> I still don't get how one can have blind brand loyalty to a corporation.
Constant exposure to billion dolar driven advertising is very effective in brainwashing people into thinking of brands as friends. While the opposite is usually true.
It's baffling that we allow this in our societies in such extend.
I think the other effect, that Apple is a status symbol, is more effective. Apple is expensive (less so than before, but still). In other words, an iphone "proves" that you are better than your neighbor.
And people defend status symbols as if they're defending baby Jesus from Satan.
You just have to remember how computing was before Apple got their sh*t together. Who wants iOS to be like android or macOS to be like windows? I don’t have time to mess with those anymore.
The logic here is "Apple gained significant market share with its features so we'll legislate them into a universal standard".
Same logic could be applied to any other feature made by any other company.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it as a consumer. I'd friggin love to be able to airdrop a file from one digital device to another.
But it could be an ingenious way to create standards. Instead of randomly creating fourteen different solutions to a problem hoping one will gain traction, we wait for apple/microsoft/cisco/whoever to force one down our throats and then take it from them and make it a standard.
There are a number of places where mobile devices have replaced a "general purpose computer" - like replacing your internet connection or local/cloud photo storage.
I guess it depends if you believe that these resources should interoperate when a user is paying for them. e.g., the humane pin makes you get a separate internet connection, and competing cameras devise clunky/slow ways to access your camera roll. Competing photo services have no way to sync iCloud, etc. All of these things could work like Bluetooth - be secure and relatively open, but they are not.
Unfortunately HN is an Apple fanboy club. Any criticism to Apple the company or their devices always gets taken personally as a direct criticism to their users and you get downvoted and flagged.
Idk all the people in my friend group who started on Android have ended up on iOS so they can participate in these Apple only features. It seems the ecosystem is already doing great and getting people to switch is not a problem at least here in the US.
> But the same Apple is more than happy with providing the Apple Music app on Android as a means to boost their music revenue...
Exactly. On the other platforms they provide services because the services provide revenue. The big two things that people say Apple needs to open up are Messages and FaceTime - both of which cost Apple money to maintain and don’t have independent revenue streams. Airplay and CarPlay have similar development costs and I’d imagine that Apple would like to be able to continue to evolve their software without getting blamed for being anti-competitive because they broke some company’s flawed integration.
I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up FaceTime, Messages, Airplay, and CarPlay to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it. Which lays bare the challenge - for many it’s about wanting these services for free on a platform where Apple receives no revenue.
Antitrust is good but it's treating the symptom, not the disease.
The disease is the fact it's illegal to crack open their locks. We need their permission to interoperate. If we don't have it, we're criminals if we try.
All we need to do is legalize reverse engineering and circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. In less than a year the iMessage nonsense will be solved because all competing platforms will add support for its protocols whether they want it or not. They'll try to make it hard to do it but it won't matter.
Adversarial interoperability should be the norm. They shouldn't have a choice in whether they are interoperated with. It should just happen organically.
> I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up [...email...] to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it
and now they can send and receive email from people that don't use Apple Mail! A serious loss :-)
The lack of awareness of this post is incredible. Apple is leveraging intentional incompatibility to make people use social pressure on each other to switch to Apple. That is not a good thing. This is a great example of why interoperability is necessary - "become an Apple customer or be ostracized" is not something people should be constantly threatened with.
Android Quick Share can share with nearby devices, just like Airdrop, OR can share longer distances with your contacts. How it works depends on how you attempt to share the file and where the recipient is.
Also both wifi direct file sharing and Bluetooth file sharing have been things forever. I had a ~15 year old mostly dumb camera that did it.
Also the app "Bump" did this many years ago, was on both iOS and Android. Other apps probably did/do as well.
I personally think it's useless but it's always been a thing.
That is not correct. It uses Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Direct just like AirDrop does. I just shared a video from a Samsung phone to a Motorola phone. Both had Wi-Fi and mobile data turned off. Unless there is some conspiracy where both devices secretly connect to Samsung servers for the exchange, what you are saying is not correct.
I’m not saying these features only exist in iOS, but for the most part they’re not mutually compatible between OSs. So everyone needs to be using the same OS to enjoy the feature. For some reason the Android people switched to iOS to use those things with the existing iOS people, rather than the iOS people switching to Android.
Only if the new features violate the obligations of a DMA gatekeeper. 120Hz screen is fine, 120Hz screen that runs at 60Hz for all 3rd party apps is not.
It enhances the incentive to innovate for smaller companies who would otherwise be locked out by Apple. This ruling for instance will allow smartwatch mfgs to compete with Apple on a level playing field for iOS users' money.
It means they can't artificially limit what users are able to do with devices they own.
Ie. if Apple can use a device feature in their own apps, developers should be able to use the same feature and users should be able to get that app, whether through the store or sideloaded.
The whole EU argument is "users paid for this device, it belongs to them"
All these walled gardens and lock in nonsense need to get wiped off the face of this earth. I'd rather they got banned and stopped existing than suffer the status quo where iPhone users look down on us inferior Android users because we got segregated by speech bubble color.
Not that Android is hackable these days anyway. Remote attestation, yet another thing that needs to get banned. It should be illegal for them to discriminate against us in any way whatsoever on the basis of the hardware or software we choose to use. They should serve us whether we use iPhones or Linux on a tamagotchi.
That’s weird. You acknowledge that there is a choice between iPhone and android but want to take that choice away from iPhone users because you feel like they look down on you. Honestly, I think most of the anti Apple sentiment I hear on HN falls into this kind of bucket.
What's the problem with that? That's a win for everyone involved. Maybe finally we'll have an open, universal file transfer and proximity screen casting protocol, thanks to it already having a critical mass of compatible devices.
When the incentive is that when you develop features to distinguish yourself from the competition that stand out and make your own product better, but then the government comes along and tells you that you have to give that away, the value of developing new features for your own products starts to diminish and you start looking at different business opportunities instead. It actually undermines Apple as a competitor to Android, in a market where they are far from a dominant force, and the way the EU is doing it looks completely arbitrary.
> When the incentive is that when you develop features to distinguish yourself from the competition
The value of a networked feature goes up with the number of nodes implementing it. A product that is able to send files/stream media to all products is more valuable than one limited to sending to products of its own brand.
What you’re describing is true, but the iPhone runs general purpose software. They don’t have to give away their own features to their competitors and people who aren’t their customers, and it’s more valuable to them as something they took the time to develop as a point of differentiation to give their customers a better experience than they would otherwise have.
An iPhone can already send files or stream media to all products provided you negotiate the protocol by which you do it and the software is available or you write it yourself. YouTube has Google Cast built into it, which you don’t have to use with an Apple TV because AirPlay will work, but if you say wanted to put video from your phone up on a Samsung smart TV, it’s an option. If you want to transfer files from an iPhone, you are not lacking in options, but if it’s to another iPhone or a Mac, AirDrop is just one of those options.
Correlation != causation. Furthermore, the business models of a phone manufacturer are much different from a social media platform. Most phone manufacturers still make the bulk of their money directly from the end-user paying them cash (either for the device itself, or associated services), where as social media platforms primarily make their money from renting access to their captive audience to advertisers.
iPhone market share is above 80% in my country (Denmark), and smartphone ownership among adults is close to 100%. At that point, you're infrastructure.
If that's how the Danish feel, it makes more sense for Denmark to pass its own laws than rather than the EU, but I would posit that even at 80% marketshare, that's not enough to warrant the level of demands even from the Government of Denmark alone that the EU is imposing on Apple because in all the ways that matter for public purposes, the iPhone is already open enough: telephony, message exchange, open standards on the web, Bluetooth, I mean you name it, and if it's not a QoL thing like AirPlay or AirDrop, it's already there.
> telephony, message exchange, open standards on the web, Bluetooth
Things that existed before iPhones and that Apple cannot lock down? I'm glad they're open, but I won't give Apple credit. Particularly when they gently slid people out of SMS and into iMessage, for example. (Google did this less too but less successfully and are also at fault.)
Yes, the things that matter to a phone as far as the essentials go. I’m not saying give them credit, I’m saying that in every way that matters, the iPhone is already open, and the rest is Apple’s platform.
> Particularly when they gently slid people out of SMS and into iMessage, for example.
Or put another way, certainly the way it was perceived of at the time by their customers then and now: gave their customers a superior messaging experience over what was typically available to cell phones at the time that they wouldn’t be charged for. RIM also did this with BlackBerry Messenger. Then and now iMessage is a selling point for their phones, not the future of mobile messaging out of some misguided noblesse oblige or something that they owe the world (and by world I mean their competitors and non-iPhone customers) simply because they made it and people like it because it’s actually good–and for a long time it had its hiccups, but better than SMS was a low bar.
Elaborate if you’re going to disagree on why 80% is the magic number that means a supposedly liberal society should govern the QoL features of a foreign corporation’s product that already adheres to open standards on the communications hardware and software.
> when you develop features to distinguish yourself from the competition that stand out and make your own product better, but then the government comes along and tells you that you have to give that away,
Crippling a standard to reduce interoperability is not making a product better.
Tell me this -- whatever the next technology is, why would a business spend the time or money to develop it?
Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use?
> Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use?
Because new hardware/interoperability features are an opportunity to sell more hardware. Apple still gets to make and sell accessories, their product just has to compete on the merits with other products in the segment. People will keep buying Airpods even if Sony's can hand-off between Apple hardware because Airpods are a great product that can stand on their own.
There is value in being able to lead the direction of the tech with new features. Look at how many companies bother contributing to Linux even though all their competitors get access.
Alternatively, look at Google trying to take control of the web/HTML with their Web Environment Integrity API proposal. If the web was a "Google Protocol" rather than a W3C one, they would have been able to add it despite the negative feedback.
Because there are still market advantages to creating and maintaining protocols that you are required to license to others.
Making everything proprietary and exclusive is not the only way to make money. And even if you can make more money that way, I don't care: corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, and we should feel free to demand whatever we want from them.
Just like the horrible government banning leaded fuel. I'm not joking, a stronger argument is needed about regulation than "any gubernatorial directive is bad". Apple isn't a person with natural rights. What are the actual drawbacks of this? Are we stifling innovation by forcing interop of the disruptive technology of "wireless filesharing"? It's infrared media transfer, but with 2.4GHz.
You say that government intervention is not always a win. Sure, totally true, also it isn't always Sunday. I'm was asking for concrete arguments or reasons, vaguely gesturing at regulation having drawbacks isn't one. And calling it out isn't a strawman.
The parent articulated pros, you responded with a truism instead of cons or refuting his points, which certainly makes arguments easier.
Apple is not "people". It's a trillion dollar corporation. I'd rather see it forced to open up all of its "value add" nonsense so that we can have interoperabiliry and truly own our devices.
The zealots think Apple is a person with rights. Look at how they talk about the company. It’s not exclusive to this thread and is apart of the Apple faith.
Another one that surprised me was the “share WiFi credentials” feature. Not too psyched about any shitty device being allowed to pup that notification up on my phone.
You mean "Automatic Wi-Fi connection" section? Maybe I'm not reading it right, but it seems that it's actually about something already fully paired (e.g Smartwatch) having access to the WiFi like the Apple Watch.
They need to be in your contacts with their iCloud email. And similar you need to be in their contacts with your iCloud email. Doesn't work without iCloud.
Doesn't seem to be needed, there's a web and iOS SDK right there. Google is no angel with interoperability, but the Apple lock-in is another level. Filesharing should be an open protocol imo, making it proprietary is behavior straight out of a scummy telecom company in the 2000's.
Even if they were interoperable this wouldn’t be a problem since airdrop is contacts only by default. So unless you’ve added your neighbours lightbulb as a contact..
iOS has supported the Bluetooth serial port profile since at least 2012 because I used it extensively back then. A special entitlement or MFi may have been required, but it does exist
> This is great news! We need to ensure maximum interoperability and no differentiation across different computing platforms and applications.
I don't get your point here. Apple's products are differentiated from others because of their excellent integration with other Apple products (the ecosystem(tm)). If they are compelled to also open that up to third-parties, what exactly are they losing?
Put a different way, are you implying people buy iDevices not only because they integrate so well with Apple's other products, but because they know other devices aren't able to?
> And politicians are, of course, the most knowledgeable about these things.
This doesn't make sense either. Just because you disagree with others' ideology doesn't mean they don't know anything about the subject matter. Why isn't it possible, in your view, for the relevant decision-makers in this case to know everything needed and still choose to make those decisions?
The examples to make your point are kind of silly. It can go to extreme, but clearly there is benefit in regulating and requiring interoperability in many cases. It doesn't mean innovation is going to go away.
Does everyone else have access to the data mining that Google has on every Chrome and Android user? Does every other company have unfettered access to Google Maps without providing identifying data? Does every other company have the ability to utilize Youtube vidoes as they wish?
You are comparing Apple's primary product/service against a throwaway part of Google's. Google has walled gardens around its primary business too. But they are so deeply ingrained into our world that nobody questions it, because there's also no viable competitors.
Chromecast only works from iOS for apps that have integrated with the Chromecast SDK. Like Netflix and Youtube.
Maybe the EU can ask Google to open Chromecast up so Apple can integrate it into iOS. Then you can use it from any app without needing special integrations.
Apple has all the information they need, available publicly, to implement an OS-wide Chromecast client. They haven't done so because they don't want to.
Because with Android devices you can sideload any app, alternative stores, you can set any 3rd party app as default, they can handle pretty much any type of file, etc...
The DMA doesn't make having exclusive features illegal, this ruling is specifically about exclusive hardware interoperability features that use Apple's control of the OS to advantage their products in related product segments. Google has been hit with a ton of DMA rules for other aspects of the OS and their business model but very few of Android's hardware interoperability features are exclusive to Google devices so I'm not sure what they would even need to do differently. Samsung is worse with that sort of thing but they aren't classified as a gatekeeper so the rules don't apply to them anyway.
Very honestly hope this stuff is all gated behind eu-only products/flags.
The thing that EU regulators don't seem to get is that I (and many others) have knowingly and intentionally opted in to this walled garden. It's simple, it generally works, it's relatively secure, and I don't give a half a shit about the cost. I do not want or need competition to drive down the price because I do not care about the price. It's a luxury product.
If the end result of this regulation was better software, better hardware, and better co-design, then I'd be all for it, but this just isn't going to be the case. We're just going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit that provides near-zero benefit to mainline apple consumers.
At least as likely as a positive outcome is that the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.
I see these comments, and I just completely fail to understand this viewpoint. To me, this argument is kind of like the argument against gay marriage: "I don't want other people to have the option to do something that doesn't affect me at all, because reasons".
Don't like interoperability? Keep using what you're using, and be quiet.
Don't like alternative app stores? Keep using the app store you're using, and be quiet.
Don't like choice? Keep using the thing you were using before you had the option, and be quiet.
If Apple somehow implements interoperability perfectly, sure. But I don’t believe that they, or anyone else, can. I’m sure any API will have unforeseen consequences and bugs, and those will affect me.
And I don’t really get to opt out either as eventually I’ll be forced to update my software.
Well, I happen to like that any service I subscribe to using my phone can be unsubscribed in one click, without jumping backwards through hoops while standing on my head begging customer service to cancel and no I don't want to extend my trial at a special discounted rate. And the iPhone market is big enough that companies have to offer signup in their app. But if companies start drifting to only offering services via other stores or payments, then they will inevitably fuck up the cancel option again, and I will lose something.
Forcing Apple to implement interop and such extra features requires a non-trivial amount of labour. That trickles down to the customer in many subtle and not so subtle ways that the parent comment mentioned (more resources and higher inter-dept. coordination ceiling for a streamlined UX, etc.)
Comparing it to opinions about gay marriage makes you look dishonest, "None of this is about you, at all" makes you look plain silly
I'm sitting here with mac/linux/windows machines, and both iphones/android phones.......
What malware laden third party bullshit are you talking about? The stuff that is approved by Apple to be in the iOS App Store can be pretty heavily ridden with ads - especially the kind that pop open the App Store to show you a page selling their crappy app. But since there's no way to install system-wide app blocker on an iphone you kinda have to deal with it. [
I haven't had to deal with malware on any platform in a very very long time.
It would be nice if I could run proper firefox with proper ublock origin on my iphone though.
> What malware laden third party bullshit are you talking about?
None. No malware-laden third-party bullshit, because that's just a straw man. If the GP doesn't want third-party app stores, there's a very simple solution to that: Don't install them on your phone.
25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. Neither here nor there but that’s part of your argument that seems pretty flawed (ie: it’s a luxury product so we shouldn’t have to worry about the vagaries of “anti/pro-consumer behavior, competition etc”). Sure most of Apple’s other products are in the more to much more expensive end of their categories, but the iPhone’s market penetration definitely makes the luxury categorization wrong IMO, even if it is expensive.
Anyways, your entire argument effectively boils down to “this problem does not affect me, therefore it is not a problem; I don’t care if there is a monopoly on some product or service or lock-in or anything because I’m fine with it, I like the service and have no plans on leaving anyways” - which is a position plenty of people take, and also one plenty of people disagree with, so I won’t try to argue either way with you here since you seem committed. It does seem short-sighted and generally anti-consumer to me (or like you are just evidence that their various lock-in strategies work and are good for their business - which you self-identified as being correct in re: intentionally buying into walled-garden).
Anyways, that’s not to say I totally disagree - I think most of your points are generally true/or something I could at least see being true even if I don’t feel convinced (ie potentially ending up in a sea of third party crap, creating a potentially undue burden on Apple engineering etc… tho even those I find questionable and not self-evident).
>25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury.
iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take. Meanwhile, actually cheap smartphones still from a reputable manufacturer (eg: Samsung) can be had for at least $200 to $300 or so.
So no, iPhones (and Apple products in general) are a luxury good. There is a lot more "want" than "need" involved when choosing to buy an iPhone.
iPhones are not a luxury good by any means. You can waltz right into an Apple Store TODAY and buy yourself a $429 iPhone SE or a $599 iPhone 14. Boost mobile was giving iPhone 12s away for $99. Virtually every carrier has a free-with 2-3 year commitment deal for the iPhone 16.
If you want to be fancy, get a folding phone like a Galaxy Fold or a Pixel Fold. Those do have steep discounts at times, but you're still going to have to fork up $800-1200 or so for them. Or get one of those niche phones like an Xperia 1 or an Asus ROG phone or whatever that costs >$1000 and isn't subsidized by ANY carrier.
When something like a Samsung Galaxy A15 can be had for $175[1] (and that's with no carrier commitments), any iPhone is a luxury good. Yes, even that $429 iPhone SE which is well over double the price of that Samsung.
Smartphones as a general good are a life necessity at this point, but esoteric offerings among them like iPhones or Sony Xperias or the higher end Samsung Galaxys or Google Pixels are luxury goods because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag.
It's like how a bottom trim Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is a necessity because you probably need a car, but anything beyond it is a luxury because whether you want that car is different. Another example would be choosing name brand foodstuffs at the grocery store instead of the store brand, that's also choosing luxury goods assuming the store brand is cheaper.
> because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag
That sounds like a very bold claim, yet it reflects nothing from the real world. You may not need something, but that doesn’t mean others don’t or must not.
Technically, nobody needs anything beyond food, water, shelter and companionship (even the last one is arguable). Allow everybody to only buy the cheapest of foods and the most basic shelters. Then declare that anything else is a want. That just doesn’t make sense.
Nobody needs social media or HN or to be commenting on HN either, but here we are.
>Allow everybody to only buy the cheapest of foods and the most basic shelters. Then declare that anything else is a want.
But most of the things we obtain are wants rather than needs, aren't they?
iPhones are a luxury good; they are significantly more expensive than budget smartphones that can nonetheless practically serve the needs of most people if not their wants. Is that Samsung Galaxy A15 a great phone? Hell no it isn't, but you can do your mobile banking and make calls and texts and do instant messaging and emails just fine.
Not having a smartphone like even that Galaxy A15 will make life exceedingly prohibitive today, but not having an iPhone won't adversely affect your requisite daily affairs. iPhones are a luxury good.
Keep in mind, I'm not denigrating luxury goods thereof or the act of enjoying luxuries. There's inherently nothing wrong with buying an iPhone or a six-pack of beer or a sports car or a big house or a family vacation to a faraway country if that's what you want. We only get one life, so we might as well enjoy it.
I think you’ve articulated it pretty clearly here, but I still have minor quibbles. Back to the original point… I might be misconstruing it, but reads a bit like this to me: something should be free of consumer protections if consumers have cheaper alternatives; they chose the more expensive option, and therefore they should suffer the consequences of that good or bad; and furthermore, we shouldn’t care if the company selling the product (allegedly) actively works to make it harder for them to transition to the cheaper alternatives in the future should they so desire.
Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me.
It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.
I'm not passing judgment one way or another regarding consumer protections here, though I personally find EU more draconian than my preferences and whether they're effective is up for debate (GDPR is a hilarious failure, USB-C mandate is a resounding success).
Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.
It's not a "luxury good". That's just what Apple's marketing department would have you believe.
It's a handheld computer. That's what it is. That's what it should be. And we should own our computers. And those computers should run whatever software we choose. And they should be able to network with every other computer on the planet. No bullshit restrictions.
I'm glad you agree. Because it's not about libre anything.
I don't believe I should "lose some of my standing to complain" after buying any product whatsoever. Cheap, expensive, "luxury", you name it. I believe I should gain standing after paying for something. I believe should fully own the thing after buying it. Especially $1000+ "luxury" smartphones. I believe I should never end up being a serf in the corporation's digital fiefdom.
> I'm not passing judgment one way or another regarding consumer protections here, though I personally find EU more draconian than my preferences and whether they're effective is up for debate (GDPR is a hilarious failure, USB-C mandate is a resounding success).
The hell are you talking about GPDR being a resounding failure? It's been pretty awesome. I love bills like that.
My experience is that GDPR added a lot of compliance activity at companies but did not materially improve actual privacy. Companies pretty much do what they did before GDPR, just with a layer of bureaucratic indirection in between now. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent but that's where we are, and in that sense it was a failure.
It sounds like you've decided that "luxury good" means "anything that's more expensive than a competing product by an arbitrary dollar amount I've decided on".
That's not how the concept of luxury goods works.
Also consider that Android is not a 1:1 replacement for an iPhone in the same way that a Honda is a replacement for a Mercedes-Benz. Lock-in and ecosystem interop matters a lot more for a phone than for a car.
I would probably buy into the idea that a Pixel (for example) is a luxury Android device, but not that an iPhone is a luxury smartphone in general.
Luxury good is anything that is not strictly necessary for a given purpose, in this case daily life. You will likely need a smartphone of some kind in this day and age to live, but you do not strictly need an iPhone. Hence, iPhones are a luxury good.
I guess I disagree that price alone makes something a luxury good. Is a 10 year old Honda civic a luxury good (typically around $10-13k) even though there are probably cheaper and comparable alternatives? I would say no? Not a perfect analog because I do think there is merit in your point that there are “actually cheap” contemporaneously manufactured phones (Samsung etc). but still, maybe it’s just semantic or pedantic but when 1.3b active iPhones are out there, to me that indicates it is something other than luxury and more importantly does cross a threshold where there are real reasons to consider larger anti-consumer patterns, even if the consumer is choosing the more expensive option.
Anyways I don’t feel too strongly about this either way, I just think the argument here that the iPhone is a luxury device doesn’t absolve them. Other arguments I’m more sympathetic to is all.
>going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit
>the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.
I'm skeptical, why would interoperability mean this? Concretely? You are free to buy Apple only, to maintain the first party "luxury" experience. Apple adding dev time to make their APIs interoperable means making them more robust and stops them from cheating in their privacy promises. i.e "No sharing personal data with Big Tech, except Apple."
Also, Apple will add headcount if necessary to deal with EU compliance, they aren't a small startup.
I wish there was a way to move my account to the US so I can get the best experience and tools instead of having to live through this digital iron curtain the EU regulators created. Who is using alternative app stores anyway? I surely don't.
So your position is that if you personally don't want to be able to do something, then it's fine for the manufacturer to prohibit others from doing that thing if they want to?
Features are not arriving here and likely won't in their original form because Apple needs to adapt to local regulations... which I don't care.
Just the other day some stupid rule came out forcing developers even the smaller ones to publish their address which prompted non EU developers to just unregister their apps on the region.
Yes. It's an iron curtain and another stupid outcome of misguided EU regulations that might have good intentions but end ruining everything like GDPR cookie modals.
EU had its chance with smartphones which was murdered 15 years ago. These legal attempts to "standardize" are so miserable to watch. Instead of legal diarrhea, perhaps consider the fact that 40% of monthly paycheck goes to hell and that housing availability are killing any innovation and mobility within EU.
In the light of the new normal of the world, EU should just follow the Chinese and American ways: ban foreign social media and telecommunication devices. This way it will guarantee that there’s a market for those willing to create EU specific devices and meanwhile will take back control of its comms.
The EU way of open market through regulations doesn’t seem to make anybody happy.
Banning worked wonders for China, Russia and USA. Nobody seems to be complaining.
The claim is that AI can write the software, ban everything and tell ChatGPT o3 to write you the alternative :)
All those innovations can and have happen(ed) with them also being open and not anti-competitive. If Apple is not willing to bring new features because it can't build its walled garden with it, nuts to them and others will and win them. That's the whole point of competition.
Make me, an EU consumer, incredibly mad. I do not want interoperability or openness. I chose a closed ecosystem for a reason. Now it’s being pried open and I hate it.
Why is that maddening to you? It's not like you're forced to use 3rd party app store or 3rd party browser. What exactly do you lose from people being able to use what Apple has been using to gatekeep?
First the popup for the browser is obnoxious and insufferable. And on all devices now, not by account like they did at first, like it should have been (like so else on HN told me “but it’s only once you’ll forget about it!” now I’ve had it at least 5 times already), because of EU decisions.
Also I don’t have to use a third-party App Store now. What do you think will happen when my BANK will decide they don’t want to go through the App Store? Or when they decide to stop supporting Apple Pay because FU?
I WANT the ecosystem to be unbreakable because it is more convenient.
It is the OTHER WAY AROUND we should think.
Nobody ever forced anybody to buy an iPhone. Why should Apple be forced to do anything “for the good of the consumer?” It is not and has never been for the consumer anyway, it’s for the companies that are “missing out.”
And it actually might even be what makes me the most mad: the hypocrisy. It is not for the consumer, it is for other companies to make more profit. At least tell it like it is, don’t try to sell it like it’ll profit me, the consumer. I know what I want and it’s not that.
It makes me extremely happy. My country will copy whatever the EU does, shouldn't take long before I can enjoy the same benefits as a consumer. And nobody really cares if the trillion dollar corporation is unhappy about it.
It's a useful way to check subconscious bias.