It would not remotely surprise me to discover that either Google or Samsung were doing something untoward that Apple is not willing to do. In fact, that would be one of the least surprising things I'd ever heard.
It would not remotely surprise me to discover that either Google or Samsung were doing something untoward that Apple is not willing to do. In fact, that would be one of the least surprising things I'd ever heard.
If the “untoward” thing was unlawful, it would be straightforward for Apple to take Google and Samsung to court for anticompetitive practices. If it isn’t, then Apple can’t really blame the EU, and could at least advertise how they’re doing things less untowardly.
This isn’t the first time that Apple has been withholding features from the EU without ever providing a clear and understandable explanation, so there isn’t much basis for giving them the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, it's apple doing the untoward thing, by artificially limiting users' devices, seemingly only for anticompetitive reasons.
As this is HackerNews, you should expect to see at least a couple commenters who believe they should have control over devices they own, including interoperability without artificial, anticompetitive limitations.
> In this case, it's apple doing the untoward thing, by artificially limiting users' devices, seemingly only for anticompetitive reasons.
Not really. They are complying by not offering features that would be considered anti-competitive. It’s not untoward, it’s just following their interpretation of the law. We obviously don’t know the discussions between Apple and the EC, but in public it’s American nerds who are complaining that the EU is bad.
The iOS feature is not anti-competitive, it is apple's choice to artificially restrict the feature if you use non-apple earbuds which is anti-competitive.
It is my understanding that this is what apple has chosen to do in areas where this iOS feature is available. Is that not the case?