EU Has 'No Intention' to Repeal DMA Following Apple Challenge

[I7guy]

Why are you shilling so hard against actually owning your ~$2000 device instead of renting it forever

Most companies that produce consumer oriented mass marketed goods have their target markets. You either buy the products or not. It’s not about shilling.

Obviously we’re not talking about source code (yet) or distribution rights. Just the basic human decency of letting an intelligent grown-up human being living in a free country run the software they choose on their own computer.

You can buy whatever you want and have to live within the constraints of the products.

(which is even more important if you don't live in a free country, btw)

Thankfully there are products that let you have almost absolute control of them. iPhones are not one such product.

I genuinely believe that because I see virtualisation being used everywhere on a daily basis (VMs, Docker and Kubernetes, etc). Apple could easily implement something similar to Windows Sandbox — just let users run unsigned code in some sort of VM with 10% performance penalty, that's it, no more problems and no more legal scrutiny.

Perhaps that will open a bigger can of worms.

But instead, Apple keeps actively choosing higher profit margins over treating users with respect; I can’t accept that, and neither should you.

Apple is entitled to sell its own products their way. I also encourage those who are unhappy with Apple to vote with their $$$.

 

[Big_D]

Part of me wonders if the reason why Microsoft did nothing pre-Crowdstrike was the fear of antitrust lawsuits. It's kinda ironic if Crowdstrike had to happen in order to provide the conditions that would let Microsoft justify what they are doing right now with zero pushback from legislators, now that everyone knows what is at stake.

I think it was that they were weary of being knocked around with anti-trust and didn't even bother to put up a fight for a proper solution, which nobody looking at it from the outside could understand then and, with hindsight, was the wrong move.

 

[Big_D]

In 2006 Microsoft tried to lock down Vista!

AV companies complained to the EU , the EU publicly warned Microsoft, and in response Microsoft created new kernel-level interfaces so AV companies could still operate under PatchGuard rather than locking the door like Microsoft had wanted to do.

That decision, made under duress in response to the EU, made widespread third-party kernel drivers the norm, which I guess was good for competition, but is terrible for users when a vendor pushes a bad update.

So now, 20 years later, years after Apple did so, and it’s clear even to the EU the harms of not doing so, Microsoft is moving out of the kernel, which they could have done earlier if EU pressure hadn’t pushed them to keep third-party drivers deep in the OS.

The sensible thing to have done, back then, was to have moved their own AV out of the Kernel as well and provide the APIs to all AV providers with them outside the Kernel, where they couldn't mess things up...

The EU only said that Microsoft AV couldn't be in the Kernel and all others excluded from the Kernel, they didn't say that the other AV providers had to have Kernel access explicitly, so Microsoft could have taken the high road and booted all AV, themselves included, out of hte Kernel.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Whether you like it or not, Apple is absolutely correct on most of their points.

The DMA does obliterate consumer choice. I have been arguing this for years now. Apple opening up every feature to third party manufacturers prevents them from being able to attract consumers with their own exclusive feature sets - a core principle of competition between companies.

There is no benefit to consumers with the DMA. Consumers as in 99% of the end users, rather than the <1% of technologically oriented individuals here.

If only other interests exists outside of consumers. But also market participants and intermarket competition

 

[ChrisMac47]

Whether you like it or not, Apple is absolutely correct on most of their points.

The DMA does obliterate consumer choice. I have been arguing this for years now. Apple opening up every feature to third party manufacturers prevents them from being able to attract consumers with their own exclusive feature sets - a core principle of competition between companies.

There is no benefit to consumers with the DMA. Consumers as in 99% of the end users, rather than the <1% of technologically oriented individuals here.

"Apple opening up every feature to third party manufacturers prevents them from being able to attract consumers with their own exclusive feature sets"

No, it's exactly the opposite! If they opened up their features MORE consumers would be able to benefit from them!

========

You are ignoring the fact that phones and their SW are a commodity now, part of everyday life for a lot of people (at least 60% of the world's population, so probably >85% of adults). Commodities need to have a certain set of common standards and features. We accept without question that a cell/mobile phone from one manufacturer must be able to make/accept calls to/from phones of another manufacturer, but even exchanging messages seemed too much for Apple until they were forced to allow this. Apple need to grow up. Life is different from 20+ years ago.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

You are ignoring the fact that phones and their SW are a commodity now, part of everyday life for a lot of people (at least 60% of the world's population, so probably >85% of adults). Commodities need to have a certain set of common standards and features. We accept without question that a cell/mobile phone from one manufacturer must be able to make/accept calls to/from phones of another manufacturer, but even exchanging messages seemed too much for Apple until they were forced to allow this. Apple need to grow up. Life is different from 20+ years ago.

Cars are also a commodity. TV sets, Bluetooth speakers and the list goes on and on, are also commodities.

Yet a Ferrari isn’t a commodity although it belongs to the class: automobiles.

And Apple is completely justified in its actions. Peter Drucker 101.

 

[BaldiMac]

You are ignoring the fact that phones and their SW are a commodity now, part of everyday life for a lot of people (at least 60% of the world's population, so probably >85% of adults). Commodities need to have a certain set of common standards and features. We accept without question that a cell/mobile phone from one manufacturer must be able to make/accept calls to/from phones of another manufacturer, but even exchanging messages seemed too much for Apple until they were forced to allow this. Apple need to grow up. Life is different from 20+ years ago.

iPhones are the opposite of a commodity in the smartphone market. They are the only significantly differentiated product.

 

[surferfb]

"Apple opening up every feature to third party manufacturers prevents them from being able to attract consumers with their own exclusive feature sets"

No, it's exactly the opposite! If they opened up their features MORE consumers would be able to benefit from them!

No, it's not. That sort of thinking might sound good on paper, but it shows absolutely no awareness to how business, innovation, and competition actually work, which is probably strongly related to why EU bureaucrats think it's a good idea.

Forcing a platform to “open up every feature” (like Live Translation, Mirroring, Find My, Continuity handoff, AirDrop protocols, etc.) removes the levers companies use to compete. If any new feature must be given away to rivals on day one, you’ve created a free-rider problem. ROI on R&D drops, so you get fewer ambitious bets and more timid, committee-approved "innovation" that won't cost too much and definitely won't fail.

So sure "if everyone has access to the same tools that means they'll have to compete harder" might sound reasonable on paper, but you've actually just incentivized less innovation. Let's look at the example we're all arguing about: AirPod Live Translation.

Why would Apple sink time and money into training models, optimizing latency, and designing a seamless UX if, on day one, they were required to make that feature available to every $20 knock-off earbud on Amazon? The ROI disappears. Apple takes on all the risk, competitors get the reward. So yes, in theory if Apple is forced to give it to everyone “more consumers benefit” in the short term, but what actually happens is rather than give it to everyone, it just doesn't get built at all. Regulations like the DMA disincentivizes anyone from pushing the envelope.

And the irony is that features usually do spread once they prove essential. Noise cancellation started in premium headphones and filtered down. Same with tons of Apple-developed features (Easy pairing of BT devices, Portrait Mode, Find My networks). Competitors reacted to Apple, and quickly implemented those features in their devices. The difference is, they spread because competitors were forced to innovate their own versions, not because regulators stripped away the advantage from the first mover. And Apple can be forced to respond in the market. If my friend's Bose headphones pair seamlessly with his Android tablet, and then I go out and buy a pair, but I have to go into settings and use clunky pairing codes, then my iPhone is less attractive. So Apple introduces the feature, gets to profit from it, but a few years down the road they have to expand it because of competition they initiated. But in the EU's world, that easy pairing never gets built.

If you mandate that every proprietary feature be shared instantly, you don’t get faster diffusion, you get companies holding back, or worse, never building it at all. Consumers don’t end up with “more benefit,” they end up with less innovation to benefit from.

You are ignoring the fact that phones and their SW are a commodity now, part of everyday life for a lot of people (at least 60% of the world's population, so probably >85% of adults). Commodities need to have a certain set of common standards and features. We accept without question that a cell/mobile phone from one manufacturer must be able to make/accept calls to/from phones of another manufacturer, but even exchanging messages seemed too much for Apple until they were forced to allow this. Apple need to grow up. Life is different from 20+ years ago.

Gasoline is a commodity; cars aren't. Electricity is a commodity; appliances are allowed to compete on design and features. Wireless spectrum is a commodity; phones and their software are absolutely not commodities.

An iPhone that only runs Apple-approved apps isn't missing its core value proposition - it's still a fully functional smartphone with millions of available apps. Users explicitly choose iOS knowing its limitations, often because of the curated approach. Your "commodity" argument falls apart when consumers clearly are paying premiums for different approaches to the same basic functionality.

Under your logic, all cars should be forced to accept any competitors' infotainment system and all game consoles should run its competitors' games. The existence of competition in how platforms curate their ecosystems is the market working, not failing.

The DMA isn't correcting a market failure - it's mandating a specific business model that many consumers explicitly don't want. If platform openness were universally valued, Android's market share would be 100%. The fact that it isn't suggests consumers have diverse preferences that regulation is now overriding.

 

[turbineseaplane]

More developer “fun” from Apple

 

[ChrisMac47]

......

Let's look at the example we're all arguing about: AirPod Live Translation.

Why would Apple sink time and money into training models, optimizing latency, and designing a seamless UX if, on day one, they were required to make that feature available to every $20 knock-off earbud on Amazon? The ROI disappears. Apple takes on all the risk, competitors get the reward. So yes, in theory if Apple is forced to give it to everyone “more consumers benefit” in the short term, but what actually happens is rather than give it to everyone, it just doesn't get built at all. Regulations like the DMA disincentivizes anyone from pushing the envelope.

.......

OK, I misunderstood. I thought that the live translation was done on the iPhone, not the AirPods. My reasoning was that if the iPhone does the clever translation stuff, why restrict its implementation requiring AirPods? If it could be implemented on any "smart EarPods", surely Apple would sell more (expensive) iPhones?

But clearly I was wrong. Those AirPods are indeed clever if they do the translation without help from the iPhone!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why would Apple sink time and money into training models, optimizing latency, and designing a seamless UX if, on day one, they were required to make that feature available to every $20 knock-off earbud on Amazon? The ROI disappears. Apple takes on all the risk, competitors get the reward. So yes, in theory if Apple is forced to give it to everyone “more consumers benefit” in the short term, but what actually happens is rather than give it to everyone, it just doesn't get built at all. Regulations like the DMA disincentivizes anyone from pushing the envelope.

To sell iPhones?

It’s a feature of the phone that should not be gated off from accessories simply because they aren’t Apple branded.

If we go down that logic tree, we’re gonna have iPhones that don’t connect to anything other than Apple branded… could be TVs, or power adapters, or cables, or basically anything you can think of.

It’s incredibly consumer hostile thinking.

(Apologies… I’m trying to stay out of this, but some of this is getting crazy IMO … I think it’s because everybody has run out of talking points here)

 

[surferfb]

To sell iPhones?

It’s a feature of the phone that should not be gated off from accessories simply because they aren’t Apple branded.

If we go down that logic tree, we’re gonna have iPhones that don’t connect to anything other than Apple branded… could be TVs, or power adapters, or cables, or basically anything you can think of.

It’s incredibly consumer hostile thinking.

(Apologies… I’m trying to stay out of this, but some of this is getting crazy IMO … I think it’s because everybody has run out of talking points here)

These "Apple will sell more iPhones" arguments completely ignore how product development economics actually work.

When Apple develops a feature like live translation, they're making a massive upfront investment (engineers, researchers, chip designers, years of development time). Let's say that adds up to $300M. Now, how do they recoup that cost? Currently, they can justify the investment by selling both iPhones AND AirPods. Each sale contributes to recovering those R&D costs. But if regulations force them to make it work with any $20 earbud, suddenly Apple can only monetize the feature through iPhone sales because they can't count on the same increase in AirPods revenue, but Apple still paid 100% of the development costs.

Sure, some people will still buy AirPods for build quality or convenience or because they're from Apple or whatever, but the marginal buyers who were purchasing specifically for exclusive features now have no reason to. Those are precisely the sales that made the R&D investment worthwhile. Not you and me who were going to buy AirPods anyway. Even worse, Apple is now competing against free-riders who spent nothing on the R&D that led to the feature but get to benefit from Apple's $300M investment for free. The ROI for developing the feature collapses.

And your "they'll sell more iPhones with the feature" argument assumes the incremental iPhone sales would be enough to justify the investment. But would they? I don't think so. Most people buying iPhones for this feature would likely buy iPhones anyway. You're not expanding the market, you're just giving existing customers a feature they can now use with cheaper accessories. Apple bears all the risk and cost of innovation, subsidizes competitors' products, and maybe gets a marginal bump in iPhone and AirPod sales. That's not a business model that funds cutting-edge R&D.

I mean, Sony could make "more money" by making their first-party exclusives available on Xbox, right? But they don't, because exclusive software convinces users to buy a PlayStation and justifies the hardware investment, which leads to better games for everyone, both on Sony and Xbox. Same principle here.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm surprised the EU hasn't put a stop to Microsoft's little trick where searching for "download Chrome" results in the message "You don't need to download Chrome".

Oh, where do you do the search as unwound like to test this in an EU compliant windows system.

There is no such thing as zero medical charge but yeah, enjoy your 20-25% sales tax and 60%+ income tax. Also be grateful there are no guns... "only" knife attacks or cars ramming into crowds. And plz keep coming back complaining about the $1k iPhone selling for €1.5k.

There is. Your taxes are always covered. Your insurance isn’t. So if you have 0€ or a million before pay day, a salary or no salary, a job or no job etc.

Only one of these will give you full coverage without worrying about insurance shenanigans.

And I’m glad you enjoy it and have that option. I use Kagi. But neither one of those could handle the traffic of being the default.

DDG stopped publishing their live feed a couple of years ago, but they were around 100M searches a day (so ~30-40 billion searches a year). Google said it handled ~14B searches a day in 2024, and court records and reporting indicate Apple devices account for “more than half” of Google’s search business (implying ~7B searches/day on Apple devices). So it’s entirely conceivable that Apple devices produce more searches in five or six days than DDG handles in a year.

Even assuming Google is able to get 50% of iOS users to stick with Google, there is no way DDG could handle that influx traffic without months of planning - maybe longer. Which is of course doable, particularly if Apple didn't require the revenue share they were getting from Google, but I still suspect it is hundreds of millions or maybe even single digit billions of year in increased costs to DDG without paying Apple a penny. I suspect Bing is the only search engine that could scale quickly, and even then I suspect they'd need a few months of lead time.

Well considering Apple has 30~% market share in EU we can be charitable it equals 130 million individual users.

And some online estimates puts googles daily serches at 2billion/day. We could assume Google still gets 50% of those searches through from Apple devices.

That means we’re talking 1 billion daily searches that could be shared by multiple providers if Apple never allowed Google to be the default.

Google isn’t paying Apple money to be the default because they are kind, being the default is a very beneficial investment to push out potential competitors to get a foothold.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

A "non-existing EU AI" ? You absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself first if you think ChatControl is a non-existing threat :

OECD AI Policy Observatory Portal

oecd.ai

The proposed EU Chat Control law is a threat to our democracy. What can you do to prevent it? - Nextcloud

Discover how to oppose the EU Chat Control Law as the proposal threatens our democracy from the inside: by our own governments.

nextcloud.com

A sad reality is that apples initial interest to implement CSPAM search on device and lauding it as safe and zero risk for integrity violation kickstarted this in many government groups as a viable pathway to eat their cake and keep it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There's scant evidence that the approach the EU is taking will result in increased competition. IF the EU wants more competition, there are other/better ways to support startups within the EU. Taking the approach of penalizing the current businesses won't develop new businesses. It just won't. Apple didn't develop to defeat blackberry due to government regulation of blackberry.

There’s not many other ways EU can do it.
It doesn’t have a central capital investment structure because it’s still very fragmented by nation state. Essentially the equivalent of a business in Texas would have a hard time getting investment from anyone located in california

Not only will it not increase competition, it actively discourages competition. As John Gruber correctly points out in this article, all of Apple's DMA problems would go away if it just installed Android on iOS in the EU. EU users would lose any meaningful competition at all, but Apple would be completely DMA compliant.

Unfortunately he is completely incorrect. If Apple chose to ship lets say their flavor of Android, yet he the same limitations such as only allowing the Android AppStore etc etc they would be going 100 steps forward but 99 steps backwards 🤷‍♂️

It's becoming increasingly clear that both Apple and the EU commission are just speaking past each other and going straight to the people at this point to try and shape their perceptions. What's interesting here is what the EU chooses not to say.

There is some truth behind Apple's report. Already, residents in the EU are unable to access certain features they otherwise could have (I am taking Apple at their word here that they are not deliberating withholding said features out of malice; there are legitimate legal concerns if they tried to bring them to the EU), and this trend will like continue in the near future.

There are always going to be unforeseen circumstances with any new piece of legislation, no matter how well crafted the authorities feel it is (think Microsoft and and how EU legislation prevented them from patching a "flaw" in Windows that would eventually lead to Crowdstrike years down the road), and I don't think there is any shame in admitting that sometimes, you really just don't know.

We are starting to see one right now, we don't know what others may rear their heads in the future, and the EU commission will never admit that these issues are a direct result of rules they are trying to impose, because they have staked their reputation on the DMA allowing everyone in the EU to have their cake and eat it too. And that Apple can be expected to just pick up the bill and plug whatever problems surface as a result, all out of their own pocket.

It's also interesting that iOS is generally considered the more secure platform compared to android (eg: we see way more scam apps on android compared to iOS), and the EU's solution is to force iOS to become like Android in the name of fostering more competition for users in the EU.

So far, the loudest voices in favour of the DMA have come from developers such as Epic, but I suspect that if we were to poll the average person on the street, reactions will be a lot of mixed and you will not see the consensus online discourse would have you believe. That's because developers, like any other person, is only looking out for their own self-interests. It is not the job of Tim Sweeney or Spotify or even the average app developer in the EU to ensure the safety, security or privacy of the iOS platform or its users, which is why it is easy for them to champion policies that line their own pockets, regardless of the cost to the end user.

At the end of the day, life is but a bundle of compromises, but I doubt we will hear any government official publicly release a statement claiming "Yes, you won't be able to access iPhone mirroring or live translation as a result of our policies, but I think that's a small price to pay for your children to be able to sideload questionable apps onto their iOS devices or the privilege of managing 6-7 app stores on your device". This, however, is not an EU issue, but a worldwide government quirk. No one will jeopardise their career by admitting that their laws are flawed and that yes, everything is a tradeoff.

Can you imagine if one EU official was willing to say on record to Apple - "Yes, we are almost certainly violating your property rights here, but I think it's a small price to pay for increased competition on your platform. There's going to be a FRAND type licensing regime, and we are measuring this tradeoff as a society. You are still going to make a ton of money, and you will still continue to invest in the platform because it's good for end users", and the EU commission can't even be honest and upfront about this.

Which is why I appreciate Apple continuing to push back against the DMA until we get more clarity on just what it is that the EU is after.

I will give it to you, EU officials have already done this. The difference they don’t consider it their property rights is violated. Thers explicit legal carvout for the legal equivalent to eminent domain.

Which was precisely the issue, because the way I see it, said legislation removed any incentive Microsoft might have had to patch the issue and secure their OS, because Microsoft would need to subject itself to the same constraints as its competitors. On paper, it may sound "fair" to give companies like purveyors of anti-virus software the ability to compete on an equal footing. But perhaps in reality, antivirus software is not a business model that needs to exist, and maybe I am fine with there being less consumer choice in the market if that results in a single but more optimised solution for the end user.

Symantec says Vista will “reduce consumer choice”

Symantec issued a statement charging that Windows Vista will reduce the …

arstechnica.com

Vista: we're keeping an eye on it, says EC - Operating Systems - Breaking Business and Technology News at silicon.com

Say in an alternate reality where Microsoft was never subjected to EU regulations, and only Microsoft retained access to kernel level, they would be able to sufficiently lock down and secure their OS without having to worry about the feasibility of ensuring that third parties could also access the same permissions and privileges, because Microsoft alone held the keys to the kingdom. Microsoft could bundle its own antivirus solution (again, using privileged access only it itself enjoys), companies like Symantec and Mcafee would long be out of business, and I wouldn't shed a tear. I feel like in this case, my incentives would have been more in alignment with Microsoft's than that of the EU's.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/cybersecurity/microsoft-tech-outage-role-crowdstrike-50917b90

And I think this is the real legacy underpinning EU regulation. Microsoft did / could not implement a shift in computer security they knew was crucial 2 decades ago because of a ruling by the EU, and the entire world suffered for it (rather than simply being confined to the EU).

At the end of the day, I go back to my original point that everything is a tradeoff. The EU wants to rein US tech giants in by passing legislation it believes will favour local businesses. I also understand the EU's decision to treat the openness of operating systems as a public good that ought to be regulated. And this decision in itself will not be without its share of tradeoffs.

Just as we are now starting to see the ramifications of the DMA on users in the EU.

Well unfortunately windows antivirus is largely a known crapshoot… I’m glad we aren’t living under that reality. Single point of failure and we would have a million times worse problems.

Amen!

The EU’s cookie regulation is a perfect example. The regulation said that sites had to get “informed consent” for tracking, but it didn’t provide a clear, simple mechanism for doing so. That left companies with two choices: either make their sites function without tracking (in most cases, a literally impossible adjustment given ad-driven models) or build consent banners that strongly nudge users toward “accept.”

Unsurprisingly, most went with the latter. I see people on here all the time say “Well actually, it’s the websites’ fault, not the EU’s” as if we live in some magical universe where advertising isn’t the lifeblood for the free web.

And sure, I’ll give you the text of the regulation doesn’t mandate ugly, disruptive popups, but it absolutely incentivized them. Anyone who worked in tech could have told you that this would be the end result, and honestly the fact that the EU didn’t understand that is proof positive they’re not qualified to be regulating tech. I don’t work in tech, and have never worked in tech, and I could have told you it’d be the end result. Yet those in charge of regulating tech couldn’t figure that out? Or, did realize it out but thought “that’s fine” and then pretend “it’s not our fault” rather than have the courage to say “yes it makes things worse but we think it’s a small price to pay.” How on Earth can anyone defend that?!?!

And not only do many of you defend it, here we are fifteen years later and it hasn’t been fixed despite it being very clear for well over fifteen years it made the web much more annoying to use. “We can’t admit a mistake and therefore can’t learn from it, but this time, with the DMA, it’ll be different”. Please.

As you correctly point out, legislation isn’t written by omniscient, infallible beings. It’s written by people with limited foresight, under political and bureaucratic pressures, who often don’t have real-world experience and who don’t understand how real-world actors will follow the rules. They’ve never worked in business and, pardon the pun, have no business dictating to companies how to design their products.

I mean, many of you are literally defending a regulator who saw Lightning and said, “we still think everyone should have to use Micro-USB.” Are you insane? This mindset is why Europe can’t compete. And still, when Apple releases a portless phone, many of you currently cheering on the EU USB-C mandate will be outraged at Apple for doing so despite physics preventing a USB-C port on the device. Well, maybe if they were allowed to put a smaller port on the device they would have. But no, the EU know better.

And again, we see this with the DMA. Like with the cookie law, when something goes wrong, defenders rush to say “the regulation was perfect, companies just implemented it badly” when Apple rationally follows the text and spirit of the law. But that ignores the core fact: regulations shape behavior.

If a policy predictably results in universally annoying UX patterns, or companies choosing not to releasing a feature because they’re worried get fined if they’re not letting their competitors use it for free, that’s not corporate misbehavior or “malicious compliance.” It’s evidence the policy design was flawed.

Also incorrect as you have been aware of.

But it’s a good unfortunate example of the risk of writing regulations in expectation to work in tandem with another regulation before it’s passed.

ePrivacy regulation + GDPR

But we just got the legacy ePrivacy directive + GDPR. Because the ePrivacy regulation never passed.

There’s no such thing as a cookie regulation because it never passed. GDPR just made the pre existing directive for consent more strict.

Second it’s not EUs fault for the industry choosing micro-USB. And nothing prevents Apple from going portless. They could exclusively use MagSafe and WiFi for data and charging 🤷‍♂️

 

[Starfia]

Time for Apple to withdraw from the EU then. Which they won't as it's too big a market segment. Not much point in making a threat if you have no intention of acting on it.

Where do you see a threat? The intent to remain in Europe while continuing both to seek compliance and advocating for better ideas is stated clearly – no mention of any consideration or intent to withdraw.

 

[Big_D]

Cars are also a commodity. TV sets, Bluetooth speakers and the list goes on and on, are also commodities.

Yet a Ferrari isn’t a commodity although it belongs to the class: automobiles.

And Apple is completely justified in its actions. Peter Drucker 101.

Yes, but you don't have to fit Ferrari tyres and put Ferrari petrol in the tank, you can use any fuel you want, you can use any tyres that fit, you can put in your own entertainment system and your own custom wheels, if you want.

Likewise, the TV sets all have common ports, so that you can plug in any compatible media device, such as an Apple TV.

Apple can make differentiating factors, but they shouldn't be able to force users to use only their devices - E.g. fitness bands, they should be able to display system messages, like the Apple Watch, and they should be able to dump their results into Apple Health.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, but you don't have to fit Ferrari tyres and put Ferrari petrol in the tank, you can use any fuel you want, you can use any tyres that fit, you can put in your own entertainment system and your own custom wheels, if you want.

You can install any case in an iPhone, charge with any battery or brick, put any screen protector on.

Likewise, the TV sets all have common ports, so that you can plug in any compatible media device, such as an Apple TV.

You can’t interchange a Samsung screen with an lg screen. And while it’s true many tvs have optical ports and such, new phones have Bluetooth and usb-c is common ports.

Apple can make differentiating factors, but they shouldn't be able to force users to use only their devices - E.g. fitness bands, they should be able to display system messages, like the Apple Watch, and they should be able to dump their results into Apple Health.

Apple doesn’t lock their customers into their ecosystem.

 

[surferfb]

Yes, but you don't have to fit Ferrari tyres and put Ferrari petrol in the tank, you can use any fuel you want, you can use any tyres that fit, you can put in your own entertainment system and your own custom wheels, if you want.

You don’t have to put Apple case on the phone, you don’t have to use AirPods, and you don’t have to use Apple’s chargers. You’re also allowed to jailbreak the device and put any software you want on it (which honestly is probably easier than installing custom entertainment systems in cars these days).

We don’t say “if Ford offers a entertainment system, they have to let Car Play Ultra work too” or “BMW offers a self driving feature so they have to let Tesla’s work in BMW too even though BMW has serious safety concerns with doing so.”

Likewise, the TV sets all have common ports, so that you can plug in any compatible media device, such as an Apple TV.

And Apple applies with common standards. Bluetooth, wireless networking, cellular spectrum, data transfer, etc.

But what we don’t say about TVs is “if LG creates an amazing new feature that is designed to work if you buy a special LG remote, then LG has to make that function work all competing remotes.” That just results in LG not spending money on developing special features, which means no one gets them.

Apple can make differentiating factors, but they shouldn't be able to force users to use only their devices - E.g. fitness bands, they should be able to display system messages, like the Apple Watch, and they should be able to dump their results into Apple Health.

They don’t force users to only use their devices. Plenty of people use Garmin watches or Bose headphones. I wear an Oura ring (and guess what, it dumps its results into Apple health).

And there are legitimate privacy concerns with giving third parties the content of every notification you get. Even if Apple manages to find a way to keep the notification’s content private, even just knowing what types of notifications you get, how often you get them, and from what apps is valuable data companies like Meta will use to sell ads.

How many users do you think understand clicking yes on a “show my notifications on my Meta sunglasses” prompt also might mean “Meta sucks up the content of every notification I get and sells ads against it” or “Meta sees I get regular notifications from a glucose monitoring app and will use that data to sell me ads.”

And there is choice in the market. If you don’t like how Apple runs things, there is a really, really easy solution that doesn’t involve entirely removing the choice of a closed, integrated ecosystem as an option for customers who prefer it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You can’t interchange a Samsung screen with an lg screen. And while it’s true many tvs have optical ports and such, new phones have Bluetooth and usb-c is common ports.

Yes you can. If you haven’t seen all those LCD screen replacements for iPhones instead of oled OEM screens.

And both makes oled and lcd panels.

 

[Big_D]

And there are legitimate privacy concerns with giving third parties the content of every notification you get. Even if Apple manages to find a way to keep the notification’s content private, even just knowing what types of notifications you get, how often you get them, and from what apps is valuable data companies like Meta will use to sell ads.

How many users do you think understand clicking yes on a “show my notifications on my Meta sunglasses” prompt also might mean “Meta sucks up the content of every notification I get and sells ads against it” or “Meta sees I get regular notifications from a glucose monitoring app and will use that data to sell me ads.”

I agree, a lot of people don't realise and don't value their privacy, but that should be their option. If Apple made a warning, that the information has to be shared with the third party manufacturer in order for it to be displayed on the fitness band, glasses or whatever, the user can then make a decision, whether they want to do that or not.

It should be the user's decision, whether they are being silly with their information or not, if they have been warned and decide to continue, that is their problem.

 

[I7guy]

Yes you can. If you haven’t seen all those LCD screen replacements for iPhones instead of oled OEM screens.

And both makes oled and lcd panels.

That’s not interchanging. That’s buying a third party item.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s not interchanging. That’s buying a third party item.

You can interchange the Samsung screen with an lg screen or other.

 

[surferfb]

I agree, a lot of people don't realise and don't value their privacy, but that should be their option. If Apple made a warning, that the information has to be shared with the third party manufacturer in order for it to be displayed on the fitness band, glasses or whatever, the user can then make a decision, whether they want to do that or not.

It should be the user's decision, whether they are being silly with their information or not, if they have been warned and decide to continue, that is their problem.

My point is most users don’t know “notifications shared with Meta sunglasses” will mean “Meta is going to infer from frequent notifications from my glucose monitor app that I’m diabetic and will use that info to sell ads”. If Apple is allowed to say “If you click yes, Meta could use the notifications you receive to target ads to you”, then I have less of an issue, but we all know the EU will prohibit any accurate and actually useful warning language as Apple using “scare screens” to discourage people from using third party products (because again, either the EU doesn’t know what it’s doing, doesn’t care about the end user and their experience, or more likely, both.)

And if that is indeed the case, I think Apple is correct that most users won’t understand “my notifications will be used to target ads to me”, and therefore Apple is within its rights to say “our customers have entrusted us to keep them safe and their data private, so we’re not going to allow that.” It’s only been a part of Apple’s brand promise for over 20 years now.

And a massively popular alternative exits for those consumers who want a more “open” experience. Just because you don’t want to use the competition, or the EU doesn’t understand how competition works, doesn’t mean the competition isn’t there.

 

[retroneo]

we all know the EU will prohibit any accurate and actually useful warning language

“Meta is going to infer from frequent notifications from my glucose monitor app that I’m diabetic and will use that info to sell ads”.

The EU already has protections against the collection or use of health related data for tracking (and many other protected types). Tracking works differently in the EU by law, even when you give your consent.