They have a trust. As in the term “antitrust”. They control a significant part of multiple inter-dependent markets and have unethically used that control to block competition and harm the free market.
Comment on Apple ordered by EU regulators to open up to rivals.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I rarely find myself defending giant corporations but after having looked at the list it seems I am going to have to.
Some of the things do make sense, like allowing other smartwatches the same notification access as Apple Watches. But others like the audio switching seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how that even works.
I keep trying to figure out though what exactly Apple has a monopoly in… they don’t have the largest segment of any market they are in so it makes it seem like the EU is complaining that they have a monopoly on iPhones… which… yes… but that is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on the Switch.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
realitista@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I disagree. Apple should not force other companies’ products to work in an inferior way to their own. They already tried to force us all onto wireless headphones by removing the jack. They need to at least allow the 3rd party ones access to the same pairing and multihoming tech they use for their own. Openness is never a bad thing IMO.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
the EU is complaining that they have a monopoly on iPhones
Essentially yeah.
The competitor Android allows for open communication between different devices made by different manufacturers so you’ve got one manufacturer who despite other problems is fully open and then you’ve got a closed off manufacturer who hoard everything for themselves.
The EU just wants to enforce an open market where everything is intercompatible. It’s along the same lines as forcing Apple to move over to USBC, it’s about standardizing something that should already be standardized, but isn’t because corporate interests got involved. Apple were given a decade worth of warning on this, and they did nothing to improve matters.
DJDarren@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
As someone who has recently moved away from an iPhone, while still having much of the rest of the Apple ecosystem in place: for me it’s things like AirPlay and AirDrop. There are alternatives to AirDrop, but as I have an Apple TV, it would super handy to be able to AirPlay to it from my Pixel. As it stands, there appears to be literally no way to achieve this.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
And to be clear it’s all just Bluetooth with The airdrop protocol stuck on top, there’s absolutely no reason that Apple couldn’t have made this work with any device they made the deliberate decision to restrict it to only their products. Same thing with iMessage, they absolutely can get it to work on Android they just don’t.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They don’t have a monopoly, but they do have anticompetotive practices
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
While I appreciate semantic clarity as much as anybody else I’m not sure it changes my question in this case.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Really? Anticompetitive practices don’t require you to have a monopoly over any specific area though. The answer to “what do they have a monopoly in” is “they don’t.”
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I didn’t say that. What I said was if you change “monopoly” for “anticompetitive practices” my question still stands. “How is it different from how Nintendo acts with the Switch?” Keeping in mind that I had already conceded that better smartwatch access made sense.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It does require that though, at least in the US. Previous antitrust actions have made it clear that a monopoly is the distinction. If you don’t control the market it’s acceptable to use all sort of sketchy practices to grow your market share. It’s only after you’ve succeeded enough to control the market that these same behaviors are “anti trust”, unfairly locking out competition.