They all want to “rent” Warren Buffett’s name. If Buffett thinks highly enough of your business to invest in it, most every investor not named Buffett will seriously contemplate following his lead. Buffett’s proverbial seal of approval is unparalleled on Wall Street.
Buffett as a brand comes to mind as the EU offers “to assist Apple in complying with its obligations under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).” According to technology writer Tim Hardwick, the DMA “requires major platform holders or ‘gatekeepers’ like Apple to provide third-party developers equal access to iOS and iPadOS system tools and features.” Translated, Apple must make its globally revered products operable with products not produced by Apple. It’s no surprise that Apple is hitting back against this most aggressive of encroachments on its brand. See Buffett if you’re confused.
After which, contemplate the popular truth that it often takes decades to build a reputation and minutes to lose it. Reputations in business are hard won, and by extension so are brands.
Consider this once again with the EU’s offer to “assist” Apple in complying with an Act that would require it to not simply “rent” its sterling name to other consumer products companies, but just give it away. No thanks.
The EU telling Apple to provide interoperability entrée to non-Apple products is like Congress offering to “assist” Ferrari and Rolls-Royce in opening its cars and the showrooms housing its cars to Dodge. No thanks once again.
Really, what car brand wouldn’t want to associate itself with the two automobile corporations that most personify performance and luxury? The same question rates asking vis-à-vis Apple. What technology or consumer product wouldn’t love to have interoperability with arguably the greatest technology brand the world has ever known?
In which case, let’s call the DMA what it is: a monstrous violation of private property. And a costly one at that. While Apple is presently worth trillions, its brand value alone is incalculably high. No wonder other businesses want to achieve interoperability with the gold standard of technology. And Apple goes to great lengths to open itself up to these third parties. The problem is when the opening is forced. Don’t worry, there’s more.
Apple is understandably protective of the user data generated by its customers, the latter one of the most prominent demographics in the world. Which means Apple understandably fears businesses using the DMA as a backdoor way of attaining access to extraordinarily valuable user information that Apple goes to great lengths to keep private.
It’s worth stressing that Apple is in no way flouting the Act. According to Hardwick, it’s dedicated no less than 500 engineers to the project of complying with the DMA, after which it’s once again in no way operating as a closed shop to third-party developers understandably eager to achieve operability with its products.
At the same time, Apple owes its shareholders, itself, and its hard-won customer base a discerning, tasteful eye when it comes to the interoperability that so many outside Apple covet, and it owes those same stakeholders herculean efforts to protect the data of a customer base that has made it so valuable.
As presently enforced, the DMA is hampering Apple’s unrivaled ability to innovate all the while forcing on it business relationships that imperil its brand along with the privacy of its users. Not only does Apple have the right to be choosy about those it associates with, it must be choosy.
