>>>It's bad for our products and for our European users. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our users,
... surely consumers don't like interoperability on hardware or software. They like to get locked in(i.e. use a different charger for each single device and use their devices only with apple services<i.e. iCloud>).
I think Apple should correct that statement into " We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our *shareholders*".
It's not about whether consumers like interoperability or not.
If scenario-1 - is no interoperability but superior user experience]
scenario-2 - is interoperability with subpar user experience
there are those that would rather have the former than the latter. Pretty sure Apple can provide a better user experience without the constraint of interoperability than otherwise.
I keep seeing this being touted by Apple users (and only by Apple users, whose vendor has been telling them this for decades now). Genuinely wondering if you have any source for this besides Apple saying so. Are there any examples of this? Where a better experience was explicitly possible because of a vendor lock-in? Or where one company, that competes in e.g. the market for watches or headphones while already controlling a large share of another market (like phones), was forced to open up their system and give competitors the same access, and then the market-controlling party's product somehow got worse by giving competitors the same access?
Let me rephrase Apple's argument: "If we can't make the Apple Experience™ exclusive to Apple products only, then we will actively harm that user experience so our competitors can't ride our coat-tails."
You absolutely can make interoperability a good user experience, it's just work Apple doesn't want to do. Apple wants you to think their competitors are scary; they want the Internet to be a slum so that their walled garden looks safer.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool kool-aid-drinking Apple fanboy, and think you're being too kind: it's a shibboleth, cargo-cult thinking, a thought-terminating cliche: most simply, utterly irrational and meaningless as rendered.
I'm more than happy to entertain it when there's specifics, but it's most kindly described as lazy, the way I see it deployed these days.
interoperability with subpar user experience is just an excuse for poor engineering or low resources. I.e, my x-wifi-network card doesn't work in Linux. No one is spending time making it work / too many devices to test properly. It is the manufacturers responsibility to make it work with linux and they don't care so there are a few people that make it work and write generic drivers that may or may not be optimized to the specific manufature. Same story for all " interoperability subpar user experience"
I actually do like being locked in and knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me
When you’re a startup they call this building an ecosystem and it’s cheered on, when you’re Apple and everyone wants a piece of the pie you’ve built, they call it something else
Believe it or not there are other people that are perfectly competent with technology that disagree with you
Like anything, some things should be opened up and don’t necessarily have to be - it’s ludicrous to have to use a lightning cable to charge only one device, but it’s not pressing to allow other garbage software onto the platform
... surely consumers don't like interoperability on hardware or software. They like to get locked in(i.e. use a different charger for each single device and use their devices only with apple services<i.e. iCloud>).
I think Apple should correct that statement into " We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our *shareholders*".