Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[d686546s]

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

What I am saying is that there can be good reasons to enable open platforms regardless, for example because increased competition could drive down prices or because better market access could enable services that are otherwise not available in a market or, yes, to enable local companies to compete.

Ignoring all of this because people like iPhones feels like bad policy to me.

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

Copyright laws exist because people decided they should exist. Copyrights are protected the way they are because people decided that's how they should be protected.


But your only test so far has been 'do consumers want it?'. Not creators, creatives, businesses, competitors etc, just consumers.

Now, polemically, one might question how committed to copyright laws consumers actually are considering much piracy is still going on. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the poster child against piracy seems to have played fast and loose with copyright.

And as far as businesses are concerned, whole industries have sprung up based on the use of massive amounts of copyrighted information without compensating anyone.

So really, if consumers don't want it, do we actually need copyright laws? That's your argument, after all.

 

[Abazigal]

If that is the case, the only one not caring for the end user is Apple. The EU is not responsible for Apple not willing to comply with the law, and arbitrarily limiting features in Europe.

Just like how the EU is not responsible for Crowdstrike, despite them being the ones who passsd legislation decades ago which prevented Microsoft from fixing the issues that would subsequently lead to it. And we got a bunch of invasive antivirus software and anti-cheat game systems to show for it.

Unintended consequences is a very real thing, and I think more people need to acknowledge this. Somehow, only the people in this forum seem convinced that they are somehow able to have their cake and eat it too (and show Apple the middle finger while at it), rather than see all of this for what it is - a bundle of tradeoffs. At the end of the day, people may not necessarily be better off. They are simply trading one set of pros and cons for another.

And as with any paradigm shift, there will always be winners and losers. Sometimes, the drawbacks just won’t be apparent until years into the future. Who knows - maybe one day, we may all be reminiscing the “good old days” when all apps could be found in one central App Store and it was easier to purchase and manage everything”. 😛

 

[macjoshua]

The Mac

What makes the Mac great is the ecosystem. What sets it apart is how well it syncs between all my devices and ties into Apple services. If you don't take advantage of those things, what's the point of using a Mac?

If Apple can't have control over that, it changes the entire business and user experience model they've based all of their R&D on. There would be much less incentive for them to innovate, and potentially abandon hardware in favor of mostly focusing on software.

 

[PlayUltimate]

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.

Reading the DMA website , you can see that individuals get to decide whether a company is a gatekeeper on based on some non-objective standard. Thus, some were chosen to be included and others excluded due to "feelings" of the selection committee. Further, it seems that the remedies whimsical as well. Laws generally are based on some objective standard. For example, speed limits, theft et al. The courts can argue about how severe the penalty should be, if any, based upon the severity of the crime. But there is often little argument that a crime was committed. The DMA does not seem to work that way.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Just like how the EU is not responsible for Crowdstrike, despite them being the ones who passsd legislation decades ago which prevented Microsoft from fixing the issues that would subsequently lead to it. And we got a bunch of invasive antivirus software and anti-cheat game systems to show for it.

Please don’t lie. Absolutely nothing prevented Microsoft from fixing the security issue. If Microsoft uses a unsecured system then that’s on them.

Unintended consequences is a very real thing, and I think more people need to acknowledge this. Somehow, only the people in this forum seem convinced that they are somehow able to have their cake and eat it too (and show Apple the middle finger while at it), rather than see all of this for what it is - a bundle of tradeoffs. At the end of the day, people may not necessarily be better off. They are simply trading one set of pros and cons for another.

And as with any paradigm shift, there will always be winners and losers. Sometimes, the drawbacks just won’t be apparent until years into the future. Who knows - maybe one day, we may all be reminiscing the “good old days” when all apps could be found in one central App Store and it was easier to purchase and manage everything”. 😛

Indeed there’s tradeoffs. But there’s no need to exaggerate or make things up. Will users face less security by sideloading? Probably. But there’s no need to put blame on regulators when it’s laziness on the companies making thr choice to do nothing because they think it’s worth the tradeoff.

 

[PlayUltimate]

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

So it's a money thing not an ability thing. Just like those "fighting" to open up iOS based upon some noble virtue when it is actually all about the $$$.

 

[d686546s]

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.

The idea is that Apple should be able to make its products work with Android should they choose, rather than Android having to make the Apple Watch work.

So if Apple wanted to sell Apple Watches to Android users, then Google or Samsung or whoever shouldn't be able to prevent that and make certain features available to Apple, but of course no one is forcing Apple to do any of this.

 

[Abazigal]

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

So what exactly is Bose’s solution to this on windows and Android then? Has Bose been magically able to resolve this issue somehow on other more open platforms, or is it simply not an issue because nobody else has solved it, so everybody is equally behind in this regard?

Please don’t lie. Absolutely nothing prevented Microsoft from fixing the security issue. If Microsoft uses a unsecured system then that’s on them.

Crashes and Competition

The recent Windows crashes are downstream from trying to encourage competition in areas Microsoft should have never made open to begin with, highlighting the challenge for regulators.

stratechery.com

To be clear, restricting access to kernel space would not have made an issue like this impossible: after all, Microsoft, by definition, will always have access to kernel space, and they could very well issue an update that crashes not just 1% of the world’s Windows computers, but all of them. This, though, raises the question of incentives: is there any company both more motivated and better equipped than Microsoft to not make this sort of mistake, given the price they are paying today for a mistake that wasn’t even their fault?

What does seem clear to me is that the way to answer hard questions is to not seek to freeze technology in time but rather to consider how many regulatory obsessions — including Windows dominance — are ultimately addressed by technology getting better, not by regulators treating mistaken assumptions (like operating system openness being an unalloyed good) as unchangeable grounds for competition.

Reading the DMA website , you can see that individuals get to decide whether a company is a gatekeeper on based on some non-objective standard.

The laws were basically crafted to target specific companies, so that the EU didn’t have to deal with other companies like Nintendo which do sport identical business practices.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Reading the DMA website , you can see that individuals get to decide whether a company is a gatekeeper on based on some non-objective standard. Thus, some were chosen to be included and others excluded due to "feelings" of the selection committee. Further, it seems that the remedies whimsical as well. Laws generally are based on some objective standard. For example, speed limits, theft et al. The courts can argue about how severe the penalty should be, if any, based upon the severity of the crime. But there is often little argument that a crime was committed. The DMA does not seem to work that way.

You can just read the DMA as they lost the literal criteria’s. As well as the ability to contest the designation as multiple firms have done. Microsoft bing and Samsung galaxy store for example where removed as gatekeepers.

Check 👉Article 3

Designation of gatekeepers

So it's a money thing not an ability thing. Just like those "fighting" to open up iOS based upon some noble virtue when it is actually all about the $$$.

And as I found it hasn’t worked for newer safari v13

… or he is providing something for free and doesn’t want to pay Apple 99€ a year. Or it could go against the AppStore policies and therefore doesn’t bother with a free software

 

[d686546s]

Just like how the EU is not responsible for Crowdstrike, despite them being the ones who passsd legislation decades ago which prevented Microsoft from fixing the issues that would subsequently lead to it. And we got a bunch of invasive antivirus software and anti-cheat game systems to show for it.

I assume there's plenty of nuance in what Microsoft could have done differently, what obligations it actually had under the agreement and how it could have amended its products to be both compliant and mitigate the risk that ultimately happened.

In other words, third-party security vendors must get the same access as Microsoft's own products. Which, on the face of it, is fair enough.

However, nothing in that undertaking would have prevented Microsoft from creating an out-of-kernel API for it and other security vendors to use. Instead, CrowdStrike and its ilk run at a low enough level in the kernel to maximize visibility for anti-malware purposes. The flip side is this can cause mayhem should something go wrong. Source

Unintended consequences is a very real thing, and I think more people need to acknowledge this. Somehow, only the people in this forum seem convinced that they are somehow able to have their cake and eat it too (and show Apple the middle finger while at it), rather than see all of this for what it is - a bundle of tradeoffs. At the end of the day, people may not necessarily be better off. They are simply trading one set of pros and cons for another.

There are always trade offs, that much is true, as are unintended consequences, but that's no different to maintaining the status quo.

 

[I7guy]

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

Or create compelling features that are unique to your platform. That differentiates yourself from the competitors. Business 101.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Crashes and Competition

The recent Windows crashes are downstream from trying to encourage competition in areas Microsoft should have never made open to begin with, highlighting the challenge for regulators.

stratechery.com

Why is CrowdStrike allowed to run in the Windows kernel? | Computer Weekly

Microsoft has pointed the finger at EU regulators, blaming them for a ruling that means it needs to offer third parties access to the core Windows OS.

www.computerweekly.com

What is clear is that prior to CrowdStrike, Microsoft had not publicly raised security concerns over the security risks of providing the access to the same application programming interfaces (APIs) that Microsoft uses internally.

I’m sorry but the fact Microsoft opted to continue an unsecured access to the kernel is squarely in their ballpark. They had APIs, they could have used them but chose not to while raising zero security concerns and continued tonusenit instead of implementing a secure access mechanism. macOS didn’t suffer any issue because Apple at least knew how to properly code in security functions without needing to access it themselves.

The laws were basically crafted to target specific companies, so that the EU didn’t have to deal with other companies like Nintendo which do sport identical business practices.

Nintendo doesn’t meet the gatekeeper criteria not have any relevant platforms either.

 

[Abazigal]

[

Nintendo doesn’t meet the gatekeeper criteria not have any relevant platforms either.

Because the criteria were crafted to not include them. Why does one arbitrary quantity of user base result in you being designated a gatekeeper but not another?

 

[surferfb]

Why is CrowdStrike allowed to run in the Windows kernel? | Computer Weekly

Microsoft has pointed the finger at EU regulators, blaming them for a ruling that means it needs to offer third parties access to the core Windows OS.

www.computerweekly.com

I’m sorry but the fact Microsoft opted to continue an unsecured access to the kernel is squarely in their ballpark. They had APIs, they could have used them but chose not to while raising zero security concerns and continued tonusenit instead of implementing a secure access mechanism. macOS didn’t suffer any issue because Apple at least knew how to properly code in security functions without needing to access it themselves.

The fact of the matter is had the EU not intervened, the crash wouldn’t have happened. Period. End of story.

Nintendo doesn’t meet the gatekeeper criteria not have any relevant platforms either.

If the the DMA is just about competition why is it ok when Nintendo does it? Why were they excluded? I mean YouTube is a “gatekeeper.”

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because the criteria were crafted to not include them. Why does one arbitrary quantity of user base result in you being designated a gatekeeper but not another?

Nintendo is a microscopic company in Europe. How where they to be included?
Is there even a million users in Europe?

 

[surferfb]

Nintendo is a microscopic company in Europe. How where they to be included?
Is there even a million users in Europe?

As of March 31, 2025, Nintendo has sold approximately 39.2 million Nintendo Switch consoles across Europe.

(Yes Europe != EU)

List of best-selling game consoles by region - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As of March 31, 2025, Nintendo has sold approximately 39.2 million Nintendo Switch consoles across Europe.

(Yes Europe != EU)

List of best-selling game consoles by region - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So they aren’t a gatekeeper for the same reasons that Xbox and PlayStation isn’t included. Perhaps when they become an entrenched company and consoles are deemed relevant for the internal market.

The fact of the matter is had the EU not intervened, the crash wouldn’t have happened. Period. End of story.

Had Microsoft not been incompetent it wouldn’t happen either. Direct Kernel access is insane even for your own software.

They raised zero security concerns for over 15 years.

 

[ToothBlueth]

So it's a money thing not an ability thing. Just like those "fighting" to open up iOS based upon some noble virtue when it is actually all about the $$$.

Safari has also a severly impaired addon system compared to proper browsers.

 

[surferfb]

So they aren’t a gatekeeper for the same reasons that Xbox and PlayStation isn’t included. Perhaps when they become an entrenched company and consoles are deemed relevant for the internal market.

So an arbitrary “because the EU says so”. I thought you were for competition!

Had Microsoft not been incompetent it wouldn’t happen either. Direct Kernel access is insane even for your own software.

They raised zero security concerns for over 15 years.

It wouldn’t have mattered. The EU keeps waving away Apple’s security concerns. (Because they’re not experts and shouldn’t be regulating what they don’t understand)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What makes the Mac great is the ecosystem. What sets it apart is how well it syncs between all my devices and ties into Apple services. If you don't take advantage of those things, what's the point of using a Mac?

I can tell you what makes the Mac great isn’t the AppStore, but the MacOS

If Apple can't have control over that, it changes the entire business and user experience model they've based all of their R&D on. There would be much less incentive for them to innovate, and potentially abandon hardware in favor of mostly focusing on software.

Making money and selling products tends to be the motivator. Innovation tends to be highly motivated so you don’t go out of business. It’s literally their obsession with services that have killed their innovation it seems in regards to software and hardware.

I do wonder what happens if Apple can’t make any money from the AppStore. Will they then just kill the iPhone? will it be abandoned like their Mac devision after the Macappstore flopped? And again now that the vision is a colossal failure?

I guess Apple will just close shop because they can’t do whatever they want…

I assume there's plenty of nuance in what Microsoft could have done differently, what obligations it actually had under the agreement and how it could have amended its products to be both compliant and mitigate the risk that ultimately happened.


There are always trade offs, that much is true, as are unintended consequences, but that's no different to maintaining the status quo.

Interesting for me is that EU actually regularly conducts Euroipsos pols tobaks citizens and people what they think regarding policy decisions, opinions in relevant questions etc.

But for some reason everyone thinks they just make things without any public consultation or input

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So an arbitrary “because the EU says so”. I thought you were for competition!

What competition isn’t there? You can buy Nintendo games from their digital stores in physical locations, preowned, keys etc

On the Xbox I’m soon to get steam so that’s a win for me(allegedly). On the ps5 the store have ApplePay

It wouldn’t have mattered. The EU keeps waving away Apple’s security concerns. (Because they’re not experts and shouldn’t be regulating what they don’t understand)

… politicians aren’t the ones writing the regulations, but technical experts, academics and engineers . Just compare how unintelligent the vast majority of U.S. technical legislation is drafted and overloaded by legal jargon by technically illiterates.

It would because the requirement stated ” the same”. Implementation of a proper API wasn’t prevented. How is this so hard to grasp that how to meet most requirements it’s completely up to them to decide and show how it meets the requirements.

Considering they are capable of constructing some of the best banking systems in the world in regards to safety standards I think they have shown competence when technical details are needed. P

 

[Abazigal]

So they aren’t a gatekeeper for the same reasons that Xbox and PlayStation isn’t included. Perhaps when they become an entrenched company and consoles are deemed relevant for the internal market.

Well, if the EU wants to blow up Apple’s business model, then I say - blow them all up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On the ps5 the store have ApplePay

I assume that Sony will still get their 30% cut regardless of what payment system is used? I suppose there is no way for a game developer to publish a game for the PS5 while still hoping to keep 100% of revenue (minus payment processing), I take it. 🙂

 

[turbineseaplane]

Safari has also a severly impaired addon system compared to proper browsers.

Yeah, I really hate being forced to use gimped-fari on iOS, especially on my iPad.

It honestly makes me use it less and go use my Mac more often, which maybe is a good thing anyhow.

🤷‍♂️

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well, if the EU wants to blow up Apple’s business model, then I say - blow them all up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

First EU isn’t blowing up apples business model just because partnofnit must change to allow competition.

And to be fair had Apple done like Sony and Microsoft as in IAP content is listed in the store instead of in the game then they probably could get away with it

I assume that Sony will still get their 30% cut regardless of what payment system is used? I suppose there is no way for a game developer to publish a game for the PS5 while still hoping to keep 100% of revenue (minus payment processing), I take it. 🙂

Well considering how über greedy Sony tends to be( just a few steps below Nintendo) I’m more surprised they implemented ApplePay.

Well I have purchased and sold many preownerd Xbox and Sony games across the globe, online and in stores. Never chave I payed any commission to them 🤷‍♂️. And it’s competition in my book as well as cleverly listed revenue share model for physical games such as console logo use etc

 

[surferfb]

Well I have purchased and sold many preownerd Xbox and Sony games across the globe, online and in stores. Never chave I payed any commission to them 🤷‍♂️. And it’s competition in my book as well as cleverly listed revenue share model for physical games such as console logo use etc

I have a digital PS5. No disc drive. How do I buy a game without paying Sony?