That's backwards.

It's not AirPods being closed that's unfair. Apple should be able to sell first party tech that only works with their own products.

What's unfair is Apple locking everyone else out. Not allowing or documenting for third parties to use the same APIs to enable something like automatic device switching in third party bluetooth headphones is the unfair part.

Same goes for the watch. That the Apple Watch only works with iPhone isn't the problem. The problem is no other third party is able to make a smartwatch that competes on an level playing field with the Apple Watch on Apple Devices, because Apple locks them out.

lock-out is the unfair problem.

"only works with their own products" == "lock-out"

Or am I missing something that distinguishes between these two in your view?

Only works with their own products is lock-in.

Lock-out is Apple preventing third parties from making accessories that can match the first party ones in feature parity and seamlessness.

Apple Watch only working with iPhones=lock-in

No third party watch being allowed to use the same APIs the Apple Watch does or not being allowed to access iMessage, Apple Pay, etc = lock-out.

By locking their products "in", they're also locking third parties "out". How on earth would they be able to "lock-in" the Apple Watch to the iPhone while at the same time NOT "locking-out" third parties?

It's the same thing.

I have a apartement i rent out for vacation

If i offer to bring you fresh breakfast in the morning but not offer the service to other apartments down the street -> „lock in“

If i do not allow you to get your breakfast (of equal quality)elsewhere -> „lock out“

I think they're suggesting that lock in implies apple didn't write the code to help support 3rd parties. Lock out implies they actively wrote code to prevent 3rd parties.

With other companies there may be a difference. But with Apple, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. Because they are hostile to third-party integration using undocumented API's or interfaces.

I'm not the person you're asking to but this is my reasoning:

1. If I'm building a gadget for my line of products, I want to be able to test it only with my products. I don't want to spend money to make it work with anybody's else products. There are standards but there are bugs and non compliant products from known and unknown parties, their problems.

2. However I might also want to be able to build gadgets for somebody's else products, so I appreciate if those companies stick to standards and don't go out of their ways to make their products incompatible with gadgets of third parties. BTW, this reminds me about cartridges for inkjet printers.

So I think that it would be fair for Apple to say, "these earpieces are tested to work only on these products of mine: ...; if they happen to work on something else: congratulations! you got lucky." It won't be fair if they make their products incompatible with every other earpieces and at the same time claim that they are compliant to a standard.

But fairness and business are often at odds.

It's not up to a third party to invest into opening up Apple's purposely locked-down ecosystem.

…unless someone has sufficient time and/or money to spend on it, and wants to do so as a point of principle.

If I had large amounts of spare money, I’d love to seed small endeavours that (according to my personal world view) made the world incrementally better.

As has been noted before, what’s the point of having ‘FU money’ if you don’t use it to say ‘FU’ now and again?

Yeah, but saying "maybe super rich people will do random illogical things" isn't really a great argument. For all we know, Mark Zuckerberg wants to spend his "fuck you" money locking the ecosystem down even more, as a "fuck you" to consumers.