Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[nebo1ss]

Thank goodness I don't live in an EU country.

Everyday we in Europe are thankful we don't live in the craziness of USA where Democracy no longer exist.

 

[I7guy]

because they make the OS that’s why they’re devices connect better because they have access to the code so they can make changes unlike 3rd parties who can’t magically make their devices connect better to iOS

There is no connect better. Bluetooth is a standard. All supported bluetooth devices can connect to supported hardware.

So in turn they are deliberately giving themselves an advantage over the competition it’s not about price or hardware or design.

Manufacturers of for profit consumer oriented companies always make hardware and software that works together seamlessly.

Its just a company to me and that’s all

Agree it’s just a company. That spends billions in r&d and afore to give away its intellectual property to any who ask. The eunolays Robin Hood with Apple.

So if for example if they are required to offer companies access to software that make devices connect better and companies to have access to more compatible then so be it

It doesn’t make it right and hence the wsj points out the innovation dilemma. Innovation to the eu looks like the DMA.

It’s just silly taken things personally when governments or courts legislate against a company

Agreed. But nothing personal here. Just the facts.

 

[Stuwil]

There is no connect better. Bluetooth is a standard. All supported bluetooth devices can connect to supported hardware.

Manufacturers of for profit consumer oriented companies always make hardware and software that works together seamlessly.

Agree it’s just a company. That spends billions in r&d and afore to give away its intellectual property to any who ask. The eunolays Robin Hood with Apple.

It doesn’t make it right and hence the wsj points out the innovation dilemma. Innovation to the eu looks like the DMA.

Agreed. But nothing personal here. Just the facts.

It’s ok say you think of apple more than a company like a Doctor

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Well I’m willing to concede that they are prevented from applying a commission on everything, but not having a commission. And am willing to accept if Apple could demonstrate this value through some means as they contested the initial user accusation as a poor value evaluation.

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.

Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple is under no legal obligation to expose system-level background servicessuch as those underpinning Universal Clipboard or Watch-based Device Unlock to third parties. These features do not constitute standalone Core Platform Services (CPS) under DMA Article 2(2).

Apple’s responsibilities relate to the fair treatment of third parties within the defined scope of CPS like operating systems, app stores, and browsers. Clipboard sync and secure device unlock are ancillary OS functions tightly integrated into Apple’s hardware and software stack. Their deep coupling with system daemons, sandbox restrictions, and Secure Enclave security mechanisms exempts them from DMA interoperability mandates in any shape you seem to argue on such a deep level.

Apple Lacks Direct Access to Plaintext Data:

Both features employ zero-knowledge architecture, Universal Clipboard uses end-to-end encryption in iCloud, while Watch-Unlock relies on Secure Enclave private keys. Apple cannot “withhold” data it never accesses in unencrypted form.

Existing APIs Deliver Equivalent Functionality:

Current building blocks can replicate these features without compromising security architecture through alternative implementation paths that satisfy the DMA’s “equivalent access” requirement.

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.

It is incorrect to assume third parties cannot deliver comparable clipboard functionality without unrestricted background access. Apple already provides
Comprehensive Existing API Foundation:
Apple’s current API ecosystem already provides the necessary building blocks:

• UIPasteboard/NSPasteboard: Direct clipboard read/write access for foreground applications
• NSUserActivity (Handoff): Cross-device state synchronization with automatic device discovery
• CloudKit: Silent push notifications and secure cloud storage for cross-device data sync
• Core Data with CloudKit: Automatic synchronization of app data across user devices

These APIs can be combined to deliver cross-device clipboard functionality without requiring new background daemon access. The solution provides equivalent user outcomes with the existing security Enclave Apple have on device.

Security Exception Application: Exposing clipboard monitoring daemons to arbitrary third parties could violate GDPR’s data minimization principles and create unacceptable attack vectors, triggering the DMA’s explicit security carve-outs in Articles 6(1)(f) and 6(7). This is because of how Apple have implemented it.

Legal Framework Provides Defensive Positions
Scope Limitations:
Universal Clipboard is not enumerated as a distinct Core Platform Service under Article 2(2) and The DMA’s obligations target specific unfair practices, not every system integration point.

The clipboard data transmitted via apples Universal Clipboard Function is E2EE, with Apple lacking access to the plaintext. This zero-knowledge model eliminates any argument that Apple is “withholding” data under the DMA.
Granting arbitrary background clipboard monitors to third parties would violate iOS security policy, break sandboxing principles, and likely contradict GDPR Article 32 and NIS2 Directive obligations for platform integrity.

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.

The Apple Watch unlock feature relies on system components such as proximity detection, biometric fallback, and Secure Enclave validation. However, DMA compliance does not require Apple to expose these deeply privileged operations only to provide equivalent interoperability opportunities could be argued that Third-party wearable makers can already access:

• CoreBluetooth / ExternalAccessory: For pairing and communication with iPhone.
• NearbyInteraction: For UWB-based proximity detection on supported devices.
• LocalAuthentication: For initiating user authentication flows, including device unlock when authorized.
• NetworkExtension / MultipeerConnectivity: For secure peer-to-peer connection setups.

If Apple chose to extend this functionality securely, it could issue restricted entitlements (a vendor specific com.apple.device.unlock-proxy) without granting access to protected daemons. The cryptographic integrity of device unlock flows is tied to the Secure Enclave, which would never expose private keys or validation channels externally.

In short, Apple already meets existing interoperability expectations by most existing APIs or entitlements, while retaining control of the Secure Enclave. There’s no need to sacrifice iOS’s security posture or sandbox enforceme. Just how the NFC interoperability requirement worked by providing access to said APIs.

The DMA does not compel Apple to offer identical implementation, only equivalent access or functionality and Apple already have public APIs such as:

• UIPasteboard
• NSUserActivity
• CoreBluetooth / ExternalAccessory
• Notification and background refresh APIs

…third parties can recreate the user-facing result (e.g., clipboard sync, proximity-based features) while respecting sandbox and privacy boundaries.

The claim that Apple would need to allow unrestricted background daemons is based on technical assumptions, not legal ones. In reality, Apple meet its obligations through user consented, foreground-based, and entitlement controlled APIs, and no provision in the DMA requires otherwise.

But even with me Steelmaning how the Commission Might Try to Push for Broader Access would be unfounded, I could try and argue:

• DMA Article 6(7) mandates “effective interoperability,” which could be interpreted as functionally indistinguishable access, not merely API parity.
• Article 5’s non-discrimination clause could be construed to mean that Apple’s reserved access to daemons and unlock tokens for its own services constitutes selfpreferencing.
• The Commission could invoke implementing acts to define technical standards that push Apple to open deeper layers of its OS to “Made for EU” third-party integrations.

With a Teleological Interpretation Regulators could argue that the DMA’s core purpose preventing gatekeepers from leveraging platform control for competitive advantages requires functional equivalence, not just API equivalence. If Apple’s implementation provides seamless, automatic functionality that third-party alternatives cannot match due to system limitations, this creates the exact competitive moat the DMA seeks to eliminate. And Operating System Integration Under Article 2(2), iOS qualifies as a Core Platform Service.

Regulators might argue that clipboard synchronization and device unlock represent core OS functionality that third parties must replicate with equivalent capability, extending primary CPS obligations to functionally integrated features.

Broad Interoperability Mandate: Article 6(7)’s requirement for “effective interoperability” with hardware and software features could be interpreted to mandate whatever technical access is necessary to achieve true functional parity, security considerations notwithstanding.

Why This steelman argument Ultimately Fails:
While EU law considers legislative purpose, the DMA’s explicit enumeration in Article 2(2) creates definitive scope boundaries. And existing legal frameworks prevents this legal interpretation to have any solid basis.
Security Obligations Are Binding: GDPR Article 32 and NIS2 cybersecurity standards create mandatory legal duties that would directly conflict with unrestricted background access requirements, making such mandates legally impossible.
Proportionality Doctrine Applies: Even under maximum interoperability interpretation, EU law requires balancing competitive benefits against security costs. The architectural changes required exceed proportional regulatory response to competition concerns.

Which is why I think you're never getting iPhone mirroring in the EU.

Your iPhone mirroring prediction is likely correct😉 but Apple’s defensive position extends beyond just that feature. The legal framework supports maintaining security boundaries across all deep system integrations while providing alternative implementation paths that achieve equivalent user outcomes( something Apple already does)

My Conclusion Apple’s Legal and Technical function Is on Solid Ground regarding Universal Clipboard or otherwise. Even under the most aggressive interpretation of the DMA, neither Universal Clipboard nor Watchbased Device Unlock fall within a regulated category requiring unrestricted third-party duplication. Apple already offers APIs that allow third parties to approximate the functionality through approved and secure APIs.


Bottom line: the DMA’s interoperability mandate is purposive, not limitless. Apple already offer all the building blocks needed to replicate Universal Clipboard and Watch‑based unlocking in a way that preserves encryption, user consent, and sandbox isolation. There simply is no textual or teleological basis in the DMA (or in the DSA, GDPR etc) requiring it to expose wholly unsecured background services or raw Secure Enclave hooks to third parties.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple invented a better way, brought it to market. This directly led to Android introducing a similar feature two years later.

Headphone companies had decades to improve Bluetooth pairing and didn’t. Any one of them could have taken a proposal to the Bluetooth standards body and gotten it implemented. But they didn’t.

This is why I say the DMA chills innovation. Had the DMA been in effect at the time AirPods were introduced, Apple would not have been allowed to introduce them without giving the pairing tech to everyone for free. So if Apple decided that wasn’t worth the ROI, pairing doesn’t get fixed. The EU has made literally everyone on the planet’s products worse because they don’t think Apple deserves exclusivity on its own inventions! Thanks, idiots in Brussels - we appreciate it .

(Or maybe if we’re lucky, the EU wouldn’t get AirPods, or maybe get AirPods without the pairing feature, and the rest of the world would).

The EU’s record of screwing up tech regulations and lack of innovation ought embarrass them. But when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So they think the reason they can’t innovate is Apple’s fault, not their sticking with the mindset of East Germans in 1970 that Apple’s innovations should belong to all.

Oh please stop lying. I belive I7guy even linked to the APIs that Apple released. And no Android phone is allowed to implement apples APIs to work between themselves. It’s explicitly to work in tandem with an iOS device.

And you know the question of a pairing feature would still make Apple devices more competitive right? Because only iOS devices can have the pairing feature.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The manufacturers agreed to the terms and conditions when the entered an agreement with Apple. And by the way did any manufacturers communicate to you directly they were treated as "2nd class citizens" or is that extrapolating a tangent? And by the way is there any specific devices other than batteries and what not that is limited to being used with an Apple product?

Well it seems the TOS wasn’t legal. So theyvhad to change some parts. Do you want the legal case where Apple developers complained they are treated as second class citizens? Such as the anti steering provision that didn’t cover Amazon. Requiring the same price in the store and not better outside?

The eu has played Robin Hood with the DMA and has legally given apples ip to freeloaders who will make a buck on apples dime.

They pay Apple 99€/ year. They might even pay for the MFI brand, and implementing other technical features. By definition they haven’t given anything away for free under duress.

Many products have the same access to iOS.

My Bose Quiet comfort have regular Bluetooth syncing issues. Had probably been better using apples syncing methods no that it should be available for all.

It’s a consumer oriented for product company that has a vertical ecosystem. The DMA destroyed that.

That’s your opinion. My opinion it made iOS worse due to the hoops the DMA made Apple jump through.

Apple can still provide vertical integration. But also allow part of that stack to be exchanged. Example having ChatGPT instead of Siri. Using PayPal instead of Apple wallet.

Apple jumped through the hoops by their own accord. It was super easy and bairly an inconvenience to do the basic thing but Apple wanted to test their luck 🤷‍♂️

 

[I7guy]

Well it seems the TOS wasn’t legal. So theyvhad to change some parts. Do you want the legal case where Apple developers complained they are treated as second class citizens? Such as the anti steering provision that didn’t cover Amazon. Requiring the same price in the store and not better outside?

Yes. The legal case in the US. The anti steering provision is still under appeal. Filing suits are irrelevant. It’s winning that counts.

They pay Apple 99€/ year. They might even pay for the MFI brand, and implementing other technical features. By definition they haven’t given anything away for free under duress.

The 99 covers the dev kits and other things not related to transactional fees. Please stop with this as everyone knows this very well.

My Bose Quiet comfort have regular Bluetooth syncing issues. Had probably been better using apples syncing methods no that it should be available for all.

My Bose qc have no Bluetooth syncing issues however my AirPods do on occasion. Maybe Apple needs better access to its own operating system. /s

Apple can still provide vertical integration. But also allow part of that stack to be exchanged. Example having ChatGPT instead of Siri. Using PayPal instead of Apple wallet.

Please stop with the nonsense. The DMA has forced Apple to give away almost everything for free.

Apple jumped through the hoops by their own accord. It was super easy and bairly an inconvenience to do the basic thing but Apple wanted to test their luck 🤷‍♂️

The DMA has forced Apple to give away a lot. Why the heck do you believe they jumped through hoops.

 

[Stuwil]

Yes. The legal case in the US. The anti steering provision is still under appeal. Filing suits are irrelevant. It’s winning that counts.

The 99 covers the dev kits and other things not related to transactional fees. Please stop with this as everyone knows this very well.

My Bose qc have no Bluetooth syncing issues however my AirPods do on occasion. Maybe Apple needs better access to its own operating system. /s

Please stop with the nonsense. The DMA has forced Apple to give away almost everything for free.

The DMA has forced Apple to give away a lot. Why the heck do you believe they jumped through hoops.

You keep saying that apple are being forced to give away a lot this is incorrect and very disingenuous

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes. The legal case in the US. The anti steering provision is still under appeal. Filing suits are irrelevant. It’s winning that counts.

Well I meant more the complaints of being treated as second class 🤷‍♂️

The 99 covers the dev kits and other things not related to transactional fees. Please stop with this as everyone knows this very well.

How would Apple take a commission on the transaction for the Bluetooth headset that uses apples syncing functionality? Or MFI devices?

Then don’t say for free when the IP in question can be licensed for a fee.

My Bose qc have no Bluetooth syncing issues however my AirPods do on occasion. Maybe Apple needs better access to its own operating system. /s

Well no joke they sometimes have a weird audio sync issue between the two sometimes 🤷‍♂️

Please stop with the nonsense. The DMA has forced Apple to give away almost everything for free.

Just because Apple think thats what it requires doesn’t make it so.

They can ask for administrative compensation, license things under FRAND, increase their developer compensation, Implement a revenue sharing agreement etc.

The DMA has forced Apple to give away a lot. Why the heck do you believe they jumped through hoops.

Because Apple wants to maintain as large profit margins and protect their revenue stream and belief they can push the legal text in relevant ways that aligned with both their revenue interests and maintaining a strong ecosystem control.

I’m simply saying some of those hoops was fairly pointless and obvious that they wouldn’t pass the legal muster ( as i my old article prove)

 

[I7guy]

Well I meant more the complaints of being treated as second class 🤷‍♂️

Yes Apple is a big company, one me the biggest. The noise is very loud doesn’t mean there is merit.

How would Apple take a commission on the transaction for the Bluetooth headset that uses apples syncing functionality? Or MFI devices?

Only when Bluetooth is used to place digital order I suppose.

Then don’t say for free when the IP in question can be licensed for a fee.

There is no licensed. 3rd party app stores are an example.

Well no joke they sometimes have a weird audio sync issue between the two sometimes 🤷‍♂️

Well I guess there are always technology blips.😲

Just because Apple think thats what it requires doesn’t make it so.

They can ask for administrative compensation, license things under FRAND, increase their developer compensation, Implement a revenue sharing agreement etc.

They are losing billions due to these regulations. So dont try to make the case this is a net zero.

Because Apple wants to maintain as large profit margins

And they should.

and protect their revenue stream

And they should.

and belief they can push the legal text in relevant ways

There have been no findings against Apple. Only a targeted set of laws called the DMA.

that aligned with both their revenue interests and maintaining a strong ecosystem control.

And they have the right.

I’m simply saying some of those hoops was fairly pointless and obvious that they wouldn’t pass the legal muster ( as i my old article prove)

They passed legal muster. There has been one challenge, the anti steering provision that is now under appeal.

 

[I7guy]

You keep saying that apple are being forced to give away a lot this is incorrect and very disingenuous

This is fact and saying otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[surferfb]

You keep saying that apple are being forced to give away a lot this is incorrect and very disingenuous

If the government said "you still own your house, you just have to let strangers stay in your guest room without your permission or paying you rent," I think you'd be saying the government was forcing you to give away your house even though you still owned it.

 

[surferfb]

Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple is under no legal obligation to expose system-level background servicessuch as those underpinning Universal Clipboard or Watch-based Device Unlock to third parties. These features do not constitute standalone Core Platform Services (CPS) under DMA Article 2(2).

Neither does AirDrop, but Apple is forced to expose it to third parties so they can PUT IT ON ANDROID.

Apple’s responsibilities relate to the fair treatment of third parties within the defined scope of CPS like operating systems, app stores, and browsers. Clipboard sync and secure device unlock are ancillary OS functions tightly integrated into Apple’s hardware and software stack. Their deep coupling with system daemons, sandbox restrictions, and Secure Enclave security mechanisms exempts them from DMA interoperability mandates in any shape you seem to argue on such a deep level.

I quote from the DMA:
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

How on Earth are you arguing that clipboard sync or secure device unlock are not "software features accessed or controlled via the operating system"?

Apple Lacks Direct Access to Plaintext Data:

Both features employ zero-knowledge architecture, Universal Clipboard uses end-to-end encryption in iCloud, while Watch-Unlock relies on Secure Enclave private keys. Apple cannot “withhold” data it never accesses in unencrypted form.

Existing APIs Deliver Equivalent Functionality:

Current building blocks can replicate these features without compromising security architecture through alternative implementation paths that satisfy the DMA’s “equivalent access” requirement.

It is incorrect to assume third parties cannot deliver comparable clipboard functionality without unrestricted background access. Apple already provides
Comprehensive Existing API Foundation:
Apple’s current API ecosystem already provides the necessary building blocks:

• UIPasteboard/NSPasteboard: Direct clipboard read/write access for foreground applications
• NSUserActivity (Handoff): Cross-device state synchronization with automatic device discovery
• CloudKit: Silent push notifications and secure cloud storage for cross-device data sync
• Core Data with CloudKit: Automatic synchronization of app data across user devices

These APIs can be combined to deliver cross-device clipboard functionality without requiring new background daemon access. The solution provides equivalent user outcomes with the existing security Enclave Apple have on device.

This is just wrong. The APIs you have listed do not allow true background clipboard monitoring or automatic cross-device clipboard sync. Pasteboard only works in the foreground. NSUserActivity requires foreground access on both devices, which isn't suitable for syncing silently. CloudKit and CoreData don't support updating when idle.

So if Apple used these APIs, clipboard sync wouldn't be instant and wouldn't work passively (i.e. without user interaction). Do we really think the EU is going to accept a "functionally equivalent" API that requires the user to do something while Apple's version gets to do it silently in the background?

Security Exception Application: Exposing clipboard monitoring daemons to arbitrary third parties could violate GDPR’s data minimization principles and create unacceptable attack vectors, triggering the DMA’s explicit security carve-outs in Articles 6(1)(f) and 6(7). This is because of how Apple have implemented it.

Legal Framework Provides Defensive Positions
Scope Limitations:
Universal Clipboard is not enumerated as a distinct Core Platform Service under Article 2(2) and The DMA’s obligations target specific unfair practices, not every system integration point.

Again, why is AirDrop coming to Android apps then? AirDrop is not a Core Platform Service.

The clipboard data transmitted via apples Universal Clipboard Function is E2EE, with Apple lacking access to the plaintext. This zero-knowledge model eliminates any argument that Apple is “withholding” data under the DMA.
Granting arbitrary background clipboard monitors to third parties would violate iOS security policy, break sandboxing principles, and likely contradict GDPR Article 32 and NIS2 Directive obligations for platform integrity.

I agree background clipboard monitors to third parties would violate iOS security policy. So does a lot of the DMA, and it doesn't seem to matter one iota.

The Apple Watch unlock feature relies on system components such as proximity detection, biometric fallback, and Secure Enclave validation. However, DMA compliance does not require Apple to expose these deeply privileged operations only to provide equivalent interoperability opportunities could be argued that Third-party wearable makers can already access:

• CoreBluetooth / ExternalAccessory: For pairing and communication with iPhone.
• NearbyInteraction: For UWB-based proximity detection on supported devices.
• LocalAuthentication: For initiating user authentication flows, including device unlock when authorized.
• NetworkExtension / MultipeerConnectivity: For secure peer-to-peer connection setups.

None of those APIs allow for passive, always on, proximity-based unlock.

If Apple chose to extend this functionality securely, it could issue restricted entitlements (a vendor specific com.apple.device.unlock-proxy) without granting access to protected daemons. The cryptographic integrity of device unlock flows is tied to the Secure Enclave, which would never expose private keys or validation channels externally.

In the world where Apple didn't laugh in the face of offering such an entitlement as a massive security issue, it would require Apple to vet and trust third-party OS-level software to trigger secure unlock which, again, opens a security issue. And even then, those entitlements would still need a system agent or background listening process to function as they do for the watch.

Bottom line: the DMA’s interoperability mandate is purposive, not limitless. Apple already offer all the building blocks needed to replicate Universal Clipboard and Watch‑based unlocking in a way that preserves encryption, user consent, and sandbox isolation. There simply is no textual or teleological basis in the DMA (or in the DSA, GDPR etc) requiring it to expose wholly unsecured background services or raw Secure Enclave hooks to third parties.

I agree that the DMA does not require identical implementation or exposing the Secure Enclave. But the point of DMA is to ensure that third parties can deliver comparable functionality, and APIs limited to foreground access or user-initiated sessions don’t support that. Imagine Apple allowed messaging apps but didn’t allow them to receive messages unless the user manually opened the app. Technically that’s "interoperability" but not functionally competitive, and I think we all would agree the DMA would strike that down in five nanoseconds.

Unless Apple enables persistent background communication/monitoring, the user experience of these features will fall far short of what Apple enables for itself, which if I understand it correctly, isn't allowed by the letter (or the spirit) of the DMA.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes Apple is a big company, one me the biggest. The noise is very loud doesn’t mean there is merit.

Only when Bluetooth is used to place digital order I suppose.

Then we will see when that happens.

There is no licensed. 3rd party app stores are an example.

Well there the Epic store, AltStore or steam etc. Apple could license their Ip if they choose to🤷‍♂️

They are losing billions due to these regulations. So dont try to make the case this is a net zero.

And they should.

And they should.

Well that’s a non sequitur. Every company loses money because of regulations. And so does every antitrust, anti competitive or quality requirements on any company.

They loosing potential revenue because they can’t extract maximum revenue is of nobodies concern but themselves.

There have been no findings against Apple. Only a targeted set of laws called the DMA.

There has at multiple levels. It’s all
This is for the payment( before DMA)
Legal basis:
Art. 102 TFEU

The iTunes music price discrepancies. That Antitrust: European Commission welcomes Apple's announcement to equalise prices for music downloads from iTunes in Europeof
Legal basis:
Art. 101 TFEU + Art. 102 TFEU

Then we have the Apple AppStore music issue
Legal basis:
Art. 102 TFEU + Art. 54 EEA

Then we have apples Ebook case
Legal basis:
Art. 101 TFEU

And they have the right.

They passed legal muster. There has been one challenge, the anti steering provision that is now under appeal.

They have a right but so does other undertakings to have Apple not interfere in their business practices.

Well in light of reading their case, I think Apple should have gotten better lawyers not steeped in Us legal practices

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Neither does AirDrop, but Apple is forced to expose it to third parties so they can PUT IT ON ANDROID.

As I can quote from the same preliminary document you refer to

Apple shall provide a protocol specification that gives third parties all information​

required to integrate, access, and control the AirDrop protocol within an​

application or service (including as part of the operating system) running on a​

third-party connected physical device in order to allow these applications and​

services to send files to, and receive files from, an iOS device. ​

I quote from the DMA:
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

How on Earth are you arguing that clipboard sync or secure device unlock are not "software features accessed or controlled via the operating system"?

You need iCloud or off device services for full functionality or a secondary device such as the applewatch. And that Apple would have a security case for it.

So I( lacking the technical knowledge for how Apple actually implements it) would argue that iOS doesn’t do the actual work, but either iCloud and the non gatekeeper classified device ”Apple watch”

This is just wrong. The APIs you have listed do not allow true background clipboard monitoring or automatic cross-device clipboard sync. Pasteboard only works in the foreground. NSUserActivity requires foreground access on both devices, which isn't suitable for syncing silently. CloudKit and CoreData don't support updating when idle.

So if Apple used these APIs, clipboard sync wouldn't be instant and wouldn't work passively (i.e. without user interaction). Do we really think the EU is going to accept a "functionally equivalent" API that requires the user to do something while Apple's version gets to do it silently in the background?

Yes considering there’s no app named Universal Clipboard. I can’t see why developers can’t access Apples existing implementation in equivalent good functionality. Most restrictions is contractual and not technical. Just how the clipboard manager ”Clip” works

Again, why is AirDrop coming to Android apps then? AirDrop is not a Core Platform Service.

It’s to work with iOS, not between Android and non iOS devices. Considering it’s a working document I would need to see the full version. And I would expect Apple have some suitable arguments against a few of the stated feature requests.

I agree background clipboard monitors to third parties would violate iOS security policy. So does a lot of the DMA, and it doesn't seem to matter one iota.

It would also violate the DMA and other regulations that would be in apples corner.

None of those APIs allow for passive, always on, proximity-based unlock.
In the world where Apple didn't laugh in the face of offering such an entitlement as a massive security issue, it would require Apple to vet and trust third-party OS-level software to trigger secure unlock which, again, opens a security issue. And even then, those entitlements would still need a system agent or background listening process to function as they do for the watch.

Considering it would require a secure token and secure handshake to establish the watch is actually yours and the UWB to establish a close proximity between the two. I don’t know the exact APIs in question though they have such functionality for AirTags and similar third party hardware.

I can’t fathom why any developer would need any different APIs than what the apple watch currently interacts with.

I agree that the DMA does not require identical implementation or exposing the Secure Enclave. But the point of DMA is to ensure that third parties can deliver comparable functionality, and APIs limited to foreground access or user-initiated sessions don’t support that. Imagine Apple allowed messaging apps but didn’t allow them to receive messages unless the user manually opened the app. Technically that’s "interoperability" but not functionally competitive, and I think we all would agree the DMA would strike that down in five nanoseconds.

Unless Apple enables persistent background communication/monitoring, the user experience of these features will fall far short of what Apple enables for itself, which if I understand it correctly, isn't allowed by the letter (or the spirit) of the DMA.

I would argue most of the APIs are already used by existing applications but largely contractually hindered from interacting with other third party hardware’s.

And Apple already have APIs related to background communication/monitoring. Everything you receive a notification for WhatsApp, messenger or some game that’s apples push notification working in the background.

In the work document I’m skeptical towards some of the interoperability requirements that I can picture Apple actually countering with sound legal backing as well as security as core factor.

 

[Stuwil]

This is fact and saying otherwise is disingenuous.

So what are apple getting told to give away for free?
Is it iPhones
Is it chips
Is it designs
Is it hardware
What are they getting told to give away for free?

 

[Stuwil]

If the government said "you still own your house, you just have to let strangers stay in your guest room without your permission or paying you rent," I think you'd be saying the government was forcing you to give away your house even though you still owned it.

do you have 3rd parties in your house and restrict access to parts of it?

 

[surferfb]

do you have 3rd parties in your house and restrict access to parts of it?

Yes, I let friends and extended family stay in my guest room. That doesn't mean I give them permission to go through my underwear drawer, come in my bathroom while I'm taking a shower, or have to let a stranger who I don't want on my property stay in the guest room because I let my wife's friend from college stay in it for a long weekend.

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, I let friends and extended family stay in my guest room. That doesn't mean I give them permission to go through my underwear drawer, come in my bathroom while I'm taking a shower, or have to let a stranger who I don't want on my property stay in the guest room because I let my wife's friend from college stay in it for a long weekend.

What are you going on about?
People’s houses now
This is a company that has 3rd parties on their platform that’s fine however if you’re deliberately going to restrict these companies from access to software that helps with better connectivity so you keep that for your own products then that is not correct

It’s not like a house or a car maker like ford or Walmart or anyone like that because of the type of business said company is in

 

[surferfb]

What are you going on about?
People’s houses now

Property is property. The EU is forcing Apple to give away access to its property.

This is a company that has 3rd parties on their platform that’s fine however if you’re deliberately going to restrict these companies from access to software that helps with better connectivity so you keep that for your own products then that is not correct

I fundamentally disagree it's "not correct."

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What are you going on about?
People’s houses now
This is a company that has 3rd parties on their platform that’s fine however if you’re deliberately going to restrict these companies from access to software that helps with better connectivity so you keep that for your own products then that is not correct

It’s not like a house or a car maker like ford or Walmart or anyone like that because of the type of business said company is in

I think the biggest disconnect is drawing the line for ownership.
The AppStore is the ford dealership with extra addons made by other manufacturers.

Then for some the fact you purchased something in the store entails the ford dealership any subsequent purchase related to your cars function.

While others say the car is yours and ford should have no say outside the dealership.

Or with the house. The moment you purchase the house thebonly one who have a daybed you

 

[Stuwil]

Property is property. The EU is forcing Apple to give away access to its property.


I fundamentally disagree it's "not correct."

If property is property then don’t let 3rd parties in your property if your going to restrict access.

That’s why it’s not correct

 

[I7guy]

So what are apple getting told to give away for free?
Is it iPhones
Is it chips
Is it designs
Is it hardware
What are they getting told to give away for free?

No it’s its intellectual property. Let’s start with free 3rd party app stores.

 

[I7guy]

If property is property then don’t let 3rd parties in your property if your going to restrict access.

That’s why it’s not correct

There is no restrict access. It’s like a guest in your home, no restrict access but the guess doesn’t pay the taxes, except in the eu.

 

[surferfb]

If property is property then don’t let 3rd parties in your property if your going to restrict access.

That’s why it’s not correct

Again, the analogy was "if I let a friend stay in my guest room I have to let strangers and people I don't like stay in my guest room."

That'd be stupid and ridiculous, and it's stupid and ridiculous when the EU is telling Apple that's how their platform has to work.