Apple Faces First Italian DMA Probe on iCloud Interoperability

[Philip_S]

What hubris gives them the notion that they have some sort of providence over 10% of a company's worldwide annual revenue? That's preposterous.

If you want the fines to scale to the size of the company, and you don't want it to miraculously turn out that all the revenue was made by some brass plate in the Cayman Islands or an asset-free Swiss trust or whatever, that's the only practical way to do it, apart from personally prosecuting the directors and controlling shareholders (and their directors and controlling shareholders, recursively) and even that requires some way of forcing them to enter a place where you or a government who will extradite to you can arrest them.

where do you think Trump’s ideas for tariffs came from?

He's had those ideas since before the EEC was formed. Wherever he got those ideas, it wasn't the EU.

 

[surferfb]

It's coming, and it will be modular. There recently have been rumors circulating that Apple is already working on a feature which will allow users to switch the LLM backend to a different provider in a later version of iOS. I can't find the source right now. If I do, I'll link to it.

I really don’t think you’re correct here, at least in the short term. Especially if Google pulls theirs due to the DMA. But I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I saw those same rumors about switching out the backend, but that makes zero sense with what we now know how Siri AI works. It’s not like it’s Gemini running behind the scenes; Apple is using Gemini to distill its own models, but it’s not like Gemini is doing the work behind the scenes.

There is also the elephant China in the room. Do you think Apple can afford to not release Siri AI there? The Chinese government will under no circumstances allow user data to be sent to a US company for processing. They will have to cooperate with a local LLM company for the whole thing. Ergo Siri AI needs to be modular just to be available there.

I suspect China’s issue is the “private cloud compute” part. China wants access to the data that gets sent to the servers. They might also want a version of Siri AI that was trained using a Chinese model, but that’s different than “let anyone be the backend.”

Also hilarious EU defenders are agreeing with China here. “See, China has issues with it too!” isn’t exactly a win for the EU.

I'm pretty sure the necessary architecture of the system is already in place. The only question will be about who gets to decide which providers are acceptable and if Apple can charge a commission.

I really don’t think Apple is ever going to allow a third party AI access to that level of data. It’s way too private, and honestly a terrible idea that I’m shocked so many people on here seem to support, and I say this as someone who pays for Claude.

But I guess we’ll see who’s right.

 

[MilaM]

Also hilarious EU defenders are agreeing with China here. “See, China has issues with it too!” isn’t exactly a win for the EU.

The US also has issues with Chinese competitors in the LLM space. Sanctions against the use of Chinese LLM providers seem more likely than ever. I also did not say that I agree with the policies.

I really don’t think Apple is ever going to allow a third party AI access to that level of data. It’s way too private, and honestly a terrible idea that I’m shocked so many people on here seem to support, and I say this as someone who pays for Claude.

The data is private, but it's also not Apple's property. Personally I'm not a fan of sending the whole Siri index to a third party, even Apple. But I still think people should have the freedom to choose which provider they trust.

I would be much more comfortable with local processing. Unfortunately it seems local models are still not up to the task due to hardware limitations.

 

[zarmanto]

I don't understand the NAS issue, don't remember having any problems backing up photos and videos to my Synology NAS.

I chose to interpret his issue as: he wants to be able to do a full backup of his iPhone to his NAS solution, not just the pieces/parts to which Apple has already granted API access. At least, this is what certain people keep saying that they want. That's why I offered my take on a potential solution... but truthfully, I don't expect anyone to take my suggestion seriously, because I fully believe that what they really want is for Apple to do all of the difficult integration/API work, for free, much as the EU/EC keeps trying to demand.

 

[surferfb]

The data is private, but it's also not Apple's property. Personally I'm not a fan of sending the whole Siri index to a third party, even Apple. But I still think people should have the freedom to choose which provider they trust.

I don’t think Apple should be forced to facilitate something that they strongly believe (and I fully agree) is terrible for their users’ privacy.

If the EU wants to insist users are able to use another AI tool then they need to work with Apple and let them do that in a way that protects users. Not say “spend billions to do it, then we’ll fine you after the fact if we decide you’re being anticompetitive”. If the EU doesn’t want to be blamed for keeping features from its citizens there has to be some give and take. Apple clearly has given here - they told the EU their plans ahead of time (which they don’t ever do), proposed a wildly expensive thing they do not want to do, but will to comply with the bureaucrat’s interpretation of the regulations, but the EU won’t tell them. I don’t see how anyone can argue this is Apple “maliciously complying” or just trying to score political points.

This is precisely the folly with having bureaucrats writing strict ex-ante regulations on cutting edge technologies, especially ones who show over and over and over again they can’t think through the direct effects of their regulations, let alone second and third level effects.

I suspect at the end of the day where we disagree on this is that I absolutely do not think Apple is doing this to be intentionally anticompetitive. I think they’re 100% doing this because they absolutely and truly believe it’s best for their users. And I fully agree with them.

I would be much more comfortable with local processing. Unfortunately it seems local models are still not up to the task due to hardware limitations.

For what it’s worth, Apple processes everything it can with its on device models, and then only sends the bare minimum when it can’t process on device to its cloud models, doesn’t log what it sends, the burns the record of the transaction after it’s done, and provides security researchers what is needed to validate Apple’s claims. It’s as private as can be, and is definitely not sending “the full Siri index” to Apple (which is why your devices index separately).

But there is no technical way Apple can enforce rules on OpenAI or X on what happens to user data sent to ChatGPT or Grok servers in a way that complies with the DMA. Under the law Apple can’t even make them promise to treat the data the way Apple does. That’s absurd and is terrible for EU users.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The targeted companies should be happy that the DMA exists. The alternative would be dozens of antitrust proceedings stretched over many years each with very high fines. This would create even more uncertainty for these companies than the rules laid out in the DMA.

Actually, without the DMA there IS no antitrust because that’s a remedy for monopolies, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly (as defined by EU law) and these cases brought by Italy and France (and likely others) will be based on the novel “gatekeeper” designation that the DMA provides.

The DMA was created to provide legal standing for proceedings that couldn’t have gone forward otherwise.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That's not really necessary. We all know that no for-profit US company will leave money on the table (see China). If there is money to be made with Siri AI, it will come to the EU.

Not as long as EU regulations state that “Avoiding the EU avoids expensive EU regulations.” If adhering to the EU regulations devours so much revenue that it adversely affects the ability to make a profit (they spent a considerable amount of money crafting API’s for alternate browser engines that no company is using and they’ll have to continue to regression test these API changes ), companies will simply focus on non-EU regions. I mean, even for a huge company like Apple, due to their smaller marketshare in the EU, they’d take a 7% hit if they decided not to do business in the region. It would affect their bottom line, sure, but it wouldn’t materially change their Big Tech status in the rest of the world.

OR, like Apple has done with the Vision Pro, introduce it only in 2 or fewer regions. As long as it’s not available for anyone in the EU to purchase outside of France and Germany, its App Store can remain locked even if it becomes popular.

And really, there’s no money to be made with Siri AI. There’s no money to be made with iPhone mirroring. There’s a decently long list of features that don’t provide any measurable revenue increase to due them just not being that important compared to “surfing the internet” and “making phone calls”. Certainly not enough to expose themselves to additional expensive regulation in order to bring those features to the EU. And, that’s the problem for EU citizens. The DMA says, “Don’t introduce your ‘nice to have’ features in this region unless you’re prepared to be fined or regulated”.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple leaves money on the table all the time.

In this instance I really don’t think Apple will compromise on this. I think best case scenario Apple will get sign off to build the trusted platform they want. But if the EU is going to continue insisting on the idiotic idea that an AI assistant is just another app that can be made modular and not a core part of the OS then it’s not going to get one for iOS. It might get one on Android, but given their recent attack on Google for this same point, I wouldn’t count on it. And any third party that gets big enough will run into the same issue.

I read the article about what the EU rejected. Apple was essentially saying, “We’ll spend the money to do the Safari thing (that no one is using, ahem) that gives them access to a lot of the things that would make an AI useful, but we’re going to NOT provide access to the things that would cause a future CrowdStrike.” and the EU regulators said, “NO, that was our crowning achievement! Causing billions of losses that force some smaller businesses to go out of business is what we’ve done to EU companies for years and doing it worldwide is a feature, not a bug!” I’m paraphrasing. 🙂

As a result, if any company is going to bring a Google style or Apple style AI product to the region, it’s going to have to be a smaller company that has the freedom to tightly integrate and not have features available to third parties. BUT, to avoid gatekeeper status, they’d have to restrict sales in the region meaning limiting their profit potential. For a small company, probably not worth the effort as how much revenue they could make would be capped.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's coming, and it will be modular. There recently have been rumors circulating that Apple is already working on a feature which will allow users to switch the LLM backend to a different provider in a later version of iOS. I can't find the source right now. If I do, I'll link to it.

That was Gurman. He was making it up. Like most of what he’s been reporting recently. 🙂

 

[MilaM]

Actually, without the DMA there IS no antitrust because that’s a remedy for monopolies, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly (as defined by EU law) and these cases brought by Italy and France (and likely others) will be based on the novel “gatekeeper” designation that the DMA provides.

The DMA was created to provide legal standing for proceedings that couldn’t have gone forward otherwise.

You need to brush up on your knowledge of EU competition law. The EC does not have to wait for a true monopoly to form to act against companies that abuse their dominant market position. The DMA just reframes a mandate that the Commission already has according to the EU treaties.

 

[MilaM]

For what it’s worth, Apple processes everything it can with its on device models, and then only sends the bare minimum when it can’t process on device to its cloud models, doesn’t log what it sends, the burns the record of the transaction after it’s done, and provides security researchers what is needed to validate Apple’s claims. It’s as private as can be, and is definitely not sending “the full Siri index” to Apple (which is why your devices index separately).

We'll see how much Siri AI relies on cloud compute. My hunch is that local models will only be used for the most simple use cases.

If Apple truly only processes private data in the way you describe, it should be reasonable to only allow third party LLM providers to act in the same way. I think that's a compromise that EC would be willing to make.

 

[surferfb]

You need to brush up on your knowledge of EU competition law. The EC does not have to wait for a true monopoly to form to act against companies that abuse their dominant market position. The DMA just reframes a mandate that the Commission already has according to the EU treaties.

Except “dominant market position” is generally 40%. Not Apple’s 22% EU market share.

The rules were absolutely changed. Obviously we disagree over the appropriateness of that, but there’s a reason it wasn’t handled through the normal antitrust process.

 

[MilaM]

Except “dominant market position” is generally 40%. Not Apple’s 22% EU market share.

That estimate seems very low. Can you share the source?

Among EU bureaucrats and politicians the share is certainly much higher 😉.

 

[surferfb]

That estimate seems very low. Can you share the source?

Among EU bureaucrats and politicians the share is certainly much higher 😉.

You are correct. I misremembered the percentage. It’s somewhere between 28-34% depending on the source. Still way lower than 40%, but not 22%. My apologies for the error.

 

[zarmanto]

That estimate seems very low. Can you share the source?

I did probably more digging on this than I should have... and what I learned is that finding authoritative "EU" specific statistics is decidedly not clear cut. With people online quoting ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 42%, it's hard to nail down real figures. (This really confuses AI chatbots... ask this question three times in a row, but with seemingly inconsequential variations in the wording, and you are all but guaranteed to get three entirely different and incompatible responses. But I digress...)

As has been noted in this thread, the EU is not the entirety of Europe. According to some statistics gathered by Gruber, the EU controlled countries account for about 25-30 percent of the region that Apple considers "Europe" in their financial reports, which makes it 7% of their global earnings. And of course, mobile market share dramatically shifts from one country to another, even within the same region. These factors all contribute to the bad and/or incomplete data that we discover online, with semi-trustworthy sources crediting Apple with 27%, 33% and 42%... so the answer you choose may depend on who you trust the most, or on the nature of your agenda.

I doubt very much that an authoritative and credible answer that can confidently supersede these others is forthcoming.

 

[surferfb]

I did probably more digging on this than I should have... and what I learned is that finding authoritative "EU" specific statistics is decidedly not clear cut. With people online quoting ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 42%, it's hard to nail down real figures. (This really confuses AI chatbots... ask this question three times in a row, but with seemingly inconsequential variations in the wording, and you are all but guaranteed to get three entirely different and incompatible responses. But I digress...)

As has been noted in this thread, the EU is not the entirety of Europe. According to some statistics gathered by Gruber, the EU controlled countries account for about 25-30 percent of the region that Apple considers "Europe" in their financial reports, which makes it 7% of their global earnings. And of course, mobile market share dramatically shifts from one country to another, even within the same region. These factors all contribute to the bad and/or incomplete data that we discover online, with semi-trustworthy sources crediting Apple with 27%, 33% and 42%... so the answer you choose may depend on who you trust the most, or on the nature of your agenda.

I doubt very much that an authoritative and credible answer that can confidently supersede these others is forthcoming.

The source I suspect we can all agree on is the EU, which has it as 34% on page 104 of this report.

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202419/AT_40437_10026012_3547_4.pdf

This is personally the highest I’ve seen, everywhere I can find says 27-30%, but the numbers are all older industry estimates. Maybe the DMA actually increased iOS’ market share - honestly wouldn’t surprise me 🤣

 

[zarmanto]

The source I suspect we can all agree on is the EU, which has it as 34% on page 104 of this report.

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202419/AT_40437_10026012_3547_4.pdf

Except that this source was published by the European Commission, which obviously operates with an agenda to represent Apple as a more formidable force than they necessarily are, so as to justify their regulation of Apple's activities... thus, my point about agendas.

 

[MilaM]

The source I suspect we can all agree on is the EU, which has it as 34% on page 104 of this report.

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202419/AT_40437_10026012_3547_4.pdf
This is personally the highest I’ve seen, everywhere I can find says 27-30%, but the numbers are all older industry estimates. Maybe the DMA actually increased iOS’ market share - honestly wouldn’t surprise me 🤣

It's difficult to say, because sales are not the whole picture. What's more important for the purpose of the DMA is the number of devices in use. Since iPhones are more premium and tend to be sold or handed down in families, I would expect them to have a larger share than sales would suggest.

One third of active devices seems like a reasonable estimate. It's too bad Apple does not share better statistics.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The source I suspect we can all agree on is the EU, which has it as 34% on page 104 of this report.

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202419/AT_40437_10026012_3547_4.pdf

This is personally the highest I’ve seen, everywhere I can find says 27-30%, but the numbers are all older industry estimates. Maybe the DMA actually increased iOS’ market share - honestly wouldn’t surprise me 🤣

Yeah the DMA has been effective in increasing competition from 2 smartphone OS’s to 2 smartphone OS’s! Looky there at all thems competitions!!

The EU is working hard to ensure that becomes 1, though. You know, to increase competition. 🙂

They “emerged”. 🙂 As if all they had to do is exist and not try to be something people wanted to buy.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You need to brush up on your knowledge of EU competition law. The EC does not have to wait for a true monopoly to form to act against companies that abuse their dominant market position. The DMA just reframes a mandate that the Commission already has according to the EU treaties.

Good point and, under EU competition law, Apple wasn’t found to have abused their dominant market position. That’s why no suits were brought forward in the years since November 2007. It was only AFTER the DMA retroactively defined how Apple had been doing business since 2007 as illegal.

 

[Samplasion]

Good point and, under EU competition law, Apple wasn’t found to have abused their dominant market position. That’s why no suits were brought forward in the years since November 2007. It was only AFTER the DMA retroactively defined how Apple had been doing business since 2007 as illegal.

I like this argument because it implies the mobile OS situation in 2026 is the same as the mobile OS situation in 2007. Daily drive iPhoneOS 1 on an iPhone 2G today and see how long you can withstand it without pulling your hair out.

 

[zenmacx]

How dare you come on here with such a well reasoned argument. 🤣

Not to mention the application of common sense and technical expertise 🤣

How refreshing 😃

 

[MilaM]

Good point and, under EU competition law, Apple wasn’t found to have abused their dominant market position. That’s why no suits were brought forward in the years since November 2007. It was only AFTER the DMA retroactively defined how Apple had been doing business since 2007 as illegal.

The law does not work retroactively. The circumstances have also changed a lot. I'm not sure what's your point.

 

[I7guy]

Would you like Apple to block non-Apple websites in Safari too? Your data is already out there, your Apple device is a way to access your information from different services / companies that you interact with.

The web is one way to access services that has nothing to do with app stores. Hyperbole.

A lot of people use Gmail on their iPhone. Should Apple block that and only allow you to use iCloud mail? That would be crazy.

Your iCloud backup data is encrypted on your phone before it's backed up in iCloud. That means it would be encrypted before going to a different cloud backup service provider as well, so your data would be just as safe.

Don't let Apple scare you into giving them more money. People should choose to backup to iCloud because they get the best amount of storage for the price, not because they're not allowed to use any other options.

iCloud is apples vertically integrated custom solution for cloud backup. If it’s a sticking point that you can’t point and click for other cloud backup solutions there are alternatives to Apple products.😉

 

[surferfb]

The law does not work retroactively. The circumstances have also changed a lot. I'm not sure what's your point.

I mean, it took a lot of perfectly legal business practices and made them illegal only for certain companies (which is insane if you stop to think about it). Seems pretty retroactive and targeted to me.