5 ms·

So consumers will just buy from another brand and use that instead? I get the Apple is trying to spread propaganda that anti-competitive laws are bad for consu

So consumers will just buy from another brand and use that instead? I get the Apple is trying to spread propaganda that anti-competitive laws are bad for consumers, but in this case, consumers will just buy from another brand and it's a simple net loss for Apple.

amelius 1y ago
Except many users are already locked into Apple's ecosystem, so they will be very angry.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sjiabq 1y ago
  [flagged]
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  The relevant question for Apple is here: Will those users buy OTHER headphones than Apple then, or still buy Airpods...? From my observation the "properly locked-in" Apple user buys Airpods and mostly replaces them with newer Airpods when needed, because of Apple's artificial advantage in ecosystem interoperability (the exact reason of the dispute with the EU)
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    Yeah but disputes like Apples with the EU can take 10 years to litigate and settle by the time Apple has raked in more billions and crushed more competitors. So they know they can keep stalling and appealing as time works in their favor.
    - rickdeckard 1y ago
      Maybe, but currently it seems that Apple prefers to not "litigate while crushing the competition", but instead "retreat and rally up the userbase". So at least in this aspect the DMA seems to work surprisingly well... I also think there is little for them to litigate at this point, they were exchanging extensively for more than a year on how to reach compliance, then the decision [0] was made. There are also separate procedures for the specification of compliance and investigating (non)compliance. Apple might continue to have a hard time litigating on non-compliance if they co-worked with the EU on the exact expectation of compliance beforehand. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
- rootusrootus 1y ago
  What does it mean to be locked in, exactly? I just bought a pair of Shokz headphones and they work perfectly well with my iPhone. I didn't feel like I was forced to buy AirPods.
  - bootsmann 1y ago
    The position of the EU (correctly) is that they would work even better if Apple gave them the same level of access to your phone that they award to their own headphones.
    - shuckles 1y ago
      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.
      - eagleal 1y ago
        But then simply don't install or buy "Shockz" if that's your concern. Apple might be doing the same thing, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it, since their ecosystem is a closed gate.
        shuckles 1y ago
        I have enough software on my phone that I was forced to install that I know this is argument rests on a false premise of agency.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        That concept is entirely foreign to me, as an Android user. Closest I've come to being "forced" to install anything is when I need a boarding pass, and even then I'll often use a screenshot from my desktop. I can't think of any other mandatory apps on my phone right now.
viktorcode 1y ago
What dividends this propaganda would bring? Apple is making their product less compelling in a market where they have lower share than in the other markets where this feature will be available. They are simply weighting potential fines / loss of revenues due to being forced to share technology with competition against monetary losses due to fewer sales. So far fewer sales win.
- quitit 1y ago
  This is the central point that is always missed on this forum. These are features that apple are dedicating a huge amount of resources to. Tim Cook frequently talks up the importance of artificial intelligence as the future. Apple Intelligence is a tentpole feature of new iPhones, it has heavily influenced their advertising, and takes prime position in their marketing materials. Withholding these features, even for just 6 months, is harmful to Apple. Especially when Apple appear weaker in the category, and competitors are frequently releasing AI products. However here you'll read a byzantine concoction on how this is acshually a 4D anticompetitive chess move.
NoPicklez 1y ago
But if they allowed it, more people would buy the Apple feature because it would work better when both software and hardware are integrated.
DavideNL 1y ago
Have you ever tried bluetooth audio devices on an iPhone/ iPad? Apple does this very clever, it works, but it has so many annoyances and bugs. By making 3th party products “annoying” to use, Apple nudges people to just buy Apple products/the ecosystem…
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Have you ever tried bluetooth audio devices on an iPhone/ iPad? Every day. But I never ran into what you suggest. My iPad is not more annoying than my Dell laptop when it comes to Bluetooth (and both are light years away from my Linux box).

amelius 1y ago

Except many users are already locked into Apple's ecosystem, so they will be very angry.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sjiabq 1y ago
[flagged]
rickdeckard 1y ago
The relevant question for Apple is here: Will those users buy OTHER headphones than Apple then, or still buy Airpods...? From my observation the "properly locked-in" Apple user buys Airpods and mostly replaces them with newer Airpods when needed, because of Apple's artificial advantage in ecosystem interoperability (the exact reason of the dispute with the EU)
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Yeah but disputes like Apples with the EU can take 10 years to litigate and settle by the time Apple has raked in more billions and crushed more competitors. So they know they can keep stalling and appealing as time works in their favor.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    Maybe, but currently it seems that Apple prefers to not "litigate while crushing the competition", but instead "retreat and rally up the userbase". So at least in this aspect the DMA seems to work surprisingly well... I also think there is little for them to litigate at this point, they were exchanging extensively for more than a year on how to reach compliance, then the decision [0] was made. There are also separate procedures for the specification of compliance and investigating (non)compliance. Apple might continue to have a hard time litigating on non-compliance if they co-worked with the EU on the exact expectation of compliance beforehand. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
rootusrootus 1y ago
What does it mean to be locked in, exactly? I just bought a pair of Shokz headphones and they work perfectly well with my iPhone. I didn't feel like I was forced to buy AirPods.
- bootsmann 1y ago
  The position of the EU (correctly) is that they would work even better if Apple gave them the same level of access to your phone that they award to their own headphones.
  - shuckles 1y ago
    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.
    - eagleal 1y ago
      But then simply don't install or buy "Shockz" if that's your concern. Apple might be doing the same thing, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it, since their ecosystem is a closed gate.
      - shuckles 1y ago
        I have enough software on my phone that I was forced to install that I know this is argument rests on a false premise of agency.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        That concept is entirely foreign to me, as an Android user. Closest I've come to being "forced" to install anything is when I need a boarding pass, and even then I'll often use a screenshot from my desktop. I can't think of any other mandatory apps on my phone right now.

viktorcode 1y ago

What dividends this propaganda would bring? Apple is making their product less compelling in a market where they have lower share than in the other markets where this feature will be available. They are simply weighting potential fines / loss of revenues due to being forced to share technology with competition against monetary losses due to fewer sales. So far fewer sales win.

quitit 1y ago
This is the central point that is always missed on this forum. These are features that apple are dedicating a huge amount of resources to. Tim Cook frequently talks up the importance of artificial intelligence as the future. Apple Intelligence is a tentpole feature of new iPhones, it has heavily influenced their advertising, and takes prime position in their marketing materials. Withholding these features, even for just 6 months, is harmful to Apple. Especially when Apple appear weaker in the category, and competitors are frequently releasing AI products. However here you'll read a byzantine concoction on how this is acshually a 4D anticompetitive chess move.

NoPicklez 1y ago

But if they allowed it, more people would buy the Apple feature because it would work better when both software and hardware are integrated.

DavideNL 1y ago

Have you ever tried bluetooth audio devices on an iPhone/ iPad? Apple does this very clever, it works, but it has so many annoyances and bugs. By making 3th party products “annoying” to use, Apple nudges people to just buy Apple products/the ecosystem…

kergonath 1y ago
> Have you ever tried bluetooth audio devices on an iPhone/ iPad? Every day. But I never ran into what you suggest. My iPad is not more annoying than my Dell laptop when it comes to Bluetooth (and both are light years away from my Linux box).