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

[cupcakes2000]

Especially when the solution is what I see as (although understand you and others here disagree) outright theft of Apple’s intellectual property.

again, and you’re of course entitled to your opinion, but how is it ‘theft’ ? Is it theft that Apple don’t allow, for example, instagram to offer payments for ads (ie businesses boosting content) without going through Apple? Is it theft from Apple to disallow Instagram to tell you it’s cheaper to do it via Instagram.com? Is it theft that instagram can only notify me it’s cheaper via email? Is it theft that Instagram adds apples 30% doing it via the app? I mean - I don’t like meta, it’s just a recent example I came across. Who is robbing who? All I know im the one paying the cost.

Sure it’s a different conversation- but it’s the same issue. Apple have a stranglehold over their os. Normally, who cares. But this isnt ‘normally’. This is a major and almost unavoidable caveat for the consumer. And your solution is that consumers buy a whole different ecosystem. Why? To save Apple from losing a tiny percentage of their massive massive profits?

I know, I should have thought of that before buying in. But the thing is is that people outside of places like here don’t ever consider this thing. They think - iPhone! Cool! I’ll get one. They spend thousands and realise that actually, in order to get the best out of it all, they need to spend much more than their neighbour who chose differently. Not only that but they’re ‘forced’ into paying Apple again and again. Competitors aren’t allowed to offer the same things, not due to the fact that their hardware (their own inventions) can’t do it. Not because Apple is ‘better’ - simply because they’re restricted from doing so.

Under any normal circumstances- there should be no need for gov intervention. But this is not normal. It’s not a computer, it’s pretty much a necessity for modern life. Sure, not really, but in many countries it’s akin to not having email and needing to send a letter instead.

It’s ok to not agree. But the stranglehold can’t be denied.

 

[Stuwil]

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.

But you are looking at it from the wrong perspective
They are the owners of the operating system & are deliberately giving themselves an advantage over 3rd parties
And that’s the problem now if Apple weren’t the owner then there would be no problem

 

[surferfb]

But you are looking at it from the wrong perspective
They are the owners of the operating system & are deliberately giving themselves an advantage over 3rd parties
And that’s the problem now if Apple weren’t the owner then there would be no problem

In my opinion you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective, and the only problem I see is a government taking away Apple’s innovations and handing them out to their competitors.

We’re never going to agree on this and that’s fine. The EU agrees with you, so you won - be happy. Hopefully I’m wrong that it will discourage innovation. Due to the nature of things I’ll almost certainly never be able to point to a feature that doesn’t exist and say “see, we’d have that otherwise, you should have listened to me”.

 

[Stuwil]

In my opinion you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective, and the only problem I see is a government taking away Apple’s innovations and handing them out to their competitors.

We’re never going to agree on this and that’s fine. The EU agrees with you, so you won - be happy. Hopefully I’m wrong that it will discourage innovation. Due to the nature of things I’ll almost certainly never be able to point to a feature that doesn’t exist and say “see, we’d have that otherwise, you should have listened to me”.

Final point
If as you say the EU are taking away Apple’s innovations to then allow 3rd parties access to them.

Then does that not actually make the point in that they have deliberately giving themselves an advantage over the competition by designing specific software that only there products can have so it integrates better with the OS because they own said software
So that in turn means they will have an advantage over the competition
So then that’s why it’s a problem
Because you could make a better product than Apple’s but because your headphones has less software integration then your less likely to purchase that compared with Apple’s that do all these things

 

[surferfb]

again, and you’re of course entitled to your opinion, but how is it ‘theft’ ? Is it theft that Apple don’t allow, for example, instagram to offer payments for ads (ie businesses boosting content) without going through Apple? Is it theft from Apple to disallow Instagram to tell you it’s cheaper to do it via Instagram.com? Is it theft that instagram can only notify me it’s cheaper via email? Is it theft that Instagram adds apples 30% doing it via the app? I mean - I don’t like meta, it’s just a recent example I came across. Who is robbing who? All I know im the one paying the cost.

No. None of that is theft. Intellectual property is not being taken away from Instagram in these instances.

It would be theft if the EU said “because Meta is a gatekeeper, they have to provide the Apple with the ability to run Apple Music on their sunglasses” - even if that’s something that I personally would prefer (not that I’m ever buying Meta sunglasses, but you know).

Sure it’s a different conversation- but it’s the same issue. Apple have a stranglehold over their os. Normally, who cares. But this isnt ‘normally’. This is a major and almost unavoidable caveat for the consumer. And your solution is that consumers buy a whole different ecosystem. Why? To save Apple from losing a tiny percentage of their massive massive profits?

The “why” is because I think property rights matter, even if Apple is a large, powerful company. They should be able to differentiate their products by taking advantage of their unique skillset. Just because they were successful in one area doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to take advantage of that success to parlay it into success in other areas.

I know, I should have thought of that before buying in. But the thing is is that people outside of places like here don’t ever consider this thing. They think - iPhone! Cool! I’ll get one. They spend thousands and realise that actually, in order to get the best out of it all, they need to spend much more than their neighbour who chose differently. Not only that but they’re ‘forced’ into paying Apple again and again.

They’re not forced into paying Apple anything. And if they decide their neighbor is getting more for cheaper, the next time they need a new phone they’ll buy an Android.

Competitors aren’t allowed to offer the same things, not due to the fact that their hardware (their own inventions) can’t do it. Not because Apple is ‘better’ - simply because they’re restricted from doing so.

They are able to offer the same things on other platforms. And if they want to use Apple’s property (iOS and associated APIs), then they need to abide by that platform’s rules. Maybe you think that’s not “fair”, but it’s how property rights work.

If I want to sell my product in the mall closest to me, I need to lease space from the mall’s owner. I don’t get to say I “deserve” access to the mall’s customers so they have to let me open a store for free. And if I do lease the store, I still have to follow the owner’s rules.

(Yes, I know you’re going to say you can open a store elsewhere and not the follow mall’s rules - which is exactly my point.)

Under any normal circumstances- there should be no need for gov intervention. But this is not normal. It’s not a computer, it’s pretty much a necessity for modern life. Sure, not really, but in many countries it’s akin to not having email and needing to send a letter instead.

It’s ok to not agree. But the stranglehold can’t be denied.

I agree that Apple has strict and strong control over its devices and its stores. I understand why that upsets developers and people like the Pebble watch guy. But in my opinion that’s not justification for what the EU is doing with the DMA.

Open up the App Store? I disagree with that but honestly don’t think it’s worth getting worked up over. Require apps to have the ability to advertise lower prices in app? More power to you!

But “you have to give competitors equal access to your innovations the second you give it to yourself”? That’s (in my opinion), obscene.

And I’m clearly wired differently than lots of you, because obviously not only do lots of you think it’s not obscene, but in fact that it’s good that the EU is doing it. And I’m sure you’re all really good people who honestly think the DMA is going to make things better for everyone.

And that fine. We’re not going to agree.

 

[surferfb]

Then does that not actually make the point in that they have deliberately giving themselves an advantage over the competition by designing specific software that only there products can have so it integrates better with the OS because they own said software
So that in turn means they will have an advantage over the competition

Yes - I think that’s perfectly fine for Apple to do. That’s part of their reward for making great products and having really smart engineers and product people.

So then that’s why it’s a problem
Because you could make a better product than Apple’s but because your headphones has less software integration then your less likely to purchase that compared with Apple’s that do all these things

I think consumers are perfectly capable of understanding and making trade offs. People consider multiple factors - comfort, sound quality, noise cancelation, and yes integration. I actually suspect integration is pretty far down the list.

If Bose’s noise cancellation blows everyone else’s out of the water, is it “not fair” to other headphone makers that Bose doesn’t share that? I mean; noise cancellation is just software, and you could make a headphone that is overall is better and cheaper than Bose but still lose “only” because Bose only made its noise cancellation work for its products and didn’t share it with their competitors. Isn’t Bose giving itself an advantage over the competition?

Why should software integration with iOS be any different than sound quality, or noise cancelation or comfort? Consumers weigh all the options and pick what matters most to them. For the 70% of consumers that pick Android in the EU, iOS integration presumably doesn’t impact their purchasing decisions one iota.

If Apple created a great noise cancellation algorithm that, for whatever reason, had to run on the phoneOS and not the headphones for it to work - right now in the EU Apple would be required to give access to that functionality to literally every headphone maker. How on earth is that fair? And do we really think Apple releases it if they have to give it to Bose, Samsung, and the makers of cheap headphones all over the world?

 

[Stuwil]

Yes - I think that’s perfectly fine for Apple to do. That’s part of their reward for making great products and having really smart engineers and product people.


I think consumers are perfectly capable of understanding and making trade offs. People consider multiple factors - comfort, sound quality, noise cancelation, and yes integration. I actually suspect integration is pretty far down the list.

If Bose’s noise cancellation blows everyone else’s out of the water, is it “not fair” to other headphone makers that Bose doesn’t share that? I mean; noise cancellation is just software, and you could make a headphone that is overall is better and cheaper than Bose but still lose “only” because Bose only made its noise cancellation work for its products and didn’t share it with their competitors. Isn’t Bose giving itself an advantage over the competition?

Why should software integration with iOS be any different than sound quality, or noise cancelation or comfort? Consumers weigh all the options and pick what matters most to them. For the 70% of consumers that pick Android in the EU, iOS integration presumably doesn’t impact their purchasing decisions one iota.

If Apple created a great noise cancellation algorithm that, for whatever reason, had to run on the phoneOS and not the headphones for it to work - right now in the EU Apple would be required to give access to that functionality to literally every headphone maker. How on earth is that fair? And do we really think Apple releases it if they have to give it to Bose, Samsung, and the makers of cheap headphones all over the world?

Because there is a fundamental difference between algorithms for noise cancellation & deliberately writing software for your products to have seamless integration with the OS that you own.

It doesn’t matter how you dress it up
This is ultimately about Apple giving their products an unfair advantage over the competition like this company A could make an amazing product yet it’s very clunky connecting to iOS & doesn’t have software integration. Yet company’s B product has a good product but has seamless integration & additional software features within the OS
Then the majority of people will go for company B for convenience.
That’s the rub of the argument here

It’s not about 70% pick android your confusing the issue to suit your argument
It comes down to having only 2 mobile OS
One being iOS now Apple own said product but also sell products for it that compete with other companies like headphones right
However the owner of the OS has given their own products software that allow it to connect with iOS seamlessly
Yet their competitors are not allowed access to said software because then that would take away Apple’s unfair advantage over the competition.

Basically in a roundabout way Apple are giving the impression that they want 3rd parties to make headphones for said product but they don’t really

 

[cupcakes2000]

But “you have to give competitors equal access to your innovations the second you give it to yourself”? That’s (in my opinion), obscene.

Does it say that, though? Or does it say ‘you have to give competitors equal access to your OS’?

It says nothing about giving away innovations. It says nothing about sharing hardware secrets, innovative or not. It says nothing about giving away any kind of property, intellectual or hardware.

It simply says stop giving yourself the edge with OS interpolation.

Sure - that’s a bitch for Apple. No doubt. But it’s also unfair for Apple to control everything about the ecosystem, invite other competitors into that ecosystem, but then not actually allow the same access as themselves - therefore favouring their own secondary or tertiary business ventures.

 

[hanske68]

Apple, quit whining. Start being reasonable.

Apple acts as if they own all devices and users should be grateful to be allowed to use them (somehow this makes me think about Zelensky in the oval office).Apple, if you do, then provide the devices for free with limitations. If not, respect that the user should be able to control its device any way he or she wants.

As a developer, I am hardly allowed to access my own data on my own mac any more. Ridiculous.

 

[Stuwil]

Does it say that, though? Or does it say ‘you have to give competitors equal access to your OS’?

It says nothing about giving away innovations. It says nothing about sharing hardware secrets, innovative or not. It says nothing about giving away any kind of property, intellectual or hardware.

It simply says stop giving yourself the edge with OS interpolation.

Sure - that’s a bitch for Apple. No doubt. But it’s also unfair for Apple to control everything about the ecosystem, invite other competitors into that ecosystem, but then not actually allow the same access as themselves - therefore favouring their own secondary or tertiary business ventures.

Exactly that’s my point exactly
It’s not about features like noise cancellation or chips
It’s about actual access to the OS

 

[surferfb]

Does it say that, though? Or does it say ‘you have to give competitors equal access to your OS’?

It does if the innovations are software-based and involve interacting with the phone. Like my “noise cancellation on device example.”

It says nothing about giving away innovations. It says nothing about sharing hardware secrets, innovative or not. It says nothing about giving away any kind of property, intellectual or hardware.

It simply says stop giving yourself the edge with OS interpolation.

Apple differentiates itself through software, including interactions. In my opinion telling Apple you can’t differentiate through software integration is like telling Bose you can’t differentiate using sound quality or noise cancellation.

Sure - that’s a bitch for Apple. No doubt. But it’s also unfair for Apple to control everything about the ecosystem, invite other competitors into that ecosystem, but then not actually allow the same access as themselves - therefore favouring their own secondary or tertiary business ventures.

Again, in my opinion that’s not unfair at all. Apple creates the device, they get to set the rules. A theme park gets to choose which brand of beverages it offers throughout the park. If they choose Coke, that’s not unfair - Pepsi doesn’t deserve access to the theme park’s customers just because Coke gets access.

 

[cupcakes2000]

It does if the innovations are software-based and involve interacting with the phone. Like my “noise cancellation on device example.”


Apple differentiates itself through software, including interactions. In my opinion telling Apple you can’t differentiate through software integration is like telling Bose you can’t differentiate using sound quality or noise cancellation.




Again, in my opinion that’s not unfair at all. Apple creates the device, they get to set the rules. A theme park gets to choose which brand of beverages it offers throughout the park. If they choose Coke, that’s not unfair - Pepsi doesn’t deserve access to the theme park’s customers just because Coke gets access.

Right. Well, we’re just about done here then. If you can’t see the difference between What apple is doing and whether a random theme park chooses Coke over Pepsi, then there is no point continuing with conversation. Good Luck with your woes in life, I wish you the best.

 

[Stuwil]

It does if the innovations are software-based and involve interacting with the phone. Like my “noise cancellation on device example.”


Apple differentiates itself through software, including interactions. In my opinion telling Apple you can’t differentiate through software integration is like telling Bose you can’t differentiate using sound quality or noise cancellation.




Again, in my opinion that’s not unfair at all. Apple creates the device, they get to set the rules. A theme park gets to choose which brand of beverages it offers throughout the park. If they choose Coke, that’s not unfair - Pepsi doesn’t deserve access to the theme park’s customers just because Coke gets access.

Again there is a difference
Because what Apple are doing is borderline monopolistic & they know this.
That is why for example they allow 3rd parties to offer products on their platform
Like headphones
So in turn that doesn’t make Apple a monopoly yet on the other hand
Apple products have a far superior experience in regards to the OS integration
Which is done deliberately as a selling point

In regards to your theme park analogy that’s different because it’s based on negotiation of price.

 

[surferfb]

We’re all just going around in circles and not going to change each other’s minds, so I’m disengaging on this thread. I’m sure I’ll see you all in the next thread on the topic. Hope everyone has a great Sunday!

 

[maxoakland]

The same reason it’d be wrong if the EU said it was legal for me to take your computer without paying you, or for Sony to make a Star Wars movie without paying Disney, or that Spotify has to let Apple use its music algorithm. It’s theft.

Do you apply the same logic to training AI on people’s intellectual property?

Is OpenAI committing massive theft? Is Apple partnering with a company that stole from millions of people?

 

[maxoakland]

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!”

You refuse to realize that the EU is *protecting* consumers. It’s making them *more* free and giving them more options

On the other hand, you’re advocating for the kind of corporate monarchy we have in America, where corporations are free to do whatever they want and the average person has to accept their rules just like peasants had to accept the rules that were handed down from lords and ladies of the Middle Ages

EU forcing Apple to open up their platforms increases freedom. It allows third parties to do things Apple won’t let them do. And it creates more competition which benefits consumers. More people will have more choices while Apple will still have tons of power and will be encouraged to innovate

Everyone wins, even Apple. They’re just throwing a tantrum

 

[aloyouis]

Privacy concerns didn’t stop Apple from having millions of users’ iCloud data hosted and (to the extent that they’re E2E encrypted) accessible by third-party companies.


…as does their developing and distributing iOS put them at a massive competitive advantage.


Now imagine Spotify spending millions, billions of dollars of developing their algorithm and licensing audio content - and then being unable to sell subscriptions through their own app - unless they’re forking over 30% of revenue to their biggest competitor. Puts Spotify at a massive competitive disadvantage.

I want fair competition on the market for music streaming services.
So does the European Union.

👉 If and when such services compete on a level playing field, I’ll gladly agree government need not (and should not) intervene with such complicated regulation as the DMA.

 

[panzer06]

That’s a silly position to have
We don’t like it so just pull out the EU
How about either don’t make headphones or watches for your operating system that gives you a direct advantage over the competition or you allow competitors access to said software & actually compete on a level playing field

My opinion. I don't care about interoperability. I don't want it. I prefer the all-Apple ecosystem. I don't like the government determining rules around competition. The market can decide that. I'd be fine if people stopped buying Apple products because they don't make more compatible products. That's the market deciding. That's not what the EU is doing, and I don't need or want the government mandating feature sets.

This is my worldview. I'm entitled to this opinion, and you are as free to offer your judgment as I am to dismiss it.

 

[4k78]

EU forcing Apple to open up their platforms increases freedom.

Absolutely Orwellian language.

 

[Stuwil]

My opinion. I don't care about interoperability. I don't want it. I prefer the all-Apple ecosystem. I don't like the government determining rules around competition. The market can decide that. I'd be fine if people stopped buying Apple products because they don't make more compatible products. That's the market deciding. That's not what the EU is doing, and I don't need or want the government mandating feature sets.

This is my worldview. I'm entitled to this opinion, and you are as free to offer your judgment as I am to dismiss it.

Again you have missed the point.

If Apple were a stand alone headphone company there would be no issue at all because then they would be developing their product for someone else’s OS.

The problem is because they are the owners of the OS so in that aspect they are giving their own products an advantage by developing software for it that no one else is allowed to have access to because they are the owners of the OS that’s the reason

 

[cupcakes2000]

Absolutely Orwellian language.

Is it? The US gov also regulates, as do most other governments. And what is the alternative then? Unfettered capitalism? Apple literally doing what it likes, rampaging across the world?

‘Markets’ can’t decide if there is a fundamental flaw: for example, the market being manipulated by the people that create the market.

 

[mrochester]

Is it? The US gov also regulates, as do most other governments. And what is the alternative then? Unfettered capitalism? Apple literally doing what it likes, rampaging across the world?

‘Markets’ can’t decide if there is a fundamental flaw: for example, the market being manipulated by the people that create the market.

Apple doesn’t and can’t rampage across the world. Apple’s power is entirely limited by the ability of people to pay for their products.

Unless all of Apple’s products are affordable to the entire population of the world, and the world chooses to buy them, they are self-regulating.

What we DO need to regulate are products that are not self-limiting in this way. Something like Google search is not self-limiting because it has no cost. Something like Android is not self-limiting because it has no cost.

These products are the ones that are rampaging across the world and do need to be regulated as a result.

A company with a large market share and expensive products/large margins = successful, highly competitive company. Doesn’t need to be regulated

A company with a larger market share and no cost products/large margins = hugely anti-competitive company. Needs regulating to prevent their ‘free’ products from dominating the market just by virtue of being free (better products that cost money are denied existence because the company giving away products for free has a huge advantage).

 

[Stuwil]

Apple doesn’t and can’t rampage across the world. Apple’s power is entirely limited by the ability of people to pay for their products.

Unless all of Apple’s products are affordable to the entire population of the world, and the world chooses to buy them, they are self-regulating.

What we DO need to regulate are products that are not self-limiting in this way. Something like Google search is not self-limiting because it has no cost. Something like Android is not self-limiting because it has no cost.

These products are the ones that are rampaging across the world and do need to be regulated as a result.

A company with a large market share and expensive products/large margins = successful, highly competitive company. Doesn’t need to be regulated

A company with a larger market share and no cost products/large margins = hugely anti-competitive company. Needs regulating to prevent their ‘free’ products from dominating the market just by virtue of being free (better products that cost money are denied existence because the company giving away products for free has a huge advantage).

It’s not about market share

It’s to do with Apple being the owner of the iOS & selling things like headphones
That have additional access to the operating system that no other company is allowed to have so that in turn then gives Apple an advantage over the competition because they are the owners of the operating system

It’s that simple

 

[mrochester]

It’s not about market share

It’s to do with Apple being the owner of the iOS & selling things like headphones
That have additional access to the operating system that no other company is allowed to have so that in turn then gives Apple an advantage over the competition because they are the owners of the operating system

It’s that simple

And that’s what we want. It forces other companies to innovate and bring new OSes to the market, which is desperately needing more competition.

The reason they don’t do that is because of Google.

And that highlights where the regulation is needed.

How many smartphone manufacturers will pay £50 to license PebbleOS when they can pay £0 to license Android? And therein lies the problem. We need to regulate Google so they can’t sell Android for £0. It’s hugely anticompetitive that they can and do.

 

[Stuwil]

And that’s what we want. It forces other companies to innovate and bring new OSes to the market, which is desperately needing more competition.

The reason they don’t do that is because of Google.

And that highlights where the regulation is needed.

How many smartphone manufacturers will pay £50 to license PebbleOS when they can pay £0 to license Android? And therein lies the problem. We need to regulate Google so they can’t sell Android for £0. It’s hugely anticompetitive that they can and do.

Right but it fundamentally doesn’t matter because google’s argument will be that we are not a monopoly because we compete with iOS & Apple say the exact same thing in regards to monopolistic behaviors

So then what happens is for example certain governments then go after things like chrome

And what Apple are doing in regards to additional software for their products