Apple must ensure interoperability of iPhone with rivals, says EU
euronews.com
euronews.com
It's a useful way to check subconscious bias.
I still don't get how one can have blind brand loyalty to a corporation.
Constant exposure to billion dolar driven advertising is very effective in brainwashing people into thinking of brands as friends. While the opposite is usually true. It's baffling that we allow this in our societies in such extend.
And people defend status symbols as if they're defending baby Jesus from Satan.
Grilled ? More like a pat on the back. They are still there with Windows, AD, Office 365 trio.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it as a consumer. I'd friggin love to be able to airdrop a file from one digital device to another.
But it could be an ingenious way to create standards. Instead of randomly creating fourteen different solutions to a problem hoping one will gain traction, we wait for apple/microsoft/cisco/whoever to force one down our throats and then take it from them and make it a standard.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/
How many companies are bigger than Apple? Not that many, so no it can't be applied to any other company.
I guess it depends if you believe that these resources should interoperate when a user is paying for them. e.g., the humane pin makes you get a separate internet connection, and competing cameras devise clunky/slow ways to access your camera roll. Competing photo services have no way to sync iCloud, etc. All of these things could work like Bluetooth - be secure and relatively open, but they are not.
iMessage, AirDrop, Find My Friends, AirPlay, WiFi password sharing, iPhoto sharing
Your private stuff. That you want to share to the person next to you.
That’s the difference with all of those “any smartphone can do it” features and what’s available on iOS.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/apps/quick-share/?srsltid=AfmBOor...
Also both wifi direct file sharing and Bluetooth file sharing have been things forever. I had a ~15 year old mostly dumb camera that did it.
Also the app "Bump" did this many years ago, was on both iOS and Android. Other apps probably did/do as well.
I personally think it's useless but it's always been a thing.
iMessage = Google Messages (with RCS), works on web too
AirDrop = Nearby Share
Find My Friends = Google Maps Location sharing
AirPlay = Chromecast
WiFi password sharing = WiFi "share network" -> QR code
iPhoto sharing = Google photos sharing
They shouldn't have to switch, but Apple forces them to do so by imposing artificial limitations on other platforms.
But the same Apple is more than happy with providing the Apple Music app on Android as a means to boost their music revenue...
I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up FaceTime, Messages, Airplay, and CarPlay to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it. Which lays bare the challenge - for many it’s about wanting these services for free on a platform where Apple receives no revenue.
IMHO iMessage should be broken off from Apple and they shouldn't be allowed to run a messaging platform like this.
The disease is the fact it's illegal to crack open their locks. We need their permission to interoperate. If we don't have it, we're criminals if we try.
All we need to do is legalize reverse engineering and circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. In less than a year the iMessage nonsense will be solved because all competing platforms will add support for its protocols whether they want it or not. They'll try to make it hard to do it but it won't matter.
Adversarial interoperability should be the norm. They shouldn't have a choice in whether they are interoperated with. It should just happen organically.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
It sometimes feels like Apple is getting a lot of ire simply for being successful.
> I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up [...email...] to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it
and now they can send and receive email from people that don't use Apple Mail! A serious loss :-)
(and don't tell me that spam makes it worth it)
It enhances the incentive to innovate for smaller companies who would otherwise be locked out by Apple. This ruling for instance will allow smartwatch mfgs to compete with Apple on a level playing field for iOS users' money.
All these walled gardens and lock in nonsense need to get wiped off the face of this earth. I'd rather they got banned and stopped existing than suffer the status quo where iPhone users look down on us inferior Android users because we got segregated by speech bubble color.
Not that Android is hackable these days anyway. Remote attestation, yet another thing that needs to get banned. It should be illegal for them to discriminate against us in any way whatsoever on the basis of the hardware or software we choose to use. They should serve us whether we use iPhones or Linux on a tamagotchi.
Ie. if Apple can use a device feature in their own apps, developers should be able to use the same feature and users should be able to get that app, whether through the store or sideloaded.
The whole EU argument is "users paid for this device, it belongs to them"
They want to force Apple to let any device use AirDrop and AirPlay. No such similar requirement for Android Cast, of course.
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8...
What's the problem with that? That's a win for everyone involved. Maybe finally we'll have an open, universal file transfer and proximity screen casting protocol, thanks to it already having a critical mass of compatible devices.
The parent articulated pros, you responded with a truism instead of cons or refuting his points, which certainly makes arguments easier.
Maybe explain why you think a specific instance of government intervention is bad. That would actually be interesting and lead to discussion.
Things that existed before iPhones and that Apple cannot lock down? I'm glad they're open, but I won't give Apple credit. Particularly when they gently slid people out of SMS and into iMessage, for example. (Google did this less too but less successfully and are also at fault.)
> Particularly when they gently slid people out of SMS and into iMessage, for example.
Or put another way, certainly the way it was perceived of at the time by their customers then and now: gave their customers a superior messaging experience over what was typically available to cell phones at the time that they wouldn’t be charged for. RIM also did this with BlackBerry Messenger. Then and now iMessage is a selling point for their phones, not the future of mobile messaging out of some misguided noblesse oblige or something that they owe the world (and by world I mean their competitors and non-iPhone customers) simply because they made it and people like it because it’s actually good–and for a long time it had its hiccups, but better than SMS was a low bar.
Crippling a standard to reduce interoperability is not making a product better.
The value of a networked feature goes up with the number of nodes implementing it. A product that is able to send files/stream media to all products is more valuable than one limited to sending to products of its own brand.
You may value a product like that more but imo it’s not the way it works in practice.
An iPhone can already send files or stream media to all products provided you negotiate the protocol by which you do it and the software is available or you write it yourself. YouTube has Google Cast built into it, which you don’t have to use with an Apple TV because AirPlay will work, but if you say wanted to put video from your phone up on a Samsung smart TV, it’s an option. If you want to transfer files from an iPhone, you are not lacking in options, but if it’s to another iPhone or a Mac, AirDrop is just one of those options.
Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use?
Even full patents only last for 20, and the "utility model" (AKA minor patent*) last 6-15 years depending on jurisdiction.
Because new hardware/interoperability features are an opportunity to sell more hardware. Apple still gets to make and sell accessories, their product just has to compete on the merits with other products in the segment. People will keep buying Airpods even if Sony's can hand-off between Apple hardware because Airpods are a great product that can stand on their own.
Making everything proprietary and exclusive is not the only way to make money. And even if you can make more money that way, I don't care: corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, and we should feel free to demand whatever we want from them.
Alternatively, look at Google trying to take control of the web/HTML with their Web Environment Integrity API proposal. If the web was a "Google Protocol" rather than a W3C one, they would have been able to add it despite the negative feedback.
Apple also has a big enough marketshare to matter to the DMA.
Maybe the EU can ask Google to open Chromecast up so Apple can integrate it into iOS. Then you can use it from any app without needing special integrations.
You are comparing Apple's primary product/service against a throwaway part of Google's. Google has walled gardens around its primary business too. But they are so deeply ingrained into our world that nobody questions it, because there's also no viable competitors.
Criticism of Google is fair, but it has nothing to do with excusing Apple here.
Because with Android devices you can sideload any app, alternative stores, you can set any 3rd party app as default, they can handle pretty much any type of file, etc...
The thing that EU regulators don't seem to get is that I (and many others) have knowingly and intentionally opted in to this walled garden. It's simple, it generally works, it's relatively secure, and I don't give a half a shit about the cost. I do not want or need competition to drive down the price because I do not care about the price. It's a luxury product.
If the end result of this regulation was better software, better hardware, and better co-design, then I'd be all for it, but this just isn't going to be the case. We're just going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit that provides near-zero benefit to mainline apple consumers.
At least as likely as a positive outcome is that the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.
Just the other day some stupid rule came out forcing developers even the smaller ones to publish their address which prompted non EU developers to just unregister their apps on the region.
Yes. It's an iron curtain and another stupid outcome of misguided EU regulations that might have good intentions but end ruining everything like GDPR cookie modals.
Apple has vast amounts of extra money, so it’s hard to imagine why they’d be forced to stop dedicating resources to other features.
25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. Neither here nor there but that’s part of your argument that seems pretty flawed (ie: it’s a luxury product so we shouldn’t have to worry about the vagaries of “anti/pro-consumer behavior, competition etc”). Sure most of Apple’s other products are in the more to much more expensive end of their categories, but the iPhone’s market penetration definitely makes the luxury categorization wrong IMO, even if it is expensive.
Anyways, your entire argument effectively boils down to “this problem does not affect me, therefore it is not a problem; I don’t care if there is a monopoly on some product or service or lock-in or anything because I’m fine with it, I like the service and have no plans on leaving anyways” - which is a position plenty of people take, and also one plenty of people disagree with, so I won’t try to argue either way with you here since you seem committed. It does seem short-sighted and generally anti-consumer to me (or like you are just evidence that their various lock-in strategies work and are good for their business - which you self-identified as being correct in re: intentionally buying into walled-garden).
Anyways, that’s not to say I totally disagree - I think most of your points are generally true/or something I could at least see being true even if I don’t feel convinced (ie potentially ending up in a sea of third party crap, creating a potentially undue burden on Apple engineering etc… tho even those I find questionable and not self-evident).
iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take. Meanwhile, actually cheap smartphones still from a reputable manufacturer (eg: Samsung) can be had for at least $200 to $300 or so.
So no, iPhones (and Apple products in general) are a luxury good. There is a lot more "want" than "need" involved when choosing to buy an iPhone.
I live in the US where iPhones were 61.26% of smartphones sold in the US in the most recent quarter https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share
If you want to be fancy, get a folding phone like a Galaxy Fold or a Pixel Fold. Those do have steep discounts at times, but you're still going to have to fork up $800-1200 or so for them. Or get one of those niche phones like an Xperia 1 or an Asus ROG phone or whatever that costs >$1000 and isn't subsidized by ANY carrier.
Smartphones as a general good are a life necessity at this point, but esoteric offerings among them like iPhones or Sony Xperias or the higher end Samsung Galaxys or Google Pixels are luxury goods because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag.
It's like how a bottom trim Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is a necessity because you probably need a car, but anything beyond it is a luxury because whether you want that car is different. Another example would be choosing name brand foodstuffs at the grocery store instead of the store brand, that's also choosing luxury goods assuming the store brand is cheaper.
[1]: https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy...
Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me.
It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.
Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.
The hell are you talking about GPDR being a resounding failure? It's been pretty awesome. I love bills like that.
It's a handheld computer. That's what it is. That's what it should be. And we should own our computers. And those computers should run whatever software we choose. And they should be able to network with every other computer on the planet. No bullshit restrictions.
I don't believe I should "lose some of my standing to complain" after buying any product whatsoever. Cheap, expensive, "luxury", you name it. I believe I should gain standing after paying for something. I believe should fully own the thing after buying it. Especially $1000+ "luxury" smartphones. I believe I should never end up being a serf in the corporation's digital fiefdom.
That sounds like a very bold claim, yet it reflects nothing from the real world. You may not need something, but that doesn’t mean others don’t or must not.
Technically, nobody needs anything beyond food, water, shelter and companionship (even the last one is arguable). Allow everybody to only buy the cheapest of foods and the most basic shelters. Then declare that anything else is a want. That just doesn’t make sense.
Nobody needs social media or HN or to be commenting on HN either, but here we are.
But most of the things we obtain are wants rather than needs, aren't they?
iPhones are a luxury good; they are significantly more expensive than budget smartphones that can nonetheless practically serve the needs of most people if not their wants. Is that Samsung Galaxy A15 a great phone? Hell no it isn't, but you can do your mobile banking and make calls and texts and do instant messaging and emails just fine.
Not having a smartphone like even that Galaxy A15 will make life exceedingly prohibitive today, but not having an iPhone won't adversely affect your requisite daily affairs. iPhones are a luxury good.
Keep in mind, I'm not denigrating luxury goods thereof or the act of enjoying luxuries. There's inherently nothing wrong with buying an iPhone or a six-pack of beer or a sports car or a big house or a family vacation to a faraway country if that's what you want. We only get one life, so we might as well enjoy it.
That's not how the concept of luxury goods works.
Also consider that Android is not a 1:1 replacement for an iPhone in the same way that a Honda is a replacement for a Mercedes-Benz. Lock-in and ecosystem interop matters a lot more for a phone than for a car.
I would probably buy into the idea that a Pixel (for example) is a luxury Android device, but not that an iPhone is a luxury smartphone in general.
Anyways I don’t feel too strongly about this either way, I just think the argument here that the iPhone is a luxury device doesn’t absolve them. Other arguments I’m more sympathetic to is all.
The upfront purchase price is $0 in most rich countries.
Don't like interoperability? Keep using what you're using, and be quiet.
Don't like alternative app stores? Keep using the app store you're using, and be quiet.
Don't like choice? Keep using the thing you were using before you had the option, and be quiet.
None of this is about you, at all.
Comparing it to opinions about gay marriage makes you look dishonest, "None of this is about you, at all" makes you look plain silly
And I don’t really get to opt out either as eventually I’ll be forced to update my software.
>the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.
I'm skeptical, why would interoperability mean this? Concretely? You are free to buy Apple only, to maintain the first party "luxury" experience. Apple adding dev time to make their APIs interoperable means making them more robust and stops them from cheating in their privacy promises. i.e "No sharing personal data with Big Tech, except Apple."
Also, Apple will add headcount if necessary to deal with EU compliance, they aren't a small startup.
What malware laden third party bullshit are you talking about? The stuff that is approved by Apple to be in the iOS App Store can be pretty heavily ridden with ads - especially the kind that pop open the App Store to show you a page selling their crappy app. But since there's no way to install system-wide app blocker on an iphone you kinda have to deal with it. [
I haven't had to deal with malware on any platform in a very very long time.
It would be nice if I could run proper firefox with proper ublock origin on my iphone though.
None. No malware-laden third-party bullshit, because that's just a straw man. If the GP doesn't want third-party app stores, there's a very simple solution to that: Don't install them on your phone.
The walled garden shouldn't be forced on everyone who buys a device. Having an opt out is not unreasonable.
> Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability
Actually, I think they put more effort into not being interoperable, so feature development should increase.
The EU way of open market through regulations doesn’t seem to make anybody happy.
Banning worked wonders for China, Russia and USA. Nobody seems to be complaining.
The claim is that AI can write the software, ban everything and tell ChatGPT o3 to write you the alternative :)
Makes me, and probably every other EU consumer, super happy.
We wouldn't know, unless you said that. On a USA server, of course.
It's not a meme, it's reality
Also I don’t have to use a third-party App Store now. What do you think will happen when my BANK will decide they don’t want to go through the App Store? Or when they decide to stop supporting Apple Pay because FU?
I WANT the ecosystem to be unbreakable because it is more convenient.
It is the OTHER WAY AROUND we should think. Nobody ever forced anybody to buy an iPhone. Why should Apple be forced to do anything “for the good of the consumer?” It is not and has never been for the consumer anyway, it’s for the companies that are “missing out.”
And it actually might even be what makes me the most mad: the hypocrisy. It is not for the consumer, it is for other companies to make more profit. At least tell it like it is, don’t try to sell it like it’ll profit me, the consumer. I know what I want and it’s not that.