4 ms·

I don’t think it’s a bluff. This is more than just a revenue calculation, this is about giving up control of how your hardware and software can be built. If the

by _1tem 1y ago

I don’t think it’s a bluff. This is more than just a revenue calculation, this is about giving up control of how your hardware and software can be built. If the EU can dictate what features should be included in a software release, that has massive engineering implications for an ecosystem as vast as Apple’s. Simple features like Live Translation or iPhone Mirroring become 10x more complex to build when you need to test and support other vendor devices. In fact some features become downright impossible if you require interoperability. I’m with Apple on this one. If a country could dictate to me that I need to make my engineering 10x more complex to support their whims and can’t build certain features, then I would seriously consider quitting that country regardless of revenue. This is about slowing down the pace of development and adding engineering complexity to everything worldwide, not just revenue.

Gys 1y ago
> the EU can dictate what features should be included in a software release This is about Apple excluding features specifically in the EU.
troupo 1y ago
> This is more than just a revenue calculation Everything is a revenue calculation > that has massive engineering implications for an ecosystem as vast as Apple’s. That is Apple's problems. All Eu says is "do not deliberatly hamper competition and don't install artificial barriers to differentiate your products". Apple has had no issues complying with every single request from any government. > Simple features like Live Translation or iPhone Mirroring become 10x more complex to build when you need to test and support other vendor devices. You don't have to test and support them on vendor devices. You either provide an API, or let "vendor devices" implement the same features. This has never been such big of an issue. > In fact some features become downright impossible if you require interoperability. Then those features are either not needed, or it's Apple's own fault (e.g. for preventing others from building the same feature set). It's insane to me that Hacker News, of all places, would argue that walled gardens are good, actually. Ponder this article, for example: "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-... > This is about slowing down the pace of development and adding engineering complexity to everything worldwide The only ones insisting and making it so are Apple. A great example is this: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-maps-app-in-eu/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma... Apple lets users in the EU set their default maps and navigation app. But only in the EU. They literally made the whole thing more complex for themselves by restricting this feature just to the EU even though this clearly is a feature that benefits users. It's the exact same thing with the rest of the "impossible features".
- _1tem 1y ago
  > don't install artificial barriers to differentiate your products Some barriers are not artificial. I’m am an engineer and many of Apple’s engineering feats are only possible due to highly controlled interfaces. See for example audio applications that have very high performance requirements, such as low latency audio. It is literally impossible to build this on Android due to the interoperability layer being too slow. Many useful features on Apple devices take advantage of the highly tuned performance that can only happen on devices in the same ecosystem. Take for example Live Translation on AirPods. It’s very hard to get the same level of performance over a public API. Lots of Apple Silicon advantages in battery usage come about due to their deep integration with all parts of the hardware stack — that level of performance would be impossible over an interoperable stack. This is not about walled gardens, this is about building better performing devices with better experiences. It is much harder, near impossible, to build Apple-quality experiences over third party hardware. I am completely against artificial walled gardens and artificial barriers but I believe many of Apple’s strict barriers are real engineering performance advantages.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > Some barriers are not artificial. The ones the EU is pointing at, and the ones that Apple is whining about, are completely artificial. > Take for example Live Translation on AirPods. It’s very hard to get the same level of performance over a public API. It's trivial to get the same performance. All you have to do is actually let others build the same functionality. Apple both withholds the APIs and prohibits others from building the same functionality. > I am completely against artificial walled gardens and artificial barriers but I believe "... that Apple is completely entitled to any and all walled garden"
    - _1tem 1y ago
      > It's trivial to get the same performance. It’s literally impossible to build realtime audio apps with ultra low latency on Android. People have been trying for decades. Not trivial at all. Microsoft and Google and open source devs have tried to build something as good as a MacBook Pro for decades and failed. Because the extremely high performance and polished experience comes from the highly integrated hardware and software stack that only Apple has. Precisely because it is not interoperable. I as an engineer prefer to support fewer devices and make the experience with those few devices better rather than support lots of devices and integrations but crappily.

by _1tem 1y ago

Gys 1y ago

> the EU can dictate what features should be included in a software release This is about Apple excluding features specifically in the EU.

troupo 1y ago

> This is more than just a revenue calculation Everything is a revenue calculation > that has massive engineering implications for an ecosystem as vast as Apple’s. That is Apple's problems. All Eu says is "do not deliberatly hamper competition and don't install artificial barriers to differentiate your products". Apple has had no issues complying with every single request from any government. > Simple features like Live Translation or iPhone Mirroring become 10x more complex to build when you need to test and support other vendor devices. You don't have to test and support them on vendor devices. You either provide an API, or let "vendor devices" implement the same features. This has never been such big of an issue. > In fact some features become downright impossible if you require interoperability. Then those features are either not needed, or it's Apple's own fault (e.g. for preventing others from building the same feature set). It's insane to me that Hacker News, of all places, would argue that walled gardens are good, actually. Ponder this article, for example: "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-... > This is about slowing down the pace of development and adding engineering complexity to everything worldwide The only ones insisting and making it so are Apple. A great example is this: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-maps-app-in-eu/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma... Apple lets users in the EU set their default maps and navigation app. But only in the EU. They literally made the whole thing more complex for themselves by restricting this feature just to the EU even though this clearly is a feature that benefits users. It's the exact same thing with the rest of the "impossible features".

_1tem 1y ago
> don't install artificial barriers to differentiate your products Some barriers are not artificial. I’m am an engineer and many of Apple’s engineering feats are only possible due to highly controlled interfaces. See for example audio applications that have very high performance requirements, such as low latency audio. It is literally impossible to build this on Android due to the interoperability layer being too slow. Many useful features on Apple devices take advantage of the highly tuned performance that can only happen on devices in the same ecosystem. Take for example Live Translation on AirPods. It’s very hard to get the same level of performance over a public API. Lots of Apple Silicon advantages in battery usage come about due to their deep integration with all parts of the hardware stack — that level of performance would be impossible over an interoperable stack. This is not about walled gardens, this is about building better performing devices with better experiences. It is much harder, near impossible, to build Apple-quality experiences over third party hardware. I am completely against artificial walled gardens and artificial barriers but I believe many of Apple’s strict barriers are real engineering performance advantages.
- troupo 1y ago
  > Some barriers are not artificial. The ones the EU is pointing at, and the ones that Apple is whining about, are completely artificial. > Take for example Live Translation on AirPods. It’s very hard to get the same level of performance over a public API. It's trivial to get the same performance. All you have to do is actually let others build the same functionality. Apple both withholds the APIs and prohibits others from building the same functionality. > I am completely against artificial walled gardens and artificial barriers but I believe "... that Apple is completely entitled to any and all walled garden"
  - _1tem 1y ago
    > It's trivial to get the same performance. It’s literally impossible to build realtime audio apps with ultra low latency on Android. People have been trying for decades. Not trivial at all. Microsoft and Google and open source devs have tried to build something as good as a MacBook Pro for decades and failed. Because the extremely high performance and polished experience comes from the highly integrated hardware and software stack that only Apple has. Precisely because it is not interoperable. I as an engineer prefer to support fewer devices and make the experience with those few devices better rather than support lots of devices and integrations but crappily.