to apply? Or, is it a line of wealth? How wealthy does a group need to be to invalidate right and wrong?
You say that "nothing bad that happens to one of the richest companies in the world should be of any concern to any of us". Would that include a bombing at one of their stores or headquarters? Should we not concerns ourselves because they are rich or because they are people organized as a company?
I absolutely acknowledge that Apple and every other company that operates in the EU is there by choice and they can stop doing business there at anytime they want (legal obligations aside), which is why I included "in order to participate if a region's market" in my post. Maybe I should have said "required" instead of "forced". My concern is not the legality of the situation, I eagerly concede that everything the EU has done is perfectly legal and falls well within the standard model of how governments exercise control. My concern stems from the ethics and to a lesser extent the necessity of the situation.
On the balance, none of this is really important. What we are really talking about is what benefits some "of the richest companies in the world" vs a different group of some "of the richest companies in the world". Also, what inconveniences one group of consumers vs what inconveniences a different group of consumers. But, since these are groups and companies, ig guess there is no need to concern ourselves.
EDIT: Apologies for being snarky.
Last edited:
Its got nothing to do with anything. Its about phone chargers to which Apple was very late to the party.
Dont then?
I know. Its hilarious. They're going on about Apple being forced to go 'open source' 🤣 it's brilliant.
"Currently, Apple offers limited developer access to certain iOS features, such as its Siri voice assistant, and restricts access to the contactless payments system foundational to Apple Pay. The EU's action aims to address these limitations and ensure a more open ecosystem."
I see this as Apple must open any featuers they use to others, they are not allowed to have Apple only APIs.
My sentiments exactly. Tired of them trying to tear down all of the features exclusive to the Apple brand so that people will want to own Apple products. Having a competitive edge in business is what drives innovation and these communistic socialists in the EU commission just aren’t having any of that. 😡
As a shareholder, I obviously want Apple to maximize my investment returns and they have a fiduciary duty to do so. Why would Apple want to innovate and provide features EXCLUSIVE to the Apple brand if they‘re just going to be forced to share all of that innovation against their own interests. I would vote in a heartbeat to make basic Apple products for the EU and keep the innovation in places where they can drive people towards owning Apple products to use those features. Their courts and judges have too much socialistic bias.
Allows in pure Android, which is virtually only used on Pixel phones, which market share is negligible in EU. So, question, what happens, if e.g. Samsung will lock down some API available in pure Android in its implementation of Android?
If they are allowed to do so, as they are not gatekeeper, does it mean, that only Apple is regulated and 75% of phone market in EU can do whatever they want?
Pretty sure the US gov are about to start slapping a 100% tarrif on Chinese electric cars. So.... Huh?
The law only applies to gatekeepers, not "anyone who provides operating systems." The only gatekeepers for OSes are Google and Apple (mobile phone), Microsoft (desktop), and Apple (tablet). (Side note: In a further attack on Apple, iPadOS doesn't qualify to be a gatekeeper under the metrics laid out the law, but the law adds a "we can make someone a gatekeeper if we feel like it" section that they used to target iPadOS. Literally Vestager's quote announcing iPadOS as a gatekeeper includes "despite not meeting the thresholds...")
For all intents and purposes, when it comes to DMA impacting mobile operating systems, it only applies to Google and Apple. Now Google may have some contract language with Samsung saying they can't lock things down (I really have no idea how that agreement works), but that'd be between companies, not because the EU says so.
Samsung could copy all of Apple's policies and restrictions (one App Store, anti-steering, watch restrictions, etc.) and the EU would have zero problem with it.