4 ms·

> You can have a reasonable requirement where Apple should not be able to block other companies from providing similar services based on an iphone. This is wha

> You can have a reasonable requirement where Apple should not be able to block other companies from providing similar services based on an iphone. This is what the requirement is. The EU isn’t demanding that Apple provide the same experience for 3rd Party and 1st Party products. It only requires that Apple allow 3rd Parties access to the same capabilities as 1st Party products, so 3rd Parties could build 1st Party quality experiences. Nobody is asking Apple to degrade their own products. They’re just demanding that Apple don’t artificially degrade other people’s products. > That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate discussion. This is the only point of discussion here. Because all the EU requires is that Apple open up their internal protocols so others can implement them.

ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
> This is the only point of discussion here. Because all the EU requires is that Apple open up their internal protocols so others can implement them. Apple supports Bluetooth just like Android phones do and does not degrade that. A fair way of dealing with this is to ask Apple to license its technology to third parties, not be forced to give it away for free.
- avianlyric 10mo ago
  We’re talking about a UI interface here. How exactly would you ask Apple to “license its technology” there? Apple needs tell people how to trigger that interface, and Apple needs to support 3rd parties trigging that interface. Apple could “license its technology”, but what use would that be. Having other phone manufacturers implement the same UI doesn’t change the market distorting effects of the iPhone.
  - ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
    Device manufacturers could pay Apple to register their devices to be recognized by the iPhone that they know how to use the advanced features it is capable of, for example. Also, device manufacturers can create apps for their devices and trigger those apps when a device is close by. I am against the idea of having a company spend resources on designing and implementing features for its devices and then being forced to give them away for free.
    - avianlyric 10mo ago
      > Device manufacturers could pay Apple to register their devices to be recognized by the iPhone that they know how to use the advanced features it is capable of, for example. Maybe if Apple actually offered that at a reasonable price, and to be clear they have never offered this at any price, the EU wouldn’t have felt compelled to act. AirPods have been around for a decade now, the DSA has been in the works for five years. So it’s not like Apple hasn’t had time to act. They chose to do nothing, so now the EU is removing their right to choose. > Also, device manufacturers can create apps for their devices and trigger those apps when a device is close by. This would require support from Apple, which notably, it doesn’t provide. > I am against the idea of having a company spend resources on designing and implementing features for its devices and then being forced to give them away for free. We’re talking about Apple here, one of the richest companies on the planet. I think it can survive. The DSA only applies to companies that achieve gatekeeper status, which basically means they’re an effective monopoly in a market that many people are forced to participate in (in this case smartphones). It’s a heck of bar to cross, and something that only been achieved by unbelievably profitable companies.
      - ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
        I am going to comment on the last part of your post: No one is forcing people to buy or use Apple products. You can buy a Pixel, a Samsung or one of the other lesser known Android brands and be on your merry way. And you can buy earbuds for those devices too; Samsung offers their own brand for example.
        avianlyric 10mo ago
        There is an effective duopoly in the smartphone OS market. iOS and Android, that’s what’s makes Apple a gatekeeper. Duopolies are just as dangerous as monopolies. Basically anything where there is a dozen or so competitors tends to be dangerous, as the US loves to demonstrate in as many industries as possible.

ExoticPearTree 10mo ago

> This is the only point of discussion here. Because all the EU requires is that Apple open up their internal protocols so others can implement them. Apple supports Bluetooth just like Android phones do and does not degrade that. A fair way of dealing with this is to ask Apple to license its technology to third parties, not be forced to give it away for free.

avianlyric 10mo ago
We’re talking about a UI interface here. How exactly would you ask Apple to “license its technology” there? Apple needs tell people how to trigger that interface, and Apple needs to support 3rd parties trigging that interface. Apple could “license its technology”, but what use would that be. Having other phone manufacturers implement the same UI doesn’t change the market distorting effects of the iPhone.
- ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
  Device manufacturers could pay Apple to register their devices to be recognized by the iPhone that they know how to use the advanced features it is capable of, for example. Also, device manufacturers can create apps for their devices and trigger those apps when a device is close by. I am against the idea of having a company spend resources on designing and implementing features for its devices and then being forced to give them away for free.
  - avianlyric 10mo ago
    > Device manufacturers could pay Apple to register their devices to be recognized by the iPhone that they know how to use the advanced features it is capable of, for example. Maybe if Apple actually offered that at a reasonable price, and to be clear they have never offered this at any price, the EU wouldn’t have felt compelled to act. AirPods have been around for a decade now, the DSA has been in the works for five years. So it’s not like Apple hasn’t had time to act. They chose to do nothing, so now the EU is removing their right to choose. > Also, device manufacturers can create apps for their devices and trigger those apps when a device is close by. This would require support from Apple, which notably, it doesn’t provide. > I am against the idea of having a company spend resources on designing and implementing features for its devices and then being forced to give them away for free. We’re talking about Apple here, one of the richest companies on the planet. I think it can survive. The DSA only applies to companies that achieve gatekeeper status, which basically means they’re an effective monopoly in a market that many people are forced to participate in (in this case smartphones). It’s a heck of bar to cross, and something that only been achieved by unbelievably profitable companies.
    - ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
      I am going to comment on the last part of your post: No one is forcing people to buy or use Apple products. You can buy a Pixel, a Samsung or one of the other lesser known Android brands and be on your merry way. And you can buy earbuds for those devices too; Samsung offers their own brand for example.
      - avianlyric 10mo ago
        There is an effective duopoly in the smartphone OS market. iOS and Android, that’s what’s makes Apple a gatekeeper. Duopolies are just as dangerous as monopolies. Basically anything where there is a dozen or so competitors tends to be dangerous, as the US loves to demonstrate in as many industries as possible.