But why did Microsoft not deny kernel access outside the EU? The EU can't control what those companies are doing outside their jurisdiction.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Report: Apple Nearing Agreement With EU Over App Store Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean, the obvious answer would be to maintain a more consistent worldwide codebase and avoid having to deal with similar regulations in the future. Not sure what that has to do with the point though.
Doesn't matter, really. I was trying to counter the view expressed by some here that regulation form the 90s led to the Crowdstrike incident last year. At some point arguing with windmills stops being fun though. So I'm just going to leave it at that.
Why counter something that is obviously true? Some regulations have bad or unintended consequences. Even if they are done for good reasons.
The inability of some to admit regulations can and do have negative consequences is very strange. I can admit when I think Apple is wrong (see recent "removals" of perfectly legal apps from the App Store, for a recent example). But anytime the EU regulations result in negative consequence it's always the regulated company's fault, not the regulation's fault.
- Users will get scammed and the risk of malware increases on iOS devices?
- "THAT'S FUD!!!!!! Apple should just hire competent security people. Viruses aren't an issue on Mac that has 10-20x fewer users that iPhone, so they won't be an issue on iPhone even though they are on Android. Pay no attention to the fact that Google says sideloading and third-party app stores lead to 50x more malware on Android."
- EU unleashes an avalanche of cookie popups and ironically lead consumers to be less informed because they just hit "accept" as fast as humanly possible?
- "If the websites didn't track user data, they wouldn't have to present the popups. Pay no attention to the fact that tracking and advertising is needed for the web to exist as we know it."
- EU regulations lead to Apple being unable to legally offer new features unless they give software innovations and user data away to third parties?
- "Apple is maliciously complying! Just look at how Google gives competitors access to Google's features. Pay no attention to Google's business model is 'We want as many people using as possible so we get more data, so we have no issue with giving access to third parties', and Apple's is 'do stuff as privately as possible'; the fact that Google does it means Apple is just being petty.
- Telling Apple it can't differentiate it's headphones with translation features other headphone companies could build themselves definitely won't lead to fewer features being developed, Apple will clearly just do R&D for the entire headphone industry out of the goodness of its heart. Pay no attention to how business works literally everywhere."
- EU regulations force Microsoft to give kernel access to third parties?
- "ACTUALLY, the regulation just says the same access Microsoft gets, so it's Microsoft's fault the internet went out for days. Pay no attention to the fact that when Microsoft tried to move stuff out of the kernel during the development of Windows Vista antivirus companies complained to the EU who then publicly warned Microsoft, leading them to shelve the plans."
- EU regulations mandating USB-C already have negatively impacted phone design?
- "Apple can go portless if they want to go thinner. Pay no attention to the fact that Apple was already moving to USB-C and the same regulators wanted to mandate Micro-USB. Also don't pay attention to the fact that the same posters cheering the USB-C mandate on MacRumors will scream "malicious compliance" and "greedy Apple is just trying to sell MagSafe chargers and AirPods" when Apple inevitably goes portless rather than introducing a better port because they're legally prohibited from doing so.
- "The regulation doesn't freeze innovation. Someone can still invent a better port! Pay no attention to the fact that the ROI isn't there to do so, and definitely don't pay attention to the fact said new port couldn't be used in the EU for YEARS even if the EU agreed it was better and wanted to make it the new standard.
Because to do so, Microsoft would need to revoke everyone’s access to the kernel, which in turn would entail locking themselves out of the kernel.
My guess is at the time, Microsoft was simply not ready to go to such an extent, plus attempting to do may cause more companies to accuse them of anticompetitive actions (and I doubt the EU is tech savvy enough to recognise the difference, because their overriding concern is open and equal access, whatever the downsides).
Sometimes, bad things have to happen in order for people to sit up and take notice of the consequences of their own actions. Crowdstrike had to happen in order to justify what Microsoft subsequently did to plug the issue, because nobody would have appreciated what Microsoft would be trying to accomplish prior.
Hence the saying - there is good in bad, and bad in good. 🙂
Yeah they should just lowball the whole thing and let huge mega corps write off a tiny fine as the cost of doing business.
No they don't.
Not really true at all, is it.
Not tackling the App Store/Play Store duopoly also has consequences, which you conveniently ignore.
It's funny that you bring up the app removals, but don't connect the dots. Apple and Google have so much power over mobile computing, they will abuse it, as they did in this case. It's just another symptom of the same problem.
I'm not against free markets and I for sure don't agree with all regulation coming out of Brussels. I could name a few examples of regulation that I think should be repealed or amended.
No, I agree there are consequences. I just don’t think the consequences are worth the intervention, particularly because Android is open for those who care.
Not only did I connect the dots, I sent Tim Cook an email earlier this week stating actions like that make me, as someone who is supportive of Apple’s efforts to push back on governments trying to force them open, begin to rethink that support.
There are absolutely trade offs with Apple’s model, but especially when Android exists, I don’t think the trade offs justify taking the option for a closed ecosystem away from those who want it. I strongly believe Apple’s model results in the best outcome for the greatest number of its customers, even if it can annoy power users like us, so there need to be very good reasons to change that, or at the very least a much more precise approach. And there are targeted solutions that could and should have been tried first. “Apple charges too much” - then decide what they can charge. “Apple rejects valid apps?” Create an independent third party board that developers can appeal to. Etc.
And if Apple/Google is abusing their power? Then prove it, prove the harm it’s causing, and then ban the behavior. There’s no reason the normal process needed to be short circuited here, and I suspect the reason it was the EU didn’t have the evidence harm was being caused. Well that, and in Apple’s case specifically, the fact that Apple doesn’t have close to the market share to justify a DMA-Type response in any sane universe.
But Vestager wanted to do something because she was fervently convinced big tech is bad, she was influential inside the EC, convinced EU politicians (and a good portion of those posting here) that “cheating” was why US companies were ahead, not the EU’s overbearing regulations, so here we are.
Including the iPad makes sense because without it that would have left a gaping loophole: Apple (and even more so Samsung etc.) could give each device-specific OS build its own name and have nominally separate stores (which coincidentally all have the same apps submitted to them), thus keeping every device below the threshold. I'd have drafted the law better though: within the basic framework of the DMA, I'd have set the threshold for market size according to the size of all stores/markets for which software can be submitted with minimal changes (or which the original vendor or those acting with their permission have claimed are similar, even if they did so in other countries) if they act like a gatekeeper on any of those platforms.
Really, though, a better way to achieve the desired effect would be to say that if the producer or vendor of a device (meaning the corporate group, as normal in EU law) derives any revenue from additional software or third-party add-on hardware for that device, through any means other than the increased sales of that device, then they must provide to the purchaser of that device all necessary codes, keys, documentation, and licences (so they can't say "you can install your own iPhone software but only from a top spec Mac Pro with our software that will cost you $BIGNUM") to install alternative software with all the same capabilities any as that separate software, plus any documentation provided to third parties (including related entities which are claimed by the producer/vendor to be separate for the purposes of taxation, liability, or employment law in any country).
That rule would also capture everything from feature phones to consoles, along with car infotainment systems, smart TVs, and basically everything else where someone is trying to lock down hardware and sell access. It would apply to Macs but they're already compliant apart from not providing the boot loader key, and it wouldn't apply at all to companies like ST or Arduino (until Broadcomm **** them up), or to Dell etc.
When dealing with corporate crimes, any penalty that isn't high enough to intimidate boards into compliance as soon as they realise that law enforcement actually happens occasionally, is too low. Penalties could be lower if the relevant authorities were resourced appropriately and could be relied upon to investigate all offences thoroughly and promptly, and not to give up when threatened, but major company boards are largely filled with people specifically hired to act like sociopaths for the benefit of the biggest shareholders so the only way to ensure compliance is through fear.
Not as of yet. If that changes I’ll let you know. Not expecting one though.
the rules written by politicians whose elections were won with the money they and those like them provided because they would write those rules.
This is such an important point that too many don't fully appreciate.
It's a massive problem in the American market.
Really people like Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, etc., are politically closer to George HW Bush than they are to FDR or JFK.
Agree with you totally, but is anybody even saying those things on the mainstream Democrat side?
I've become incredibly disheartened by the Dems.
- Or stop offering their own product.
- Or remove their own kernel access (as they eventually did)
You say that like that's something that should be preserved.
I was going to say -- I'm not sure I like anything about "the web as we know it" in 2025.
It's time to start thinking very differently on some of these fronts, or things like the ridiculous (at the time) Sony patent to "jump and say a brand name to make an AD end" will become reality, and everywhere, on everything.
A literal dystopia.
I’m sorry but that is an absolutely insane idea and would result in not only a massive legal and cybersecurity nightmare but also almost every company leaving the EU.
Let’s think through just one of the consequences. If Apple had to give customers the keys and code-signing tools needed to install “alternative software with the same capabilities,” the first thing that breaks is Secure Enclave protection. Its security depends entirely on the OS verifying that only Apple-signed firmware can talk to it. The moment those signing keys or verification mechanisms are public, anyone could flash a modified version of IOS that quietly exfiltrates biometric or payment data while pretending to be legitimate, and Apple couldn’t patch that away because the hardware would have no way to tell a genuine OS from a malicious one.
Now expand that to cars. If regulators forced manufacturers to hand over signing keys, firmware, and internal update tools, thieves wouldn’t need to smash windows anymore. They could make a digital key that the vehicle’s systems would trust, silently disable immobilizers and alarms, and then drive away with a car that still appears normal to the owner. With the ability to emulate or re-sign device credentials, thieves could create persistent, revocation-resistant keys and even spoof sensor or telemetry data.
Have you actually thought through what would happen if ad tracking went away? I mean really thought it through?
If, say, the EU completely banned tracking for advertising, the open web would collapse almost overnight. Ad revenue would crater because behaviorally targeted ads sell for several times more than generic contextual ones. Small and mid-sized publishers that rely on that revenue would struggle to survive, leading to site shutdowns, mass consolidation and paywalls across what used to be a free internet.
Big tech platforms, ironically, would grow stronger. Companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon have massive first-party user data from their logged-in ecosystems, so advertisers would simply redirect their budgets there. A law meant to curb surveillance would end up concentrating even more power in a few giant privacy nightmares.
The shock would ripple outward. Newspapers, already on life support, would see digital ad margins collapse, leading to papers to close, more layoffs, mergers, and subscription walls. Hobbyist sites would be hit hardest. Most rely on cheap targeted ads and affiliate links just to cover hosting. Remove tracking and their revenue drops to near zero and they can’t pay their hosting bills. Many would shut down or retreat to Patreon, Discord, or Facebook groups; the survivors would lean on paywalls, donations, merch, and sponsorships. The independent forums, blogs, and wikis that make the web rich and weird would shrink dramatically.
MacRumors might survive (“Apple enthusiasts” is a lucrative niche) but it would be a worse site to visit. Programmatic ad revenue would plunge, affiliate tracking would break, and they’d be forced toward paywalls, aggressive memberships, cluttered non-targeted ads, and more sponsored content to fill the gap. They’d double down on YouTube and newsletters, where first-party data still could be used.
Now multiply that by every website on earth. It such a bad idea I’m surprised the EU hasn’t proposed it. The current, ad-supported web may be messy, creepy, and imperfect but to borrow from Churchill, it’s the worst model except for all the others that have been tried.
Thanks for the comment -- strange snippet you chose to focus on though. I do not quibble with your point other than to state that the powerful need not be wealthy and that "the rules" I were referring to were not just federal laws .. they were traditional laws and norms that structure civil society.
I applaud you for that! I'm glad we agree that App Stores should not ban apps for political reasons. They set a very dangerous precedent in my opinion. If they do it to curry favour with governments around the world though, I have little confidence they won't use that power for commercial advantage too.
The law will most certainly be challenged in court and the EC will have to prove that they have not overstepped their competencies. That's just part of the process. There is plenty of precedent where the courts have struck down antitrust enforcement. I'm confident Gatekeepers will get a fair trial within the legal framework of the EU.
Vestager was a powerful member of the Commission for sure. But I think you are underestimating how much support you need among member countries and also the parliament to push such an important legislation through EU institutions. No one was "tricked" into enacting this law. It was supported by all member governments of the EU and also approved by the parliament.
Last edited:
We are just at the tip of the iceberg stage on how dangerous and bad this could get.
Tech companies with any values whatsoever (as Apple likes to purport) better figure out where their red lines are, if they even have any, and get ready to hold the line.
Which administration is Apply kowtowing to?
The one doing this
👇
Last edited:
Apple did not ban any app for political reasons. Following the direction of the government they were asked to remove it. Nobody here knows why and there could be legitimate reasons for the apps removal. And as far as the above post regarding ICE agents, it is not known the inside information the ICE agents were dealing with that prompted this as the post is one sided.
You don't need to be a genius or a mind reader to know why Uncle Don & Co wanted those apps gone.