6 ms·

As cool how unified the Apple ecosystem is, I do think the EU is right that it's extremely unfair for Apple to give its own smartwatches access to the phone tha

As cool how unified the Apple ecosystem is, I do think the EU is right that it's extremely unfair for Apple to give its own smartwatches access to the phone that other smartwatches have zero chance of getting access to.

radicalbyte 2y ago
There was a time, long long ago, when the US had regulators with balls, they regulated Microsoft to stop them pulling this anti-competitive shit.
- milesrout 2y ago
  They famously did basically nothing to Microsoft and Microsoft continued to maintain a near monopoly for many years and do all the same things it had always done to keep its monopoly.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    And whilst the EU was focusing on Microsoft, Google took the chance to have it's turn.
  - j_maffe 2y ago
    Microsoft became much more diversified and interoperable than it was before that crackdown.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    Some people apparently don't remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft tried to demonstrate that Internet Explorer is suddenly such an integral part of the OS that it's technically impossible to separate it. It didn't work, they were forced to decouple it again (which was susprisingly simple), and despite the somewhat weak result for Win98 I think we can be thankful for that. I don't want to imagine how Windows 2000 would have looked if they would have continued cementing IE6 into the frontend...
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      > Some people apparently don't remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft tried to demonstrate that Internet Explorer is suddenly such an integral part of the OS that it's technically impossible to separate it. Heh ye. That was obvious BS. Wasn't there like, sometimes, it looked like IE was running as a widget inside an window? Like search or something?
      - rickdeckard 2y ago
        You mean the "Active Desktop" I think, some small widgets on top of the desktop wallpaper which usually showed 404's because you didn't dial up to the Internet yet :)
  - seec 2y ago
    You are confused about Microsoft. They did (do?) have some bad anti-competitive behavior but they won because ultimately, they provided a competitive OS (and software suite) at a very competitive price and nobody was able to successfully offer a combination of hardware/software that could match that offering. Not Apple and not even Linux with their free stuff, and it still stays true after all these years. If one company were to make a compelling OS as good as Windows for as cheap or cheaper, people would flock to them really fast. We can talk about the software coupling all day, but similarly devs are going there primarily because that is where their customers are because of the cheap costs. Gaming and 3D software are notoriously Windows only because it's the only OS that has provided decent stability/features while allowing access to a competitive hardware proposition. Now that Linux is somewhat viable, we can actually see some high-end software working there, in the 3D effects and video business. Microsoft might be shady but at least they are providing good value. Apple is a major dickhead clamoring how much better they are while failing to actual value. I am an Apple customer and I do think their OS is nice for many things but the reality is that outside of their laptop the value is extremely questionnable (and even for the laptop, because of RAM/SSD pricing you better have some justification for the benefit of battery life, otherwise its mostly a luxury).
ForTheKidz 2y ago
[flagged]
- milesrout 2y ago
  No emoji is a reason HN is still good. Among many. Your comment IMO has little value to a reader. You forcefully state your opinions but give me no reason why I should adopt them or any basis on which I could challenge them. I am more interested in why you think what you do than in what you actually think. Why is that the only feature worth paying for? How are watches an "extension of this behaviour"? Why should everything be "mandated open protocol"? Do you see how that can lead to ossification and the stifling of innovation? Amazon offers returns... so what? I haven't bought anything from Amazon for years. Some people don't want unreliable crap they have to constantly fight over warranties on, even in places with good consumer protection laws. Some just want something that actually works.
  - ForTheKidz 2y ago
    Sure, but most comments on the internet (very much including this forum) offer zero or negative "value" to the reader. What we're doing now is typically called "socializing and discussing topics of the day", which is typically a non-transactional sort of relationship. Notably absent from this is any obligation to persuade you of anything. I won't waste my time; I know this forum and the kind of discourse people want to have. What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws. > Some just want something that actually works. Sure! Some people are rich and assign little "value" to money relative to time (including me). This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. But as it stands they're basically lighting aforementioned cash on fire for the vibes and quarterly reports. If I see you with white earbuds in, I'll start selling you a bridge.
    - milesrout 2y ago
      >What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws. This is not what HN is for. We should not use it as a place to vent frustrations. >This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. That makes no sense. If that profit were put to better use elsewhere it would be. Either Apple itself would invest it elsewhere or people would invest it elsewhere instead of giving money to Apple in exchange for their products. If you think a business making money "costs the public" that money you fundamentally misunderstand the very most basic principles of economics. It is the equivalent of saying that you think integers in computers are stored in base 3 or confidently proclaiming that "single entry accounting is the standard way to do it" or something. It is so so so wrong.
ohgr 2y ago
I think it’ll be good for Apple. Everyone will go “yay” and buy another brand of crap smart watch, realise it’s total garbage and buy an Apple watch anyway.
- dividedbyzero 2y ago
  I'd love to use a Garmin or a Suunto, but they aren't integrated very well on iOS and I like the convenience of my iPhone and Macbook too much to switch to an Android. I think there are a lot of people who're not very satisfied with Apple Watches for sports tracking or who'd just like something that lasts a week at least. There are quality options outside of Apple Watches if you don't need it to feel like a tiny iPhone. Most of the UX I need was available on a Chinese smartwatch almost ten years ago (though super buggy back then), the basics aren't that hard and seeing how a fair lot of iOS apps have dropped their WatchOS apps for lack of usage I don't seem to be so singular in that. But I don't think it'll hurt the Apple Watch sales all that much either, they still work very well as a fashionable accessory.
  - ohgr 2y ago
    I have both a Garmin (Instinct solar) and an Apple Watch (S10). The Apple Watch is actually slightly more useful even if it doesn't last more than a couple of days. Actually if I'm honest the Apple Watch saved my life a couple of times. The Garmin is nice, but it's just not as useful.
  - seec 2y ago
    I have been using an Apple Watch since 2018 (bought for the "superior" swim tracking back then) and I think they are really not that good for sports tracking. There is 3rd party software that makes the deal much better but it's ridiculous that they aren't able to provide the same quality/usefulness natively and it's added costs/frictions in the use experience. I don't care much for the smartwatch thing (I think they are largely useless for the most part) and I believe this is exactly why Apple is trying very hard to not open up. For smartwatch purposes, something as expensive (and with such a small life) as an Apple Watch doesn't make a lot of sense. You are spending way too much on some basic functionality and for sports tracking Apple really needs to step up to provide value matching the price. The Apple Watch Ultra is decent but widely overpriced for what it does, even the most ardent Apple fans will say as much (like MKBHD who basically acknowledged that the Ultra primary feature was to be able to show that you had the most expensive watch from Apple).
tpmoney 2y ago
I feel like it would be easier to believe that Apple locking down access to things is the problem if anything at all comparable to their experiences existed outside. Yet whenever this discussion comes up, the answer to “why not just use Android’s ecosystem” largely seems to be that no such similar experience exists for Android. But why would that be the case if this was about Apple locking stuff down? Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see a comprehensive and more open integration ecosystem for non-Apple devices, if only to encourage Apple to keep building. But it doesn’t exist now, why would I expect it to exist if Apple is also open?
- roblabla 2y ago
  > Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? It's entirely possible on Android? Pebble used to have decent integration with Android, from notifications/calls, to music controls, to sports tracking/health data. You could even get navigation integration! And that was a decade ago. That's what makes it so painful: the pebble android experience is really nice and integrates very well, while the iOS one is terrible due to the Apple lockdowns.
  - Despacito2019 2y ago
    garmin watch works like this at the moment on android and subpar on ios
- pimterry 2y ago
  > Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? ...yes, and that's exactly what has happened. Android has a thriving ecosystem of excellent smartwatches (Garmin, Pebble, Fitbit, Samsung & Pixel watches, etc) with lots of features (particularly around notifications and interactions with apps on the device) that are impossible to support on iOS. https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-... has some concrete details.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
I play an Apple apologist online (sometimes). Most here would agree that a public API is a liability regardless. Anything you can keep private (SPI) you should. Opening up an API that has all manner of hooks into your Apple device is going to be (obviously, I think) one of the most challenging of API to expose. While a 3rd party watch might needs these API, a whole lot of n'r-do-wells (looking at you, Meta) will likely figure out a way to exploit it in their apps. It's a can of worms or a Pandora's Box if you will. If Apple is forced to expose these API, but only after kicking and screaming, I would not be surprised.
- roblabla 2y ago
  Apple has many, many tools to prevent this from being a problem. To name a few: - They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple - They can lock the API behind a user approval - They can regularly prompt the user if they still wish to share notification data with the watch (same way they do to keep giving an app localisation data) - They could enforce that the notification is sent encrypted over bluetooth, without giving access to it to the app itself - forcing its handling to be done on-device - if they're so concerned about this. It's also worth noting that this problem is a complete non-issue for Android, and nobody seems to believe it is an issue there...
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Yeah, you're right. Not easy, but do-able. Apple, probably due to their success and size, are trying "Make me!" as a response until, you know, someone makes them. But they're not willing to voluntarily offer these API up.
  - burnerthrow008 2y ago
    > - They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple > - They can lock the API behind a user approval Not if the EU has anything to say about it. Apple is already in trouble for requiring prompts for 3rd party vendors, and you know that already. Same for entitlements.
rickdeckard 2y ago
Nothing restricts Apple from continuing to be this unified in their ecosystem. What the EU DMA tries to break, is Apple's "weaponization" of iOS to gain an unfair advantage in sales of accessories. So if Apple (the product-company) requires changes in iOS to realize a new feature in an accessory product, the changes in iOS will have to be opened to accessory-competitors as well. They would still be first-to-market with such new features (because they had a head-start in implementing and launching them with their accessory), they would just be facing competitors catching up over time like in every other balanced market.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be. Inevitably something you want to change becomes some one else’s “hold space bar to heat room” feature. And sure you can have “private” Or reserved spaces in APIs, but that can often lead to messes like needed 5 different vendor specific CSS tags to accomplish the same thing in all browsers, which in turn really leads to consolidation around one “winner” (see also IE6 and Chrome). They might very well still be able to make unified systems on open APIs and platforms, but it’s not clear whether they would be able to make them as well as they do when they control and own the whole stack and can change it without having to worry about anyone else.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    > Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be. I worked on public API's. If there's a justified need for a breaking change, make a new API and deprecate the old one. It can of course be harder than this, but its complication mainly comes from proper PLANNING of the action and AWARENESS of the environment. It's an OS, let's treat it as such and not buy into this narrative how hard and unfair the world is to this trillion dollar company.
    - tpmoney 2y ago

radicalbyte 2y ago

There was a time, long long ago, when the US had regulators with balls, they regulated Microsoft to stop them pulling this anti-competitive shit.

milesrout 2y ago
They famously did basically nothing to Microsoft and Microsoft continued to maintain a near monopoly for many years and do all the same things it had always done to keep its monopoly.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  And whilst the EU was focusing on Microsoft, Google took the chance to have it's turn.
- j_maffe 2y ago
  Microsoft became much more diversified and interoperable than it was before that crackdown.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Some people apparently don't remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft tried to demonstrate that Internet Explorer is suddenly such an integral part of the OS that it's technically impossible to separate it. It didn't work, they were forced to decouple it again (which was susprisingly simple), and despite the somewhat weak result for Win98 I think we can be thankful for that. I don't want to imagine how Windows 2000 would have looked if they would have continued cementing IE6 into the frontend...
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > Some people apparently don't remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft tried to demonstrate that Internet Explorer is suddenly such an integral part of the OS that it's technically impossible to separate it. Heh ye. That was obvious BS. Wasn't there like, sometimes, it looked like IE was running as a widget inside an window? Like search or something?
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      You mean the "Active Desktop" I think, some small widgets on top of the desktop wallpaper which usually showed 404's because you didn't dial up to the Internet yet :)
- seec 2y ago
  You are confused about Microsoft. They did (do?) have some bad anti-competitive behavior but they won because ultimately, they provided a competitive OS (and software suite) at a very competitive price and nobody was able to successfully offer a combination of hardware/software that could match that offering. Not Apple and not even Linux with their free stuff, and it still stays true after all these years. If one company were to make a compelling OS as good as Windows for as cheap or cheaper, people would flock to them really fast. We can talk about the software coupling all day, but similarly devs are going there primarily because that is where their customers are because of the cheap costs. Gaming and 3D software are notoriously Windows only because it's the only OS that has provided decent stability/features while allowing access to a competitive hardware proposition. Now that Linux is somewhat viable, we can actually see some high-end software working there, in the 3D effects and video business. Microsoft might be shady but at least they are providing good value. Apple is a major dickhead clamoring how much better they are while failing to actual value. I am an Apple customer and I do think their OS is nice for many things but the reality is that outside of their laptop the value is extremely questionnable (and even for the laptop, because of RAM/SSD pricing you better have some justification for the benefit of battery life, otherwise its mostly a luxury).

ForTheKidz 2y ago

[flagged]

milesrout 2y ago
No emoji is a reason HN is still good. Among many. Your comment IMO has little value to a reader. You forcefully state your opinions but give me no reason why I should adopt them or any basis on which I could challenge them. I am more interested in why you think what you do than in what you actually think. Why is that the only feature worth paying for? How are watches an "extension of this behaviour"? Why should everything be "mandated open protocol"? Do you see how that can lead to ossification and the stifling of innovation? Amazon offers returns... so what? I haven't bought anything from Amazon for years. Some people don't want unreliable crap they have to constantly fight over warranties on, even in places with good consumer protection laws. Some just want something that actually works.
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  Sure, but most comments on the internet (very much including this forum) offer zero or negative "value" to the reader. What we're doing now is typically called "socializing and discussing topics of the day", which is typically a non-transactional sort of relationship. Notably absent from this is any obligation to persuade you of anything. I won't waste my time; I know this forum and the kind of discourse people want to have. What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws. > Some just want something that actually works. Sure! Some people are rich and assign little "value" to money relative to time (including me). This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. But as it stands they're basically lighting aforementioned cash on fire for the vibes and quarterly reports. If I see you with white earbuds in, I'll start selling you a bridge.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    >What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws. This is not what HN is for. We should not use it as a place to vent frustrations. >This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. That makes no sense. If that profit were put to better use elsewhere it would be. Either Apple itself would invest it elsewhere or people would invest it elsewhere instead of giving money to Apple in exchange for their products. If you think a business making money "costs the public" that money you fundamentally misunderstand the very most basic principles of economics. It is the equivalent of saying that you think integers in computers are stored in base 3 or confidently proclaiming that "single entry accounting is the standard way to do it" or something. It is so so so wrong.

ohgr 2y ago

I think it’ll be good for Apple. Everyone will go “yay” and buy another brand of crap smart watch, realise it’s total garbage and buy an Apple watch anyway.

dividedbyzero 2y ago
I'd love to use a Garmin or a Suunto, but they aren't integrated very well on iOS and I like the convenience of my iPhone and Macbook too much to switch to an Android. I think there are a lot of people who're not very satisfied with Apple Watches for sports tracking or who'd just like something that lasts a week at least. There are quality options outside of Apple Watches if you don't need it to feel like a tiny iPhone. Most of the UX I need was available on a Chinese smartwatch almost ten years ago (though super buggy back then), the basics aren't that hard and seeing how a fair lot of iOS apps have dropped their WatchOS apps for lack of usage I don't seem to be so singular in that. But I don't think it'll hurt the Apple Watch sales all that much either, they still work very well as a fashionable accessory.
- ohgr 2y ago
  I have both a Garmin (Instinct solar) and an Apple Watch (S10). The Apple Watch is actually slightly more useful even if it doesn't last more than a couple of days. Actually if I'm honest the Apple Watch saved my life a couple of times. The Garmin is nice, but it's just not as useful.
- seec 2y ago
  I have been using an Apple Watch since 2018 (bought for the "superior" swim tracking back then) and I think they are really not that good for sports tracking. There is 3rd party software that makes the deal much better but it's ridiculous that they aren't able to provide the same quality/usefulness natively and it's added costs/frictions in the use experience. I don't care much for the smartwatch thing (I think they are largely useless for the most part) and I believe this is exactly why Apple is trying very hard to not open up. For smartwatch purposes, something as expensive (and with such a small life) as an Apple Watch doesn't make a lot of sense. You are spending way too much on some basic functionality and for sports tracking Apple really needs to step up to provide value matching the price. The Apple Watch Ultra is decent but widely overpriced for what it does, even the most ardent Apple fans will say as much (like MKBHD who basically acknowledged that the Ultra primary feature was to be able to show that you had the most expensive watch from Apple).

tpmoney 2y ago

I feel like it would be easier to believe that Apple locking down access to things is the problem if anything at all comparable to their experiences existed outside. Yet whenever this discussion comes up, the answer to “why not just use Android’s ecosystem” largely seems to be that no such similar experience exists for Android. But why would that be the case if this was about Apple locking stuff down? Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see a comprehensive and more open integration ecosystem for non-Apple devices, if only to encourage Apple to keep building. But it doesn’t exist now, why would I expect it to exist if Apple is also open?

roblabla 2y ago
> Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? It's entirely possible on Android? Pebble used to have decent integration with Android, from notifications/calls, to music controls, to sports tracking/health data. You could even get navigation integration! And that was a decade ago. That's what makes it so painful: the pebble android experience is really nice and integrates very well, while the iOS one is terrible due to the Apple lockdowns.
- Despacito2019 2y ago
  garmin watch works like this at the moment on android and subpar on ios
pimterry 2y ago
> Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right? ...yes, and that's exactly what has happened. Android has a thriving ecosystem of excellent smartwatches (Garmin, Pebble, Fitbit, Samsung & Pixel watches, etc) with lots of features (particularly around notifications and interactions with apps on the device) that are impossible to support on iOS. https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-... has some concrete details.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

I play an Apple apologist online (sometimes). Most here would agree that a public API is a liability regardless. Anything you can keep private (SPI) you should. Opening up an API that has all manner of hooks into your Apple device is going to be (obviously, I think) one of the most challenging of API to expose. While a 3rd party watch might needs these API, a whole lot of n'r-do-wells (looking at you, Meta) will likely figure out a way to exploit it in their apps. It's a can of worms or a Pandora's Box if you will. If Apple is forced to expose these API, but only after kicking and screaming, I would not be surprised.

roblabla 2y ago
Apple has many, many tools to prevent this from being a problem. To name a few: - They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple - They can lock the API behind a user approval - They can regularly prompt the user if they still wish to share notification data with the watch (same way they do to keep giving an app localisation data) - They could enforce that the notification is sent encrypted over bluetooth, without giving access to it to the app itself - forcing its handling to be done on-device - if they're so concerned about this. It's also worth noting that this problem is a complete non-issue for Android, and nobody seems to believe it is an issue there...
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Yeah, you're right. Not easy, but do-able. Apple, probably due to their success and size, are trying "Make me!" as a response until, you know, someone makes them. But they're not willing to voluntarily offer these API up.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  > - They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple > - They can lock the API behind a user approval Not if the EU has anything to say about it. Apple is already in trouble for requiring prompts for 3rd party vendors, and you know that already. Same for entitlements.

rickdeckard 2y ago

Nothing restricts Apple from continuing to be this unified in their ecosystem. What the EU DMA tries to break, is Apple's "weaponization" of iOS to gain an unfair advantage in sales of accessories. So if Apple (the product-company) requires changes in iOS to realize a new feature in an accessory product, the changes in iOS will have to be opened to accessory-competitors as well. They would still be first-to-market with such new features (because they had a head-start in implementing and launching them with their accessory), they would just be facing competitors catching up over time like in every other balanced market.

tpmoney 2y ago
Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be. Inevitably something you want to change becomes some one else’s “hold space bar to heat room” feature. And sure you can have “private” Or reserved spaces in APIs, but that can often lead to messes like needed 5 different vendor specific CSS tags to accomplish the same thing in all browsers, which in turn really leads to consolidation around one “winner” (see also IE6 and Chrome). They might very well still be able to make unified systems on open APIs and platforms, but it’s not clear whether they would be able to make them as well as they do when they control and own the whole stack and can change it without having to worry about anyone else.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  > Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be. I worked on public API's. If there's a justified need for a breaking change, make a new API and deprecate the old one. It can of course be harder than this, but its complication mainly comes from proper PLANNING of the action and AWARENESS of the environment. It's an OS, let's treat it as such and not buy into this narrative how hard and unfair the world is to this trillion dollar company.
  - tpmoney 2y ago