>An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed.
Is it though?
To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation.
But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so.
Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice?
If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I think.
They should absolutely get regulated, there is no good reason for Parkside batteries not to be compatible with Bosch tools, or Makita, or Ryobi or whatever else. They all have their slightly different battery interfaces, that don't have technical reasons to be different.
They only provide vendor lock-in, so that people who already have a Ryobi drill will also buy a Ryobi grass mower and a Ryobi trimmer, regardless of their actual individual merits, unless they want to also buy batteries (and chargers!) for each of their pieces of equipment.
This is bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the overall market. I hope this gets regulated in the future in the EU, but who knows.
Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers.
The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers.
Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)
> suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools
The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
> Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves?
Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
> If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies
That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard).
> So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions
At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.
>The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files).
If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful.
>Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above.
>say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard
Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store.
>plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in
There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.
> Is this really a place where we need government intervention
Yes, it affects all of us and positions Granny Smith for even more control over derived areas. For one, Apple are applying American morals to decisions about what kind of content is appropriate in apps.
> when consumers are willingly making this choice?
Are they, though? They're making the choice, but there's lots of factors, and this is hardly the most obvious one. So there's lots of little, day-to-day choices by individual consumers based on what looks cool, what can I afford, what has the best games - and these small chocies just happen to add up to big choice that total control of smartphones should be ceded to Apple.
> But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less).
In my country it's actually something like 80% - and it skews in a certain way so that many apps are iOS-only. Not the ones you can't live without, not yet, at least.
> Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
I know Apple are running a big fearmongering campaign, but to the best of my knowledge, all of the changes that the DMA enforce are opt-in. The only way it affects you if you don't want to opt-in is that it informs that you now have a choice.
Is it though?
To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation.
But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so.
Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice?
If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!