You know, I have been called many names over the last decade and a half for presumably spending more money on hardware that purportedly did less. Sheep, cultist, fanboy, I have come to view them as badges of honour to be worn with pride, because at the end of the day, Apple was right when it mattered, and we ended up on the right side of history.
The crux here is that such moves were not made in a vacuum, but usually accompanied by a superior solution in tow. Apple blocked flash from their iOS devices, but followed up with the App Store which offered a better alternative in the form of native apps optimised for battery efficiency and native touch controls. The floppy disk made way for the usb port. The MBA offered users a thinner and lighter form factor in exchange for a bunch of ports they were all too willing to give up for the promise of portability. Instead of removable batteries, Apple gave us beautifully engineered devices with room for larger batteries. The removal of the headphone jack was followed up with the AirPods.
That's why brands like LG and Blackberry are no longer around, while Apple is. Apple understood what the rest of the competition did not - they are not selling me a product, but a solution. It is no different today. The lesson which Apple keeps teaching, and which its detractors keep ignoring, is that no amount of regulation can rescue market failures or save companies like Spotify when the problem is (more likely than not) found internally with a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, and lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.
For years, Apple was constantly framed as being one iPhone update away from implosion. Low market and sales share were paraded around as signs of an incompetent product strategy. Simply put, Apple was framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on a single source of revenue that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to cheaper and more "open" Android-based alternatives. Even when Apple Music was first released, the forum was filled with comments about how it would never take off, and how Spotify was still the superior alternative. Even Spotify themselves loudly and confidently boasted about how they didn't see Apple Music as a threat.
Today, now that said narrative has all but lost steam, the narrative has now shifted to Apple's ironclad grip over their App Store, and the notion that Apple users are stuck behind a massive walled garden where features like iMessage, Apple Watches, and Apple Pay force people to remain within Appleās walls. Government regulators are viewed as the only entity capable of protecting Apple users from Apple's tyranny (something we never asked for in the first place).
For what it's worth, I don't think said legislation will have a major impact on Apple's long-term viability (though they do make for juicy headlines capable of garnering hundreds of responses). The only thing that users have to lose is the unique user experience that they paid a premium to access in the first place (through no fault of Apple's).
Why then do I continue to debate over this even though I have absolutely zero stakes? Why do people comment on events that happen halfway across the world that don't impact them at all? For the simple reason that I care more about making statements which I feel are right than I do about making statements that are rooted in ideology. I maintain that this is a violation of Apple's property rights, I feel the EU still isn't being 100% transparent or truthful about their intentions (eg: the DMA suggests that Apple maintains the right to monetise their IP, yet seem bent on rejecting every attempt by Apple in doing so, thus the unspoken implication is that they expect Apple to just do everything for free), and so I welcome Apple continuing to push back against the DMA until we get more clarity from the EU on what is truly being asked of Apple here.
If the EU wants Apple to do (or not do) something, then they should just say the ugly part out loud and get it over and done with.
