Apple Gets EU Warning to Open iOS to Third-Party Connected Devices

[icanhazmac]

I'll bite.

As will I.

See, the problem with what you're considering here is that Lightning was not created to serve anything but Apple.

This old trope? Ok, so Apple made $$ with MFI, so what. I know this is subjective but IMHO lightning is a superior physical port/connector, some agree with me and lament the change to USBC, some folks applaud the change to a standard connector. I travel extensively and my phone get connected/disconnected a lot so I care about how ports hold up physically. Anecdotal, but I never had a lightning port or connector fail while my 2017 MBP had to have the ports replaced on both sides and they received far less usage.

Apple can contribute to the USB-IF as much as it desires as well as work toward its own interests

Yup, they sure can, but they won't always win. Just because a standards group exists doesn't mean they produce the best product, they produce an agreed upon product and the more cooks in the kitchen the worse the end result can be. Everyone wants their input and to add/change ingredients.

Remember, if the EU had pulled this crap any earlier we could have been stuck with USB micro.

Any manufacturer could design the "perfect" connector but if several of their competitors simply don't want to see them win and derail the project the consumer loses.

As an example: MagSafe is a far superior charging port for MacBooks but Apple must incorporate USBC charging as well, adding to cost and electronic waste. I have seen many Starbucks laptops saved by the MagSafe port and many die that didn't have it.

There's no reason to panic, or dismiss the possibility.

I don't believe I ever expressed panic, not even in a joking way. I am simply expressing my opinion that being forced to adhere to government imposed standards can squash innovation.

 

[mirkwood]

Apple should just realize we are in 2024 and no longer in 1974: Apple should make macOS, iOS, and all the other software open source, it's really that easy. It will be win-win for everyone. The longer Apple insists on closed source, the higher the EU fines will be for Apple.

 

[I7guy]

Apple should just realize we are in 2024 and no longer in 1974: Apple should make macOS, iOS, and all the other software open source, it's really that easy. It will be win-win for everyone. The longer Apple insists on closed source, the higher the EU fines will be for Apple.

And the longer apple will fight the whole thing. In the end the eu citizenry will be the ultimate losers.

 

[surferfb]

Apple should just realize we are in 2024 and no longer in 1974: Apple should make macOS, iOS, and all the other software open source, it's really that easy. It will be win-win for everyone. The longer Apple insists on closed source, the higher the EU fines will be for Apple.

Apple is never going to open source its software. In fact, I suspect the EU demanding Apple make iOS open source is one of the few things that would actually lead to Apple leaving the EU.

 

[mirkwood]

Apple is never going to open source its software. In fact, I suspect the EU demanding Apple make iOS open source is one of the few things that would actually lead to Apple leaving the EU.

Apple uses A LOT of open source in their software, so Apple have no real excuse to not go open source.
Apple only cares about money and profit, so if EU demands it, Apple may finally go open source.

 

[surferfb]

Apple uses A LOT of open source in their software, so Apple have no real excuse to not go open source.
Apple only cares about money and profit, so if EU demands it, Apple may finally go open source.

Apple has literally billions of reasons not to go open source.

It's a moot point, because I think demanding iOS go open source would even be a bridge too far for the EU (as much as I disagree with the EU on the DMA, demanding Apple provide private APIs to competitors is not making iOS open source), but I predict Apple would leave the EU before they open sourced iOS (and to be clear, I do not think Apple will leave the EU over the DMA).

 

[I7guy]

Apple uses A LOT of open source in their software, so Apple have no real excuse to not go open source.

They have many reasons, not excuses, not to go open source.

Apple only cares about money and profit,

Well not exactly. During the pandemic apple showed its true colors. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-covid-19-response/

so if EU demands it, Apple may finally go open source.

If the rumples apple enough and American tech, we may pack up and say goodbye.

 

[tmaciak]

Apple uses A LOT of open source in their software, so Apple have no real excuse to not go open source.
Apple only cares about money and profit, so if EU demands it, Apple may finally go open source.

As I presume, it is clicbait post of some kind.

None of operating systems nominated as gate keepers are fully open source - Windows is not open source at all, and in case of Android, parts based on AOSP are open source, but e.g. GMS and Google services are closed source and manufacturers interfaces like One UI are also commonly closed source.

 

[cupcakes2000]

If the rumples apple enough and American tech, we may pack up and say goodbye.

"We" 😂

Oh deary, deary me.

😂

What a world.

 

[surferfb]

As I presume, it is clicbait post of some kind.

None of operating systems nominated as gate keepers are fully open source - Windows is not open source at all, and in case of Android, parts based on AOSP are open source, but e.g. GMS and Google services are closed source and manufacturers interfaces like One UI are also commonly closed source.

Just checked, account created an hour ago. I should have checked that before responding 🤣

 

[AppliedMicro]

But you’re not free to install Tesla’s or BMW’s OS on the Audi

...just as you're not free to copy and install iOS on other, non-Apple phones.

To continue the analogy, they’re demanding to use a private toll road Apple built and maintains, that is entirely on Apple’s property, without paying the toll. Because they “deserve” access to Apple’s customers.

When millions of customers only be reached through private toll roads, road operators' ownership rights will be restricted by law - as they should be.
Everything else would amount to whole populations being taken hostage. (And no, the fact that the smaller operators only controls the 30% or so wealthy, doesn't change that).

I have family who live on an island with one bridge to it - and there is a toll to cross the bridge. Truckers don’t get to skip paying the toll just because they have to use the bridge to get to their destination. Even if they don’t have a way to reach those customers otherwise, or even if residents don't have to pay the toll.

If Apple charged a "toll" relative to the goods transported as that bridge operator, no one would complain.

 

[surferfb]

Not sure why I'm bothering to reply yet again. To paraphrase Sinclair, it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary digital identity depends on him not understanding it. But I'll give it one last go.

When millions of customers only be reached through private toll roads, road operators' ownership rights will be restricted by law - as they should be.

Developers do not deserve access to Apple's property, for free, just because they happen to exist and want to reach iOS users. In fact, if you are to be believed, these developers would apparently not be able to exist without use of Apple's property to reach Apple users. So developers should happily pay for use of said property. Again - only 27% of the market.

Everything else would amount to whole populations being taken hostage. (And no, the fact that the smaller operators only controls the 30% or so wealthy, doesn't change that).

Wow. Millions choosing a closed system over and open one is not "being taken hostage". They made a choice, a choice you are selfishly taking away from them because you don't want to have to compromise. (And yes, the fact that the larger operator is open absolutely makes a difference.)

If Apple charged a "toll" relative to the goods transported as that bridge operator, no one would complain.

They are charging a reasonable "toll" (a toll, that despite your protestations otherwise, has reduced in price for the vast majority of developers over the past 15 years) and you and the EU are complaining.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Here’s some quotes from the recently released Draghi report. If you actually read the report sections about tech and innovation, you’ll notice the report specifically calls out regulations that result in “dictating specific business practices” as a reason the EU is falling behind and suggests they follow the US approach instead.

Oh, that Draghi report on "The future of European competitiveness" is really worth reading.

And I also have a "few" quotes from it to share (emphasis entirely mine):


“A summary of the current empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows that stronger competition generally not only delivers lower prices, but also tends to stimulate greater productivity, investment, and innovation.

(…)

Industrial concentration levels are up, and company performance is increasingly divergent, with the size, productivity and wages of a few ‘superstar companies’ pulling ahead of the rest, most notably in the high-tech digital sectors, but in other sectors as well (e.g. retail, wholesale, finance, etc.).

Nevertheless, much needs to be done in light of changes to the business landscape. The economy has shifted towards more innovation-heavy sectors where competition is usually based on digital technologies and brands, where both scale and innovation are critical to compete rather than just low prices. Many of these markets have high fixed costs, strong data and network effects, and a ‘winner-takes-all’ character, making it more likely for a market to become dominated by one or two companies or platforms. This has been recognised in the introduction of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

(…)

Key elements of a new approach to competition policy supporting a new Industrial Deal would include the list of measures described below, which would apply to all sectors

(…)

“An innovation defence cannot be used to justify further concentration by already dominant companies or in cases in which the concentration poses significant risk of entrenching a dominant position, ultimately harming effective competition. Scale economies and network effects can create significant barriers to entry: short terms benefits to innovation linked to increased scale must, therefore, be weighed against future costs of reduced incentives to innovate by both the companies seeking to concentrate and their rivals, clients and suppliers.“

(…)

Incentivising the adoption of open access, interoperability, and adherence to EU standards through State aid and other competition tools. Open access and interoperability are pro-competitive forces, as is the adoption of common technological standards. Important advances in promoting open access and interoperability in digital markets have been achieved through the DMA. Expanding the benefits of open access and interoperability beyond the core platform services regulated by the DMA is possible, but requires either additional regulations or the introduction of incentives for businesses to adopt these choices.

(…)

In digital markets, in addition to the strong enforcement of the DMA provisions, new requirements involving open access and interoperability should be enacted when the presence of strong network effects and barriers to entry related to data impede market competition. The New Competition Tool [see point 9 below] can be used to identify the markets in need of these types of interventions06. As stressed in the ‘Joint statement on competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products’ of July 2024, AI products and services and their inputs have greater potential to benefit societies if they are developed to interoperate with each other and, accordingly, any claims that interoperability requires sacrifices to privacy and security must be carefully assessed against the potential benefits of interoperability.

(…)

Apply effectively the new powers associated with the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). The need to respond to a new economic and geopolitical situation has triggered the introduction of new powers for the competition authority in the form of the DMA and FSR, greatly expanding the possibilities for DG COMP interventions in the economy.

The evaluation of the potential distortive effects of foreign subsidies and the compliance assessment of tech platforms to the digital regulations share a high degree of complexity. It is of paramount importance for the EU that these new rules are applied effectively and result in the intended benefits for EU consumers and businesses. Otherwise, not only would the credibility of the EU as a regulator be hurt, but economic damages would also follow, such as the reduced appetite of multinational companies to invest in Europe and the delayed deployment of technological advances.

(…)

Introduce a ‘New Competition Tool’ (NCT) in four areas. The NCT is a market investigation instrument designed to address structural competition problems and to determine a solution together with firms as a potential instrument for enforcing competition policy in today’s rapidly evolving economy, but it has not yet been adopted.

The introduction of an NCT would allow DG COMP to carry out a Market Study to identify the problem and then a Market Investigation to determine the solution together with firms to solve it. The design of this tool must strike a balance between the potential benefits of fixing structural competition problems and the limits of competition enforcement, especially given the limited resources available for the latter.

(…)

The NCT would be activated following specific indications of possible anti-competitive conducts or a preliminary assessment of the expected positive impacts of solving the identified structural problems. The Commission shall be given the power to design together with firms and accept effective remedies to tackle systematic failures of competition and impose their application. If enacted, this provision would require adequate resources for DG COMP, additional to those already discussed earlier.

(…)

Accelerate the decision-making processes and increase the predictability of decisions. The high stakes involved in most European competition policy cases create a systematic conflict between the needs for accuracy and those for speed and certainty. Decade-long cases like the Intel case are the most visible instance, although not frequent they are not isolated episodes. The DMA is a response to this situation for the digital sector.

The processes through which competition policy is enforced must continue to be revised to make business operations easier and faster, assessing all instances where it is possible to reduce the burden on companies.

Initiatives like the 2023 Merger Simplification Package could be expanded to all areas of competition policy enforcement. Other existing ambiguities regarding which non-notifiable mergers can be reviewed and by which public authority, which novel cooperative agreements are legitimate, which types of contracts entails an exclu- sionary abuse of dominance and which State aid programmes in line with EU-wide industrial policy are not distortive must be clearly specified by reinforcing guidelines and templates09. Ex-ante regulation like the DMA should not become the primary tool to foster competition in markets unless special structural impediments to competition, like those present in digital markets, exist.”

Do you think Draghi is mistaken when he says the EU’s practice of dictating business terms to companies is harming the EU’s competitiveness in the tech space?

There's lots of things where I agree with Draghi, yes:

• Strong enforcement of the DMA
• Innovation doesn't justify further market concentration
• Additional regulations or incentives are needed for open access and interoperability in digital markets
• NCT, as a quicker, more flexible and "tailored market investigation and ex-ante regulatory tool. Anticipated to be particularly useful in the digital sector, including more flexible designation of companies or platforms having strategic market status (think: designating someone or someone as a gatekeeper, despite not yet meeting every threshold once set by law)

👉 Yeah, I can get on board with Draghi on that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

a toll, that despite your protestations otherwise, has reduced in price for the vast majority of developers over the past 15 years

...but not for the majority of transactions - because they are (or would be) made between "large" developers and consumers, and not small ones.

Developers do not deserve access to Apple's property, for free, just because they happen to exist and want to reach iOS users.

They do deserve access to consumers.
And to compete on fair and equitable terms with Apple.

Because Apple's "property" is such an important and entrenched intermediary platform between so many businesses and consumers. Customers having chosen that platform, for whatever reason (they're myriads) doesn't change a thing about that - because there aren't many others to choose from. Mobile OS and application stores not a competitive market.

Apple does not own their customer base or access to it. And when they pretend and act as if they do, they deserve to be regulated, fined, restricted in their rights - and ultimately stripped of them, if necessary. I'm happy for the EU to make it rain billions over billions in fines over them - until they comply (in good faith) or withdraw.

👉 This, in essence, is the difference between the two of us on the issue:

You believe in unlimited ownership rights (and charging as they please) for the richest company in the world.
And I believe in limiting their rights, to strike a fair balance between them, consumers and other businesses.

 

[surferfb]

You believe in unlimited ownership and price/commission charging rights for the richest company in the world.
And I believe in limiting their rights, to strike a fair balance between them, consumers - and other businesses.

No, I believe that governments should not be in the business of dictating business terms to minority market participants, or telling them how they are allowed to use or monetize their property, whether they’re the poorest company in the world or the richest company in the world without a very good reason. And the EU has not met that burden, particularly because the changes the government is dictating are already offered by the majority player in their market.

And with that, I am done engaging with you on the DMA. I’ll leave you with the sincere hope you are correct and I am wrong. But given the EU’s track record with regulating tech, I’m pretty sure I won’t be.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No, I believe that governments should not be in the business of dictating business terms to minority market participants, or telling them how they are allowed to use or monetize their property, whether they’re the poorest company in the world or the richest company in the world

I take that as basically rephrasing what I said above - in gentler and friendlier terms. 😃

without a very good reason. And the EU has not met that burden, particularly because the changes the government is dictating are already offered by the majority player in their market.

Businesses are in the ...uhh, business of making money.
So are developers of mobile software applications and services provided on mobile devices.

And when Apple controls about half of the entire consumer spending in that market, they're not a minority player.
Also, given (1) given the tacit collusion (or "similarity") in terms and conditions between them and "the other" company in that duopoly and (2) the supposedly "minority" player being even more restrictive in access and interoperability terms, letting them go unregulated and do as they please achieves nothing in reining in the majority player.

With that said, yes, I agree, we're pretty much done. 🙂

 

[wbeasley]

Just checked, account created an hour ago. I should have checked that before responding 🤣

any post with EU in the title should be classed as political to stop newbie accounts from posting... otherwise you end up with the "discussion" you just had ;(

 

[VulchR]

But that's not what's being demanded. Not in the slightest. Apple is free to make the best products possible, as it frequently does. Apple can distinguish them from a competitor how they see fit. They just are being forbidden to withhold features from competitors that they themselves use freely in order to be better. Obviously if Apple allow other people to delevop apps and gadgets for iOS, then it's most definitely not a fair and level playing field if they then cherry pick the good stuff and chuck the scraps to the underdogs.

Any sort of enforced standardisation, from USB connectors to hooks into the operating system, by definition will reduce diversity among products. And since this drive for standardisation seems to be aimed at some companies and not others under the crassly transparent guise of 'competition', then I assume this is about EU protectionism and nothing more. Just my two cents, but I think this is how this is going to be viewed in the US, and that's not good.

 

[Meatwad]

So you say MacOS is virus ridden too?

More so than iOS.

 

[Meatwad]

"We" 😂

Oh deary, deary me.

😂

What a world.

Would you prefer we bring you Freedom? Do you happen to have any oil?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Any sort of enforced standardisation, from USB connectors to hooks into the operating system, by definition will reduce diversity among products

USB connectors aren’t meaningful features in terms of product differentiation.

And since this drive for standardisation seems to be aimed at some companies and not others under the crassly transparent guise of 'competition'

The regulation requiring USB connectors applies to all companies.

hooks into the operating system, by definition will reduce diversity among products

Wrong.

It increases diversity and competition for the products that benefit from increased integration into operating systems.

When only Apple‘s watch, Apple‘s speaker or Apple’s service can offer integration with the operating system and features important to consumers because Apple is withholding interoperability from competing watches/speakers/services, that means less competition.

And still, no one forces Apple to offer the same operating system features or access to them as other smartphones. They are free to meaningfully differentiate their phones and OS from competing devices and operating systems.

 

[dropadrop]

We have already seen the negative impacts of this sort of stance with Windows and the Crowdstrike situation. Because Microsoft couldn't lock down certain access, they allowed a product to operate in such a way that caused a massive outage. Apple, Google, Microsoft, they all should have MORE access than any random third party developer. They are the operating system creators, they should have more access than anyone else. I don't agree with the stance that Apple must open iOS to the same level of access to any and all random developers.

Not at all comparable. That was about unlimited kernel access where a bug can then cause havoc. The whole point of creating and providing an API is that select access can be provided in a controlled way.

Though in a sense I guess if Microsoft blocked access for all other AV solutions and continued to use it for defender (sold separately) they would run into similar anti-competitive rulings very quickly.

Like I mentioned earlier, I don’t like all the EU rulings, for example the App Store makes no sense to me. Still, interoperation of devices is really valuable and in this case there should be very little things that an Apple Watch does towards your phone that could not be exposed with an API to third parties.

 

[Mousse]

Apple uses A LOT of open source in their software, so Apple have no real excuse to not go open source.
Apple only cares about money and profit, so if EU demands it, Apple may finally go open source.

An iOS equivalent of AOSP would be nice. I would love a perma-root iOS with a firewall. But I doubt Apple would play nice with open source iOS. They'll add stuff to make iOS and open source iOS incompatible. Fracturing iOS with multiple branches? No thanks.😑

 

[VulchR]

USB connectors aren’t meaningful features in terms of product differentiation.

The regulation requiring USB connectors applies to all companies.

Wrong.

And increases diversity and competition the the products that benefit from increased integration into operating systems.

When only Apple‘s watch, Apple‘s speaker or Apple’s service can offer integration with the operating system and features important to consumers because Apple is withholding interoperability from competing watches/speakers/services, that means less competition.

And still, no one forces Apple to offer the same operating system features or access to them as other smartphones. They are free to meaningfully differentiate their phones and OS from competing devices and operating systems.

Lightning connectors are not meaningful differentiators of Apple's products any more, so I think you missed my point. Personally I have always preferred them mechanically to any form of USB connector and wish Apple had a chance to update their Lightning standard, but that point is mute now. Thanks EU. And now I'll have to have a new set of cables for USB-C. The USB requirment applied equally to all companies, as you note, but primarily affected Apple. Funny how that worked.

The idea that only Apple's products can interface meaningfully with iOS is utter nonsense. I have had multiple examples of earphones, keyboards, Fitbits, power adaptors, calibrated microphones, hubs, displays, etc. that all worked without a hitch with the iPhone. And I used these devices with little worry of a security breach, something I would be more concerned about now under the EU regulations.

What the EU has done is the equivalent of forcing Pizza Express to allow Dominoes' pepperoni on their pizzas and call that 'competition' rather than a government assisting one company to encroach on the market of another. This has reduced consumer choice in that there is now no mobile phone OS that secured completely by a walled garden in the EU (thankfully there still is in the UK, for now). In this regard I think the EU missed an opportunity - they should have made Apple guarantee app quality and app security in order to get the fees from downloads, complete with civil liability for the consequences of bad apps. That would have made things far more secure, but alas the EU just wanted to push the interests of European companies, not help the consumer. Anyway, I have had my say on this.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Personally I have always preferred them mechanically to any form of USB connector and wish Apple had a chance to update their Lightning standard, but that point is mute now. Thanks EU

They‘ve had many years to do it. Also, they chose USB-C for their MacBooks in 2015 - and phones and computers ultimately converging to using the same connector makes sense.

The idea that only Apple's products can interface meaningfully with iOS is utter nonsense

I didn‘t say they do.

You generalised by statinghat it „by definition will reduce diversity among products“.
I merely provided examples against that. We‘re certainly see little evidence of speakers lacking interoperability with iOS devices but…

I have had multiple examples of earphones, keyboards, Fitbits, power adaptors, calibrated microphones, hubs, displays, etc. that all worked without a hitch with the iPhone

How many of your fitbits/watches provided iPhone notifications and could interface with multilpe apps on your phone? How many of your smart speakers can control music playback on your phone by voice commands?

What the EU has done is the equivalent of forcing Pizza Express to allow Dominoes' pepperoni on their pizzas

See my signature that I‘ve had for months.

Apple doesn’t operate fast food restaurants, iOS isn’t a pizza, and pizzas aren’t platform products.
Consumers don‘t spend hundreds of dollars on a Pizza Express subscription before ordering their first pizza.
And businesses don‘t have to spend billions of dollars to enter the pizza delivery market.