EU Has 'No Intention' to Repeal DMA Following Apple Challenge

[ToothBlueth]

The EU in an unelected ball

There was a vote just last year

of socialist corruption,

that increased the share of the far-right fractions

accountable to no one.

elections in itself is a way to hold politicians accountable, in addition is there an independent EU court. Also, there is the European Court of Human Rights, which was established by the Council of Europe, which is not a body of the European Union. The individual member states also play a role in certain decisions which in many countries are democratically elected (one could have doubts on the levels of democracy in states like Hungary).

We should look at the EU in two ways, an uncomplete project of cooperation. It is not perfect and often requires crises for foundational changes. The second way we have to look at it, is that it represents the vote of the EU as a whole. Currently we see that the EU is moving further from the centre to the right, with a focus on immigration. That is the political side of the union. When one says I support the EU it is often the former, but may or may not apply to the other.

They set up traps to steal money from companies to support their lavish lifestyles, salaries and luxury meals.

There are definitely politicians that see opportunities for corruption, but this is not what the EU as an (supranational-)organisation is.

 

[ginkobiloba]

👉 There is no need to break into Apple - since Apple themselves will be required to "scan" content. And so will large messenging apps on your iPhone.

Well that's the thing : If most apps have to be downloaded only from the official Apple store AND Apple can resist the injunction to scan and automatically transmit suspicious messages/photos to the authorities ( remember that the EU are asking for their AI to be implemented in all systems ) , then they have no way of achieving this easily.

The UK hasn't succeeded when they asked Apple to break encryption in iCloud , because only Apple controls iCloud, and iCloud is what most users use. AND Apple had the firepower to resist the UK's injunction.
If there was another synching and data storing system more popular ( Dropbox ? ) , UK's pressure would have more easily succeeded because it's unlikely Dropbox ( for example ) has the same power team of lawyers as Apple.

If most of the apps are downloaded elsewhere, and data synched and stored over a various amount of companies other than Apple, it will be much easier to force them to submit, as none has the firepower of Apple to resist it.

Apple and its walled garden is just accidentally the good guy here. But it doesn't matter in the end. Right now the privacy interest of users are aligning with the commercial interests of Apple, and we should exploit that as users.

In Other Words :
- EU : "Implement our AI and constantly scan and report any messages it deems suspicous or we will severely fine you"

- Small Company X : "here, take it all, we don't care anyway"
- Small Company Y : " We don't like it but we'll do it , we can't fight it "
- Apple : " Nope. F*You . We'd rather ship you half a product than do this , because we can afford it " ( as they did recently with the UK )

But you know what ? I think we are going to have BOTH in the end : ChatControl AND More scams/security issues. People are unable to see things other than in binary ways. It is possible to be pro-EU and recognize they are protecting their citizens AND are simultaneously going to violently invade their citizen's privacy in ways that would make China proud with the upcoming ChatControl law.

China also protects its citizen's data from being siphoned by foreign companies, WHILE deploying a massive surveillance state. These two objectives aren't contradictory.

 

[robertosh]

In a statement on its website, Apple also pleaded its case to EU users. Apple said the DMA's rules put EU iPhone owners at risk of malware, fraud, and invasions of privacy.

From the same company that puts Google (a renowned privacy focused company) search as a default search engine in all their devices. They have the rights to protest against the regulations but those justifications are just BS.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If most apps have to be downloaded only from the official Apple store AND Apple can resist the injunction to scan and automatically transmit suspicious messages/photos to the authorities ( remember that the EU are asking for their AI to be implemented in all systems ) , then they have no way of achieving this easily.

You're misunderstanding the proposed law.

All applicable message content will be required to be scanned by the operators of affected chat/messenger services. Not just individual cases after going through due legal process.

No probably cause required.
No injunction required.
No resistance.

Right now the privacy interest of users are aligning with the commercial interests of Apple

Apple has a documented history of prioritising commercial interests over privacy (see China and Russia).
Also, see below.

 

[nexusrule]

I live in Europe and am not comfortable with the EU knocking a hole in the security of the Walled Garden.

The more it profits developers to list outside the AppStore, the less variety users will find inside it.

Being forced to download from outside removes the additional security apple’s vetting processes provided.

In addition there is no guarantee that, nor protection against, a clean download from outside won’t be replaced with a corrupted one at the developer’s discretion. (App Store wasn’t 100% but we lose this extra protection if we can only get a desired app from a 3rd party non App Store site).

And when these rogue apps do damage the EU will 1) blame Apple, and 2) offer no compensation to injured users for a problem they the eu facilitated.

I say this as a person who is a big supporter if the EU project.

Apps are freely available since multiple decades in several operating systems, the world didn't end. Apple App Store is actually full of malicious apps and you can find several reports of apps that surreptitiously add very expensive subscription to users and the like. Mac OS was touted by Apple as the most secure operating system EVER for decades before iOS, and they never spoke of these potential issues neither they closed it as they did with iOS, and, if logic has any meaning, if iOS is so much secure why they don't? iOS is closed because Jobs didn't want to repeat the (business) error they made with Mac OS keeping it open until it was too late. He didn't want to open the OS to third party appsat all in his initial vision. It's all about money and control.

 

[ginkobiloba]

You're misunderstanding the proposed law.

All applicable message content will be required to be scanned by the operators of affected chat/messenger services. Not just individual cases after going through due legal process.

No probably cause required.
No injunction required.
No resistance.

How am I saying otherwise ? I am saying exactly the same thing as you. When i said "injunction" , it's the injunction to implement their automatic AI scanning system everywhere ( and it's that AI that determines what is suspicious and transmits it automatically to the authorities), not the injunction of surrendering the messages of a specific individual.

 

[one more]

The EU in an unelected ball of socialist corruption, accountable to no one. They set up traps to steal money from companies to support their lavish lifestyles, salaries and luxury meals.

As if your government officials woke up at 5 am every morning to milk their cows, lol, of shared a bus ride with you, had an average salary and dined at MacDo. Wake up, buddy, political elitism is a global phenomenon!

 

[AppliedMicro]

When i said "injunction" , it's the injunction to implement their automatic AI scanning system everywhere

Apple will have to follow the law.
That doesn't require an injunction.

They have a history of following the law when it comes to surveillance and denying their users access to privacy-preserving apps (e.g. VPN).

In Other Words :
- EU : "Implement our AI and constantly scan and report any messages it deems suspicous or we will severely fine you"
- Apple : " Nope. F*You . We'd rather ship you half a product than do this , because we can afford it " ( as they did recently with the UK )

So? They may cease providing iMessage, maybe even iCloud email services for EU customers.

WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc. are still required to follow the law - for customers with iOS devices.
How do you ensure that these customers don't download the untainted version of Telegram?
Well, making consumers have to download Telegram through Apple's official App Store.

👉 And that is the point where Apple's commercial interests align with the goals of government surveillance.


PS: Though why would Apple cease provision of their services anyway?
The EU's approach is very similar to Apple's own CSAM approach that they used to have.
Enhanced visual search has recently been implemented as part of Apple Intelligence.
And it was enabled without customers' consent.
When you can scan for landmarks, you can simply expand that to other content.

 

[surferfb]

There is an easy solution. Apple could just charge for Live Translation. Boom, problem solved.

Right now the feature comes as part of the OS image free of charge to use for iPhone users. Legally iPhone owners are allowed use it whichever way they want. But if Apple absolutely can't stomach the idea of funnelling audio data from third-party hardware to their magical translation algorithm, they should just put it behind a paywall.

Crazy you’d rather make everyone pay more than have other companies do the work.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Crazy you’d rather make everyone pay more

Crazy how how you've been so against "having to give away stuff for free"...
...but find "paying for a service outright and openly" such a "crazy" idea.

😉

 

[turbineseaplane]

Good morning (or evening!) to all my forum friends!
Lots to catch up on here!

 

[ginkobiloba]

Apple will have to follow the law.
That doesn't require an injunction.

They have a history of following the law when it comes to surveillance and denying their users access to privacy-preserving apps (e.g. VPN).

In case you haven't heard :

Apple Fights UK's Demand for iCloud Data Backdoor

Apple today filed a legal complaint with the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal in an attempt to quash the UK government's demand for...

www.macrumors.com

Then :

UK Reportedly Withdraws Demand to Access Encrypted iCloud User Data

The British government has agreed to withdraw its controversial demand to access Apple users' encrypted iCloud data, according to the U.S....

www.macrumors.com

 

[surferfb]

Crazy how how you've been so against "having to give away stuff for free"...
...but find "paying for a service outright and openly" such a "crazy" idea.

😉

I think companies paying for what they use to make money makes sense.

I think consumers getting more stuff for their money makes sense.

But this is a perfect example of the end result of EU regulation. Everyone pays more and those who do the work are punished to benefit freeloaders.

 

[yaddam205]

From the same company that puts Google (a renowned privacy focused company) search as a default search engine in all their devices. They have the rights to protest against the regulations but those justifications are just BS.

and they sold their consumers out for the tune of $20 Billion per annum.

Apple cares about the customer, not the consumer. AKA profits over people.

 

[surferfb]

and they sold their consumers out for the tune of $20 Billion per annum.

Which search engine could handle Apple’s volume AND has comparable quality to Google?

Honestly asking.

 

[Sami13496]

EU decision-makers are clearly Android users… they want Apple to have the same kind of mess where security is all over the place.

 

[bsmr]

EU decision-makers are clearly Android users…

Exclusive: Google likely to be hit with first EU antitrust fine under new EU law, sources say

Alphabet's Google is likely to be hit with its first fine under landmark new EU tech rules in the coming months, and the European Commission is now drafting its decision, three people with direct knowledge of the matter said.

www.reuters.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

As usual, Jeff is all over it

And Cory has a good comparison to Amazon.
I'd never thought of this one, but it resonates with me for sure.

 

[MilaM]

Crazy you’d rather make everyone pay more than have other companies do the work.

Making it paid would create incentives for other companies to do the work. Ha!

Your primary argument all the time is that Apple should not be forced to give their tech away for free. Well, if that is the real issue here, then making it a paid feature is a logical consequence.

Now if they don't put it behind a paywall, maybe it's not that valuable after all 🤔.

 

[MilaM]

Which search engine could handle Apple’s volume AND has comparable quality to Google?

Honestly asking.

I have been using Duckduckgo on all my devices for years. No complaints so far.

Bonus: it's one of the choices Apple allows on Safari (iOS).

 

[surferfb]

Making it paid would create incentives for other companies to do the work. Ha!

Your prime argument all the time was that Apple should not be forced to give their tech away for free. Well, if that is the real issue here, then making it a paid feature is a logical consequence.

Now if they don't put it behind a paywall, maybe it's not that valuable after all 🤔.

Appreciate you admitting you prefer higher prices for consumers! Explains your support of the legislation.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I think companies paying for what they use to make money makes sense.

Good. 👍

So should we begin with Uber, Doordash and the Banks etc. paying appropriately for the use of Apple's resources and services?

So that companies aren't forced to pay for what they're not using. (as in: unlocking in-game items, additional media content or ad-freeness does not use any of Apple's resources).

 

[turbineseaplane]

I have been using Duckduckgo on all my devices for years. No complaints so far.

Bonus: it's one of the choices Apple allows on Safari (iOS).

Paying for Kagi for a couple years now myself and absolutely love it.

When I'm exposed to Google again every so often I can't believe anybody subjects themselves to it still.

 

[dwsolberg]

If Apple were actually trying to make it easier for consumers, then the regulators would trust them more. The whole rule that an app developer can't tell users that they can get a cheaper subscription on the web is clearly anti-consumer. If they would've given up that rule much earlier then they could speak with a lot more trust that they were doing what's right.

It's not that I don't think the regulators are ignorant; it's that Apple lost their position of the high ground.

 

[surferfb]

I have been using Duckduckgo on all my devices for years. No complaints so far.

Bonus: it's one of the choices Apple allows on Safari (iOS).

And I’m glad you enjoy it and have that option. I use Kagi. But neither one of those could handle the traffic of being the default.

DDG stopped publishing their live feed a couple of years ago, but they were around 100M searches a day (so ~30-40 billion searches a year). Google said it handled ~14B searches a day in 2024, and court records and reporting indicate Apple devices account for “more than half” of Google’s search business (implying ~7B searches/day on Apple devices). So it’s entirely conceivable that Apple devices produce more searches in five or six days than DDG handles in a year.

Even assuming Google is able to get 50% of iOS users to stick with Google, there is no way DDG could handle that influx traffic without months of planning - maybe longer. Which is of course doable, particularly if Apple didn't require the revenue share they were getting from Google, but I still suspect it is hundreds of millions or maybe even single digit billions of year in increased costs to DDG without paying Apple a penny. I suspect Bing is the only search engine that could scale quickly, and even then I suspect they'd need a few months of lead time.