Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
The EU.
Just some protections so that China doesn't take over and then let the free market do its work.
Oh the children card! Too bad you do ship such an app with your device since forever, it's called a Browser!
Think of the children though, they can't see boobs.
And now for a word from our sponsor, Jacques Marie Émile Lacan (JMÉL)...
It does ring hollow when the Screen Time controls that Apple includes is such a muddled mess. And, sometimes, it just doesn't seem to work properly at all. Working properly, the browser bypass isn't really a problem, but it's very twitchy and fiddly to set up.
Note the "especially", implying that they feel the need to protect adults from pornography as well.
If that happens, then the demand is big enough that companies would import millions of iPhones from other regions and sell them in the EU.
For warranty service, the company would ship the phones back to the original country where Apple sold them.
Then, if that causes Apple too much trouble, then Apple would have to detect that the phone had been spending most of the time in the EU, and refuse to provide free servicing under warranty.
That’s an interesting can of worms for Apple.
This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue? How are headphones going to exfiltrate data unless they have their own Wi-Fi connection or application that can serve as a bridge? Just disallow both.
Example: iCloud photos backup can upload a photo to iCloud in the background immediately after it was taken. Competing cloud storage providers cannot do this[1], because Apple withholds the API for that. Of course they're saying this is for "privacy" or for "energy saving" or whatever, but the actual reason is of course to make the user experience with competing services deliberately worse, so that people choose iCloud over something else.
[1] There is some weird tricks with notifications and location triggers that apps like Nextcloud or Immich go through to make this work at least somewhat but those are hacks and it's also not reliable.
Why shouldn't they share those APIs?
Maybe not the way Apple is doing it is my guess. Apple can bypass security concerns for Apple itself since they know they aren't doing anything malicious.
I love Apple and would love better integration with other headsets, but I have a feeling none of us have the full picture.
Wait until third parties "require" an app to be installed, and the headphones send audio as data to the app instead of calling itself a microphone, and the app then sends that data to wherever you don't want it to.
Bose, for example, "requires" an app to be installed. For "updates", they tell you. Updates... to headphones...?!
I do not install vendor apps for BT peripherals, and have been through the QC and 700 series of headphones without using their app. Same for Google and Samsung BT earbuds.
Can you install an app and get updates for bugs or changes to equalizer, noise cancellation, or other features (wanted or unwantes)? Yes, but it is not required nor "required", whatever that means.
The headphones work without the app, but the app is required for updates (the headphones have onboard software) and also if you want to manage the multipoint connection capability from your phone (which can be more convenient than doing it from the headphones and each device you want to connect to, but is not necessary to use the feature.)
> The interoperability solutions for third parties will have to be equally effective to those available to Apple and must not require more cumbersome system settings or additional user friction. All features on Apple will have to make available to third parties any new functionalities of the listed features once they become available to Apple.
Apple is saying, "We designed our APIs in a way that requires trusted headphones as part of the privacy model, and DMA would force us to give everyone access to those APIs."
What goes unstated is that trusted headphones aren't necessary for the feature and a company trying to meaningfully comply with the spirit of the DMA probably would have chosen to implement the API differently.
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...
If they want to play fast and loose with the lack of consumer protections in the US market, by all means! Delayed features actually lead to a BETTER experience over here in the EU.
There's a few other countries in Europe where it's released but their vat is much higher. I think apple normalizes prices across countries but every now and then it's cheaper to buy apple gear here. There was even a time when iPhones were cheaper here than in the USA because of some exchange rate issues.
Why are they going to this now ? Nobody is holding apple responsible for that. It's just another 'think of the children' fear mongering while with the other face they want to be able to record everything without explicit consent or with some guadrails ?
Apple can adapt if they want to participate in the EU market, like others have. They seem to think that it works like their lobby groups in the US.
Just waiting for Macron to receive an expensive plaque from 'Tim Apple'.
It's why even if an app in the app store is rated 17+ it still can't really have nudity in it.
That's an Apple problem, they're the ones going to lose market share to competitors offering those experiences.
Samsung already has live translation, including in calls.
In any case, I find it interesting that Palantir and Thorn are much better at lobbying the EU against its interests than Apple and other companies on much smaller and less relevant issues.
Apple used to partner with some of the best external ad agencies and released some of the most memorable campaigns ever. But sometime over a decade ago they switched to doing it primarily in house and we haven’t seen a memorable ad campaign since forever.
I suspect they similarly are driving their EU lobbying/legal decisions from California but the EU system is completely different from the U.S. system.
It’s been quite evident, even from the outside looking in, that Apple keeps making arguments and keeps getting surprised by decisions that should be obvious to anyone who has even the slightest inkling of how the EU operates.
I am shocked!
I'm not spending the cost of an entry level Mac (nearly) on headphones, that's just insane to me. An entry level Macbook Air is $50 more. That is wild to me. I've never spent that much on Headphones, and if it aint a DAC headset, I just can't justify it.
I do wonder, how much of what Apple is doing is proprietary, and patented? Or is the fear that Apple could not patent it, and competitors will realize they could do the same for other ecosystems?
Apple does not seem to have a reputation for bluffing.
Flippin' Symbian phones from early 2010's are more capable and yet they are the ones we call "dumbphones"...
As a person who used them then and still have a few working that I turn on now and then, this is nostalgic bunk. Symbian phone hardware & software SDK were a disorganized mess. By 2010, Symbian phones were stagnant and the market was mostly abandoned.
The Symbian OS had promise, but it was not realized. There is a reason the 2007 iPhone totally disrupted PalmPC/PalmOS/webOS/Symbian and wiped them from the landscape.
Doing it for a week, perhaps, to make a point and see if EU caves from it, which I dont see happening either.
Funnily, the previous EU commissioner for competition, who has spearheaded these clashes between EU and the U.S. tech giants has stated that the U.S. basically wrote the book on sensible anti-trust legislation back in the day, and that the EU's current laws are greatly inspired by the historical example of the U.S.
This is disingenuous. The DMA gatekeeper rules apply to Android and Google Play, and Samsung's live translation feature does not appear to be tied to specific earbuds.
A common pattern in Apple platforms has been for APIs to be private initially, then made public 2-4 major versions after introduction, once the bulk of the design churn is over with and it can remain relatively stable. Essentially, they focus on making it functional and shaped correctly and then make it public once they’re satisfied. They don’t do this with every API obviously, but have with several.
I think the DMA would be stronger if it had a “beta clause” that allowed that form of development for some stretch of time (a couple of years maybe) after public release before requirements kick in. This way companies don’t have to try to juggle making the APIs functional vs. fit for public consumption.
LaGrange•1h ago