Alternatives to Forcing Apple to Provide Solutions to Their Competitors
On Anti-Trust, APIs, and Market Participation
This week’s episode of the Upgrade podcast, was a good one as usual. I especially liked the discussions surrounding a potential pair of Apple smart glasses, and the way this connects to the regulatory scrutiny Apple is under currently.
Jason refers to the fact that Federico Viticci loves the Meta Ray Bans, but still really wants Apple to create a pair. And he then asked what I deem to be a crucial question:1
Do we want smart glasses from Apple because of what they do better than the competition, or because of what they are allowed to do, but that they bar their competitors from doing?
Let me use earbuds as an example, as they are more common. I’m delighted with my AirPods Pro – and they’re a better fit for me, and my Apple hardware, than a pair of Sony buds (for example). But when looking at the reasons why I pick one over the other, here’s something I think it’s crucial to distinguish between: Which of them are due to things Apple does better, in fair competition (maybe I prefer the sound, or noice cancelling), and which of them are due to things Apple blocks Sony from doing (like pairing fairy dust)?
A side point: Why I think Apple's main markets require more regulatory scrutiny than something like the gaming market:
- Their main markets, especially the smart phone one, is extremely large in absolute terms.
- As opposed to things like the gaming market, it's one everyone* has to participate in.
- Many people game on a PS5, but also on PC and mobile, etc. Very few daily more than one phone OS.
- A complete monopoly isn't the only way to have anti-trust issues. For instance, a duopoly doesn't necessarily mean healthy competition.
This brings me to a clip I wanted to share from the podcast, where I agree with a lot, but wanted to add something:
More solutions
What I wanted to add, was that there are more solutions than Apple being forced to make stuff for its competitors. And I think the European Commission holds this opinion as well.
Solution 1: Don’t blockmore
Because, I don’t think Apple would’ve been forced to share their work with Meta, if Meta was allowed to do it themselves.2
Solution 2: Don’t participate in every market
I know this is a crazy question, but: What if being a super-profitable trillion-dollar company was enough? What if we didn’t require growth at all cost, and these behemoths didn’t feel the need to be everything to everyone?
Let’s say Apple mostly focused on their main hardware, like the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Maybe it would have been healthier if they competed against their competitors in these markets on playing nice with peripherals (in a privacy-minded way), instead of creating their own?
I’ve written about the need for un-bundling and smaller markets before (and also the beauty of third-party services)!
Solution 3: What Jason said
Now, if Apple insists on participating in every market, and on maintaining total control, I do think they need to be forced to create open APIs. And honestly, this might be the best solution for consumers! AirPods are great, Apple doesn’t need to “cheat” – and it would be a shame to lose them. And I don’t think they should be forced to sell the H2 to someone like Jabra. The problem is that competitors literally can’t make something that works as well with my phone. (And the “Jabra should just create their own trillion-dollar phone ecosystem” argument is so bad, that I don’t even want to address it.)
I don’t think my preference for phone should dictate (or at least influence) as many things as it does today. Things like choice of earbuds, smartwatch, cloud storage, note-taking app, etc.
- I’m paying every month for an iCloud storage plan (200 GB), as I need it to back up my devices and Photos library. But why can’t I instead use some of the 2 TB of Dropbox storage I already pay for?
- An argument for using Apple Notes, I hear from time to time, is the reliability of the sync on iOS. But the main reason for this, is that it’s allowed to sync in the background, while something like NotePlan has to be brought to the forefront to sync. I get that every app on my phone can’t get background privilege – but why can’t I swap Notes.app for NotePlan?
Regulation is suboptimal.
It’s ofter better if things shakes out without politicians meddling. However, sometimes, it doesn’t. And I’d say we’re currently at a place where it’s almost impossible for new players to thrive in, and define, emerging technology markets.
AI as an example
For instance, I think the Humane AI pin can both serve as a lesson on hubris, and one on how some ideas have* to come from a company that’s already dominating.
Perhaps a better example (even though I have several issues with the state of AI) is OpenAI. Will they manage to become an important, and independent,3 player, or, when all is said and done, will things concentrate around Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Google?
Matt Birchler wrote an interesting post, pointing to some quotes about Apple stepping into the AI space:
It happens all the time. Tech giants ship exciting new technology while Apple’s projects stay veiled in R&D, leading to the constant narrative that the company is ‘behind’ in that area.
With AI, that story may have actually had some truth to it—but things are starting to change.
Apple shipped major AI features to potentially hundreds of millions of devices with iOS 18.1, iPadOS 18.1, and macOS Sequoia 15.1 last month.
(…)
Before the end of the year, I have no doubt Apple’s AI features—especially what’s coming in 18.2—will become more mainstream than any other existing AI product.
Judging by the early impressions of Apple Intelligence: If Apple ends up being the most successful player in this market (too), it won’t be out of merit – but due to their position in other markets. And that’s not a good thing.