It’s fascinating the kind of cool features we can have when products are made to be useful, with their target user in mind. Go EU!
[flagged]
iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
151–160 of 352 posts
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All through that fiasco, where Apple was going through all sorts of twists and turns to avoid switching to USB-C Is there any evidence that "Apple was going through all sorts of twists and turns to avoid switching to USB-C"? Apple worked to create the USB-C standard, was among the first to widely deploy it. Apple fighting against a precedent where the EU would force them to switch everything to USB-C is strictly di…
>Apple worked to create the USB-C standard, was among the first to widely deploy it. And that is exactly Gruber's take. Apple created USB-C standard and gave it to the USB committee for free. And it is not even half true. But it spread across the internet as if it was verified. The other one being Apple AirPod sold at cost, and suggest Apple invented big.SMALL CPU core.
I haven’t heard anyone make any of those claims in the way you’ve made them.
Conversely, the inference you leave readers with from your description of Apple’s contribution to USB-C and CPU design is just as untrue.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company making an integrated experience would inevitably provide a better experience/performance than a company asked to build for 100s of devices with different spec. That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate discussion. My contention is this: expecting a third party provider to be able to provide the same experience as the first party is an impractical goal. Even pushing companies towards that means a l…
> A company making an integrated experience would inevitably provide a better experience/performance than a company asked to build for 100s of devices with different spec. That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate discussion. I disagree, this is not a given. Usually the opposite is true. Meaning, properly designed APIs and protocols for public use are more robust than one-off private protocols. Because ther…
> Meaning, properly designed APIs and protocols for public use are more robust than one-off private protocols. Because there are expectations.
This is the polar opposite of my experience. Whether it's Bluetooth, PDF's, or a web audio JavaScript spec, actual products are plagued with inconsistencies and incompatibilities, as they implement the spec in different ways or brand A has bugs that brands B, C and D need to write special code for to get interoperability working. And brand C has other bugs brands A, B and D now need to also handle.
Whereas private protocols are much more likely to just work because there's only one implementation. There are no differing interpretations.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion that I'm the one arguing in bad faith is laughable. Nobody has actually addressed any of the points I brought up, instead defaulting to assertions that regulations are necessary and thus I'm "objectively wrong". This is not how you foster good discussions - you need to be willing to listen and address the opposing viewpoints that are brought up. If I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I would simpl…
Right, but regulations are necessary. And ideological opposition to regulation, as a concept, in inherently wrong and always will be. Some regulations are good, some are bad. In order to have a free market, you MUST have some regulations. It's not optional. The reason is simple and intuitive - if you don't regulate the free market, it will just make itself un-free, which is what we're seeing with Apple. You need to a…
Thank you for your response :)
I would push back a bit on the ideological comment, just to say that ideological acceptance of regulation is also probably wrong. This is different from a philosophical opposition/acceptance of political authority, although it often appears the same.
I think it's fairly obvious that the base prerequisites for market economies are property rights and some form of legal system to handle disputes. I don't consider that to be "regulation", especially not government regulation, but if that is what you mean by the term then of course I would concede that markets require it. However since even the most fervent proponents of laissez-faire economies accept the necessary role of property rights and a legal system, I would consider those to be separate from what we commonly refer to as regulation.
Ok to respond to your main point: It seems reasonable to me that in a competitive market there is an incentive to win, and companies can win by preventing others from being able to compete. This is commonly done via regulation, for example the big companies are lobbying for regulation on AI to help cement their position at the top. The thing is, just because companies are incentivized to win doesn't mean that it's possible to sustain a monopoly position for a significant amount of time. Unlike other competitive activities there isn't a time clock with winners declared at the end. Economists have shown that absent of external cofounders, a position where a company can charge monopoly prices is unsustainable.
There is of course a stronger position to be made for regulating so called natural monopolies, but even then there isn't much evidence that they really exist. Some of the most cited examples, like telecom providers, end up not being true - look at Eastern Europe and what happened when they deregulated that industry for example.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a rather silly view to take. We have a phenomenon called “the first mover advantage” for a reason. Plenty of other markets and businesses operate just fine while operating in an environment that makes protecting individual innovation functionally impossible. Just look at any related to fast fashion (not that I think the fast fashion market is a healthy phenomenon) or any commodities market. Or for that matter,…
"plenty of other markets" have way smaller margins and are not nearly as robust an industry as software.
Are you trying suggest that Apple’s margins are so small that they need state protection? Or that Apple can’t compete if they’re not able to tightly lock down every aspect of their ecosystem?
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lesson being learned is that Apple could’ve avoided all this trouble if they had used or produced standards for the connection between their components. The whole concept of a gatekeeper was created in response to Apple-likes being difficult and simply hostile to interop opportunities even though they’re defacto the phone company and there is no way around them. So if the solution is not optimal, that circles bac…
A company making an integrated experience would inevitably provide a better experience/performance than a company asked to build for 100s of devices with different spec. That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate discussion. My contention is this: expecting a third party provider to be able to provide the same experience as the first party is an impractical goal. Even pushing companies towards that means a l…
> A company making an integrated experience would inevitably provide a better experience/performance than a company asked to build for 100s of devices with different spec
This isn't given. For example the company that makes smart light switches doesn't provide a code entry pad and the company that makes the alarm doesn't provide a light switch. If they were interoperable I'd have a better system. Futhermore they'd both sell more widgets, as I'm holding off on further units in case I find a better third option and end up disposing of my current ones.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually have a problem with this. I want AirPods to be undeniably the best experience for me because I am fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, and I know many folks have complaints against that. I find it to be rather pleasurable to use compared to all the other alternatives out there. So if I have to start sacrificing my experience in favor of universal support, that really sucks.
Is there anything that makes you believe they'll sacrifice quality to have universal support?
They won’t, but Apple previously lied similarly against PWAs.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company making an integrated experience would inevitably provide a better experience/performance than a company asked to build for 100s of devices with different spec. That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate discussion. My contention is this: expecting a third party provider to be able to provide the same experience as the first party is an impractical goal. Even pushing companies towards that means a l…
> 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 q…
> 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.
Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#159Re: iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU under DMA
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its mostly true when the integrating company cares for the user experience. Which apple clearly does. The example you shared is the opposite. I am imagining a kernel today written in a manner that airpods would be able to use it to extract the max out of it. Now, it has to support 10 other third party pods, so at the minimum, kernel would be more generalized.
A company that produces a wireless mouse that charges upside down really does not care about user experience.
Steve Jobs loved the iMac's terrible hockey puck mouse. Jony Ive is probably to blame for the terrible (yet very thin) butterfly keyboard making it into Apple laptops. However, these missteps do not prove that Apple doesn't care about user experience.