This privacy argument is a joke because the majority people give up their data in various situations
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
That some people could be 1%?or 99%. And you’re still to stuck on user interest as the only valid data point. As well as a gross lack of understanding for what data is available. What they want. How they went about picking options etc
User behavior is very poor gauge when the reasoning behind their behavior is more nuanced. And EU doesn’t assume thers value in sideloading. They value competition and choice to undertakers. I can’t for the life of me why you would prefer EU actually meddled in business decisions they have no interest in such as arbitrary limits on commissions, appeal boards. The DMA isn’t targeting Apple, but a bunch of behavioral issues and companies.
There is impact assessments. There is studies that EU actually does. Thers is always data behind their regulations. Why I always have to look them up for everyone else who just makes empty claims of( but they don’t know what users think, they have no studies, they haven’t done x or y) without any evidence or proof whatsoever.
Apple have probably the strongest support by EU to do things related to privacy. The DMA can demeans the same treatment by Apple. Not something else. And there’s about zero privacy sacrifices. The thing mera does will land them a gigantic fine in EU🤷♂️
Well it isn’t the data support what people are very displeased about giving up their data. Or don’t even want to.
I don’t think anyone other than the platform owner should be able to run unfettered processes in the background. It will absolutely reduce privacy, battery life, and performance, making users’ experiences worse. And they aren’t going to blame Meta or the EU when their battery doesn’t last anymore or their data gets stolen, they’ll blame Apple.
Mobile phones aren’t desktop computers and the idea that third parties should be able to be running daemons and writing drivers is insane. It’s the exact sort of thinking that led to Crowdstrike. But rather than admitting “yeah, maybe we shouldn’t have done that” they’re doubling down.
And while the EU claims Microsoft never said anything about how dangerous what they ordered was, Apple is telling them loudly and clearly this is a really bad idea. And they’re ignoring Apple and pressing on anyway.
Because maybe the EU thinks that apple use privacy and such things as an excuse
Well, here is a pretty good example as to why it isn't an excuse. That exploit Meta was using only works on Android. Emphasis mine:
I wonder why that is? Maybe Apple has a point? Maybe some of its decisions that limit developers are actually in the end user's best interest?
No, that can't be it. They're just greedy.
They already are putting limits on commissions and forcing Apple to allow different types of apps. They're just doing it indirectly. To say they have "no interest" in what they are already doing doesn't make any sense. I just prefer bureaucrats do it in a way that they are good at (bureaucracy) instead of what they're bad at (engineering, UI)
I agree. Spotify is at a disadvantage because it’s a worse platform. Not for any other reason.
This is a meme. Giving the keys to my house to a trusted someone who then robs you is much different than a neer do well breaking in and robbing you.
Apple already chooses not to bring new features to the Apple Watch. It's been pretty stagnant for a few years now - we've even lost features (in the US, Blood Oxygen).
Given the context of this discussion and these EU threads, it's sort of funny that was from Apple inappropriately using someone else's IP.
(Apple ain't no saint here folks -- let's stop catering to their preferred business & marketing narratives about what is "right" or "wrong")
Lucky us then that Apple doesn’t run any such processes in the background that meta can request access to. As well as the strict privacy rules ( fully within GDPR rules ). You’re mistaking just because it’s possible on Android that iOS has any such requirements.
Again iOS isn’t Android, and it doesn’t allow any such think by Apple= nobody else can demand it either.
Then Apple will have a clearcut case and I will eat crow. But currently what apple is required doesn’t put more privacy risks as only what iOS allows Is what’s required.
Apple could put in draconian privacy policies and blame it on EU and they will 9/10 be protected by EU laws
Justice was served to Apple right? It’s funny to ding Apple when justice has been served. The eu governing body clearly was out to get Apple .
Consumer protection and product safety exist outside of the EU.
Well lucky us that Apple doesn’t need to allow any such permissions. And Meta will get a very big fine for violating users privacy for 8 years. So a few billions in fines perhaps.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...-and-meta-will-never-agree-about-privacy/amp/
And I don’t think Meta have any case against Apple 🤷♂️ because EU was willing to block Facebook access over some privacy concerns when faced with the threat of pulling out.
Apple can have absolutely any commission on IAP or AppStore purchases. If they want they can have 99% 🤷♂️.
Well the commission is made up of experts. And parliament has about 60~% STEM educated politicians.
Well to be fair… the U.S. have fairly weak consumer if not nonexistent consumer protections and safety standards
Source for that? If Apple has to give Meta the same access that Apple gets, doesn't that inherently mean a higher level of permission than currently allowed for third-parties?
As far as I can tell, the interoperability standards that third-party devices must be permitted to do everything Apple’s own devices do when it comes to communicating or interoperating with iPhones and iPads, even if that requires allowing those third-party companies to install and run system-level background processes with broad privileges on iOS.
In your opinion, is there any legitimate reason for Apple to have higher level access than third parties in iOS?
This is nothing but disingenuous ********. You know fully well that there are circumstances where Apple is limited in what they can charge and even if they can charge. Because we discussed it recently.
I couldn't care less.
I can cite explicit text later if you require it
In what service that Apple uses high level permissions are related to any of their CPS that meta could plausibly use?
I could possibly try and steealman such points if it has any legal basis( stronly, weakly or zero) but then I would need some narrow examples.
Example with apples arguing that they were required to provide IAP for free I can’t find any way to spin the DMA to require it. ( Apple did argue they were)
I would even go further there’s not a single legitimate justification Meta or Google can do to argue that they need any
But even that, most of the APIs Apple uses exclusively doesn’t require higher level access to function. They are just privileged as what apps can use them.
In my legal opinion if you want to i could provide legal counters or responses to whatever these potential requests might be.
The DMA, DSA, GDPR as well as apples API documentation( you can read the preamble in the DMA).
In what service that Apple uses high level permissions are related to any of their CPS that meta could plausibly use?
My interpretation is that no such requirement can’t be argued on legal basis. Especially when Apple doesn’t have direct access to anybody the information. Apple can just allow existing APIs that do the same thing, make new APIs that enable the functionality without any privacy violations. If Apple allowed drivers and background processors they would be long past the line of legal obligations.
I could possibly try and steealman such points if it has any legal basis( stronly, weakly or zero) but then I would need some narrow examples.
Example with apples arguing that they were required to provide IAP for free I can’t find any way to spin the DMA to require it. ( Apple did argue they were)
Yes in anything that Apple doesn’t directly compete with any app/ service providers being 99~+% of their APIs in my estimation
I would even go further there’s not a single legitimate justification Meta or Google can do to argue that they need any
But even that, most of the APIs Apple uses exclusively doesn’t require higher level access to function. They are just privileged as what apps can use them.
In my legal opinion if you want to i could provide legal counters or responses to whatever these potential requests might be.
Haven’t i stated before that the DMA say that alternative payment must be free of charge? Eve so back as 2022?
I think there are cases where Apple can’t reasonably offer equivalent functionality to third-party devices without allowing persistent background access. So I will concede that the DMA doesn't explicitly require allowing high-level permissions, but it does say "you have to allow others to have the same features you give yourself", and certain features by definition require a background daemon or process running, then yes, the DMA requires giving third parties the ability to do that.
Two examples jump to mind. That said, I’m happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable. I'm about at my limit of understanding how these features work.
Universal Clipboard:
To do this, a third-party device would need to:
• Continuously monitor the clipboard for changes (requires a background process)
• Transmit clipboard contents securely to other nearby devices
• Inject data into the receiving device’s clipboard buffer
I don’t think this is something they can “just make an API for” without significant architectural tradeoffs. Apple would either have to allow a third-party daemon or fundamentally alter sandboxing - which would absolutely come with privacy and security implications that I don't think you can just waive away.
Device Unlock via Watch:
For a third-party smartwatch to unlock the iPhone like Apple Watch can, it would need:
• Always-on proximity sensing and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi negotiation
• A trusted identity framework tied to the OS
• Background execution to trigger the unlock action passively
Again, this requires privileged access not currently available to third-party devices. I don’t think it’s realistic to say they can “just create APIs” and check the box. These are deep integration points that go to the core of iOS. And unlocking the device absolutely has security and privacy implications. Which is why I think you're never getting iPhone mirroring in the EU.
That's certainly one of your arguments that I was referring to. You've also argued that a commission on some alternative payments should be limited to the value of initial acquisition. So not much consistency there.
Like I said, the EU is already limiting Apple's commission. That was my point.
Was it, though? My understanding is that they're still selling watches with blood oxygen in every other country. So they stole technology from an American company and sell that stolen tech in every other market except the US because the company they stole from cannot prevent them from doing so.
Does that sound like justice to you?
What a 2 trillion dollar company cares about their customers and not to maximise profit margins?
If all Apple cared about was maximizing profit margins they would do a lot of stuff that they don't. Obviously profits are incredibly important to any company, but they're not the end all and be all.
Some examples of things Apple doesn't currently do that could earn it more profit/cost them less money:
- Build detail behavioral profiles of users; share/sell this data to advertisers
- Running thing on device rather in the cloud (more expensive to do on device AND arguably results in worse results)
- Not offer end-to-end encryption for iCloud/iMessage etc. so they could mine it for data
- Accept bloatware from companies that pay to be pre-installed on iOS
- Insert ads into the Lock Screen/UX
In the real world, two things can be true at once. The can care about users and care about profits. Sometimes one has priority over the other. Sometimes they both lead to the same decision.