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

[surferfb]

How can Bose innovate on iOS if apple won’t allow them to
Please explain without mentioning go to android as we are talking about apple and iOS so how do companies do it if apple won’t allow them access to do it.

Again, it’s not Bose’s place “to innovate on iOS”. They innovate on headphones. If the feature they’ve created/innovated doesn’t work on iOS then it doesn’t work on iOS.

I’d ask you how “Bose getting Apple’s idea for free” helps innovation. In that scenario Bose is just taking someone’s idea. How is that innovation?

How can the DMA stifle innovation regarding connectivity on iOS if apple won’t allow other companies to try it in the first place so based on your logic it’s not this is the problem it’s that it’s targeting apple
I don’t live in the EU so this won’t affect me whatsoever as this is software related and all they have to do is disable it for the EU if they want.

I don’t know how many times I can explain how the DMA reduces Apple’s incentive to innovate. If you don’t understand it at this point me typing it out again isn’t going to do anything.

The problem seems to be this When someone's identity is tied to a brand, criticism can trigger a defensive reaction, leading them to defend the brand and its products vigorously especially when individuals use the term if you don’t like it go to android

My identity is not in any way “tied to a brand” and I criticize Apple plenty - see here for an example from yesterday.

I have a philosophical opposition to the DMA because I don’t think the government should be in the business of regulating things like “what API the market participant with 28% offers.” I truly think it’s a terrible law that will make all gatekeepers’ products worse and reduce innovation worldwide. Why shouldn’t I say that’s wrong?

 

[surferfb]

It’s an interesting point you make and I think the actions of the EU should jar anyone when thinking about usual businesses.

Phone operating systems are not usual businesses!!! There are only two, the barriers to entry in this market place are huge, even Microsoft can’t get in on the action, they tried and failed.

Therefore supranational bodies have the duty to make sure there is no abuse of privilege.

Eg one App Store to rule them all is an absolutely abusive position to take. We’ve been downloading software onto our computers since the late nineties. It is ridiculous that we can’t do the same to iPhone that is 1,000,000 times more powerful.

I disagree wholeheartedly that it’s abusive. Everyone knows the rules when buying an iPhone. Android is open if that matters to you. No one is forced to buy an iPhone or develop for iOS.

The 1990s model of “download software from anywhere” was actually terrible for most people. I worked on a help desk in the mid 2000s and almost all I did was remove spyware and viruses from laptops. Just because some people are nerds/power users/technically inclined and can operate safely doesn’t mean an open system is best for the vast majority of consumers.

Phones are always connected, hold reams of sensitive personal data, and are used by a huge number of far less technically savvy users. The existence of a more restricted model makes a whole lot of sense, particularly when there is an option with massive marketshare that allows unrestricted downloads for those who care about it.

 

[I7guy]

The issue is regarding the DMA and other things like software features first and things like foldable devices are this
Some individuals have a strong emotional connection with its users, particularly through its design and user experience. This can lead to a sense of brand loyalty and ownership, making criticism feel personal
When someone's identity is tied to a brand, criticism can trigger a defensive reaction, leading them to defend the brand and its products vigorously regardless if regulations or advancements by other companies first are correct.

Yes. It’s seems like many also criticize for criticisms sake and downplay the achievements due to a lack of objectivity. Almost like their identity is tied up in trying to look right about being incorrect. And that leads to a defensive posture with a bias to not seeing what really is so.

In other words, people font see how bad the DMA and anti-tech this legislation is.

 

[Stuwil]

Yes. It’s seems like many also criticize for criticisms sake and downplay the achievements due to a lack of objectivity. Almost like their identity is tied up in trying to look right about being incorrect. And that leads to a defensive posture with a bias to not seeing what really is so.

In other words, people font see how bad the DMA and anti-tech this legislation is.

Again I have an iPhone in a non EU country and I don’t see the issue regarding the DMA

 

[Stuwil]

Again, it’s not Bose’s place “to innovate on iOS”. They innovate on headphones. If the feature they’ve created/innovated doesn’t work on iOS then it doesn’t work on iOS.

I’d ask you how “Bose getting Apple’s idea for free” helps innovation. In that scenario Bose is just taking someone’s idea. How is that innovation?


I don’t know how many times I can explain how the DMA reduces Apple’s incentive to innovate. If you don’t understand it at this point me typing it out again isn’t going to do anything.


My identity is not in any way “tied to a brand” and I criticize Apple plenty - see here for an example from yesterday.

I have a philosophical opposition to the DMA because I don’t think the government should be in the business of regulating things like “what API the market participant with 28% offers.” I truly think it’s a terrible law that will make all gatekeepers’ products worse and reduce innovation worldwide. Why shouldn’t I say that’s wrong?

Because you mention innovation but only on apple’s part regarding connectivity on iOS
Because if you actually gave a stuff about 3rd parties like Bose trying to make connectivity better on iOS then your argument should be why does apple not allow companies to do it on iOS because then if the tools where there and Bose never attempted then that’s a valid point however apple as a company don’t want to make the tools available because then it takes away their advantage.

Your question regarding Bose getting apple’s idea for free is quite simple offer developers access to tools for them to attempt better connectivity on iOS and then there is no problem but if apple won’t provide the tools so there you go then.

The problem is with this 28% figure is the exact same as this if you don’t like it go to android which is normally the default position for certain types of individuals

 

[surferfb]

Because you mention innovation but only on apple’s part regarding connectivity on iOS
Because if you actually gave a stuff about 3rd parties like Bose trying to make connectivity better on iOS then your argument should be why does apple not allow companies to do it on iOS because then if the tools where there and Bose never attempted then that’s a valid point however apple as a company don’t want to make the tools available because then it takes away their advantage.

Yes, just like Bose doesn’t want to give its noise cancelation algorithm away, or driver design away because they would lose their advantage to those who would just use them without have to invest the resources into developing them.

Your question regarding Bose getting apple’s idea for free is quite simple offer developers access to tools for them to attempt better connectivity on iOS and then there is no problem but if apple won’t provide the tools so there you go then.

Why should Apple be required to offer access to their tools? Why can’t the industry standard connection protocol be enough? Why should Apple’s hard work to make something better be given away for free? Do you not understand how that discourages Apple from making things better?

The problem is with this 28% figure is the exact same as this if you don’t like it go to android which is normally the default position for certain types of individuals

And what type of individual is that? Ones who think you should buy products that meet your needs when those alternatives exist? Or that the government shouldn’t intervene in how private companies operate without very good reason?

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, just like Bose doesn’t want to give its noise cancelation algorithm away, or driver design away because they would lose their advantage to those who would just use them without have to invest the resources into developing them.


Why should Apple be required to offer access to their tools? Why can’t the industry standard connection protocol be enough? Why should Apple’s hard work to make something better be given away for free? Do you not understand how that discourages Apple from making things better?


And what type of individual is that? Ones who think you should buy products that meet your needs when those alternatives exist? Or that the government shouldn’t intervene in how private companies operate without very good reason?

Please read this apple are not interested in making iOS have better connectivity for 3rd parties because if they did then companies like Bose would have access to these tools and they could achieve it themselves
That’s the point it’s not difficult to understand

The EU is not asking for access to noise cancellation features or chips or hardware
This is to do with connectivity features

 

[surferfb]

Please read this apple are not interested in making iOS have better connectivity for 3rd parties because if they did then companies like Bose would have access to these tools and they could achieve it themselves
That’s the point it’s not difficult to understand

I don’t see any reason why Apple should be forced to give away its connectivity technologies to third parties. It should be Apple’s decision, not the EU’s.

Do you not understand how giving away technology for free would reduce Apple’s incentive to fix problems like pairing on the future?

The EU is not asking for access to noise cancellation features or chips or hardware
This is to do with connectivity features

Would you agree it would be wrong for the EU to demand Bose give its noise cancellation features to Apple for free?

 

[I7guy]

How can Bose innovate on iOS if apple won’t allow them to
Please explain without mentioning go to android as we are talking about apple and iOS so how do companies do it if apple won’t allow them access to do it.

It is not apples job to tell Bose how to innovate on their core expertise.

How can the DMA stifle innovation regarding connectivity on iOS if apple won’t allow other companies to try it in the first place so based on your logic it’s not this is the problem it’s that it’s targeting apple

Apple does not in most of the world have interest their intellectual property as a public utility. Bose wanted to innovate already knows this.

I don’t live in the EU so this won’t affect me whatsoever as this is software related and all they have to do is disable it for the EU if they want.

more changes mean a bigger attack vector and more bugs.

The problem seems to be this When someone's identity is tied to a brand, criticism can trigger a defensive reaction, leading them to defend the brand and its products vigorously especially when individuals use the term if you don’t like it go to android

The problem is the lack of objectivity by those who believe the DMA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[I7guy]

Please read this apple are not interested in making iOS have better connectivity for 3rd parties because if they did then companies like Bose would have access to these tools and they could achieve it themselves
That’s the point it’s not difficult to understand

The EU is not asking for access to noise cancellation features or chips or hardware
This is to do with connectivity features

It is not apples job to tell Bose how to innovate in their core expertise. If they can’t make a headphone work with a common standard they will go out of business. Pretty easy concept.

 

[Stuwil]

I don’t see any reason why Apple should be forced to give away its connectivity technologies to third parties. It should be Apple’s decision, not the EU’s.

Do you not understand how giving away technology for free would reduce Apple’s incentive to fix problems like pairing on the future?


Would you agree it would be wrong for the EU to demand Bose give its noise cancellation features to Apple for free?

Why won’t apple as a company make the tools available for companies to provide better connectivity in the first place and then that’s a legitimate argument.

It’s not about noise cancellation features
It’s about connectivity to the operating system that’s the difference

 

[Stuwil]

It is not apples job to tell Bose how to innovate on their core expertise.

Apple does not in most of the world have interest their intellectual property as a public utility. Bose wanted to innovate already knows this.

more changes mean a bigger attack vector and more bugs.

The problem is the lack of objectivity by those who believe the DMA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

How can for example Bose innovate with better connectivity if apple won’t allow it regardless

Again I don’t live in the EU and I own an iPhone and I don’t see a problem with this because if you are not providing the tools for companies to try and provide better access then you can’t blame Bose for apple’s deliberate withholding access

 

[Stuwil]

It is not apples job to tell Bose how to innovate in their core expertise. If they can’t make a headphone work with a common standard they will go out of business. Pretty easy concept.

How can Bose innovate better connectivity if your company that your defending doesn’t provide the necessary tools for them to achieve this
Pretty easy concept that

 

[surferfb]

Why won’t apple as a company make the tools available for companies to provide better connectivity in the first place and then that’s a legitimate argument.

It’s not about noise cancellation features
It’s about connectivity to the operating system that’s the difference

Why is "better connection" any different as a differentiating feature than "noise cancellation" is? The Bose still connect to the device, but if you want the "nicer" connection, then you have to go to Apple. Kinda like how you can still have ok noise cancellation with AirPods, but if you want the "nicer" cancelation you need to buy Bose.

 

[Stuwil]

Offer the tools then there is no argument then

 

[Stuwil]

Why is "better connection" any different as a differentiating feature than "noise cancellation" is? The Bose still connect to the device, but if you want the "nicer" connection, then you have to go to Apple. Kinda like how you can still have ok noise cancellation with AirPods, but if you want the "nicer" cancelation you need to buy Bose.

Why don’t apple make the tools available for companies to try and offer better connectivity on iOS in the first place
What is the reason why they don’t offer 3rd parties these tools?
For the operating system

 

[I7guy]

How can Bose innovate better connectivity if your company that your defending doesn’t provide the necessary tools for them to achieve this
Pretty easy concept that

It’s up to Bose to figure that out. Apple is not responsible for what happens inside of the 4 walls of Bose. (Figuratively speaking)

 

[Stuwil]

It’s up to Bose to figure that out. Apple is not responsible for what happens inside of the 4 walls of Bose. (Figuratively speaking)

What it’s up to Bose to illegally access code for them to provide better connectivity to iOS because apple won’t provide the tools required

 

[ForkHandles]

I disagree wholeheartedly that it’s abusive. Everyone knows the rules when buying an iPhone. Android is open if that matters to you. No one is forced to buy an iPhone or develop for iOS.

The 1990s model of “download software from anywhere” was actually terrible for most people. I worked on a help desk in the mid 2000s and almost all I did was remove spyware and viruses from laptops. Just because some people are nerds/power users/technically inclined and can operate safely doesn’t mean an open system is best for the vast majority of consumers.

Phones are always connected, hold reams of sensitive personal data, and are used by a huge number of far less technically savvy users. The existence of a more restricted model makes a whole lot of sense, particularly when there is an option with massive marketshare that allows unrestricted downloads for those who care about it.

The fact that they are abusing market privilege isn’t really up for debate. They have a monopoly, they are leveraging that monopoly for maximum gain.

Practically every country in the world regulates monopolies because they are intrinsically bad for consumers. Now the smartphone market is mature many countries will rightly be coming at them to open up this monopoly.

The fact that you and I like/prefer a walled garden is largely irrelevant. They have a monopoly, they will be regulated.

 

[surferfb]

Why don’t apple make the tools available for companies to try and offer better connectivity on iOS in the first place
What is the reason why they don’t offer 3rd parties these tools?
For the operating system

Why doesn't Bose make the tools available for companies to try to offer better noise cancelation in the first place? What is the reason why they don't offer 3rd parties these tools?

 

[surferfb]

The fact that they are abusing market privilege isn’t really up for debate. They have a monopoly, they are leveraging that monopoly for maximum gain.

Practically every country in the world regulates monopolies because they are intrinsically bad for consumers. Now the smartphone market is mature many countries will rightly be coming at them to open up this monopoly.

The fact that you and I like/prefer a walled garden is largely irrelevant. They have a monopoly, they will be regulated.

They literally do not have a monopoly. Android exists and has 72% marketshare in the EU. In no jurisdiction on planet earth is 28% a monopoly.

 

[I7guy]

What it’s up to Bose to illegally access code for them to provide better connectivity to iOS because apple won’t provide the tools required

Bose can do what it wants. It’s not up to Apple to innovate Bose’s’ core product line.

 

[I7guy]

The fact that they are abusing market privilege isn’t really up for debate. They have a monopoly, they are leveraging that monopoly for maximum gain.

Judging from the hundreds of posts and the outcome of epic vs Apple it is up for debate as to whether there is an illegal monopoly.

Practically every country in the world regulates monopolies because they are intrinsically bad for consumers. Now the smartphone market is mature many countries will rightly be coming at them to open up this monopoly.

Some will, some won’t.

The fact that you and I like/prefer a walled garden is largely irrelevant. They have a monopoly, they will be regulated.

Thankfully it’s my opinion in the US there won’t be much if anything and I can use what I like. Of course we’ll see where it goes.

 

[ForkHandles]

They literally do not have a monopoly. Android exists and has 72% marketshare in the EU. In no jurisdiction on planet earth is 28% a monopoly.

Duopoly​

A duopoly is a type of oligopoly where two firms have dominant or exclusive control over a market, and most of the competition within that market occurs directly between them. Duopoly is the most commonly studied form of oligopoly due to its simplicity. Duopolies sell to consumers in a competitive market where the choice of an individual consumer choice cannot affect the firm in a duopoly market, as the defining characteristic of duopolies is that decisions made by each seller are dependent on what the other competitor does.

 

[surferfb]

Duopoly​

A duopoly is a type of oligopoly where two firms have dominant or exclusive control over a market, and most of the competition within that market occurs directly between them. Duopoly is the most commonly studied form of oligopoly due to its simplicity. Duopolies sell to consumers in a competitive market where the choice of an individual consumer choice cannot affect the firm in a duopoly market, as the defining characteristic of duopolies is that decisions made by each seller are dependent on what the other competitor does.

A duopoly is not a monopoly.

Also, I'd argue that the classic "duopoly" definition doesn't really apply here (although understand that reasonable people can disagree on this point).

• While I agree there are only two operating systems, hundreds of device makers compete within Android, which creates meaningful product diversity, innovation, and price competition.
• Consumers can choose between premium iPhones, premium Android phones, budget Android phones, privacy-focused phones, and phones with completely forked versions of Android, some of which are completely de-Googled
• Android and iOS serve very different user bases and philosophies. Open-source vs. closed, customization vs. control so lumping them as a single “duopoly” misses key competitive dynamics.
• Apple and Google fiercely compete on features to attract users - there has been no stifling of technical progress at all.
• Most importantly: Duopoly implies collusion or harm: There is no evidence of coordinated behavior between Apple and Google to suppress competition. In fact, they aggressively compete in AI integration, hardware design, and app features.