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
Well it depends on if you’re in the EU and if the headphone manufacturer will implement it into their product because you understand it’s not mandatory for them to use it
All of this talk about better connectivity? Is Sony going to take advantage of it as well?
Huh??? That's not what's being affected. No one's talking about "providing an invention for free". They're talking about not locking down consumer devices.
This is a dodge when we are discussing what the law should be.
The DMA requires Apple to give third parties access to any “hardware or software feature” Apple develops for free. So if Apple comes up with a new feature, they have to give it away.
Disagree. I don’t think the law should exist at all, and is government overreach.
Disagree. Vote with your wallet.
But importantly, Apple agrees with me, not you. And it’s their platform. You have an option to get an open system if you want one. Consumers in the EU no longer have a choice for a closed ecosystem thanks to government overreach.
How? The EU has listed certain features and APIs that Apple is required to offer by law. Is that not the government deciding what features Apple offers?
Oh well we will just have to wait and see who takes advantage of this software connectivity access to iOS in the EU
That's not mandating access to a patent or anything. It's mandating access to features.
Doesn't really matter anyway because "government" isn't the operational concept.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
Some women might like sexual harassment, but we don't allow because there are still other women who don't.
If the topic were "Should murder be a crime?", we wouldn't be trying to determine if "government should have the right to ban murder", we'd be trying to determine if murder should be illegal.
Features Apple uses to differentiate its products from the competition. Why should Apple bother investing in new features if the EU makes Apple give them away for free, meaning Apple does the hard work and invests the money but others can freeload?
Ok. Not sure I get your point, but fine. The law is still bad.
I disagree it’s a problem. And millions of people agree with me and prefer Apple’s current model and don’t want it changed.
Why does your preference to not use Android outweigh those customer’s preferences (and Apple’s preferences) when you have an option available to you that doesn’t take away our preference?
We’re comparing “closed ecosystems” to unwanted sexual harassment? Wow.
Government intervention in these sorts of things, particularly by the EU, has a long history of worse outcomes for everyone. I firmly believe Apple knows better than the government when it comes to this. And again, an open option exists and has more than double the marketshare of Apple. No one is forced to buy an Apple product or develop for Apple.
This is just the government picking winners and losers. Remember the EU tried to mandate all phones have Micro-USB, gave us a plague of cookie popups, and broke the internet for days - they don’t know what they’re doing.
I’d argue that’s what we’re doing. I fully agree the government has the right to pass the DMA, and that Apple has to follow it. But I think it’s a really stupid law that is completely unnecessary and will make things worse for most EU citizens, all Apple customers worldwide, and not do anything to actually address the issues it purports to solve.
Using your analogy, in my opinion the DMA is like banning things that might make murder easier. The EU said, “Because weapons can be hidden in pockets, all clothing must be made without pockets.” I think we’d both agree that would be a massive overreach that creates new problems and limits consumer choice. Same thing here. We should be able to question whether those bans are proportional or justified.
The government has the right to ban pockets, but those customers who prefer pockets absolutely have a right to go “excuse me, that’s really *blanking* stupid” and be mad that what they like is being changed against their preferences for dubious reasons.
I disagree. Apple does not HAVE to follow it if it no longer sells Apple mobile devices in the EU. I'd take a hard line, pull my products, and tell consumers to go after their government for limiting their choices through onerous legislation.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think it’s a good outcome for Apple, its customers, or the thousand of employees Apple has in the EU. Not to mention the contracts it has with EU mobile carriers, etc. Particularly because I don’t think the EU would back down given how insulated the EC is from public accountability.
I think I'd have a lot less issue with Apple behavior around all this if we had actual robust antitrust regulation and enforcement, worldwide.
One of the largest problems in so many spaces now, and certainly in tech, is that no competitors can ever emerge anymore.
Any competition or new interesting angle on things that even hints at being a threat (whether it's their idea or their people or a product, etc) to an entrenched power broker gets gobbled up, whether it should be allowed or not.
I think this factors into why some jurisdictions are approaching things how they are at this point.
They are somewhat living in the reality of where we've ended up and not in an idealized world of way more dynamic competition and potential for it than we actually have.
One of the largest problems in so many spaces now, and certainly in tech, is that no competitors can ever emerge anymore.
Any competition or new interesting angle on things that even hints at being a threat (whether it's their idea or their people or a product, etc) to an entrenched power broker gets gobbled up, whether it should be allowed or not.
I think this factors into why some jurisdictions are approaching things how they are at this point.
They are somewhat living in the reality of where we've ended up and not in an idealized world of way more dynamic competition and potential for it than we actually have.
I want to gently push back on this. The entire generative AI industry is a strong counter-argument. Google search is getting disrupted, there are serious concerns about Apple’s ability to compete in an AI first world. OpenAI is by all accounts a new FAANG, and is developing hardware device with Apple’s former star designer.
Competitors can absolutely emerge, and already have.
They are doing it by STEALING EVERYTHING
You're upset about Apple not getting compensated for their IP and this is your rebuttal?
Also, nobody in the space even has a viable business without unprecedented levels of cash burn to even make it keep going. Some firms are having to literally force their staff to use it.
AI is a horrendous example to use here.
I do have serious concerns about how the initial models were trained (although I do think it’s more nuanced than many make it out to be), but the cat is out of the bag and AI is a huge disrupter and has arisen and is competing with big companies.
I don’t think you can say “no one new can compete anymore” and then say “oh the new people competing with them don’t count because I don’t like everything about their business.”
I’m willing to concede it is unlikely we get another new mobile platform (although I personally think there’s a much better chance than many), but that doesn’t mean mobile platforms are going to matter just as much as they do now. For all we know everyone runs AI super apps in ten years and Apple gets completely disrupted because there’s literally no reason to pay thousands for an iPhone when a $200 device provides the exact same experience. (Not due to AI, but I’d argue that’s already started to happen in China with WeChat)
This take is just nuts
You're running cover for "steal things and get big" and then "oh well, I guess we have to accept it now".
We do not have to accept that - and should not.
My friend - how on Earth can you defend this take when you're breathlessly defending Apple getting every possible nickel in remuneration for their IP.
On one topic you insist on compensation for work and on another you're ok with it being STOLEN.
What!??
This is cognitive dissonance of quite a kind.
(I have to check out for a bit ... will circle back later ... hoping it makes more sense when I return)
I totally get where you’re coming from at first glance, it definitely seems inconsistent. But I don’t think they are necessarily.
First, I’d argue there’s a fundamental difference in what’s being accessed and how. AI models are trained on content that’s been publicly posted on the open web. That content was freely made available for the world to read, link to, and index. That doesn’t mean the ethical or legal questions are settled (they’re absolutely not), but it’s not the same as the government mandating that Apple expose internal APIs or open up its tightly controlled, private platform infrastructure.
Second, I’d argue my general position is consistent. I think government should intervene in private business only with a very strong justification (health, safety, actual monopolies, etc.). In the case of AI training, absolutely open to legal investigations or compensation mechanisms, but that’s very different from regulators forcing a company like Apple to structurally change its products or hand over its IP to competitors. One involves after the fact debates about fair use (which the courts seem to be siding with AI companies on); the other is proactive regulation that overrides business models and chills innovation (my opinion) because the government says so (again, in my opinion, without good justification).
And finally, there’s the question of harm. Allowing content to be used in AI training doesn’t destroy the creator’s platform and doesn’t hurt the creators users / readers / whoever. Compelling Apple to open up undermines key pillars of its business and makes Apple’s products worse, less safe, and less private for most Apple customers (once again, my opinion, I realize you disagree). That kind of interference should meet a very high bar (see point 2) that I don’t think the EU has come anywhere close to meeting.
So I argue it’s not cognitive dissonance. It’s a distinction based on public vs. private assets, voluntary publication vs. compelled access, and my general distrust of government interference in the free market.
I’m also going out for a while, so response will have to wait on my end as well. Always appreciates my back and forth with you, even when we disagree
Last edited: