It’s not about chips or hardware
It comes down to giving themselves a deliberate advantage over the competition when selling these products
That ultimately no 3rd party can compete with
Because they are the owners of the operating system
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 Says New EU Interoperability Rules 'Bad for Our Products and Our Users'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It comes down to giving themselves a deliberate advantage over the competition when selling these products
That ultimately no 3rd party can compete with
Because they are the owners of the operating system
It’s not about the H2. You framing it like that, in a hypothetical alarmist future is making it about the H2. Let’s stick with the facts of what’s happening.
It wasn’t my example I was responding to whomever used Bose to compare.
When it comes to iOS they kind of do
& that’s the point
They bring out products for iOS that deliberately work better because of software features that they only give their own products so that in turn gives them an unfair advantage over every other company regardless if a 3rd party product is actually better than apples
Right or wrong, the EU compelled Apple to change hardware to USB-C, so they can also compel Apple to share H2 hardware to guarantee their level playing field. This isnt a slipper slope fallacy because we have a hardware example.
Your confusing the situation
The EU mandatory made the change to usb c because they wanted all portable devices to use the same cable to cut down on e waste
This is about the owner of the operating system giving their products like AirPods special software that other companies don’t have access to
So then Apple are deliberately giving their products an unfair advantage over the competition because of said software.
It’s not to do with algorithms or hardware chips
Even if WirelessBudsX had the same iOS access, the H2 still enables software services, like improved pairing and seamless switching between devices, in AirPods. So to really guarantee parity, Apple would need to provide H2 chips to its competition.
The Apple‑designed H2 chip is the force behind the advanced audio performance of AirPods Pro 2, working with the driver and amplifier to create crisp, high-definition sound. It uses computational algorithms to deliver noise cancellation, superior three-dimensional sound and efficient battery life — all at once.
That’s nothing to do with seamless integration with iOS
Regardless of the situation Apple are deliberately giving their AirPods & watches an advantage over the competition by not offering the ability to connect with iOS the exact same as their devices.
So that in turn makes it anticompetitive because they are the owner of the OS
That’s nothing to do with seamless integration with iOS
Regardless of the situation Apple are deliberately giving their AirPods & watches an advantage over the competition by not offering the ability to connect with iOS the exact same as their devices.
So that in turn makes it anticompetitive because they are the owner of the OS
You could provide Apple engineering documentation proving H2 is required and it won’t matter; it’s a matter faith to these people that Apple is not allowed to ship anything other than a generic headphone.
They’re not allowed to differentiate on anything other than how the headphone looks because they committed the crime of developing an operating system that has 30% market share.
OMG
It’s not about market share
It’s about Apple owning the operating system
& then producing products for said operating systems
That gives them an advantage over the competition
Because if you have one product that can seamlessly integrate with the OS then consumers are more likely to be swayed be that option
That’s got nothing to do with innovation of the product that’s just software deliberately designed to give the Apple products an selling advantage
The market for Bluetooth headphones is literally every device that can connect to Bluetooth headphones. Saying headphone manufacturers are unable to compete because Apple makes hardware in one or two product categories is ridiculous.
If Bose is so unable to compete because of Apple, why does my all-Apple family exclusively use Bose headphones (all purchased after the introduction of AirPods) for all purposes except working out?
It’s not about you
The average consumer will factor iOS integration into their purchase
That’s the point
So for example if you purchase AirPods then when you lift the lid it automatically connects to the iPhone & there are things you can do within the operating system
That other competitors don’t have access to
Your point is that Apple should not be allowed to differentiate its accessory products on anything other than how the device looks, apparently because it designs OSes that those accessory products might conceivably connect to, and that’s “unfair”.
I think that will lead to worse products because Apple won’t have incentive to innovate if it has to give its innovations away for free. You disagree (or maybe think that’s an acceptable price to pay? Not sure which).
Honest question, which would you rather have:
- Apple gets to have nice pairing, but no one else does, or
- Nice pairing never gets invented in the first place?
I don’t know why you think apple will suddenly not invent things. It’s their phone it’s their os. They’re not suddenly going to give up on it because they lose exclusivity with their money spinning side gig. It’s still in their interest to invent things. They still predominantly will want to sell iPhones.
With headphones, whilst fast and instant pairing is nice, it’s explicitly about transferring between devices seamlessly.
That’s a nice touch, and it’s a software thing - it’s artificially restricted to Apples EarPods. There is no need to share secrets, or give up hardware, or be forced to give chipsets away as another poster is assuming. It’s software hooks so that all accessory makers can offer the same features if they developed the hardware to achieve it.
That’s just one example of many many things that Apple explicitly don’t allow which is harming competition.
They don’t even allow an app developer to advertise their own webpage on their own app - for fear the customer will be able to subscribe without Apple getting a cut. It’s absurd.
Last edited:
NO
That’s not what the EU are saying
What they are saying is your fine to make products for said device
However companies should have access to the software that allows it to seamlessly integrate with iOS because then it’s a level playing field
So then it comes down to how good the actual product is and nothing else
In regards to innovation comment
If Apple’s products are that much better than other companies products then people will still buy them anyway.
That’s exactly what they’re saying. Just because you think the ends justify the means doesn’t change that fact.
It’s not “leveling the playing field.” It’s giving Apple’s competition an unfair advantage by forcing Apple to subsidize their competitors’ R&D budgets.
A large part of how good the product is software and integration. You’re taking one of Apple’s largest strengths and saying “you’re too good at what you do so we’re giving you a handicap”. I thinks that’s borderline socialist nonsense and that mindset makes it abundantly clear why Europe has fallen so far behind.
That wasn’t the question. Which would you rather have?
You keep saying this. But how?! It’s simply allowing another company to use the software how it’s intended. they’re not giving any r&d away. How do you reach that conclusion? APIs are a thing in any os, including apples. It’s got nothing to do with anything other than help software or hardware to work properly. At the moment it’s skewed entirely to Apple.
Because inventing things involves spending resources. If the feature is important enough, sure Apple will still release it, but if it’s borderline, maybe they say “not worth it”.
Look at iPhone mirroring. Not allowed in the EU. If laws like the DMA are in place worldwide, maybe a feature I use every day isn’t available - making my products worse.
And how is it that for over 20 years everyone thought Bluetooth pairing was fine, but as soon as Apple comes up with a better way - Apple is so anticompetitive for not sharing that idea with all of their competitors that the government has to come in and say “Not yours anymore - it belongs to society now”.
Apple should get rewarded for thinking up those “nice touches”, not punished.
I’ve long been against Apple’s anti steering provisions in apps, and am glad the DMA does away with it (stopped clock is right twice a day!).
Apple came up with the idea, Apple should be rewarded for it. Bose didn’t come up with the idea, despite a decades-long head start in the industry. They could have gone to the Bluetooth standard body, gone to Android or gone to Apple and said “this sucks, it can be better.” They could have invested their time and money and resources to do so. Or partnered with Microsoft or Google.
But they didn’t. So, they shouldn’t get it for free over Apple’s objections. If Apple wants to make an API for it or open source it, that should be Apple’s choice. But it shouldn’t be some bureaucrat’s decision.
I don’t think this is the right place to debate the pro’s & cons of socialism.
So let me get this correct your argument is that because Apple are the owner of the operating system then they have a right to develop software with allows their products to seamlessly integrate with the OS & give their products the advantage over competitors products
And no other company is allowed access to that because Apple designed it.
And you don’t see why there is a problem with that?
Not only do I not see a problem with that, I think that’s how it should work!
I certainly understand why Apples competitors have a problem with it, and that if taken to extremes, government intervention might be necessary. But Android has 70% market share, so it’s clearly not hurting competition. And I have zero problem with the market participant that has 30% share working to give itself advantages. That’s how capitalism works.
Apple haven’t invented screen mirroring though. There are plenty of pc and Android apps which enable it. It’s just Apple are the only ones allowed to do it on their own OS’. I don’t care either way about iPhone mirroring - I use it but whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that iOS and even macOS aren’t vacuum cleaners, or TV’s, they’re operating systems for computers and smartphones where a big majority of people live their life. They’re so prevalent that it’s almost impossible in some countries to live without one. Digital infrastructure is based around one.
It’s not a case of “use the other one”. it’s not a case of “it should be up to Apple, they invented it”. It’s too big. There are two. Percentage and market share don’t matter - what matters is that users, businesses and makers all have the same opportunities to profit as the makers of the os or the device. They don’t need to give secrets or any of the other assumptions people are making - they just need to stop giving themselves a leg up to sell their stuff over everyone else. It’s illegal, and there are many many cases of similar situations across the world, including the US, where monopoly behaviour (I know I know - but nonetheless it IS monopolistic behaviour, whether it’s a monopoly or not), or other similar utter control of a market has resulted in companies being broken up.
I just fundamentally disagree that the fact that a much more popular alternative exists doesn’t matter. Consumers have choice. If Android was as locked down as Apple is, I’d agree with you. But it’s not, and it’s significantly more popular.
Just because you don’t want to use Android doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or consumers don’t have choice.
I use Android (GrapheneOS), Linux (Qubes actually), Windows ( on dire occasion), macOS, iOS and iPadOS.
They absolutely have choice. They can choose another option.
In my opinion the bar for government intervention has to be really high. Life and safety, privacy and security. Stuff like that.
“The smartphone manufacturer with 30% market share makes its headphones work better than competitors’ headphones - but it still lets the competitors’ headphones work” doesn’t come within 10,000 miles of that bar.
Especially when the solution is what I see as (although understand you and others here disagree) outright theft of Apple’s intellectual property.
Last edited: