Apple Challenges EU Digital Markets Act Over Feature Delays

[Athonline]

It's quite a thing to comment on an article that explains Apple's reasoning and pretend that reasoning doesn't exist.

If only there was some way to provide evidence in their 'reasoning'... e.g., citing the specific parts of the DMA that prevents it but somehow allows its competitors. Oh wait.

The DMA requires access to hardware and software resources which first-party apps can use. It even makes it clear for first set of measures for connected devices on iOS devices that they need to expose a very limited amount of features: "The measures will grant device manufacturers and app developers improved access to iPhone features that interact with such devices (e.g. displaying notifications on smartwatches), faster data transfers (e.g. peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections, and near-field communication) and easier device set-up (e.g. pairing)"

and then as the second set of measures: "The second set of measures improves the transparency and effectiveness of the process that Apple devised for developers interested in obtaining interoperability with iPhone and iPad features. It includes improved access to technical documentation on features not yet available to third parties, timely communication and updates, and a more predictable timeline for the review of interoperability requests."

There is nowhere where it says if Apple releases a LLM to perform translation then everyone else should have access to it. If that LLM benefits from having access to something on the hardware, then that something should be exposed for third-party developers to be able to build equal or greater performing models if they chose to.

Look at phone mirroring to MacOS. You can effectively mirror your phone's screen via any teleconference app and you can remote control your phone via a keyboard/ mouse. This works in the EU. Even Apple Carplay which is essentially remote display and control (with its own UI) works in EU. Phone mirroring on MacOS does not. Why? Because it is one of those features which Apple calculated that they can disable in the EU to annoy some users, but not enough to not buy their phones.

 

[BaldiMac]

If only there was some way to provide evidence in their 'reasoning'... e.g., citing the specific parts of the DMA that prevents it but somehow allows its competitors. Oh wait.

The applicable requirements of the DMA don't apply to their competitors, because they aren't classified as gatekeepers outside of Google who has minimal hardware market share.

The fact that you would like some sources doesn't mean the reasoning doesn't exist. Here you go:

7. 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 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.

 

[Athonline]

**** df

The applicable requirements of the DMA don't apply to their competitors, because they aren't classified as gatekeepers.

The fact that you would like some sources doesn't mean the reasoning doesn't exist. Here you go:

7. 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 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.

Google is considered a gatekeeper when it comes to Android. The same way that Microsoft is when it comes to Windows.

And there is an exact clarification from the EU of what constitutes hardware or software features that are necessary to open up. They even have an article just for Apple: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816

 

[RigSatMe]

Great! Please, now on disable all features!!!

 

[.wojtek]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sign of weakness and a complete lack of substance to a position.

What's more substance do you want? EU imposed rules, Apple is playing an extorionis bully. Tim Cook acts as a ... uhm... he handed a plate to Trump. Stating that some evens took action is not ad hominem. Just because USA reality is a circus doesn't change that xD

 

[surferfb]

Google is considered a gatekeeper when it comes to Android. The same way that Microsoft is when it comes to Windows.

Yes, but, for example Samsung isn't a gatekeeper. So, Apple's competitors are not hampered by the regulation the same way Apple is. Samsung could introduce live translation today, that only works with Galaxy Phones and Galaxy earbuds and they wouldn't have to give access to that feature to its competitors the way Apple does.

And that's before you consider the different business models. OF COURSE Google wants Android to work with everything, the entire point of Android is to ensure Google gets as much data as possible. They'd be happy to let Bose use their live translation feature because it means more people use it, they get more data. That's not how Apple operates, and it seems ridiculous to force Apple into Google's model when 1) everyone knows what they're getting into with Apple, and 2) Apple's system is significantly better for EU citizens' privacy.

 

[BaldiMac]

Google is considered a gatekeeper when it comes to Android. The same way that Microsoft is when it comes to Windows.

Shockingly, they aren't Apple's only competitors.

And there is an exact clarification from the EU of what constitutes hardware or software features that are necessary to open up. They even have an article just for Apple: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816

Great, so you do know what they were talking about!

 

[BoMo]

Here is what Apple had to say about "Live Translation with AirPods" specifically:

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly930y90lro

From a technical perspective providing access to the iPhone's microphone does not seem like a huge obstacle. I'm not sure what the fuss is about to be honest.

Because it isn’t just the iPhone microphone. Live Translation utilizes the H2 chip found in certain Apple’s AirPod models.

 

[BoMo]

Remind me how locking features of the phone behind the purchase of additional hardware is innovative?

Because, as previously explained by someone else, the AirPods are only necessary because Apple said so. They're just the mic and earbud component.

Because it isn’t just the mic and earbud component. Live Translation utilizes the H2 chip found in certain Apple’s AirPod models.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I'm wondering when humanity will learn that arguing is almost never about facts and almost always about values. And values owe no allegiance to facts.

 

[Webcat86]

That's not how Apple operates, and it seems ridiculous to force Apple into Google's model when 1) everyone knows what they're getting into with Apple, and 2) Apple's system is significantly better for EU citizens' privacy.

Yep. “You see that company that keeps getting fined billions of dollars for violating privacy rules? Yeah, that one. We want you to be more like that.”

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why are we pretending this is about anything besides making money?

Because it's far less defensible if it's primarily about money.

(which it is)

 

[szilske]

Let me make one point crystal clear: I am a EUROPEAN more than a German. I honestly think the EU and European peace is the greatest achievement in the past 100 years. I don't want any of that to change. So let's put political discussions aside.

I buy phones and computers from the US, because they are better. Easy as that. Tech products from Europe are mostly crap. The other way round with cars. The point is: I deliberately choose what I want to buy and I don't need anyone to patronize me. If I want to have a closed ecosystem, I buy Apple, if I don't, I buy something else. I can choose!

EU bureaucrats have lost their sense of what consumers really want. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONSUMER RIGHTS! It's about COMPETITION LAW and money only. No matter how this ends, customers will eventually suffer either way.

 

[chrisone]

What? Apple's App Store is full of online gambling apps!

And Safari is effectively a porn and gambling app for users who want that

 

[chrisone]

They haven’t said they can’t do a feature. They’ve said doing it would put user data at risk, such as by taking processes off the device and putting them into cloud services provided by others. That’s not something we should glibly dismiss when we are all very aware of the lackadaisical approach many of these companies have for privacy and data.

But users could chose if they trust that other service, no one forces users to use anything non-Apple. Apple is saying “you can only trust us and we will not allow you to trust anyone else”. Nanny state by corporation?

 

[darkpaw]

It would be nice if different ecosystems could mesh better.

But when every device has to interact with every other device, they all end up looking the same and doing the same things, and every manufacturer would have to find some way to stand out. That's what Apple does.

Remember when Apple created Lightning because they couldn't do what they needed to do with Micro-USB? If everyone were using Micro-USB we'd be limited and held back by Micro-USB. Lightning was an innovation that allowed Apple to release thinner devices, and thank Dog the connector was reversible.

Apple created AirPods, and they work as Bluetooth headphones on other devices, but for the extra special features that AirPods provide when paired with an iPhone, Mac or iPad, you need an iPhone, Mac or iPad. If you don't want those special features, then you can buy different headphones that suit your needs.

Apple market AirPods as doing X, Y and Z when used with an iPhone, Mac or iPad. People buy them for that.

There is no requirement for Apple to develop AirPods that provide all their features to every other device out there in the marketplace. That would require massive investment and development effort, and why should Apple spend all that money to integrate their AirPods with a certain model of LG TV so that a white rounded rectangle pops up on the TV screen when you open the AirPods case? Can't we just accept that not every device has to be in touch with every other device?

 

[Webcat86]

But users could chose if they trust that other service, no one forces users to use anything non-Apple. Apple is saying “you can only trust us and we will not allow you to trust anyone else”. Nanny state by corporation?

This is a world in which we put warnings on ready meals that food will be hot when you remove it from the oven. Consumers aren’t doing that level of due diligence.

Currently the market has options for closed and open systems, so the choice already exists for the most part. I remember being an Android user many years ago and the chatter about needing antivirus apps, being careful with what you installed, etc, and the iPhone’s approach was far more appealing. We can all talk about not wanting to be infantilised but most people don’t want to think about anything beyond the action they’re trying to do. And if they install something that causes a problem, they’ll blame the manufacturer or the developer. Apple isn’t a monopoly of any type of product, and I think we need to be very careful about bureaucrats forcing security vulnerabilities that will be a Pandora’s box that can’t be closed (not just DMA necessarily but we’ve all heard about governments asking Apple to put a backdoor into the encryption “that only we can access and not criminals.” It’s ignorance to the highest level and needs to be resisted with the full force of the companies and the public. We’ve got the OSA and today Starmer has been in the news for wanting digital ID cards. Government overreach is not a conspiracy, it’s real and it’s very present, and while I certainly agree there are various rules and requirements that have been necessary in tech, I also feel that anything my of this nature needs very careful consideration and the broader implications considered. Including the ability for private companies to operate their company in a way that delivers the quality and experience they intend.)

 

[Athonline]

Yes, but, for example Samsung isn't a gatekeeper. So, Apple's competitors are not hampered by the regulation the same way Apple is. Samsung could introduce live translation today, that only works with Galaxy Phones and Galaxy earbuds and they wouldn't have to give access to that feature to its competitors the way Apple does.

And that's before you consider the different business models. OF COURSE Google wants Android to work with everything, the entire point of Android is to ensure Google gets as much data as possible. They'd be happy to let Bose use their live translation feature because it means more people use it, they get more data. That's not how Apple operates, and it seems ridiculous to force Apple into Google's model when 1) everyone knows what they're getting into with Apple, and 2) Apple's system is significantly better for EU citizens' privacy.

Google and Microsoft are. The former has live translation on Pixel phones, with Pixel gear only, for some time now. The latter has PhoneLink for even longer. Nowhere in any of the EC's clarifications, Apple's 'delayed features' are mentioned or anywhere near. It is about core functionalities like full speed connectivity, notifications parsed to third-party smartwatches, etc.

So the argument now becomes about business models? Well, Google is also asked to make concencions in its own business models. None is asking Apple to force it become Google, though their ads service is already in the billions. This is about enabling consumers with choice if they want to for the hardware that they paid for. Guess what! Unlike doomsays here, ever since the DMA came out, none once I had to download a third-party App Store or leave the 'walled' garden. However, if i want to, I can. The only DMA-related change (which may not even be DMA) is that I found it easy to sync my Apple Music playlists with my YT Music.

 

[MilaM]

There is no requirement for Apple to develop AirPods that provide all their features to every other device out there in the marketplace. That would require massive investment and development effort, and why should Apple spend all that money to integrate their AirPods with a certain model of LG TV so that a white rounded rectangle pops up on the TV screen when you open the AirPods case? Can't we just accept that not every device has to be in touch with every other device?

Nobody is forcing Apple (or Google) to make their headphones more compatible with LG TVs (or any other device).

What the legislation is actually about is to give for expample headphone manufacturers the ability to integrate better with Apple or Google devices. If someone chooses to buy Sony NC headphones, they should not have a much worse experience than with Apples numerous audio products.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But when every device has to interact with every other device, they all end up looking the same and doing the same things, and every manufacturer would have to find some way to stand out. That's what Apple does.

I own about half a dozen computer mice and keyboards.
They all connect to every computer (and iPad) I own through either Bluetooth and/or USB.

Shockingly, they do not all do, look or feel the same.

Remember when Apple created Lightning because they couldn't do what they needed to do with Micro-USB? If everyone were using Micro-USB we'd be limited and held back by Micro-USB. Lightning was an innovation that allowed Apple to release thinner devices, and thank Dog the connector was reversible.

Lightning is a sturdier, more reliable (an reversible) connector. But wasn't about the thinness - there is little to no appreciable difference in the thickness of devices they both allow.

Apple created AirPods, and they work as Bluetooth headphones on other devices, but for the extra special features that AirPods provide when paired with an iPhone, Mac or iPad, you need an iPhone, Mac or iPad. If you don't want those special features, then you can buy different headphones that suit your needs.

...and there's little technical reason why other earphones can't do the same and access the same features.
And some people prefer other earphones for their features, design, price or fit.

The EU opted for consumer choice and competition and a more level playing field for manufacturers of connected wireless devices.

Apple is free to comply. Or not.

Maybe someone else will offer live translation that does not restrict choice of earphones in the European market and win market share from Apple in smartphones and/or their operating systems or live translation services. If only it reduces customers' dependence on Apple products, or leads to adoption of a more cross-platform translation service, that allows for easier switching between mobile operating systems. And accessories and headphones.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I deliberately choose what I want to buy and I don't need anyone to patronize me. If I want to have a closed ecosystem, I buy Apple, if I don't, I buy something else. I can choose!

I'm European too, and I don't need anyone to patronise me either. That's just as true for Apple and their restricting my choice where to obtain (or buy) software applications to install on my devices.

And with Android getting more and more closed (through, primarily, the actions of Google and Samsung) in my market, I don't believe there's enough relevant choice in "open" ecosystems in that important market.

So does the EU. And their law aligns with my values.

What the legislation is actually about is to give headphone manufacturers the ability to integrate better with Apple or Google devices. If someone chooses to buy Sony NC headphones, they should not have a much worse experience than with Apples numerous audio products.

That could also be construed as requiring "making their phones (and OS) more compatible - though in reality it is mostly legally prohibiting these gatekeepers from artificial gatekeeping and locking out competition through software restrictions.

The EU does not intend them to leverage their duopoly on mobile OS in - and "distort" competition - in related markets for services and connected wireless devices.

 

[Naraxus]

I take very little from anecdotes like this honestly.

Why?

Because my MAGA relative says this sort of stuff all the time about Seattle, even when I'm literally walking around downtown Seattle telling him basically nothing he's saying is accurate (he's just getting it from Fox News).

It is true and your relative is correct. I live in Seattle. I step over junkies, drunks & panhandlers, daily. I am accosted by these pieces of filth daily. I see people openly deficating in public - daily. I see people shooting up God-knows-what, daily. **** I've even seen these bums having sex. Seattle is a filthy, unsafe ******** of a city and the current and last few mayors and the jokers on the SCC have enabled this nonsense for FAR too long.