7 ms·

There is a world of difference between shipping a feature, and shipping an api that anyone can use to ship a feature. It is such a normal progression to make an

There is a world of difference between shipping a feature, and shipping an api that anyone can use to ship a feature. It is such a normal progression to make an api and dogfood it internally, iterate until you have something you feel comfortable supporting indefinitely, and then expose that api publicly. It is not reasonable, IMO, to require that every feature you ship has an API that is ready for public consumption. Granted, Apple generally doesn't do that last part unless forced. I think some kind of timeline on the DMA requirements would be more reasonable. e.g. you have two years to make a feature publicly accessible before fines start accruing.

yread 1y ago
> It is such a normal progression to make an api and dogfood it internally, iterate until you have something you feel comfortable supporting indefinitely, and then expose that api publicly For a hobbyist? Sure! For a company with half the smartphone market and a trillion dollar market cap? EU doesn't mandate that they define a new standard and support it indefinitely.
- hellisothers 1y ago
  You can see the headlines though “Apple skirts interoperability law by deprecating API after only one year”. Maintaining a public API is a cost usually only taken in because it has a benefit to the company.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    They are free to do that but they need to deprecate the feature for their own devices as well. Apple is not required to develop or maintain any feature against their will. The DMA is not written like that, it is much more objective and industry-agnostic. The EU demands that features implemented in the OS to be used by Apple accessories must be made equally available to competing accessory vendors.
    - ksec 1y ago
      Does DMA allows Apple to do certification? Like Certifies devices for Apple Translation compatible ? Or is that straightly forbidden?
      - TheDong 1y ago
        I think it will depend on if it seems like it's anti-competitive gatekeeping or has a legitimate use. The DMA specifically prohibits measure that are meant to gatekeep, but iirc it has allowances for things that have real technical justification. Certifying devices to make sure they're safe for users, like "this cable is certified as compatible, it won't set your iphone on fire", seems fine. Requiring your app to be "certified by apple to sell ebooks", and then only granting that certificate to Apple Books, not the Kindle app, that seems anti-competitive.
        mig1 1y ago
        correct. An example of this is building a WhatsApp client, you need certification from Meta and that seems to legitimate.
    - sroussey 1y ago
      Then why not deprecate the API every month? Also do a firmware update every month across their ecosystem.
      - Gud 1y ago
        Why? Because Apple is in the money making business and no one will buy a device where their (expensive) accessories cease working randomly. Especially when the user finds out the reason.
        DiabloD3 1y ago
        But you just described the existing Apple ecosystem!
      - 1y ago
  - intrasight 1y ago
    A public proprietary API. If the industry wants better open standards, they the participants should develop those standards and build devices that implement those standards. What Apple does outside of such standards is nobody else's business - as long as they correctly implement and support the industry standards.
shuckles 1y ago
The best part is: the EU demands Apple do all the necessary R&D, including an indefinite liability of API maintenance, at no cost to developers.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Ah, so Apple is not selling iPhones but it just gives them out for free?
  - shuckles 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomhow 1y ago
      You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter who or what it's about. Please take care to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - cyberax 1y ago
      Look in the mirror. Apple makes money by selling devices. With giant profit margins, at that. So why should they be able to charge developers in addition to consumers?
      - coldtea 1y ago
        Because selling devices is orthogonal to maintaining a marketplace and dozens of APIs for third parties to use, and the latter can be charged for as well.
        ksec 1y ago
        If EU doesn't demand for those API to be free, may be Apple could just have terms and cost for those API to be charged? Basically like Lightning adoptor where Apple collects dollars on accessories sold. I agree on both side some money needs to be exchanged in terms of features and Apple cant have it all to themselves. But currently it doesn't seems both side is listening and no middle ground. One side wants it all for free, the other side dont want their money and wants to keep everything themselves.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
concinds 1y ago
> It is not reasonable, IMO, to require that every feature you ship has an API that is ready for public consumption. It is, if we're talking about features designed to boost sales of your other products while preventing competitors from offering those features. Look, even if they're able to compete fairly, those competitors might remain inferior options for other reasons. But Apple having to compete will make their products better. All of their best achievements came from fierce competition as the underdog. Apple's current situation is not good for it.
- sroussey 1y ago
  What if it relies on non-standard changes to Bluetooth and WiFi? Must they get these passed in the standards committees first?
  - zwirbl 1y ago
    With Bluetooth they do ruse non standard changes, heavily influenced the development of LE Audio and there is no statement about when if ever they will support LE Audio, possibly never. Apple simply doesn't care
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    The DMA does not define such details, it is much more simple and agnostic. It identifies if a company creates a market within its own ecosystem, invites others to participate but doesn't offer a fair competitive field. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to compete against Android, this does not concern the DMA. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to create a product of ANOTHER market-segment (Headphones, Watches, Routers,...) they are required to provide interoperability for other brands than Apple as well. The reason is simple: iOS has such a critical size that it is anti-competitive behavior for Apple to modify iOS in order to beat the competition on e.g. headphones.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> Granted, Apple generally doesn't do that last part unless forced which is the point here. If they made a new feature, something AR based, they are totally allowed to build that and keep it relatively private for a few years. What they can't do is when competition appears, actively keep them off their platform. For example if a device manufacturer manages to make an AR device that works well with android, but its impossible with apple and apple have significant market share, then that would be illegal. The point of this is to stop thiefdoms and to keep innovation. You're allowed to have a competitive advantage, you're not allowed to build a monopoly. (if we look at defence, budgets are still very high, but the rate of innovation has plummeted compared to other industries. Its only now with the spur of VC cash into non-traditional backgrounds are we seeing innovation again)

yread 1y ago

> It is such a normal progression to make an api and dogfood it internally, iterate until you have something you feel comfortable supporting indefinitely, and then expose that api publicly For a hobbyist? Sure! For a company with half the smartphone market and a trillion dollar market cap? EU doesn't mandate that they define a new standard and support it indefinitely.

hellisothers 1y ago
You can see the headlines though “Apple skirts interoperability law by deprecating API after only one year”. Maintaining a public API is a cost usually only taken in because it has a benefit to the company.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  They are free to do that but they need to deprecate the feature for their own devices as well. Apple is not required to develop or maintain any feature against their will. The DMA is not written like that, it is much more objective and industry-agnostic. The EU demands that features implemented in the OS to be used by Apple accessories must be made equally available to competing accessory vendors.
  - ksec 1y ago
    Does DMA allows Apple to do certification? Like Certifies devices for Apple Translation compatible ? Or is that straightly forbidden?
    - TheDong 1y ago
      I think it will depend on if it seems like it's anti-competitive gatekeeping or has a legitimate use. The DMA specifically prohibits measure that are meant to gatekeep, but iirc it has allowances for things that have real technical justification. Certifying devices to make sure they're safe for users, like "this cable is certified as compatible, it won't set your iphone on fire", seems fine. Requiring your app to be "certified by apple to sell ebooks", and then only granting that certificate to Apple Books, not the Kindle app, that seems anti-competitive.
      - mig1 1y ago
        correct. An example of this is building a WhatsApp client, you need certification from Meta and that seems to legitimate.
  - sroussey 1y ago
    Then why not deprecate the API every month? Also do a firmware update every month across their ecosystem.
    - Gud 1y ago
      Why? Because Apple is in the money making business and no one will buy a device where their (expensive) accessories cease working randomly. Especially when the user finds out the reason.
      - DiabloD3 1y ago
        But you just described the existing Apple ecosystem!
    - 1y ago
- intrasight 1y ago
  A public proprietary API. If the industry wants better open standards, they the participants should develop those standards and build devices that implement those standards. What Apple does outside of such standards is nobody else's business - as long as they correctly implement and support the industry standards.

shuckles 1y ago

The best part is: the EU demands Apple do all the necessary R&D, including an indefinite liability of API maintenance, at no cost to developers.

cyberax 1y ago
Ah, so Apple is not selling iPhones but it just gives them out for free?
- shuckles 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 1y ago
    You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter who or what it's about. Please take care to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Look in the mirror. Apple makes money by selling devices. With giant profit margins, at that. So why should they be able to charge developers in addition to consumers?
    - coldtea 1y ago
      Because selling devices is orthogonal to maintaining a marketplace and dozens of APIs for third parties to use, and the latter can be charged for as well.
      - ksec 1y ago
        If EU doesn't demand for those API to be free, may be Apple could just have terms and cost for those API to be charged? Basically like Lightning adoptor where Apple collects dollars on accessories sold. I agree on both side some money needs to be exchanged in terms of features and Apple cant have it all to themselves. But currently it doesn't seems both side is listening and no middle ground. One side wants it all for free, the other side dont want their money and wants to keep everything themselves.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

concinds 1y ago

> It is not reasonable, IMO, to require that every feature you ship has an API that is ready for public consumption. It is, if we're talking about features designed to boost sales of your other products while preventing competitors from offering those features. Look, even if they're able to compete fairly, those competitors might remain inferior options for other reasons. But Apple having to compete will make their products better. All of their best achievements came from fierce competition as the underdog. Apple's current situation is not good for it.

sroussey 1y ago
What if it relies on non-standard changes to Bluetooth and WiFi? Must they get these passed in the standards committees first?
- zwirbl 1y ago
  With Bluetooth they do ruse non standard changes, heavily influenced the development of LE Audio and there is no statement about when if ever they will support LE Audio, possibly never. Apple simply doesn't care
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  The DMA does not define such details, it is much more simple and agnostic. It identifies if a company creates a market within its own ecosystem, invites others to participate but doesn't offer a fair competitive field. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to compete against Android, this does not concern the DMA. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to create a product of ANOTHER market-segment (Headphones, Watches, Routers,...) they are required to provide interoperability for other brands than Apple as well. The reason is simple: iOS has such a critical size that it is anti-competitive behavior for Apple to modify iOS in order to beat the competition on e.g. headphones.

KaiserPro 1y ago

> Granted, Apple generally doesn't do that last part unless forced which is the point here. If they made a new feature, something AR based, they are totally allowed to build that and keep it relatively private for a few years. What they can't do is when competition appears, actively keep them off their platform. For example if a device manufacturer manages to make an AR device that works well with android, but its impossible with apple and apple have significant market share, then that would be illegal. The point of this is to stop thiefdoms and to keep innovation. You're allowed to have a competitive advantage, you're not allowed to build a monopoly. (if we look at defence, budgets are still very high, but the rate of innovation has plummeted compared to other industries. Its only now with the spur of VC cash into non-traditional backgrounds are we seeing innovation again)