Psamathos

This seems like a whole load of posturing and blackmail to me. Basically they are saying "we can't enable screen sharing to apps that Apple hasn't authorised because they might allow data to go somewhere that violates the users' privacy". Well, you know, you could always ask the user, couldn't you? Maybe a dialogue box the first time you connect to an app that's not signed by Apple isn't the absolutely perfect user experience, but it's an awful lot better than killing the feature all together. Given that Apple's own app store doesn't have a perfect record on vetting applications, that same pop-up-on-first-connect would probably be useful for Apple App Store apps too.

So no, this isn't EU regulation causing problems. This is Apple causing problems and attempting to blame the EU, because it doesn't want to loose its insanely lucrative monopoly by which is takes 30% of the entire value of the App Store for its own profit.

mike1 said:
...

Based on the limited info provide here, it appears that the "computer in a keyboard" is not what they are looking to patent. There are specific implementation ideas that might be patented.

Apple argues that therefore "further tailoring of housing designs, shapes, and configurations to provide additional or enhanced device functionality" is possible - and desirable. That's really the thrust of the entire patent application, as the majority of its more 130,000 words is detailing methods for ventilating such a keyboard to keep components cool.
There are, though, multiple references to making such a device even more portable. For one instance, Apple says that the "computing device can be foldable about an axis."

The thing is, with a patent it's all about the claims. What is protected is defined by the claims, not the text, and the patentability is based on what the claims state. Furthermore if there are claims that build on previous claims (as there are in this application) then if the earlier claims can not be patented then the later claims can not either. In this patent application the very first claim is:

1) A computing device, comprising:

• * an enclosure at least partially defining an internal volume and an external surface;
• * a keyboard positioned at the external surface;
• * a processing unit disposed within the internal volume;
• * a memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit, the memory disposed within the internal volume;
• * a singular input/output port positioned at an orifice defined by the enclosure and communicatively coupled to the processing unit and the memory, the singular input/output port configured to: receive signals and power; and output signals from the processing unit.

The first four bullet points are a Raspberry Pi 400 or numerous older machines that have been noted in the comments above. The last bullet point is the single USB-C connector on a 2015 MacBook, or if you want to go by the shape of the box, the single connector on an Apple Bluetooth Magic Keyboard can be used both to charge the keyboard and to connect it as a wired keyboard if desired. That is what they are asking to patent; all the subsequent claims in this patent ultimately refer back to claim 1 and the rest of the 130,000 words don't matter.

So the question before the patent office is "Does removing all but one connector on a keyboard-sized computer warrant a patent?" I don't think it does, but the USPTO doesn't have a great track record on these things.