[isodev]

It’s funny how we’re all trying to piece together the stack from bits and obscure clues. Would be so cool if Apple and Google finally embrace their role as “essential public infrastructure” and release their specs, interoperate, etc.. so one doesn’t end up trapped one way or another when picking a personal device.

[Longhanks]

> "essential public infrastructure"

If people wanted these devices and services to be public infrastructure, they should be developed and maintained using public funds.

[pjc50]

Once something becomes so widely used that almost everyone has one, the public interest is involved. In the same way that cars are essential public infrastructure and have to comply with public safety standards, interoperable fuel nozzles, etc.

[LexGray]

Public interest does not seem to be the driving factor.

Everyone owns kitchen appliances and even if there is network support it generally requires a specific app that is out of support very early in the device lifetime. Vehicles barely support operability with phones at all and there is no standard UI or phone side vehicle monitoring.

At least personally I would like enforced open device standards on home appliances and vehicles far before I care about something like AirDrop that has work arounds.

[isodev]

It would be unfortunate if we have to fight this for every category of gizmos separately. It would be best if the next iteration of the consumer rights directive codifies this in general e.g. connected devices (even if the connection is just peer devices), anything that generates or stores user related information etc.

If tomorrow someone invents smart glasses that can trigger a home robot to do the laundry when I look at the pile of dirty clothes on the floor, the orchestration should be based on capabilities, not brand or ecosystem.

[georgefrowny]

Manufacturers fucking hate being made to be interoperable and will try to swing a lock-in whenever they can.

They only do it in a green field when:

* They have big customers who demand it to avoid lock-in. Either the fear being left with orphaned equipment (e.g. car chargers being specified with MODBUS rather then a custom fieldbus), or they think their own gear will sell better with standard widgets (e.g. computer builders and USB). Militaries are especially keen on these requirements, and MIL standards drove loads of 20th century standardisations by economies of scale.

* They are forced to at regulatory gunpoint (some overlap with the above when the customer is a government).

* They think it'll be cheaper than the return from lock in, (e.g. easily cloned/replaced commodities like screws)

In a brown field where there are other standards or implementors around, they may also

* want to break into someone else's walled garden (everyone else wanting into Tesla chargers)

* Figure that there's a win-win as an attempted lock-in opportunity has passed (e.g. car makers trying to do a proprietary nozzle for lead free fuels would have just made their cars get a reputation for being a hassle to fuel).

When it comes to consumer goods, the asymmetry in the relationship is severe and regulators are constantly playing catch up. Everyone from Soda Stream to car charger manufacturers are trying to throw up walls and lock in customers before anyone can do anything about it.

Regulators only have limited bandwidth and if they act too early they get dragged by the companies (and their lackeys) for market interference.

[isodev]

Indeed, especially with heavy vertical integration - when a company is both the phone, the tv, the tablet, the music, the headphones, the watch, the glasses, etc... they all become subject to the expectation that I as a citizen can change my mind and pickup a different brand of glasses and be able to move my data or use it with my phone of choice.

[jb1991]

This comment reflects the phenomenon of conflation of orthogonality.

[sambuccid]

And the huge revenue would also be public