Comment by illiac786

Comment by illiac786 16 hours ago

I would agree in general, but in this specific case it’s still an advantage for the iOS platform in general. It just removes a buying incentive for the AirPods.

The general problem is that there must be a line.

Vendors don’t create lock-ins because they are malicious, they create it because it makes them money.

Now, if we limit these lock-ins, it will reduce their ability to make money and yes, it will impact some features - short term.

But looking at it long terms, vendor lock-ins are actually a reason to stop innovating: your customers are locked in anyway.

So, overall, I would say this is good for innovation in general.

websap 16 hours ago

I actually have a problem with this. I want AirPods to be undeniably the best experience for me because I am fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, and I know many folks have complaints against that. I find it to be rather pleasurable to use compared to all the other alternatives out there. So if I have to start sacrificing my experience in favor of universal support, that really sucks.

Reply View 13 replies

reorder9695 16 hours ago

But this isn't sacrificing your experience, you're free to keep using your Apple AirPods with the quality and reliability you'd expect from Apple. This just means other brands can create products with similar features to AirPods, and if they're not as good or reliable, well that's why you're paying Apple for theirs.

Reply View | 5 replies
- DANmode 12 hours ago
  
  I see their point.
  If Apple knew they would need to expand this feature past their gear, possible they’d never have implemented.
  We may never know what stays unimplemented due to this.
  (This is a neutral take - note I do not have a personal opinion formed in this “debate”.)
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  supermatt 6 hours ago
  
  > If Apple knew they would need to expand this feature past their gear, possible they’d never have implemented.
  And this is EXACTLY why they need to open up more core access to their devices. So someone else can innovate.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
[removed] 6 hours ago

[deleted]

Reply View | 0 replies
wiseowise 15 hours ago

Is there anything that makes you believe they'll sacrifice quality to have universal support?

Reply View | 3 replies
- jessecurry 12 hours ago
  
  They did their initial AirPod implementation in a pretty insecure manner because it was securely locked to their hardware and they could trust themselves to not be malicious. If they have to build a feature, plus all the security around it, plus documentation, etc… it makes it much harder to bring to market. They may opt to skip it in favor of something else.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- phatfish 12 hours ago
  
  Spite? It's standard practice for corporations to take the ball home when they are forced to play fair.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- ruszki 14 hours ago
  
  They won’t, but Apple previously lied similarly against PWAs.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
illiac786 16 hours ago

the long term innovation outlooks are still better, so you benefit long term as well.
It’s just less obvious / measurable that immediate benefits.
And also, short term, isn’t it that other EarPods are getting better, rather than AirPods getting worse?
Medium term, I don’t think that Apple will stop innovating on AirPods just because of the EU market and this one feature not being exclusive to AirPods anymore. But it’s a possibility, I agree.

Reply View | 0 replies
nutjob2 16 hours ago

Your tortured argument tests credulity and is pretty much opposite of how actual markets work.
In this case, stopping Apple from degrading competitor products means they can compete on a level playing field and Apple will need to create better products to maintain a lead. Their ability to degrade competitor products has nothing to do with the features or quality of their headphones but rather that they control a closed platform. Thus the EU's action in maintaining fair competition.

Reply View | 0 replies