In a way, Apple may eventually end up thanking Ms. Vestiger. By forcing Apple to open up iMessage to Android, this allows Macs to penetrate workplaces even more effectively. Any workplace can now message any of their clients from their Macs without having to worry if the client has an iPhone or Android phone. Ms. Vestiger may have just helped Apple increase their Mac sales.
I've been arguing that for 5-10 years. Glad to see others picking up on it in this thread.
There's actually another way for Apple to move forward here. Apple could pay Google to support Android on all iPhones sold in Europe. Europe would lose its access to iOS, but Apple would be in full compliance, because Google will always comply.... WIN-WIN-WIN.
You're mistaken about Google acquiescing. They are making the same essential arguments against components of the DMCA as Apple is. Both are also currently being investigated for non-compliance. Lose-Lose.
I am confused – just what is the EU asking? iPhones are already compatible with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and you can easily pair any Bluetooth device with your iPhone. They are also Qi compatible, So wireless charging isn’t an issue either. I’m trying to think of a device that I can’t pair with my iPhone and I can’t. I suppose maybe an android watch?
I think the EU is trying to move the architectural boundary for interoperability from where it has long been, i.e,, ports, pinouts, physical layer signaling, industry standard wired and wireless protocols like Ethernet/WiFi/Bluetooth/USB/NFC, etc., up into Apple’s internal architectural layers, interfaces, third APIs, etc. They basically want Apple to provide ways for third party apps to utilize Apple’s internal proprietary interfaces that Apple uses to talk to Apple’s proprietary hardware.
Apple obviously conforms to all of the external industry defined and regulated interoperability standards. Apple also provides APIs for third party app developers to access most operating system and platform features. But there are parts of Apple’s platform that Apple does not want to expose through third party APIs because they believe that doing so would place the stability, security, or privacy of their entire system at risk. Undoubtedly there are regulators, disgruntled, and squeaky wheels who view Apple’s protective measures as being anticompetitive.
Basically, the EU wants much more control over Apple’s architecture because they see Apple as a public utility rather than a product company trying to differentiate themselves form all of the other product companies in the same market. What makes this so challenging for Apple is that one of Apple’s core beliefs that was constantly voiced by Steve Jobs was Apple’s insistence on delivering products where they controlled both the hardware and the software, unlike Microsoft and the Linux world. While those companies, organizations, and tech media were laughing at Apple for taking an approach that yielded low market share compared to say Microsoft, Apple made a killing at doing what they promised to do. Apple never succumbed to standard convention or tried to follow the market share leader’s approach. Now the EU wants total force Apple to follow the Microsoft by chipping away at what makes Apple so different, unique, and wildly popular with consumers. They won’t stop until Apple tells them to pound sand.
I am confused – just what is the EU asking? iPhones are already compatible with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and you can easily pair any Bluetooth device with your iPhone. They are also Qi compatible, So wireless charging isn’t an issue either. I’m trying to think of a device that I can’t pair with my iPhone and I can’t. I suppose maybe an android watch?
You’re confused because everything about the DMA is confusing. There’s a reason why Apple, Google and Meta have to keep testing the waters to see if their next try works. That reason is because the DMA isn’t clear in saying exactly what it expects of “gatekeepers”. When these companies try to comply they are told their solution doesn’t follow the spirit of the law. Well, WTF? How can they follow the spirt of the law if the letter is so unclear? It’s a mess.
As others have pointed out, it seems the EC is radically anti-capitalist (to large companies from outside the EU) but they are afraid to actually say so, so they have to wiggle around every time a new solution is brought out and come up with a new reason that whichever company is being non-compliant.
ETA: I’m no fan of Meta/FB but the EC/DMA’s demands there are ridiculous. Meta put forth a model where people could pay a monthly subscription to FB and get a no ads and no tracking experience OR they could continue using FB free of charge but with tracking and targeted ads (PS: that is something Vestager herself had said she would like to see). But the EC came back saying that wasn’t good enough and Meta needed to offer a free tier that also had no tracking and targeted ads. It’s a similar situation with Apple making a bunch of concessions and adding the CTF. Uh-oh! The CTF may not be meeting the spirit of the law! It seems what the EC/DMA want is free access to everything but only for large, successful companies that are outside the EU. When will the EC demand Spotify offer a free tier with no advertisements? That’s a joke, because if Spotify ever gets big enough to be considered a “gatekeeper” the DMA will probably be modified to make sure they don’t.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Apple has just 22% of the smartphone market in the EU. So how can you justify saying "Apple IS the market now."
Apple targets the most affluent part of the computing market. If you look at the marketshare of Apple iPhones in the EU you will notice that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, along with Switzerland, Belgium and the UK have the highest marketshare and there are several countries getting close to the 40% mark but most of the eastern EU is Android central no surprise but Poland (37%) and Estonia (40%) are climbing it’s also interesting Belarus, which isn’t part of the EU is getting near to the 40% mark.
Because of the EU actions there will be a fork in the road and there will be a tape delay for a year or two for almost all of the new Apple features in the future, and the same will apply to Microsoft and Google when they decide to bring features to the EU countries,
The result will lead to a continuing brain drain from the EU (more than half of the smart people working on AI in America are recent arrivals from Europe), I don’t know what AI will be in the future but no one around the world in tech can afford to be left at the station because the world will go on, similar to United States basically turning its back on high-speed rail the rest of the world went forward without the USA and the same will happen to Europe in tech.
A lot of what the EU is demanding completely totally disrupts the whole notion of “Who really owns the product?” Up until now the companies that designed, defined, implemented, manufactured, and brought a product to market owned the product. They were the product owner and had free reign to decide what was allowed in their product and how others, or nobody, was allowed to integrate with their product. Consumers chose which products to buy based on what the product delivered, limitations and restrictions included.
That’s the product owner perspective and why those of us who’ve spent our careers in product development are generally opposed to any outside entity from anywhere trying to change that perspective in a competitive market. Every product owner wants their product to win.
There have long been cases where the product owner’s claims of ownership are broken down for nationalistic or pragmatic reasons, for example utilities and critical public services that were deemed indispensable but unwieldy to maintain or manage at scale based solely on market competition. Water, electricity, etc.
One could easily argue that mobile connectivity is now a critical public service and to ensure its sustainability it needs to be managed as a public service. But is the path to that eventually achieved by taking over the product architectures that companies like Apple and Google have built into products so they can nationalize rules about how they are constructed and extended? If that were truly the case regulators not only in the EU but in other regions would be trying to move everyone along that path.
That’s not what I see going on with the EU. They are trying to ensure that their constituents can jump into the competitive fray without having to invest the time, money, and resources that companies like Apple and Google have already expended. They don’t want their constituents having to build their own products and ecosystems to go head-to-head with Apple or Google. Instead, the want to hijack what is already in place and force their way in.
They probably don’t even care about the larger or more global considerations that have driven previous technological innovations delivered by private industry to standardization and utility status. They simply want to make sure their homegrown players like Spotify get a bigger piece of the action. To do this they are fully willing to use their collective authority and protectionism to make this happen whether or not the average consumer gives a rats ass about it.
Are they wrong? That’s subjective, but the US, China, Australia, and every other country looking out for their own self interests would do the exact same thing. The fact that it runs against the grain of people who’ve strived to build their own best products and kick some ass in the marketplace does not matter. Whenever there’s been a struggle between logic and politics, logic never prevails. That’s what makes us human.
By the way, Walmart (a US company) does not do business in the EU and they seem to survive very well.
That is an ostrich strategy. Boeing/Tesla/Microsoft/Coca Cola wouldn't be doing fine if they stopped selling to EU. Even GM is returning to EU. Walmart failed in Germany, Japan, and UK due to better competitors. Doing fine but could do better.
Walmart is the largest company in the world by revenue hardly an ostrich strategy, what they did is go to other parts of the world that the west generally ignores (kinda like China open for business anywhere in the world) the EU as time goes on will get fewer and fewer new features, and those features they do get will be delayed by a year or two. Apple Intelligence probably won’t be in the EU in 2025, but it almost certainly it will be in many other parts of the world first before Europe.
AI development will continue on without Europe, which will be bringing up the rear because most of that young native born, European talent will continue to migrate to America to work on AI at the highest levels. And that trend will continue because the EU will do all that it can to burn down AI development before it can mature.
Comments
Apple obviously conforms to all of the external industry defined and regulated interoperability standards. Apple also provides APIs for third party app developers to access most operating system and platform features. But there are parts of Apple’s platform that Apple does not want to expose through third party APIs because they believe that doing so would place the stability, security, or privacy of their entire system at risk. Undoubtedly there are regulators, disgruntled, and squeaky wheels who view Apple’s protective measures as being anticompetitive.
Basically, the EU wants much more control over Apple’s architecture because they see Apple as a public utility rather than a product company trying to differentiate themselves form all of the other product companies in the same market. What makes this so challenging for Apple is that one of Apple’s core beliefs that was constantly voiced by Steve Jobs was Apple’s insistence on delivering products where they controlled both the hardware and the software, unlike Microsoft and the Linux world. While those companies, organizations, and tech media were laughing at Apple for taking an approach that yielded low market share compared to say Microsoft, Apple made a killing at doing what they promised to do. Apple never succumbed to standard convention or tried to follow the market share leader’s approach. Now the EU wants total force Apple to follow the Microsoft by chipping away at what makes Apple so different, unique, and wildly popular with consumers. They won’t stop until Apple tells them to pound sand.
As others have pointed out, it seems the EC is radically anti-capitalist (to large companies from outside the EU) but they are afraid to actually say so, so they have to wiggle around every time a new solution is brought out and come up with a new reason that whichever company is being non-compliant.
ETA: I’m no fan of Meta/FB but the EC/DMA’s demands there are ridiculous. Meta put forth a model where people could pay a monthly subscription to FB and get a no ads and no tracking experience OR they could continue using FB free of charge but with tracking and targeted ads (PS: that is something Vestager herself had said she would like to see). But the EC came back saying that wasn’t good enough and Meta needed to offer a free tier that also had no tracking and targeted ads. It’s a similar situation with Apple making a bunch of concessions and adding the CTF. Uh-oh! The CTF may not be meeting the spirit of the law! It seems what the EC/DMA want is free access to everything but only for large, successful companies that are outside the EU. When will the EC demand Spotify offer a free tier with no advertisements? That’s a joke, because if Spotify ever gets big enough to be considered a “gatekeeper” the DMA will probably be modified to make sure they don’t.
Apple targets the most affluent part of the computing market. If you look at the marketshare of Apple iPhones in the EU you will notice that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, along with Switzerland, Belgium and the UK have the highest marketshare and there are several countries getting close to the 40% mark but most of the eastern EU is Android central no surprise but Poland (37%) and Estonia (40%) are climbing it’s also interesting Belarus, which isn’t part of the EU is getting near to the 40% mark.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-market-share-by-country What is ironic is that Denmark has the highest penetration of Apple iPhones at 66%.
Because of the EU actions there will be a fork in the road and there will be a tape delay for a year or two for almost all of the new Apple features in the future, and the same will apply to Microsoft and Google when they decide to bring features to the EU countries,
The result will lead to a continuing brain drain from the EU (more than half of the smart people working on AI in America are recent arrivals from Europe), I don’t know what AI will be in the future but no one around the world in tech can afford to be left at the station because the world will go on, similar to United States basically turning its back on high-speed rail the rest of the world went forward without the USA and the same will happen to Europe in tech.