You’ve missed the point.
No car manufacturer is a monopoly. The anti competitive legislation simply does not apply to them
Last edited:
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
No car manufacturer is a monopoly. The anti competitive legislation simply does not apply to them
According to some here the only point is that they are monopolies for providing entertainment systems inside their vehicles because they disadvantage other manufacturers.
I don't believe that but others here make that claim, specifically about Apple.
They don't disadvantage anyone but freeloaders who are too lazy to build their own apps. The Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones has way more capabilities with it's 3rd party app than the Apple AirPods Max on the iPhone.
The Bose QC Ultra even has a superior "spatial audio" (Bose their own implementation) than what Apple come up with.
And Apple is not a monopoly at all.
It's simple government overreach who want to EU companies to leech of Apple their tech and use Apple their own API's to make the same products Apple did and "compete" against Apple this way, rather than really innovating like what Sony and Bose does.
Well said!
The EUSSR is just full of consumers, and the Commie EUSSR has no interest in real innovation; it just wants excuses to sue competitors and extort money.
The law requires interoperability.
Apple is free to either comply or stop preferencing their own products by not offering the functionality in question.
In both cases there no suing nor extortion of money.
True. They should, however, be free to offer options to let users know if a message, for example, originated on an Apple app or third party app via bubble color.
OSes that are stuck in time and no new features... dont want to risk offending the EU law makers/money grabbers....
Oh sure. never want to offend the EU without causeOSes that are stuck in time and no new features... dont want to risk offending the EU law makers/money grabbers....
EU is focused on iOS being closed source, but always forget macOS is also closed source.
It's almost like EU don't understand the basics, but pretend they do.
Interoperability allows for innovation.
Monopolisation does not.
Apple is not the only innovative company in the world.
Shutting out competing innovators is not innovative nor does it encourage innovation.
Last edited:
Interoperability leads to stagnation as everything has to meet a proscribed standard instead of being able to do something new and innovative.
The law does not proscribe a standard.
The innovation in software, protocols or APIs is left to the free market.
Apple is free to innovate their platform product (iOS) as they please.
The key is "as they please." It's not unreasonable to require some level of interoperability; I'd argue it can work to the big players benefit by letting users of third party apps (and the device manufacturer) see what they are missing by not using the native apps if they have more features or a better user experience. It can also drive down prices since if a native app is free it'll be hard to justify paying for third party app so any new entrant is likely never to make money and will need to find other ways to generate revenue to stay in business; and if they do get big enough will have to open up what they created to competitors.
You also need to allow room for innovation and branding. If a company comes up with a new way to communicate better between their devices, they should not be forced to open that up to competitors without compensation; and they should be free to mark messages sent solely via their infrastructure a different color so users know if they can trust a message is secure or even block outside apps from messaging them, for example.
Users should also be free to select a payment system, for example Apple's on its App Store. If an app is on the App Store I should be bale to use Apple's payment system and not be forced to use some third party one I may not trust. Let the developer offer it but let app stores require using their system as one option.
Nor should companies be forced to allow free, unfettered access to their app store.
Edit typos and added (and device manufacturer)
Last edited:
And they are required by law in some jurisdictions to open up their innovations for FREE, as in no compensation.
What the EU defenders can't seem to wrap their head around is that Apple doesn't just develop new features and innovations out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to make money. And giving those away to anyone who asks for it changes the cost/benefit calculations Apple makes when deciding to create and release a feature/product/service.
If Apple then has to turn around and immediately give access to that innovation to anyone who asks for it, it doesn't mean that competitors will have access to more features, it means we all will get fewer features because it won't be worth it for Apple to release them. And similarly, if Apple isn't allowed to integrate across its products better than anyone else, it doesn't mean Apple products will integrate better with third-party tools, it means there will be fewer integrations for everyone.
I’d argue the big players (Apple, Google) don’t need that benefit.
Apple can still advertise their device’s and OS’s functionality.
They are not required to provide, say, Apple Pay functionality or source code to Android makers.
They are merely required to offer payment providers interoperability with hardware features such as NFC.
Those still depend on and encourage sales of (Apple’s) hardware.
Messaging services are an exception - but they serve a (arguably the most important) purpose to enable users to switch apps or service provider without being locked in due to network effects. That is good for competition in the mobile OS and hardware markets.
No, quite the contrary. Apple can charge for, say, iPhone mirroring functionality. Or Apple Pay. Or their health app or service. Or AirPlay as a “unlocking” software purchase purchasable separate from hardware. Or offer subscriptions for voice assistants.
👉 Lots of ways to monetise and get compensated.
They are not required to open it up for free.
They just can‘t give a feature or service away for free - and then leverage network effects and customer expectations to leech off third parties that require it to remain competitive with Apple‘s services.
…which is just what they do:
They make tons of money from hardware purchases and additional services.
Not much, particularly not in competitive markets. They’re hugely profitable - making less money doesn‘t mean they would (let alone had to, necessarily) anything different.
No, not in competitive markets. They have to innovate due to competitive pressure any. Apple may just a lower margins or profits. And that‘s good for consumers and competition.
- If Apple is slightly profitable long-term, that‘s good for consumers - since they can continue making and selling their products
- If Apple is well profitable long-term that‘s good for consumers - cause it means they‘re able to invest, innovate improve their products
- If Apple is hugely profitable long-term, well above the competition), that‘s only good for investors (and employees). It just means that consumers pay much more than it costs to innovate, invedt and improve.
👉 Apple stashing billions upon billions of cash offshore (as well as their overall cash position, dividends and share buybacks) does nothing to make them innovate and improve. It’s only an indication that they’re earning more money than they can spend and need.
Actually there in no secure walled OS at all, anywhere.
It's the same code base that's geofenced to allow more options in EU.
But someone could exploit the code elsewhere if they wanted and were determined enough.
The EU took away our choice of locked environment.
Perhaps Apple should have forked the code base there. And added nothing new.
They are kind of dragging the ball on AI rollout and other new features to EU users. Perhaps out of spite
Perhaps out of fear over what the EU will fine them for next.
The whole 10% of worldwide revenue fine is a joke.
By all means fine someone the amount they sell in your country.
You do not have the right to impose your laws outside your borders.
Last edited:
They took that away when they allowed nonreviewed enterprise apps (nonreviewed code!) in iOS over a decade ago. On their own volition, cause Apple wanted to cash in on enterprise sales.
Not the EU, especially given how Apple still keeps apps from third-party stored „locked“ by reserving the right to review and sign apps them.
Blaming the EU for „taking away the choice of a locked environment“ is just misguided and wrong, with respect to downloading and installing apps and running of program code.
Last edited:
Sure apple can monetize any crumb that’s not vertically integrated. The revenue that carries from vertically integrated features were given away for FREE.