“It’s a fragmented market” and “you can’t easily compete“ are mutually exclusive. You just rattled off a long list of successful messaging solutions. It seems there is robust competition going on.
Not if you are a smaller business
Why should every application be interoperable? Should I be able to run my Windows apps on Mac? Should I be able to bring my Fortnite items to PUBG? There are technically ways to make this happen (eg WINE, NFTs) but ultimately, different companies made different products and I don’t see why they should be obligated to adopt a certain standard. Chat apps are no different. iMessage already does what you want in that it uses a proprietary protocol but falls back on SMS for users without it. Do you want to force WhatsApp to do that too? Or do you want a new, encrypted messaging standard? One that currently does not exist, so it would be odd to mandate it.
As I said before, is any of that a core functionality? And they aren’t comparable with a communication standard and skin in random games.
hundreds of standards already exist, nothing new needs to be invented, why would companies need to know what technology to use when they can negotiate it between themselves.
“Forced” to use WhatsApp? More like they had many options and found WhatsApp worked best for them. Also, remember that if a common standard is adopted, that will be what gets used in the group chat. It won’t be that you now get to use Signal, it’s that you’ll use Signal as a client for whatever that standard is. The benefit of Signal is its privacy focus. It will be harder to get people to use Signal and its encrypted standard in the future, not easier, if they can already text Signal from WhatsApp or whatever.
Not at all as that’s not how it works. If I send a message to WhatsApp from iMessage, this doesn’t mean I must use WhatsApp’s protocol. And if I send it in reverse doesn’t mean I must use iMessages protocol. They could as an example use RCS as the standards for cross platform communication or use signals standard or even iMessage. It’s up to them to decide and negotiate.
And the EU Commission also thinks that Apple keeping certain hardware functionality to itself is anticompetitive…
Such as the NFT chip yes considering it’s an important part for banking, NFT terminals are extremely common in EU close to 100% have had it for a long time
No standard exists, yet Apple and Meta are expected to comply in 3 months. That’s a shockingly short time. Shouldn’t the EU try to come up with a standard first?
Eu doesn’t have the job to create standards for industries but to set the minimum bar after experts in the field have produced studies and recommendations of what to do, put it forth to a vote or renegotiate it’s content and allow the market negotiate the optimal solution, instead politicians doing it.
Forcing chat apps to use a standard that doesn’t exist sounds quite “dictated“ to me. The free market has spoken and given us many solutions. This edict is an attempt to create more competition in the client space but less in the protocols space. This could be disastrous for privacy. There could also be many issues down the line in upgrading or improving the standard. It just seems like someone said “you know, WhatsApp and Telegram both tex, why can’t they text each other“ and then mandated it with no thought as to how that would work technically, what the implications would be for chat apps going forward, or how that scenario came to be.
There will be no problem to upgrade the protocols. We have thousands of standards constantly updated by the market.
PCIe, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, usb, IP protocols, 4G, telecommunication etc etc many with apple and samsung google as members.
Privacy is already heavily regulated in EU so privacy concerns aren’t likely. And more are coming with inspiration from apple. But applied for everyone.
And why do you think using multiple standards is impossible? Why is apple able to support Wi-Fi AND airplay at the same time?
When did everyone agree to a standard port? And why should everyone only be allowed to change it when the group agrees? What if someone has a cool idea but others in the group disagree? Then what?
Well in 2009 as
jlc1978 provided for you. and if you come up with an idea you can always implement it in parallel such as AirPlay.
Exactly, I don’t see the EU passing legislation that allows me to use any software I want in my car. Why can’t I use a custom 3rd party automated driving assistance program in a BMW? Why can’t I use a Mercedes climate control system in an Audi? Why am I stuck with the browser the manufacturer supplies? Shouldn’t there be interoperability in these ubiquitous platforms people use everyday? /s
Well because you already have the legal right to do what you want. And the core parts are already compatible following existing regulations. And none of them are dominating the market. But guess what happened with electric cars, they all had do use the same standard connector, even Tesla, but are allowed to include a proprietary solution in parallel
Oh that’s right it’s because these are European companies so they need to be protected unlike the tech giants.
These regulations affect European companies equally. Do you honestly think European companies have less rules and regulations to follow?
Fair enough, then we need to see interoperability legislation that allows running 3rd party apps/components in Airbus aircraft (the dominant market leader in commercial aviation)
This is already the case
Perhaps. I'm concerned about the unintended consequences, with politicians clutching their pearls and saying "Well, we didn't mean that...and it's not our fault..." when things go awry.
That is why politicians aren’t the ones creating the legislation but industry experts.
As there are many competitors in the cell phone space. A decision by apple doesn’t affect a decision on an any other competitor.
Yes apple do affect the market because iOS and Android have 99% of the market, 30-40% controles by apple.
