6 ms·

I doubt there was back-channeling - Apple is seeing how liberally they can interpret this act. They tried doing the same thing when they threatened to use MFi o

I doubt there was back-channeling - Apple is seeing how liberally they can interpret this act. They tried doing the same thing when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market. Plus, making per-company agreements would kinda render the entire "point" of the Digital Market Act moot. Apple knows exactly what the DMA wants from them, they're just deathly terrified of handing it over.

Zak 3y ago
I think terrified is the wrong take here. Apple could fully comply with the letter and spirit of the DMA and remain profitable in the EU, but they would be less profitable. They probably have a very good estimate of how much less profitable, and they're doing their best to minimize the impact.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior, though. You're right that the DMA/DSA threatens Apple's bottom line, but as long as Apple continues to sell iPhone hardware in Europe then they should be turning a profit on hardware margins alone. Apple wants the control at any cost, and it's going to encourage more countries to draft even stronger legislation.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I'm surprised the EU appears to be letting them get away with charging a fee for apps installed outside the app store.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      They haven't hit the deadline yet, lobby your national and EU representatives if you want rid of this.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Most companies e.g. Unreal charge a fee for using their SDKs. The idea that you would be forced to give it away for nothing would be a pretty extraordinary and unworkable intervention in the market.
      - Zak 3y ago
        They can charge licensing fees for their SDKs, but the "core technology fee" is not structured that way. As currently structured, it would apply even to an app written from scratch in ARM assembly language (not that a reasonable person would build an iPhone app that way).
        threeseed 3y ago
        CLI apps are not supported on iOS. So at some point you have to interact with Apple SDKs.
        Zak 3y ago
        Making system/library calls to display something on the screen does not necessarily require the use of an SDK either; it might require quite a bit of reverse engineering work. As far as I understand copyright, that doesn't involve copying/distributing the library code and wouldn't be legally encumbered unless there's a patent covering it.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        The fee kills any real world possibility of an OSS App Store though. 1 million downloads for an app sounds like a lot for a paid app. But on the desktop, popular OSS software packages do those kind of numbers in well under a year. There's no reason to believe OSS mobile apps on iPhone would be any different.
        threeseed 3y ago
        Non-profit organisations are exempt from the core technology fee.
    - albert180 3y ago
      The DMA goes into force only tomorrow. We will see if they will get away. I guess they will get bonked, because they apply more favourable conditions for their own App Store. They might get away if they would charge the fee for all Developers, but the Bullshit with "staying inside the old conditions" will surely get them into trouble
  - roamerz 3y ago
    >The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior Are you sure about that? Seems like a pretty bold statement where you would have to have some kind of inside information. I don't have anything to substantiate this but I would like to believe that Apple still has the best interest of it's customers and security in mind when fighting these kinds of legislation. I switched from Android to Apple BECAUSE of those restrictions and the improved security the walled garden model provides. The other reason was the middle finger Apple gave to the cell providers about applying firmware updates to their phones. When I was using Android it was maddening to wait months for an update to be 'approved' and able to install. That led me to rooting and installing firmware that was outside of the manufactures control and who knows what might have been in that. So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line.
    - Zak 3y ago
      It does not seem to me that anything about the DMA will make it difficult for people who prefer to stay inside Apple's walled garden to do so. Most Android users only install apps from the Play Store and use Chrome as their browser.
    - albert180 3y ago
      Yeah, who knows what's inside of OpenSource Firmware like LineageOS. It's a huge mystery Also I never needed to wait for a carrier to approve an Update for my Android Phone. Neither for my Pixel, Nexus or Samsung Galaxy ones. And beside the "strict" controls, malicious Apps got in the App Store, and the iPhones themselves also pwned. Are there other Apple Fanboy Horror Stories about Android that you've missed?
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Are you sure about that? Certain as I can be, without having seen the cards. Apple is a company about margins; you see it in their hardware profitability, but also in Tim Cook's service initiative. They fought Dutch regulators over this for months preceding the regulation, and it's not a stretch to say the DMA and DSA is a direct legislative response to Apple's wanton behavior. Apple can move literal mountains, when it aligns with their incentive of increasing profit margins. Anything that falls outside that purview ends up sidelined or worse-yet, lobbied against. > So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line. That's great, and Apple has every right to provide you a differentiated experience. I've been a historical Apple customer, and I still keep a Magic Trackpad around because it's mostly quite good. But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Happy IE users or Bell Telephone customers aren't an argument against antitrust action, and it's ultimately entirely tangential to how legal they are. Consider how Apple behaves in hardware, sponsoring dubious Chinese labor to make shareholders happy. They set industry-leading profit margins by sparing no expense in their exploitation of labor and parts manufacturing. Is it legal? They say so. But of course Apple would, and they have no incentive to ever stop the squeeze if shareholders cheer them on. They will behave just as insidiously with software, and if you do not treat their every action with that scrutiny then you'll pave the road to hell with good intentions. I want businesses to be good people. I want God to run a killer froyo stand. But men are fickle, and Apple has been a swindling bastard of a company ever since Jobs cheated Woz out of $4,500 over an Atari contract.
fh9302 3y ago
There is no evidence that Apple ever planned to introduce a MFi system with USB-C. What likely happened is that leakers misinterpreted the USB-C E-Marker as a MFi chip.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  Or that Apple was considering a "made for iPhone" certification program to allow manufacturers of USB-C devices to certify that they'll work with iOS devices -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing for them to have! -- and misinterpreted that as meaning that Apple intended to implement a restrictive device authorization scheme like they had for Lightning devices. (Just because newer iOS devices have a USB-C port doesn't mean that all USB-C devices will work with them! Devices still require drivers; if iOS doesn't know how to handle a device, it won't work.)
threeseed 3y ago
> when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market Except this never happened. And it doesn't even make any sense because MFi is when there is proprietary Apple technology involved which isn't the case for USB-C nor 3.5mm, Bluetooth etc.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  You need MFI to use Bluetooth unless it’s audio through the system UI or BTLE
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Bluetooth is not part of MFI for any of the standard profiles. https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs

Zak 3y ago

I think terrified is the wrong take here. Apple could fully comply with the letter and spirit of the DMA and remain profitable in the EU, but they would be less profitable. They probably have a very good estimate of how much less profitable, and they're doing their best to minimize the impact.

smoldesu 3y ago
The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior, though. You're right that the DMA/DSA threatens Apple's bottom line, but as long as Apple continues to sell iPhone hardware in Europe then they should be turning a profit on hardware margins alone. Apple wants the control at any cost, and it's going to encourage more countries to draft even stronger legislation.
- Zak 3y ago
  I'm surprised the EU appears to be letting them get away with charging a fee for apps installed outside the app store.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    They haven't hit the deadline yet, lobby your national and EU representatives if you want rid of this.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Most companies e.g. Unreal charge a fee for using their SDKs. The idea that you would be forced to give it away for nothing would be a pretty extraordinary and unworkable intervention in the market.
    - Zak 3y ago
      They can charge licensing fees for their SDKs, but the "core technology fee" is not structured that way. As currently structured, it would apply even to an app written from scratch in ARM assembly language (not that a reasonable person would build an iPhone app that way).
      - threeseed 3y ago
        CLI apps are not supported on iOS. So at some point you have to interact with Apple SDKs.
        Zak 3y ago
        Making system/library calls to display something on the screen does not necessarily require the use of an SDK either; it might require quite a bit of reverse engineering work. As far as I understand copyright, that doesn't involve copying/distributing the library code and wouldn't be legally encumbered unless there's a patent covering it.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      The fee kills any real world possibility of an OSS App Store though. 1 million downloads for an app sounds like a lot for a paid app. But on the desktop, popular OSS software packages do those kind of numbers in well under a year. There's no reason to believe OSS mobile apps on iPhone would be any different.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        Non-profit organisations are exempt from the core technology fee.
  - albert180 3y ago
    The DMA goes into force only tomorrow. We will see if they will get away. I guess they will get bonked, because they apply more favourable conditions for their own App Store. They might get away if they would charge the fee for all Developers, but the Bullshit with "staying inside the old conditions" will surely get them into trouble
- roamerz 3y ago
  >The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior Are you sure about that? Seems like a pretty bold statement where you would have to have some kind of inside information. I don't have anything to substantiate this but I would like to believe that Apple still has the best interest of it's customers and security in mind when fighting these kinds of legislation. I switched from Android to Apple BECAUSE of those restrictions and the improved security the walled garden model provides. The other reason was the middle finger Apple gave to the cell providers about applying firmware updates to their phones. When I was using Android it was maddening to wait months for an update to be 'approved' and able to install. That led me to rooting and installing firmware that was outside of the manufactures control and who knows what might have been in that. So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line.
  - Zak 3y ago
    It does not seem to me that anything about the DMA will make it difficult for people who prefer to stay inside Apple's walled garden to do so. Most Android users only install apps from the Play Store and use Chrome as their browser.
  - albert180 3y ago
    Yeah, who knows what's inside of OpenSource Firmware like LineageOS. It's a huge mystery Also I never needed to wait for a carrier to approve an Update for my Android Phone. Neither for my Pixel, Nexus or Samsung Galaxy ones. And beside the "strict" controls, malicious Apps got in the App Store, and the iPhones themselves also pwned. Are there other Apple Fanboy Horror Stories about Android that you've missed?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > Are you sure about that? Certain as I can be, without having seen the cards. Apple is a company about margins; you see it in their hardware profitability, but also in Tim Cook's service initiative. They fought Dutch regulators over this for months preceding the regulation, and it's not a stretch to say the DMA and DSA is a direct legislative response to Apple's wanton behavior. Apple can move literal mountains, when it aligns with their incentive of increasing profit margins. Anything that falls outside that purview ends up sidelined or worse-yet, lobbied against. > So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line. That's great, and Apple has every right to provide you a differentiated experience. I've been a historical Apple customer, and I still keep a Magic Trackpad around because it's mostly quite good. But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Happy IE users or Bell Telephone customers aren't an argument against antitrust action, and it's ultimately entirely tangential to how legal they are. Consider how Apple behaves in hardware, sponsoring dubious Chinese labor to make shareholders happy. They set industry-leading profit margins by sparing no expense in their exploitation of labor and parts manufacturing. Is it legal? They say so. But of course Apple would, and they have no incentive to ever stop the squeeze if shareholders cheer them on. They will behave just as insidiously with software, and if you do not treat their every action with that scrutiny then you'll pave the road to hell with good intentions. I want businesses to be good people. I want God to run a killer froyo stand. But men are fickle, and Apple has been a swindling bastard of a company ever since Jobs cheated Woz out of $4,500 over an Atari contract.

fh9302 3y ago

There is no evidence that Apple ever planned to introduce a MFi system with USB-C. What likely happened is that leakers misinterpreted the USB-C E-Marker as a MFi chip.

duskwuff 3y ago
Or that Apple was considering a "made for iPhone" certification program to allow manufacturers of USB-C devices to certify that they'll work with iOS devices -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing for them to have! -- and misinterpreted that as meaning that Apple intended to implement a restrictive device authorization scheme like they had for Lightning devices. (Just because newer iOS devices have a USB-C port doesn't mean that all USB-C devices will work with them! Devices still require drivers; if iOS doesn't know how to handle a device, it won't work.)

threeseed 3y ago

> when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market Except this never happened. And it doesn't even make any sense because MFi is when there is proprietary Apple technology involved which isn't the case for USB-C nor 3.5mm, Bluetooth etc.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago
You need MFI to use Bluetooth unless it’s audio through the system UI or BTLE
- threeseed 3y ago
  Bluetooth is not part of MFI for any of the standard profiles. https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs