Nobody is saying apple is a public utility
However there would be no issue at all
If it wasn’t gatekeeper tactics
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
However there would be no issue at all
If it wasn’t gatekeeper tactics
Fair enough. I’d certainly argue that how people actually behave is a far better measure than how they’d answer a survey.
But your question about lower prices gets to the heart of things. Because the only way prices are significantly lower is if developers don’t have to pay for platform access.
I think the fundamental flaw in the whole approach of the DMA is that it assumes that there is a value in other stores and side loading. I think the problems are better addressed directly rather than obfuscating it through unnecessary middlemen.
Is Apple’s commission too high? Limit it. Especially in categories where they compete such as music.
Does Apple limit innovation and competition through app approval? Form an appeals board that can override Apple on app types.
Limit Apple without making engineering and UI decisions for them.
Last edited:
Of course there should be competition between platform, just as much as there needs to be an opportunity for genuine competition on these platforms.
I fully acknowledge that it's a delicate balance between not preventing platform providers from innovating to improve their platforms, while also limiting their ability to leverage their platforms to stifle competition.
It’s funny that is always certain commentators attitude regarding things like the DMA
A logical and straight forward attitude. What's funny about it?
Perhaps consumer interest should be gauged with proper statistically significant data before EU enacted the DMA instead of blindly assuming most consumers want what the DMA is attempting to achieve.
Or even independent studies to determine if the behavior claimed to be harmful actually was.
They skipped over that step entirely.
Well, to be fair, this goes both ways.
It’s the same group of all of us in every thread on all this.
Lol
Makes me wonder if we should hang it up.
😂
Fixing that problem is not as easy as selling your iphone and buying an android. If it was, why do we have this whole conversation in the first place?
You later mention that the correct answer is to vote with your wallet. We have a duopoly, it's just android with different flavours and iOS. "Voting with your wallet" works when you're buying groceries, but is harder to justify with few players.
Closed ecosystems and encryption is a false equivalence, because encryption can, and is, provided by open-source software. There is nothing about protecting your data that requires trusting a company to do so, no matter the guarantees. Apple is subject to the Patriot act and US / Chinese privacy laws as the publicly traded company it is.
No one is taking away your choice to use Apple and iOS-only products. There's nothing about the DMA that brings such downsides.
Bringing up security in 2025 as a reason to buy an iphone is honestly an out of touch point. I mean yeah you could make this argument back during the Galaxy S4 days. Simplicity remains, admittedly, a great reason to use Apple.
The point is that iPhone+Android is a duopoly, but you only see the "monopoly" part, which is an argument for a half-truth logical fallacy. I mean no one can come up with an alternative because everything has to work with Google (ask Microsoft how that ended, and Huawei gets extremely high infusions from the Chinese government). If you honestly believe Apple and Google won because "they're just better than the competition" you're drinking a big fat kool-aid, you're basically presenting a rose-tinted version of corporate wars. The only way to beat Apple and Google would be some sort of state-sponsored tech services, like China is doing, although I'd personally like to see the EU come up with an alternative since the Chinese government is not the most trustworthy source in the world.
And if that's the conclusion, then you can understand why antitrust lawsuits are ongoing against big tech. if the democrats win midterms next year and the EU successfully forces user replaceable batteries, I think this forum will be extremely heated.
So they say…
Meta and Yandex’s ‘Local Mess’ Exploit Seemingly Only Works on Android
Link to: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/06/meta-and-yandex-are-de-anonymizing-android-users-web-browsing-identifiers/
daringfireball.net
As the discussion rages on, I grow increasingly convinced that the arguments for sideloading are too superficial and shortsighted. Maybe there is this one or two apps that are nice to have on iOS which currently aren’t allowed, and maybe it’s nice to be able to reply to incoming notifications on your pebble watch, and at what cost in the long term to the security of your device?
No fake competition. Competition between apple Music and Spotify is similar to competition between the wsj and New York post because they are both news sources.
People are saying in this thread Apple is being tuned into a public utility. Theee are no gatekeeper tactics. But there we go using the DMA as a benchmark instead of relevant case law.
This argument against sideloading often overlooks that improved interoperability doesn’t have to come at the cost of security. Apple already reviews apps - even those distributed outside the App Store - so it's not unreasonable to expect they could maintain oversight over apps using APIs used for wearable integration.
They'd just need to step up. They talk big about how seriously they take security, but they also need to walk the walk.
Sounds like a whole bunch of extra work for Apple for no financial benefit to itself.
Which is, frankly, the depressing state of the tech industry. Apple doesn't want to make their phone more interoperable with different kinds of devices because it doesn't directly sell more phones.
It would make their product better by opening the door to all kinds of new capabilities and experiences, but again, that doesn't sell phones. Apparently, only half-baked AI does.
Everything any company does is aimed at selling more of its product. If a feature or service doesn't provide more revenue, it gets cut. Sure, features that customers really like are important, but only in relation to more potential revenue for the company.
This is where I think the EU often goes off track. Companies and consumers need a symbiotic relationship. If everything protects the consumer without regard to companies, you end up creating mediocre stuff that is forced to do everything without doing anything particularly well (Windows). Companies are incentivized by consumers' money, nothing more.
Everything in business is done for strategic benefit. Apple does not open up their platform because they believe that’s what results in the best user experience for the end users (it’s an opinion that I continue to hold). It’s clearly not a position that everybody agrees with (given that they command only a small portion of the overall smartphone market), but their incredible profits show that the people who do, value the Apple ecosystem enough to be willing to pay a premium for it.
I am one such person. I buy Apple products not despite their limitations but because of them, and I am used to the whole world telling me that I am wrong for choosing overpriced and underspecced devices and for favouring closed ecosystems. None of it mattered because I was the one using these products for my own benefit, not them. I know what works for me and what doesn’t.
Shame if this is truly how it all ends. 🥲
Remember too, the EU is demanding that third parties be able to run their apps unfettered in the background to make all this interactivity work.
Do we really trust Meta, who was recently busted de-anonymizing user browser history data with unfettered background access for their smart glasses?
And more importantly, do those of you arguing for “integration” really think more than 1% of users understand what privacy they’d be giving up?
Do we really trust Meta, who was recently busted de-anonymizing user browser history data with unfettered background access for their smart glasses?
And more importantly, do those of you arguing for “integration” really think more than 1% of users understand what privacy they’d be giving up?
Oh I know that. Doesn't make it less depressing though.
We can agree to disagree on this point.
I don't see how this ends the closed ecosystem for you?
It ends it the same way that privacy is mostly gone. There are cameras on people's homes, on the streets etc. If I don't want to have my picture taken by someone, then I can't leave my house. Email addresses are required to access more and more things. I had to get my car registration taken care of today. The only option is to do it online. And I to pay the bill I must give them a cell phone number and an email address. For Apple's ecosystem, it is either open or closed. The argument seems to be that part of may remain closed and I could use that part. Seems like arguing that the house is secure because the front door is locked despite all of the windows being open.
You realize the doors and windows are only open if you decide to open them, right? Same with this interoperability thing. Nobody's going to force a Garmin watch onto your wrist.
It could however prevent future new features from coming to the Apple Watch if Apple is not prepared to make them an available to third parties as well (ala iPhone mirroring on the Mac).
now Apple Music and Spotify might be streaming services however on iOS Spotify is at a disadvantage compared with Apple Music regarding certain things