[foolofat00k]

Very honestly hope this stuff is all gated behind eu-only products/flags.

The thing that EU regulators don't seem to get is that I (and many others) have knowingly and intentionally opted in to this walled garden. It's simple, it generally works, it's relatively secure, and I don't give a half a shit about the cost. I do not want or need competition to drive down the price because I do not care about the price. It's a luxury product.

If the end result of this regulation was better software, better hardware, and better co-design, then I'd be all for it, but this just isn't going to be the case. We're just going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit that provides near-zero benefit to mainline apple consumers.

At least as likely as a positive outcome is that the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.

[stavros]

I see these comments, and I just completely fail to understand this viewpoint. To me, this argument is kind of like the argument against gay marriage: "I don't want other people to have the option to do something that doesn't affect me at all, because reasons".

Don't like interoperability? Keep using what you're using, and be quiet.

Don't like alternative app stores? Keep using the app store you're using, and be quiet.

Don't like choice? Keep using the thing you were using before you had the option, and be quiet.

None of this is about you, at all.

[hn3er1q]

If Apple somehow implements interoperability perfectly, sure. But I don’t believe that they, or anyone else, can. I’m sure any API will have unforeseen consequences and bugs, and those will affect me.

And I don’t really get to opt out either as eventually I’ll be forced to update my software.

[tedunangst]

Well, I happen to like that any service I subscribe to using my phone can be unsubscribed in one click, without jumping backwards through hoops while standing on my head begging customer service to cancel and no I don't want to extend my trial at a special discounted rate. And the iPhone market is big enough that companies have to offer signup in their app. But if companies start drifting to only offering services via other stores or payments, then they will inevitably fuck up the cancel option again, and I will lose something.

[pritambaral]

Sounds like that should be required by law, not the whims of an abusive monopolist.

[tzekid]

Forcing Apple to implement interop and such extra features requires a non-trivial amount of labour. That trickles down to the customer in many subtle and not so subtle ways that the parent comment mentioned (more resources and higher inter-dept. coordination ceiling for a streamlined UX, etc.)

Comparing it to opinions about gay marriage makes you look dishonest, "None of this is about you, at all" makes you look plain silly

[WWLink]

I'm sitting here with mac/linux/windows machines, and both iphones/android phones.......

What malware laden third party bullshit are you talking about? The stuff that is approved by Apple to be in the iOS App Store can be pretty heavily ridden with ads - especially the kind that pop open the App Store to show you a page selling their crappy app. But since there's no way to install system-wide app blocker on an iphone you kinda have to deal with it. [

I haven't had to deal with malware on any platform in a very very long time.

It would be nice if I could run proper firefox with proper ublock origin on my iphone though.

[stavros]

> What malware laden third party bullshit are you talking about?

None. No malware-laden third-party bullshit, because that's just a straw man. If the GP doesn't want third-party app stores, there's a very simple solution to that: Don't install them on your phone.

[anon7000]

Any kind of interoperability is optional to you to use, so why would you want Apple to force you to not even have the choice if you wanted it?

Apple has vast amounts of extra money, so it’s hard to imagine why they’d be forced to stop dedicating resources to other features.

[ruthmarx]

> The thing that EU regulators don't seem to get is that I (and many others) have knowingly and intentionally opted in to this walled garden.

The walled garden shouldn't be forced on everyone who buys a device. Having an opt out is not unreasonable.

> Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability

Actually, I think they put more effort into not being interoperable, so feature development should increase.

[szvsw]

> It's a luxury product.

25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. Neither here nor there but that’s part of your argument that seems pretty flawed (ie: it’s a luxury product so we shouldn’t have to worry about the vagaries of “anti/pro-consumer behavior, competition etc”). Sure most of Apple’s other products are in the more to much more expensive end of their categories, but the iPhone’s market penetration definitely makes the luxury categorization wrong IMO, even if it is expensive.

Anyways, your entire argument effectively boils down to “this problem does not affect me, therefore it is not a problem; I don’t care if there is a monopoly on some product or service or lock-in or anything because I’m fine with it, I like the service and have no plans on leaving anyways” - which is a position plenty of people take, and also one plenty of people disagree with, so I won’t try to argue either way with you here since you seem committed. It does seem short-sighted and generally anti-consumer to me (or like you are just evidence that their various lock-in strategies work and are good for their business - which you self-identified as being correct in re: intentionally buying into walled-garden).

Anyways, that’s not to say I totally disagree - I think most of your points are generally true/or something I could at least see being true even if I don’t feel convinced (ie potentially ending up in a sea of third party crap, creating a potentially undue burden on Apple engineering etc… tho even those I find questionable and not self-evident).

[Dalewyn]

>25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury.

iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take. Meanwhile, actually cheap smartphones still from a reputable manufacturer (eg: Samsung) can be had for at least $200 to $300 or so.

So no, iPhones (and Apple products in general) are a luxury good. There is a lot more "want" than "need" involved when choosing to buy an iPhone.

[WWLink]

iPhones are not a luxury good by any means. You can waltz right into an Apple Store TODAY and buy yourself a $429 iPhone SE or a $599 iPhone 14. Boost mobile was giving iPhone 12s away for $99. Virtually every carrier has a free-with 2-3 year commitment deal for the iPhone 16.

I live in the US where iPhones were 61.26% of smartphones sold in the US in the most recent quarter https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share

If you want to be fancy, get a folding phone like a Galaxy Fold or a Pixel Fold. Those do have steep discounts at times, but you're still going to have to fork up $800-1200 or so for them. Or get one of those niche phones like an Xperia 1 or an Asus ROG phone or whatever that costs >$1000 and isn't subsidized by ANY carrier.

[Dalewyn]

When something like a Samsung Galaxy A15 can be had for $175[1] (and that's with no carrier commitments), any iPhone is a luxury good. Yes, even that $429 iPhone SE which is well over double the price of that Samsung.

Smartphones as a general good are a life necessity at this point, but esoteric offerings among them like iPhones or Sony Xperias or the higher end Samsung Galaxys or Google Pixels are luxury goods because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag.

It's like how a bottom trim Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is a necessity because you probably need a car, but anything beyond it is a luxury because whether you want that car is different. Another example would be choosing name brand foodstuffs at the grocery store instead of the store brand, that's also choosing luxury goods assuming the store brand is cheaper.

[1]: https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy...

[AnonHP]

> because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag

That sounds like a very bold claim, yet it reflects nothing from the real world. You may not need something, but that doesn’t mean others don’t or must not.

Technically, nobody needs anything beyond food, water, shelter and companionship (even the last one is arguable). Allow everybody to only buy the cheapest of foods and the most basic shelters. Then declare that anything else is a want. That just doesn’t make sense.

Nobody needs social media or HN or to be commenting on HN either, but here we are.

[Dalewyn]

>Allow everybody to only buy the cheapest of foods and the most basic shelters. Then declare that anything else is a want.

But most of the things we obtain are wants rather than needs, aren't they?

iPhones are a luxury good; they are significantly more expensive than budget smartphones that can nonetheless practically serve the needs of most people if not their wants. Is that Samsung Galaxy A15 a great phone? Hell no it isn't, but you can do your mobile banking and make calls and texts and do instant messaging and emails just fine.

Not having a smartphone like even that Galaxy A15 will make life exceedingly prohibitive today, but not having an iPhone won't adversely affect your requisite daily affairs. iPhones are a luxury good.

Keep in mind, I'm not denigrating luxury goods thereof or the act of enjoying luxuries. There's inherently nothing wrong with buying an iPhone or a six-pack of beer or a sports car or a big house or a family vacation to a faraway country if that's what you want. We only get one life, so we might as well enjoy it.

[szvsw]

I think you’ve articulated it pretty clearly here, but I still have minor quibbles. Back to the original point… I might be misconstruing it, but reads a bit like this to me: something should be free of consumer protections if consumers have cheaper alternatives; they chose the more expensive option, and therefore they should suffer the consequences of that good or bad; and furthermore, we shouldn’t care if the company selling the product (allegedly) actively works to make it harder for them to transition to the cheaper alternatives in the future should they so desire.

Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me.

It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.

[Dalewyn]

I'm not passing judgment one way or another regarding consumer protections here, though I personally find EU more draconian than my preferences and whether they're effective is up for debate (GDPR is a hilarious failure, USB-C mandate is a resounding success).

Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.

[kelnos]

It sounds like you've decided that "luxury good" means "anything that's more expensive than a competing product by an arbitrary dollar amount I've decided on".

That's not how the concept of luxury goods works.

Also consider that Android is not a 1:1 replacement for an iPhone in the same way that a Honda is a replacement for a Mercedes-Benz. Lock-in and ecosystem interop matters a lot more for a phone than for a car.

I would probably buy into the idea that a Pixel (for example) is a luxury Android device, but not that an iPhone is a luxury smartphone in general.

[Dalewyn]

Luxury good is anything that is not strictly necessary for a given purpose, in this case daily life. You will likely need a smartphone of some kind in this day and age to live, but you do not strictly need an iPhone. Hence, iPhones are a luxury good.

[szvsw]

I guess I disagree that price alone makes something a luxury good. Is a 10 year old Honda civic a luxury good (typically around $10-13k) even though there are probably cheaper and comparable alternatives? I would say no? Not a perfect analog because I do think there is merit in your point that there are “actually cheap” contemporaneously manufactured phones (Samsung etc). but still, maybe it’s just semantic or pedantic but when 1.3b active iPhones are out there, to me that indicates it is something other than luxury and more importantly does cross a threshold where there are real reasons to consider larger anti-consumer patterns, even if the consumer is choosing the more expensive option.

Anyways I don’t feel too strongly about this either way, I just think the argument here that the iPhone is a luxury device doesn’t absolve them. Other arguments I’m more sympathetic to is all.

[dismalaf]

> iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take

The upfront purchase price is $0 in most rich countries.

[Y_Y]

Coca-Cola is luxury in this sense too.

[Dalewyn]

Absolutely.

[beanjuiceII]

long as all companies can do this same thing, I'm ok with it..but right now it does feel like apple gets away with a ton more than everyone else

[tm-infringement]

>going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit

>the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.

I'm skeptical, why would interoperability mean this? Concretely? You are free to buy Apple only, to maintain the first party "luxury" experience. Apple adding dev time to make their APIs interoperable means making them more robust and stops them from cheating in their privacy promises. i.e "No sharing personal data with Big Tech, except Apple."

Also, Apple will add headcount if necessary to deal with EU compliance, they aren't a small startup.

[matheusmoreira]

Don't install it if you don't want it. I for one would very much like to run Linux on the "luxury" Apple products. Nobody is forcing you though.

[frizlab]

Exactly.

[irusensei]

I wish there was a way to move my account to the US so I can get the best experience and tools instead of having to live through this digital iron curtain the EU regulators created. Who is using alternative app stores anyway? I surely don't.

[anon7000]

Since when is forcing a company to give you more options considered an “iron curtain”?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It's wild to watch hackers say shit that could have come straight outta the Apple marketing/legal department verbatim.

[irusensei]

I can hack my desktop machine all I want. I prefer my phone walled. If I ever wanted to hack my phone I would buy some pixel device.

[kelnos]

So your position is that if you personally don't want to be able to do something, then it's fine for the manufacturer to prohibit others from doing that thing if they want to?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

How will you be forced to hack your phone?

[irusensei]

Features are not arriving here and likely won't in their original form because Apple needs to adapt to local regulations... which I don't care.

Just the other day some stupid rule came out forcing developers even the smaller ones to publish their address which prompted non EU developers to just unregister their apps on the region.

Yes. It's an iron curtain and another stupid outcome of misguided EU regulations that might have good intentions but end ruining everything like GDPR cookie modals.