[HN Gopher] iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party ...
___________________________________________________________________
iOS 26.3 brings AirPods-like pairing to third-party devices in EU
under DMA
Author : Tomte
Score : 189 points
Date : 2025-12-23 06:22 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| clayhacks wrote:
| So this tap to pair won't work in the US? The side loading stuff
| I can understand to restrict to the EU, but this just seems like
| a nice feature for everyone
| justapassenger wrote:
| Apple is not really interested in giving you nice features that
| makes it easier for you to escape their ecosystem and have
| Apple make less money.
| Otek wrote:
| > The side loading stuff I can understand to restrict to the EU
|
| Just curious: why do you understand they restrict it to EU?
| hu3 wrote:
| It's pretty clear isn't it?
|
| They do so with third-party app stores.
|
| And if they wanted to have airpods-like pairing to third-
| parties in US, they would already have.
|
| The only reason they might bring this to US is customers will
| be royally pissed.
| latexr wrote:
| > It's pretty clear isn't it?
|
| If it were, they wouldn't be asking. And you haven't
| answered it either. Your parent comment is asking why the
| grandparent commenter thinks it makes sense to restrict
| third-party stores to the EU instead of having them
| everywhere.
| kalleboo wrote:
| They even restrict "letting you choose the default maps app" to
| jurisdictions that legally require it (EU and Japan), there is
| literally no justification for that other than "we want to
| increase KPIs for our shitty Apple Maps app by making people
| accidentally open it", it's an extremely basic toggle that
| pretty much any user of Google Maps would prefer.
| general1465 wrote:
| EU gave up non working AI in exchange for something useful.
| hu3 wrote:
| https://mistral.ai
| isodev wrote:
| 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!
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Or it disincentivizes creating those features, if you must give
| it to your competitors.
| avianlyric wrote:
| 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, most of the software industry.
|
| The incentive for creating features should be to remain
| relevant and competitive. It shouldn't be to build moats and
| war chests.
| websiteapi wrote:
| "plenty of other markets" have way smaller margins and are
| not nearly as robust an industry as software.
| illiac786 wrote:
| I would agree in general, but in this specific case it's
| still an advantage for the iOS platform in general. It just
| removes a buying incentive for the AirPods.
|
| The general problem is that there must be a line.
|
| Vendors don't create lock-ins because they are malicious,
| they create it because it makes them money.
|
| Now, if we limit these lock-ins, it will reduce their ability
| to make money and yes, it will impact some features - short
| term.
|
| But looking at it long terms, vendor lock-ins are actually a
| reason to stop innovating: your customers are locked in
| anyway.
|
| So, overall, I would say this is good for innovation in
| general.
| websap wrote:
| 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.
| reorder9695 wrote:
| But this isn't sacrificing your experience, you're free
| to keep using your Apple AirPods with the quality and
| reliability you'd expect from Apple. This just means
| other brands can create products with similar features to
| AirPods, and if they're not as good or reliable, well
| that's why you're paying Apple for theirs.
| illiac786 wrote:
| the long term innovation outlooks are still better, so
| you benefit long term as well.
|
| It's just less obvious / measurable that immediate
| benefits.
|
| And also, short term, isn't it that other EarPods are
| getting better, rather than AirPods getting worse?
|
| Medium term, I don't think that Apple will stop
| innovating on AirPods just because of the EU market and
| this one feature not being exclusive to AirPods anymore.
| But it's a possibility, I agree.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Your tortured argument tests credulity and is pretty much
| opposite of how actual markets work.
|
| In this case, stopping Apple from degrading competitor
| products means they can compete on a level playing field
| and Apple will need to create better products to maintain
| a lead. Their ability to degrade competitor products has
| nothing to do with the features or quality of their
| headphones but rather that they control a closed
| platform. Thus the EU's action in maintaining fair
| competition.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Is there anything that makes you believe they'll
| sacrifice quality to have universal support?
| wiseowise wrote:
| Bro, market is there to benefit consumer first, not to make
| money for shareholders.
| websiteapi wrote:
| isn't this comment ironic though, given that the EU didn't
| create iOS or Android despite having an early advantage in the
| 2000s (Symbian was pretty popular for a hot minute)? given the
| number of now huge startups founded by people who left the EUs
| as adults my assessment is that the EU is doing it (software
| industry) wrong - at least by revenue generated and size and
| size of industry
| wobfan wrote:
| Last time I checked the European Union was a political
| construct and not a phone manufacturer.
| SunshineTheCat wrote:
| This is like giving credit to the toddler who cried for
| macaroni rather than the mom who made it for him. lol
| madspindel wrote:
| Apple should dump their Product Managers and hire the EU
| bureaucrats directly then we will finally see improvements and
| innovations again.
| Vespasian wrote:
| It's a tragedy, though no surprise, that this is required
|
| I guess "the regulations will continue until product management
| improves".
| dsign wrote:
| Let's call them bureaucrats, but let's not forget that their
| baseline is to be public servants, while that of product
| managers is to increase profits :-) . I think the system is
| working as intended though, because increasing profits can be a
| great driver for innovation and service to the consumer, until
| it's not and the "immune system" (the bureaucracy) must be
| called on to fight the uncontrolled pathological growth...
| officialchicken wrote:
| Brussels primary interest is the process, not the people.
|
| If you don't think there isn't any "uncontrolled pathological
| growth" anywhere in the EU, then you should look at ALL OF
| THE LEGALLY SANCTIONED GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES HERE.
|
| End of story.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > ALL OF THE LEGALLY SANCTIONED GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES HERE.
|
| This is the kinda claim that really needs citations, and
| ideally some commentary on how the examples demonstrate the
| point you're trying to make. Otherwise it's impossible to
| reply to, and just comes across a little shrill and
| conspiratorial. Which I don't think is your goal.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Three months ago a commenter here on HN claimed to me that this
| will be bad for Apple users:
|
| > There is simply no good way to make the API public while
| maintaining the performance and quality expectations that Apple
| consumers have. If the third party device doesn't work people
| will blame Apple even though it's not their fault.
|
| And, competition probably can't build for it anyway:
|
| > It's impossible to build Apple Silicon level of quality in
| power to watt performance or realtime audio apps over public
| APIs.
|
| And:
|
| > [...] Apple has to sabotage their own devices performance and
| security to let other people use it. The EU has no business in
| this.
|
| Well, I look forward to next year when we'll have the receipts
| and see!
| vachina wrote:
| It's bad because Apple now has to (OFFICIALLY) support a wider
| range of devices.
|
| And then there is less incentive for Apple to further improve
| this interface because any improvements will benefit non-Apple
| devices (i.e. do the foundational work but everyone else gets
| the positive exposure)
| x3ro wrote:
| You mean it will benefit Apple's customers, who prefer
| headphones not made by Apple? If only the incentive for Apple
| to improve their interface was that its paying customers will
| have a better interface.
| stavros wrote:
| I really don't understand people who defend Apple on this.
| The only reason I can imagine is that they're shareholders
| who don't use any Apple products, or shareholders who use
| exclusively Apple products and can't understand what sort
| of poor scrub might want an accessory not made by them.
| darkwater wrote:
| It's the second one, but without being shareholders.
| hopelite wrote:
| I don't see it as a matter of defending Apple, it's
| really a matter of technical understanding and
| competence.
|
| There are many reasons to criticize Apple, but wanting to
| not only control the exceptional ecosystem where
| everything just works as seamlessly as possible, but also
| wanting to benefit from all the work and focus that went
| into creating it, is understandable to me.
|
| What I don't think dawns on people is that this is an
| example of an intersection between what some call
| capitalism and communism mindsets, or it may be far more
| accurately described as the ants and the grasshoppers,
| the freeloader problem.
|
| People like the iPhone for its having worked extremely
| hard to make its devices work really well, but those same
| people don't understand how and why that behavior they
| like actually came about, so they start trying to
| "improve" things they don't have the foggiest
| understanding about.
|
| It's a typical narcissistic type behavior and mindset of
| self-importance, that now that the hard work has been
| accomplished they're here to take over and improve things
| they don't understand and weren't involved in creating.
|
| It seems to be a mindset that totally infected and is
| spreading all throughout the whole West for whatever
| reason. People simply have no idea how what they
| inherited was created, let alone even know how to keep it
| going, not to mention fix anything.
|
| Just alone the fact that it's EU bureaucrats imposing
| these things makes it extremely unlikely that it is a
| good idea, considering not a single consequential tech
| company has been produced as a function of the EU. It is
| that obnoxious EU technocratic know-it-all hubris that
| keeps them even understanding just how little they
| actually know, which is so dangerous and reeks of
| malicious jealousy.
|
| At least in the USA, the idiots in Congress are
| accountable to a constituency that elected them, and they
| tend to be able to discern that they simply don't know
| enough to interfere with how Apple (for example) is doing
| what it does to produce the world's best devices and
| services.
|
| Not the EU and its blob of unelected bureaucratic despots
| and unelected Commission of dictators, it is confident it
| knows more than Apple about how to do what all of Europe
| cannot seem to actually accomplish. Europe has not even
| been able to emulate what the Asians have done by forking
| Android, but here they are, wagging their fingers telling
| people how it is. Why do Europeans not get tired of that
| pathetic attitude?
|
| Frankly, I wish Apple had the non-binary balls to simply
| just cut off all iPhones in Europe rather than bend to EU
| despot dictates.
|
| At least I can hold onto the gleeful spite that Apple may
| just use this as an opportunity to push people into
| buying more Apple products by demonstrating that, e.g.,
| "your use of non-Apple headphones has caused your phone
| battery to drain 10% faster and damaged the battery by
| 5%". It's perfect advertisement... brought to you by the
| idiots in the EU bureaucracy playing tic-tac-toe strategy
| against grand masters.
| Y-bar wrote:
| > I don't see it as a matter of defending Apple, it's
| really a matter of technical understanding and
| competence.
|
| So do I. And my >20 years in the business gives me the
| experience and knowledge to see through Apple's FUD.
|
| > [...] but also wanting to benefit from all the work and
| focus that went into creating it, is understandable to
| me.
|
| It is my device. I paid for it. If Apple thinks they
| deserve more money for what they did they are free to ask
| me, the customer, for more money.
|
| > [...] unelected bureaucratic despots
|
| Aha, the dog whistle of the AfD brand of conspiratorial
| bullshit "unelected" nonsense! Career bureaucracy is
| supposed to be certified and educated, not elected,
| because that is the only way they can properly implement
| the laws of the electorate. Bureaucracy still answers to
| elected officials, but they are supposed to act without
| political interference and provide specialist knowledge.
| For the same reason you do not vote on every captain and
| colonel in the military hierarchy, or every tax
| collector/auditor in your IRS equivalent, you do not vote
| on every bureaucrat in the Commission tasked to execute
| and implement law.
| tclancy wrote:
| > Frankly, I wish Apple had the non-binary balls to
| simply just cut off all iPhones in Europe rather than
| bend to EU despot dictates
|
| Perhaps you should come back when you're less emotional.
| Suggesting incredibly poor value for shareholder decision
| while also being hateful (non-binary balls, indeed) is
| showing the whole ass. Never go whole ass.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| You're getting downvoted but it's absolutely true that
| people simply don't want to (or are incapable) of
| considering second and third order effects that arise
| from applying interventions on systems that they do not
| understand.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Your whole post is an ignorant, ugly and hate filled rant
| of little value, but I will pick out this one trope:
|
| > Not the EU and its blob of unelected bureaucratic
| despots and unelected Commission of dictators
|
| EU haters have two complaints, that it is unelected and
| that it takes away sovereignty, yet it consists of the
| members of national governments that not only elect the
| various officers of the EU (including the Commission) but
| also vote on all major decisions of the EU, as well as
| the directly elected EU parliament. So in fact the EU
| preserves both sovereignty and the votes of EU citizens,
| both member governments and citizen representatives must
| approve all EU actions.
|
| It's a little complicated sure, apparently too
| complicated for some to understand.
| vachina wrote:
| non-apple headphones work just fine with Apple products. In
| fact, Apple's bluetooth stack seem to work best among all
| the portable devices I come across (no random droppings,
| connects on first try etc.)
| geraldwhen wrote:
| I was unaware that my headphone experience as impaired in
| some way.
|
| I exclusively use non Apple headphones and I have no
| issues. I had AirPods for a while and I don't remember
| them being better.
| array_key_first wrote:
| They have nifty apple-only features, like you can hold
| them close to the iPhone and they'll pop up and pair with
| a neat UI.
|
| It's mostly gimicky, but it does give the user the
| impression that the apple Air pods are higher quality
| because they have all these things thought out. In
| actuality, Apple just made it so they're the only ones
| who can do that.
| eptcyka wrote:
| My iPhone has plenty of trouble connecting to various
| devices at times. God forbid it has to manage connecting
| to my car and my headphones at once. It works OK most of
| the time, but at least once a week it proves to be a
| problem.
| SvenL wrote:
| Based on the latest iOS / MacOS update they don't want to
| improve their interfaces anyway.
| latexr wrote:
| Apple used to brag that "it just works". That included
| peripherals it did not control. Nowadays, it can't even have
| its own devices work correctly.
|
| Apple has stopped improving long ago, and it's not regulation
| that's at fault.
| vachina wrote:
| I was unconvinced till I switched my devices, one by one,
| to Apple products a few years ago. They really do just
| work, especially with specification abiding devices.
|
| Everything else feels flakey.
| fabioborellini wrote:
| Apple can't perform well with audio on Apple Silicon, either.
| In 2025 macos is the only OS with audio cracking appearing with
| CPU load. Even Linux is better
| Y-bar wrote:
| Personally not experienced this. However, continuity camera
| seems to have gotten more unstable over the past months for
| me.
| bdcravens wrote:
| I don't think it's CPU-based, but I've always had an issue
| with my AirPods Max on my iPhone with audio cracking (my
| AirPods Pro work fine, and the Max works fine with my Mac)
| indemnity wrote:
| Yeah, this is a regression since macOS Tahoe. Amazing that it
| still exists after several patch releases, is audio working
| not a basic test case for Apple?
|
| I've found it to be worst when using Xcode / simulator and
| having headphones on for music.
|
| _sudo killall coreaudiod_ seems to fix it for a while.
| charliebwrites wrote:
| > sudo killall coreaudiod seems to fix it for a while
|
| For me this fixes it for about 30 minutes then I have to do
| it again... and again... and again...
|
| I wonder why some folks need to do it more than others
| zeristor wrote:
| Would this include the UK I wonder?
| isodev wrote:
| It seems the UK will have to undertake their own procedure.
| Unless they rejoin before that (one can hope).
| matthewcanty wrote:
| Just realised I'm not in the EU (from UK). There was me
| thinking about digging my old Garmin out!
| saubeidl wrote:
| You guys are always welcome to rejoin once you figure your
| drama out.
|
| We miss you, British Friends <3
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Only let us back if we join schengen.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Honestly, ideally you'd rejoin without any of the weird
| opt-outs you had.
|
| But I wouldn't let that be the sticking point, y'all are
| too important to us to get hung up on it.
| latexr wrote:
| Considering how aggressive they've been about internet
| legislation lately, mandating age checks and asking
| companies to give them keys to encrypted data, I think I'd
| rather them not rejoin just yet, we don't need another
| country trying to force Chat Control and making it worse.
| Someone wrote:
| Likely not. FTA: _"The changes to proximity pairing and
| notifications are only available for device makers and iPhone
| and iPad users in the European Union."_
| Lio wrote:
| I wonder, could this means we get better support for things like
| sending messages from Garmin smartwatches?
|
| Previously, this was available on Android but not iOS as Apple
| didn't expose the APIs for watches other than their own.
| lloeki wrote:
| Depending on how you look at it, there may be two distinct
| parts to this:
|
| a) API to not just read notifications but also perform the
| notification quick actions (if any), e.g snooze for a calendar
| event, mark complete for a reminder, and of course reply for a
| text (SMS or otherwise). This seems entirely reasonable and
| ludicrous that it doesn't exist.
|
| b) API to access SMS / Messages. That one appears to be heavily
| guarded because security / E2E (for iMessage).
|
| I mention b) because a lot of times people invoke the problem a
| being b) (and possibly a problem in its own right, forcing one
| to use Messages for SMS) but really for watches a) is
| sufficient and probably much more relevant.
|
| There's also a.1) API access to media (images) in
| notifications.
|
| In any case, DMA could definitely help crack both.
| port3000 wrote:
| I would settle for my Garmin not disconnecting every few days
| at this point
| Lio wrote:
| I mean I'd settle for the status quo and Garmin itself not
| deleting big parts of my watch faces.
|
| The last update from Garmin did this to my Epix. Funnily
| enough the complications can still be activated if you touch
| the screen, they're just invisible.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Wow, it's almost as if regulations were necessary to curtail the
| worst excesses of capitalism and steer it towards user interest
| instead of maximal exploitation...
| Someone wrote:
| FTA: _"The changes to proximity pairing and notifications are
| only available for device makers [...] in the European Union."_
|
| Will that mean we'll see some last step assembly move into the
| EU, or does it only require legal presence?
| pzo wrote:
| Yeah this would be weird if it's only for EU based companies. I
| think apple strategy is overall 'divide and conquer' making all
| different stuff working different in EU, Japan, UK, US. To this
| already many variables also if the user has account in EU and
| also if is living in EU or for how long. Their whole compliance
| is not robust and reliable making this in fact dead on arrival.
| Any maker relying on this will have more complains from
| customers. Customers will think that all non-apple solution are
| buggy and reliable and will stick with apple stuff.
| latexr wrote:
| > I think apple strategy is overall 'divide and conquer'
|
| I think Tim Cook's strategy is rather "hoard and extract as
| much money as legally possible, no matter what it does to the
| experience". Selling tech products is no different to him
| than selling car parts of frozen meat. What matters to him is
| the pile of money at the end.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Currently, on the AirPods side and not iOS side like the article
| covers, Apple breaks Bluetooth feature parity with other devices
| by not sticking to the Bluetooth spec with AirPods themselves.
|
| For example, you need to root and patch your Bluetooth stack on
| your phone if you want to use all of your AirPods features on
| Android, and not because Android is doing something wrong, it's
| because the Android Bluetooth stack actually sticks to the spec
| and AirPods don't.
|
| And even when you do that, you can't do native AAC streaming like
| you can with iOS/macOS. Even if you're listening to AAC encoded
| audio, it'll be transcoded again as 256kbps AAC over Bluetooth.
|
| Even no name earbuds on Amazon manage to not break Bluetooth and
| can offer cross platform high quality audio over Bluetooth.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Can headphones that stick to the spec actually play nicely with
| multiple devices? - switching quickly between phone and laptop
| like Airpods do?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > switching quickly between phone and laptop like Airpods do?
|
| They do that? Mine can't even switch quickly between my
| corporate and my own iphone.
| pityJuke wrote:
| Are they on the same iCloud account? I believe that's the
| magic needed.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Of course not, that's the whole point of having a
| separate corp phone ;)
|
| But why would switching headphone connections need the
| cloud... ah... nevermind...
| eptcyka wrote:
| I can stop music on my phone and immediately listen to music
| from my laptop. I have non-apple headphones, a non-apple
| laptop and an iPhone. There is no apple magic dust that makes
| this happen.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Can you do that with 7 devices? Can you pair your device
| with your phone and it automatically pairs with all of your
| devices?
| fsh wrote:
| Yes, this is called Bluetooth multipoint and has been common
| on non-Apple devices (for example Bose) for a few years now.
| Requires no logins and is vendor-agnostic.
| worldsavior wrote:
| They do this on purpose if you didn't get it. Google will never
| "fix" this issue because they follow the spec. They shouldn't
| have to add an exception for AirPods.
| monerozcash wrote:
| > Google will never "fix" this issue because they follow the
| spec. They shouldn't have to add an exception for AirPods.
|
| This seems to go against how OS development (and perhaps
| consumer software in general, just think about browsers!)
| works in reality, it's just piles of exceptions on top of
| exceptions for weird hardware.
| aprilnya wrote:
| On the other hand, there's been a bug open to make a simple
| harmless change to fix this in Android for 9 months, with no
| response from Google other than asking for reproduction steps
| as far as I can tell.
|
| https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/371713238
|
| Some comments on the bug accuse Google of intentionally not
| fixing it to make people buy Pixel Buds instead of AirPods.
|
| I wouldn't say that myself, but then again I also wouldn't say
| that Apple intentionally violated the spec just to make AirPods
| not work on Android.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Even no name earbuds on Amazon manage to not break Bluetooth
| and can offer cross platform high quality audio over Bluetooth_
|
| That's because they're all based on a small set of BT SoCs from
| companies who are not exclusively dependent on the Apple
| ecosystem and need to interoperate with everything BT-
| compliant.
| jwr wrote:
| I have no doubt that Gruber will find reasons why the EU is bad
| and regulation is bad. At this point it's rather amusing how
| Daring Fireball (and many other American media) rants against
| regulation, and in another post complains about how companies
| exploit users.
|
| Regulation is unfortunately necessary: the market isn't as
| magical as we would like it to be and competition is not a magic
| wand that makes everything good for users. Companies either
| become dominant, or universally screw over their users. Users
| either have no choice, do not understand the choices, or simply
| don't care.
|
| I am glad the EU tries to do something. They aren't always right,
| but they should be trying. As a reminder, one of the biggest
| success stories of EU regulation: cheap cellular roaming within
| the EU. It used to be horribly expensive (like it is in the US),
| but the EU (specifically, Margrethe Vestager) regulated this and
| miracle of miracles, we can now move across the EU and not worry
| about horrendous cell phone bills.
| Y-bar wrote:
| They also capped credit card fees at 0.3% in 2015. It also
| included a prohibition on discrimination against any merchant
| based on eg size or category of goods sold. And as far as I can
| see neither Mastercard nor Visa had problems staying in
| business.
| jwr wrote:
| Yes! I forgot about this. The EU Interchange Fee Regulation
| (IFR) effectively eliminated the high fixed minimum fees that
| previously made small-value card transactions unprofitable
| for merchants.
|
| The net effect of this is that in Poland, for example, you
| can carry your phone and no wallet, because you can pay
| literally for _everything_ using your phone. And I do mean
| everything, I 've recently been to a club in Warsaw and the
| cloakroom had a terminal mounted on the wall, people just
| tapped their phones.
| whazor wrote:
| So you cannot compare it apples to oranges. There is much
| more regulation in EU.
|
| In EU there is also more consumer protection by default, so
| charge backs can be rejected by merchants but a consumer can
| easily take a merchant to court. So capping card fees is also
| more reasonable.
|
| Also, when a merchant goes bankrupt and customers perform
| charge-backs it would involve the entire payment chain. First
| merchant reserves, then acquiring bank, then MasterCard/Visa,
| then issuing bank (customer), and lastly the customer. With
| lower card fees, this has impact on the merchant reserves and
| their risk profile. Furthermore, acquirers can add additional
| fees on top if needed.
|
| You can also get lower card fees in US if you have a low risk
| business model.
| Y-bar wrote:
| > You can also get lower card fees in US if you have a low
| risk business model.
|
| It is only the maximum fee that is capped (along with
| various provisions for eg transparency). You can also get
| lower fees in EU, just twenty minutes ago I saw an ad for
| just such a zero-fee card.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Yeah, all too often discussion devolves into a religious war
| between free markets and regulation. Like they're somehow
| opposing forces. Markets are super cool and useful tools. Some
| regulation is good, some is bad, which exactly is which depends
| on your values and what you want to optimize for. Framing
| markets like they automatically do good, or ideas like "we need
| more regulation" or "we need fewer regulations" are all
| thought-terminating.
|
| So far the DMA seems like a partial-win for technology users. I
| wish it enshrined the right to run software on your own
| computer in less ambiguous language, because as-is there are
| carve-outs that may let Apple get away with their core
| technology fee and mandatory app signing.
| fersarr wrote:
| also usbc in iphones! finally we can just carry one cable
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I'm very glad we eventually got standardized chargers. It's
| too bad the standard happened to be the madness that USB-C is
| though.
| showsover wrote:
| Oh exactly, it's great to have a single cable / charger for
| many different items in the household. The biggest downside
| I see with USB-C in this case is that the cables and
| chargers get quite expensive if you want to be able to just
| grab one and charge stuff, without having to worry about
| wattage etc.
|
| All in all a big improvement, with some future improvements
| left to make. Fingers crossed for a more sane USB-D in
| twenty years.
| neya wrote:
| Yesterday, I was trying to get a voice memo out of my Apple
| watch - on which the recording was made. I switched from Apple
| last year. My cousin had an iPhone. Apple would not let me
| transfer the voice memo out of their eco-system. It's not on my
| iCloud and the watch can no longer be paired with any other iOS
| device (even temorarily with authentication to transfer a
| file)...unless the iPhone is registered to me. This is
| malicious compliance in the name of security.
|
| And mind you, I own 3 Apple devices - 2 Macs and 1 iPad and the
| watch can't connect to any of those. I _must_ be forced to buy
| a $1000 device just because I made the mistake of recording
| something on their watch. We need more regulation because of
| things like this and I would absolutely hate to live in a
| society where this is the norm.
| ggsp wrote:
| If you are not using iCloud, you could try activating it (you
| get 5 gigs for free IIRC) and switching off everything
| besides the Voice Memos app. Then you should see the
| recording on your Mac, and should be able to export it from
| there. Definitely a shitty workaround, but you might be able
| to make it work?
| raverbashing wrote:
| Even the most maligned lids attached to bottles looks stupid
| for 5 minutes but have the nice side effect of not having to
| hold the lid while you drink, which makes things easier most of
| the time you're holding something else
| llmslave2 wrote:
| Nah I can't get behind that one. I love Europe and I want to
| live there, but I would 100% take the North American free
| bottle caps any day.
| quitit wrote:
| I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest.
|
| He just wrote about Japan's implementation of a similar set of
| laws rather favourably - the theme is that Japan's
| implementation looks very much like a genuine attempt at
| protecting users and benefitting end users and developers.
|
| While I don't agree with what a lot of what Gruber has to say.
| A point I do agree with is that the DMA is being sold (by
| Margrethe Vestager, Thierry Breton and Ursula von der Leyer) as
| a set of consumer protections, when it's plainly not that, and
| in some clear ways does the opposite.
|
| There's also persistent transparency questions like why the EU
| has excessive meetings with Spotify, or why there is not a
| "music" gatekeeper in the DMA, or the requirement to easily
| move music libraries between music services - things that would
| actually help consumers and prevent genuine lock in.
|
| (Note this isn't to excuse the behaviour of big tech.)
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| I just read the post about Japan.
|
| The only example he gave where the MSCA is better than the
| DMA is:
|
| > E.g. apps distributed outside the App Store in Japan still
| require age ratings. There's no such requirement in the EU.
|
| Most of his description of what Japan does better is simply
| "mutual respect". Which reinforces the idea that this isn't
| about the actual practical differences but about ego. Apple
| hates how the EU forces them to make change.
|
| And Apple has done this before. After the EU forced them to
| make a change, which emboldened other nations to push similar
| changes, Apple points to those other nations's obviously more
| streamlined law making process (given that the EU has already
| gone through the hard work of drafting the law, working with
| a non-cooperative Apple, and then actually seeing it
| implemented and the practical issues that arise), to justify
| their hostility to the EU's trend setting efforts, without
| which those other nations would almost certainly have not
| proceeded.
|
| I bet if Japan's MSCA had come before the DMA, Apple's tone
| towards both those governments would have been reversed.
| ksec wrote:
| He has been anti EU / UK or EUR for quite some time even
| during Jony Ive era. Regardless of regulations.
| quitit wrote:
| >I just read the post about Japan.
|
| Great, now let's stack what you've written in both of your
| comments directly against what Gruber has written, and not
| what an imaginary strawman wrote.
|
| You wrote:
|
| 1. I have no doubt that Gruber will find reasons why the EU
| is bad and regulation is bad.
|
| 2. The EU has already gone through the hard work of
| drafting the law, working with a non-cooperative Apple, and
| then actually seeing it implemented and the practical
| issues that arise.
|
| 3. Most of his description of what Japan does better is
| simply "mutual respect".
|
| Addressing point 1 (again):
|
| I wrote words to the effect of (they're just above):
| Gruber's writing is not as black and white as you assert
| and then I made reference to the Japan regulation article
| as an example where Gruber again makes nuanced arguments
| towards regulated changes.
|
| That article does not make a blanket statement that
| regulation is bad, and Gruber points to a long-standing
| idea that he has which neither the EU nor Japan have
| regulated, which he believes should be. He's also stated
| (repeatedly) that he's in favour of link-outs and other
| commonly requested changes to the app store terms, and
| believe's Apple are too slow to change on these.
|
| So does Gruber believe all regulation is bad as you have
| asserted: no. His views are demonstrably in favour of well-
| minded regulation.
|
| Addressing point 2: The belief that the EU bears the brunt
| of regulation teething, and that's why it goes well in
| other regions.
|
| Maybe you skipped the part where Gruber points to a 2021
| regulation requirement from Japan, which Apple in fact did
| not provide resistance to, but worked with the regulatory
| authority to achieve their goal - then Schiller himself
| (the overseer of the App store at the time) came out and
| spoke in public with supportive language. That is an
| example Gruber provided, however there are plenty more
| examples of the app store changing policies long before the
| EU took notice. The EU gets all the attention here because
| they seem to be uniquely incapable of foreseeing unintended
| consequences.
|
| So is the EU's leading the source of friction. No and
| they're not even first in many respects.
|
| Addressing point 3: Gruber makes only immaterial "mutual
| respect" comparisons between DMA/MSCA.
|
| I'm guessing you skimmed this bit too - Gruber talks at
| length to MSCA and DMA's approach to regulation, stating
| that MSCA's changes prioritise privacy and security in
| contrast to the DMA, and practical aspects such as user
| safety (that's a wee bit more than "mutual respect").
| Secondly that users are not presented with onerous choice
| screens (see end note 1) which is making reference to the
| EU's requirement that browser selection screens must be
| repeatedly shown when the user's default browser is Safari
| (but not if it's any other browser), Japan doesn't take
| this approach to a browser selection screen.
|
| So is it true that Gruber makes immaterial comparisons
| between the two: again no.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| It's a totally reasonable position that both regulation and
| companies exploiting users are wrong. And it's also entirely a
| moral assertion that markets should resolve to outcomes judged
| by members of some political apparatus. Likewise, the idea that
| a third party should interfere with economic relations between
| two consenting parties is also a moral judgement, not an
| absolute fact.
|
| Most arguments in favour of regulation cherry pick what they
| feel are success stories and ignore everything else.
| Interfering with highly complex and dynamical self-regulating
| systems has a cost. There are many examples of regulation
| leading to negative outcomes, and it's also telling that large
| corporations push for regulation because it's one of the most
| effective obstacles for competition in a market.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| Markets depend on regulations.
|
| Free market absolutists don't know what they are talking
| about.
|
| The actual originators of market capitalism, most famously
| Adam Smith, but also proponents like Milton Friedman, had no
| such confusion.
|
| In reality, today's free market absolutists don't get their
| ideas from economists (even free market economists). Instead,
| they get their ideas from terrible mid 20th century novelists
| (I'll let you figure out who I'm talking about), who didn't
| know much about how anything worked, never mind economics.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-
| year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
| One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong
| obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an
| emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
| deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves
| orcs." -- John Rogers
| llmslave2 wrote:
| What is the point of responding to someone if you're going
| to completely ignore everything they say? Serious question,
| I'm curious what compels you to do this. Especially in such
| an arrogant and condescending way.
| bigyabai wrote:
| What you said is a bigger fantasy than the complete
| history of fundamentalist Marxism. There are precisely
| zero examples of a Laissez-faire economy succeeding in
| the real world. It is a wholecloth fiction.
|
| If you'd like to reconsider your stance from a
| realpolitik perspective, it might clarify the parent's
| response.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| Can you be specific about what I said being a complete
| fantasy? I feel like you're trying to extrapolate some
| view of economics onto me when I was making the point
| that there are reasonable arguments that can be made
| against government intervention. Or is that it, you don't
| even think a reasonable argument can be made? If so I
| would call that ideological, not reasonable.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Markets depend on regulations. You can make any case you
| want, but you _must_ acknowledge this root fact if you
| are discussing real-world capitalist policy. Otherwise
| you are advocating to change a system that does not exist
| in real life, or reflect any modern economy anywhere on
| the planet.
|
| Your claim that the parent ignored everything you said is
| bad-faith and objectively wrong. They are critiquing your
| attack on regulation and pointing out that reality works
| in the opposite way. Case in point, you have no bombshell
| argument against regulating Apple in this instance. You
| cited no real-world examples and gestured at generic and
| irrelevant anti-regulation boogeymen. Then you used ad-
| hominem to attack them instead of refuting the point they
| made.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| 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 simply assert that
| "Markets don't require regulations" and I've made an
| argument of equal strength, but of course a meaningless
| one.
|
| If you're actually interested in having a discussion it
| would be worthwhile to explain your reasoning behind
| _why_ you think markets depend on regulation. I can think
| of a few good arguments for that position, because I 'm
| capable of considering multiple perspectives and I'm
| actually interested in having a debate. You seem more
| interested in shutting down opposing viewpoints and
| bullying the other participants into submission.
| array_key_first wrote:
| 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
| actively push back against that.
|
| The reason is all free market players, no exceptions,
| have the utmost fundamental incentive to make the market
| non-free. Everyone, all the time, is devising new and
| innovative ways to make the market they control non-free.
| Because this is how you maximize revenue.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| Gruber's take on the USB-C stuff has been hilarious.
|
| All through that fiasco, where Apple was going through all
| sorts of twists and turns to avoid switching to USB-C, which
| was objectively better even if you're an Apple partisan (given
| that I could carry a single charging cable for my Mac and
| Samsung phone, but not for my Mac and iPhone), he was going on
| and on about how the EU was killing creativity by forcing Apple
| to do something they didn't want to.
|
| And then Apple relented, their USB-C iPhone saw some of the
| fastest growth over a previous model despite having minimal
| other upgrades, indicating significant pent up demand for a
| USB-C phone.
|
| And I'm guessing at this point even Gruber can't imagine living
| life with a Lightning charger, so now the tune is that Apple
| was planning on switching to USB-C and they were playing a game
| to make it like like they were forced to switch by the EU so as
| not to alienate their current Lightning charger fans.
|
| It's a patently ridiculous idea but it's necessary given how
| badly wrong he was on this issue because of how badly he
| continues to misunderstand how the EU works (which isn't
| anything like how the US govt works).
| AnonC wrote:
| Anecdotally, I've found Lightning to be a nice fit when
| plugged in (it's got a nice "click") and USB-C a bit flimsy
| and loose in comparison. YMMV.
| monerozcash wrote:
| > 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 different from
| Apple going through all sorts of twists and turns to avoid
| switching to USB-C.
| ksec wrote:
| >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.
| monerozcash wrote:
| Of course you could actually try to link to some context
| on this.
|
| Apple certainly didn't create USB-C, but was one of the
| biggest contributors.
| websiteapi wrote:
| according to this Apple is listed as one of the
| contributors:
|
| https://www.those.ch/designtechnik/wp-
| content/uploads/2014/0...
| simondotau wrote:
| 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.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| His business is too tied to being in Apple's good graces anyway
| to take him that seriously these days. In the past he's been
| given access well above a lot of bigger outlets and way above
| what a blog that size should have especially when most of his
| social media output is now on mastodon to an audience the
| fraction of his X size.
|
| All though I would say EU regulation has far more misses than
| hits, this and forcing Apple to USB-C were great but millions
| of man hours a year are burned navigating cookie banners on
| every website and chat control being forced through soon.
|
| So we have two wins on iOS device convenience, not a great
| trade off for the other overreach.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > were great but millions of man hours a year are burned
| navigating cookie banners on every website
|
| Cookie banner are not, in fact, an obligation under GDPR. All
| you need to do to be GDPR compliant is "not collect and sell
| data to partners" and call it a day. Cookie banners are a
| loophole that the EC conceded to an ad industry that is
| addicted to tracking everyone all the time.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| You realize he just famously got in Apple's "bad graces" this
| year with his "Something is rotten in Cupertino" post and for
| the first time in a decade they didn't make an Apple
| executive available to be on his post WWDC live show?
|
| Let's not forget also that the EU first wanted to standardize
| on micro USB.
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| Where there's a will--or a law--there's a way. Hallelujah!
| rikafurude21 wrote:
| Recently bought an apple watch for my mom and got it set up with
| her iphone. Almost instantly she notices that she cant accept
| WhatsApp calls on her watch, and after looking into it I found
| out that it was another one of those apple things where they
| assume youre obviously using facetime so that functionality isnt
| available for any other app. For context, in europe Whatsapp is
| the dominating messaging app and alot of people use it for
| calling as well as messaging. The apple watch is, as far as I can
| tell, a simple Bluetooth wearable with a speaker and a
| microphone, so the only reason its like this is that apple has a
| concept of how the device is "supposed" to be used and only lets
| you use it that way. After that experience I fully support all
| the regulations the EU is putting on apple to open up.
| aprilnya wrote:
| Huh, with CallKit's existence I would have assumed any app
| using CallKit would work on Watch...
| wltr wrote:
| I was genuinely sure it's not a problem, as I personally know
| quite a few people who do that. But I think they use either
| FaceTime or regular cellular. That's sure weird a simple call
| does work in iPhone 4S (imagine a price for it in 2026), but
| doesn't on modern Apple Watch Ultra, which is quite
| expensive.
| stefandesu wrote:
| Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Third-party app
| calls don't go to the Watch. It's so annoying, I have to tell
| people to call me using regular phone calls or FaceTime
| instead of using Signal or WhatsApp because I always miss the
| latter ones.
| AnonC wrote:
| Seems like you'd just need to set WhatsApp as the default
| calling app on iOS and make sure to install WhatsApp on the
| watch too. The ability to set another app as the default for
| calls has been around since early this year. Doesn't this work?
| dijit wrote:
| You can accept calls on the watch from Telegram.
|
| So this sounds like a "whatsapp didn't want to do it" more than
| a "Apple disallowed it"
| hollow-moe wrote:
| Got a MacBook for work recently, paired it to my AirPods I had
| for months, and it was funny noticing you could enable FindMy for
| them from the settings but they wouldn't show up in my devices on
| the map. Indeed, for this you need to pair with an iPhone or
| iPad. However it _did_ enable the beacon on the airpods as the
| next day AirGuard notified a device was following me. And since,
| I can 't disable it, the switch in the settings doesn't disable
| the beacon AirGuard still detects them. Even within their
| ecosystem they'll punish you for not being fully "part of the
| familly".
| ankit219 wrote:
| Are we learning the wrong lessons? Integrated always works better
| than modular components. Here, Apple is being asked to enable
| their versions of software for third party devices, which do not
| have the same hardware assumptions as Apple did. (Apple will not
| release the exact hardware spec for airpods anyway). This means
| the newer version will be designed modularly, with some tradeoffs
| to enable the "same" kind of access to third party. Then there is
| a caveat that it there is even a bit of experience change from
| 1st party to third party access, it will be complained about and
| investigated. so, the way fwd is designing with third party in
| mind, and that almost always leads to bloat and substandard
| experience for end user.
|
| Probably better would have been just simpler access, even if not
| the integrated experience like. But that would lead to complains
| from third party manufacturers.
| isodev wrote:
| 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 back to Apple
| who are responsible for coming up with a solution that works.
| Then choosing to prioritise platform lock-in is a business
| strategy, leaving regulation the only recourse.
| ankit219 wrote:
| 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
| lot of second order effects where everyone ends up like Intel
| or Windows for that matter. We already have android on that
| level.
|
| You can have a reasonable requirement where Apple should not
| be able to block other companies from providing similar
| services based on an iphone. But clearly the directive here
| is that Apple's competing products should not be better based
| on better integration, which can only go in one direction.
| Apple degrades its own products to comply. Yes, competition
| wins, but consumers lose. In this case specifically -
| consumers who would want to choose Apple, better experiences
| would not be able to simply because Apple cannot ensure the
| level of software/hardware alignment as it works today if the
| same software is written with modular hardware in mind.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > 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 quality
| experiences.
|
| Nobody is asking Apple to degrade their own products.
| They're just demanding that Apple don't artificially
| degrade other people's products.
|
| > That Apple did not want to open it up is a separate
| discussion.
|
| 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.
| array_key_first wrote:
| > 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
| there are expectations.
|
| Apple could be malicious and make the API stupid, but if
| they were genuine then they wouldn't. They would make a
| good API, which is much more likely, I think, when the API
| is public versus some secret private API.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _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.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| There is no "produced standard" to allow three Bluetooth
| devices - each headphone and the case - to register as one
| Bluetooth device or to automatically register a Bluetooth
| device to all devices using the same cloud account.
| jonway wrote:
| Big disagree that integrated always works better than modular
| writ large, but in any case maybe they could just hire this guy
| to do it? https://github.com/kavishdevar/librepods
| ankit219 wrote:
| 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.
| ngetchell wrote:
| A company that produces a wireless mouse that charges
| upside down really does not care about user experience.
| volemo wrote:
| I hope EU subdues Apple fully, and one day I can run Linux on my
| iPad. At least virtualised.
| 2dvisio wrote:
| Waiting to read the news that this unblocks all functionalities
| in the re-pebble so I could finally purchase one that fully works
| with iPhones. Way to go EU!
| drewg123 wrote:
| _Third-party accessories like smart watches will be able to
| receive notifications from the iPhone_
|
| This seems incorrect, or at least misleading. I have always
| (since I switched to iPhone in 2020) been receive notifications
| on my Garmin Fenix watch. In fact, the only problem I have with
| notifications is that I have no ability to blacklist apps from
| notifying on my watch, and its all or nothing. This is a huge
| downgrade from Android, and I wish whomever is responsible could
| fix that.. That's probably my biggest annoyance with my iphone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-23 23:01 UTC)