I made an account just to jump in here because this debate infuriates me every time I see it. So basically all the stuff that makes apple devices actually measurably better has to be opened up so that some rando can make a half hacked together attempt at compatibility? For what? So that people have even more rubbish e-waste to choose from?
Apple's main strength is their flawless ecosystem, everything made by apple works perfectly with everything else made by apple.
My airpods switch seamlessly between my apple devices, my watch unlocks all my stuff, my phone can be used as a camera and mic for my macbook, all of my devices besides my earbuds can be used to pay for things. All of it works completely seamlessly, no annoying popups, no dialog boxes, no asking for permission ten million times, no random disconnects. Literally no friction at all, once a new device is set up it's done. This frictionless-ness needs Apple's proprietary modifications to standards to function and it needs Apple's devices to be individually secure and all of these seamless connections need to also be secure.
If users want that then they buy apple.
If users want the spam ridden garbage hole that is Google's Play Store, or the terrible jamming of Android into poor quality cheap devices or the rubbish quality of most consumer tech in general then they can buy whatever they want but I don't want $10 aliexpress smartwatches to be able to seamlessly connect to my phone. I don't want random bluetooth earbuds from the petrol station to be able to access an API that lets them send transcripts of my calls anywhere they like and I definitely don't want a low barrier to entry for devices that can airdrop me stuff or paste to my macbook if I'm out and about.
Mybe Apple should just lock it's devices down so that they only work with other Apple devices full stop. Then there wouldn't be a market for compatible devices to compete in. I'd be happy because I have never once bought a non-apple device that I care about connecting to my phone. I'd have to buy a new monitor but that's ok.
All consumer tech right now is literally rebadges or mild modificatioins of stuff from AliExpress and I don't want that in my nice clean ecosystem. If these competitors want to actually compete then how about they make something that's actually better in some way instead of just hamfistedly copying whatever Apple comes up with? Live translation exists on google devices, if you want non-apple accessories and live translation then just buy a pixel and pixel buds? Nobody forces anyone to buy into apple's ecosystem.
I have switched between ecosystems multiple times and every single time I ended up back with Apple since I bought my first iPhone 5 back when they were new. The issues that android and windows devices have far outweigh the cost of Apple lockin. Especially for someone who just wants their devices to work as what they are and doesn't care about tinkering with them.
Your post has some fair points. But it also makes statements that seem illogical to me. For example:
> I don't want $10 aliexpress smartwatches to be able to seamlessly connect to my phone
Why? What is an objective reason for something like that?
You are the gatekeeper of your devices. You choose which accessories to pair. If you only want Apple-made devices to connect to your phone, fine. You do that. No one is suggesting or even implying that customers should be forced to use non-Apple devices.
The main point is to give the customers a choice. And let them decide what they want.
What I don't want is for the protocols that allow for apple's seamlesness to be opened to cheap trash. If Apple is forced to make it open to manufacturers of cheap trash and support it for manfacturers of cheap trash then it won't be economical for them to make cool stuff anymore and we won't have cool stuff anymore. I also dont want it to be easier to make devices that could maliciously take advantage of the friction removal capabilities that Apple builds into their devices. Customers already have a choice, e-waste slop garbage or apple products. The idea that they should be able to have both is quite ridiculous.
There are many misleading claims based on wrong assumptions and plain falsehoods in your post.
> What I don't want is for the protocols that allow for apple's seamlesness to be opened to cheap trash.
Why not? Is there any objective reason for that?
> If Apple is forced to make it open to manufacturers of cheap trash and support it for manfacturers of cheap trash
What are you even talking about? No one is suggesting that Apple should be supporting other manufacturers' products in a sense that it should be Apple's responsibility to make sure that they work.
This discussion is about interoperability. The only ask is to do things in a standardized way. So that other manufacturers can develop interoperable products, if they so like.
Right, but they have to do R&D for their cool stuff because the standardized way doesn't allow for their features. Then other manufacturers get salty because they didn't do any of their own expensive R&D to make things work properly and the EU makes laws to force Apple to open up their R&D and support iit so that other companies don't have to do their own. The EU is definitely saying that it should be Apple's responsibility to maintain support of it's proprietary features for 3rd party products. If you don't want Apple products then don't buy them? In fact, what is the objective reason that other manufacturers should be able to make interoperable products?
> What I don't want is for the protocols that allow for apple's seamlesness to be opened to cheap trash.
You either allow "cheap trash" that no one forces you to buy, or you exclude everyone. Here's Pebble on how they can't make their otherwise capable watch compatible with Apple products for absolutely arbitrary decisions on Apple's part: https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
> Customers already have a choice, e-waste slop garbage or apple products.
Ah yes. As we all know, there are exactly two categories of products: Apple's flawless products and cheap trash. Nothing in between.
I used to have a pebble time, it worked fine for me with my iphone that I had at the time. It died when I swam with it the first time. I loved that thing, was really bummed when it died. My Apple Watch SE2 blows literally everything it could do out of the water. Even not including the apple proprietary walkie talkie feature which I use more than anything else on my watch because me and my wife love it. Except the battery life but I can't sleep with a watch on so it doesn't really matter. It still gives me 2-3 solid days. It's a shame that they had/have difficulty making it work but the reality is that I never ever used it to do any of the things that they couldn't get it to do. And I don't use my current apple watch for any of that either. I never cared about sending texts with it, I didn't do much with the watchfaces and I'd never have paid for one. I used it to control music, count steps and see notifications without going in my pocket. If it lived up to it's waterproofing claims I'd probably still be using it today. It certainly wasn't trash and I want to see them succeed but if they had these features then [URL for first google result for aliexpress smartwatch removed] would also have these features and that would not be what anyone wants. Least of all the repebble team who wouldn't have any edge over the dollar or so price new user welcome deal on that particular piece of ewaste. IMO pebble should focus more on the things that people actually care about like the cool e-ink screen, distraction-lowered functionality, battery life and making sure it doesn't die the first time you swim with it like in the ads than bashing Apple for making their stuff more secure than everyone else and raising the barrier to entry for manufacturers of slop. Pebbles worked great on Android but 40% of their current customer base uses an iphone and they still want the pebble. Maybe the 'less developed' functionality wasn't so bad? Maybe, like me, they wanted a smart-lite watch as opposed to a smartwatch? If I had known that they were actually making watches again then I'd have actually bought one instead of my apple watch and I'd live happily never knowing about walkietalkie. I do marketing, if by some chance Eric Migicovsky reads this then I'd be honored to quit my current job and go sell pebbles for him.
This huge meandering text completely avoids addressing the issues described at the link.
> Pebbles worked great on Android but 40% of their current customer base uses an iphone and they still want the pebble. Maybe the 'less developed' functionality wasn't so bad?
Yes, because the watch isn't "cheap garbage" as you pretend that everything non-Apple is.
The question is: why can't they have the dame functionality on iOS?
To add, this would disincentivize companies from pursuing novel Research and Development. Why would a company invest a lot of money to develop hardware if they will be eventually forced to open it up to some random competitor? If I was a competitor to Apple I would lobby hard to obtain access and not do any R&D of my own.
Right? Why spend money and effort to R&D actually interesting devices if you can just make cheapo compatible slop instead?
Oh no. How did we ever live without companies spending money and effort between the invention of computers and now.
We didn't. There has been constant innovation from then up until now.
Indeed. Yet you claim that opening platforms somehow prevents companies from investing in R&D
> So basically all the stuff that makes apple devices actually measurably better has to be opened up so that some rando can make a half hacked together attempt at compatibility?
Only the interfaces and protocols. This is not the interesting or expensive part, unlike the implementation. Apple can still have the best implementation of the protocol, and a lot of people will believe that this is the case.
> For what?
So that people are not locked into the ecosystem when they buy the device. The price for the phone is what they pay, not what they will be forced to pay later, for example by only being able to choose airpods or apple watch for full experience later. For example.
> I don't want random bluetooth earbuds from the petrol station to be able to access an API that lets them send transcripts of my calls anywhere they like
First, don't buy them, you don't have to. Second, technically, the API exposed by the device will first need to allow them to connect somewhere online and send any data. That's a separate issue. Not to mention that, hypothetically, if bluetooth airbuds were able to send data somewhere by themselves, a malicious airbud manufacturer could still use the protocols by reverse engineering them. Not necessarily the case with legit manufacturers. Such lockin only stops legitimate, non-malicious actors.
> and I definitely don't want a low barrier to entry for devices that can airdrop me stuff or paste to my macbook if I'm out and about.
Allowing everyone and anyone to airdrop you stuff is a bad idea anyway. The protocol was reverse engineered too.
> I'd be happy because I have never once bought a non-apple device that I care about connecting to my phone. I'd have to buy a new monitor but that's ok.
And a lot of other Apple users wouldn't be happy.
> All consumer tech right now is literally rebadges or mild modificatioins of stuff from AliExpress and I don't want that in my nice clean ecosystem.
A lot is not. Again, just don't buy it, you have to choose to let such devices to connect to your device.
> If these competitors want to actually compete then how about they make something that's actually better in some way instead of just hamfistedly copying whatever Apple comes up with?
A lot of the time they legitimately want to, but Apple locks them out of certain features. For example, AFAIK, Garmin watches (legitimate company! with an original take on a smartwatch, definitely not copying Apple) are locked from accessing certain iOS features Apple Watch can access.
I replied to someone else in the same vein but having had a garmin watch in the home there was nothing that it would have done better if it was able to work with Apple's proprietary stuff. If random devices of unknown provenance were able to freely connect with Apple devices then the security of Apple's ecosystem would take a hit. This would be bad.
> I replied to someone else in the same vein but having had a garmin watch in the home there was nothing that it would have done better if it was able to work with Apple's proprietary stuff
Maybe to you. Garmin watches cannot respond to notifications on Apple devices, for example. Detailed article about restrictions on iOS from Pebble: https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
> If random devices of unknown provenance were able to freely connect with Apple devices then the security of Apple's ecosystem would take a hit. This would be bad.
Random devices are not able to connect over bluetooth to your device without your consent. Then, the bluetooth device can only get as much information as the companion app will allow it to get.
Besides, we have that on Android (and PCs) and the security of these "ecosystems" is not worse because of it.
You're naively assuming that Apple will always act in your best interests,which they don't:
In 2017, Apple secretly throttled the performance of older iPhones to prevent shutdowns, without informing users.
In the butterfly keyboard years (2015-2019) Apple denied that their tech was crap and blamed users.
The 30% fee in the app store is outrageous.
The right-to-repair restrictions are clearly anti-consumer. Preventing users from using 3rd party parts for repairs, voiding warranties. $500 display repairs.
Agressive planned obsolescence. Non-upgradable components. Software updates that slow older devices down.
Sideloading restrictions, reducing user choice and security options.
So the throttling was because they found that the old hardware and batteries weren't keeping up and so, instead of letting the devices become completely useless they throttled them.
Butterfly keyboard isn't great but it works better without being crammed full of cheeto dust.
Play store has no barrier to entry and it's a slop filled garbage shithole. There's garbage slop on Apple's Appstore too but nowhere near as much.
The flipside to the 3rd party parts that nobody talks about is that if there was a sudden flood of apple devices repaired poorly with sheapo shit parts then buying used apple devices would be a terrible experience. I bought a lot of my Apple stuff 2nd hand and it all works great. Nobody said that anything had to be cheap, you want cheap go buy something else. Price is what you pay but value is what you get.
The planned obsolescence is not even a thing, they have by far the best record for supporting their old devices. I have an '09 Macbook Pro that is able to run El Capitan and the last security update for that was 2018. Iphone 6s is STILL receiving security updates. If you want to easily upgrade your components then don't buy apple devices, if you don't want to maintain winblows but still want serious applications to be able to run natively then buy apple. Older devices slow down because literally nobody cares about writing software that's lightweight and only uses actually necessary system resources.
Again with the Appstore and the 'user choice' you have choices, dont buy Apple products if you want the freedom to bloat your stuff with crap software. There's a massive market of winblows and android devices with all the pointless unsupported-open-source-with-the-last-update-to-the-project-made-in-1234BCE software your heart desires out there for your slop and e-waste buying pleasure. What security do you gain from installing random shit beyond the security that Apple builds in by default?
ALL tech currently sucks massive donkey cock but at least if you buy an iphone then you know that it'll reliably perform the duties of a small pocket based social media based computer/car audio brain until such a time as you choose to replace it. If you buy a macbook then you know that it'll do the job of portable computing for you as long as your needs don't esceed what 99% of people actually use a computer for besides playing videogames (just get a console for those, seriously how the fuck is a weird RGB chair in an RGB room better than a couch with your cat/dog/friends/family) for over a decade of your life. At least when you buy Apple products you know that you're paying out your ass for something that will 100% deliver on all the promises it makes.
> So the throttling was because they found that the old hardware and batteries weren't keeping up and so, instead of letting the devices become completely useless they throttled them.
There's no credible excuse to justify Apple's planned obsolescence of only a couple generation older products, except to increase the sales of newer models.
Also it's not like this company doesn't make big mistakes either. Remember the GSM iPhone 4 Antenna fiasco?
I just provided the credible excuse, these same obsoleted devices continued to receive software support from Apple for a long time after other devices that came out in the same year stopped receiving software updates. That's not really what i would call obsolescence. Every company makes mistakes including apple., my point is that in terms of consumer devices Apple makes fewer mistakes than anyone else.
As the saying goes: Looks like you're not EU's target audience. You're free to move elsewhere. /s
On a serious note, why would apple-apple integration stop working just because apple stops blocking competition?
If this competition is only competing on price then it's not really competition, it's a race to the bottom. If you genuinely think that because two pairs of earbuds make noise and connect via bluetooth that makes them the same thing then you are welcome to buy slop and have it work rubbishly with your other slop.
There's more to competition than price.
After all apple hardware isn't even the most expensive. There are pricier phones and laptops being sold daily due to different features. So your race to the bottom point is moot.
If anything, competition could fix apple's sloppiness which it manages to leverage over the gullible due to artificial anti-competitive measures.
If Apple was so good, it wouldn't need to abuse their customers intellect.
I don't feel like Apple abuses my intellect. It's well known that Apple doesn't really care about people who want things that they don't offer, they market their devices to owners of their other devices. There are more expensive devices out there but none of them deliver the same value that Apple's devices do. They use standard methods and they have standard functionality and that's fine but if you want Apple then you buy Apple. Everyone is talking as if users are forced to buy and use Apple devices. The fact is that if you want a pebble or a garmin watch then you can just buy an Android phone and use that as the center of your tech and be happy with your non-apple devices. Why would someone want a Garmin watch that's compatible with their iphone? What possible real, non theoretical, reason is there to have one over an Apple watch? My wife had one and it's features were fairly pedestrian. There is nothing it did better than an Apple watch and that wouldn't have changed if it was able to work with Apple's proprietary technology. The existence of a comfortable walled garden alongside an open forest is not impossible by any stretch.