- (JS Required) Press Release.
Apple was ordered by EU antitrust regulators today to open up its closed ecosystem to rivals, with the latter spelling out details on how to go about it in line with the bloc’s landmark rules and where non-compliance could lead to an investigation and fines.
Cool…cool… but what about game consoles?
I don’t think Apple makes any game consoles.
I remember that thing, we wrote the network stack for it. I’m still not sure what it was supposed to achieve.
“It’s bad for our products and for our European users. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our users,” added Apple.
LOL. Europeans wanted this. Rivals just means third party apps. So people can actually do with their device what the hell they want to.
Connected devices
The first set of measures concerns nine iOS connectivity features, predominantly used for connected devices such as smartwatches, headphones or TVs. The measures will grant device manufacturers and app developers improved access to iPhone features that interact with such devices (e.g. displaying notifications on smartwatches), faster data transfers (e.g. peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections, and near-field communication) and easier device set-up (e.g. pairing).
As a result, connected devices of all brands will work better on iPhones. Device manufacturers will have new opportunities to bring innovative products to the market, improving the user experience for consumers based in Europe.
The measures ensure that this innovation takes place in full respect of users’ privacy and security as well as the integrity of Apple’s operating systems.
Effective process for interoperability requests
The second set of measures improves the transparency and effectiveness of the process that Apple devised for developers interested in obtaining interoperability with iPhone and iPad features. It includes improved access to technical documentation on features not yet available to third parties, timely communication and updates, and a more predictable timeline for the review of interoperability requests.
Developers will benefit from a fast and fair handling of their interoperability requests. The measures will accelerate their ability to offer a wider choice to European consumers of innovative services and hardware that interoperate with iPhones and iPads.
I hope Spotify will we able to bring back volume control of connected devices.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/29/24231516/spotify-apple-physical-iphone-volume-controls
Poorly written article but it does end with a correction that “Spotify has not opted in to using the required APIs”.
While I have no way of knowing who to blame here, I see Spotify trying to blame Apple rather than talk about the api claim. If they have an objection to that api, let’s meet there, a little closer to reality
I believe that only apply to the HomePod
Although some third-party music services can stream directly from Apple’s HomePod, many major streamers, including Spotify, never adopted the necessary API. Instead, users have to use AirPlay to play songs from Spotify — though, a workaround in iOS 17 made this process a little easier by allowing users to ask Siri to start an AirPlay session.
Yeah but that still makes no sense.
I have Spotify and lost that easy volume control capability when this issue first surfaced. However I have never used a HomePod. Whatever changed has nothing to do with my non-existent HomePod
Maybe this is unrelated but there was also a change to HomeKit where we had to accept some sort of architectural update having to do with my non-existent HomePod. I can easily believe a common ground of API changes and that Spotify didn’t want to update
Nobody who gives a damn about artists being paid fairly and not swindled out of their already miniscule pay should use spotify.
I don’t entirely buy this argument.
In my experience, Spotify has made music accessible enough that I listen to thousands of hours per year, far more than anyone else I know. Vs before Spotify I couldn’t be bothered. Even assuming Spotify pays artists less than other mediums, there’s a point where the much higher listening rate is the better choice.
I’m not especially hard core of a music listener so my attempts at other services were disappointing enough that I probably wouldn’t bother.
Idk its up to your morals. I am not fine with big labels getting a bigger cut, big labels getting even bigger cut by sneaking in fake artists with stock songs into most popular playlists, big labels getting an even bigger cut by having ai generated instrumentals make more revenue for them on the most mediocre platform with one of the lowest artist payouts. If that doesn’t bother you then keep using spotify instead of the myriad analogous services that function interchangeably.
Certainly the fake artists and ai crap bothers me, but I haven’t yet been knowingly affected by that. Most pop music sounds generated by ai anyway so what’s a few more.
If it wasn’t for Spotify, I wouldn’t know most of the artists I listen to now. They might receive little money from me listening to them, but it’s still more than they would receive if I didn’t knew about their existence.
Every streaming app has a reccomendation system, some are even better and don’t lock you down into a genre to save money like spotify does. I found most of mine on soundcloud and now tidal is doing a better job with new and interesting artists that are smaller being reccomended to me quite regularly. Spotify main influx of new artist was when the algorythm managed to not completely fuck up when generating the discover weekly. That happened about once a year.
Security thru ubiquity :)
I rarely find myself defending giant corporations but after having looked at the list it seems I am going to have to.
Some of the things do make sense, like allowing other smartwatches the same notification access as Apple Watches. But others like the audio switching seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how that even works.
I keep trying to figure out though what exactly Apple has a monopoly in… they don’t have the largest segment of any market they are in so it makes it seem like the EU is complaining that they have a monopoly on iPhones… which… yes… but that is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on the Switch.
Edit: I seem to have failed to express the nuance I wanted to. None the less there seem to be some issues with the demands here and I think it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
They have a trust. As in the term “antitrust”. They control a significant part of multiple inter-dependent markets and have unethically used that control to block competition and harm the free market.
They don’t have a monopoly, but they do have anticompetetive practices
While I appreciate semantic clarity as much as anybody else I’m not sure it changes my question in this case.
Really? Anticompetitive practices don’t require you to have a monopoly over any specific area though. The answer to “what do they have a monopoly in” is “they don’t.”
It does require that though, at least in the US. Previous antitrust actions have made it clear that a monopoly is the distinction. If you don’t control the market it’s acceptable to use all sort of sketchy practices to grow your market share. It’s only after you’ve succeeded enough to control the market that these same behaviors are “anti trust”, unfairly locking out competition.
I didn’t say that. What I said was if you change “monopoly” for “anticompetitive practices” my question still stands. “How is it different from how Nintendo acts with the Switch?” Keeping in mind that I had already conceded that better smartwatch access made sense.
Because Apple is a Gatekeeper. With their control over the entire operating system and which apps and firmware you’re allowed to install (“ecosystem”), they have a lot more economic power over other companies and people than Nintendo.
The Switch is a game console, smart phones are the portal to modern society.
So the only difference is one is a phone, and the other a gaming device? Because Nintendo js a gatekeeper in exactly the same way Apple is. Nintendo controls the entire operating system and which apps you’re allowed to install on the Switch. You’re going to have expand on how Apple has economic power over other companies and people for me.
Nintendo restricting game and app access on the Switch is also anticompetitive. However, Apple’s anticompetitive restrictions on iOS are a higher-priority problem because smartphones are essential communication devices while video game consoles are not.
Go read up on the Digital Markets Act, everything will be spelled out for you.
Do you really not grasp the fundamental difference in magnitude between controlling a store where a limited amount of media is sold versus a store for applications of everyday life for basically everyone?
