EU sends Apple first DMA interoperability instructions for apps and devices

You are confused about Microsoft. They did (do?) have some bad anti-competitive behavior but they won because ultimately, they provided a competitive OS (and software suite) at a very competitive price and nobody was able to successfully offer a combination of hardware/software that could match that offering. Not Apple and not even Linux with their free stuff, and it still stays true after all these years.

If one company were to make a compelling OS as good as Windows for as cheap or cheaper, people would flock to them really fast.

We can talk about the software coupling all day, but similarly devs are going there primarily because that is where their customers are because of the cheap costs. Gaming and 3D software are notoriously Windows only because it's the only OS that has provided decent stability/features while allowing access to a competitive hardware proposition.

Now that Linux is somewhat viable, we can actually see some high-end software working there, in the 3D effects and video business.

Microsoft might be shady but at least they are providing good value. Apple is a major dickhead clamoring how much better they are while failing to actual value.

I am an Apple customer and I do think their OS is nice for many things but the reality is that outside of their laptop the value is extremely questionnable (and even for the laptop, because of RAM/SSD pricing you better have some justification for the benefit of battery life, otherwise its mostly a luxury).

I agree. It's about time that the EU actually tried to work on their own thing and stopped being so rely on technologies controlled by other countries. This way we might actually get some competitive offering and stop funneling so much money to other powers for something that has become a basic necessity.

It won't be easy but considering what Huawei was able to accomplish in 5 short years, it definitely isn't impossible, we just need political will and a minimum amount of funding behind it.

I enjoy the US technologies but there is no reason we can't do as well (if not better with the benefits of hindsight) and we definitely should work on that.

I was one of the French minitel critics, but it now seems like they were just wrong on the technical part, not the political side. Even if something might be inferior at some point, it seems like it's worth taking a hit to be able to control your own future.

> there is no reason to prevent others making other choices and allow other manufacturers to compete on features.

Who is preventing other people from choosing an open platform and who is preventing other manufacturers from competing on that open platform? Certainly it’s not Apple. There are no requirements that app developers exclusively publish for iOS only. There are no requirements that accessory manufacturers manufacture for iPhones only. Retailers are no required to sell exclusively either iPhones or Android phones and no one is charged any per device fees for iOS even if those devices don’t ship with iOS. How does a single manufacturer with less than half of the market share and no presence on any devices other than their own prevent other people from making different choices?

> Apple has to allow access to their OS so that others can interoperate with it, and that's that.

Why though? Why is it not a valid choice to sell a highly sandboxed device that limits the access developers of additional software can have to the device hardware? Why should it be illegal to sell a device where 3rd party developers can’t run their software as root?

Well they are kind of doing that with their buyback-recycling and no interest loan program on top of their programmed obsolescence but they are not upfront about it. I agree that it should be made clearer to the customers that they don't actually fully own the device.

When a modern Apple device stops getting updates, for all intent and purpose it is mostly a useless brick to most people. The saving grace of their older computers was that they could run alternative OS because they used a mostly compliant PC architecture, but with Apple Silicon it's not even on the table anymore.

It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.

> It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases

My quote was in relation to the context about some unnamed activists and expertise that is somehow harmful to people.

> if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point?

Depends on the product, of course. E.g. you can sell an exclusive phone, and companies like Vertu made good money on it. What you can't do is make it non-interoperable with other phones, or phone networks, or...

> I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher

In short response you've now come up with the following attempts at analogies: additional taxation, game publishing, triopoly...

And none of them are applicable in this case.

> First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly.

If you were discussing this in good faith, you wouldn't have typed this. I never claimed Apple was a monopoly. The EU never claimed it was a monopoly.

I described the situation as it exists, and why this regulation appeared. Yes, if there's a third company with the same size, influence, and problems, it will also be subject to the same regulation.

Since you are a fan of analogies: just like car manufacturers are subject to standards and regulations, and electronics manufacturers, and construction companies, and ship builders, and airlines, and food companies, and...

Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around when it comes to supranational corporations, is beyond me.

While also ignoring the simple facts that people do want interoperability, and that it's government's literal job to enforce standards and interoperability.