I thought the DMA lovers were all aboard saying companies that win in their marketplace do it because of coercion, not because they had a better product?
It’s some combination of a market companies in the EU care about where Apple sells a product that has some amount of market share, where the threshold and market definition are totally made up and seem to only impact foreign multinationals.
Delayed approval and disagreements about the fundamental nature of what's allowed are two totally different things. Not sure why this example is relevant at all.
Apple users pay carriers so much money that for half a decade there was substantial competition to be the exclusive carrier for iPhone and even still carriers will pay Apple users to become their customers through device subsidies.
I assure you iOS users would’ve been perfectly happy using Rdio, Tidal, Apple Music, or any one of a dozen other equally good streaming music services over dealing with the garbage of Android.
Internal API is not an SDK. It regularly astounds me how many commenters on a so-called hacker forum seem to think it is. Is everyone else publishing their tightly coupled business logic code as API these days? Is that what GraphQL is?
> Pay 30% of the app income to Apple (this changed only recently).
This is among the biggest fictions of this crazed argument. Spotify, the company that whines about Apple the most, pays Apple $0 (sorry, $99) for building the entire market for consumer mobile internet upon which their business depends.
> Apple would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by mentioning at least the generalities of _why_
Really? You can't imagine any reasons Apple wouldn't want to have a public PR battle about its disagreements with its primary regulator in the market? Have you ever worked with the government?
That's not going far enough. Disneyland should make its IP available to any competing ride vendor for free (sorry, not free, $99/yr) so that they too can build the same special effects people come to expect from Disneyland.
Yes, I definitely want "Shockz" to be able to run background daemons on my phone for proximity pairing and god knows what else a fly by night OEM might want to do. That would make my phone work much, much better.
The EU has not declared that Android gatekeeps headphone technology, so the comparison to Pixel Buds is totally irrelevant. There is no interop requirement placed on them.
The iPhone Pro Max retails for as much as the Samsung Galaxy Ultra, and only one of the two OEMs builds the application platform used by all its developers. What are these "giant profit margins" you're referring to?
Apple proposed something like this with their "Core Technology Fee" which the EU commissioners were upset about. They literally do not want to let Apple directly monetize the R&D it takes to produce an application platform.
Wow sounds like the $99/yr the commenter was saying developers "pay" Apple is a trivial amount and cannot be used to justify the development of an entire SDK that maybe a dozen companies will use.
You can buy iPhone 12 on the refurbished market for $300. Apple intends to serve your needs by making great hardware that lasts with long periods of software support.
So people would like Apple to make a radically different decision about camera sensor size or phone thickness so that those who want to hammer out a short message a couple times a week on their desk don’t have their phone wobble slightly or, even worse, need to pick up their phone to use it in hand?