this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
341 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

67050 readers
6660 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I disagree. Apple should not force other companies' products to work in an inferior way to their own. They already tried to force us all onto wireless headphones by removing the jack. They need to at least allow the 3rd party ones access to the same pairing and multihoming tech they use for their own. Openness is never a bad thing IMO.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago

As someone who has recently moved away from an iPhone, while still having much of the rest of the Apple ecosystem in place: for me it's things like AirPlay and AirDrop. There are alternatives to AirDrop, but as I have an Apple TV, it would super handy to be able to AirPlay to it from my Pixel. As it stands, there appears to be literally no way to achieve this.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They don't have a monopoly, but they do have anticompetetive practices

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While I appreciate semantic clarity as much as anybody else I’m not sure it changes my question in this case.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

at least in the US

And there's your answer

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

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.