3 ms·

> They're trying to compel Apple to deliver interoperability for basically every unique Apple feature IANAL but the impression I got wasn't that they are requi

> They're trying to compel Apple to deliver interoperability for basically every unique Apple feature IANAL but the impression I got wasn't that they are requiring Apple to deliver interoperability, just that Apple can't block it. I.e. they can't create APIs that enable those things and not allow third parties to invoke them.

tacticus 2y ago
> they can't create APIs that enable those things and not allow third parties to invoke them. Entertainingly the same reason microsoft didn't lock down the kernel interfaces that lead to crowdstriking everything. MS wanted to be the only security product in the kernel.
- syndeo 2y ago
  Exactly… and look where that got us. Sometimes platform makers really do know best. Just because something is beneficial to the business (exclusivity) doesn't mean it's not also simultaneously beneficial to users.
bri3d 2y ago
Each feature I listed comes with a clause equal to "Apple shall implement an interoperability solution that provides third parties with access to the same AirPlay feature described in the preceding paragraph as available to Apple, in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple." Even each sub-functionality (for example, AirDrop Contacts Only mode) is enumerated as "shall implement."
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  I read the "shall implement an interoperability solution that...in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple." a bit differently. Apple must ensure interoperability, but they are allowed to implement a separate solution to Apple's internal one if they feel it is better to do so. So far it seems like a lot of the requirements could be satisfied by Apple just opening their APIs given that an identical solution would in fact be equally effective. The EU could have mandated that the solutions be identical but that would be more restrictive to Apple despite the requirement seeming like it would be less work.

tacticus 2y ago

> they can't create APIs that enable those things and not allow third parties to invoke them. Entertainingly the same reason microsoft didn't lock down the kernel interfaces that lead to crowdstriking everything. MS wanted to be the only security product in the kernel.

syndeo 2y ago
Exactly… and look where that got us. Sometimes platform makers really do know best. Just because something is beneficial to the business (exclusivity) doesn't mean it's not also simultaneously beneficial to users.

bri3d 2y ago

Each feature I listed comes with a clause equal to "Apple shall implement an interoperability solution that provides third parties with access to the same AirPlay feature described in the preceding paragraph as available to Apple, in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple." Even each sub-functionality (for example, AirDrop Contacts Only mode) is enumerated as "shall implement."

enragedcacti 2y ago
I read the "shall implement an interoperability solution that...in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple." a bit differently. Apple must ensure interoperability, but they are allowed to implement a separate solution to Apple's internal one if they feel it is better to do so. So far it seems like a lot of the requirements could be satisfied by Apple just opening their APIs given that an identical solution would in fact be equally effective. The EU could have mandated that the solutions be identical but that would be more restrictive to Apple despite the requirement seeming like it would be less work.