Apple's Browser Rules Stifle Innovation on iOS, Says UK Regulator

[MilaM]

But I think what happened is that when the EC realized the DMA was going to result in a worse PWA experience, they let Apple know that WebKit-only PWAs would not be penalized.

Read that carefully. He has no idea what happened, but tries to interpret it in a way that makes Apple look good. Typical Gruber.

Here is my interpretation. Apple does not want competing browser engines to be able to make homescreen icons, because they migh actually provide a better experience for users than Safari or even the app store. I'm certain, that this is exactly what is going to happen, because the EU/DMA mandates it.

Removing homescreen icons was a knee-jerk reaction that made them look excpetionally bad. It's exactly what a monopolist would do. Make the user experience worse to further their economic interests.

If Gruber is right, there will be no home scree icons and PWAs with third party browser engines. If we will get them, than Grubers article was BS.

 

[MilaM]

But the anti-integration provisions are straight up crazy. Any API or feature Apple gives itself it has to give to others if asked? Bonkers!

Or maybe that's progress. All apps on any mobile operating system should be replacable by the user. The only expception could be the settings app.

 

[surferfb]

Read that carefully. He has no idea what happened, but tries to interpret it in a way that makes Apple look good. Typical Gruber.

Makes a lot more sense than your “Apple is evil” theory. I’m tired of people who clearly don’t understand how Apple operates always assuming the worst behind every single decision. Seriously, switch to Android if you distrust Apple so much.

Here is my interpretation. Apple does not want competing browser engines to be able to make homescreen icons, because they migh actually provide a better experience for users than Safari or even the app store. I'm certain, that this is exactly what is going to happen, because the EU/DMA mandates it.

What possibly in Apple’s history makes you think they’d operate like that? I’m 100% confident Apple thinks they make the best experience for iOS bar none (even when I disagree with them) and have no fear of PWAs providing a better experience.

If they are intentionally blocking them, it’s because they’re worried about security issue and the best experience for the vast majority of their users.

Removing homescreen icons was a knee-jerk reaction that made them look excpetionally bad. It's exactly what a monopolist would do. Make the user experience worse to further their economic interests.

Again, PWAs are not a better solution for 99% of Apple’s users. And allowing third party browsing engines to create PWAs absolutely is a security issue. Apple cares about the vast majority of its users, not the tiny minority of power users like yourself who would be better served by Android.

If Gruber is right, there will be no home scree icons and PWAs with third party browser engines. If we will get them, than Grubers article was BS.

Or the EU forces Apple to do it anyway, and Apple complies. For all you know they already have and that was the deal “Since there’s literally no way to implement this now, you can keep PWAs as long as you allow others to implement them by X date”.

EU has done this before to great damage. Remember Crowdstrike? The rest of the world is super happy with your regulators for that one.

 

[surferfb]

Or maybe that's progress. All apps on any mobile operating system should be replacable by the user. The only expception could be the settings app.

I am not talking about Apps. I am talking about APIs. While making all apps user replaceable is not needed or desirable for 99% of users, I have no real issue with the EU mandating that, even if I’d rather not have Apple wasting time implementing it.

But I was talking about APIs. Core iOS features. If Apple creates a new feature, literally anyone can copy it, then Apple doesn’t have incentive to release new features. Why should Apple spend a ton of time and money to create a great new feature if they immediately have to give it away to competitors who then undercut them on price. Out of the goodness of their heart? We’ve already established you think they hate their users and would give them a worse user experience if it increases their profits, so that doesn’t seem like something you think they’d do, does it?

 

[MilaM]

But I was talking about APIs. Core iOS features.

If it's used for a user facing feature, I think the APIs should be open to third-party developers, yes. It works quite well on macOS. I don't see a reason why it should not work on iOS.

 

[MilaM]

EU has done this before to great damage. Remember Crowdstrike? The rest of the world is super happy with your regulators for that one.

You think EU regulation has caused the Crowdstrike fiasco? Can you then explain why thousands of US companies were also affected by the outage? EU regulation does not apply in the US as far as I know.

 

[MilaM]

Makes a lot more sense than your “Apple is evil” theory. I’m tired of people who clearly don’t understand how Apple operates always assuming the worst behind every single decision. Seriously, switch to Android if you distrust Apple so much.

I don't trust Google to do what is in my best interest. Why should I then switch to Android? There are no other options, unless I stop using most of the apps I use in my daily life.

 

[I7guy]

You think EU regulation has caused the Crowdstrike fiasco? Can you then explain why thousands of US companies were also affected by the outage? EU regulation does not apply in the US as far as I know.

Ops point is with the unregulation of iOS, WebKits and browser not managed by apple can create a larger surface vector for malware.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you simply plan to ignore the commonly held definitions of basic terms

I don't.
Apple has sizable monopoly power.
"Monopoly power" as used by competition regulators does not mean that some company is literally the only supplier for something.

You’d have to ask Vestager that one. She’s gotten more and more chatty after she realized she was going to be booted regardless of what she says and she said that, if they force third party app stores, then a company having to support their own store PLUS third party app stores, that it should put a dent in their profits.

Of course. That is a side effect of having to compete.
Not a goal in itself.

The goal of the DMA is competition.
Not punish U.S. tech companies - but force them to compete.

 

[surferfb]

You think EU regulation has caused the Crowdstrike fiasco? Can you then explain why thousands of US companies were also affected by the outage? EU regulation does not apply in the US as far as I know.

The Wall Street Journal's Tom Dotan and Robert McMillan reported July 21. "A Microsoft spokesman said it cannot legally wall off its operating system in the same way Apple does because of an understanding it reached with the European Commission following a complaint. In 2009, Microsoft agreed it would give makers of security software the same level of access to Windows that Microsoft gets."

Turns out letting regulators who don’t understand what they’re regulating and don’t know what they’re doing can have negative consequences. Thanks EU! Maybe demanding Apple give anyone who asks any Private API isn’t the brightest idea. But no, the EU knows better.

E.U. regulations made the CrowdStrike fiasco much worse

Why was the Microsoft CrowdStrike outage so bad? Blame the Brussels Effect.

reason.com

 

[AppliedMicro]

Turns out letting regulators who don’t understand what they’re regulating and don’t know what they’re doing can have negative consequences. Thanks EU! Maybe demanding Apple give anyone who asks any Private API isn’t the brightest idea. But no, the EU knows better.

E.U. regulations made the CrowdStrike fiasco much worse

Why was the Microsoft CrowdStrike outage so bad? Blame the Brussels Effect.

reason.com

„A European Commission spokesperson has hit back at accusations by tech giant Microsoft claiming that the EU executive was to blame for a massive IT outage that caused commercial mayhem last week, telling Euronews that the US tech giant never raised any concerns about security with the Commission either before or after the incident.“

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/european-...e-125956448.html?_guc_consent_skip=1723137983

Thanks EU! Maybe demanding Apple give anyone who asks any Private API isn’t the brightest idea. But no, the EU knows better.

It’s up to Microsoft to provide safe APIs - particularly if they’re made accessible to third parties.

„nothing in that undertaking would have prevented Microsoft from creating an out-of-kernel API for it and other security vendors to use“

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/22/windows_crowdstrike_kernel_eu/

Also, Microsoft didn’t have to sell security software products as a paid add-on to their products.

 

[surferfb]

„A European Commission spokesperson has hit back at accusations by tech giant Microsoft claiming that the EU executive was to blame for a massive IT outage that caused commercial mayhem last week, telling Euronews that the US tech giant never raised any concerns about security with the Commission either before or after the incident.“

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/european-...e-125956448.html?_guc_consent_skip=1723137983


It’s up to Microsoft to provide safe APIs - particularly if they’re made accessible to third parties.

„nothing in that undertaking would have prevented Microsoft from creating an out-of-kernel API for it and other security vendors to use“

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/22/windows_crowdstrike_kernel_eu/

Also, Microsoft didn’t have to sell security software products as a paid add-on to their products.

They can protest all they want, but the fact of the matter is the Crowdstrike fiasco wouldn’t have happened if the EU didn’t stick its nose in and regulate something it didn’t know anything about because it thought it knew better than the professionals.

Who knows what future security disaster Vestager has signed us up for because she doesn’t understand the technology she’s regulating.

 

[AppliedMicro]

the Crowdstrike fiasco wouldn’t have happened if the EU didn’t stick its nose in and regulate something it didn’t know anything about because it thought it knew better than the professionals

…properly did their job.

It‘s like blaming government for mandating seat belts in cars and coaches, when someone is injured or killed by an unsafe seat belt. Rather than blaming the manufacturer for their unsafe product.

The causality is Microsoft having unsafe APIs and the security software vendor messing up.
And very little about the EU (which just serves as a convenient scapegoat for that Microsoft spokesman).

It’s not as if the EU regulated the design of these APIs.

 

[surferfb]

It‘s like blaming government for mandating seat belts in cars and coaches, when someone is injured or killed by an unsafe seat belt. Rather than blaming the manufacturer for their unsafe product.

If the government was mandating a seatbelt design that was unsafe, even when the car manufacturer was telling the government the design was unsafe, and the government had already screwed up several previous car safety regulations, you’d absolutely and correctly blame the government.

Here the EU is mandating Microsoft (in 2008) Apple (today) do things that make their users less safe. I can’t speak for what Microsoft said or didn’t say in 2008, but Apple (among others) is absolutely pointing out that the DMA makes users less safe.

The causality is Microsoft having unsafe APIs and the security software vendor messing up.
And very little about the EU (which just serves as a convenient scapegoat for that Microsoft spokesman).

Look, even well-intentioned regulations can have unintended second-order effects.

The EU mandated that if Microsoft got kernel access, everyone did. And yes, Crowdstrike screwed up royally. But they wouldn’t have even been in the position to screw up if the EU didn’t decide “competition” required it. I can think of a lot of reasons why the company that makes the OS should have a different, higher level of access than random companies that make software should. And I’m a lay person!

And here the EU is demanding the exact same thing. “If Apple has access to a feature or API, then anyone who wants it gets it too.” Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[I7guy]

I don't.
Apple has sizable monopoly power.

Apple has sizable popularity with a minority of market share.

"Monopoly power" as used by competition regulators does not mean that some company is literally the only supplier for something.

Apple has popularity and a minority market share in the EU. But it’s deemed “important”.

Of course. That is a side effect of having to compete.

What the dma sought to achieve is not competition nor is it for the consumer.

Not a goal in itself.

The goal of the DMA is competition.
Not punish U.S. tech companies - but force them to compete.

Having to compete means an alternative platform; eg windows phone.

 

[nt5672]

Or would you all prefer that third party browsers all end up switching to chromium and further entrench Google’s dominance in this space instead?

This is happening anyway. WebKit is not keeping up and is not being designed for any more. More and more web sites are simply ignoring WebKit. It is almost like the 90's where all web design was centered around Microsoft browser quirks. Safari is terrible now days. If Apple wants to enforce a standard, then they should keep a team working hard to make Apple's stuff the best. They are not.

 

[I7guy]

This is happening anyway. WebKit is not keeping up and is not being designed for any more. More and more web sites are simply ignoring WebKit. It is almost like the 90's where all web design was centered around Microsoft browser quirks. Safari is terrible now days. If Apple wants to enforce a standard, then they should keep a team working hard to make Apple's stuff the best. They are not.

And yet, safari has private relay. So there is that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If the government was mandating a seatbelt design that was unsafe, even when the car manufacturer was telling the government the design was unsafe

That‘s why I said: The EU did not mandate the design of the interface.
That’s why the EU spokesperson said: Microsoft never raised any safety concerns.

The EU mandated that if Microsoft got kernel access, everyone did

The access existed anyway - Microsoft just had to document the API.
Lots of developers‘ software have kernel access (device drivers!).
And security through obscurity doesn‘t work.

I can think of a lot of reasons why the company that makes the OS should have a different, higher level of access than random companies that make software should

And I can think of a lot of reasons why third parties should have the same access.
So can Microsoft - which purchased third-party developers of security software to re-brand their offerings as their own products.

What the dma sought to achieve is not competition

Yes, it does just that.
Whether successfully or not, time will tell.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The DMA will also further entrench the existing incumbents. Not only does it give iOS and android the ‘seal of approval’ it discourages any other company from ever creating a new OS and ecosystem because they know how the EU will treat them if they become too successful.

"Once we have...

• many millions of users
• billions of Euros in turnover in the EU
• and become one of the 20 most valuable stock-listed companies in the world (like the regulated gatekeepers of Apple, Meta, Alphabet and Microsoft)

...the EU may regulate us to allow software installation and interoperability to third parties in limited circumstances?

Oh no! 😱

We better don't develop anything so successful in the first place!"

👉 Seriously, do you believe this logic?

Look at payment networks like Visa and Mastercard. They have been regulated for years yet not a single viable competitor has emerged despite all the regulations. That market is stagnant and uncompetitive precisely because of the regulations

It's not - quite the contrary.
It has been stagnant and uncompetitive due to Mastercard and VISA's anticompetitive policies.

The irony is that the European Union quite successfully regulated these networks to lower (transaction) costs for merchants and increase acceptance for consumers.

That market is stagnant and uncompetitive precisely because of the regulations

So has the market for desktop operating systems and "office" applications been.

The DMA isn't necessarily or only intended to create competition to them. It's designed to prevent these platform operators from anticompetitively leveraging their market power on other, related markets (such as music and video streaming).

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Yes, it does just that.
Whether successfully or not, time will tell.

no it doesn’t. It gives away apple’s intellectual property under the guise of consumerism for free. The freeloading app stores contributed nothing to the development of iOS.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Apple has sizable monopoly power.
"Monopoly power" as used by competition regulators does not mean that some company is literally the only supplier for something.

Apple does not have anywhere close to monopoly power. Again, if you simply plan to use your own definitions of what a monopoly is, you're not being a trustworthy interlocutor. (and I said nothing about a monopoly only being "literally the only supplier for something").

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does not have anywhere close to monopoly power

They do.

Again, if you simply plan to use your own definitions of what a monopoly is, you're not being a trustworthy interlocutor.

I'm using the same or similar definition as competition regulators like the U.S. FTC.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple has sizable popularity with a minority of market share.

They have way more than just a "minority" of the market for mobile applications.

Having to compete means an alternative platform; eg windows phone.

Windows Phone doesn't exist in the market anymore.

The DMA is about software and data.
Fair competition on the market for digital applications and services.

You are still way too much fixated on hardware devices - which aren't regulated by the DMA.
It's all about allowing software.

The freeloading app stores contributed nothing to the development of iOS.

...just as Apple does not contribute to streaming services providing audio content to users on iOS.
Or eBook stores delivering their books to users.

Listening to audio content and showing souped-up HTML content has been very basic functionality for any general-purpose computing platform for now decades.

 

[surferfb]

They do.

I'm using the same or similar definition as competition regulators like the U.S. FTC.

While I understand the limitations of using a US definition and applying it to the EU, per the definition you cite, Apple does not have monopoly power in the EU smartphone market.

Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages.

Apple has somewhere between 25-40% of the smartphone market in the EU. Even using the “App sales” metric it’s barely at 50%. Definitely not “much higher” percentages.

Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.

Apple’s restrictions have a legitimate purpose of improving the user experience, privacy, and safety and security of their customers. In addition, a large percentage of the market’s customers clearly prefer Apple’s model, choosing Apple devices over an open alternative despite they well-publicized restrictions. In addition, Apple advertises the closed nature of their product and Google advertises the open nature of theirs as selling points, showing that customers know full well what they’re getting into when they get into an ecosystem.

Finally, switching platforms is very easy. Apple even allows an app on their App Store made by its competitor to facilitate switching. So hardly locking customers in and preventing competition.

Glad we’ve established that Apple doesn’t have monopoly power under your own definition!

 

[surferfb]

...just as Apple does not contribute to streaming services providing audio content to users on iOS.
Or eBook stores delivering their books to users.

Listening to audio content and showing souped-up HTML content has been very basic functionality for any general-purpose computing platform for now decades.

Apple created a market of customers who are willing to download and buy apps by investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Many of these companies WOULD NOT EXIST had Apple not done so. If Apple took away the App Store and disallowed third party apps many would go out of business. Apple also allow these companies to use Apple’s technology to build their apps and serve their customers for $99 a year. So saying Apple doesn’t contribute to these companies is laughable.

And Apple isn’t saying they have to pay Apple. Just that if those companies want to capture a sale in the app that the companies wrote to reach Apple’s customers USING APPLE’S TECHNOLOGIES, they need to pay Apple a commission.

Why that is controversial I will never understand.