Apple Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA

[mode11]

This is a storm in a teacup. Many of the AI features are being delayed anyway, and I'm sure Apple are perfectly capable of figuring out how make them DMA compliant. They deal with regulatory and legal issues all the time - it's part of normal business.

If for some reason Apple can't figure it out, it will simply make them look further behind on AI, and their customers will blame them, not the EU. The bottom line is whether Apple can deliver features to their customers, and moaning about having to comply the EU regulations won't get them anywhere. They'll get it done, just like they did with USB-C.

If AI features turn out to be genuinely useful, and Apple can't / won't deliver them, it will simply drive customers towards phones like the Samsung Galaxy. And if they're not, who cares anyway.

 

[surferfb]

Ultimately either you think the market that should be looked at from a regulation perspective is “smartphone users” or “iOS users”.

Those of us who find the DMA a ridiculous overreach think that the market should be defined as “smartphone users” as there is a perfectly acceptable operating system that does everything they say they want and therefore iOS shouldn’t be regulated like they have 90% market share as they have <30% of the market in the EU.

EU defenders think the market should be “iOS users”. Which makes no sense to me given there is a perfectly viable option in Android that does everything they claim they want AND has a majority of smartphone users in Europe. But clearly a large, vocal contingent on MacRumors either thinks switching is impossible or Apple’s business model and competitive advantages are less important that developers’ being able to freeload off of Apple’s successful platform built, in large part, of end users being able to trust that apps are behaving responsibly because of Apple’s decisions that are now apparently horrendous enough to be regulated out of existence.

Don’t think anyone here is changing anyone else’s mind on the ultimate point. So we’ve become the Oatmeal “someone is wrong on the internet” comic.

 

[surferfb]

They'll get it done, just like they did with USB-C.

I’m sure I’ll get laughed out of the thread for this, but I really don’t think the EU was the reason Apple switched to USB-C. I mean, sure, the EU regulation probably made it happen a year or two earlier than it would have otherwise, but Phil Schiller said lightening was the cable “for the next decade” when it was introduced in 2012, Apple helped design USB-C, and had already switched all computers and the iPad pros to USB-C. I’m confident Apple was moving in that direction, probably just wanted mag safe charging to be more popular first so they didn’t get all the bad press like they did with the first port change. (Side note: my mother-in-law is holding off updating her phone because she doesn’t want to buy a bunch of new cables 🤣)

I also still think regulating the cable in law is a really stupid idea, even as I LOVE having everything be usb-c. But it means we’ll never get a better connector. But obviously in the world where you don’t think Apple would have changed the port without regulation, it’s better that it’s there.

 

[mode11]

Those of us who find the DMA a ridiculous overreach think that the market should be defined as “smartphone users” as there is a perfectly acceptable operating system that does everything they say they want and therefore iOS shouldn’t be regulated like they have 90% market share as they have <30% of the market in the EU.

As has been explained to those of you ad nauseum, the DMA applies to both Apple and Google (and others, like Microsoft). Apple doesn’t get to ignore the rules just because people can buy a phone from someone who doesn’t.

 

[breenmask]

Why is it funny? Altstore PAL has two apps. All the others are also similar. Even otherwise, logically speaking, they depend on their reputation because once they get a bad reputation, they will cease to exist. Nobody will go there. They are not going to get a free pass like Apple even when their Appstore is better than Apple's

if a store has 2 apps, that does not automatically mean better curation just because they have more time to spend on an app.

apps can easily hide feature sets at review time. alt stores are disposable so bad actors wouldn't mind getting banned from there. getting on the App Store however is more important and there are less bad actors who are willing to risk getting banned from the largest App Store in terms of revenue.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Ultimately either you think the market that should be looked at from a regulation perspective is “smartphone users” or “iOS users”.

I kind of agree with that distinction - and it's also (finally) a reasonable one to distinguish between the different operating systems, and not hardware manufacturers.

EU defenders think the market should be “iOS users”. Which makes no sense to me given there is a perfectly viable option in Android that does everything they claim they want AND has a majority of smartphone users in Europe

It makes sense because

• The numbers of smartphone users doesn't matter to consumers - nor does it matter to business users (developer) that want to do business through apps on those platforms. The question rather is: Access to which potential revenue/earnings do they provide?
• I can't choose to buy my apps from the Play Store tomorrow. I'm (or would be, without be the DMA) locked into using Apple's App Store for the short to mid term. Because no sane consumer is going to spend a few hundred dollars and hours to set up and get accustomed to Android for a particular apps. Or, say, because Apple banned a particular app or functionality from their platform.
• it's not just iOS users - the DMA also applies to Google and their Play Store.
• having another software platform isn't a remedy. Apple banning a cross-platform app (Fortnite, Spotify, let alone dating apps) from their platform does seriously impede their ability to compete in their respective overall market. Well, maybe not for games, where platform exclusivity is common. But certainly for music streaming or dating apps - where they'll have a serious competitive disadvantage by being unavailable on one of the two smartphone platforms.

Android that does everything they claim they want AND has a majority of smartphone users in Europe

Such as Windows has among desktop PC operating systems.

It's prudent policy to not let that market become even more concentrated and let alone Android become even more essential for businesses and consumers.

That means strengthening competing platforms - or at least guaranteeing fair competition, so as not to let the dominant OS become a de facto "take it all" monopoly.

A fair and useful competitive balance between between operating systems and digital services (e.g. streaming) isn't (and won't be) achieved by "propping up" one provider in a duopoly and letting them do as they please. It also entails third-party businesses being able to compete on said (both!) platforms.

 

[wbeasley]

Just set your iPhone region to something else.

EU version is geo locked. not user selectable choice...

 

[wbeasley]

The ultimate slap in the DMA face... "there is no intelligence in the EU (version)"

So Apple has perhaps found a way to fork iOS after all.

Expect more and more new features to drop or be crippled.
It's like pulling out of EU region without pulling out of sales.
Perhaps they are testing the water with this release to see the impact...

 

[surferfb]

As has been explained to those of you ad nauseum, the DMA applies to both Apple and Google (and others, like Microsoft). Apple doesn’t get to ignore the rules just because people can buy a phone from someone who doesn’t.

I understand that. Frankly, I don’t think it should apply to anyone because (I believe) it is a terribly written, ambiguous law that is going to have unintended consequences like causing the EU to miss out on great features and making existing ones worse. (For example, while I don’t use google search, the changes that I’ve read about seem like they’ve absolutely made the product worse.)

Ultimately this doesn’t REALLY impact me as a US resident (although one who has significant enough ties to a EU country that retirement in the EU is likely) outside of Apple’s time and attention being spent on this vs. making the OS better. But I have ideological issue with forcing companies to do stuff like this when there are competitors that provide the proposed remedy as a selling point.

To make a long story longer, I really do see the market to be regulated as “smartphone users” and regulating iOS is a huge overreach that is going to make it worse for everyone. Clearly others here feel just as strongly that I’m crazy. So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[steve09090]

If anyone's stifling competition in apps and digital services, it's Apple.

Rubbish. Apple invented this space. There are many developers that are huge because of Apple!

They have no problem with it on macOS.

That is factually wrong. They are protecting MacOS by removing iPhone mirroring. Surely you can see that.

 

[dba415]

The ultimate slap in the DMA face... "there is no intelligence in the EU (version)"

So Apple has perhaps found a way to fork iOS after all.

Expect more and more new features to drop or be crippled.
It's like pulling out of EU region without pulling out of sales.
Perhaps they are testing the water with this release to see the impact...

It's a great way to get folks to buy an android in the EU. Google is lovng this.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Summary: good. EU doesn't need AI. Wine, brie, and baguettes are more than anyone needs. There really is no reason for more than Spotify on an iPod in Europe. And I love spending months at a time over there.

 

[Realityck]

That is factually wrong. They are protecting MacOS by removing iPhone mirroring. Surely you can see that.

More likely its because the continuity feature iPhone mirroring utilizes end to end encryption which some EU countries would love to hack for criminal investigation? Apple Intelligence involves a lot of access to personal data.

Encryption laws by Country: Who has the heaviest restrictions?

Deciphering control: Explore the global landscape of encryption laws to find out which governments impose the strictest regulations on data privacy and security.

www.comparitech.com

 

[steve09090]

More likely its because the continuity feature iPhone mirroring utilizes end to end encryption which some EU countries would love to hack for criminal investigation? Apple Intelligence involves a lot of access to personal data.

Encryption laws by Country: Who has the heaviest restrictions?

Deciphering control: Explore the global landscape of encryption laws to find out which governments impose the strictest regulations on data privacy and security.

www.comparitech.com

I did think of that. A potential back door to iOS, but I’d think pretty locked down. The EU would like nothing more.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Rubbish. Apple invented this space.

Apple didn't invent emulators, game or music streaming.
They in fact unscrupulously copied Spotify's and Netflix' products, muscling themselves into these markets by bundling their apps with their iOS devices.

That is factually wrong. They are protecting MacOS by removing iPhone mirroring. Surely you can see that.

Nonsense.

This allows controlling your iPhone from your Mac.
The iPhone being the server and the Mac being the client in remote desktop lingo.
Seems they don't seem to want to allow third parties to access this, as it could be construed as a DMA-relevant feature. If anything, this protects the iPhone ("server"), not the Mac client.

In reality though, the security concerns are again fully overblown FUD - considering how macOS has remote desktop/screen sharing functionality built in - and easily enableable by the average consumer.

More likely its because the continuity feature iPhone mirroring utilizes end to end encryption which some EU countries would love to hack for criminal investigation?

Utter nonsense.

Apple - just like many other companies - has rolled out end-to-end encryption - and that includes in the EU.
There are no relevant restrictions on encryption in computer software in the EU that would prevent iPhone mirroring.

👉 Continuity features are available in the EU today. And they use encryption. Mirroring an iPhone's screen doesn't require additional encryption - it can use the very same encryption. And it will be done locally, for performance reasons.

But local encryption is not on the radar or wish list of EU legislators (though admittedly, encryption between different endpoints over messenger apps has been).

Again, I imagine it could possibly be construed as being an iOS features that they'd have to let third parties access under the DMA. Though I very doubt it, given how the third-party access happens from a device/OS that's not designed as core platform service (macOS).

I did think of that. A potential back door to iOS, but I’d think pretty locked down. The EU would like nothing more.

The U.S. and its three-letter agencies would be the first ones to like that. Not the EU.

Some legislators in the EU have lately been asking for transport encryption to be weakened/opened up. But not device encryption.

👉 Unlike the "DMA-free" U.K. or the U.S., they EU doesn't even have legislation in place that would require suspects or travellers at the border to unlock their digital devices. Both much easier and feasible ways to get device access.

Also, the DMA was passed long before Apple revealed, probably long before they developed iPhone mirroring.

 

[I7guy]

[..]


No one else can compete.
Not in the EU, not in Japan, the UK or the U.S.
Microsoft failed, BlackBerry failed.
The market positions are entrenched - just as Windows’s position is for desktop OS.

That’s what happens when a company produces products people WANT to buy.

 

[steve09090]

Apple didn't invent emulators, game or music streaming.
They in fact unscrupulously copied Spotify's and Netflix' products, muscling themselves into these markets by bundling their apps with their iOS devices.

You were talking about Apple stifling services. Big claim.

Since when did Spotify have access to mobile devices before the iPhone? And when did Spotify get their massive increase user base? When did Apple bundle Spotify into their iOS devices? You haven't told a single fact! Here is a reality. These companies have increased their user base because of Apple. So how have they stifled their services? Remember that Netflix have refused to integrate with Apple TV, not the other way around.

In reality though, the security concerns are again fully overblown FUD - considering how macOS has remote desktop/screen sharing functionality built in - and easily enableable by the average consumer.

I have not mentioned their security concerns. I do agree that Apple have the best end to end encryption. Unlike Google who openly scan everyone’s Gmail, and Adobe who now say they will say they can use your copyrighted Images.

Also, the DMA was passed long before Apple revealed, probably long before they developed iPhone mirroring.

How would you even know that? Again, you’re starting to make a very tenuous argument based on conjecture. It would be better if you made your arguments based on facts, but whatever.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS:

I can kind of, somehow see how Apple may believe it could be a feature covered by the DMA (and that they've got to give third-parties access to). That Apple may be unsure how to grant others access in a compliant way while remaining secure and within their own parameters (red lines) of what access they're offering to third parties.

That said, secure encryption and authentication between devices is a problem that has been technically solved. And Apple is using it in a variety of ways in their products today. They're using it to control a Mac from another Mac even over the internet - and it has been built into macOS for many years.

This decision (with regards to iPhone mirroring) would amount to them not wanting to give access to third parties for marketing or anticompetitive reasons.

But the breaking encryption, forbidden ecryption and backdooring allegations are as plausible and believeable as conspiracy theories as Pizzagate.

That’s what happens when a company produces products people WANT to buy.

Monopolies or duopolies in consumer markets evolve from products that people want(ed) to buy, yes.

That doesn't mean we let them evolve and be leveraged without government intervention for decades.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You were talking about Apple stifling services

The game streaming app requirements they used to have were obvious examples.

Since when did Spotify have access to mobile devices before the iPhone? And when did Spotify get their massive increase user base? When did Apple bundle Spotify into their iOS devices?

History doesn't matter.
What matters is Apple's conduct today (where they've begun competing with, for instance, Spotify).

Spotify subscriptions can't be managed in-app unless Spotify pay 30% commission to their biggest competitor.
Apple has also basically banned competitor's apps from communicating offers, pricing and subscription options (unless, again, they pay a 30% commission to their biggest competitor, Apple themselves). While their own hardware devices will advertised free trial subscriptions to Apple Music in freaking system Settings. In a way that's misleading and tricking users to believe that haven't set up their devices completely.

Unsurprisingly, Spotify have continually been losing market share whereas Apple Music has grown to become their biggest competitor.

How would you even know that? Again, you’re starting to make a very tenuous argument based on conjecture. It would be better if you made your arguments based on facts, but whatever.

1. The DMA was not passed in anticipation and knowledge of Apple's iPhone mirroring.
2. And it was not passed with the intention a means of backdooring iPhones through this mirroring functionality.

That is not conjecture. That is common sense deduction from observation (of timelines).
Claims to the contrary (on these two particular points) are absurd conspiracy level stuff.
And as with all good conspiracy theories, it can't be proven that there's nothing to it.
Yet it defies common sense.

 

[steve09090]

PS:

I can kind of, somehow see how Apple may believe it could be a feature covered by the DMA (and that they've got to give third-parties access to). That Apple may be unsure how to grant others access in a compliant way while remaining secure and within their own parameters (red lines) of what access they're offering to third parties.

That said, secure encryption and authentication between devices is a problem that has been technically solved. And Apple is using it in a variety of ways in their products today. They're using it to control a Mac from another Mac even over the internet - and it has been built into macOS for many years.

Exactly. Thats why they are being careful.

This decision (with regards to iPhone mirroring) would amount to them not wanting to give access to third parties for marketing or anticompetitive reasons.

I’m not sure how you know this? Or is it one of the conspiracy theories you are talking about below?

But the breaking encryption, forbidden ecryption and backdooring allegations are as plausible and believeable as conspiracy theories as Pizzagate.

Monopolies or duopolies in consumer markets evolve from products that people want(ed) to buy, yes.

That doesn't mean we let them evolve and be leveraged without government intervention for decades.

Apple have always complied with laws in a changing/evolving environment. Laws change and Apple comply. Why don't you think Apple have the right to make changes that suit their company within that environment? FOMO?

 

[steve09090]

The game streaming app requirements they used to have were obvious examples.

History doesn't matter.

Did you seriously use history as an example and then history doesn’t matter?

Unsurprisingly, Spotify have continually been losing market share whereas Apple Music has grown to become their biggest competitor.

Thats not true though is it? Please use facts. There are also other factors involved in developing market share other than competitors. Yet here we are. Spotify are pretty stable and they keep increasing prices and reducing quality and increasing ads.

Date	Spotify Market share
Q2 2019	34%
Q2 2020	33%
Q2 2021	31%
Q2 2022	30.5%
Q3 2023	31.7%

Edit: I’m done. I’m not going to bicker with someone who is just making stuff up all of the time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I’m not sure how you know this? Or is it one of the conspiracy theories you are talking about below?

I'm just saying that iPhone mirroring is a technically solvable problem.
Apple has solved it between Macs - even over "hostile" internet connections.

They obviously cannot or do not want to solve it in the same way.
There may be rational and somewhat reasonable reasons behind that (being "careful" as you call it).

But as being technically solvable, that means it's a marketing decision.
They may not like the way a possible solutions "looks" that would enable access for third parties.

Why don't you think Apple have the right to make changes that suit their company within that environment? FOMO?

Monopolising access to the installation of software applications on platforms as ubiquitous (and with as many businesses and consumers depending on them) in modern society as modern mobile smartphones is undesirable.

👉 As one particular - yet popular - example:

• Music streaming subscriptions are extremely popular
• Managing subscriptions for music streaming services on mobile devices is convenient and in the interest of many consumers
• Music streaming services having low costs on payment and transaction processing is in the interest of their providers and consumers alike. Low costs make for an efficient market
• Competition between different services is, again, in the interest of consumers. And again make for an efficient market outcome
• A competitors in music streaming subscriptions having the power to "tax" their biggest competitors on a sizeable share of market revenue is undesirable under the premise of fair competition

👉 That is why Apple's ability to make changes or decisions that suit them should be legally restricted.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


Monopolies or duopolies in consumer markets evolve from products that people want(ed) to buy, yes.

That doesn't mean we let them evolve and be leveraged without government intervention for decades.

Apple is a natural monopoly. But other than that the legal definition of a monopolistic company is not met. Unlike your opinion doesn’t mean they need government intervention. The Dma proves apple s business practices were legal. Eu just didn’t like them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple is a natural monopoly.

👍

But other than that the legal definition of a monopolistic company is not met

It is met.

The legal definition of a monopolistic company does not require an economic monopoly in the true sense of the word (see here and here, for instance).

The Dma proves apple s business practices were legal

It does not prove it.
Though it clearly suggests they saw current antitrust legislation as insufficient.

Apple recently being fined by the EU commission according to existing antitrust law also suggests that Apple's practices were not legal but illegal. Though of course the final word hasn't been spoken on that.

Eu just didn’t like them.

I think we can at least agree, that

1. finding Apple guilty of violating pre-existing antitrust law
2. enforcing that law in a timely and convincing manner and
3. having that finding withstand a legal challenge

was deemed as at least "difficult" by the EU.

That's why, given the didn't like such business practices, they resorted to enacting specialised law.
I agree that was a good and correct decision and we probably agree that you disagree.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

This was quite predictable. A large part of the DMA is about making Apple’s business model of vertical integration illegal. Apple needs to be quite cautious here.

A more cynical take is that they want to pressure EU users to contact their regulators and demand softer enforcement of DMA. Probably a bit of both.