[smoldesu]

The other response is right; Apple is the one who lost sight of boundaries. They thought they were smart fighting Dutch regulators and French tax authorities right up until their regulators played hardball with the market. Now Tim Cook is in full-throttle damage control mode, and the iPhone is skating on ice thin enough to threaten market access.

The good news is, Apple has a clear-cut path to compliance that really only interferes with their business ambitions. If they can set aside some of their arbitrary limitations, even optionally, then the iPhone can continue to be sold alongside other smartphones. But nobody owes Apple access to a market they intend to abuse; you've lost all understandings of boundaries if you believe that kind of Ayn Rand nonsense.

> is an equivalent of a child throwing tantrums because their favourite toy won't accept other batteries it wasn't designed for.

You either misunderstand why people are angry, or you're deliberately leaving out the details that make this important.

These are grown adults who are rightfully angry that their smartphone limits it's software compatibility to exploit them. In your backwards analogy, it's more like a child being confused that they can't use their favorite toy because the proprietary AAA batteries cost 30-50x more than a normal battery. That is called market manipulation, and it can be illegal if sufficient damages are proven.

[shreyansh_k]

I simply think that you have poor understandings of boundaries.

Setting aside the remarks about Apple vs EU regulators, which, by the way I think are in bad taste, but I won't get into it here because then we might get distracted, I think that the people who are angry because "it's more like a child ... a normal battery" are wrong because Apple has been transparent from the start about how their ecosystem works and before people invest in this ecosystem.

It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people to the effect of "one can use standard AAA batteries in this toy" to close a sale and then told them something to the effect of "sorry, it only accepts proprietary batteries".

Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.

[smoldesu]

> by the way I think are in bad taste,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended any Apple employees in the process. Otherwise I'm not really sure what "bad taste" you could be referring to. Maybe I scared off a few $AAPL shareholders by suggesting the obvious? Help me at least understand my mistake before we ignore it.

> It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people

Nor did Microsoft when they sold Windows with Netscape-inhibiting features. Nor did Ma Bell when they modified telephones to work on their network. Both of those ended with the courts recommending a company breakup, Apple is going to need a stronger defense if it's purely based on non-deception.

Apple's arbitrary limitation of basic capabilities cannot persist in a competitive market. The USB-C regulation was proof that Apple can acquiesce, the world did not crumble because Lightning or MFi is now depreciated. Similarly, holding Apple to minimum standards shouldn't threaten their bottom line if they truly offer superior first-party services. Their kicking and screaming more or less confirms that Apple's profitability hinges on total control, not premium differentiation.

> Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.

It's based on my understanding of the history and precedent of US and European antitrust rulings. If that doesn't apply to your jurisdiction then maybe you're right. In the majority of Apple's meaningful markets, their service revenue is seriously threatened.

[shreyansh_k]

My main issue with the EU regulators dictating how companies should handle their products is due to the fact that there is plenty of evidence to show that their regulation activities have equal chance of not working and actually working. The best example I can recall at this moment is the whole GDPR saga. Far too many people are tired of the pop-ups than the number of people GDPR has served.

I completely accept the history associated with Microsoft and Bell. But I also do not discount the possibilities that, sometimes, the regulators are wrong. There is plenty of criticisms of those verdicts in the pages of history already which don't need to paraphrased here again.

If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die. No harm no foul. It is actually great for people because it opens opportunity to disrupt the market. Therefore, I think that ultimately, letting Apple do its own thing is actually the best thing to do. Let them decide how they want to handle their company.

[smoldesu]

> But I also do not discount the possibilities that, sometimes, the regulators are wrong.

On which grounds? Wrong as-in, you disagree with their interpretation of the law, or as-in disagree with their punishment? Or do you have evidence the regulators lacked?

The greatest lawyers in the world were payed yacht-club money to figure this out, and the furthest they got was saving Microsoft from a breakup. I don't agree with every law or court decision either, but in hindsight it almost feels like the US hasn't done enough antitrust regulation. Google and Apple are both well overdue for a reckoning.

> If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die.

Well, not exactly. Pretty much every single modern antitrust lawsuit has arisen because the company in question won't die. Anticompetitive behavior often benefits users to entice them into defending a broken system, like offering ActiveX or free long-distance service. Again, neither of those things necessarily "killed" their parent company (nor effectively functioned as a defense in court).

> Let them decide how they want to handle their company.

That's a good note to leave things off on. Likewise, let Europe's constituent states decide how to handle their markets and neither of us will end up disappointed.

[Two4]

GDPR is about far more than some browser pop-ups - it severely limits the extent to which companies can harvest and share your information, even if you blindly click through those consent boxes. It confers a bunch of rights to citizens for discovering and controlling who has their data. Most importantly, it creates a disincentive for companies to be lax in securing the data they do have.