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

[koil]

Apple will just do the same here, they will pay whatever the fine will be and carry on until they can find another way to make the big app players pay money too Apple even if they were to leave Apples app store.

Lmao, good luck with that, it's gonna be in the order of tens of billions of euros per fine here. Doubt that will be their chosen approach.

Personally, I don't care so much for those particular new features. I'm much more worried about things that never make the headlines like bugs in Mail.app, wonky hardware drivers or temperamental Bluetooth stacks.

My point is, instead of going public with extremely vague statement, they could just make their decision based on consultations with the EC and then communicate the results to the public. If that means that some features won't ever be released in the EU, Apple should just communicate this clearly.

I'm a little bummed out, not gonna lie, all three features are things I could see myself using, but I expect when it comes to Apple Intelligence it's just a matter of Apple breaking out some more APIs into entitlements so that an alternative can technically be installed, then they'll be able to release their version.

As for the other two features I have a very hard time understanding the technical reasoning for them being withheld.

With iPhone mirroring it's inevitable that someone figures out how to use the existing APIs to implement support for other OSs anyway (see https://github.com/libimobiledevice/libimobiledevice), and for the life of me I can't figure out why that would even be such a problem.

And with SharePlay screen sharing I guess they would have to allow more than just FaceTime access to the APIs to be DMA compliant, but that's pretty obviously something they should enable isn't it? Maybe they're just working on the developer documentation before releasing, and it gets made available straight away in markets like the US where it isn't necessary to play fair?

Regardless, like I said earlier in the thread, all this is fair game, I don't think Apple are so childish or petty that they would actually choose to not ship these features in the EU, so my guess is that they just need to make alternatives possible, then they'll be shipped in the EU too, but time will tell!

Without any kind of information about what the plan is I have no reason to line up for an iPhone 16 Pro to replace my 14 Pro, and I suspect many are in the same boat, and I expect Apples MBAs understand this too.

 

[surferfb]

I'm a little bummed out, not gonna lie, all three features are things I could see myself using, but I expect when it comes to Apple Intelligence it's just a matter of Apple breaking out some more APIs into entitlements so that an alternative can technically be installed, then they'll be able to release their version.

The more I read, I actually don't think Apple will be able to release Apple Intelligence without an explicit ok from the EU, which I am not sure the EU will ever give. The DMA clearly says gatekeepers can't combine private data it has access to through the platform (i.e. iOS) "with any other service provided by the gatekeeper."

With iPhone mirroring it's inevitable that someone figures out how to use the existing APIs to implement support for other OSs anyway (see https://github.com/libimobiledevice/libimobiledevice), and for the life of me I can't figure out why that would even be such a problem.

This one I think eventually makes its way over to the EU, just will take a while. My guess is Apple wants clarity around whether or not it has to offer public APIs to allow other OSes to do so. Given this feature is supposed to work with the phone locked, I also imagine there could also be security concerns

And with SharePlay screen sharing I guess they would have to allow more than just FaceTime access to the APIs to be DMA compliant, but that's pretty obviously something they should enable isn't it? Maybe they're just working on the developer documentation before releasing, and it gets made available straight away in markets like the US where it isn't necessary to play fair?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Do they have to offer public APIs so Teams, Zoom, etc. can do what Apple does via FaceTime? I think the answer is pretty clearly yes under the DMA. (Which I personally find ridiculous, but I'm definitely in the minority here, and anyways the law is the law). Apple has stated publicly that they have a higher standard of quality for public APIs as others are using them, and sees supporting them for the long term is something they have to do as developers are building features around them. Maybe the private API they are using is rough around the edges and they need more time to polish it.

Ultimately, people need to realize that the DMA is not primarily about the App Store, alternate payment processing, and side loading. it's primarily an attack on the ability of gatekeepers to integrate. And unfortunately for Apple, their entire business model is based on delighting users through integration. So expect a lot more of these sorts of feature holdbacks unless something changes.

 

[koil]

The more I read, I actually don't think Apple will be able to release Apple Intelligence without an explicit ok from the EU, which I am not sure the EU will ever give. The DMA clearly says gatekeepers can't combine private data it has access to through the platform (i.e. iOS) "with any other service provided by the gatekeeper."

Again, EU laws are not to be read simply through the written text, but the intent for which they are written. In this case I would expect that as long as others are able to do what Apple did then they wouldn't be acting as a gatekeeper. Actually that's true without any particularly complex legal shenanigans, gatekeeper status is simply something that's decided per field.

Also, I'd assume if Apple Intelligence actually is illegal, then so is probably current Siri, Alexa, Cortana, Hey Google, etc. which I find hard to believe they didn't consider, I mean there's literally specific text covering digital personal assistants in the DMA.

I stand by my take that it's likely just a matter of Apple providing adequate APIs/entitlements for alternatives to technically be shippable, then they'll be able to ship Apple Intelligence in the EU too.

But I could be off my rocker here, only time will tell!

This one I think eventually makes its way over to the EU, just will take a while. My guess is Apple wants clarity around whether or not it has to offer public APIs to allow other OSes to do so. Given this feature is supposed to work with the phone locked, I also imagine there could also be security concerns

Isn't it just a case of allowing the computer to provide authentication to unlock the device? Similar to how CarPlay can unlock the device?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Do they have to offer public APIs so Teams, Zoom, etc. can do what Apple does via FaceTime? I think the answer is pretty clearly yes under the DMA. (Which I personally find ridiculous, but I'm definitely in the minority here, and anyways the law is the law).

Why do you find it ridiculous? It's a pretty common feature to be able to screen share when you're in a meeting, if you're an app developer showing your team (or product owner) some new functionality then this feature would be absolutely ace, and why should Apple be the only company able to offer that? Especially when almost no teams outside of 1 Infinite Loop or 1 Apple Park Way are using FaceTime for team meetings? (I'll admit, I'm guessing wildly here, but I think my point stands without it.)

Apple has stated publicly that they have a higher standard of quality for public APIs as others are using them, and sees supporting them for the long term is something they have to do as developers are building features around them. Maybe the private API they are using is rough around the edges and they need more time to polish it.

I think this is exactly it, or at least part of it.

Ultimately, people need to realize that the DMA is not primarily about the App Store, alternate payment processing, and side loading. it's primarily an attack on the ability of gatekeepers to integrate. And unfortunately for Apple, their entire business model is based on delighting users through integration. So expect a lot more of these sorts of feature holdbacks unless something changes.

The DMA isn't trying to stop gatekeepers from integrating their products, it's simply trying to get gatekeepers to make it possible for other companies to provide the same level of integration if the users of the platform choose it.

 

[spazzcat]

Lmao, good luck with that, it's gonna be in the order of tens of billions of euros per fine here. Doubt that will be their chosen approach.


...

There is no way Apple will pay that kind of fine, they will do what they do every time they get a fine. They will appeal to the higher court, and the higher court will either make the fine less or zero.

 

[spazzcat]

...


The DMA isn't trying to stop gatekeepers from integrating their products, it's simply trying to get gatekeepers to make it possible for other companies to provide the same level of integration if the users of the platform choose it.

And that is where Apple will stop introducing new features to the EU.

 

[surferfb]

Why do you find it ridiculous? It's a pretty common feature to be able to screen share when you're in a meeting, if you're an app developer showing your team (or product owner) some new functionality then this feature would be absolutely ace, and why should Apple be the only company able to offer that? Especially when almost no teams outside of 1 Infinite Loop or 1 Apple Park Way are using FaceTime for team meetings? (I'll admit, I'm guessing wildly here, but I think my point stands without it.)

I have a philosophical problem with requiring a company to make their competitor’s products more attractive. If Apple wants to offer that functionality on their own accord through public APIs, great. They should. If a competitor can figure out a way to make it work using existing public APIs, also fine. But I feel it’s a huge overreach for a government to come in and say “you have to create a public API for your competitors to use”. To me, it's just as outrageous as making Apple send out a push notification to all iOS users touting features in the latest Galaxy phone. The government is compelling a private company to speak in a way they would prefer not to.

Mandating also can lead to weird places too - what if there is something particular about Windows that makes the feature not work as well as it does on a Mac. Is Apple then obligated to update the API to make it work better? What if fixing a security exploit with the feature on the Mac breaks something with the Windows implementation? Is Apple obligated to keep the security exploit open until it can figure out a way to not break Windows? What if fixing it for Windows and Mac then breaks it for Linux or Android? Etc.

Isn't it just a case of allowing the computer to provide authentication to unlock the device? Similar to how CarPlay can unlock the device?

In theory, but I'd point out CarPlay is designed by Apple. I am nowhere near technical enough to figure out how the feature works behind the scenes, but the feature on Mac requires a T2 chip or M-series chip, and Two-Factor Authentication to be on. Apple knows the security of MacOS and iOS, but does it about Windows, Linux, and Android? When we're outside the Apple ecosystem, are we now are sharing the device's password/passcode with a third party? Can Apple mandate that Windows users having this feature require two-factor authentication? That's just off the top of my head, I am sure there are way more important security factors that need to be taken into account. So, in my mind, it isn't as easy as just "oh make the private API you are using public"

As I mentioned, it’s pretty clear I’m in the minority on this one, at least on MacRumors. And the EU will do what the EU will do regardless.

 

[agsystems]

no it doesn't as these features would first have to be classified as gatekeeping under dma by the eu or a regulator, and that can only be done once or if it's available. so apple would actually need to make it available here first, then eu would start the process of review and in my opinion would most likely classify these as not being gatekeeping.

And why take a chance? Anything that will require interoperability API's or third-party stores will not be implemented right away or NOT AT ALL

 

[MilaM]

There is no way Apple will pay that kind of fine, they will do what they do every time they get a fine. They will appeal to the higher court, and the higher court will either make the fine less or zero.

I don't have an opinion on this, but Google was not very successful with its appeal, so if that is any indication ... 🍎🏧💲.

Google loses appeal against record $4 billion EU fine | CNN Business

Google suffered one of its biggest setbacks on Wednesday when a top European court fined it 4.125 billion euros ($4.13 billion) for using its Android mobile operating system to thwart rivals, offering a precedent for other regulators to ratchet up pressure.

edition.cnn.com

 

[chmania]

it’s called a warrant. They are required by law in most jurisdictions.

In the EU, it is a statutory law, and that's for 2 or more years depending on the country. So, Apple is made to comply.

 

[chmania]

And that is where Apple will stop introducing new features to the EU.

Then, there will be another fine, a stiff one. 😏

 

[spazzcat]

Then, there will be another fine, a stiff one. 😏

Why there isn't anything in DMA that states they have to give the EU news feature they release to the rest of the world.

 

[chmania]

Why there isn't anything in DMA that states they have to give the EU news feature they release to the rest of the world.

You can read it here

 

[Abazigal]

Then, there will be another fine, a stiff one. 😏

At some point, it may just make more sense for Apple to leave the EU.

It's increasingly clear that the DMA is not simply an attack on the iOS App Store, but an all out assault on Apple's integration, the one thing which makes their products unique. If Apple is not allowed to let their apps and services work better together, then they lose their unique selling point.

What's the allure of continuing to sell a neutered product in the EU, while continuing to be subject to ever-increasing fines? Maybe it's not come to that stage yet, but I am sure it's at least a consideration from Apple's perspective.

 

[vantelimus]

In the EU, it is a statutory law, and that's for 2 or more years depending on the country. So, Apple is made to comply.

Laws about warranties vary by jurisdiction. Apple is "made to comply" in the same way all companies selling products in the EU are "made to comply". In other words, a company chooses to comply or they don't do business in the EU. There is no coercive force used as is implied by the phrasing "made to comply".

 

[AppliedMicro]

The physical book and every copy have a hard cost. They require resources to print, house, move, deliver. The e-Book has very marginal costs of storage and delivery. The cost of distributing 1 million books digitally is only marginally higher than that of distributing 1000

The concept of marginal costs is well-known to me. That doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable or economically desirable to pay or tolerate inflated commissions or prices on goods with minimal marginal costs. We don’t do it for internet access either.

I admit I wasn’t thinking of it the same way you do:

High cost of production and distribution means sales commissions are low.
Low cost of production and distribution means sales commissions are high.

Either way - manufacturers and consumer do not get to benefit from lower marginal costs?
👉🏻 Government regulation is warranted is high commissions are maintained by a sales duopoly (duopsony).

 

[breenmask]

Then why do people say Appstore is better than Playstore? Can't have it both ways.

people say play store is better than App Store too. people say a lot of things.


I don't know what your point is.

 

[koil]

Mandating also can lead to weird places too - what if there is something particular about Windows that makes the feature not work as well as it does on a Mac. Is Apple then obligated to update the API to make it work better? What if fixing a security exploit with the feature on the Mac breaks something with the Windows implementation? Is Apple obligated to keep the security exploit open until it can figure out a way to not break Windows? What if fixing it for Windows and Mac then breaks it for Linux or Android? Etc.

Nobody is telling Apple to ship applications or drivers for other platforms, Apple just needs to provide the ability for others to do so.

It isn't actually clear to me that these features have anything to do with the DMA. But if it is related I don't actually see what Apple would need to change, these are device APIs used in USB or network-communication, the community will figure out how to invoke them sooner or later. As long as Apple don't then go out of their way to break that I fail to see how anyone can argue they're breaking any laws.

In theory, but I'd point out CarPlay is designed by Apple. I am nowhere near technical enough to figure out how the feature works behind the scenes, but the feature on Mac requires a T2 chip or M-series chip, and Two-Factor Authentication to be on. Apple knows the security of MacOS and iOS, but does it about Windows, Linux, and Android? When we're outside the Apple ecosystem, are we now are sharing the device's password/passcode with a third party? Can Apple mandate that Windows users having this feature require two-factor authentication? That's just off the top of my head, I am sure there are way more important security factors that need to be taken into account. So, in my mind, it isn't as easy as just "oh make the private API you are using public"

Again, you're reading things that aren't there, what I'm saying is that the APIs are there for Apples drivers/software to use, some clever person will figure out how to do this on other platforms (regardless of whether Apple ships this feature in the EU or not). Apple aren't required to ship implementations for other OSes (and therefore doesn't need to figure out how to generate and keep auth-tokens safe on Windows), they simply need to not be dicks when others inevitably figure it out.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What if fixing a security exploit with the feature on the Mac breaks something with the Windows implementation? Is Apple obligated to keep the security exploit open until it can figure out a way to not break Windows?

Fixing things for security reasons os explicitly allowed.

It's increasingly clear that the DMA is not simply an attack on the iOS App Store, but an all out assault on Apple's integration

No, not at all.
Apple may offer and charge for integration all they want/the market bears.
The law just limits Apple keeping it only for themselves.

Here’s the the thing: Apple keeping access to themselves means consumers will not get highest quality parts/ingredients.

Simple example: if someone provides a better, more innovative music streaming service than Apple Music, Apple has to allow them access to the same background /streaming playback features (e.g. AirPlay) and system controls.

Rather than Apple being able to say: “Oh sorry, alternative music streaming service - only our own apps/integration can play music in the background on iOS or stream to AirPlay speakers. Good luck competing with us!”

And that is where Apple will stop introducing new features to the EU.

They’re obviously anticompetitive and that would be anticonsumer.
What’s the news?

 

[chmania]

Laws about warranties vary by jurisdiction. Apple is "made to comply" in the same way all companies selling products in the EU are "made to comply". In other words, a company chooses to comply or they don't do business in the EU. There is no coercive force used as is implied by the phrasing "made to comply".

All companies are made to comply, Apple is no exception. Made to comply is a coercive force. Only a fool would leave a good market. All companies vie to be in the EU.

 

[laptech]

I cannot understand why there are many people up in arms with the EU over this. The purpose of the DMA is to make it fair for everyone so no one has has a clear advantage over others. The way Apple is behaving gives the impression it does not want to play fair.

To those defending Apple, do you not want Apple to play fair?

 

[Abazigal]

I cannot understand why there are many people up in arms with the EU over this. The purpose of the DMA is to make it fair for everyone so no one has has a clear advantage over others. The way Apple is behaving gives the impression it does not want to play fair.

To those defending Apple, do you not want Apple to play fair?

IMO, too many people are too quick to cry “unfair” when they really mean “not to my advantage”.

Besides, fair could mean that everything is equally good or equally lousy. For example, if Apple is not allowed to keep Siri integration with Apple Music for themselves, there is always the option of removing it from their devices altogether rather than extend that same benefit to all similar services. So rather than at least being able to enjoy it with one streaming service, I now can’t access it at all.

Who’s really winning here by Apple playing fair, if it means a worse experience all round for everybody?

I still feel that everyone is looking at this at too superficial a level. The future won’t be one where everything works together; it may well be one where nothing does (work together), because there is no longer any money to be made in doing so.

And personally, I don’t think what Apple is doing is unfair or unreasonable. They are willing to go the extra mile in designing their products to work well together precisely because they know there is a small but loyal user base with incredibly deep pockets who are willing to spend. Remove this integration, remove this unique selling point, and what’s the incentive for Apple to continue coming up with features like universal control if they are forced to share it with everybody else, which would in turn impact their ability to monetise their own platform?

Or to put it another way, Apple is enjoying the benefits of their own integrated ecosystem right now because they were the only company willing to invest in developing one in the first place. This to me is fair and just.

 

[m4mario]

The best counterexample in my opinion is Microsoft. Do you think Windows is the default on PCs, because it's the most customer-centric product for PCs? Or maybe the ecosystem has just grown so large, that no commercial endeavor can realistically replace what was created by countless programmers outside of MS. My worry is, that because of economic pressures, Apple will become the Microsoft of mobile.

I think you are very well sold on the Apple ecosystem. Which is why you think this way. For majority of the people I see, Apple is a non-consideration.

I’m going to ask you to consider what I’m saying here as a possibility for a short while:
Apple is not a majority player in any of the markets they compete in.
Windows Vs Mac - Which is the monopoly?
iOS vs Android - which is the monopoly?
Apple Music Vs Spotify - which has a major market share?

There were several mobile operating systems in the market. Windows, Nokia, Android, BlackBerry, palm. They all spoke as if they were competing with Apple. They never spoke like they were competing with each other. But they were absolutely competing with each other. Because only one could remain.

They talk like they are competing against Apple because that’s their dream scenario. Apple VS Google is Google’s dream scenario for their mobile operating system. Because that way, Google will be the major player. They know Apple will never have a major market share.

Same happened with Apple VS Spotify. We kept talking like they both were competing. But what happened to the rest of them? Do you still remember them?

Meta is going to follow the same marketing strategy. They are going to make it sound like holo lens and the others never existed. That it’s an Apple VS Meta thing. They might even sue Apple to reinforce the idea. And in the end, all other platforms will perish. Meta will become a monopoly, with Apple being the only higher end alternative option.

This is what you should be worry about. that we are all getting played into this duopoly game. In fact if Apple wasn’t there, we would have complete monopolies. And we are trying to break down the one company that prevents it.

 

[chmania]

iOS vs Android - which is the monopoly?

Even though I use an iPhone running iOS 18 DB2, I find my wife's Oppo Reno 5 running Android 13 (ColorOS) is better than the iPhone -- has more RAM, larger better AMOLED screen, practically no battery drain after 4 years (iPhone drains 8% every night without any 3rd party apps running), charges much much faster than the iPhone, takes better photos and videos. etc, etc. The newest Oppo is Reno 12, but she doesn't want to replace the Reno 5. I'd most probably buy an Oppo, when my Iphone dies.

 

[MilaM]

I’m going to ask you to consider what I’m saying here as a possibility for a short while:
Apple is not a majority player in any of the markets they compete in.
Windows Vs Mac - Which is the monopoly?
iOS vs Android - which is the monopoly?
Apple Music Vs Spotify - which has a major market share?

The legislation is not about iPhones and Android phones. It's about how third-party apps and services are distributed on these platforms. So it's much more a question of App Store vs. Play Store. The deficit the EU is trying to address, is that app publishers have a hard time dealing with those companies, because they together have complete control over app distribution. Is it a coincidence, that the terms are practically identical?

Imagine Microsoft prohibiting any other browser than Internet Explorer running on Windows at the time the Internet became popular. Is this something you can get behind? Well, this is the situation we have today with Apple. And this is just one example.

 

[chmania]

The legislation is not about iPhones and Android phones. It's about how third-party apps and services are distributed on these platforms.

The DMA is about who owns the device, the consumer or the manufacturer, and decided to take the consumer's side.

The deficit the EU is trying to address, is that app publishers have a hard time dealing with those companies, because they together have complete control over app distribution.

It is again, about the right of the consumer, and his ability to decide for himself, not to live in a controlled environment, as in communism.