Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[Sophisticatednut]

Wouldn't it be prudent to know if majority of people buy Apple products because of its closed nature BEFORE EU enacts the law that effectively kills any major closed system?


It seems selfish to not even know if closed nature is the majority of the will of people before killing it off.

Well EU law concerns itself with competition. The consumer isn’t the end all be all.
The primary goal of EU competition rules, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is to ensure a fair and efficient internal market by preventing restrictions and distortions of competition”

iOS is a core platform, so yes it is. I guess you can read why here:

Competition case search

Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.

digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu

Well it’s still not based on any market share. So shouldn’t be used. It’s enough with all these ”apple IS a monopoly” Apple isn’t a monopoly technically ” etc when the legal concept of a monopoly isn’t even part of the law or anything whatsoever in EU legal doctrine.

No, the DMA is based on number of EU users, corporate revenue, and a listing of services that suspiciously didn’t include product/service categories where EU companies are doing well (like music steaming).

Market share isn’t listed in the law as a criteria at all. (Probably because it generally requires 40% in the EU and as far as I could find, has never been used on a company with less than 35%)

Well then I have some number for you as of last year. It seems they had less than 1% marketshare
Pierre Cardin/Ahlers (2024) - Smallest Market Share of likely sub 1% for breaking article 101 of European anticompetitive practices.

Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2024 – European Union - Kluwer Competition Law Blog

2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, we continue to keep you up to date with the latest developments in competition law and policy on EU level. To say it with Philip Marsden ‘step back, nibble some chocolate’ and read on the competition law developments in 2024 – competition law made easy! Article 101 TFEU...

competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com

 

[jfreedle2]

I just wrote the same thing. . . . albeit I've been noticing that trend for awhile.

The EU, just wanting people to work for nothing. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[jfreedle2]

You can’t develop a program for an iOS that Apple doesn’t like. You can’t use a 3rd party watch under iOS the same way you can use an Apple watch. Etc. Etc. That’s anti competitive and anti consumer and I hope the EU fines the sh*t out of Apple until they do the right thing…

I hope that Apple sends an invoice for all the work that they are doing for the EU market, then garnished the income from the EU government for non-payment.

 

[jfreedle2]

It will most likely affect Apple in all countries.

Similar to California forcing mandates on the rest of the US, the EU mandates will probably be pushed everywhere.

It's not cost effective for a company to fragment their designs among different countries.

It will be interesting to see Apple's response when major markets have opposing requirements / laws.

They will leave those unprofitable environments.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No the posters are justifying the DMA using the DMA. That’s circular reasoning. And having been approved doesn’t make it good in any sense.

Well the DMA is justified by existing competition laws and decades of case laws. I do find it more interesting the U.S. seems to be going for more EU like laws as well interest( despite some questionable legal cases in the U.S. )

And Apple ended up developing their own modem while at it.

Though I am not sure how much Apple is still paying Qualcomm in royalties, if at all. But maybe that could change in the future as well.

Seems they are still paying for their IP while not using their modems anymore. But such things is way past my paygrade and expertise

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I will argue that it’s the opposite.

In the US, antitrust law looks at damage to consumers.

In the EU, antitrust looks at harm to businesses.

The DMA is aimed at benefiting smaller businesses (relative to Apple at any rate), not so much end users.

Sometimes, the consumer benefits alongside the business. And sometimes, their interests aren’t (eg: what’s good for developers may not necessarily be good for users, and vice versa).

Well in a way. It’s almost more the competitive aspect as function. Undertakings encompass all economic activities in this context. ( this includes those that isn’t directly consumer related)

It’s perceived that consumers will benefit from functional competition. And if competition doesn’t work consumers will in the long term.

The DMA or the article 101/102 isn’t targeting companies.

And the DMA do mention consumers it’s important to maintain that the typical U.S. antitrust calculation of consumer benefit isn’t there. Short term harm can very often be acceptable if it’s some other greater market benefit or longer term benefit is perceived as being relevant.

If you want example of protectionism the Chip act would be more appropriate.

 

[CarlJ]

I really, really, don't like that comparison. It's not making iPhone like Android, it's making Apple better.

Better in your opinion. Do not presume to speak for everyone. You can dislike that comparison all you want, but it's true - it's taking away a choice for many of us who chose the "walled garden" on purpose. saying "I have freed you from your walls" is disregarding a choice we made, because you think you know better than us, and that is condescending and infuriating. Taking away one of the two choices is the opposite of freedom.

Say you bought an electric vehicle, and then you decided you were annoyed that you couldn't fill it up at gas stations, like one can do with gasoline-powered cars. That's entirely an outcome of your choice (primarily a lack of research and critical thinking about the ramifications when making a big purchase). Trying to then get the government to force EV manufacturers to include a gas-powered engine and fuel tank (and lots more drivetrain components) so that you can use gas stations... that's you working to take away choice from people who intentionally bought an EV because they did not want a vehicle that used gasoline.

We do not care that you think your way is superior - we do not want you imposing your preference on us.

 

[DownUnderDan]

DMA is not a policy to support Users. There is no U of user or C of consumer ANYWHERE in that law. Only the M for market. Which means this is pure protectionism of European companies that can't compete with American companies. Again NO EU company is a "gatekeeper" according to the EU, even though some should absolutely be one.

And if you think "protecionism" isn't bad. It's actually illegal under EU law, a country isn't allowed to give market protection to a company. This would end in large fines from the EC (European Comission). But using this legislation they have reworked this "protection" into a new law.
Just like GDPR doesn't protect citizens privacy, because other legislation easily tramples it.

Maybe the EU should just make up a tariff or something. I hear thats all the rage in the land of the free.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple Appeals EU’s March Ruling on ‘Interoperability’ Requirements Under the DMA

https://9to5mac.com/2025/06/02/apple-eu-interoperability-appeal/

daringfireball.net

The second, though, is that Apple will limit its own devices in the EU and only in the EU to the same features available to third-party devices through open standards like Bluetooth. New features and entire devices will either come late, or never, to the EU. We’re already seeing that with iPhone Mirroring — perhaps the single best feature Apple announced (and actually shipped) last year. I use iPhone Mirroring every day while I’m working. We’re one week out from WWDC 2025 and iPhone Mirroring still isn’t available in the EU. I think it’s very clear that under the EC’s current DMA “interoperability” mandate, Apple would be required to somehow make it work with third-party devices and PCs. If AirDrop were brand new, users in the EU wouldn’t get that either, I suspect. And if this mandate holds up, EU users might lose AirDrop. The same is true of entire devices like AirPods and Apple Watch.

This is my own suspicion as well. The DMA might result in a short term boon for users in the EU, but who can say what it will cost them exactly in the long run.

If I were running Apple, this is what I would be considering right now. Why spend time developing and implementing new features, only to give them away to the competition for free?

I won’t say this is what Apple would do, but it’s likely what I could end up implementing were I in Tim Cook’s shoes (another possibility is to look at removing some of them from EU users come iOS 19 if Apple is either unwilling or unable to open them up to third parties). If you want the benefits of an open platform, you get the drawbacks as well.

Apple’s statement doesn’t say that complying with these breathtaking demands will adversely affect their customers around the world. They’re saying it will lead “to an inferior user experience for our European customers”. Mandating that the public has to be allowed to use the same doorways as a (say) hotel’s own staff doesn’t mean those existing doors will be opened to everyone. It could lead to those doors being closed to everyone. And all of a sudden no one staying at the hotel is getting food from the kitchen.

I couldn’t have said it better in a thousand years.

 

[Stuwil]

Can it not be argued that the integration itself is the product? iOS doesn’t automatically update itself free of charge. That integration doesn’t just happen by itself. Apple does spend a lot of time and resources working on both the hardware and the software to ensure that they play well with each other.

I get that if you are the owner of a headphone company looking in from the outside, it can seem like an unfair advantage (though I argue that too many people these days are too eager to cry “unfair” when they really just mean “not to my advantage”). But at the same time, is it really “fair” to expect Apple to just give away the fruits of their R&D for nothing? What then is the incentive to continue coming up with new ecosystem features if Apple is not allowed to charge a premium for them?

Even Qualcomm and Nokia are allowed to charge for their patents, in the very least, but the idea of Apple charging a licensing fee for access to core iOS features is somehow anathema?

I think the problem is this because they are the makers of the operating system
So for example Apple say you can make headphones for our platform however
We will never give you access to this additional software that helps our products work better with the OS

 

[Stuwil]

That’s the point of value added features, which is a standard in the business world looking to attract customers.

Or it’s to deliberately give yourself an unfair advantage over the competitors
Because how is a 3rd party actually able to compete with that as they can’t make their product connect better

 

[Abazigal]

Or it’s to deliberately give yourself an unfair advantage over the competitors
Because how is a 3rd party actually able to compete with that as they can’t make their product connect better

They are free to compete in other areas, such as price.

 

[Stuwil]

So? They can compete on sound quality, price, comfort, design, noise canceling, type of headphone, etc.

If Bose makes an incredible headphone that is miles ahead of the completion’s sound quality we don’t say “it’s not fair so Bose has to share their secret sauce”.

Then don’t create a situation where you essentially have fake competition on your platform then.

 

[Stuwil]

They are free to compete in other areas, such as price.

It’s essentially fake competition
Again if apple was a stand alone headphone maker that only made headphones for
MR OS then there would be no issues
However because the make the OS they are deliberately giving their products an advantage over the competition
That none of them will ever be to achieve even if they tried to do it as it’s impossible and that’s the point

 

[robvalentine]

Apple is not preventing anyone from making an amazing watch that functions on Android. They are free to innovate away. They should, and show Apple users what they’re missing!


28% vs 72%. Seems like there’s a lot more potential for sales with an Android device.

And yes, Apple owns its code and should be under no obligation to make its software interact with competitors devices unless they’re an actual monopoly.

Sorry but if you want to have a useful smartwatch on apple you are forced to use an apple watch. Why are you arguing for less choice? The apis are already there for the apple watch. I do not buy any security reasons.

Your last point is very anti consumer and anti choice. Apple is a gatekeeper and thus preventing competition. Google owns the android code, but you can pair a galaxy watch to a pixel and vice versa. No one is banning apple watches, so you can still use an apple watch if you want.

 

[robvalentine]

Literally nothing is preventing anyone from innovating in Smart Watches. Least of all Apple.

Your claim: Apple is preventing innovation in the smart watch market.

Please explain how Apple is preventing Samsung from innovating in Smart Watches.

They are preventing Apple users from having a viable alternative to the Apple watch.

 

[germanbeer007]

Well EU law concerns itself with competition. The consumer isn’t the end all be all.

Android has higher market share. iOS has plenty of competition and the consumer should be the ultimate goal for regulations.

 

[germanbeer007]

Why would those things be on a video games App Store?


View attachment 2515836

read your wiki. Plenty of game devs use adobe software

 

[iPadified]

The EU government agrees!

Mario Draghi Report Claims Innovation Is Blocked, Hindered Due To Excessive Regulation In The EU | Crowdfund Insider

The Draghi Report explains that Europe is "stuck in a static industrial structure" and too few new companies are emerging in the EU. Innovation is sparse, and

www.crowdfundinsider.com

That we know. Or rather we export many of our innovations to US because US has more risk taking capital. At MR innovations is seen as lack of IT innovation. Look around you, there is more to life than the computer.

With the current hostile admin at the White House, Europe will look elsewhere for IT solutions. We are actively discussing an exit plan from (mostly) Microsoft due to 1) safety as US can lock down all Microsoft services at the whim of the US president and 2) high prices due to lack of competition.

This will not help the bottom line of the US IT sector, at all.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple Appeals EU’s March Ruling on ‘Interoperability’ Requirements Under the DMA

https://9to5mac.com/2025/06/02/apple-eu-interoperability-appeal/

daringfireball.net

This is my own suspicion as well. The DMA might result in a short term boon for users in the EU, but who can say what it will cost them exactly in the long run.

If I were running Apple, this is what I would be considering right now. Why spend time developing and implementing new features, only to give them away to the competition for free?

I won’t say this is what Apple would do, but it’s likely what I could end up implementing were I in Tim Cook’s shoes (another possibility is to look at removing some of them from EU users come iOS 19 if Apple is either unwilling or unable to open them up to third parties). If you want the benefits of an open platform, you get the drawbacks as well.



I couldn’t have said it better in a thousand years.

Well in one way Apple do have a tendency for a long list of services to take an awfully long while to be released outside the U.S.

So technically i guess it would be a boon having many of the services unlocked for the competition when it’s not used here anyway 🤷‍♂️

 

[germanbeer007]

And why is that?

You're getting really close to full understanding here...

Because developers thought they would get the reach that iOS app store has.

Hope you fully understand now.

 

[germanbeer007]

I'm just out of energy and interest on much deference to mega corporations.

- Small company builds great products
- billions of people buy and enjoy said great products
- small company grows into mega corporation because billions buy it
- somehow size of corp makes it bad?

terrible way of thinking about this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because developers thought they would get the reach that iOS app store has.

Hope you fully understand now.

The Macappstore launched in January 2011. The ios market wasn’t that relevant in 2011.

The the iPhone 4 existed at the time. Apple killed the competitiveness of the

Macappstore for no reason but greed and malpractice.

Apple even had the terrible policy of the price must be the same or better

 

[germanbeer007]

but the point I'd think is that Apple (and, for the record, other big platform providers) just doesn't offer access to certain 'ecosystem features' where these are used to push other products or services.

playstation doesn't allow xbox games to run natively on their hardware, despite playstation and xbox consoles having very similar hardware. playstation won't allow valve to bring their steam store to playstation consoles, despite plenty of PC games can literally run on playstation consoles without modification.

 

[germanbeer007]

The Macappstore launched in January 2011. The ios market wasn’t that relevant in 2011.

And? Mac app store doesn't have the foot traffic of iOS App store. What I said holds true.