Apple Says New EU Interoperability Rules 'Bad for Our Products and Our Users'

[surferfb]

These so called innovations are exactly inspired but what others do in the same field. You would find Apple a whole lot more innovative if they had any competition whatsoever within their ecosystem. No one is asking them to give up their secrets, merely off a way in to compete on the same playing field. It’s very similar to how I can use a universal remote with a ‘closed’ TV or other box. Does that somehow stifle the tv industry? No. Does it invigorate the remote control industry? Yes.

Why did no one come up with a better way to pair Bluetooth devices until Apple did with AirPods? And why should Apple’s reward for that be “give it to competitors, who didn’t spend the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop it, for free”. How can you not see how that will stifle innovation, how it disadvantages those doing the hard work? Why would anyone make anything better than “good enough” if that’s their reward?

None of this affects apple negatively- except their bottom line and their own ability to produce the goods. Everything about this affects the consumers ability to choose whilst not being limited to Apples whims.

If the consumer doesn’t want to be limited to Apple’s whims then they should buy a competitor’s product, not force Apple to give away their work for free is some misguided crusade for fairness. You don’t have a fundamental right to have Apple make you the phone that you want.

 

[surferfb]

It’s not hard enough. Siri is next to useless.

Hey! I found something we agree on

 

[cupcakes2000]

How do you create better products? You see what’s out there and make them better. Apple does that in spades with the iPhone. Doesn’t need to bother within the ecosystem though, as there are no other comparable choices.

 

[vantelimus]

They want to ensure that 1 companies products can work with another companies products.

They shouldn’t have that right unless there is a compelling public interest. At present, you have the choice between an Apple ecosystem, which is closed and provides you with benefits that open system cannot, and open systems (Android and Linux). You are even spoiled for choice in the manufacturer of your Android hardware. You even have smaller niche players who give you other choices. There is no compelling interest here. There is only political interest in hurting an American company.

It’s very bizarre, that you as a consumer, are unhappy about the prospect of, for example, being able to buy a sonically better set of headphones, or indeed a more inexpensive set of earphones, and have them work with the same fluidity as apples own products do. Or being able to quickly airdrop that file from you phone on to your work Windows PC. Or tap to share a contact with that friend who doesn’t have an iPhone.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to control my preferences. I’ve already told you that I prefer the privacy and security of the Apple ecosystem. That you don’t value the same or don’t believe my concerns are valid is irrelevant. You are trying to deny me my choice.

At no point is anyone trying to ‘steal’ anything.

It is a semantic game. If you use government power to redefine property rights, I suppose it isn’t stealing. But under property rights as people understand them for the last couple of centuries, it is stealing.

Facts are no longer a thing to ground people of the world, we just make **** up and thats just fine.

Yes, there are facts. But you are arguing your opinion.

 

[cupcakes2000]

But you are arguing your opinion.

We all are 😂

 

[cupcakes2000]

You are trying to deny me my choice

That’s the thing isn’t it. Your choice would remain the same. Mine would be expanded. iOS would have a richer ecosystem, or you could just remain with Apple only products if you wished.

All your talk of capitalism and you don’t even want to follow the paradigm.

 

[surferfb]

That’s the thing isn’t it. Your choice would remain the same. Mine would be expanded. iOS would have a richer ecosystem, or you could just remain with Apple only products if you wished.

All your talk of capitalism and you don’t even want to follow the paradigm.

Our fear is that our products become worse to enable your choice, because Apple will stop coming up with innovative ideas if they just have to give them away for free.

Apple will be reduced to the lowest common denominator (and won’t even be able to incorporate others’ ideas, because this mess of a law doesn’t apply to any of their hardware competitors like Samsung). 500 Apple engineers have already been deployed to implement this, I’d prefer it if they were working on fixing bugs and coming up with new features that benefit the vast majority of Apple’s customers rather having to implement OS design by bureaucrats who think mandatory cookie popups and browser choice screens are acceptable user experiences and are great contributions to society.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

In the EU there’s a slightly higher priority for society’s needs than for the needs of private businesses compared to the aggressively pro business and anti-consumer approach we see in the U.S.:

Once a few players within tech sell and profit off of most software and hardware sales within the EU they have to be partially “broken down”.

This is done to increase competition in the tech market(s) which results in fairer conditions for smaller and less successful players to compete with the biggest players in the market(s).

If the EU doesn’t regulate giant corporations to some extent they will eventually become so powerful and dominant that they have no competition in the markets where they operate.

You and the shareholders can cry about this till the cows come home.

But this is just how the EU wants to run its economy.

If Apple prioritized something other than profits then obviously they wouldn’t be forced to comply with these laws as they would have just left the EU a decade ago.

And this notion that the EU is bad and Apple innocent and altruistic is nonsense: Apple needs EU money more than the EU needs Apple. That’s why this news story keeps popping up again and again.

Apple isn’t providing electricity, gas, building roads, supplying trains, modernizing cities, making weapons for war, digitizing government infrastructure, etc.

Apple is just a consumer electronics manufacturer with more than a handful competitors that largely create the same kinds of products.

Apple’s trillions in profits and brand recognition doesn’t make its products vital to businesses or private citizens in the EU.

Apple makes World class products. But so do plenty of other companies.

 

[surferfb]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, @ApplesAreSweet&Sour. But just because the EU has the right to do something, which they absolutely do, doesn't mean that it is the correct thing to do, or that however well intentioned it is, that it won't actually result in consumer harm in the long run. But if Apple is going to continue to sell in the EU (which I think they should) then they need to follow the laws, however bad or misguided they are.

I would just ask that those defending the EU never complain about missing features, bugs, etc. ever again. Because you're literally asking for them.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I just think that the average EU politician/citizen must be like culturally predisposed to need monarchs or dictators to decree how the world works. I mean their history kind of backs that up. Anything some politician on the EU orders is just good. “There is no acceptable reason that iOS and Android are not the same, and we decree that they will be!”

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm not sure how concerned I am about Apple "no longer innovating if they can't lock things down or design things so they have a competitive advantage"

They've had that advantage just fine for that last many years and Tim has continually homogenized everything down to a place I no longer love as I once did.

tldr -- they've already stopped innovating too much.

I'd argue they need to be shaken up and forced to truly compete on offerings without the ability to rig the game. The watch is a great example. I'd expected so much more innovation in that space and Apple just "stopped" for the most part.

 

[darngooddesign]

It's fine if you think Jobs was merely a good artist. I still think he's a great artist and does the things great artists do.

Irrelevant goal post moving and not at all what I said. You said he stole the quote and I proved that he didn't because he fully attributed it to Picasso.

 

[vantelimus]

That’s the thing isn’t it. Your choice would remain the same. Mine would be expanded. iOS would have a richer ecosystem, or you could just remain with Apple only products if you wished.

No, my choice is the ecosystem as it exists. I like having all my devices securely integrated, sharing my private information and security secrets without having to worry about compromise. I like having the full Apple experience. I don’t want Apple to compromise my experience because to otherwise keep it, it would have to open APIs and share secrets with 3rd party apps and devices that could compromise my security and privacy. I like having a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.

All your talk of capitalism and you don’t even want to follow the paradigm.

Really, how so? I’m not the one who is approaching this argument with a “socialist mentality”.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Why did no one come up with a better way to pair Bluetooth devices until Apple did with AirPods? And why should Apple’s reward for that be “give it to competitors,

How are they using Bluetooth in the first place?

Everyone gains from others technology, even Apple.

Incidentally Bluetooth originated in Europe too.

 

[obviouslogic]

Boo hoo. Large company doesn't like regulations that hurts their bottom line and benefits consumers.

What else is new?

While the EU is far from perfect, most of their regulations are well-meaning.

No. It benefits competing platform consumers, not Apple’s customers. Apple customers are perfectly happy with how Apple’s ecosystem works, that’s one of the reasons they CHOSE to buy an Apple product. The real issue have with their definition of “gatekeeper” is that it is based off revenue - a dollar amount, rather than a market share figure.

 

[duffman9000]

Basic functionality is in the eye of the beholder. Sending messages from a phone to a watch isn’t basic functionality, nor is filtering those messages. The first connected digital watch came out in 1982, the Seiko Data 2000. It took 30 years before digital watches started integrating with smart phones and for those watches to have messaging systems. I would hardly call that basic. Another thing I would call not basic is having my messages private and securely kept out of the hands of third parties. I’m happy that Apple’s ecosystem provides that feature. I’m also happy to pay a premium for it. I’m happy to not have to worry about 3rd-party apps socially engineering me in to letting it have access to an EU mandated API.

It’s so basic that other modern phones provide that basic functionality.

Some people here have been jailed so long they’ve learned to love the jail.

 

[cupcakes2000]

it would have to open APIs and share secrets with 3rd party apps and devices that could compromise my security and privacy.

Apple has already 100’s of APIs for all sorts of stuff. Don’t worry, everything will be ok.

 

[vantelimus]

Don’t worry, everything will be ok.

Please pardon me if I don’t take the word of a random person on the internet. You’ve said nothing to inspire my trust in your judgment. I trust you feel likewise.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Please pardon me if I don’t take the word of a random person on the internet. You’ve said nothing to inspire my trust in your judgment. I trust you feel likewise.

Likewise. I assume you trust the judgment of Apple to code the API’s so they allow access securely though.

 

[Big_D]

Well, it is bad for Apple's profits, but that is about it... If a user has more flexibility in the products they can use with their Apple devices and those devices work more reliably, more fully featured and more smoothly, I don't see how that is bad for users?

 

[Big_D]

Can't believe there are still people out there that will defend greedy corporations that do nothing for innovation, and are all about milking the consumers. I've said it many times, the real problem in any industry, are blind loyalists. They are the ones that truly slow down innovation, because they allow these greedy corporations to bring out one minor update to every "new" product that's introduced. Zero criticism to their dear leader, for doing this. So these greedy corporations keep putting out one minor update after the next, with no worry for push back or losing their customer, because they know they have blind loyalists. In China, competition is fierce with a customer base that only cares about value. That's why you see tech products that keep offering more and more for the money. Same with their electric cars. If they came to North America, the car industry would take a beating.

Paul Thurrott often has to defend himself from "fan boys" who say he is betraying Microsoft is some way when he criticizes them. He says, that because he is a huge fan of Windows, it is his duty to point out when they get something wrong.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don't see how that is bad for users?

It's really not

There are some concerns about Apple losing its motivation to innovate, but I'd argue that's besides the point and something they've largely stopped doing already, on their own, due to Tim and his services revenue push.

 

[surferfb]

It's really not

There are some concerns about Apple losing its motivation to innovate, but I'd argue that's besides the point and something they've largely stopped doing already, on their own, due to Tim and his services revenue push.

Do you not think things like iPhone Mirroring, the improved bluetooth pairing, continuity features, etc. are not innovations? These are the things that make using the Apple ecosystem so much nicer than the competition, and are the types small innovations I fear that are most likely to stop being developed if the EU isn't pushed back on.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Do you not think things like iPhone Mirroring, the improved bluetooth pairing, continuity features, etc. are not innovations? These are the things that make using the Apple ecosystem so much nicer than the competition, and are the types small innovations I fear that are most likely to stop being developed if the EU isn't pushed back on.

I don't agree with the notion that making things more interoperable will make them worse.

It may require more work, but that's ok to demand from companies (in my view).

Even if things were as interoperable as the day is long, I personally would still choose many Apple things because I prefer various aspects of the offering that have nothing to do with feature exclusivity.

Hardware design and features, as well as many aspects of software design choice remain areas of ample room for innovation, competition and differentiation. (just a couple examples off the top of my head)

On the flip side of choice...

Something like my AirPods Max, I want to be choosing because the design choices and sound quality they made stand out in a particular way -- not because "only the APMs do seamless bluetooth handoff".

That's one of the only reasons I have my APMs --- they aren't the best on pricing or weight, or sound quality or most anything else ... but they do tether to my Apple TV in a way nothing else is allowed to.

That's not good for me or any other consumer -- it's good for Apple.

I'm a consumer -- I care about what's good for me

 

[It’s always something]

I just think that the average EU politician/citizen must be like evolutionarily predisposed to need monarchs or dictators to decree how the world works. I mean their history kind of backs that up. Anything some politician on the EU orders is just good.

Yes, there’s nothing like that in the USA in 2025… 🙄🧐