Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Patrick Jordan's avatar

I need to preface this by saying I am *not* an Apple hater. But ... I think the DoJ and European cases against them are reasonable and long overdue. Their refusal for years to support universal standards like USB-C and RCS has been high level not cool. Tim Cook had a "Let them eat cake" level quote on the RCS and messaging subject too - which doesn't help their case.

On the need for an AI specific device, I think Carl Pei (co-founder of OnePlus and founder of Nothing) has the most viable and promising sounding take. He thinks the smartphone will still be our primary device, but says smartphones need a new metaphor.

"I think it needs to slowly augment away the apps. Today, we’re using some really simple, mindless-scrolling apps, right? What if we wanted to accomplish more complicated tasks like 3D modeling or photo editing, or I don’t know what? It’s actually quite difficult to learn how to use these new apps. Maybe we can just tell the phone what we need to do, and it would use those apps for us without the apps even being visible in the foreground."

And he said this back in August of 2023, when I hadn't heard any other person or company frame things that way. I wrote a little about it here:

https://pjordan.substack.com/p/visionary-words-on-the-primary-device

Expand full comment
Dan Smith's avatar

While I appreciate Apple's move towards adopting standards like USB-C, after years of insistence on their proprietary cables, I have reservations about certain EU regulations. These include mandates for making iOS/iPadOS features fully accessible to third-party developers—a move that has previously backfired on Apple—and the requirement for Apple to support third-party app stores and sideloading.

Apple has indicated that these rules would necessitate creating a separate version of their operating systems for the EU, diverging from the version used by the rest of the world. This approach could be problematic for the EU, especially if the EU-specific version receives updates less frequently. Such a delay could expose EU users to security vulnerabilities that are addressed more swiftly in the primary version of the OS. The primary version, in this context, refers to the one used by the majority of Apple's user base, with the EU representing a smaller segment. The financial burden of maintaining two different versions of their OS and possibly hardware could potentially lead Apple to reconsider its presence in the EU market. This might involve halting the sale of new devices or ceasing updates for existing tools within EU countries.

David's article offers insightful perspectives on this issue: https://world.hey.com/dhh/could-apple-leave-europe-76441933

However, the likelihood of Apple exiting the EU market entirely seems slim, as highlighted in this piece: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/apples-regulatory-battles-europe-foreshadow-us-antitrust-suit-108356677

I'm not sure of the legal implications of this, but is Apple allowed to follow through on their plan to have an EU version of their devices and operating systems, while keeping the "main version" available to the rest of us outside the EU? Does the DMA prevent that? Because if it is allowed to do this, I think it could be a bad thing for EU Apple fans.

Expand full comment
40 more comments...

No posts