Quite clearly the EU DMA.
As part of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) evaluation [0], Apple was found to operate a market for headphones connected to its devices, while competing in the same market with own products and giving itself a competitive advantage by creating OS-features exclusive to them.
The EU found this is not a level playing field for competition and ordered that they have to make such OS features available for other accessory manufacturers as well.
I guess they are currently either trying to make a case for the EU on how it is technically impossible to provide the feature to others, prove that this is somehow not an OS-feature (and should be excluded) or delay any action to maximize the benefit of this competitive advantage in other markets.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are also beats headphones in the pipeline for which they want to use this feature as competitive USP...
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
Also, Apple cannot name this as reason explicitly, because users may look up the details of that ruling and may find themselves agreeing with the sentiment...
Expectation vs reality.
I don't think that the translation feature itself can be considered OS functionality. An API providing on-demand background execution time for apps linked to connected Bluetooth devices would surely be sufficient to comply with the DMA?
As an example, when they were compelled to allow competing browser engines, they didn't open source Safari; they added a multiprocessing/JIT API to iOS (tailored and restricted by policy to browsers). Competitors (web browsers) got access to the OS features (multiprocessing/JIT) that they needed to compete with Apple's product (Safari), but they didn't get access to the product itself and still need to build their own.
In this case, competitors (device makers) might request access to the OS feature (background execution) that they need to compete with Apple's product (live translation on AirPods).
It should also be noted that such functionality only has to be provided if explicitly requested by a developer who is working on a competing product, so they don't have to develop it preemptively.
I'm not saying that this is completely fair or whatever, just that I don't think it's quite as extreme as people are making it out to be?
(I’m an EU-based user of Apple products) I see your point. However, Apple already provides a translation API[0], a speech recognition API[1], and a Text2Speech API[2], so not a lot more is needed than the API you describe. Also note that, while I have not looked into that thoroughly, it seems the kind of API you are discussing shares many similarities with the features of the Apple Vision Pro SDK (real time computation introducing new constraints…)
I think this situation also shows a strong divide between two visions of Apple end-game (and I think both exist within the company): exposing those APIs makes the Apple ecosystem better as a whole, with its satellite accessories/app developers; while keeping them private gives them an edge as a hardware selling company. Personally, I prefer when Apple embraces its gatekeeper status.
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/translation/transl... [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/speech [2]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/speec...
> such functionality only has to be provided if explicitly requested by a developer who is working on a competing product
So if I'm Samsung, wouldn't I explicitly request every possible bit of functionality I could force Apple to provide, even if the "competing product" might very slow to market?
Note that the way Apple is doing this, you can only talk easily to other Apple earphone customers. This is going to be worse than the blue/green message bubble thing.
How come? If the other person has any other device that translates for them then you can talk to them easily with Airpods.
"The feature becomes more powerful when both conversation participants wear compatible AirPods with Live Translation enabled. Active Noise Cancellation automatically lowers the volume of the other speaker, helping users focus on translated audio while maintaining natural interaction flow."
From what I have seen that is not the case. The AirPods nor connected iPhones are interacting with the other person’s at all.
What I don't understand is how there are now probably a dozen features by Apple that aren't available in the EU, allegedly due to regulations, however every other vendor has no issues providing the same or similar features.
It is not about the features themselves, it's about Apple owning the OS a series of accessories need to connect to and using it as a tool to secure advantages to Apple Headphones/Watches/Payment services/Entertainment.
No. It's a similar situation with certain AI features from Google.
This is mostly false. Most AI features are available in some EU countries. For instance, Pixel Studio and Pixel Screenshots are available in Germany, but not in The Netherlands. I think they are dragging their feet on localization (though much Dutch people would be fine with these AI apps only accepting English input).
How is it "mostly false"? I can't access the new google.com/ai (as a most recent example). Localization is not the issue, the EU is clearly singled out due to regulation.
It is purely out of spite. They like to rant every time how the EU is blocking progress. They are using it to turn sentiment of iDevice-using EU citizens against the EU. It's interesting how Apple rolls over when an autocratic state (e.g. China) asks, but are trying to mobilize their users against regulators, do malicious compliance, etc. when it's democratic states regulating them.
As a Mac user since 2007 and iPhone user since 2009, this behavior of Apple disgusts me. (Yes, I know - vote with your wallet. I switched from Apple Watch Ultra to Garmin Fenix and do have a Pixel with GrapheneOS.)
[flagged]
Why should I worry about anti-competitive practice when every third party app is literal spyware mining the everliving crap out of any data source they can get their hands on? We are in a dark age where all apps are borderline malware. Is it anti-competitive to turn my firewall on and to lock my doors too?
In my opinion Apple is the only one acting in the interest of the consumer. These efforts to open up Apple's platform are nothing more than attempts to weaken the security that Apple's customers enjoy by default. How we got here and whether Apple is truly "good" is irrelevant. If you care about your data not being used against you, Apple is your only option.
I doubt I am the only one who feels this level of discomfort with the way other technology companies treat their users (and those who aren't their users).