Apple Warns of Privacy Risks in EU's DMA Interoperability Requirements

[wanha]

Privacy doesn't exist when you are carrying a device with a camera, microphone and gps in your pocket all day.

Apple doesn't care about privacy if they did they wouldn't sell their users to Google, they care about $$$$

Do you think it's that black and white?

That there is zero difference between Apple and, say, Meta?

 

[Starfia]

The report at least gets a gist across. It seems that Apple's intended audience is the EC, and possibly users?

The main thing that's missing, and which would support Apple's case if they indeed have one, is the actual text of Meta's interoperability requests.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They made the mistake of not simply banning tracking cookies altogether instead.

A fair point, but not possible to do. So consent is needed.

iPadOS does not meet the quantitative metrics listed in the DMA to be considered a gatekeeper. However, Vestager and her cronies declared the law applies anyway. Here's a quote from Vestager herself (emphasis mine).



Absolutely banana republic level stuff. "We wrote thresholds into the law, but we want it to apply to your product. Wait - the product doesn't meet the thresholds we wrote? Sorry - it applies anyway."

First Read the DMA.
According to Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), an undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:

1. (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b) it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:

(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10,000 yearly active business users established in the Union

And from the site.

• Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.

Your arguments about the EU being dependent on the U.S. show an embarrassing lack of understanding of how global tech actually functions. You can wave around words like “banana republic” all you like, but the reality is that many of the U.S. companies you worship wouldn’t be where they are without the EU’s contributions

So, you mean they are ALL incompetent? I was willing to believe one clueless person was leading the charge, but if they are ALL like this, it’s no wonder why the EU has no large tech companies and are wholly dependent on the willingness to of American companies to provide solutions for them. And, as American companies are good at being profitable tech companies, they’ll figure out ways to continue to profit from the EU for as long as their hardware and software is allowed in the EU (to Vestager’s chagrin and, again, since they are wholly dependent on the US and other countries to provide them the technology required for them to exist in a technical world, that’s something they’d never do).

It’s written by the 27 commissioners in accordance with the 27 state leaders goals and guidelines, debated and amended by the 720 parliament members together with the 27 state ministers.

Your claim that the EU is “wholly dependent” on U.S. companies shows a complete misunderstanding of the global tech landscape and reeks of hubris. Let’s get something straight: without ASML, your beloved Apple wouldn’t even exist in its current form. ASML’s EUV lithography machines are the only tools capable of producing the advanced chips Apple relies on for its products.

Tell me, where does Intel, AMD, or Nvidia get their cutting-edge chips manufactured? Oh, that’s right—ASML (Netherlands) and its EUV lithography machines are the only ones in the world capable of enabling production at 3nm and below. Without ASML, there would be no TSMC or Samsung Foundry, and by extension, no chips for Intel CPUs, AMD Ryzen, Nvidia GPUs, or Apple’s M-series processors. No ASML, no TSMC’s 3nm chips. No TSMC, no M1, M2, or A17 Bionic. So much for American “self-reliance.”

And it’s not just about the machines. Companies like Infineon Technologies (Germany) are leaders in semiconductors for automotive and IoT, areas that even U.S. giants rely on to build future technologies. STMicroelectronics (France/Italy) is another critical player in this space, producing sensors, microcontrollers, and power semiconductors that are widely integrated into devices and infrastructure.

Moving to telecom infrastructure: ​

you think iPhones, Macs, or any Apple product connects to networks without Ericsson and Nokia? Think again. These two companies dominate global 5G deployment, built the backbone of 5G technology. If anything, American telecoms rely on Europe to stay competitive and even U.S. carriers like Verizon and AT&T depend on their technology. So, while Apple might slap a logo on its products, it’s European innovation that keeps them connected.

Then there’s SAP and Dassault Systèmes, which dominate enterprise and industrial software. Their tools help run the global supply chains that even Apple depends on. Do you really think Apple builds and manages all its global operations without help from companies like these?

The EU isn’t “dependent” on the U.S.—it collaborates in a deeply intertwined global tech ecosystem. But keep pretending that the U.S. is the sole innovator while ignoring the critical contributions of European companies that underpin your tech-dominated world. Without Europe, Apple would still be selling iPods.

The iPad did not and does not meet the quantitative thresholds for “gatekeepers”. And, the DMA has NOT been updated to change the quantitative thresholds. SO, the iPad being a “gatekeeper” is in conflict with the quantitative thresholds that were successfully applied against 100% of the other “gatekeepers”.

It’s amusing that you keep repeating this “quantitative thresholds” argument as though the DMA is some rigid, inflexible law devoid of nuance or qualitative interpretation. Let’s revisit Article 3 of the DMA that you seem intent on misunderstanding:

The criteria for gatekeeper designation aren’t exclusively dependent on meeting strict numerical thresholds. Paragraph 6 of Article 3 clearly states that a platform can still be designated as a gatekeeper if it meets the qualitative requirements even if it doesn’t meet the presumptions in Paragraph 2. This is deliberate—lawmakers knew companies like Apple would otherwise exploit loopholes to avoid accountability.

In Apple’s case, the iPad ecosystem is tightly integrated into its broader control over App Store policies, developer access, and market power across devices. This creates an undeniable “important gateway” for businesses and consumers, satisfying the qualitative criteria outlined in the DMA. The Commission’s judgment isn’t arbitrary; it’s based on real-world evidence of Apple’s entrenched, anti-competitive practices.

So no, the DMA isn’t “in conflict with itself.” Apple just doesn’t like being called out for what it is—a gatekeeper.

About Your Apple Worship​

Let’s not pretend Apple’s resistance to the DMA is about principles. Apple has fought tooth and nail to maintain its walled garden because it profits immensely from locking users and developers into its ecosystem. The DMA threatens their grip on that power, and rightly so. Crying foul over “quantitative thresholds” is just a smokescreen for Apple’s unwillingness to compete on a level playing field.

The EU’s regulatory framework isn’t about stifling innovation or singling out American companies. It’s about ensuring fair competition and protecting consumers—values the U.S. regulators should aspire to emulate. The fact that the DMA is already inspiring similar efforts globally shows just how forward-thinking it is.

If you’re still stuck on defending Apple, maybe ask yourself why one of the world’s richest companies needs your help to justify anti-competitive practices. Or better yet, read the text of the DMA properly next time.

EU isn’t some backwater that “relies” on U.S. tech; it’s an integral part of a global system that your favored companies are just as dependent on. Without the EU’s innovation and regulation, Apple and its American peers wouldn’t be half as successful—or accountable—as they are today.

So maybe stop drinking the Silicon Valley Kool-Aid and take a hard look at the facts.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Do you think it's that black and white?

That there is zero difference between Apple and, say, Meta?

No there is a difference.

Meta's business is built on the ad tracking economy and they profit from that. Apple preach about privacy but are happy to profit from that same ad tracking economy that they claim to be outraged about.

Cook even called for regulation of other companies but wants to use 'privacy' as a defence when regulators start looking at his.

Seems like Tim wants to pick and choose, doesn't really stand for anything.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Many sites don't give you the option to choose ´No´ at once. You have to go to the settings and chose from there. Which makes users to ignore and just click yes.

Well that’s explicitly against GDPR. But you have to keep in mind EU isn’t the only ones with cookie regulations. Such as the California Consumer Privacy Act is the likely reason you meet those banners that require you to go through the settings and manually click deny on all of them as it doesn’t require consent first. EU GDPR rules only apply to EU. Website can have one setting for EU visitors and another for U.S. users( or global)

No, they’re not and none of the companies had to be forced to use USB-C. They all helped in creating USB-C to ensure there was no resistance. The EU created a document.


Well, yeah, that’s only for people that don’t understand that 2 does not equal 10. (“modern connector for the next decade” means ten years. And it was precisely that. Almost to the day.)

Apple was part of the development, them stating 10 years isn’t a great argument that apple made a smart choice. Same with them insisting to stay with usb 2.0.

The Memorandum of Understanding ended in 2014 because usb-c launched as this was according to what the industries were going.

Steve Troughton-Smith (@stroughtonsmith@mastodon.social)

Attached: 4 images The European Commission is going through Apple’s OSes feature by feature, with the help of interested parties and industry collaboration, and deciding where the API lines should be drawn. It’s absolutely fascinating. And remember, Apple brought all of this on itself through...

mastodon.social

I am starting to echo John Gruber's thoughts here.



If it's too much of a hassle (and it seems like the EU is only getting started here), then rather than bend over backward to make each feature openly accessible, it may simply be easier to do an "iPhone mirroring" and just make all of them unavailable in the EU.

If that happened I would unfortunately leave the apple ecosystem when my phone dies. But thats up to Apple to do 🤷‍♂️

That list is absolutely insane and I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a good idea for the EU to be getting into that level of detail.

It’s what happens when a company tries to be extremely bad faith and play the system with malicious compliance. They end up pushing the government to go in to details instead. Something I don’t like or prefer at all.

 

[wanha]

No there is a difference.

Meta's business is built on the ad tracking economy and they profit from that. Apple preach about privacy but are happy to profit from that same ad tracking economy that they claim to be outraged about.

Cook even called for regulation of other companies but wants to use 'privacy' as a defence when regulators start looking at his.

Seems like Tim wants to pick and choose, doesn't really stand for anything.

I get what you're saying, and yet I think the issue is so much more complicated than that.

Your argument is akin to saying that unless you publicly identify as an "environmental destructionist", you are a hypocrite if you buy anything more than you absolutely need for your survival.

Yeah, Apple are hypocrites.

But that doesn't nullify all of their efforts around privacy.

 

[FlyingDutch]

for a fee. which is basically the same thing.

No it’s not. If you fail to understand the difference, it’s your problem

 

[FlyingDutch]

I get what you're saying, and yet I think the issue is so much more complicated than.

Your argument is akin to saying that unless you publicly identify as an "environmental destrictionist", you are a hypocrite if you buy anything more than you absolutely need for your survival.

Yeah, Apple are hypocrites.

But that doesn't nullify all of their efforts around privacy.

This 👏

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

No it’s not. If you fail to understand the difference, it’s your problem

Explain the difference then? You haven't because you can't.

It's a transaction, Google give Apple a large fee, Apple gives Google access to iOS search data as the default search provider.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I get what you're saying, and yet I think the issue is so much more complicated than.

Your argument is akin to saying that unless you publicly identify as an "environmental destrictionist", you are a hypocrite if you buy anything more than you absolutely need for your survival.

Yeah, Apple are hypocrites.

But that doesn't nullify all of their efforts around privacy.

Apple are actively engaging in transactional behaviour with Google for user data. It isn't just that they aren't stopping it they are actively engaging in that business.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I am starting to echo John Gruber's thoughts here.

If it's too much of a hassle (and it seems like the EU is only getting started here), then rather than bend over backward to make each feature openly accessible, it may simply be easier to do an "iPhone mirroring" and just make all of them unavailable in the EU.

That list is absolutely insane and I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a good idea for the EU to be getting into that level of detail.

Well it’s all because Apple couldn’t help themselves from maliciously complying with the DMA rules, trying with their Core technology fee etc etc.

Apple wants to nanny developers, so now Apple has the EC as a nanny.

Steve Troughton-Smith (@stroughtonsmith@mastodon.social)

Attached: 1 image In this proposal, Apple has to notify the European Commission of every interoperability request or internal headers request it rejects in part or in full, and provide all relevant material to the EC. Apple wants to nanny developers, so now Apple has the EC as a nanny.

mastodon.social

Such a fascinating read these two documents

DMA. 100203 - Article 6(7) - Apple - iOS - SP​

Features for connected physical devices, setting out the proposed measures that Apple should implement to ensure effective interoperability with iOS for connected devices.

Consultation on the proposed measures for interoperability between Apple’s iOS operating system and connected devices. The Commission is consulting third parties on the proposed measures that Apple is to implement to ensure effective interoperability between iOS and connected devices, as required by Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).

DMA. 100204 - SP - Apple - Article 6(7)​

process, setting out the proposed measures that Apple should implement to improve the request-based process for requesting interoperability with iOS and iPadOS set up by Apple.

Consultation on the proposed measures for requesting interoperability with Apple’s iOS and iPadOS operating systems. The Commission is consulting interested third parties on the proposed measures that Apple is to implement to ensure effective interoperability with its iOS and iPadOS operating system, as required by Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).

 

[Abazigal]

Well it’s all because Apple couldn’t help themselves from maliciously complying with the DMA rules, trying with their Core technology fee etc etc.

Given what the EU wants, I don't think this is a case where Apple would have gotten off any easier had they chosen to simply cave and make all the concessions that the EU had wanted from day one. If anything, this just goes to show why Apple is dragging its feet and forcing the EU commission to fight tooth and nail for every single change in the OS that Apple does end up making. Especially when these changes strike directly at the core of what makes Apple uniquely Apple.

Imagine asking Nintendo or Sony that they had to host third party apps and allow users to sideload apps and bypass their 30% cut. Is the board supposed to simply just salute the EU government officials and go "Sir! Yes! Sir!"?

Steam lets you add your own payment options, but they still get their 30% cut.

The EU is essentially forcing Apple to nationalise their own IP and make them freely accessible to anybody who wants them. I can't imagine anybody at Apple who would be happy with that.

Maybe Apple is waging a losing battle, and maybe they will eventually capitulate and make every single change that was outlined in that linked document. Maybe you are all right and maybe I am the one to end up on the wrong side of history here. But till that day comes, I continue to support Apple pushing back against the DMA every opportunity they get, though I understand it can be frustrating for some of you.

In the meantime, may everyone here have a merry Christmas Eve eve eve eve eve (Hope I am counting the days right; it's Friday evening over here in Asia). The holidays sure went by fast (they always do) and I will headed back to school right after Christmas for a series of meetings in preparation for the new year. 😝

 

[wanha]

Apple are actively engaging in transactional behaviour with Google for user data. It isn't just that they aren't stopping it they are actively engaging in that business.

This is true and you won't ever hear Apple even try to explain it, because there is no excuse for. It's 100% about the money.

But that doesn't make Apple's other privacy efforts and solutions vaporware or hypocritical. They're still real and functional.

It's not an "either or" but a "yes and"

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Given what the EU wants, I don't think this is a case where Apple would have gotten off any easier had they chosen to simply cave and make all the concessions that the EU had wanted from day one. If anything, this just goes to show why Apple is dragging its feet and forcing the EU commission to fight tooth and nail for every single change in the OS that Apple does end up making. Especially when these changes strike directly at the core of what makes Apple uniquely Apple.

In honesty despite our differences I do believe that Apple would have gotten away with a more restrictive approach, instead of EU with industry stakeholders going through the APIs and putting a deadline of 2025 or next major iOS update etc etc
But this narrows down the window of that they can freely act.

(h) Apple shall provide the interoperability solutions and measures implemented to allow for effective interoperability with the features listed in this Document free of charge, irrespective of their beneficiary, application, product and use case. Apple shall also not charge any fees indirectly for any of the measures set out in this Document.

Imagine asking Nintendo or Sony that they had to host third party apps and allow users to sideload apps and bypass their 30% cut. Is the board supposed to simply just salute the EU government officials and go "Sir! Yes! Sir!"?

Steam lets you add your own payment options, but they still get their 30% cut.

The EU is essentially forcing Apple to nationalise their own IP and make them freely accessible to anybody who wants them. I can't imagine anybody at Apple who would be happy with that.

I do think they actually had wiggle room for taking payment for some of their services, but now it’s kind of closed because they overplayed their hands thinking they are fighting with politicians and not industry experts and technocrats.

But taking Sony/nintendo or even steam as examples they never prevented competing studios and developers from using the same platform features as themselves did. Even with their own studios had to follow the same rules and guidelines as everyone else. You could purchase and even sell games in other stores( mostly physical yes). The fees they took was mostly non discriminatory compared to Apple.

Apple did try to argue that some digital purchases was different than others, but legally they were no distinction warranting the different treatments

Maybe Apple is waging a losing battle, and maybe they will eventually capitulate and make every single change that was outlined in that linked document. Maybe you are all right and maybe I am the one to end up on the wrong side of history here. But till that day comes, I continue to support Apple pushing back against the DMA every opportunity they get, though I understand it can be frustrating for some of you.

I do think all thes changes and much more will be implemented before next summer.
Especially considering the purpose of these talks and how they are structured.

DMA 100203 consultation Target audience

All citizens, companies and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. The Commission especially welcomes contributions from companies that are directly affected by the scope of these proceedings, namely those that develop and market connected devices, such as smartwatches, headphones, and virtual reality headsets

The Commission is now seeking feedback from interested third parties on the proposed measures in relation to the iOS features in the scope of these proceedings, namely notifications, background execution, automatic Bluetooth audio switching, high-bandwidth peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections, AirDrop, AirPlay, close-range wireless file transfers, media casting, proximity-triggered pairing, automatic Wi-Fi connection, and NFC functionality.

In particular, the Commission seeks views on the technical aspects of the measures:

• The effectiveness of the measures in practice: if implemented, will the proposed measures result in effective interoperability with iOS for each feature?
• The completeness of the measures: if anything else is needed to ensure effective interoperability for the relevant feature?
• Feasibility of the measures: would there be any difficulties or obstacles in implementing each relevant proposed measure in your connected device or app?
• Timelines: is the proposed timeline for Apple to implement each proposed measure achievable?

DMA 100204 consultation Target audience

All citizens, companies and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. The Commission especially welcomes contributions from companies that have requested, or may consider requesting, interoperability with features from Apple’s operating systems iOS and iPadOS under the Digital Markets Act.

The Commission is now seeking feedback from third parties on these proposed measures to ensure that Apple’s request-based process is transparent, timely and fair. In this context, the Commission seeks the views from interested third parties on whether the measures are sufficient to make the request-based process set up by Apple effective.

In particular, the Commission seeks views on whether these measures achieve their objectives:

• Is the mapping of existing frameworks adequate to provide developers with prior information to submit a request and to obtain interoperability?
• Are the proposed timelines adequate to establish a timely and predictable process that takes into account the specificities of the varying technical needs?
• Are the proposed measures on communication and feedback allowing adequate developers’ involvement in the process?
• Are the transparency measures allowing developers to be sufficiently informed about the process and its outcome?
• Would the proposed process ensure a fair treatment of the requests and accountability for Apple’s decisions?
• Are the proposed measures adequate to ensure that the request process delivers interoperability solutions that are effective and future-proof?

Should the measures not be deemed adequate:

• How can a specific measure be improved in order to establish a fair, transparent and predictable process conducive to effective interoperability?

In the meantime, may everyone here have a merry Christmas Eve eve eve eve eve (Hope I am counting the days right; it's Friday evening over here in Asia). The holidays sure went by fast (they always do) and I will headed back to school right after Christmas for a series of meetings in preparation for the new year. 😝

Well I do wish you to a wonderful Christmas from Scandinavia even tho we will celebrate it the 24th of December instead of the 25th 🎅

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

This is true and you won't ever hear Apple even try to explain it, because there is no excuse for. It's 100% about the money.

But that doesn't make Apple's other privacy efforts and solutions vaporware or hypocritical. They're still real and functional.

It's not an "either or" but a "yes and"

It does for me. They are publicly criticising a business model that they are actively engaging in, at least on a secondary level (i.e not to the extent Google, Meta etc are).

Worth bearing in mind the fee that Apple take from Google if it were spun off it to a separate company would be 300-400 range on the S&P 500 by revenue so the scale is not insignificant.

How many companies are pulling in more than $15 billion from ad tracking? it's probably a small handful

 

[wanha]

It does for me. They are publicly criticising a business model that they are actively engaging in, at least on a secondary level (i.e not to the extent Google, Meta etc are).

Worth bearing in mind the fee that Apple take from Google if it were spun off it to a separate company would be 300-400 range on the S&P 500 by revenue so the scale is not insignificant.

How many companies are pulling in more than $15 billion from ad tracking? it's probably a small handful

In my experience, it makes it easier to swallow when you realize that you and I are every bit the hypocrites Apple is.

We all contain multitudes, our desires and fears are often in conflict with one another. None of us live a single value 100% the time, no matter how good at heart we may be.

Apple is far from perfect and seems to be becoming more and more greedy and predatory as time goes on.

But as I look at the alternatives, it's still the best I can find.

And I suppose that's why you are here too?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

In my experience, it makes it easier to swallow when you realize that you and I are every bit the hypocrites Apple is.

We all contain multitudes, our desires and fears are often in conflict with one another. None of us live a single value 100% the time, no matter how good at heart we may be.

Apple is far from perfect and seems to be becoming more and more greedy and predatory as time goes on.

But as I look at the alternatives, it's still the best I can find.

And I suppose that's why you are here too?

I view them as the same as the others honestly. They tried the ad model and it failed so they took to criticising it

There are definitely a lot that seem to think Apple are more virtuous than the others but i don't think that holds up at all.

I wouldn't buy their product if I liked the hardware or software more than the alternative but not because I thought it was protecting me in some way, Apple would absolutely love a bigger piece of the ad dollar I've no doubt about that at all.

If anybody thinks they should escape regulation 'because privacy' I think that is very naive, they would throw privacy out of the window if the money was right.

 

[surferfb]

Well it’s all because Apple couldn’t help themselves from maliciously complying with the DMA rules, trying with their Core technology fee etc etc.

Malicious compliance would be throwing open the gates to everything, letting scam apps drain EU users money from them, let viruses into iOS in the EU and shrugging their shoulders and saying “We told you and the EU this would happen, but there's nothing we can do - get them to change the law.” Trying to make sure an ill-informed law impacts your operations to the least extent possible is good governance, not malicious compliance.

The idea that Apple must allow third party access to any new API the moment Apple uses it is radical. It shows a complete lack of understanding about how software development should work, how Apple
does software development in particular, and will absolutely keep new significant features out of the EU for at least a year from iOS19 on. You're permanently going to be at least one iOS cycle behind.

Apple wants to nanny developers, so now Apple has the EC as a nanny.

Developers would do well to remember that they are using Apple’s property and a customer base Apple built to make money. They should be thanking Apple, not trying to freeload and then running to a nanny state when Apple is asking them to pay for that use or put rules around how their property can be used. It’s like a spoiled child running to mommy that someone is being mean - but it turns out the person “being mean” is telling him “no, you can’t take that other child’s toy”. No one is forcing them to use Apple’s property. They want to use it because it will make them more money. So they should have to play by Apple's rules.

On another note, I echo @Abazigal and @Sophisticatednut - despite our disagreement on the DMA and the role of government in regulating businesses, I’ve enjoyed sparring with everyone and you all have made me think and consider my positions. While you haven't changed my mind, you have given me food for thought! I hope you have a very happy holiday season and spend quality time with family and friends. Look forward to more sparring in 2025!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Malicious compliance would be throwing open the gates to everything, letting scam apps drain EU users money from them, let viruses into iOS in the EU and shrugging their shoulders and saying “We told you and the EU this would happen, but there's nothing we can do - get them to change the law.” Trying to make sure an ill-informed law impacts your operations to the least extent possible is good governance, not malicious compliance.
The idea that Apple must allow third party access to any new API the moment Apple uses it is radical. It shows a complete lack of understanding about how software development should work, how Apple
does software development in particular, and will absolutely keep new significant features out of the EU for at least a year from iOS19 on. You're permanently going to be at least one iOS cycle behind.

Malicious compliance is what Apple tried to do before. Essentially trying to rule skirting. Trying to rely more on the textual interpretation of the legal text( not the preferred method of legal interpretation in EU considering the 27 languages they are written in with equal legal weight) compared to a Teleological interpretation that requires that legislative provisions be interpreted to advance their purpose in light of constitutional values.

Opening up the gates would be close to what the Mac, windows or even Linux does.

Apple put themselves in this situation with the requirement of APIs(that they use) being available when they tried to be smart about it. And well the APIs and features are already right now that are still unavailable years later after their initial release, so nothing will change really.

Unless the APIs still must be made available so other developers can provide the service Apple is unable to provide. And They know how software is developed, they don’t care for how Apple does their development process.

Developers would do well to remember that they are using Apple’s property and a customer base Apple built to make money. They should be thanking Apple, not trying to freeload and then running to a nanny state when Apple is asking them to pay for that use or put rules around how their property can be used. It’s like a spoiled child running to mommy that someone is being mean - but it turns out the person “being mean” is telling him “no, you can’t take that other child’s toy”. No one is forcing them to use Apple’s property. They want to use it because it will make them more money. So they should have to play by Apple's rules.

Well to be fair Apple already knew how the rules work in EU when they started selling gods and services. Apple can argue that the users are in a way rightfully apples ”property, and EU with those who knows how they do not share that understanding at all. Apple should already be aware how contract law works here,

You can’t own your user base as that would violate the property rights of the customers. Apple loses their property rights when the sale of the device is concluded, that moment the user and potential undertakings are free to conduct business transactions without Apple as the middleman. It’s as absurd as trying to regulate what food can be used with your silverware 😆

On another note, I echo @Abazigal and @Sophisticatednut - despite our disagreement on the DMA and the role of government in regulating businesses, I’ve enjoyed sparring with everyone and you all have made me think and consider my positions. While you haven't changed my mind, you have given me food for thought! I hope you have a very happy holiday season and spend quality time with family and friends. Look forward to more sparring in 2025!

I think one interesting aspect to try to understand is the legal framework as well as the philosophical understanding that shapes the laws of the land.
The DMA might be over reach in a U.S. context, but it’s perfectly kosher along the founding treaties, goals and guidelines that governs EU

I do enjoy sparing with you on the forums as I try to share understanding of EU beyond its border, perhaps preventing the next mega fine befalling Apple or Google
Merry Christmas to you to, and hope you will have a great 2025!🎅🎅

 

[hagjohn]

I say it again. Apple needs to sell a dumb down, almost a brick phone as its only EU option or EC is just going to keep going back to the Apple piggy bank.

 

[vantelimus]

Read the article you linked: the title is just clickbait. Apple DIDNT sell users to Google. They just made Google as the default search engine, which is not true anymore (you can chose whatever you want, I opted for Bing).

Yep. The article title went beyond hyperbole into the territory of actionable lie. The arguments of guy promoting and defending the title as a valid characterization can no longer be taken seriously.

 

[harrisondavies]

If they must comply. Give users the option to not comply and opt out to keep their data under the Apple lock and key. Meta and European Commission can do one!

 

[surferfb]

Malicious compliance is what Apple tried to do before. Essentially trying to rule skirting. Trying to rely more on the textual interpretation of the legal text( not the preferred method of legal interpretation in EU considering the 27 languages they are written in with equal legal weight) compared to a Teleological interpretation that requires that legislative provisions be interpreted to advance their purpose in light of constitutional values.

If a law is bad it should be complied with to the lowest extent possible. Especially when said law is materially impacting their business.

Opening up the gates would be close to what the Mac, windows or even Linux does.

And I continue to contend the Mac, Windows, and Linux models are not in the best interest of the vast majority of computer users. It works fine for a power user like me but not for most people. The iOS model is absolutely better for the safety and security of Apple's customers. Would I appreciate "power user" toggles in iOS that allowed more access to change defaults, allow side loading, etc.? Absolutely! Might not toggle them on, but the option would be nice. But the government should not be forcing a private company to allow things it doesn't want to allow without an extremely good reason. And it certainly shouldn't be having its competitors dictate what Apple does and doesn't have to do.

Apple put themselves in this situation with the requirement of APIs(that they use) being available when they tried to be smart about it. And well the APIs and features are already right now that are still unavailable years later after their initial release, so nothing will change really.

Why should they have to give others access to their property if they don't want to give others access? Does private property not mean anything in the EU? There is no compelling reason to demand that a company that has 25% of the market should have its competitors dictate how they run their business when the competition allows everything the EU is asking for. None. It's like something out of the USSR - what's yours belongs to everyone.

Unless the APIs still must be made available so other developers can provide the service Apple is unable to provide. And They know how software is developed, they don’t care for how Apple does their development process.

Apple is spending engineering resources to build new things, and they should be the ones to benefit and profit from the new things they develop. The idea that they have to open new private APIs up immediately to any and all third parties is untenable - and I contend would be untenable even if Apple wanted to make the EU happy. It is a very heavy lift to make something open to third parties. When it's open to third parties it has to be around forever. The fact that the EU is demanding this shows they don't know how software is developed.

Demanding Apple operate in this manner is radical and beginning to make me think that Apple might actually leave the EU over this. I still don't think it's likely at all, but it's gone from "nope - no way, not going to happen" to "I really don't think they will, but I could see a world where they might." Like Google pulling out of China, the short term hit might be worth it in the long run.

Well to be fair Apple already knew how the rules work in EU when they started selling gods and services. Apple can argue that the users are in a way rightfully apples ”property, and EU with those who knows how they do not share that understanding at all. Apple should already be aware how contract law works here,

The rules absolutely changed in the EU. I suspect had these rules been in place in the EU when iOS was developed you'd be stuck with Android as your only option. Apple doesn't think its users are its property, but iOS absolutely is. And for regulators who claims to believe in the free market and competition to behave in this manner is shocking. It goes against everything they claim to believe in.

You can’t own your user base as that would violate the property rights of the customers. Apple loses their property rights when the sale of the device is concluded, that moment the user and potential undertakings are free to conduct business transactions without Apple as the middleman. It’s as absurd as trying to regulate what food can be used with your silverware 😆

They own iOS. Everything the EU is demanding here is about iOS. They never sell iOS. Users license it and developers license it. If I rent an AirB&B from you that doesn't mean that I should have the ability to go into a locked closet just because you have a key to open the closet. That's preposterous.

I think one interesting aspect to try to understand is the legal framework as well as the philosophical understanding that shapes the laws of the land.
The DMA might be over reach in a U.S. context, but it’s perfectly kosher along the founding treaties, goals and guidelines that governs EU.

And I'd argue that's why you guys are so far behind when it comes to tech. You're shooting yourselves in the foot and ensuring you're dependent on the rest of the world because you're disincentivizing innovation inside your borders.

 

[I7guy]

It does for me.

It doesn’t for me.

They are publicly criticising a business model that they are actively engaging in, at least on a secondary level (i.e not to the extent Google, Meta etc are).

Not even close. The problem with crowd that sees only black and white as a the world isn’t that. Or take a specific thing and make a general argument out of it. Just disingenuous.

Worth bearing in mind the fee that Apple take from Google if it were spun off it to a separate company would be 300-400 range on the S&P 500 by revenue so the scale is not insignificant.

How many companies are pulling in more than $15 billion from ad tracking? it's probably a small handful

And the point is?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If a law is bad it should be complied with to the lowest extent possible. Especially when said law is materially impacting their business.

Indeed, and that’s why the law tends to describe some kind of outcome or measurable outcome or even effect without needing to spell things out for them, as the companies/ market will most of the time com up with the best solution.

And I continue to contend the Mac, Windows, and Linux models are not in the best interest of the vast majority of computer users. It works fine for a power user like me but not for most people. The iOS model is absolutely better for the safety and security of Apple's customers. Would I appreciate "power user" toggles in iOS that allowed more access to change defaults, allow side loading, etc.? Absolutely! Might not toggle them on, but the option would be nice. But the government should not be forcing a private company to allow things it doesn't want to allow without an extremely good reason. And it certainly shouldn't be having its competitors dictate what Apple does and doesn't have to do.

I agree it’s not the best for the majority of computer users, but this isn’t targeting user but ”undertaking”. The term covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, irrespective of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.

And unfortunately Apple is harming the competition regarding comparable services

Why should they have to give others access to their property if they don't want to give others access? Does private property not mean anything in the EU? There is no compelling reason to demand that a company that has 25% of the market should have its competitors dictate how they run their business when the competition allows everything the EU is asking for. None. It's like something out of the USSR - what's yours belongs to everyone.

The first issue is that the moment the thing is sold to a customer it’s no longer apples property. They have legally exhausted all rights of that unit and software. When something is sold, it’s sold instead of licensed or rented etc.

The second issue is that their market share is irrelevant when it’s their entrenched market position is what’s measured and their abuse of their position to harm competition. Android, play store etc aren’t part of the same market

Apple is spending engineering resources to build new things, and they should be the ones to benefit and profit from the new things they develop. The idea that they have to open new private APIs up immediately to any and all third parties is untenable - and I contend would be untenable even if Apple wanted to make the EU happy. It is a very heavy lift to make something open to third parties. When it's open to third parties it has to be around forever. The fact that the EU is demanding this shows they don't know how software is developed.

Apple can benefit from the APIs, they just can’t intentionally prevent others from using it and try and provide a superior service to the user. Example providing a better wallet and competing on the merits.

When something is open up to third parties there’s zero requirement for it to be around forever. If apple uses it then it must be available untill the next iOS update doesn’t use it.

Demanding Apple operate in this manner is radical and beginning to make me think that Apple might actually leave the EU over this. I still don't think it's likely at all, but it's gone from "nope - no way, not going to happen" to "I really don't think they will, but I could see a world where they might." Like Google pulling out of China, the short term hit might be worth it in the long run.

Same like when Facebook threatened to leave because of privacy laws, EU didn’t flinch.

The rules absolutely changed in the EU. I suspect had these rules been in place in the EU when iOS was developed you'd be stuck with Android as your only option. Apple doesn't think its users are its property, but iOS absolutely is. And for regulators who claims to believe in the free market and competition to behave in this manner is shocking. It goes against everything they claim to believe in.

These rules have been in place since the 90s. And just been built upon.
iOS is apples copyrighted property, but acceding the APIs that are on device is completely legal to do. And keep in mind fair use isn’t legally protected.

They own iOS. Everything the EU is demanding here is about iOS. They never sell iOS. Users license it and developers license it. If I rent an AirB&B from you that doesn't mean that I should have the ability to go into a locked closet just because you have a key to open the closet. That's preposterous.

That might be an issue, Apple doesn’t think they sell iOS when they sell the device. EU on the other hand recognizes it as a sale and therefore the rights in question are exhausted. And the question becomes an issue when Apple preventing developers and users from competing under the same rules are anti competitive.

Using the Air B&B example, if you purchased the apartment then it’s your property and the locked closet is no longer yours. But if it’s rented then you can’t use anything that describes it as a sale or purchase

And I'd argue that's why you guys are so far behind when it comes to tech. You're shooting yourselves in the foot and ensuring you're dependent on the rest of the world because you're disincentivizing innovation inside your borders.

You can claim that, but most the technology that is the backbone for the consumer products are EU technology. Just take ASML that have been the cutting edge for 30~ years. Without them Intel. AMD, Nvidia or all the Apple M chips wouldn’t be possible.

1. ASML (Netherlands)
Essential for producing semiconductor manufacturing equipment, particularly EUV lithography machines, which are critical for chip production worldwide.

2. SAP (Germany)
A global leader in enterprise software, providing solutions for managing business operations and customer relationships.

3. Nokia (Finland)
A major player in telecommunications infrastructure, particularly 5G networks, vital for global connectivity.

4. Ericsson (Sweden)
Another leader in 5G infrastructure, heavily relied upon by telecom providers globally, including in the U.S.

5. STMicroelectronics (France/Italy)
A key semiconductor manufacturer specializing in power electronics and sensors, with applications in automotive, industrial, and IoT markets.

6. ARM Holdings (UK)
While acquired by SoftBank (Japan), ARM remains a fundamentally European company that designs microprocessor architectures used in most mobile devices globally.

7. Infineon Technologies (Germany)
A leading provider of semiconductors for automotive, energy, and IoT applications, vital for modern technology.