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 Restricting New Pebble Smartwatches From 'Being Awesome' With iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nothing sums up the debate better than this. The quote you give that supposedly proves how Apple is bad and anticompetitive, and I read it and say “Yes, that’s exactly how I want it to work!”
These are two separate issues: Apple's payment policies and the availability of APIs for third-party watchmakers. The payment restrictions in the App Store have nothing to do with whether Apple should provide APIs for external hardware
As for making it possible to develop apps and watch faces for Pebble, that is not Apple's responsibility. What API would even help with that? There isn't even an API available for developers to develop watch faces for the Apple Watch? Even if there was, these are two completely separate hardware running two very different software.
Pebble could easily develop their own system for creating new watch faces and apps, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. The only reason they're not doing it is because it is expensive and they want Apple to to their job for them.
Apple isn't blocking competition; it's just maintaining control over its own platform, just like every other major tech company does...
I suppose if you're German, you have an argument. But I'm American, and I stand by Apple's strategy of highly vertically integrated, closely interconnected and largely reserved for users of Apple devices. Why would Apple choose any other path? Opening up the products and service to any randos just destablizes the consumer experience that makes Apple safer, easier and more functional for its customers.
That's the truth! Apple users don't want the experience of Windows or Android users, who get on the phone when something goes wrong, and each company blames the other until they give up in frustration and anger.
Umm, that happens plenty with Apple stuff
Even more frustratingly at times as there are often no ways of knowing what the hell is going on or a way to "force an update", etc
Apple support is famous for the horrendous "re-install the OS" suggestion as just one example of many.
But at least you know who to go to. Who am I supposed to blame if my Pebble stops working with my iPhone? Is it Apple's fault or Pebble's? Apple's already being forced to supply documentation on the speech being forced upon them by the EU, why not technical support too? Or does Apple shrug its shoulders and say "We can't help you because it's not an Apple product"? Isn't that anticompetitive? I mean, Apple can clearly afford it, and if Pebble doesn't have to pay for access to Apple's APIs, why should they have to pay for tech support?
What if the reason is Pebble implemented the API poorly, but they scream to the EU that it's Apple's fault. Does Apple get fined for Pebble's incompetence?
Well, you are in luck because the DOJ is currently investigating Apple for the same thing.
Many of the other third party smart watches have web apps for creating watch faces and submitting them to their official watch face store, which is usually accessible in the companion iPhone app for the watch. Amazfit does this, Huawei does this, Xaomi does this, Garmin does this. There’s absolutely nothing stopping Pebble from doing the exact same thing for watch faces and even mini apps for the watch.
Yes, that point is just so baffling to me. They act like their shortcomings are because of Apple somehow...
Well, that's a low bar considering the DOJ is at war with the courts right now!
But these are internal parts, nobody’s complaining about not being able to put a Pixel camera or a snapdragon into an iPhone or put iPhone internals in a Motorola casing..
Oh, so it's more of a software thing, then? Can you load GM's OnStar system into a Nissan? Can you put Tesla's UI into a Ford pickup?
Software is even more internal. I was talking about accessories/enhancements that are not part of the functionality of the object but add new functions to the object…
The more I read the latest posts the more I wish we had a practice (maybe even signed into law) kinda like they had in the Soviet Union where each piece of equipment came with extensive schematics and access to repair tools before companies started patenting the smallest things possible.
I should be able to run Tesla's UI into a Ford if I wanted to. Enough of that ecosystem / security fearmongering *********. It's obvious that this move allows the company to hold as much power as possible in relation to the customer even after he bought the product.
I'm surprised to see no one talking about it yet but I assure you that unless something happens, user swappable batteries will be a huge hot topic starting next year as the February 2027 deadline approaches.
Opening up the products brings more freedom and learning opportunities, weakens the power of tech conglomerates, and is a thorn in the way of a future tech oligarchy. Apple's strategy is dead and they will become irrelevant outside north america if they keep it up, especially with the current political climate. Tesla already crashing down is a signal that american products are slowly losing credibility and apple might be next in line.
I should be able to run Tesla's UI into a Ford if I wanted to. Enough of that ecosystem / security fearmongering *********. It's obvious that this move allows the company to hold as much power as possible in relation to the customer even after he bought the product.
Because Apple's strategy worked in its time. It's obvious Tim Cook was (and is) a great CEO in many aspects but he's becoming out of touch as tech companies became so present in our lives. Welcome to 2025 where you have to comply with the law in order to not make your customers sell their souls if possible. Those vertically integrated devices will soon be obsolete after the EU and China/India force manufacturers to provide user swappable batteries and open ecosystems.
I'm surprised to see no one talking about it yet but I assure you that unless something happens, user swappable batteries will be a huge hot topic starting next year as the February 2027 deadline approaches.
Opening up the products brings more freedom and learning opportunities, weakens the power of tech conglomerates, and is a thorn in the way of a future tech oligarchy. Apple's strategy is dead and they will become irrelevant outside north america if they keep it up, especially with the current political climate. Tesla already crashing down is a signal that american products are slowly losing credibility and apple might be next in line.
That’s debatable. Apple and Google have become so large that it’s nearly impossible to have anyone else break into the mix.
Let’s be honest. That’s the goal of a corporation in capitalism - monopoly.
that dude is implying these corporations got to the top through fair play. Apple and Google got into a position of power early and then ruthlessly sabotaged the competition. I remember Google refusing to offer their apps on windows phone and treating it as a tit for tat to Ballmer's comments.
"better than the competition" this is not the super bowl
It’s Apple’s product, Apple’s property, and Apple’s efforts, so of course Apple should be able to decide what they want to ship and what they don’t. That’s a business’s prerogative because it’s their intellectual property and their investment to build the product. If customers don’t like it, they can go buy another product. Very simple… If Apple wanted to, it would be their prerogative to make Apple devices only work with other Apple devices, and only run Apple software. It’s their product… Nobody else is entitled to control over Apple’s products, no other companies are entitled to mooch off of Apple’s work and intellectual property…
so what if it's their product?
dude, **** intellectual property when companies are using it to break the law. It's one of those concepts maliciously used by American exceptionalists. how can it be a bad thing to share ideas with others? this is why I support piracy movements, open-source alternatives, and alternate app stores, and I'm generally far-left on tech regulation, and am a fan of Louis Rossmann and his content.
It's nothing about entitlement, it's just you being an apple fanboy. Intellectual property applied to the individual would use your logic quite well, not a trillion dollar corporation with this much influence.
ps. I'm sure those ai companies which apple and microsoft and the others are enabling really cared about intelectual property when they used to train their ai models... oh wait.
"Welcome to 2025 where you have to comply with the law…" Do you live in same America as me? Lawlessness is so endemic that it's reached into the highest corridors of power, even into the very institutions tasked with enacting & enforcing the law.
Companies have the right to decide what products they want to create, and what features they want to include or not include. It’s their creation. It’s their resources, their intellectual property, their investment. It’s their product. And it’s their business. Nobody has the right to tell them what products they must ship, or what features they must support or provide.
Apple isn’t “breaking the law” by not catering and kowtowing to Pebble… In reality, Pebble can totally integrate with iOS in many ways if they want to. They can integrate with Siri like the Garmin Venu 3, they can receive and make calls, they can offer a watch face and App Store for the watch in their companion app, they can do a lot of things. They are not entitled to Apple doing any of the legwork for them… They are not entitled to any of Apple’s resources beyond what Apple promises with the developer account contract.
Piracy is theft, so clearly you don’t seem to care about intellectual property and property rights, and that’s the underlying problem with your arguments. At some level or other though, you’ll likely become in favor of property rights…. What if I decide to come and claim your house for my own. Cause after all, property rights are just a concept “maliciously used by American exceptionalists”. What about your computer? Your yard? At some point you’ll protest “I bought this, this is mine, and not yours”. And now you start to get the point…
Because Apple paid to create that product. They paid for the patents, they pay for the development, they pay the production costs, the marketing. It is their product which they have taken all of the risks to bring to market, and have put in all of the work and financial investment. Apple’s employees put in hours of their time and effort into creating these products, coding and troubleshooting them. But you want them to fork it over to other companies for nothing… Nobody else is entitled to that work, and nobody else is entitled to tell Apple what products or features they must use their resources to create or support…
It has nothing to do with being a “fanboy” or not. Companies have intellectual property rights just like individuals. Most of these successful companies came about from an individual or two using their intellectual property rights to create and market a product. Apple itself is such a story, it started with two guys who loved making computers…
Removing intellectual property rights for companies removes incentive to innovate. Why create some new and revolutionary product if anyone can come along and steal your work? Why offer some cool and innovative new feature for your products if you’re somehow going to be expected to do the work for everyone else as well for free? And on the other hand, why innovate and put in your own work to invent something new when you can merely ride the back of someone else and claim their work as your own? When companies can’t have intellectual property protection of their own work and products, innovation stagnates and you end up with everyone’s products essentially being the same thing. Socialism never leads to increased innovation, because there are no incentives for innovation. You cannot separate your company from others with your work, because you don’t have ownership of your own work, and others can simply ride on the back of your own work and innovation.
Notice that Europe doesn’t really have a single successful tech company like Apple, I wonder why?…
Let's not forget that Microsoft refused to release Office for iOS during that time as well, preferring to keep it for their mobile platform in a bid to give themselves a leg up. Or that Windows phone was already a thing at the time the iPhone was released. Or that people were actively rooting for Facebook and Google to withhold their apps from iOS in a bid to "fix" Apple and show them who's boss. Or how Apple was "doomed" because of their small market share and closed platform.
If anything, it was Apple entering a crowded and established market and fighting tooth and nail for every percent of market share they now command (which is still a minority compared to Android).
The whole point is that Apple didn't break any of the established laws at that time. Which is why Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple, and why the EU ultimately had to come up with new laws (in the form of the DMA) in a bid to "fix" Apple, because existing anti-monopoly laws didn't apply. You can't blame Apple for breaking a non-existent law which didn't exist at the time.
It's easy to say that Apple "should do this" or that Apple "ought to have done that", and it's every bit as meaningful as saying that someone could have donated more to charity by virtue of them earning more. It's not something they had to do, and it's not against the law to not perform any charity.
The DMA is an undeniable violation of Apple's property rights (even if the EU feels it is a necessary evil). The EU wants Apple to follow their new laws, but can't even seem to acknowledge or say the ugly part out loud. Nor can anyone else here, it seems.
I know it's a rhetorical question, and I appreciate you bring it up nonetheless.
As the saying goes - there is good in bad, and there is bad in good. The US has less legislation, which led to a thriving tech sector that nurtured tech ideas (leading to the US tech giants that we know today). Of course, one can complain about the problems caused by social media, aggregators and modern smartphones, but ask any developer if they would rather still be developing JAR apps for Symbian instead? Or having mobile carriers take 80% of their app revenue instead?
In contrast, the EU has more legislation that probably do result in better protection for its citizens, and it's probably also accurate to say that it has had a chilling effect on their willingness to innovate and take risks (ie: the bad in good). And the stark reality is that if you aren't the one to take risks and come up with the next big thing, then someone else in another part of the world will.
And reap the rewards for themselves.
You are talking about intellectual property with American exceptionalism in mind. I believe you come up with many what-if scenarios, but keep in mind Apple and other tech platforms are enabling, if not outright crafting, AI models trained on copyright protected data.
The thing with "taking risks" is that ultimately you're probably not the one behind said innovation but are sharing the same values or region as its creator. The US doesn't have a thriving tech sector just because of less legislation, but because of much more important reasons, such as being pretty much the sole superpower after WW2. And then there is China which has draconic legislation by western standards but still has an up and coming tech sector.
I don't know about the EU because money talks here as well, but I'd care more about the fundamental values of said union over the tech sector and how good Europeans are at it. The EU is far behind China and the US in terms of innovation, yet it's probably the better place to be a smartphone consumer, since you have more freedom over your device.
Apple's property rights aren't that relevant anymore when you consider how important and influential they are. If they were a state this would be labeled a shadow government.
And yes Microsoft did resort to petty tactics against iOS and Android in the early 2010s thanks to steve ballmer being a clown, you probably remember that funeral organized for the iphone lmao, or his constant rants against Google. People rooting to not put their apps on the iPhone is just immature tribal attitude. I know this because I was also like this. However, this does not mean we shouldn't recognize the way companies grow, and you shouldn't view history through rose-tinted glasses. Look at the Apple vs Samsung wars starting in 2005 and how much they were collaborating behind the scenes. NAND Flash, the first iphone cpu, the samsung omnia II failure and so on. But on the surface, apple got celebrities on board and samsung was running ads.
Which everyone around the world is using, including those residing in the EU.
The thing about legislation is that you can only control what happens within your borders, and not beyond it.
Would you be okay if new features were slower to come to users in the EU, or maybe never come at all? Right now, the assumption is that tech giants like Apple will (ultimately) capitulate and go out of their way to ensure that their products are designed with EU laws in mind. However, the problem is that the EU is effectively attempting to export their rules and their laws to the rest of the world, and this is something I (who am not a resident in the EU) may not be a fan of depending on what the tradeoffs ultimately mean for me.
It's iPhone mirroring right now. I don't think it will happen, but it would be interesting if Apple ended up removing support for features like airplay in iOS 19 as an alternative to making them available to other parties.
The other elephant in the room is that for a region which sports a combined population far greater than the US, the EU is also pretty heavily reliant on US technology. Windows, macOS, android, iOS, Facebook, WhatsApp (many of you were cheering the ability to switch defaults in another thread), Instagram, twitter, bluesky, threads, amazon, heck, even Visa and Mastercard are US companies as well.
China at least has put in the effort to come up with their own homegrown solutions to wean themselves off this dependency. Perhaps the EU should look towards doing the same as well.
I can support well-crafted legislation but it needs to be honest first and foremost and say "Yes, we are violating Apple's property rights here, but it's going to take the form of a FRAND licensing structure where Apple will still get compensated at the end of the day, but we are measuring this tradeoff as a society, and Apple is still going to invest because they are making so much money and it's good for their platform and they will be adequately compensated."
And the problem is that nobody is willing to be forthcoming here, because of the implications of such an admission (one has to admit first and foremost that they are violating Apple's property rights here, however justified they may feel it to be), and this is why I want to see Apple push back all the way and force this admission out of the EU.
And not just let this aspect get swept under the rug.
I’ll give you credit for acknowledging Apple’s rights are being violated, unlike so many others on here who claim the DMA forcing Apple to give competitors access to Apple’s IP, against Apple’s will, for free somehow isn’t theft, but I think this an absolute absurd statement.
It’s like saying “the New York Times is too important and influential, so they don’t get freedom of the press anymore.”
(While DMA defenders on here say “it’s not theft that the Times has to give its articles to any newspaper or website that wants them for free - they still own the articles, and they’re still allowed to sell subscriptions, so nothing has been taken from them.”)
Last edited: