The demands of the European Union leave Apple two possible paths. Both are problematic

Apple has shared more details about what is behind its appeal against the interoperability demands of the European DMA. Although it may seem a technical issue to come from Apple and tell it in Xatakathis is not a technical dispute, but ideological.

The core of the conflict. The European Commission is demanding from Apple opening functions that give meaning to its ecosystem, such as Airdrop either Handoffto third -party devices. He wants any manufacturer to access these technologies as if they were public standards.

Apple responds that this “threatens the base” of its technological approach. They have invested years developing an ecosystem where hardware and software work in a coordinated manner to guarantee not only a good functioning, but also privacy and security.

And Apple goes further: it accuses the EU of forcing them to “deliver sensitive information” to “avid data companies.” Companies that have already requested access to the content of the notifications and the full history of WiFi networks stored on the devices.

An unequal treatment. Apple denounces something striking: “These deeply defective rules that only attack Apple – any other company.” It is a relevant point.

• Samsung Master the European Smartphones marketbut it is not subject to the same demands.
• Google controls Android and mobile services, but the EU does not ask her to open her own technology.

Apple argues that they are forcing them to “give their free intellectual property to competitors” that do not have to comply with the same rules.

The dangerous precedent. The EU not only wants access to current technologies. Demands that Apple share its future innovations in interoperability even before announcing them publicly. So that the competition can “adapt to them.”

• It is like forcing a pharmacist to publish their investigations before patenting a medication.
• Or force Tesla to share the plans of your Autopilot With all car manufacturers.

Apple says it clearly:

“It has cost us a lot of time to develop these functionalities between products that we know well, and now we are also required to work, for example, in Windows, without having the same understanding of that platform.”

The consequences. Apple has already taken measures: iPhone Mirroringfor example, it was announced a year ago, but still without being available in the EU.

At the time it was hypotured about whether that absence was a way of pressing the EU. It seems that it is something indefinite. Apple has been clear about the future, says these regulations “will severely limit our ability to offer innovative products and characteristics in Europe, leading to a lower user experience for our European customers.”

Before it could sound threat, but now it is rather a definition of what is already happening.

Two paths, both problematic. If Apple loses the appeal of June 2, you have two options to meet European demands:

1. Make all third -party devices as capable as Apple’s to communicate with iPhone and iPad. Technically it is complex, and is possibly impossible without compromising security.
2. Limit devices in Europe to the capacities available for third parties through basic open standards.

In the second scenario, we would see even consequences of functions already present:

• Airdrop would disappear.
• The Airpods They would lose their instant matches.
• The Apple Watch would become a more standard watch, with less exclusive functions.

And Europe would keep an impoverished version of the Apple ecosystem.

The background. This battle is stars in Apple but transcends its brand: it goes on how we understand innovation in the 21st century from the European Union.

• Should companies be able to differentiate creating integrated ecosystems, as Apple does?
• Or should all innovation be immediately accessible to competition?

The EU has chosen the second. Apple defends the first. European users will end up paying the price of this dispute. We insist: more technical than ideological.

There is a subtle irony here: The world leader in defense of privacy He is forcing to create blind security points that do not exist today. All in the name of a competition that can destroy incentives to innovate.

In Xataka | The decline of the “Apple culture”. Blind devotion has evolved towards critical enthusiasm

Outstanding image | AppleWikimedia Commons