Eric Migicovsky, the founder of Pebble and everyone’s favorite bootleg iMessage service, writing on his blog announcing Pebble’s resurrection:

I want to set expectations accordingly. We will build a good app for iOS, but be prepared - there is no way for us to support all the functionality that Apple Watch has access to. It’s impossible for a 3rd party smartwatch to send text messages, or perform actions on notifications (like dismissing, muting, replying) and many, many other things.

Migicovsky thoughtfully lays out a list of ways the Pebble can’t compete with the Apple Watch because Apple restricts what parts of iOS a third-party smartwatch can access. That part I agree with because it’s hard not to — they’re hard and fast facts about the limits of iOS. But where Migicovsky and I diverge is at the whining bit:

Apple claims their restrictions on competitors are only about security, privacy, crafting a better experience etc etc. At least that’s what they tell you as they tuck you into bed. I personally don’t agree - they’re clearly using their market power to lock consumers into their walled ecosystem. This causes there to be less competition, which increases prices and reduces innovation. DOJ seems to agree. For now at least…Tim Apple paid $1m to sit near Trump at the inauguration, so who knows how long until Trump tells DOJ to drop the case. There’s also an Apple Watch class-action lawsuit working its way through the system.

Migicovsky writes this as if he didn’t lobby senators in January 2023 to encourage them to send a letter to the then-assistant attorney general, which then prompted a section in the United States v. Apple Justice Department lawsuit Migicovsky now writes about. But that’s not the point: If Apple wants to make the Apple Watch an appealing product for its users, it should be able to. Being mad about Apple products working well with other Apple products is the most insane anti-business juxtaposition I’ve ever heard. Migicovsky can’t play socialist while trying to run a capitalist smartwatch business — that’s not how economic systems work.

Nothing will ever beat the Apple Watch because it’s built for iPhones. People love their iPhones and people love their Apple Watches — I haven’t heard a single person quibble about how they’d want to use their Galaxy Watch with their iPhone over the Apple Watch. No other smartwatch, hardware-wise, gets even close to the Apple Watch. It’s the No. 1 watch in the entire world for a reason: it’s elegant, fast, and useful. I liked the Pebble when it first came out and I’m excited about the redux, but it’ll never be as good as the Apple Watch. Case in point: even the highest-end Pebble has an e-ink display. That’s not a bad thing because the Pebble has a lot going for it, namely its 30-day battery life and customizability, but people will continue to buy the Apple Watch for its usefulness and the Pebble for its novelty. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I wish Migicovsky success with the new Pebble project. I’ve seriously considered buying one — and I still might — and adore the idea. But I also know whom I don’t wish success: the European Commission, a returning character on this website. Here’s Benjamin Mayo, reporting for 9to5Mac:

The EU has followed up on its Digital Markets Act specification procedures for Apple regarding the iPhone’s interoperability with third-party connected devices like smartwatches and headphones, as announced last fall.

Today’s announcement details exactly what third-party integrations the EU commission expects Apple to implement. This includes giving third-party devices access to iOS notifications, as well as way for companies to make like-for-like competitors to AirDrop file sharing, AirPlay streaming, and much more…

Today’s measures revolve around opening up iOS connectivity features. This includes allowing connected devices, like third-party smartwatches, full access to the iOS notification system, as well as background execution privileges, just like how the Apple Watch works with the iPhone.

The EU has made it clear that it expects all features provided by Apple to support interoperability free of charge, for any type of connected device. The EU also expects Apple to make the relevant frameworks and APIs available at the same time they arrive as Apple platform features; third-party access is not allowed to launch later.

Is this real life? Seriously, is Joseph Stalin’s family lineage running Europe these days? I don’t think I have a steady footing for patriotism these days thanks to the United States’ tyrannical, lawless government, but I also feel I’m entitled to fight for free markets. This is a mile (kilometer?) closer to a future where every device in the European Union runs some kind of “euOS” run by the government and whose roadmap must be OK’d by geriatric parliamentarians with no technical knowledge whatsoever. Mayo writes “third-party access is not allowed to launch later.” What does “not allowed” mean? If Apple’s software teams hit a snag in the development process, are they just supposed to delay all of their platforms and launches until they finish? What happens if they don’t?

Regulation is the act of supervising a corporate entity in some way to ensure the well-being of a country’s citizens. Regulation doesn’t involve literally controlling a company’s product roadmap and timelines. What if Apple decides to delay the release of iOS 19 in the European Union because it added a feature and now has to scramble to enable third-party access to it? Would that cross the threshold for a fine? I mean, these timelines are ludicrous:

In collaboration with Apple, the EU has also announced a timeline for the above listed features. Third-party support for iOS notifications should go into beta by the end of this year, with full rollout in 2026. Similar timelines are expected for proximity pairing, background execution and other noted features. Media casting alternatives are penciled in for end of 2026. In general, it seems that much of this support will roll out as part of iOS 19, with full support coming by iOS 20 at the latest.

Soon enough, the European Commission — the European Union’s legislative body — will begin forcing Apple to release iOS versions on exact dates Europe likes for no particular reason. Serious question: Who thinks this is an appropriate way to regulate a business? What benefit does this provide to customers? What benefit does combining the private and public sectors so awfully have to end users? I can think of many adverse effects: the end of end-to-end encryption, the end of the right to remain silent, and the end of trade secrets. This is not regulation from the developed West; this is tyrannical governance straight out of China’s playbook. If the European Union thinks it’s acceptable to police an international company’s release timelines, what’s stopping it from mandating Apple disable Advanced Data Protection in the European Union? The United Kingdom did it, too, so why not the European Union?

I can argue all I want about how Apple shouldn’t be mandated to open iOS up to third-party device manufacturers, but that’s just beating a dead horse. If the European Union passed a law forcing interoperability, so be it. I don’t have the stamina to argue against it anymore and neither does Apple — it got itself into this situation and it’ll reap the consequences. (This is a notable tone shift from my commentary on this subject last year.) But it’s unacceptable for a government to dictate when and how a company releases features. It’s even more inappropriate in a Western democracy for any government to threaten penalties for failing to comply with tyrannical demands.

What I hope readers take away from this is that it’s not necessarily what regulation asks for that’s the problem; it’s how it’s asked for. Migicovsky’s requests aren’t too unreasonable — I’ll still advocate against them, but proponents of interoperability aren’t standing on a weak footing. The European Union passed a law — a bad law, but a law nonetheless — but how it’s enforcing that legislation is patently intolerable. While last year ushered in a new regulatory reality for Apple and other “Big Tech” companies, this year is all about how those companies choose to comply with those laws — and how governments around the world, on both sides of the Atlantic, choose to apply them.