Posted by thm 9/11/2025
Which speed limits? is 60kph too much?
This is one of the most asinine takes and comparisons I've seen.
And technology is most certainly not harmless, as I'm sure every reader of this website knows.
You've not given the person being recorded any way to exercise their legal rights around collecting, inspecting and deleting their data.
GDPR is aimed at companies building user databases, not allowing them to completely ignore security, accuracy, user complaints, and sell anything to anybody while lying about it. It doesn't limit individual people's personal use of data.
The rest is correct: the restrictions are aimed at organisations, not individuals.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng#art_4.tit_...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi...
"If your CCTV system captures images of people outside the boundary of your private domestic property – for example, from neighbours’ homes or gardens, shared spaces, or from public areas – then the GDPR and the DPA will apply to you. You will need to ensure your use of CCTV complies with these laws. If you do not comply with your data protection obligations you may be subject to appropriate regulatory action by the ICO, as well as potential legal action by affected individuals."
You, as an individual, have data protection obligations, if your ring doorbell captures audio/video about someone outside your property boundaries. The apple translation service seems analogous.
This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng#rct_18
GDPR is aimed at protecting _individual's_ personal information, irrespective of what or who is collecting or processing it.
Meta glasses also: https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/955732293123641
If there were real issues with GDPR or the AI Act Apple would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by mentioning at least the generalities of _why_. But they did no such thing so we can only assume it is not any of those things which are the real issues.
Really? You can't imagine any reasons Apple wouldn't want to have a public PR battle about its disagreements with its primary regulator in the market? Have you ever worked with the government?
But for this translation feature they have not even mentioned any regulatory issues, so we should from conclude, from previous and current behaviour, that Apple is delaying for something else. Probably engineering or political reasons.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2025/09/12/apple-delays-iphone-air...
You have no source for this claim.
Apple's main strength is their flawless ecosystem, everything made by apple works perfectly with everything else made by apple.
My airpods switch seamlessly between my apple devices, my watch unlocks all my stuff, my phone can be used as a camera and mic for my macbook, all of my devices besides my earbuds can be used to pay for things. All of it works completely seamlessly, no annoying popups, no dialog boxes, no asking for permission ten million times, no random disconnects. Literally no friction at all, once a new device is set up it's done. This frictionless-ness needs Apple's proprietary modifications to standards to function and it needs Apple's devices to be individually secure and all of these seamless connections need to also be secure.
If users want that then they buy apple.
If users want the spam ridden garbage hole that is Google's Play Store, or the terrible jamming of Android into poor quality cheap devices or the rubbish quality of most consumer tech in general then they can buy whatever they want but I don't want $10 aliexpress smartwatches to be able to seamlessly connect to my phone. I don't want random bluetooth earbuds from the petrol station to be able to access an API that lets them send transcripts of my calls anywhere they like and I definitely don't want a low barrier to entry for devices that can airdrop me stuff or paste to my macbook if I'm out and about.
Mybe Apple should just lock it's devices down so that they only work with other Apple devices full stop. Then there wouldn't be a market for compatible devices to compete in. I'd be happy because I have never once bought a non-apple device that I care about connecting to my phone. I'd have to buy a new monitor but that's ok.
All consumer tech right now is literally rebadges or mild modificatioins of stuff from AliExpress and I don't want that in my nice clean ecosystem. If these competitors want to actually compete then how about they make something that's actually better in some way instead of just hamfistedly copying whatever Apple comes up with? Live translation exists on google devices, if you want non-apple accessories and live translation then just buy a pixel and pixel buds? Nobody forces anyone to buy into apple's ecosystem.
I have switched between ecosystems multiple times and every single time I ended up back with Apple since I bought my first iPhone 5 back when they were new. The issues that android and windows devices have far outweigh the cost of Apple lockin. Especially for someone who just wants their devices to work as what they are and doesn't care about tinkering with them.
> I don't want $10 aliexpress smartwatches to be able to seamlessly connect to my phone
Why? What is an objective reason for something like that?
You are the gatekeeper of your devices. You choose which accessories to pair. If you only want Apple-made devices to connect to your phone, fine. You do that. No one is suggesting or even implying that customers should be forced to use non-Apple devices.
The main point is to give the customers a choice. And let them decide what they want.
You either allow "cheap trash" that no one forces you to buy, or you exclude everyone. Here's Pebble on how they can't make their otherwise capable watch compatible with Apple products for absolutely arbitrary decisions on Apple's part: https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
> Customers already have a choice, e-waste slop garbage or apple products.
Ah yes. As we all know, there are exactly two categories of products: Apple's flawless products and cheap trash. Nothing in between.
> Pebbles worked great on Android but 40% of their current customer base uses an iphone and they still want the pebble. Maybe the 'less developed' functionality wasn't so bad?
Yes, because the watch isn't "cheap garbage" as you pretend that everything non-Apple is.
The question is: why can't they have the dame functionality on iOS?
The point which I was making is that Eric and the pebble team complained about Apple instead of competing in the space that they themselves had created. They were first to market with a smart watch and instead of just finding the consumer base which exists for what they had built and catering to them they tried to appeal to literally everyone and lost. They lost to literally better devices, better screens, better hardware, better software and better capabilities across all ecosystems. Cheap devices using Google's watch OS wiped the floor with Pebble. They had a loyal fanbase who liked the watch for what it was. I was part of that fanbase.
I suggest that if they had just did what they could for apple users and moved on to focus on the nerdy, first adopter types who actually liked their product and are somehow still coming back for it now then they'd have succeeded. It's hard to understand why they spent so much time and money focusing on ios notifications when Android also has a much higher market share and the majority of their customers were/are there anyway. They could have continued to develop their device in that direction and probably still been around today. they could have made better e-ink screens, better colour, better battery life, better charging hardware, better build quality, better waterproofing, built-in GPS, a real attempt at fostering a developer ecosystem for their OS or any number of other great features but they spent gorillions on ios notifications?
I'd also like to take a second to point out that they sold out to fitbit at the behest of their VC overlords because they were insolvent and ditched their userbase hard. Fitbit absolutely bought them out in order to take their IP and kill them as competitors for good. Complaining about Apple on the relaunch and relying on a community of enthusiasts to maintain an opensource codebase for their OS after Google bought out fitbit isn't really very customer focused of them.
Myreply to your question is why should they be able to have that functionality? Why should Apple allow other companies to compete with them within it's walled garden whch they made effort building and have the features that they designed and spent money developing? Why can't other companies develp their own cool features and their own ecosystems? It may benefit some people who want to use non-Apple stuff with Apple stuff but how does this actually benefit Apple and it's customers?
> What I don't want is for the protocols that allow for apple's seamlesness to be opened to cheap trash.
Why not? Is there any objective reason for that?
> If Apple is forced to make it open to manufacturers of cheap trash and support it for manfacturers of cheap trash
What are you even talking about? No one is suggesting that Apple should be supporting other manufacturers' products in a sense that it should be Apple's responsibility to make sure that they work.
This discussion is about interoperability. The only ask is to do things in a standardized way. So that other manufacturers can develop interoperable products, if they so like.
Only the interfaces and protocols. This is not the interesting or expensive part, unlike the implementation. Apple can still have the best implementation of the protocol, and a lot of people will believe that this is the case.
> For what?
So that people are not locked into the ecosystem when they buy the device. The price for the phone is what they pay, not what they will be forced to pay later, for example by only being able to choose airpods or apple watch for full experience later. For example.
> I don't want random bluetooth earbuds from the petrol station to be able to access an API that lets them send transcripts of my calls anywhere they like
First, don't buy them, you don't have to. Second, technically, the API exposed by the device will first need to allow them to connect somewhere online and send any data. That's a separate issue. Not to mention that, hypothetically, if bluetooth airbuds were able to send data somewhere by themselves, a malicious airbud manufacturer could still use the protocols by reverse engineering them. Not necessarily the case with legit manufacturers. Such lockin only stops legitimate, non-malicious actors.
> and I definitely don't want a low barrier to entry for devices that can airdrop me stuff or paste to my macbook if I'm out and about.
Allowing everyone and anyone to airdrop you stuff is a bad idea anyway. The protocol was reverse engineered too.
> I'd be happy because I have never once bought a non-apple device that I care about connecting to my phone. I'd have to buy a new monitor but that's ok.
And a lot of other Apple users wouldn't be happy.
> All consumer tech right now is literally rebadges or mild modificatioins of stuff from AliExpress and I don't want that in my nice clean ecosystem.
A lot is not. Again, just don't buy it, you have to choose to let such devices to connect to your device.
> If these competitors want to actually compete then how about they make something that's actually better in some way instead of just hamfistedly copying whatever Apple comes up with?
A lot of the time they legitimately want to, but Apple locks them out of certain features. For example, AFAIK, Garmin watches (legitimate company! with an original take on a smartwatch, definitely not copying Apple) are locked from accessing certain iOS features Apple Watch can access.
Maybe to you. Garmin watches cannot respond to notifications on Apple devices, for example. Detailed article about restrictions on iOS from Pebble: https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
> If random devices of unknown provenance were able to freely connect with Apple devices then the security of Apple's ecosystem would take a hit. This would be bad.
Random devices are not able to connect over bluetooth to your device without your consent. Then, the bluetooth device can only get as much information as the companion app will allow it to get.
Besides, we have that on Android (and PCs) and the security of these "ecosystems" is not worse because of it.
My AirPods move from my phone to my macbook all by themselves based on which device needs audio and my macbook can ask for my iphone's camera and mic at will. My Apple devices can do this because they have hardware level security to allow for this. The EU wants the same capabilities to be extended to non-apple devices.
This would mean that Apple would have to let devices connect without a companion app and possibly make a backdoor in their hardware security layer or worse allow anyone to incorporate their hardware security into any device.
If some aliexpress buds were able to do that then this would definitely pose a problem. Bad actors should not get access to Apple's proprietary security tech and that tech is one of the reasons that Apple devices have capabilities which non-apple devices do not.
edit: Your original comment makes a couple of good points re: the cost of lockin for consumers. However, I would like to point out that this cost isn't a problem when the locked in devices are as good as they are. Apple's devices routinely either come near to the top or sit at the top of the list of best X devices from many different review sources. If their locked in devices were worse this would make sense but often they are much better than all of their competition. I wouldn't buy any AirPod competitors because they genuinely don't actually represent better value even when they are cheaper than AirPods. Similarly with other devices, I've tried almost everything at one point or another. The first time I used Android I installed it myself on an HTC HD2. When I ditched windows I went with linux before I went with Apple. I've had powerful self built windows machines and Asus gaming laptops and a google pixel and a pebble and tried many more devices without actually owning them myself. Nothing has ever come close to my apple silicon macbook, my old iphone which I'm still using, my 2nd hand cheap ipad mini or my apple watch. I don't buy apple devices because I'm locked in and have no other choice, I buy them because they actually represent good value for me and my use case.
In 2017, Apple secretly throttled the performance of older iPhones to prevent shutdowns, without informing users.
In the butterfly keyboard years (2015-2019) Apple denied that their tech was crap and blamed users.
The 30% fee in the app store is outrageous.
The right-to-repair restrictions are clearly anti-consumer. Preventing users from using 3rd party parts for repairs, voiding warranties. $500 display repairs.
Agressive planned obsolescence. Non-upgradable components. Software updates that slow older devices down.
Sideloading restrictions, reducing user choice and security options.
Butterfly keyboard isn't great but it works better without being crammed full of cheeto dust.
Play store has no barrier to entry and it's a slop filled garbage shithole. There's garbage slop on Apple's Appstore too but nowhere near as much.
The flipside to the 3rd party parts that nobody talks about is that if there was a sudden flood of apple devices repaired poorly with sheapo shit parts then buying used apple devices would be a terrible experience. I bought a lot of my Apple stuff 2nd hand and it all works great. Nobody said that anything had to be cheap, you want cheap go buy something else. Price is what you pay but value is what you get.
The planned obsolescence is not even a thing, they have by far the best record for supporting their old devices. I have an '09 Macbook Pro that is able to run El Capitan and the last security update for that was 2018. Iphone 6s is STILL receiving security updates. If you want to easily upgrade your components then don't buy apple devices, if you don't want to maintain winblows but still want serious applications to be able to run natively then buy apple. Older devices slow down because literally nobody cares about writing software that's lightweight and only uses actually necessary system resources.
Again with the Appstore and the 'user choice' you have choices, dont buy Apple products if you want the freedom to bloat your stuff with crap software. There's a massive market of winblows and android devices with all the pointless unsupported-open-source-with-the-last-update-to-the-project-made-in-1234BCE software your heart desires out there for your slop and e-waste buying pleasure. What security do you gain from installing random shit beyond the security that Apple builds in by default?
ALL tech currently sucks massive donkey cock but at least if you buy an iphone then you know that it'll reliably perform the duties of a small pocket based social media based computer/car audio brain until such a time as you choose to replace it. If you buy a macbook then you know that it'll do the job of portable computing for you as long as your needs don't esceed what 99% of people actually use a computer for besides playing videogames (just get a console for those, seriously how the fuck is a weird RGB chair in an RGB room better than a couch with your cat/dog/friends/family) for over a decade of your life. At least when you buy Apple products you know that you're paying out your ass for something that will 100% deliver on all the promises it makes.
There's no credible excuse to justify Apple's planned obsolescence of only a couple generation older products, except to increase the sales of newer models.
Also it's not like this company doesn't make big mistakes either. Remember the GSM iPhone 4 Antenna fiasco?
On a serious note, why would apple-apple integration stop working just because apple stops blocking competition?
After all apple hardware isn't even the most expensive. There are pricier phones and laptops being sold daily due to different features. So your race to the bottom point is moot.
If anything, competition could fix apple's sloppiness which it manages to leverage over the gullible due to artificial anti-competitive measures.
If Apple was so good, it wouldn't need to abuse their customers intellect.
I get the Apple is trying to spread propaganda that anti-competitive laws are bad for consumers, but in this case, consumers will just buy from another brand and it's a simple net loss for Apple.
They are simply weighting potential fines / loss of revenues due to being forced to share technology with competition against monetary losses due to fewer sales. So far fewer sales win.
These are features that apple are dedicating a huge amount of resources to. Tim Cook frequently talks up the importance of artificial intelligence as the future. Apple Intelligence is a tentpole feature of new iPhones, it has heavily influenced their advertising, and takes prime position in their marketing materials.
Withholding these features, even for just 6 months, is harmful to Apple. Especially when Apple appear weaker in the category, and competitors are frequently releasing AI products.
However here you'll read a byzantine concoction on how this is acshually a 4D anticompetitive chess move.
Will those users buy OTHER headphones than Apple then, or still buy Airpods...?
From my observation the "properly locked-in" Apple user buys Airpods and mostly replaces them with newer Airpods when needed, because of Apple's artificial advantage in ecosystem interoperability (the exact reason of the dispute with the EU)
I also think there is little for them to litigate at this point, they were exchanging extensively for more than a year on how to reach compliance, then the decision [0] was made.
There are also separate procedures for the specification of compliance and investigating (non)compliance. Apple might continue to have a hard time litigating on non-compliance if they co-worked with the EU on the exact expectation of compliance beforehand.
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
I want to switch to Android, but I have all the following problems:
1. iMessage, unlike whatsapp etc, does not have an android app, and some of my family uses iMessage, so I would be kicked from various group chats
2. My grandma only knows how to use facetime, so I can't talk to her unless I have an iPhone
3. My apple books I purchased can't be read on android
4. Lose access to all my apps (android shares this one)
5. I have a friend who uses airdrop to share maps and files when we go hiking without signal, and apple refuses to open up the airdrop protocol so that I can receive those from android, or an airdrop app on android
6. ... I don't have a macbook, but if I did the sreen sharing, copy+paste sharing, and iMessage-on-macos would all not work with android.
It's obvious that apple has locked in a ton of stuff. Like, all other messages and file-sharing protocols except iMessage and airdrop work on android+iOS. Books I buy from google or amazon work on iOS or android.
Apple is unique here.
1. Fortnite doesn't have an iPhone app, so if I switch to iOS I can't play with my friends
2. My friends only play Fortnite, so I can't play with them unless I play Fortnite.
3. My skins can't be used on Roblox.
4. I lose access to all my custom worlds
5. Other game engines don't work for building Fortnite custom worlds, I have to use Unreal.
It feels like a certain amount of lock-in is expected just from network effects of products, no?
I think there are classes of product that have an outsized amount of power and should be subject to more strict judgement on this however.
ISPs, payment processors, web browsers, general purpose operating systems, etc... all of these should not discriminate and give partners an unfair leg up.
Chrome should not block bing.com from loading, and should publish everything needed for anyone to write a webpage Chrome can render. Windows should not block iTunes from running, and should publish specs on how to write software for win32 APIs. iOS should publish airdrop specs to allow alternative implementations.
The rest of my complaints amount more to norms for certain things. It has become the norm that someone who sells digital books, music, or movies allows people to access them on the platforms they're on (spotify works on iOS and android, ditto for youtube music, etc etc). Apple is the only company I know of that abuses an OS+Media monopoly for basically all media, like Amazon has the Kindle, but they still let you read books on normal Android too. Apple is violating the norm in a way that feels intended to create an anti-competitive moat.
Similarly, every other messaging app is cross-platform, and iMessage not being cross platform, banning users who use it on android (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39156308), and refusing to publish their own android app, that also feels like it violates the norms of messaging apps in a way that is either gross incompetence, or anti-competitive.
I think Fortnite doesn't qualify as an "operating system" because it can't gatekeep how someone interacts with competitors. If, in some weird future, Epic started selling "Fortnight Decks" (like the steam deck), included the "Deck Apps" app store, and it became a general way of computing for some appreciable fraction of kids, then yes, I think that hypothetical "Deck Apps" store and the device could have such lock-in and I'd have the same complaints.
I also think if fortnight became the default way the next generation communicates (akin to iMessage), it would indeed be wildly anti-competitive if they partnered with Google, and made it so the chat app was only available on ChromeOS.
However, as it is now, Fortnite isn't violating norms, nor is it going out of its way to gatekeep access to the community, nor is it anyone's gateway to general computing, so it doesn't feel comparable to iMessage, nor to the app store.
Also, what do you mean by "coy" there? I don't understand the meaning in that context.
Apple might be doing the same thing, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it, since their ecosystem is a closed gate.
Apple does this very clever, it works, but it has so many annoyances and bugs. By making 3th party products “annoying” to use, Apple nudges people to just buy Apple products/the ecosystem…
Every day. But I never ran into what you suggest. My iPad is not more annoying than my Dell laptop when it comes to Bluetooth (and both are light years away from my Linux box).