5 ms·

> let any device use AirDrop and AirPlay What's the problem with that? That's a win for everyone involved. Maybe finally we'll have an open, universal file tra

> let any device use AirDrop and AirPlay 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.

buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
There are those of us that don’t see government forcing people to act a certain way as always a “win for everyone involved”
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Apple is not "people". It's a trillion dollar corporation. I'd rather see it forced to open up all of its "value add" nonsense so that we can have interoperabiliry and truly own our devices.
  - righthand 2y ago
    The zealots think Apple is a person with rights. Look at how they talk about the company. It’s not exclusive to this thread and is apart of the Apple faith.
- tm-infringement 2y ago
  Just like the horrible government banning leaded fuel. I'm not joking, a stronger argument is needed about regulation than "any gubernatorial directive is bad". Apple isn't a person with natural rights. What are the actual drawbacks of this? Are we stifling innovation by forcing interop of the disruptive technology of "wireless filesharing"? It's infrared media transfer, but with 2.4GHz.
  - buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
    I specifically said that it isn’t always a win to address this. But yes, creating a strawman certainly makes arguments easier.
    - tm-infringement 2y ago
      You say that government intervention is not always a win. Sure, totally true, also it isn't always Sunday. I'm was asking for concrete arguments or reasons, vaguely gesturing at regulation having drawbacks isn't one. And calling it out isn't a strawman. The parent articulated pros, you responded with a truism instead of cons or refuting his points, which certainly makes arguments easier.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Then your post upthread was content-free and pointless. It's not news that government intervention sometimes goes badly. Maybe explain why you think a specific instance of government intervention is bad. That would actually be interesting and lead to discussion.
SllX 2y ago
When the incentive is that when you develop features to distinguish yourself from the competition that stand out and make your own product better, but then the government comes along and tells you that you have to give that away, the value of developing new features for your own products starts to diminish and you start looking at different business opportunities instead. It actually undermines Apple as a competitor to Android, in a market where they are far from a dominant force, and the way the EU is doing it looks completely arbitrary.
- rvense 2y ago
  iPhone market share is above 80% in my country (Denmark), and smartphone ownership among adults is close to 100%. At that point, you're infrastructure.
  - AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
    [dead]
  - SllX 2y ago
    If that's how the Danish feel, it makes more sense for Denmark to pass its own laws than rather than the EU, but I would posit that even at 80% marketshare, that's not enough to warrant the level of demands even from the Government of Denmark alone that the EU is imposing on Apple because in all the ways that matter for public purposes, the iPhone is already open enough: telephony, message exchange, open standards on the web, Bluetooth, I mean you name it, and if it's not a QoL thing like AirPlay or AirDrop, it's already there.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I disagree; 80% is plenty.
      - SllX 2y ago
        Elaborate if you’re going to disagree on why 80% is the magic number that means a supposedly liberal society should govern the QoL features of a foreign corporation’s product that already adheres to open standards on the communications hardware and software.
CubsFan1060 2y ago
Tell me this -- whatever the next technology is, why would a business spend the time or money to develop it? 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?
- ben_w 2y ago
  AirDrop and AirPlay are 13 and 14 years old — an eternity in software development. Even full patents only last for 20, and the "utility model" (AKA minor patent*) last 6-15 years depending on jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- pentamassiv 2y ago
  I'm sure e.g Jolla would be happy to develop a new feature that helps them become big enough that politicians feel like they need to regulate them
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  > 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? 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.
  - sadeshmukh 2y ago
    Or they could do nothing, wait for others to make features, and leech. It incentives parasitic behavior in the long run.

buzzerbetrayed 2y ago

There are those of us that don’t see government forcing people to act a certain way as always a “win for everyone involved”

matheusmoreira 2y ago
Apple is not "people". It's a trillion dollar corporation. I'd rather see it forced to open up all of its "value add" nonsense so that we can have interoperabiliry and truly own our devices.
- righthand 2y ago
  The zealots think Apple is a person with rights. Look at how they talk about the company. It’s not exclusive to this thread and is apart of the Apple faith.
tm-infringement 2y ago
Just like the horrible government banning leaded fuel. I'm not joking, a stronger argument is needed about regulation than "any gubernatorial directive is bad". Apple isn't a person with natural rights. What are the actual drawbacks of this? Are we stifling innovation by forcing interop of the disruptive technology of "wireless filesharing"? It's infrared media transfer, but with 2.4GHz.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
  I specifically said that it isn’t always a win to address this. But yes, creating a strawman certainly makes arguments easier.
  - tm-infringement 2y ago
    You say that government intervention is not always a win. Sure, totally true, also it isn't always Sunday. I'm was asking for concrete arguments or reasons, vaguely gesturing at regulation having drawbacks isn't one. And calling it out isn't a strawman. The parent articulated pros, you responded with a truism instead of cons or refuting his points, which certainly makes arguments easier.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Then your post upthread was content-free and pointless. It's not news that government intervention sometimes goes badly. Maybe explain why you think a specific instance of government intervention is bad. That would actually be interesting and lead to discussion.

SllX 2y ago

When the incentive is that when you develop features to distinguish yourself from the competition that stand out and make your own product better, but then the government comes along and tells you that you have to give that away, the value of developing new features for your own products starts to diminish and you start looking at different business opportunities instead. It actually undermines Apple as a competitor to Android, in a market where they are far from a dominant force, and the way the EU is doing it looks completely arbitrary.

rvense 2y ago
iPhone market share is above 80% in my country (Denmark), and smartphone ownership among adults is close to 100%. At that point, you're infrastructure.
- AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
  [dead]
- SllX 2y ago
  If that's how the Danish feel, it makes more sense for Denmark to pass its own laws than rather than the EU, but I would posit that even at 80% marketshare, that's not enough to warrant the level of demands even from the Government of Denmark alone that the EU is imposing on Apple because in all the ways that matter for public purposes, the iPhone is already open enough: telephony, message exchange, open standards on the web, Bluetooth, I mean you name it, and if it's not a QoL thing like AirPlay or AirDrop, it's already there.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I disagree; 80% is plenty.
    - SllX 2y ago
      Elaborate if you’re going to disagree on why 80% is the magic number that means a supposedly liberal society should govern the QoL features of a foreign corporation’s product that already adheres to open standards on the communications hardware and software.

CubsFan1060 2y ago

Tell me this -- whatever the next technology is, why would a business spend the time or money to develop it? 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?

ben_w 2y ago
AirDrop and AirPlay are 13 and 14 years old — an eternity in software development. Even full patents only last for 20, and the "utility model" (AKA minor patent*) last 6-15 years depending on jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pentamassiv 2y ago
I'm sure e.g Jolla would be happy to develop a new feature that helps them become big enough that politicians feel like they need to regulate them
enragedcacti 2y ago
> 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? 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.
- sadeshmukh 2y ago
  Or they could do nothing, wait for others to make features, and leech. It incentives parasitic behavior in the long run.