Well reading what Apple wrote, and what you wrote. Take the example of AirPlay, Meta seems to be arguing that the AirPlay interface isn't good enough and that they want direct access to the devices that the users have connected via AirPlay. I bet the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't want Meta to have direct access to my devices that I authorised to Apple. The AirPlay interface is good enough, or they need to be specific about features they are missing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says Meta is Making Unreasonable Interoperability Requests Under Europe's DMA Requirements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The contents are end-to-end encrypted, the information about who you messages, when, how often is not.
Also, my concern isn’t with WhatsApp, which I don’t use despite my EU-citizen brother’s requests. It’s things like copying the contents of the clipboard, playing silence to get access to the microphone - both of which Meta did in the past. They’re not to be trusted.
There is no such access.
AirPlay 2 streams audiovisual content receivers.
It’s not about full or “direct” access to the devices.
Well...that is what they like you to think
I'm not saying there is no end-2-end encryption, but that doesn't necessarily can mean that nobody else can. If they are determined enough they will find a way.
They want “direct access” to TVs and speakers. Presumably that’s not about making the Quest a receiver. In fact, far as I’m aware, nothing prevents Meta from making the Quest an AirPlay receiver today.
My guess is they get direct access and they then can link your TV to you - giving them another way to target ads. Again, Meta is not to be trusted.
Well, there’s one or someone. Namely Apple.
Your claim would hold water if there were set-top boxes that did it - yet there aren’t (not supported by Apple, that is).
Apple do provide it to markets in which they don’t compete - TV sets. And they only begun so after years in which they were rumored to be developing one of their own. And they do not provide it where they’re competing.
Agree 👍🏻
And let’s not forget them misusing their enterprise certificates to funnel consumer traffic through their networks and collect data.
That was the point where they could have booted them from the App Store for being untrustworthy and violating their developer terms. Especially if they’re so “concerned” about privacy as their utmost consideration.
And yet, they didn‘t.
But of course that (banishing Facebook or Instagram apps from their store) would mean selling less devices - and hence taking a hit to their bottom line.
Last edited:
I don‘t get why people are so up in arms about this. Sure, Meta is a trash tier service provider, but you are not forced to use their Apps / Services, nor do they automatically get full access to any of your data with how iOS permissions work (you approve permissions one by one).
Is Meta shady for wanting ways to access all that data? Sure. Is it any different from what we already have on iOS for years (full photos, contacts etc. access)? Not at all. In the end it just adds more choices for users on what services they want to tightly connect with, which is always a good thing.
Is Meta shady for wanting ways to access all that data? Sure. Is it any different from what we already have on iOS for years (full photos, contacts etc. access)? Not at all. In the end it just adds more choices for users on what services they want to tightly connect with, which is always a good thing.
Actually, you are, depending on where you are. WhatsApp has such penetration in the market that sadly you can't just refuse to use it, no matter how much I'd like to do so. It just isn't practical.
And by demanding the direct access there is that layer of protection and separation gone, that is precisely how they could get around those permissions.
That way, Meta can do it today. They can request using the standard method access to the address book, full photos etc. This request is well beyond that and could mean that those safeguards are no longer consistently there.
That's a flawed analogy. iOS is owned by Apple, and Apple made the decision as its owner to only allow software that they approve to run on it. That's not the way it has to work. Apple has done a great job making everyone think that's just the way it works, but it's not.
As usual I dislike that it is companies / people like Meta and Epic and Zuck and Sweeney making these points, but the points remain valid. Unfortunately we know they are only making them because they are trying to get away with doing the same things, and are just not in the position of power that Apple currently occupies.
And for the record I also don't like that somehow complaining to the EU became the venue for this debate.
If your point is what I said about trust, I agree, and that's why their argument is flawed. They are simply pointing out what happens when you trust software running on a computer. It's beside the point. It's the same thing as that huge scare sheet when an app developer (whom you presumably trust to at least some degree) has the audactity to include one single link to a pre-approved (by Apple) website in an app that Apple has (ostensibly) already examined and declared safe.
Yes technically they are correct that there is some risk there, but people seem to realize that they are blowing that out of proportion. Same thing here. They could describe the same scenario in less scary terms.
Last edited:
You are NEVER forced to use any service. I am in a WhatsApp dominated region and got loads of people that actively go against the hivemind, using services like iMessage, RCS or Signal.
Be the change you want to be.
You will always be able to deny permissions on iOS. Even first party apps follow that workflow if they aren‘t the origin of the data. And then again, if they step out of line, the public outcry will be huge and you‘re free to stop using their services (the natural response to a service provider messing up big time).
I know, but me alone against 17 million people doesn't work. And when even government services, and clients want to use it, it is daft to keep fighting it. People literally don't call using normal services, they call using WhatsApp as well. Super annoying, but you got to pick your battles to fight. Its not worth it.
Then they can do it today, and don't need direct access
Look, you aren't wrong, and taking in isolation it is correct. In practice, the world just doesn't work like that, it is always a game of compromises.
Of course it’s not the only way it has to work - Apple’s largest competitor in the mobile OS market, that has 75% market share in the EU, is open.
Apple's model is one that is considerably better from a safety and security standpoint for most users. And one Apple has used as a brand differentiator - even when told by the press and others that they were doomed to irrelevance for not opening up. That they’re now being forced to change by a bunch of bureaucrats who don’t understand what they’re regulating and the results of what they’re demanding. Let’s not forget that THIs YEAR we saw the disastrous effects of EU’s tech regulations in the name of “competition” when their insistence that they know better than Microsoft led to Crowdstrike breaking the internet for days.
Anyone who has an issue with Apple’s model is welcome to develop for and/or purchase a product from Apple’s competitors. The government should not be going in and telling the market player with 25% of their market how to run their business, design their products, and that they have to actively help their competitors and give away IP for free.
Last edited:
Having one location to get software that is vetted is superior to a free for all. Does it stop all bad actors? Of course not. But it's far superior to the alternative for most users, who are generally unsophisticated.
According to Kapersky, 95% of mobile malware is targeted at Android, it's estimated that Android users face 10 to 20x more malware threats than iOS users every year. And that's before we get into things like fragmentation leading to updates being unevenly deployed, manufacturers not supporting devices as long as Apple supports phones, etc. As we saw on PCs in the 90s and early 00s, letting anyone install anything from anywhere can lead to some very bad places. The EU would do well to remember that.
That video isn't the win you think it is. Still trust Apple after watching it. The video notes that Apple is generally better than Google when it comes to privacy, and many of the hits aren't actually against Apple but the developers you want to force Apple to give open access to.
You don‘t even know the exact requirements Meta has for Apple in terms of iOS APIs. What Apple listed does not name photos, for example.I know, but me alone against 17 million people doesn't work. And when even government services, and clients want to use it, it is daft to keep fighting it. People literally don't call using normal services, they call using WhatsApp as well. Super annoying, but you got to pick your battles to fight. Its not worth it.
Then they can do it today, and don't need direct access
Look, you aren't wrong, and taking in isolation it is correct. In practice, the world just doesn't work like that, it is always a game of compromises.
Yep, true. Don't install anything from Meta. But leave the freedom to other to use Meta.
Yes, very good point.
I really hope EU will punish a$$le anti competitive behavior, especially to give to other foreign authorities the example to do the same.
And that's a vulnerability in the ios... An app should not be able to access the clipboard: it's the user doing "paste" that transfers the content of the clipboard to the app.
Now I understand why so many iusers are scary: they know that there is no "intrinsic security" in the os, but just some "walls". Once they are removed security goes to zero.
That would be so cool. Now why would companies invest in new products if they all had to set it up so a break off of their company could take their whole market?
Classic short term thinking.
Yes, up to now EU has been too polite. It's time to push hard.