> It is not reasonable, IMO, to require that every feature you ship has an API that is ready for public consumption.

It is, if we're talking about features designed to boost sales of your other products while preventing competitors from offering those features.

Look, even if they're able to compete fairly, those competitors might remain inferior options for other reasons. But Apple having to compete will make their products better. All of their best achievements came from fierce competition as the underdog. Apple's current situation is not good for it.

▲

sroussey 5 days ago | parent [-]

What if it relies on non-standard changes to Bluetooth and WiFi?

Must they get these passed in the standards committees first?

	▲	rickdeckard 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The DMA does not define such details, it is much more simple and agnostic. It identifies if a company creates a market within its own ecosystem, invites others to participate but doesn't offer a fair competitive field. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to compete against Android, this does not concern the DMA. --> If iOS introduces non-standard changes to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi to create a product of ANOTHER market-segment (Headphones, Watches, Routers,...) they are required to provide interoperability for other brands than Apple as well. The reason is simple: iOS has such a critical size that it is anti-competitive behavior for Apple to modify iOS in order to beat the competition on e.g. headphones.
	▲	zwirbl 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		With Bluetooth they do ruse non standard changes, heavily influenced the development of LE Audio and there is no statement about when if ever they will support LE Audio, possibly never. Apple simply doesn't care