I would agree in general, but in this specific case it’s still an advantage for the iOS platform in general. It just removes a buying incentive for the AirPods.

The general problem is that there must be a line.

Vendors don’t create lock-ins because they are malicious, they create it because it makes them money.

Now, if we limit these lock-ins, it will reduce their ability to make money and yes, it will impact some features - short term.

But looking at it long terms, vendor lock-ins are actually a reason to stop innovating: your customers are locked in anyway.

So, overall, I would say this is good for innovation in general.

▲

websap 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually have a problem with this. I want AirPods to be undeniably the best experience for me because I am fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, and I know many folks have complaints against that. I find it to be rather pleasurable to use compared to all the other alternatives out there. So if I have to start sacrificing my experience in favor of universal support, that really sucks.

▲

reorder9695 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But this isn't sacrificing your experience, you're free to keep using your Apple AirPods with the quality and reliability you'd expect from Apple. This just means other brands can create products with similar features to AirPods, and if they're not as good or reliable, well that's why you're paying Apple for theirs.

	▲	DANmode 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I see their point. If Apple knew they would need to expand this feature past their gear, possible they’d never have implemented. We may never know what stays unimplemented due to this. (This is a neutral take - note I do not have a personal opinion formed in this “debate”.)

▲

illiac786 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the long term innovation outlooks are still better, so you benefit long term as well.

It’s just less obvious / measurable that immediate benefits.

And also, short term, isn’t it that other EarPods are getting better, rather than AirPods getting worse?

Medium term, I don’t think that Apple will stop innovating on AirPods just because of the EU market and this one feature not being exclusive to AirPods anymore. But it’s a possibility, I agree.

▲

wiseowise 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is there anything that makes you believe they'll sacrifice quality to have universal support?

	▲	jessecurry 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They did their initial AirPod implementation in a pretty insecure manner because it was securely locked to their hardware and they could trust themselves to not be malicious. If they have to build a feature, plus all the security around it, plus documentation, etc… it makes it much harder to bring to market. They may opt to skip it in favor of something else.
	▲	phatfish 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Spite? It's standard practice for corporations to take the ball home when they are forced to play fair.
	▲	ruszki 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They won’t, but Apple previously lied similarly against PWAs.

▲

nutjob2 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your tortured argument tests credulity and is pretty much opposite of how actual markets work.

In this case, stopping Apple from degrading competitor products means they can compete on a level playing field and Apple will need to create better products to maintain a lead. Their ability to degrade competitor products has nothing to do with the features or quality of their headphones but rather that they control a closed platform. Thus the EU's action in maintaining fair competition.