7 ms·

No consideration for trade-offs involved here, it’s naive at best It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and softwa

No consideration for trade-offs involved here, it’s naive at best It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. I’m disappointed the EU won’t be getting these features (at least not quickly) but I’m hoping the citizenry realizes who’s to blame here

Dylan16807 1y ago
What are the tradeoffs? For their own devices nothing changes, and for other devices they need to spend some extra integration work to make sure there's a standard they follow but that work should pale in comparison to the main engineering. Apple loses the forced bundling but they'll do fine without it and it's a good thing for everyone else.
- dylan604 1y ago
  Why would Apple have to endure this burden. If a 3rd party maker cannot make their device work the same way with the proper access, it is their own issue and not something Apple should help them figure out. The proper access is the key part, but once that access is open it is up to the devs to figure it out. If their product still has a subpar user experience, that'll be something the market figures out for them
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    I'm not asking for anything beyond proper access.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      Your "they" is ambiguous so that I interpreted it as Apple needing to spend extra time.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        You interpreted that word correctly. But I would say that part of "proper access" is that it needs to meet basic interoperability levels. That much is Apple's job, and it's not a very big job. I'm not asking for them to do any work beyond that level for non-Apple devices. If those devices need to run fancy code to make the feature work, that fancy code isn't Apple's job. (But if the feature just needs to listen to the microphone feed, then I do expect it to work out of the box with any headset. (The firmware updates they're doing to older airpods are not clear evidence one way or the other whether it actually needs on-headset support.))
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    > If a 3rd party maker cannot make their device work the same way with the proper access, it is their own issue and not something Apple should help them figure out. This is NOT expected from Apple and explicitly noted in the ruling. They are simply not allowed to restrict OS features from competitors in order to frame them as Apple accessory features, because this distorts the competition in this accessory market
  - cyberax 1y ago
    A third-party maker literally CAN NOT make their devices work the same way. "Can not" as in "unable because Apple doesn't allow that". All Apple needs to do is whitelist access to certain APIs and provide minimal documentation.
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      No, that's not so. One of the relevant rulings (https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...) dictates that merely providing any API isn't enough. Among other requirements, the API must "properly consider the needs of third parties that will make use of the solution", it must be "properly tested for bugs or other shortcomings", and Apple must "provide adequate and timely assistance to third parties that report issues". A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        Yes, and? > A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough. Oh, so Apple can't be bothered to be held to the same standard as, say, automotive developers?
        burnerthrow008 1y ago
        Ahh, I see the problem. This may come as a shock to you: a phone is not a car.
        cyberax 1y ago
        Yes, a phone is vastly more important than a personal car right now. You can easily live (especially in Europe) without a car, but a phone is indispensable. I would have more sympathy for Apple if they behaved ethically, respecting developers and users. They absolutely do not behave ethically, preferring to exploit everything they can. Turnaround is a fair play, so I'm going to shed zero tears if Apple is forced to spend a couple hundred million dollars (at most) adapting their internal documentation for their APIs.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > Why would Apple have to endure this burden. The same reason they endure the burden of safety certification and employment requirements: it’s the law. It’s not exactly a new concept.
    - NewsaHackO 1y ago
      Saying something is the law is never a valid argument in discussions like this. There has been multiple historic examples of things being the law until everyone realized how unethical the original law really was.
      - dns_snek 1y ago
        It's not an argument, it's a factual answer. Apple has to comply with the law. And yes, it also happens to be a good law that promotes competition and curbs anti-competitive abuses.
      - kergonath 1y ago
        Yes, but for now that's the law. So, the pragmatic answer is: they have to do it because otherwise their stuff will be pulled from the shelves and they will be fined. This does not prevent them from discussing with the Commission, which they are already doing, or lobbying for changes in the regulations, which their are also already doing within the limits of the political system.
- shuckles 1y ago
  > for other devices they need to spend some extra integration work to make sure there's a standard they follow Have you ever built a software product with an API? Would you say it was trivial upfront and ongoing to build and support this API?
FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
It’s Apple who is to blame. The rules are clear. I’m fine not having funny toys if it means holding corporations accountable. And yes yes plenty of things go wrong in the EU, I know. Still prefer this over Americas lack of laws and ease of bribing a president.
lucb1e 1y ago
> I’m hoping the citizenry realizes who’s to blame here So... Apple? My headphones certainly don't have trouble connecting to a device of any manufacturer without loss of functionality, but some of the "citizenry" seems to fall for marketing materials saying only apple can do things securely and in an integrated manner
- Aurornis 1y ago
  You can connect airpods to a non-apple device and use them for audio. This is more of an iPhone / iOS feature which uses the airpods as the microphone and audio output.
  - lucb1e 1y ago
    Um, yes I can do that with headphones and earphones too on non-iPhone/iOS. Not understanding the thing that is a special iPhone feature that no other vendor should be allowed to interoperate with
    - intrasight 1y ago
      >Not understanding the thing that is a special iPhone feature that no other vendor should be allowed to interoperate with Exactly. And Apple intends to keep it that way ;)
  - concinds 1y ago
    It's a purely software limitation. That is, it's a purely arbitrary limitation.
    - sroussey 1y ago
      Is it? Apple does weird Bluetooth and WiFi stuff in the H2 chip.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        They should stop doing that then and use standards like everyone else. If their protocol is really the bees knees, then just open it. But, they won't, because they rely on that moat to keep competitors out. It's exactly the same at the lightning cable.
jhasse 1y ago
Apple?
rickdeckard 1y ago
> No consideration for trade-offs involved here, it’s naive at best I recommend you to read the ruling [0] and form your own opinion. > The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. No, the EU mandates that Apple cannot implement OS features for the sole benefit of its own hardware-offering in a different market, because this is not fair competition. They are not required to foster new HW ecosystems for each feature, they just have to provide access to such OS features under equal conditions: "By mandating an equally effective interoperability solution, the legislator acknowledged that the implementation of interoperability does not always need to (and potentially cannot always) be the same for the gatekeeper and third parties, but interoperability must be granted to the same feature under equal conditions." [0] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
- trimbo 1y ago
  And Apple is now saying "That's fine, we'll instead adhere to the law by having our product do less. Don't buy it if you don't like the reduced featureset." Someone at Apple did math on this and it's not worth their time to make this feature interoperable just for the EU market. That's because of this law. They wouldn't have even considered it without the law.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    Which is fine as well if that's really the case (which I don't think it is, Europe apparently makes up ~1/3 of Apple's total Airpods revenue). If they refrain from distorting the market in their favor (and instead "retreat and rally up the userbase") the DMA seems to work surprisingly well so far... The procedures with the EU are quite interesting here, Apple was 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. This gives Apple little room to argue on violation of the DMA later-on, because they were actively involved in defining the criteria beforehand. So it's possible that they currently just need to find a mode to achieve launch-parity for EU on such features, and they're not there yet. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
mihaaly 1y ago
It's popularity was not rooted in its closeness. Actually that was an annoying side effect of taking the easy way for the organization, not in the interest of the user. What made it popular were the nice new features. Regardless of how difficult it was for the organization, that is no concern for the user. Taking this easy way allowed them to be faster than others. Sacrificing usability - also making more expensive by lock in - for users of the future!
ajross 1y ago
> It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. Well... yeah? I mean, that's the point. Once you are so big you act as a gatekeeper to a platform, the standards change. Also let's be clear here: there's minimal actual technology inside those pods. The translation is happening on the phone and the stuff going over the air is audio. Yes, it would be harder to specify an interface for third party headset devices to interact with. It certainly wouldn't be impossible, and I think making that a cost of being a platform gatekeeper seems very reasonable.
behnamoh 1y ago
> The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. Hard disagree. The time and resources it takes to lock down an ecosystem are far greater than not locking it down.
jamesrr39 1y ago
I live in the EU and can see value in live translation for me personally. However, I'm happy with the decision. Sure, they are not available right now. But it's worth it for the long term picture. Imagine if this would be yet another Apple/Google-only market. The tradeoff is right IMO.
- epolanski 1y ago
  +1 And the users here on HN saying "it's expensive/difficult to give the same access to competitors" are beyond naive if they think this isn't about protecting the margins on the airpods by giving their own products access to the system competitors don't have.
  - burnerthrow008 1y ago
    And the people on the other side are beyond naive if they think it makes sense financially to develop a feature like this if the company developing it has to give it away for free. One consequence of the DMA is that you can't build certain products because there is no way to recoup the development cost.
    - ab5tract 1y ago
      Who is “you”? Are you really conflating everyone in this thread with a handful of mega corporations?
    - ac29 1y ago
      Apple made $23B in profits on hardware last quarter. If that's not enough to recoup costs, there is nothing stopping them from charging for their software as well
    - kergonath 1y ago
      > One consequence of the DMA is that you can't build certain products because there is no way to recoup the development cost. Poor, poor Apple…
    - Jyaif 1y ago
bawolff 1y ago
> It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. Seems easy enough to me, all they have to do is expose and document an api.
epolanski 1y ago
> It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. Don't see how it relates to competition but it doesn't matter: Apple competitors should have the same access to the system as Apple does. Also, don't be naive: this is about money and being able to sell airpods at insane margins by giving them unfair advantages that aren't given to com[etitors.
- dahcryn 1y ago
  in some ways, are they not able to run their own apps on the iOS ecosystem to support extra features? My sony headphones claim they do all kinds of magic stuff through the app, but I guess that's not a realtime feature, more like a regularly scheduled calibration
rtpg 1y ago
I believe they could offer the feature and not face the ire of the EU by "simply" documenting the software interface used by the hardware so that third parties can also try and implement it. Of course then they wouldn't get the ecosystem lock-in they want. In theory. But I know plenty of people who buy Airpods "because" they're "the best", without ecosystem integration considerations.
- ghostpepper 1y ago
  A big part of why they're considered the best is features like moving seamlessly between iPhone and mac within seconds of starting audio playback.
- mh8h 1y ago
  It's not as simple as documentation. If you document the interface, you need to keep it somewhat stable and backwards compatible. But if it is internal, then you control both ends of the API, and can change them in tandem.
kraf 1y ago
> who's to blame here It's ok to wait longer for a product to make sure it's safe instead of the ol' "move fast and break things". Having ever new "interesting" stuff to play with to feed our endless boredom is not the only thing worth caring about.
1231423 1y ago
Funnily their advertisement video show 2 EU residents talking to each other via translation.
ransom1538 1y ago
This is a trade war. This is the EU taxing US corps. Problem is, the US figured it out.

Dylan16807 1y ago

What are the tradeoffs? For their own devices nothing changes, and for other devices they need to spend some extra integration work to make sure there's a standard they follow but that work should pale in comparison to the main engineering. Apple loses the forced bundling but they'll do fine without it and it's a good thing for everyone else.

dylan604 1y ago
Why would Apple have to endure this burden. If a 3rd party maker cannot make their device work the same way with the proper access, it is their own issue and not something Apple should help them figure out. The proper access is the key part, but once that access is open it is up to the devs to figure it out. If their product still has a subpar user experience, that'll be something the market figures out for them
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  I'm not asking for anything beyond proper access.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Your "they" is ambiguous so that I interpreted it as Apple needing to spend extra time.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      You interpreted that word correctly. But I would say that part of "proper access" is that it needs to meet basic interoperability levels. That much is Apple's job, and it's not a very big job. I'm not asking for them to do any work beyond that level for non-Apple devices. If those devices need to run fancy code to make the feature work, that fancy code isn't Apple's job. (But if the feature just needs to listen to the microphone feed, then I do expect it to work out of the box with any headset. (The firmware updates they're doing to older airpods are not clear evidence one way or the other whether it actually needs on-headset support.))
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  > If a 3rd party maker cannot make their device work the same way with the proper access, it is their own issue and not something Apple should help them figure out. This is NOT expected from Apple and explicitly noted in the ruling. They are simply not allowed to restrict OS features from competitors in order to frame them as Apple accessory features, because this distorts the competition in this accessory market
- cyberax 1y ago
  A third-party maker literally CAN NOT make their devices work the same way. "Can not" as in "unable because Apple doesn't allow that". All Apple needs to do is whitelist access to certain APIs and provide minimal documentation.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    No, that's not so. One of the relevant rulings (https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...) dictates that merely providing any API isn't enough. Among other requirements, the API must "properly consider the needs of third parties that will make use of the solution", it must be "properly tested for bugs or other shortcomings", and Apple must "provide adequate and timely assistance to third parties that report issues". A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      Yes, and? > A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough. Oh, so Apple can't be bothered to be held to the same standard as, say, automotive developers?
      - burnerthrow008 1y ago
        Ahh, I see the problem. This may come as a shock to you: a phone is not a car.
        cyberax 1y ago
        Yes, a phone is vastly more important than a personal car right now. You can easily live (especially in Europe) without a car, but a phone is indispensable. I would have more sympathy for Apple if they behaved ethically, respecting developers and users. They absolutely do not behave ethically, preferring to exploit everything they can. Turnaround is a fair play, so I'm going to shed zero tears if Apple is forced to spend a couple hundred million dollars (at most) adapting their internal documentation for their APIs.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Why would Apple have to endure this burden. The same reason they endure the burden of safety certification and employment requirements: it’s the law. It’s not exactly a new concept.
  - NewsaHackO 1y ago
    Saying something is the law is never a valid argument in discussions like this. There has been multiple historic examples of things being the law until everyone realized how unethical the original law really was.
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      It's not an argument, it's a factual answer. Apple has to comply with the law. And yes, it also happens to be a good law that promotes competition and curbs anti-competitive abuses.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      Yes, but for now that's the law. So, the pragmatic answer is: they have to do it because otherwise their stuff will be pulled from the shelves and they will be fined. This does not prevent them from discussing with the Commission, which they are already doing, or lobbying for changes in the regulations, which their are also already doing within the limits of the political system.
shuckles 1y ago
> for other devices they need to spend some extra integration work to make sure there's a standard they follow Have you ever built a software product with an API? Would you say it was trivial upfront and ongoing to build and support this API?

FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago

It’s Apple who is to blame. The rules are clear. I’m fine not having funny toys if it means holding corporations accountable. And yes yes plenty of things go wrong in the EU, I know. Still prefer this over Americas lack of laws and ease of bribing a president.

lucb1e 1y ago

> I’m hoping the citizenry realizes who’s to blame here So... Apple? My headphones certainly don't have trouble connecting to a device of any manufacturer without loss of functionality, but some of the "citizenry" seems to fall for marketing materials saying only apple can do things securely and in an integrated manner

Aurornis 1y ago
You can connect airpods to a non-apple device and use them for audio. This is more of an iPhone / iOS feature which uses the airpods as the microphone and audio output.
- lucb1e 1y ago
  Um, yes I can do that with headphones and earphones too on non-iPhone/iOS. Not understanding the thing that is a special iPhone feature that no other vendor should be allowed to interoperate with
  - intrasight 1y ago
    >Not understanding the thing that is a special iPhone feature that no other vendor should be allowed to interoperate with Exactly. And Apple intends to keep it that way ;)
- concinds 1y ago
  It's a purely software limitation. That is, it's a purely arbitrary limitation.
  - sroussey 1y ago
    Is it? Apple does weird Bluetooth and WiFi stuff in the H2 chip.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      They should stop doing that then and use standards like everyone else. If their protocol is really the bees knees, then just open it. But, they won't, because they rely on that moat to keep competitors out. It's exactly the same at the lightning cable.

jhasse 1y ago

Apple?

rickdeckard 1y ago

> No consideration for trade-offs involved here, it’s naive at best I recommend you to read the ruling [0] and form your own opinion. > The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. No, the EU mandates that Apple cannot implement OS features for the sole benefit of its own hardware-offering in a different market, because this is not fair competition. They are not required to foster new HW ecosystems for each feature, they just have to provide access to such OS features under equal conditions: "By mandating an equally effective interoperability solution, the legislator acknowledged that the implementation of interoperability does not always need to (and potentially cannot always) be the same for the gatekeeper and third parties, but interoperability must be granted to the same feature under equal conditions." [0] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...

trimbo 1y ago
And Apple is now saying "That's fine, we'll instead adhere to the law by having our product do less. Don't buy it if you don't like the reduced featureset." Someone at Apple did math on this and it's not worth their time to make this feature interoperable just for the EU market. That's because of this law. They wouldn't have even considered it without the law.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  Which is fine as well if that's really the case (which I don't think it is, Europe apparently makes up ~1/3 of Apple's total Airpods revenue). If they refrain from distorting the market in their favor (and instead "retreat and rally up the userbase") the DMA seems to work surprisingly well so far... The procedures with the EU are quite interesting here, Apple was 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. This gives Apple little room to argue on violation of the DMA later-on, because they were actively involved in defining the criteria beforehand. So it's possible that they currently just need to find a mode to achieve launch-parity for EU on such features, and they're not there yet. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202523/DMA_100204_2073.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...

mihaaly 1y ago

It's popularity was not rooted in its closeness. Actually that was an annoying side effect of taking the easy way for the organization, not in the interest of the user. What made it popular were the nice new features. Regardless of how difficult it was for the organization, that is no concern for the user. Taking this easy way allowed them to be faster than others. Sacrificing usability - also making more expensive by lock in - for users of the future!

ajross 1y ago

> It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. Well... yeah? I mean, that's the point. Once you are so big you act as a gatekeeper to a platform, the standards change. Also let's be clear here: there's minimal actual technology inside those pods. The translation is happening on the phone and the stuff going over the air is audio. Yes, it would be harder to specify an interface for third party headset devices to interact with. It certainly wouldn't be impossible, and I think making that a cost of being a platform gatekeeper seems very reasonable.

behnamoh 1y ago

> The EU wants Apple to happily accept a burden that makes it harder to produce the products that made it popular in the first place. Hard disagree. The time and resources it takes to lock down an ecosystem are far greater than not locking it down.

jamesrr39 1y ago

I live in the EU and can see value in live translation for me personally. However, I'm happy with the decision. Sure, they are not available right now. But it's worth it for the long term picture. Imagine if this would be yet another Apple/Google-only market. The tradeoff is right IMO.

epolanski 1y ago
+1 And the users here on HN saying "it's expensive/difficult to give the same access to competitors" are beyond naive if they think this isn't about protecting the margins on the airpods by giving their own products access to the system competitors don't have.
- burnerthrow008 1y ago
  And the people on the other side are beyond naive if they think it makes sense financially to develop a feature like this if the company developing it has to give it away for free. One consequence of the DMA is that you can't build certain products because there is no way to recoup the development cost.
  - ab5tract 1y ago
    Who is “you”? Are you really conflating everyone in this thread with a handful of mega corporations?
  - ac29 1y ago
    Apple made $23B in profits on hardware last quarter. If that's not enough to recoup costs, there is nothing stopping them from charging for their software as well
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > One consequence of the DMA is that you can't build certain products because there is no way to recoup the development cost. Poor, poor Apple…
  - Jyaif 1y ago

bawolff 1y ago

epolanski 1y ago

> It’s enormously difficult to ship any interesting feature that integrates hardware and software. Don't see how it relates to competition but it doesn't matter: Apple competitors should have the same access to the system as Apple does. Also, don't be naive: this is about money and being able to sell airpods at insane margins by giving them unfair advantages that aren't given to com[etitors.

dahcryn 1y ago
in some ways, are they not able to run their own apps on the iOS ecosystem to support extra features? My sony headphones claim they do all kinds of magic stuff through the app, but I guess that's not a realtime feature, more like a regularly scheduled calibration

rtpg 1y ago

I believe they could offer the feature and not face the ire of the EU by "simply" documenting the software interface used by the hardware so that third parties can also try and implement it. Of course then they wouldn't get the ecosystem lock-in they want. In theory. But I know plenty of people who buy Airpods "because" they're "the best", without ecosystem integration considerations.

ghostpepper 1y ago
A big part of why they're considered the best is features like moving seamlessly between iPhone and mac within seconds of starting audio playback.
mh8h 1y ago
It's not as simple as documentation. If you document the interface, you need to keep it somewhat stable and backwards compatible. But if it is internal, then you control both ends of the API, and can change them in tandem.

kraf 1y ago

> who's to blame here It's ok to wait longer for a product to make sure it's safe instead of the ol' "move fast and break things". Having ever new "interesting" stuff to play with to feed our endless boredom is not the only thing worth caring about.

1231423 1y ago

Funnily their advertisement video show 2 EU residents talking to each other via translation.

ransom1538 1y ago

This is a trade war. This is the EU taxing US corps. Problem is, the US figured it out.