Apple has benefited fabulously for well over a decade. And I’m sure the EU will remain a profitable market even with these regulations in place.

With these changes, Apple will go from being one of the richest companies in the world to… still one of the richest companies in the world.

Yes sir, I get that. My point was they’re there for a reason. They must be doing something right.

The point I’m making is that the argument “Well they built it, shouldn’t they benefit” would make sense if these regulations posed any sort of existential threat to their success. But Apple is already so entrenched that regulation like this won’t. The “doing something you right” you speak of is apple making a great product, and they can make a great product without their monopolistic practices.

Furthermore, I don’t think these regulations apply to new/non-entrenched players either, so I don’t think they will stifle innovation.

Microsoft is an earlier example of a company with theoretical competition but which ended up with significant intervention due to the practical walled garden they had created and where exhibiting significant monopoly powers over.

And Microsoft's garden had much, much lower walls.

I think it is most similar to the Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948[0]. Back then movie theaters were owned by studios, and therefore they would only book movies to their own theaters.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-trust_Case_of_1...

Excellent read. This is why I’m here. Thanks!

> I'd be curious if there are any other occurrences in history of something so big ending up regulated by the government?

Repeatedly:

Railroad companies.

Oil and gas companies.

Electricity companies.

Phone companies.

Movie companies.

You'll see a recurring theme here, most of those became what we now call utilities. Once something is so big it acts like a public good, it either gets regulated as one, or outright becomes a public good, i.e. a state affiliated/owned enterprise.

Shareholders are a limited set of the population and their interests can go against the interests of the general population, so we basically make everyone a stakeholder.

Power companies, Telco companies. Oil companies, In some countries train companies.

Sometimes this happens when services are provided by the state directly.

Market competition is pretty much the only thing that keeps capitalism in check and benefits people. Without it, it breaks in such a horrible manner that it almost degenerates into feudalism with corporations replacing aristocracy.

And moves like this are way overdue to kinda brings us back in balance where we (as users, consumers) actually can again mix and match products that compete for our choice and aren't just chosen because we're forced into using a certain corporations whole ecosystem due to some unrelated wishes.

Microsoft was forced to create open standards for documents, the docx format.

Not exactly - they were forced to publish the documentation for the binary formats, e.g. .doc publicly, without requiring royalties and with a covenant not to sue over use of any patents necessary for implementation. Previously the documentation was available to licensed 3rd parties only. OOXML is a subsequent creation.

Thanks for the correction. So MS could have decided to leave EU if they did not want to accept interoperability. So the Apple fans have a study case here where a giant was forced to open up and nothing bad happened to the users, even good stuff like I can tell people that some project of mine can import from Word if they use the docx format.

This is a particularly bad example since the OOXML standardization process was fraught with issues and there are deviations between the standard and Microsoft’s implementation.

For starters, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

So instead of something imperfect you prefer nothing, great I am sure Apple stuff is not perfect so don't use it.

We use open source docx tools and write code to work with docx format so the actual reality is that it works infinity times better then attempting to reverse engineer some proprietary binary stuff .

People would make open sourse stuff to connect to Apple things and if Ap[ple is as bad as Microsoft we can call them out and try to do our best with or code to workaround the imperfections.

For the trivial case where a document or a spreadsheet with just some text has to be exported out of a system, it works. But there are other formats such as CSV that already exist for this purpose and have a higher degree of.

My point wasn't about writing to those formats for these basic use cases, but rather about building interoperable applications that can both read and write from the format. Since the spec is relatively loose and Microsoft hasn't adhered to it well, there are many issues when you use something like LibreOffice. And whether you like it or not, people do like using the advanced features of the Microsoft Office suite.

But what is your point, the MSis good and people forcing interoperability are bad?

Google Docs and other open source tools can import docx and this is great even if not perfect, and if there is an issue you can read the code of the document and maybe figure the problem, is Infinity times better then the old ways where Word would probably just binary serialize the data and dump it in a file.

We are talking about giants having to interoperate with others, what is your point? It can't be done perfectly because giants are evil and we should not try?