The EU has not declared that Android gatekeeps headphone technology, so the comparison to Pixel Buds is totally irrelevant. There is no interop requirement placed on them.
The EU has not declared that Android gatekeeps headphone technology, so the comparison to Pixel Buds is totally irrelevant. There is no interop requirement placed on them.
So all Apple needs to do is stop gatekeeping headphone technology.
What is the definition of gatekeeping technology?
In Apple’s case it mostly means that the API:s Apple use for the AirPods use should be available for others to also use. Apple is not allowed to deny or punish headphones from other manufacturers that want to use those API:s.
This is not quite the problem.
There are multiple issues at play.
The two main issues are:
1 - Sometimes processing is done in private cloud servers for complex translations. Apple is not allowed to do that for EU users. Full Stop. Even if it were not prohibited by EU law, you still have issue 2.
2 - It's unclear whether or not Apple can charge. If another dev uses the APIs, and it triggers a call to the cloud, who pays for the inference? Until Apple gains clarity on that, charging could be considered "punish"-ing a dev for using their APIs.
My own opinion? Issue 2 they will get worked out, but it won't matter because I don't think the EU will move at all on issue 1. I think they see data privacy as serving a twofold purpose. One, protecting their citizens from US surveillance. ie-National Security. And two, part of their long term strategy to decrease the influence of US tech firms in the EU. Both of which I think European policymakers and European common people feel are critical to Europe.
On-device API use is what is relevant here, services such as servers and interference services are out of scope. The DMA clearly allows companies to charge for service use, but they cannot deny API use for any competition who wants for example to use the quick pairing feature or low-latency communication.
They can design the API in such a way that you can provide your own interference solution, or just disable the cloud interference. This is purely a business decision.
It’s some combination of a market companies in the EU care about where Apple sells a product that has some amount of market share, where the threshold and market definition are totally made up and seem to only impact foreign multinationals.
If it's any consolation, Apple is in a league of their own. Any fair, proportional legislation would impact them more than anyone else.
So Apple is welcome to divest AirPods into a separate company and problem solved. Who knows, "AirPods Inc" may discover there are a great many phone brands out there that could use a nice integration and extra features. Win for consumers.
I agree, the Beats takeover should have never happened. The US is basically allowing everything to be swallowed by big-tech.
> the Beats takeover should have never happened.
I agree from a business perspective, those headphones were all brand and a bad fit for apple from a quality perspective. Do we really need regulators deciding when businesses are wasting their money?
The integration works so well because airpods and apple phones use a protocol that isn't bluetooth, their "Magic protocol". You have to own the whole stack to make it work so well.
That's literally the Boeing model
So, the problem is indeed the EU.
On the contrary, the EU is the solution.
I wish this would happen. I loved my AirPods Pros 2 but the Android/Windows support was so abysmal that I eventually ditched them.
Or you know Linux/Windows PCs that would definitely be a big win.
[flagged]