Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[BaldiMac]

No, it does not, because I already acknowledge they are not perfect, but that I think it is important that they are there.

Just not important enough for you to be inconvenienced by them. Just other people.

And you and others keep using the term monopoly when you know Apple can’t be a monopoly irrespective of circumstance in EU. And hence why I try to use more fitting words to prevent unnecessary confusion between our two great legal systems.

Again, I disagree with your legal interpretation, as well as the DMA's benchmarks for gatekeepers. So I'll keep using the word as I feel is appropriate.

It hasnefosted for 15 years, but 7.

I'm referencing the cookie directive passed in 2011.

https://cookiepedia.co.uk/eu-cookie-law

And this is what can happen sometimes when you allow more freedom to the market as they give it a chance. Nothing prevents browser from implementing this voluntarily. But if the market still can’t handle it then they get to step in again.

No, this is what happens when you make bad regulations. The directive was fundamentally flawed based on its decision to put the liability on the websites rather than the browsers. Hundreds of millions of websites, most outside of EU jurisdiction are not going to come up with a consistent, effective solution. Where a simple requirement for browsers to request user cookie preferences on a global or per site basis would be more effective, simpler to enforce, portable/sync-able, and far less annoying.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But that's entirely the point that I made originally. A better implementation is available, but we're stuck with something designed by bureaucrats. Just like the DMA.

We aren’t stuck with it. It just gets amended as every single time a regulation is updated.

The GDPR has nothing to do with cookie banners. But a mandate regarding consent for private data. It replaced a 1998 law.

The issue is the ePrivacy directive from 2002 that wasn’t updated alongside GDPR. You’re just mistaken in what the GDPR actually asks for and who’s responsible for it’s legal obligations.

So it’s nothing alike the DMA. Because we haves s law from 1998 doing it. While GDPR hustcelecared cookie data to privacy related.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Just not important enough for you to be inconvenienced by them. Just other people.


Again, I disagree with your legal interpretation, as well as the DMA's benchmarks for gatekeepers. So I'll keep using the word as I feel is appropriate.

What legal interpretation? Monopoly is defective non existent. Don’t exist. A firm can’t be a monopoly. You’re objectively in this regard 100% incorrect.

Eu doesn’t call them a monopoly, EU doesn’t have any notion of monopoly standard nor does it even have any standards similar to the U.S. meaning of the word monopoly. Or you should be using an economic meaning and not a legal one. Then Apple would defect be a monopoly on their platform despite it being a meaningless term.

I'm referencing the cookie directive passed in 2011.

https://cookiepedia.co.uk/eu-cookie-law

No, this is what happens when you make bad regulations. The directive was fundamentally flawed based on its decision to put the liability on the websites rather than the browsers. Hundreds of millions of websites, most outside of EU jurisdiction are not going to come up with a consistent, effective solution. Where a simple requirement for browsers to request user cookie preferences on a global or per site basis would be more effective, simpler to enforce, portable/sync-able, and far less annoying.

No, the issue it’s a directive and not a regulation. And all 27 states don’t have the same standard either. And as it states on your link This is basically an amendment of earlier directive: Directive 2002/58/EC

 

[BaldiMac]

We aren’t stuck with it. It just gets amended as every single time a regulation is updated.

I see what you did there! You pretended that you thought I didn't know regulations could be changed. That's some high level debating!

The GDPR has nothing to do with cookie banners. But a mandate regarding consent for private data. It replaced a 1998 law.

The issue is the ePrivacy directive from 2002 that wasn’t updated alongside GDPR. You’re just mistaken in what the GDPR actually asks for and who’s responsible for it’s legal obligations.

So it’s nothing alike the DMA. Because we haves s law from 1998 doing it. While GDPR hustcelecared cookie data to privacy related.

So your argument is that a directive that requires member states to ensure that websites receive consent for cookies has nothing to do with websites requesting consent for cookies? I'd going to say that makes no sense.

 

[BaldiMac]

What legal interpretation?

This one:

Monopoly is defective non existent. Don’t exist. A firm can’t be a monopoly.

No, the issue it’s a directive and not a regulation.

Whew. Good thing I called it a directive and not a regulation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I see what you did there! You pretended that you thought I didn't know regulations could be changed. That's some high level debating!

Well you could have pointed to it’s failure to be amended because they can’t agree on how intrusive it should be against advertisers( aka killing it) to being not so much as killing adds.

So your argument is that a directive that requires member states to ensure that websites receive consent for cookies has nothing to do with websites requesting consent for cookies? I'd going to say that makes no sense.

Considering it’s not GDPR as a regulation( EU wide) but the 2002 directive that was written and implemented before eu even signed the founding treaty of 2009 and its failure to be replaced simultaneously as was originally planed as GDPR.

This one:

Yes that statement is correct and accurate. Unless you want to speak US law it makes zero sense to use monopoly for EU law. It would be more fitting to just call it dominant

Whew. Good thing I called it a directive and not a regulation.

Touché

DING DING DING.

Exactly!

So now you see why if iOS were to be opened up and support all kinds of devices like Android, consumers would simply have only one single phone to choose from. It doesn't matter if they choose Android or iOS since they use all the standardized APIs that any other phone were to be required to implement. You'd just get some different processors or cameras but it would essentially be the single option you have. Just like if PS5 and Xbox were to use the same software, you'd probably have slight differences in power/speed/storage but it'll be one single console. There would be very little reason for 2 very similarly designed consoles to exist.

Congrats, you've arrived to my conclusion about being against opening up iOS!

My job here is done.

No because nothing in the iOS requirement to implement interoperability do they need any standard APIs, allow others to implement their APIs. Software =/= API.

The APIs that is required to be opened up is the ones you can access On the device. Not by other platforms. iOS doesn’t need to allow APK files from working or vice versa Nor does any such crazy request been implemented.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well you could have pointed to it’s failure to be amended because they can’t agree on how intrusive it should be against advertisers( aka killing it) to being not so much as killing adds.

So it was designed to leak like a sieve to benefit advertisers? I didn't realize that.

Yes that statement is correct and accurate.

Like I said, I disagree. Here's an example. I can reasonably say that "Google is an effective monopoly in the EU with respect to search and therefore enjoys a dominant market position that encumbers it with the responsibility to not impede competition." See, it exists!

What you mean to say is that a monopoly is not required in order to be found to have a dominant position. Great! It's not required in the US either.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So it was designed to leak like a sieve to benefit advertisers? I didn't realize that.

It wasn’t. But for countries to take and write their own laws by.

Like I said, I disagree. Here's an example. I can reasonably say that "Google is an effective monopoly in the EU with respect to search and therefore enjoys a dominant market position that encumbers it with the responsibility to not impede competition." See, it exists!

Google holds an entrenched economic position in the EU's search market. This imposes special responsibilities under EU competition law, including the obligation to refrain from abusing its dominant position by distorting competition such as self-preferencing its own services.​

And this can be if Google has 1% or 99% marketshare

What you mean to say is that a monopoly is not required in order to be found to have a dominant position. Great! It's not required in the US either.

No what I mean to say the classification of a monopoly doesn’t exist. Just as much as the legal term of Undertaking doesn’t exist in the U.S.

 

[BaldiMac]

It wasn’t. But for countries to take and write their own laws by.

Then why are they debating whether to be harder on advertisers if the current regulation isn't softer on advertisers???

Google holds an entrenched economic position in the EU's search market. This imposes special responsibilities under EU competition law, including the obligation to refrain from abusing its dominant position by distorting competition such as self-preferencing its own services.
And this can be if Google has 1% or 99% marketshare

I understand that you want to use certain language. Nobody is stopping you. Doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

And no firm with 1% share will ever be considered to have a dominant position.

 

[Stuwil]

Yup, business 101.

Still business 101. Develop innovative solutions s for customer problems.

Or create a fake competition on your platform to them give yourself an advantage over something that no competitor can actually achieve themselves

 

[surferfb]

Or create a fake competition on your platform to them give yourself an advantage over something that no competitor can actually achieve themselves

So which would you prefer:

• A universe where Bluetooth pairing remains clunky and annoying, but everyone is equal as far as connecting to iOS phones go? Or
• A universe where Apple invents a better way to pair devices, keeps it to itself for 5-6 years (in the meantime showing people how it should be done, which allows Android to introduce a similar feature 2 years after AirPods were introduced), getting an ROI on its investment and rewarded for solving a problem

Because it really sounds like you (and the EU) prefer option one. Or some magical land where Apple invents new features and hands them out for free out of the goodness of its heart.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Then why are they debating whether to be harder on advertisers if the current regulation isn't softer on advertisers???

Oh no they absolutely agree the current law is bad. The issue is how they should balance consumer interests as well as market interest. Example should collecting private data just by default not be allowed and you would need to actively check a box to collect some data. do they want to kill free content?( probably not).

How should it be implemented? In the browser? On the ISP, the websites etc etc

I understand that you want to use certain language. Nobody is stopping you. Doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

Well do the same sentence with Apple. Does it still work?

And no firm with 1% share will ever be considered to have a dominant position.

Well I would put this up as an interesting contender Pierre Cardin/Ahlers (2024)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So which would you prefer:

• A universe where Bluetooth pairing remains clunky and annoying, but everyone is equal as far as connecting to iOS phones go? Or
• A universe where Apple invents a better way to pair devices, keeps it to itself for 5-6 years (in the meantime showing people how it should be done, which allows Android to introduce a similar feature 2 years after AirPods were introduced), getting an ROI on its investment and rewarded for solving a problem

Because it really sounds like you (and the EU) prefer option one. Or some magical land where Apple invents new features and hands them out for free out of the goodness of its heart.

Or 3. Other Bluetooth devices can use the same pairing mechanism as AirPods or Beats while paying a licensing fee to use it with iOS devices.

 

[surferfb]

Or 3. Other Bluetooth devices can use the same pairing mechanism as AirPods or Beats while paying a licensing fee to use it with iOS devices.

That's actually a reasonable compromise (that isn't allowed under the DMA).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Then why are they debating whether to be harder on advertisers if the current regulation isn't softer on advertisers???

And you know asking the citizens of their opinion as well regarding privacy etc something they use to guide how they write the regulations( actually responding to people)

Eurobarometer: call for a high level of privacy protection​

A large majority of the 27,000 respondents to the Eurobarometer survey say that the privacy of their personal information, their online communications and their online behaviour is very important. In particular:

• More than seven in ten (72%) state that it is very important that the confidentiality of their e-mails and online instant messaging is guaranteed.
• More than seven in ten respondents (71%) think it is not acceptable for companies to share information about them without their permission, even if it helps companies to provide new services they might like.
• Almost eight in ten say (78%) it is very important that personal information on their computer, smartphone or tablet can only be accessed with their permission.
• Almost two thirds of respondents (64%) say it is unacceptable to have their online activities monitored in exchange for unrestricted access to a certain website, while four in ten (40%) avoid certain websites because they are worried their online activities would be monitored.
• Almost nine in ten respondents (89%) agree with the proposal that the default settings of their browser should stop their information from being shared.
• Nine in ten agree they should be able to encrypt their messages and calls, so they can only be read by the recipient (90%).
• More than six in ten (61%) say they receive too many unsolicited commercial calls. An almost similar number (59%) would like commercial calls to be displayed with a special prefix.

Public consultation: a mixed picture​

The European Commission also ran a public consultation between 12 April and 5 July on the review of the ePrivacy Directive. 421 replies were received from citizens, consumer and civil society associations, industry actors and public authorities – such as government and national enforcement authorities of the ePrivacy Directive. The key findings of the consultation are:

• 83% of citizens, consumer and civil society organisations responding to the consultation consider it relevant to have specific ePrivacy rules for the electronic communications sector on confidentiality, while 63% of industry respondents do not see this added-value.
• 76% of citizens, consumer and civil society organisations consider that the ePrivacy Directive has been ineffective in achieving its objective of ensuring full protection of privacy and confidentiality of communications across the EU. One of the reasons cited is the limited scope of application of the ePrivacy Directive, excluding over-the-top service providers. On the other hand 57% of industry believes the Directive has achieved this objective.
• 76% of citizens, consumer and civil society organisations and 93% of public authorities believe the rules should (in part) be broadened to cover over-the-top service providers. On the contrary, industry is more divided as 42% do not want the scope to be broadened while 36% do.

Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation

The European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on ePrivacy aims at reinforcing trust and security in the digital world.

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

Three-way negotiations are currently underway between the EU Commission( the technical experts) , the Parliament( elected politicians) and the Council( national governments) of the European Union to reach agreement on the final text of the regulation

 

[d686546s]

I'm commenting sentiment of outside an enthusiasts forum to which you agreed under the premise that regular people don't understand this. If they don't understand this, then they likely aren't even asking for it.

I have explained and given examples why people not thinking about this in terms of closed air open ecosystems and them having opinions on elements of both aren't the same thing.

I have also explained why I don't think that people buying Apple products cannot be read as unequivocal support for closed ecosystems, like it's often interpreted here.

Furthermore, reasons why people buy something can be multiple and someone who likes open ecosystems may still buy an iPhone because they like the hardware. They may even start using non-Apple services if there was more competition. Maybe not.

If you want to reduce all of people's motivation down to their purchasing decision that's your prerogative, but I don't think it's true and it would make for some bad public policy making, least of all because I'd argue that in terms of public policy consumer preference is not the only thing you'd have to consider.

I'm not convinced the majority are asking for it to be an open system. Therefore the law shouldn't be forced unless we have hard data showing otherwise.

Lots of people clearly don't care about copyright laws at all, that doesn't mean we should abolish them.

Arbitrary distinction just like how EU defines gatekeeper status. It's purely subjective to set a threshold of X users or sell X number of devices that you're suddenly treated differently.

It seems like these rules aren't based on principle but based on being against big companies, even if big companies are doing the correct things.

If by arbitrary you mean set by the legislature according to some considerations that a group of humans decided where the right ones, then yes it is about as arbitrary as any law because that's how laws work. It is quite common that someone will decide at which threshold obligations, duties and right apply and whether they will be the same or differ depending on some criteria.

Generally that's a good thing because you wouldn't want to treat your trillion dollar multinational based on the same principles because both are companies.

Whether the DMA sets the right thresholds is obviously a different question, but I find it fairly easy to justify why we should regulate dominating mobile phone platforms -- really there's two and both are now captured -- that more or less everyone uses, to varying degrees, for participation in modern society and video game consoles which a minority of people use to play video games differently.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's actually a reasonable compromise (that isn't allowed under the DMA).

Does it? Where in the DMA do they say headphones, smartwatches or other services not listed in the core platform services does it prevent this? The previous document you shows regarding airdrop etc didn’t seem to say they couldn’t license it

 

[germanbeer007]

Furthermore, reasons why people buy something can be multiple and someone who likes open ecosystems may still buy an iPhone because they like the hardware. They may even start using non-Apple services if there was more competition. Maybe not.

If you want to reduce all of people's motivation down to their purchasing decision that's your prerogative, but I don't think it's true and it would make for some bad public policy making,

then how is enacting laws based on the fact that we don't know if they want open platforms is "good public policy making"?

Lots of people clearly don't care about copyright laws at all, that doesn't mean we should abolish them.

What? Stealing is objectively a bad thing. Making a system open or closed is subjective.

If by arbitrary you mean set by the legislature according to some considerations that a group of humans decided where the right ones, then yes it is about as arbitrary as any law because that's how laws work.

Plenty of laws are based on what is universally considered morally good. Plenty are based on science. Plenty are based on actual data of what people want. This EU law is based on none of these things.

 

[surferfb]

Does it? Where in the DMA do they say headphones, smartwatches or other services not listed in the core platform services does it prevent this? The previous document you shows regarding airdrop etc didn’t seem to say they couldn’t license it

Well technically I guess they still could license a feature like that, but it’d be really stupid to do so, because Apple has to give any interoperability feature like that for free if Apple uses it. (Emphasis mine)

The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system

The headphone thing in particular wasn’t flagged by the EU because Apple already opened it up in a previous version of iOS. But this is why I suspect you’ll never get iPhone mirroring over there; I can’t imagine a universe where Apple lets a third party completely control an iOS device remotely.

Also this is why I’m so anti-DMA in particular. I think this section in particular is a massive overreach. Had they limited themselves to “must allow third party app stores” I’d disagree but not as vehemently as I do currently. I see this as straight up theft.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well technically I guess they still could license a feature like that, but it’d be really stupid to do so, because Apple has to give any interoperability feature like that for free if Apple uses it. (Emphasis mine)

Well if I’m not mistaken don’t it explicitly say they can license it in the work dokument? FRAND is perfectly legal for Apple to use

The headphone thing in particular wasn’t flagged by the EU because Apple already opened it up in a previous version of iOS. But this is why I suspect you’ll never get iPhone mirroring over there; I can’t imagine a universe where Apple lets a third party completely control an iOS device remotely.

Also this is why I’m so anti-DMA in particular. I think this section in particular is a massive overreach. Had they limited themselves to “must allow third party app stores” I’d disagree but not as vehemently as I do currently. I see this as straight up theft.

Well is any such think listed in article 3(9)? Can’t find any references to APIs as well or listed services that you mentioned? Headphones isn’t what I can find flagged for anyone


or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

 

[PlayUltimate]

....so that is deliberately giving them advantage over the competition because then it makes it a selling point to entice people to purchase their products over everyone else’s

Isn't that the point of creating a product? Apple's ecosystem is a selling point and a marketing advantage. Why is that considered a bad thing? Apple does not block bluetooth headphones from connecting to my iPhone. But they design their devices to work in certain ways with their hardware and software. Related question: why doesn't Android change their software to enable my Apple Watch to work seamlessly with it? Why don't the features that my AirPods have with my iPhone exist if try to connect it with and Android phone? There are tons of incompatibilities in the world.

 

[Stuwil]

So which would you prefer:

• A universe where Bluetooth pairing remains clunky and annoying, but everyone is equal as far as connecting to iOS phones go? Or
• A universe where Apple invents a better way to pair devices, keeps it to itself for 5-6 years (in the meantime showing people how it should be done, which allows Android to introduce a similar feature 2 years after AirPods were introduced), getting an ROI on its investment and rewarded for solving a problem

Because it really sounds like you (and the EU) prefer option one. Or some magical land where Apple invents new features and hands them out for free out of the goodness of its heart.

So how can Bose headphones every connect better to iOS than AirPods
Can Bose make software to make them connect better is that possible

 

[PlayUltimate]

Fun fact, on my browser I use a proper browser (Firefox), which allows me to block cookies and cookie walls using uBlock Origin. On my iPhone I am hamstringed by crappy webkit and here I actually do have to click through many more cookie walls. And yes, I do refuse the essential only/refuse all, all the time.

I computer web browser is different from a phone web browser. And, Ublock Origin is an extension and not a part of the browser itself. And if the developer of Ublock Origin chose to, they could develop an extension for Safari on the iPhone. Safari extensions are not disallowed.

 

[Stuwil]

Isn't that the point of creating a product? Apple's ecosystem is a selling point and a marketing advantage. Why is that considered a bad thing? Apple does not block bluetooth headphones from connecting to my iPhone. But they design their devices to work in certain ways with their hardware and software. Related question: why doesn't Android change their software to enable my Apple Watch to work seamlessly with it? Why don't the features that my AirPods have with my iPhone exist if try to connect it with and Android phone? There are tons of incompatibilities in the world.

Because apple don’t want you to use apple airpods or an Apple Watch with android that’s why.
If you want AirPods updated now and don’t own an iPhone anymore the option for you is to take them to the Apple Store so why is that not the question

There is no issue with apple creating products however the problem is not hardware based and specs the problem is deliberately creating software to give your products an advantage over the competition when none of these competitors will be able to achieve that

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I computer web browser is different from a phone web browser. And, Ublock Origin is an extension and not a part of the browser itself. And if the developer of Ublock Origin chose to, they could develop an extension for Safari on the iPhone. Safari extensions are not disallowed.

Yea… but he would have to pay 99€/ year for a free extension