EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[Gudi]

Which is why the largest technology companies are almost exclusively based in the EU.

/s

Monopolies make large companies, innovations make profitable companies.

Apple is the rare case of being both. As far as the EU is concerned, the AppStore monopoly can die.

 

[WilliApple]

who use iMessage these days when whatsapp and other messaging platforms are there.

America does.

 

[Gudi]

OK, can you explain?

There's nothing to explain. You made all that up in your mind. Neither is Apple required to make their software available in others hardware, nor do they need to sell their hardware to other manufacturers. They just need to open their hardware and software for other competing services to thrive on iOS. Other app stores, other messengers, other payment services, etc. They are not allowed to be gatekeepers.

 

[addamas]

But right to downgrade or block FW updates should go first…

 

[Gudi]

But right to downgrade or block FW updates should go first…

Now that's a regulation, which would indeed harm security.

 

[djphat2000]

Nah. Apple needs to get Google and Microsoft on board. All leave, all at once. Let them try to figure out how to make computers and software on their own. They'd come back on their knees begging all three to come back. Call their bluff. It's the only way to end this stupidity.

I'm for it.

 

[emulator]

There's nothing to explain. You made all that up in your mind. Neither is Apple required to make their software available in others hardware, nor do they need to sell their hardware to other manufacturers. They just need to open their hardware and software for other competing services to thrive on iOS. Other app stores, other messengers, other payment services, etc. They are not allowed to be gatekeepers.

You really cannot believe the same apps would cost 30% less in those other stores for more than a few months. And who would put google pay on an iphone unless google would throw at us money like they did a few years ago? If you can, compare the prices in the galaxy store and the play store. See any difference? I don't.

Maybe these elected socialists (put there mostly by scandinavians and ppl of benelux) should turn this issue into a referendum if they really care.

 

[webkit]

Nonsense. Apple is mot required to write software for other platforms. It's required to open iOS so that others can write apps, which make use of the NFC chip and install apps without the AppStore.

Nonsense? I was in no way trying to suggest Apple should be required make Safari available on Windows, Android or any other operating systems. My point was that part of the reasons for Chrome's notable market share was due to Apple's unwillingness to try to compete against Chrome on Windows, Android or any other non-Apple operating systems. I wasn’t necessarily saying they should try (I would welcome it, however) and I certainly wasn’t saying they should be required to.

 

[webkit]

Ultimately, they're all WebKit based except for Firefox. It's already a quasi-monopoly.

If based on that, WebKit in Europe would have around 88% share of the desktop browser (engine) market and nearly 100% of the mobile browser (engine) market.

 

[webkit]

Honest question: Is Apple versus Android a valid comparison on any level?

One is company, the other is software.

At the company level, it's Google and Apple. At the software level, it’s Android and iOS.

 

[iBluetooth]

You mean the EU plug? Which works in all the green areas of the world.

View attachment 2281807

You really haven't spent much time in Europe (I am European). That map is missing the Italian plug (used almost exclusively in Italy & Chile), Danish plug (Type K), France (Type E), but shows the Swiss plug (Type J), and the UK plug and the green German plug which has been picked as the standard. https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/spread-plug-types-map/?location=it

 

[iBluetooth]

Well… perhaps better browsers should be developed to compete. Having artificial protection for safari doesn’t make it competitive

Browsers are the most vulnerable entry points for hacking, so it's not an "artifical protection", but I think that Chrome and Edge have more than 90% of the market.

 

[theotherphil]

It is not really a free market, if you can just choose between iOS and Android. And Google even pays billions to Apple.

What is "free" about not being able to do what you want with your own very expensive phone? Imagine you buy a car, but the car company also owns gas stations and only allows you to use their own gas stations. Would that be your idea or free market?

You can do whatever you want with your expensive phone but the manufacturer isn't compelled to help you. Want to install Linux/ android? You'll have to work that out yourself.

iOS is not yours - iOS is licensed to you and you agree to this almost immediately after the splash screen.

Don't like it? Apple offer very generous no questions asked return policies.

 

[PhoenixDown]

I think people are defending the user experience more so than defending billion dollar tech companies. Do you want your iPhone experience to be like Android? What a disaster that would be. Most people use Apple products because of the whole ecosystem and the (mostly) seamless user experience.

I agree. I have built a good number of windows desktops and a few servers. It was fun but I don't have the time or desire to muck around with that right now. I just want something that works. That's a big reason for my going deeper into the Apple ecosystem.

That doesn't mean I am against a framework or standards -- the web would be impossible to use without that and I am enjoy the deeper integration of home automation products with Matter and Thread now that its rolling out to more devices. There are ways of doing the same I am sure with the app store but that's more of a curated business conversation than a legislative sledgehammer.

 

[theotherphil]

Sorry, but discussing with an addict about his drug is mostly usesless. The EU wants Apple to implement an option. To clarify this here: You do not have to use an option, cause it is optional.

But everyone of the nay sayers here will use those options. Why? Simply because Apple blocks innovation.

Ì’m really glad that the EU is killing Apples „lock users in, lock competition out“ business model. Why? Have a look what happened, after the EU forced Apple to implement USB-C

That could actually be an argument if the iPhone 15 had USB 3.1 and not 2.0.

Apple adding that interoperability on the Pro was a choice....they were not "forced to" 😏

 

[theotherphil]

It's not just an Apple thing. The EU regulations apply to all companies meeting "gatekeeper" status who are engaging in "anticompetitive behavior." For example, if Android restricted things like sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. like Apple/iOS does, they would be facing similar consequences.

That's convenient when the "Gatekeeper Status" has been carefully and arbitrarily crafted to only apply to non-EU companies.

 

[mwd25]

lol @ substandard connector. Every big tech company on the planet uses this 'substandard' connector on their products and it's not caused them any problems but when Apple is told to use it, suddenly it becomes a problem. Apple like to use proprietary connectors in their products because it forces users to purchases Apple's expensive accessories.

Forces users to buy expensive accessories??? You mean the lightning cable that every Apple product comes with?? The lightning cable your not forced to use, because you can charge wireless. And you can buy any third party wireless charger, so not "forced" to buy Apple with that either.

 

[bousozoku]

who use iMessage these days when whatsapp and other messaging platforms are there.

The EU should keep a tight leash on Meta, since WhatsApp is controlled by them.

 

[theotherphil]

Forces users to buy expensive accessories??? You mean the lightning cable that every Apple product comes with?? The lightning cable your not forced to use, because you can charge wireless. And you can buy any third party wireless charger, so not "forced" to buy Apple with that either.

And AirDrop data transfers are approaching saturated USB 3.1 speeds and are significantly more convenient than a wired connection.

 

[DownUnderDan]

As long as Tim connected to those folks in Brussels with a USB C port and cable, he'll be fine. The App Store, not so much.

 

[erikkfi]

There’s a mostly open platform for smartphones that has a bigger market share in the EU than Apple.

I guess I just miss the days when tech people resented the idea of being told what they can and cannot install on their own computers (which an iPhone is). 🤷‍♂️

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Why? The connector itself is designed poorly. Lightning is far stronger and will put up with heavier use/abuse. USBC ports are known to get loose over time, I had to replace both sides on my 2017 MBP and those ports received far lighter use than my phone would. When I travel for work I can make as many as 10 stops a day which means I need to plug and unplug my phone from my car that many times, while I never had a lightning port fail I have no confidence that a USBC port will survive that longterm, AppleCare FTW!

Any chance you have evidence of this or are you speaking anecdotally only? Could it be the case usb c and lightning have the same failure rate?

You can’t be attacked for having a “monopoly” over YOUR OWN PRODUCT within a larger market.

It’s like saying General Mills should not be allowed a “monopoly” over Coco Puffs.

Apple is not a market unto itself; it competes in the smartphone market (among others). You are free to choose their product or a product from their competitors.

Well first of, a monopoly isn’t illegal, secondly iOS is a market in of itself and the product itself (iPhone/ipad) is a separate product.

Part of Apple’s product is the App Store exclusive system.

Don’t like it? Don’t buy it, go with a competitor.

This is really not difficult stuff.

Well it is considereing it’s a philosophical disagreement on ownership. The phone and software contained on the device is seen as private property of the individual who purchased it. Allowing Apple to dictate how that’s done is antithetical to the definition of ownership

This might be my favorite post. If the iPhone opens up to third party Appstores the first thing any security focused company will do is block sideloading.

This will also kill the very hard fought for MAM for phones. Spent two years getting my company to drop MDM for MAM. Now companies will want MDM again to protect the device instead of just the applications.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/this...ng-from-100-banking-apps-protect-yourself-now

I suggest you all read the article and focus on how this malware is spreading. Right now a bad website can't do a darn thing on a iPhone. This will make iPhones just another Android.

Well what is the issue? The iPhone can just like currently be limited to installing only specific software or to only accessing internal corporate software

No I'm not worried I'll have an issue. I'm worried about my family and friends who don't know better. I don't want to deal with managing phones on top of computers.

Personal responsibility my friend. You don’t have the responsibility to help technically illiterate people. Phishing and clicking the wrong link in an email is a bigger threat than installing harmful software.

Not really. It would be more akin to instructing a dominant landlord (if one existed) to allow Burger King and McDonald restaurants to be setup in your shopping malls across the country.

So you think the landlord should have the ability to just allow McDonalds to rent the space and deny everyone other tenants because they aren’t McDonald’s? How about the landlord decides an unbiased minimum requirement that if they meet it will grant them access?

How about everyone is allowed to vote by purchasing the product or not. Then instead of some “entity” with power far exceeding their knowledge every single person interested in the outcome can vote. I think it’s a no brainer.

They did vote with their euros and votes. Don’t like it vote in other representatives.

Apple is only 1 company that makes the hardware and software. Google makes one with the Pixel and Android.
Android OS is available to other handset manufactures (of which there are many). They can use the vanilla version or modify it. So, you have plenty of choices. Of which many are "open".

That should not have any bearing on Apple being closed. As you have a choice to use another product. I can prove that by hoping (stating) that Apple stops selling iPhones in the EU. Right after that happens. All EU citizens will HAVE to buy an Android phone if they want/need a mobile phone. Or blackmarket an iPhone.

Come back when an android phone can run iOS software you already purchased, untill then they aren’t even indirectly connected.

The market in question is for developers, if they want to target android users, they can as many options are available. But if they want to target iOS individuals, then they are prevented from doing that in every way except by following apples rules.

The EU policy on this is flawed (They are also not asking). I can also prove that by what the EU has as a rule for noncompliance. What was it.. 10% or so of world wide turn over? Like really? You want to base your fine on what a company makes all over the world? The EU is not the world, so "it" should have no rights to anyones world wide turn over. At best, whatever is made within your borders.

Pull out Apple. Let them eat cake.

It’s a guideline, to make sure a fine won’t actually bankrupt a company and to discourage future violations of the law. Having a fixed sum on the books makes no sense and if a company manages to produce leprechaun magic and do clever book keeping to move all the revenue outside of EU, then you could let’s say theoretically go from earning a yearly revenue of 1 billion € a year to barely 10million € a year and wipe away large parts of the fine.

But if it’s the companies total revenue irrespective of its origin then it becomes harder to escape that fine.

 

[webkit]

That's convenient when the "Gatekeeper Status" has been carefully and arbitrarily crafted to only apply to non-EU companies.

It’s not really that "convenient." Most large, dominant consumer tech products/services are from U.S. companies so it should be no surprise those are what the EU regulations end up applying to. It is similarly why U.S. antitrust regulators end up going after U.S. tech companies. They are the companies wielding significant power, influence, control, etc. in various technology sectors/markets and that's what antitrust regulations are designed to deal with.

Which EU companies should the EU regulators be going after here?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"Killing capitalism" is unnecessarily dramatic. This is only cut 147 in the death of a thousand cuts. And interventionism, broadly speaking, is a call EU, and its constituents, gets to make. They like regulation. That's just how it is.

However the problem here isn't over-regulation, it's stupid regulation by an entity which lacks the first clue about tech...and is arrogantly oblivious to its ignorance, re: that statement, which essentially says "I'm smart. Not like everybody says" while adopting a moronic, paper-thin credo-driven approach to tech regulation.

That's the problem.

Well it’s not regulation made by illiterate politicians. It’s made by employed technocrats by the behest of the parliament.

The politicians will on the other hand debate and negotiate sections of the legislation and that is very likely done by many politicians lacking technical knowledge. But this is true everywhere. Here we at least are protected from the legislation being written by politicians who wants to save their reelection campaign and hold rudimentary understanding of the areas they will legislate.

And instead have every commissioner appointed with full approval of the parliament

The commission was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from governments;

it has been described as "the only body paid to think European". The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. However, they are bound to act independently – free from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. This is in contrast to the Council of the European Union, which represents governments, the European Parliament, which represents citizens, the Economic and Social Committee, which represents organised civil society, and the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional authorities.

Commissioners are nominated by member states in consultation with the commission president, who then selects a team of commissioners. This team of nominees are then subject to hearings by the European Parliament which questions them and then votes on their suitability as a whole. If members of the team are found to be inappropriate, the president must then reshuffle the team or request a new candidate from the member state or risk the whole commission being voted dow

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Also, the EU didn’t swoop in to mandate a standard connector but asked the industry for many many years to fix the issue of incompatible chargers. They refused. They only mandated it as a last resort.

Also, “ as a last resort”? There is no need to regulate connectors, period. What happens if a great connector is invented tomorrow? Right, we will never see it.

Exactly. Remember the EU wanted the world to adopt Micro-USB as the be-all-end-all charging port in the early 2010s. USB-C likely wouldn’t exist today if they got their way back then.

Well I would actually recommend you read the legislation. First of it was mandated as law. The specification EN 62684:2010 was active from 2009 to 2014… and has since been withdrawn as obsolete

And if you knew the details you would also be aware that the requirement was removed in 2014 the same year USB-c was released. And the exact same thing can happen with this current law the moment a new port is launched as it specifically states the requirements of the regulations will be
Continually revisited:

…the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 to amend Part I of Annex Ia in the light of scientific and technological progress or market developments…

With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 to amend Part I of Annex Ia in the light of scientific and technological progress or market developments in order to ensure a minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and its charging devices, as well as to improve consumer convenience, to reduce environmental waste and to avoid market fragmentation, by:

(a)	modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment;

(b)	modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to the charging receptacle(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned.

The Commission shall continuously assess market developments, market fragmentation and technological progress with a view to identifying categories or classes of radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging for which the inclusion in Part I of Annex Ia would lead to significant consumer convenience and reduction of environmental waste.

The Commission shall submit a report on the assessment referred to in the third subparagraph to the European Parliament and to the Council, for the first time by 28 December 2025 and every 5 years thereafter, and shall adopt delegated acts pursuant to the second subparagraph, point (a), accordingly.

Just because it is a “standard” doesn’t mean it is a solid and robust connector. This is the only claim I am making for Lightning. The USBC connector is not solid and will probably fail at a much higher rate than lightning.

Well such assertions are supported by?