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

[cupcakes2000]

Again, not only do I have zero problem with the owner of the operating system deliberately giving its products access to software features it developed, I think that is how the system SHOULD work. They should be rewarded for developing a great operating system and features that make its products work together. What you see as an issue, I see as the system working. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

It’s just not the spirit of computing systems. It’s only come about since the iOS/Android two OS system. It’s only come about because they wish to control the market.

If you don't see how giving away innovations for free discourages innovation, I don't know what to tell you.

It’s not giving any innovations away. It’s enabling other companies to compete with this amazing pocket computer we all love. Opening up the system to allow competition will create competition. I don’t know what to tell you if you don’t realise that innovation precisely comes from healthy competition.

 

[Stuwil]

Again, not only do I have zero problem with the owner of the operating system deliberately giving its products access to software features it developed, I think that is how the system SHOULD work. They should be rewarded for developing a great operating system and features that make its products work together. What you see as an issue, I see as the system working. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

Yes but again you can’t have it two ways
If you’re the owner of the operating system then that’s fine
However the problem is when you release headphones like AirPods that have additional software features to help it connect with the OS & other integration throughout the OS then that’s the problem.
Because that’s not about quality of product or sound quality
That’s about giving your product an unfair advantage over the competition

 

[turbineseaplane]

Again, not only do I have zero problem with the owner of the operating system deliberately giving its products access to software features it developed, I think that is how the system SHOULD work. They should be rewarded for developing a great operating system and features that make its products work together, and their competitors shouldn't be rewarded for sitting on their hands for decades and then reaping the rewards of someone actually caring to fix a problem they couldn't bother to.

Where does that logically end though?

What if both OS options (we really only have two, as we all know -- android and iOS) limited connectivity, or just severely limited functionality of non 1st party options to bare bones basic connection, to their own branded earbuds (just picking a random example)

Surely you'd not defend that as ok and certainly not "good" (especially for consumers, who'd functionally have to choose and use only Google or Apple phones and accessories) -- right?

It just feels like this is ultimately leading to defending a position of "full lockdown is just fine" and the consumer will have very little recourse and accessory companies basically can't exist, as they'd have to make an OS and Phone hardware and somehow get everyone to switch and developers to add support?

Nobody wants to live like this, or in a world that skews towards corporate interest to this degree.

 

[surferfb]

Yes but again you can’t have it two ways
If you’re the owner of the operating system then that’s fine
However the problem is when you release headphones like AirPods that have additional software features to help it connect with the OS & other integration throughout the OS then that’s the problem.
Because that’s not about quality of product or sound quality
That’s about giving your product an unfair advantage over the competition

We're arguing in circles, so I'm going to stop after this reply. In my opinion you are wrong. You should be able to have it both ways. Apple shouldn't be prevented from creating features that work better on its own devices. The fact that it does that is why I prefer Apple products, and I am worried that Apple will stop creating features like that because there is no ROI in it anymore.

It's not unfair advantage. Advantage, yes. But absolutely fair and earned. What's unfair is the government giving that feature away to Apples competitors.

 

[Stuwil]

We're arguing in circles, so I'm going to stop after this reply. In my opinion you are wrong. You should be able to have it both ways. Apple shouldn't be prevented from creating features that work better on its own devices. The fact that it does that is why I prefer Apple products, and I am worried that Apple will stop creating features like that because there is no ROI in it anymore.

It's not unfair advantage. Advantage, yes. But absolutely fair and earned. What's unfair is the government giving that feature away to Apples competitors.

Hence the issue
YOU prefer Apple products because of the seamless integration with the OS
So that ultimately means that other companies are at a disadvantage right from the start

 

[surferfb]

Where does that logically end though?

What if both OS options (we really only have two, as we all know -- android and iOS) limited connectivity, or just severely limited functionality of non 1st party options to bare bones basic connection, to their own branded earbuds (just picking a random example)

Surely you'd not defend that as ok and certainly not "good" (especially for consumers, who'd functionally have to choose and use only Google or Apple phones and accessories) -- right?

Bose headphones sell like gangbusters despite the lack of the nice pairing. It's a minor feature. I literally have Bose headphones on my ears as I'm typing this on my Mac. Bose isn't prevented from competing with Apple because the pairing is worse.

And Android is open. If Android was a closed ecosystem I'd have a lot more sympathy for the arguments here, and for EU intervention, but it's not. Meta complains all the time that Apple is preventing them from making an amazing Meta Sunglasses experience. Then why haven't they done so for Android? Make an absolutely crazy awesome experience and show all of us Apple lovers what we're missing! Make Apple sweat! But instead they just complain and complain and are trying to get the EU to force Apple to do its work for them for free.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Bose headphones sell like gangbusters despite the lack of the nice pairing. It's a minor feature. I literally have Bose headphones on my ears as I'm typing this on my Mac. Bose isn't prevented from competing with Apple because the pairing is worse.

Right, but what I was saying your staking out a position that could very easily be used as is to advocate for no connections to 3rd party (via BT) at all --- perhaps a new protocol Apple "cooks up" (Tim Cook pun intended) just for this purpose.

Would we be ok with that as the only option to connect earbuds in the future?

What if Google then copied it ...

Are we ok with that?
Is that good for consumers?

tldr -- Is your position that it'd be ok if Apple wants to not allow any wireless connections beyond "AWP" (Apple Wireless Protocol I just made up) and Apple user can use no earbuds with their iPhone or Mac other than Apple ones (or ones paying the AWP fee to Apple if a program is offered by Apple)


Remember this question is specifically being asked in the context of consumers having basically only 2 OS choices. The "go to the platform" argument doesn't help here.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Ultimately, we are all consumers

I just have no idea why we're afraid to STRONGLY advocate for our own interests on the basis of hypothetical concern about what might happen to innovation (impacts which are extremely difficult to predict accurately)

Apple has been largely left to its own as all this regulation is very new or still proposed ... and they have barely been innovating at all, unless one means Tim Cooks financial engineering innovations.

It seems odd to think it would somehow get worse than it currently is.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To evenly compete with AirPods, Apple would have to give them the H2 chip. Are you suggesting this?

Apple can sell them the chips, if they so desire.
They don’t have to, obviously.

The H2 chip contains lots of proprietary sound processing that Apple can leverage to their advantage.

I strongly and firmly believe regulations like the DMA will result in worse products with fewer features.

How so?

If other headphones can pair (and “roam” between devices) as seamlessly as AirPods, that objectively result in better products.

Apple being able to lock out third-party manufacturers out of such connectivity, Apple’s ability to make other manufacturers’ Bluetooth connections seem inferior does not result in better products. Particularly not when Apple can rest on their connectivity laurels and deliver sub-par audio quality.

If customers have to choose between

1. EITHER the best audio quality, most likely devliered by a third-party headphone (not Apple’s)
2. OR the most convenient pairing and reliable connectivity (that only Apple are able to provide)

👉 that does not result in better products. It results in worse products.

Better products will be available when both manufacturers can deliver both: the best pairing and best sound quality.

Bose headphones sell like gangbusters despite the lack of the nice pairing

So do Apple AirPods - despite their inferior noise cancelling.

👉 And that makes Apple’s ROI and headphone business viable.

 

[surferfb]

Right, but what I was saying your staking out a position that could very easily be used as is to advocate for no connections to 3rd party (via BT) at all --- perhaps a new protocol Apple "cooks up" (Tim Cook pun intended) just for this purpose.

Would we be ok with that as the only option to connect earbuds in the future?

What if Google then copied it ...

Are we ok with that?

tldr -- Is your position that it'd be ok if Apple wants to not allow any wireless connections beyond "AWP" (Apple Wireless Protocol I just made up) and Apple user can use no earbuds with their iPhone or Mac other than Apple ones (or ones paying the AWP fee to Apple if a program is offered by Apple)

Yes it would be ok if Apple wanted to do that. I suspect the market would punish them greatly for it, but Apple should be allowed to shoot itself in the foot if it wants to. If Apple and Google both did it (and Google stopped letting hardware manufacturers include bluetooth connectivity somehow), then it would be appropriate for the government to come in and address it, because at that point consumers have been denied choice. If just Apple does it, consumers still have choice.

I'll add that if Apple were to do something like that, and government wanted to get involved, the correct way to do so would be "make Apple support the existing open standard (i.e., bluetooth) in addition to AWP" not "give Apple's competitors access to AWP for free."

 

[surferfb]

How so?

If innovations are given away for free there is no reason for companies to innovate. We had crappy bluetooth pairing for 20+ years before Apple went and fixed it. If Apple has to give that competitive advantage away do they spend the millions of dollars to make it work? Maybe. But then we're relying on companies to do things out of charity, which is not how things generally work with companies.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Yes it would be ok if Apple wanted to do that. I suspect the market would punish them greatly for it, but Apple should be allowed to shoot itself in the foot if it wants to. If Apple and Google both did it (and Google stopped letting hardware manufacturers include bluetooth connectivity somehow), then it would be appropriate for the government to come in and address it, because at that point consumers have been denied choice. If just Apple does it, consumers still have choice.

I'll add that if Apple were to do something like that, and government wanted to get involved, the correct way to do so would be "make Apple support the existing open standard (i.e., bluetooth) in addition to AWP" not "give Apple's competitors access to AWP for free."

Thing is, Apple wants people in their ecosystem - or it would be completely closed. They encourage it. They brag about it in fact. Then they release competitive products, which are then better than anyone else by default, even if they’re often clearly worse.

That’s a huge conflict of interest. Companies have been broken up for less.

They’re creating everything, inviting people to compete with one hand and then punishing them with the other. The third hand is sneaking round the back to grab the wallet. And so they get richer and richer and there’s nothing anyone can do. Except governments. They have put themselves into this position by pushing and pushing.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'll add that if Apple were to do something like that, and government wanted to get involved, the correct way to do so would be "make Apple support the existing open standard (i.e., bluetooth) in addition to AWP" not "give Apple's competitors access to AWP for free."

What if there is no open standard or the one that exists is extremely outdated?

 

[surferfb]

Thing is, Apple wants people in their ecosystem - or it would be completely closed. They encourage it. They brag about it in fact. Then they release competitive products, which are then better than anyone else by default, even if they’re often clearly worse.

That’s a huge conflict of interest. Companies have been broken up for less.

They’re creating everything, inviting people to compete with one hand and then punishing them with the other. The third hand is sneaking round the back to grab the wallet. And so they get richer and richer and there’s nothing anyone can do. Except governments. They have put themselves into this position by pushing and pushing.

Yeah I just disagree with this entirely. But that's fine - agree to disagree. The EU doesn't care what I think anyway. Hopefully I'm wrong that it will chill innovation.

 

[cupcakes2000]

If innovations are given away for free there is no reason for companies to innovate. We had crappy bluetooth pairing for 20+ years before Apple went and fixed it. If Apple has to give that competitive advantage away do they spend the millions of dollars to make it work? Maybe. But then we're relying on companies to do things out of charity, which is not how things generally work with companies.

Using your own analogy- if Apple couldn’t use bt in the first place they couldn’t have made it better.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If innovations are given away for free there is no reason for companies to innovate.

Giving away innovations for free makes product differentiation harder and provides a more level playing field.

Which encourages companies to innovate.

despite the lack of the nice pairing. It's a minor feature

If it’s only a “minor feature”, that leaves ample room for Apple to innovate and improve on more “major” features.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If innovations are given away for free there is no reason for companies to innovate. We had crappy bluetooth pairing for 20+ years before Apple went and fixed it. If Apple has to give that competitive advantage away do they spend the millions of dollars to make it work? Maybe. But then we're relying on companies to do things out of charity, which is not how things generally work with companies.

I think it would be a better argument to say they get exclusivity for a while (a short while for tech), along the lines of copyright or patents

Again, it’s not in the actual interest of civilization and real human beings to defer to corporate interests so thoroughly

Innovation completely stalls if exclusivity, over dominance or monopolization of markets or technologies is allowed beyond certain points.

Think of where innovation in technology in the United States would be right now if we didn’t allow firms to acquire one another so readily and enforced antitrust strongly!

 

[surferfb]

What if there is no open standard or the one that exists is extremely outdated?

Then Apple is solving a problem that it should be allowed to profit from for solving.

Using your own analogy- if Apple couldn’t use bt in the first place they couldn’t have made it better.

Agree 100% And if the makers of Bluetooth wanted to keep that exclusive, or require companies to license it, then they should be allowed to do so. If they want to make it an open standard they should also be allowed to do so. My issue isn't with things being open, it's forcing companies to do so when they don't want to. I have no issue with Apple releasing an API for this under their own volition (I in fact welcome it!) I just strongly believe it should be Apple's decision, not the EU's

I think it would be a better argument to say they get exclusivity for a while (a short while for tech), along the lines of copyright or patents

I said something similar upthread that something like that would be a legitimate compromise - and would do a lot to soothe my fears about innovation being chilled. But the way the DMA is written, Apple has to give stuff away immediately, which I (obviously) think is outrageous.

Giving away innovations for free makes product differentiation harder and provides a more level playing field.

Which encourages companies to innovate.

No it doesn't. Unless what you're saying is it's ok for other companies to innovate but not Apple. Which is wrong, and will leave us with crappy bluetooth pairing because no one else bothers to fix it.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I just strongly believe it should be Apple's decision, not the EU's

So do I. Unless they’re unfit to make it. And they’re unfit to make it. That’s when governments should step in, as they’re the only ones able to stop such practices. But, we don’t agree and that’s fine 👍

 

[turbineseaplane]

Then Apple is solving a problem that it should be allowed to profit from for solving.

Agreed as long as it’s a pretty short timeline of anything fully exclusive

Ultimately these rules need to favor normal citizenry above all else

That’s the whole point of society here

 

[surferfb]

Agreed as long as it’s a pretty short timeline of anything fully exclusive

Ultimately these rules need to favor normal citizenry above all else

That’s the whole point of society here

I was going to edit to add this, but you beat me to reply, so I'll add it here.

What I am afraid of, is regulations like this that say "if Apple solves the problem, they have to solve it for all of their competitors too" means that Apple is going to have to really want to solve the problem to justify spending time and money to do so, because they're essentially subsidizing their competitors R&D budgets every time they do. I am worried is that the result means that Apple looks at certain problems and says "you know what, the status quo is good enough."

Take iPhone Mirroring for example. I use that feature literally every day. It's one of the ones that "surprises and delights" if you will. But obviously something about it runs afoul of the DMA, and so it's not offered in the EU. If a DMA-type law is applied worldwide, does Apple bother making it? Are we already missing features that aren't worth the effort to fork the codebase over that we'd have if the DMA wasn't in effect? Obviously I don't know the answer to that question, but as someone with more than a passing familiarity with how businesses operate (although to be clear, not businesses the size and complexity of Apple), I could very much see the answer being "absolutely".

 

[darngooddesign]

It’s not about the H2 chip
It’s about Apple owning the operating system so they are deliberately giving their products software advantages over the competition
So that in turn gives them an unfair advantage when selling said products

It is about the H2. If Apple can be compelled to give everyone software parity, they can be compelled to give everyone access to H2s so there is hardware parity.

 

[deevey]

It’s not the same thing. Bose doesn’t limit functionality so it only works with Bose systems. Bose doesn’t control half of the market that most people listen to at least some of their music on.

Probably not the best company to compare with given their history with proprietary products.

 

[Abazigal]

Giving away innovations for free makes product differentiation harder and provides a more level playing field.

Which encourages companies to innovate.

So they can proceed to then give away those innovations for free subsequently?

 

[Naraxus]

What Europe doesn’t like: unrestricted and unregulated monopolisation. The dominance of big American tech companies is not rooted in innovation - it’s rooted in monopolisation.

Except as has been explained ad nauseum, Apple has no monopoly despite the EU's attempts to redefine the word.