EU Planning to Force Apple to Give Developers Access to All Hardware and Software Features

[macar00n]

These Butterfly Keyboards really sucks, your shift key got stuck.

It's so funny that you sat there trying to think of something insulting, and this is the best you can do. Good job champ you absolutely crucified me, savage rebuttal.

 

[CarlJ]

I’ll tell you:

• Be interoperable, available on all major operating systems in the world.
• Allow video communication (iMessage is probably the only one that doesn’t).
• Allow replies. Ohh Apple added this feature 14-15 years later… well, they didn’t, if you reply more than once in iMessage you still see the reply to the original message in the thread instead to the actual message you are replying too, you then have to click to open it up, follow, and it darkens the background. It is so stupid, WhatsApp will show you the message you are replying to and that is simple better.
• Be smoother man, WhatsApp works fluidly with a few intuitive swipes, iMessage is just clunky.
• And finally, probably the worst: be the same for everyone. If you message someone who is not on the Apple ecosystem you are left with SMS technology from 1992, absurd, at least migrate to the RCS standard of the 2020s.

That's not asking for interoperability, that's asking for Apple's Messages app to be redesigned with major architectural changes to look and act more like other communication apps (adding video, making replies work differently, "be smoother").

You are literally asking for the government to force a company to make its program look and feel a certain way, just because you would like it that way. That's going WAY beyond interoperability. You're basically making Apple a subcontractor for the government, rushing to change iOS to keep up with the whims of their EU overseers, who may decide they want something different next week ("no, the background isn't quite the right shade of off-white! let's try with the eggshell color swatch").

If you want a communications program to be the same for everyone, why not just design a brand new government approved communications app that every smartphone company is required to install, and that every citizen is required to use? That would accomplish your goals.

RCS, by the way, is a steaming pile of **** as far as standards go. I would run away quickly from any program that implemented it.

 

[CarlJ]

RCS is superior to SMS in every way and yet networks worldwide are dragging their heals. If they have the bandwidth for WhatsApp and Telegram they have it for RCS.

RCS was designed to benefit phone carrier companies, not their customers.

 

[turbineseaplane]

RCS was designed to benefit phone carrier companies, not their customers.

Sounds like the mFI program
(insert "Apple" for "carrier companies")

 

[CarlJ]

Sounds like the mFI program
(insert "Apple" for "carrier companies")

So, now you're suggesting that we should force every smartphone maker to include Lightning support on their phones, then? Because the equivalent is what people in this thread are suggesting, that every phone manufacturer be forced to include RCS support.

I don't have a lot of love for the MFi program (no, despite what some people might assume, I don't like / agree with everything Apple has ever done, they make their mistakes/missteps too), but the Lightning connector itself is physically a better connector than USB-C, which has a lot more fiddly little bits to it.

Not to mention that USB-C has kind of gotten out of hand, with lots of horror stories about equipment and cables that can all cheerfully plug together, yet in some cases the cables can damage the equipment, and vice versa, because there's so many variants of the spec all running through the same One True connector. With, say, AC power, if you have a US standard AC power plug (yes, there are a few variants, grounded-or-not, polarized-or-not), either you can plug the bits together and they work, or you just can't plug them together. With USB-C, you can easily break things.

 

[visualseed]

Whilst that might be the headline, I suspect that the nuance will be something like Apple having to make (more) APIs available. I might be getting this wrong but I get that the feeling here is that the EU will be forcing Apple to release all their code.

Other than RFID, FaceID, and the Secure Enclave there is not much of the hardware that is off limits to developers through existing APIs. Sure, some could probably be expanded, but I also doubt they are advocating for bare metal access to all the sensors. What I do see happening is forcing Apple to open up to third-parties the ability to be the default app for some of these functions. You could have a default camera app and an entity different app to be your default photo library. Default SMS and phone dialer apps could be different as well. While I don't think all of what the EU is demanding is viable in the six months they require for implementation, I do believe if this becomes law, iOS 17 or 18 will be very different beasts from what we have today.

 

[AppliedMicro]

the FIRST thing that will happen is every idiot company (such as Epic) will create their own app store and make their app available only through that store on their terms

Yeah, and every unethical app developer who currently plays nice by Apple's rules but would immediately only allow their app to be downloaded through THEIR separate app store

You don't like that you can't install random garbage on your iPhone?

Seems that you have to resort to calling everyone names ("idiot", "unethical", "garbage", "scummy") that doesn't come from your supreme overlords (Apple). Quite telling.

It isn't unethical to sell things on your own.

Not surprisingly, not all these stores will be as secure as Apple's, not all will care about our privacy, not all will respect the current iPhone experience if we can install ANYTHING.

There's no reason why other stores may not very well be more secure and care more about privacy than Apple.
And there's no guarantee that Apple will care as much as they do today.
Also, the law doesn't only apply to Apple. It can just as well apply to others.

We'll end up choosing between not getting an app and using some scummy stores

Since there's many choices of apps for every conceivable thing you could want or do on your iPhone, that's still better than having one single party controlling the distribution of every single app (given the barriers to changing platforms for consumers).

Don't like an app, its developer or distribution model/policy. Go, choose another one. There's lots of alternatives.
Don't like a mobile operating system or its app distribution model? There aren't many relevant alternatives.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You don't like that you can't install random garbage on your iPhone?

lmao

I assure you, one can absolutely install random garbage on their iPhone, right from the Apple iOS App Software Distribution Monopoly Store

It's chock-full of garbage Apps and scams

 

[CarlJ]

Don't like an app, its developer or distribution model/policy. Go, choose another one. There's lots of alternatives.
Don't like a mobile operating system or its app distribution model? There aren't many relevant alternatives.

There are two main choices of ecosystem for smartphones/mobile, which are based on fairly different concepts (walled garden vs free-for-all). One appears to offer everything you want. Why work so hard to change the other to be like the one that already does what you want (thus working to remove choice from those who want/chose the walled garden), instead of just switching yourself over to Android?

"Makers of chocolate ice cream have been forced by the government to switch to making only strawberry ice cream, because it has been determined by a panel of government bureaucrats that strawberry is better than chocolate. We expect everyone will be happy with this great new change. You're welcome." I don't like this utopia you've designed. I'd prefer chocolate ice cream. I prefer the walled garden.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are two main choices of ecosystem for smartphones/mobile, which are based on fairly different concepts (walled garden vs free-for-all)

I wouldn't call them fairly different.

They certainly aren't from a technical view. The app distribution stores work very similarly, and the principle of apps being code-signed are virtually the same. And you can "sideload" on iOS just as you can on Android. There are even alternative App Stores that exploit Enterprise developer certificates to do so. They can also do so to distribute spyware.

The difference?
On Android, you can selectively allow apps from other sources, after having been warned. You have choice.
On iOS, Apple just restricts the number and selection of developers for which you can.

It'd only require a very minor change in Apple's policy - and no change from a technical standpoint - to allow "sideloading".

thus working to remove choice from those who want/chose the walled garden

The choice will remain.
Everyone's to obtain his apps from Apple's walled garden exclusively.

Will there be some developers that leave the App Store?
Yes, some (though if Android phones are any indication, it won't be too many!).

For these apps / developers, the "choice" would then shifted towards choosing a different app or sideload.
I'd argue that's much less restriction of choice than only being able to buy from one store that has all the apps.

? It is then up to Apple to remain competitive by offering an attractive platform at competitive commission pricing for developers and competitive prices and convenience for consumers.

"Makers of chocolate ice cream have been forced by the government to switch to making only strawberry ice cream, because it has been determined by a panel of government bureaucrats that strawberry is better than chocolate. We expect everyone will be happy with this great new change. You're welcome." I don't like this utopia you've designed. I'd prefer chocolate ice cream. I prefer the walled garden.

I hate strawberry ice cream but love chocolate ice cream.
I also just a ice cream a few hours ago today.

Thankfully, entry barriers to the ice cream market are low and there's plenty of choice and variety.

I mean, if a duopoly of two American trillion-dollar multinationals...

1) controlled 97+ percent of the market for ice cream sales in my country, and also
2) controlled the market for ice cream machines / makers, and the biggest one of them
3) required all independent artisans (developers) of ice cream flavours to distribute their produce exclusively through them
4) and then prohibited certain (legal) flavours of ice cream from being offered / distributed cause they don't like them

I'd be all for EU/government regulation to promote more choice, variety and competition.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It'd only require a very minor change in Apple's policy - and no change from a technical standpoint - to allow "sideloading".

This is a really key point.

So many folks pushing a bit of a FUD angle on this seem to not realize that nobody is proposing anything along the lines of full unlocked third party access to the system or core of iOS.

The great security, by design, will remain even with third party sources.

If one is worried about scammy Apps getting in that do other things that are shady...I have news for them about the Apple App Store, and what's in it...right this very moment

 

[AppliedMicro]

The great security, by design, will remain even with third party sources.

...or, alternatively, we will find out, that that security (from a technical standpoint) didn't even exist in the first place.

I mean, that's the oft-touted argument in this discussion: that "scummy" developers and their apps will access all kinds of files and sensors on our phones to collect data and spy on us users.

The only secure way of preventing that is proper sandboxing and access permissions - and then consumers making a conscious choice what to share with these apps. Not the "we can always revoke their developer certificate" way of reactive policing that Apple does.

I mean, if two of the biggest companies in the world abused their developer certificates (and got away with it for quite while!), and one of the bigger money-makers got their own in-app payment through app review, who honestly believes that Apple will keep us all safe by proactive app reviews on hundreds of thousands of developers and millions of apps?

 

[turbineseaplane]

who honestly believes that Apple will keep us all safe by proactive app reviews on hundreds of thousands of developers and millions of apps?

Not me, that’s for sure.

This has always been about money, not security or privacy

 

[GeoStructural]

You are literally asking for the government to force a company to make its program look and feel a certain way, just because you would like it that way. That's going WAY beyond interoperability. You're basically making Apple a subcontractor for the government, rushing to change iOS to keep up with the whims of their EU overseers, who may decide they want something different next week ("no, the background isn't quite the right shade of off-white! let's try with the eggshell color swatch").

You clearly didn’t understand what’s really going on here, or my reply. Your opinion is fogged by blind fandom, blow the candles out and look beyond it, you will see all these changes are for the better of EVERYONE, except for Apple, of course.

 

[theotherphil]

I’ll tell you:

• Be interoperable, available on all major operating systems in the world.
• Allow video communication (iMessage is probably the only one that doesn’t).
• Allow replies. Ohh Apple added this feature 14-15 years later… well, they didn’t, if you reply more than once in iMessage you still see the reply to the original message in the thread instead to the actual message you are replying too, you then have to click to open it up, follow, and it darkens the background. It is so stupid, WhatsApp will show you the message you are replying to and that is simple better.
• Be smoother man, WhatsApp works fluidly with a few intuitive swipes, iMessage is just clunky.
• And finally, probably the worst: be the same for everyone. If you message someone who is not on the Apple ecosystem you are left with SMS technology from 1992, absurd, at least migrate to the RCS standard of the 2020s.

But WhatsApp is available on all major platforms, so just use that if it's your preference 🤷‍♂️

iMessage does allow video...there's literally a video button in the top RH corner of every message.

Does WhatsApp fallback to SMS or RCS if a user isn't on that service? That's right, it doesn't provide ANY fallback, unlike iMessage. RCS isn't even end to end encrypted which explains why the EU are pushing it so much.

Some of these arguments are inane...there's a number of messenger services available, some available on every platform, so just use the one that suits your preferences. I don't see why we should make iPhones behave like android or iMessage behave like WhatsApp.

By doing that, you are reducing user choice, not increasing it....exactly the opposite of fostering "competition".

 

[theotherphil]

Who would want to be able to SMS from whatsapp, signal or Telegram? no one; at least not outside the US where no one uses SMS anymore. In my case, being outside the US, most of my contacts -other than my immediate relatives- use non-Apple devices. I’d love to be able to send them HD photos, videos, audios, etc right from the messages app instead of needing whatsapp, telegram or signal. If you don’t get that you must be an american. The US is the only country where they couldn’t care less if Apple doesn’t open up imessage because most of them use iphones anyway.

RCS adoption worldwide is still low....only 47 operators in 37 countries.

Arguing that Apple doesn't provide RCS is laughable when RCS isn't a standard and hasn't been adopted by the majority of carriers. SMS is ubiquitous, is the standard and is available on every network worldwide. Oh, and here's the biggie, RCS doesn't have end to end encryption which is probably why it's being pushed so hard by the EU in preference to rich messaging apps that are already available, cross platform.

Your argument should be with the global carriers at this stage, not Apple.

 

[dk001]

Well, think about it. It seems the choice is to stay in the EU to keep all of those potential customers... or allow EU regulators to gut and ruin the company. Apple can survive without the EU. But can they survive if they give away the primary reasons for buying Apple's products?

And that primary reason is …?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Will the EU mandate that every digital messaging platform must be compatible with every other digital messaging platform?

iMessage must work with WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

WhatsApp must work with iMessage, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Signal must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Facebook Messenger must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Instagram Messages must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Twitter DMs, etc.

Twitter DMs must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messenger, etc.

Would this interoperability actually work? Or be a total mess?

🤔

 

[dk001]

That's not asking for interoperability, that's asking for Apple's Messages app to be redesigned with major architectural changes to look and act more like other communication apps (adding video, making replies work differently, "be smoother").

You are literally asking for the government to force a company to make its program look and feel a certain way, just because you would like it that way. That's going WAY beyond interoperability. You're basically making Apple a subcontractor for the government, rushing to change iOS to keep up with the whims of their EU overseers, who may decide they want something different next week ("no, the background isn't quite the right shade of off-white! let's try with the eggshell color swatch").

If you want a communications program to be the same for everyone, why not just design a brand new government approved communications app that every smartphone company is required to install, and that every citizen is required to use? That would accomplish your goals.

RCS, by the way, is a steaming pile of **** as far as standards go. I would run away quickly from any program that implemented it.

Sorry but you are seriously misreading what the document claims. As these types of changes are mostly, or should be, behind the scenes, the actual change to the user would be negligible except now whether you use Google Messenger, Singal, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Telegram, iMessage, etc… your message can go through.

No one is asking for a complete redesign.

 

[dk001]

Other than RFID, FaceID, and the Secure Enclave there is not much of the hardware that is off limits to developers through existing APIs. Sure, some could probably be expanded, but I also doubt they are advocating for bare metal access to all the sensors. What I do see happening is forcing Apple to open up to third-parties the ability to be the default app for some of these functions. You could have a default camera app and an entity different app to be your default photo library. Default SMS and phone dialer apps could be different as well. While I don't think all of what the EU is demanding is viable in the six months they require for implementation, I do believe if this becomes law, iOS 17 or 18 will be very different beasts from what we have today.

There are a slew of in house API’s that Apple does not allow access to.
Apple doesn’t have to really create anything new, just add these to the public facing (for devs) API selection list.

 

[I7guy]

I wouldn't call them fairly different.

They certainly aren't from a technical view. The app distribution stores work very similarly, and the principle of apps being code-signed are virtually the same. And you can "sideload" on iOS just as you can on Android. There are even alternative App Stores that exploit Enterprise developer certificates to do so. They can also do so to distribute spyware.

The difference?
On Android, you can selectively allow apps from other sources, after having been warned. You have choice.
On iOS, Apple just restricts the number and selection of developers for which you can.

It'd only require a very minor change in Apple's policy - and no change from a technical standpoint - to allow "sideloading".

The choice will remain.
Everyone's to obtain his apps from Apple's walled garden exclusively.

Will there be some developers that leave the App Store?
Yes, some (though if Android phones are any indication, it won't be too many!).

For these apps / developers, the "choice" would then shifted towards choosing a different app or sideload.
I'd argue that's much less restriction of choice than only being able to buy from one store that has all the apps.

? It is then up to Apple to remain competitive by offering an attractive platform at competitive commission pricing for developers and competitive prices and convenience for consumers.


I hate strawberry ice cream but love chocolate ice cream.
I also just a ice cream a few hours ago today.

Thankfully, entry barriers to the ice cream market are low and there's plenty of choice and variety.

I mean, if a duopoly of two American trillion-dollar multinationals...

1) controlled 97+ percent of the market for ice cream sales in my country, and also
2) controlled the market for ice cream machines / makers, and the biggest one of them
3) required all independent artisans (developers) of ice cream flavours to distribute their produce exclusively through them
4) and then prohibited certain (legal) flavours of ice cream from being offered / distributed cause they don't like them

I'd be all for EU/government regulation to promote more choice, variety and competition.

The iOS ecosystem will take a nosedive. Even if the only technician requirement is for apple to freely hand out enterprise certificates for all comers.

This is a really key point.

So many folks pushing a bit of a FUD angle on this seem to not realize that nobody is proposing anything along the lines of full unlocked third party access to the system or core of iOS.

The great security, by design, will remain even with third party sources.

If one is worried about scammy Apps getting in that do other things that are shady...I have news for them about the Apple App Store, and what's in it...right this very moment

Key point. If the iOS app store today has less than forthright apps, then the handwriting is on the wall.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

RCS adoption worldwide is still low....only 47 operators in 37 countries.

Arguing that Apple doesn't provide RCS is laughable when RCS isn't a standard and hasn't been adopted by the majority of carriers. SMS is ubiquitous, is the standard and is available on every network worldwide. Oh, and here's the biggie, RCS doesn't have end to end encryption which is probably why it's being pushed so hard by the EU in preference to rich messaging apps that are already available, cross platform.

Your argument should be with the global carriers at this stage, not Apple.

hmm, interesting arguments you have.
Guess who adopted USB c, HTML 5 and 64bit phone os whn it was a sub 1% market?

They literally were so eager to adopt USB c they did it before the standard was finished. Apple even tried to adopt e-sim before it even existed

RCS havent been pushed by Eu. nothing stops apple from making iMessage the standard considering they advertised it as comming to android, untill it was decided to be a reason to trap people in the ios ecosystem

 

[dk001]

I wouldn't call them fairly different.

They certainly aren't from a technical view. The app distribution stores work very similarly, and the principle of apps being code-signed are virtually the same. And you can "sideload" on iOS just as you can on Android. There are even alternative App Stores that exploit Enterprise developer certificates to do so. They can also do so to distribute spyware.

The difference?
On Android, you can selectively allow apps from other sources, after having been warned. You have choice.
On iOS, Apple just restricts the number and selection of developers for which you can.

It'd only require a very minor change in Apple's policy - and no change from a technical standpoint - to allow "sideloading".

The choice will remain.
Everyone's to obtain his apps from Apple's walled garden exclusively.

Will there be some developers that leave the App Store?
Yes, some (though if Android phones are any indication, it won't be too many!).

For these apps / developers, the "choice" would then shifted towards choosing a different app or sideload.
I'd argue that's much less restriction of choice than only being able to buy from one store that has all the apps.

? It is then up to Apple to remain competitive by offering an attractive platform at competitive commission pricing for developers and competitive prices and convenience for consumers.


I hate strawberry ice cream but love chocolate ice cream.
I also just a ice cream a few hours ago today.

Thankfully, entry barriers to the ice cream market are low and there's plenty of choice and variety.

I mean, if a duopoly of two American trillion-dollar multinationals...

1) controlled 97+ percent of the market for ice cream sales in my country, and also
2) controlled the market for ice cream machines / makers, and the biggest one of them
3) required all independent artisans (developers) of ice cream flavours to distribute their produce exclusively through them
4) and then prohibited certain (legal) flavours of ice cream from being offered / distributed cause they don't like them

I'd be all for EU/government regulation to promote more choice, variety and competition.

Now wouldn’t it be a kicker if either Google, MS , or Amazon offered an alternative iOS store?

 

[Beautyspin]

Will the EU mandate that every digital messaging platform must be compatible with every other digital messaging platform?

iMessage must work with WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

WhatsApp must work with iMessage, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Signal must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Facebook Messenger must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Instagram Messages, Twitter DMs, etc.

Instagram Messages must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Twitter DMs, etc.

Twitter DMs must work with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram Messenger, etc.

Would this interoperability actually work? Or be a total mess?

?

It's for the Apps to ask for interoperability. It means, if WhatsApp asks Apple to allow interoperability with iMessage, then Apple must allow it. How Apple would do it probably is creating a few general-purpose APIs that will allow access to any messaging platform. They have to use the APIs to create interoperability. It does not mean every feature in iMessage will work in WhatsApp. It just means that the APIs will allow a person on WhatsApp to communicate with a person on iMessage directly.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's for the Apps to ask for interoperability. It means, if WhatsApp asks Apple to allow interoperability with iMessage, then Apple must allow it. How Apple would do it probably is creating a few general-purpose APIs that will allow access to any messaging platform. They have to use the APIs to create interoperability. It does not mean every feature in iMessage will work in WhatsApp. It just means that the APIs will allow a person on WhatsApp to communicate with a person on iMessage directly.

Well that brings up another question... would WhatsApp want people to message their users if they don't have a WhatsApp account?

Seems like WhatsApp would want me to register for a WhatsApp account in order to talk to their users. I thought the point of these messaging platforms is that you're a registered user. Membership and all that. It'd be kinda weird if non-registered people could send messages to WhatsApp members.

So who's asking for this?

Messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal? Or the EU?

I haven't heard Signal complaining that their users can't talk to Telegram users. Or vice-versa.

🤔