11 ms·

Apple ordered by EU antitrust regulators to open up to rivals

108 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

lysace 2y ago
Know the difference between big-shot news agency journalism and small-scale journalism? The latter links to the exact resource that is the source to establish their credibility. The former relies on its brand and treats the source URL as a trade secret. So tired of this. How do we get out of this? Regulations? Does anyone have a link to the actual court order?
- pas 2y ago
  I would start here https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answers/interoperability_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe... then https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
  - lysace 2y ago
    More detailed links have been posted already in the thread. But I want Reuters/etc to include these links.
    - pas 2y ago
      I don't even understand why they are not including them. It's not like this amazing EU page will steal their clicks (and eyeballs). It's probably the old news mindset, where they are the record. :|
- gsich 2y ago
  no source == fake news journalism.
  - eastbound 2y ago
    Let’s make the source of the main claims of an article mandatory, and see who screams.
eknkc 2y ago
[flagged]
- sMarsIntruder 2y ago
  e.g. AI Act, that killed an unborn sector in EU.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    Let's not exagerate, Mistral is doing just fine. Also, DMA specifically targets monopolies and it will most likely encourage innovation. I mean, let's be honest, legislation isn't the reason for why Apple's AI sucks. Nevertheless, US's Big Tech can either comply or GTFO.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    Can you explain which part of the AI Act killed what exactly? If you bother to read it, it's just common sense such as saying that a company can't just delegate all decision making to "AI" and hide behide it for critical things. For instance, in the US healthcare companies use "algorithm" as the excuse for letting people die, this would be illegal under the AI Act. That doesn't in any way impact any AI startups selling "AI", nor companies buying/doing AI. Hell, there's AI in healthcare in France already.
- vvillena 2y ago
  EU didn't give you cookie warnings. Malicious compliance by corporations did.
- cm2012 2y ago
  I hate GDPR and cookie warnings, but I think the EU has done some real good regulating Apple. We now have almost universal USB-C plugs thanks to the EU.
throw0101d 2y ago
https://archive.is/https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-ordered-by-eu-antitrust-regulators-open-up-rivals-2025-03-19/ https://archive.is/https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-... https://archive.is/ZICMb https://archive.is/ZICMb
thefounder 2y ago
>>>It's bad for our products and for our European users. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our users, ... surely consumers don't like interoperability on hardware or software. They like to get locked in(i.e. use a different charger for each single device and use their devices only with apple services<i.e. iCloud>). I think Apple should correct that statement into " We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our *shareholders*".
- gxs 2y ago
  I actually do like being locked in and knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me When you’re a startup they call this building an ecosystem and it’s cheered on, when you’re Apple and everyone wants a piece of the pie you’ve built, they call it something else Believe it or not there are other people that are perfectly competent with technology that disagree with you Like anything, some things should be opened up and don’t necessarily have to be - it’s ludicrous to have to use a lightning cable to charge only one device, but it’s not pressing to allow other garbage software onto the platform
  - croes 2y ago
    > knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me Only if they use the same version
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- tw600040 2y ago
  It's not about whether consumers like interoperability or not. If scenario-1 - is no interoperability but superior user experience] scenario-2 - is interoperability with subpar user experience there are those that would rather have the former than the latter. Pretty sure Apple can provide a better user experience without the constraint of interoperability than otherwise.
distortedsignal 2y ago
Is there a location for the actual order? The linked article doesn't have a link to the order (SHAME Reuters) and the details on the actual order are sparse.
- kxrm 2y ago
  https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100203 https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100... and https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100204 https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100...
  - distortedsignal 2y ago
    Thanks!
bri3d 2y ago
Here are the actual instructions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/20253/DMA_100203_1283.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/20253/DMA_100204_1752.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
- bri3d 2y ago
  On first read, this seems ridiculously onerous to me. They're trying to compel Apple to deliver interoperability for basically every unique Apple feature: * AirPlay * AirDrop * Notifications + Smartwatch integration * Headphone smart handoff (I don't even think this is possible with any standard technology, so I'm not sure what they're looking for here compliance wise) * Proximity pairing (I also don't know that this is possible with any standard technology...) * NFC Emulation * Background Execution Also, * API documentation for all private symbols (?!) I get the push for openness in devices but I'd never want to sell hardware in Europe, honestly. If you get big enough, they swoop in and make you turn everything you've invented into an open standard? Anyone who's maintained a private vs. a public API knows that one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other.
  - hx8 2y ago
    It's a big ask for a region that only represents about 7% of Apple revenue. I don't see how Apple leaves the EU, or how they will comply with all of these demands.
    - giorgioz 2y ago
      7% for Europe seemed unlikely to me so I googled it. First link I opened says Europe is the second biggest market for Apple at 24% after the US at 42%. https://www.bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-geography https://www.bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-geogra... Could you post your source for the 7% or explain how you got that number?
DavideNL 2y ago
For reference: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission/114189933933461437 https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission/1141899339... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
_ink_ 2y ago
Guess, that's good news for repebble users in the EU. Re: Post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245
spogbiper 2y ago
This brings back memories of the bad old days on Microsoft Windows where only Microsoft applications had access to secret APIs. Nobody defended MS back then. Surprised to see comments defending Apple now.
- radimm 2y ago
  Lived through it and while it might be similar, Microsoft had monopoly at that point (90% and higher share in personal computers - depending on the market). Apple is nowhere near that.
  - spogbiper 2y ago
    it seems awfully similar.. MS using their dominance in the OS market to establish dominance in the application software market vs apple using their mobile phone to establish dominance in smart watches, etc.. the scale is a bit different since we have the duopoly in the mobile market, but it still doesn't seem like something we want.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    It was around the time Apple was about to go bankrupt when Microsoft had about 95% share. Compare this to iPhone activations of new phones which is at 33% and declining [1]. Which means Android's market share of 70%+ is going to get larger over time. https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-android-dominates/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-a...
    - gundmc 2y ago
      No, the article you linked specifically says this is because of increased quality and fewer new features reducing the rate at which users upgrade. Apple still has roughly 60% of the installed user base in the US.
  - thyristan 2y ago
    Apple is a monopoly due to their closed ecosystem. They do have a monopoly on headphones that properly work with iphones, operating systems that properly work with apple computers, operating systems and application delivery mechanisms that work with iphones, etc. They could get rid of their legal problems by being more open and supporting open standards, but they don't want to. So as a monopoly, they have to be forced...
mullingitover 2y ago
I imagine this was already in the works before the recent prison shanking of transatlantic relations. Get ready for a raft of new and extremely principled anti-monopoly regulations from former allies, I'm sure they're just getting started on writing those.
threeseed 2y ago
I wish the EU was a little less short sighted with this regulation. It's completely fair to request that Apple provide APIs for interoperability purposes. And these requests obviously need to come initially from third party hardware developers. But there needs to be some mechanism for protecting the privacy and security of users that is evaluated by experts and not EU regulators. It's very obvious that companies e.g. Meta are trying to abuse the DMA in order to try to get more user data and not for interoperability purposes. And it's not what the world needs right now.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  > But there needs to be some mechanism for protecting the privacy and security of users That sounds like an implementation issue that can be solved by Apple securing their runtime and APIs.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    This has nothing to do with the security of APIs. Meta has been requesting things like access to all Messages, Photos, Call Logs etc under the guise of interoperability but which would be an unprecedented gift of private data.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      Meta already profiles and molests the data of iOS users in Safari. Apple can try to play superhero net-nanny for their userbase, but the choice to give a company your data is a deliberate choice. After all, you can't use either MacOS or iOS without agreeing to Apple's own EULA. It's facetious to pretend that Facebook users aren't aware of what they're getting into post Cambridge Analytica. Apple has no right to moderate what iPhone users run on their hardware any more than they can on Mac. That includes borderline malware like Avast Antivirus and the Facebook app.
      - threeseed 2y ago
        Please enlighten me how Meta has access to my call logs, messages etc. They don't. These are entirely new datasets.
rchaud 2y ago
> "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe" the company said in an email. Authored by Apple Intelligence? Certainly enough training material exists, considering all prior statements bemoaning the EU/EC. Here's Apple sounding the alarm on the evils of USB-C [0] "When it was introduced in September 2021, an Apple representative told BBC News: "Strict regulation mandating just one type of connector stifles innovation rather than encouraging it, which in turn will harm consumers in Europe and around the world." [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571
jsnell 2y ago
Well played by Apple, I guess. I really thought there would have been consequences for so blatantly ignoring the DMA. Instead they got to do so for over a year for absolutely free, and since I'm seeing no kind of timeline for implementation of this decision, I'm guessing that Apple managed to squeeze out an extra 18-24 months of benefit from the uneven playing field. There were no monetary penalties for doing that. The measures imposed appear to not be onerous in any way, but the pure minimum that Apple would have needed to do from the start. If this is the way DMA is going to be enforced, why would any company try to be compliant in good faith?
- threeseed 2y ago
  None of what you said is true. Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. And for the parts they didn't the EU announced a modest fine: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-apple-over-dma-yet-again/ar-AA1ADG7N https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-ap...
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    > Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. If you comply with "most of" a law, you can still be complicit in ignoring it.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Hardly. So far the enforcement has been overwhelmingly disappointing. They are still charging the Core technology fee for alternative app stores which undermines the very essence of what the DMA is about.
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Maybe you don't understand the essence of what the DMA is about? There certainly seems to be a lot of wishcasting in these parts.
      - dns_snek 2y ago
dmitrygr 2y ago
I am suddenly seeing why EU has many fewer startups than US. Get successful enough and you are forced to give your work away to everyone. What clearly took millions of hours of work to perfect becomes public property with no compensation to you. Why is AirDrop better than Android Beam? Probably much work on polishing and designing it right. It uses a very clever custom peer-to-peer wifi mode that "magically" coexists with existing WiFi connectivity to make it work in all cases, something google never invented, Apple did. And yet... now Apple is forced to give the design away (because interop requires implementing the same design on both side).
Blackstrat 2y ago
Apple should withdraw from the EU’s market. Apple’s closed ecosystem is why I use them. Open it up and Apple users are screwed.
- jiriro 2y ago
  > Apple’s closed ecosystem is why I use them. Oh, boy – this at 100% ! Only I am in the EU. So please, stay and find a way! :))
quitit 2y ago
My take aways from this: - The EU’s interpretation of the DMA is vastly different from what they actually wrote on paper. - If Apple were asking hardware vendors to access iOS through these methods it would be deemed anticompetitive. - There is now an opportunity for Apple to not support standards, forcing vendors to use their methods or not have access to the platform: making it more costly for hardware vendors to access the full market.
impish9208 2y ago
The actual implementation requirements are insane. You thought your clueless product manager asked for unreasonable timelines? Well now get ready to write code to politicians’ specs! Plagiarizing my own comment from a few months ago below. We need to ensure maximum interoperability and no differentiation across different computing platforms and applications. And politicians are, of course, the most knowledgeable about these things. Perhaps they should also consider enforcing the following suggestions to open up the marketplace: — All applications that expect to be in scope for EU regulations should be written in one of the programming languages approved by the Secretariat on Digital Interoperability. The Division of Programming Languages and Operating Systems within the aforementioned agency will also be tasked with adding, removing, or otherwise modifying the list of approved languages and runtimes. In the future, it may even design and release a new language of its own in order to minimize arbitrary uniqueness among digital services within the bloc. — Companies must submit their feature plans to the Bureau for Open Competition before releasing them to their customers. The BOC will then convene a task force comprising of the submitter's competitors to ensure that the proposed feature would not unfairly harm them in the marketplace. — Gatekeepers under the DMA must make their source code (extensively documented) available to any other gatekeeper upon request. This will ensure maximum competition in the marketplace. — Non-EU compliant Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) are hereby banned from being used by gatekeeper and future-gatekeeper companies. Compliant IDEs will enforce policies that discourage and prohibit anti-competitive practices as part of the bloc’s Shift-Left initiative. This will enable digital service providers to prevent tendencies that might harm their competitors.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  I know you're joking, but none of these things actually foster fair competition so it's not making it into the language of a real bill. It's possible to enforce meaningful interoperability without forcing source code disclosure or enforcing a particular IDE/language.

108 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

Know the difference between big-shot news agency journalism and small-scale journalism? The latter links to the exact resource that is the source to establish their credibility. The former relies on its brand and treats the source URL as a trade secret. So tired of this. How do we get out of this? Regulations? Does anyone have a link to the actual court order?

pas 2y ago
I would start here https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answers/interoperability_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe... then https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
- lysace 2y ago
  More detailed links have been posted already in the thread. But I want Reuters/etc to include these links.
  - pas 2y ago
    I don't even understand why they are not including them. It's not like this amazing EU page will steal their clicks (and eyeballs). It's probably the old news mindset, where they are the record. :|
gsich 2y ago
no source == fake news journalism.
- eastbound 2y ago
  Let’s make the source of the main claims of an article mandatory, and see who screams.

eknkc 2y ago

[flagged]

sMarsIntruder 2y ago
e.g. AI Act, that killed an unborn sector in EU.
- bad_user 2y ago
  Let's not exagerate, Mistral is doing just fine. Also, DMA specifically targets monopolies and it will most likely encourage innovation. I mean, let's be honest, legislation isn't the reason for why Apple's AI sucks. Nevertheless, US's Big Tech can either comply or GTFO.
- sofixa 2y ago
  Can you explain which part of the AI Act killed what exactly? If you bother to read it, it's just common sense such as saying that a company can't just delegate all decision making to "AI" and hide behide it for critical things. For instance, in the US healthcare companies use "algorithm" as the excuse for letting people die, this would be illegal under the AI Act. That doesn't in any way impact any AI startups selling "AI", nor companies buying/doing AI. Hell, there's AI in healthcare in France already.
vvillena 2y ago
EU didn't give you cookie warnings. Malicious compliance by corporations did.
cm2012 2y ago
I hate GDPR and cookie warnings, but I think the EU has done some real good regulating Apple. We now have almost universal USB-C plugs thanks to the EU.

throw0101d 2y ago

https://archive.is/https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-ordered-by-eu-antitrust-regulators-open-up-rivals-2025-03-19/ https://archive.is/https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-... https://archive.is/ZICMb https://archive.is/ZICMb

thefounder 2y ago

>>>It's bad for our products and for our European users. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our users, ... surely consumers don't like interoperability on hardware or software. They like to get locked in(i.e. use a different charger for each single device and use their devices only with apple services<i.e. iCloud>). I think Apple should correct that statement into " We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our *shareholders*".

gxs 2y ago
I actually do like being locked in and knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me When you’re a startup they call this building an ecosystem and it’s cheered on, when you’re Apple and everyone wants a piece of the pie you’ve built, they call it something else Believe it or not there are other people that are perfectly competent with technology that disagree with you Like anything, some things should be opened up and don’t necessarily have to be - it’s ludicrous to have to use a lightning cable to charge only one device, but it’s not pressing to allow other garbage software onto the platform
- croes 2y ago
  > knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me Only if they use the same version
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
tw600040 2y ago
It's not about whether consumers like interoperability or not. If scenario-1 - is no interoperability but superior user experience] scenario-2 - is interoperability with subpar user experience there are those that would rather have the former than the latter. Pretty sure Apple can provide a better user experience without the constraint of interoperability than otherwise.

distortedsignal 2y ago

Is there a location for the actual order? The linked article doesn't have a link to the order (SHAME Reuters) and the details on the actual order are sparse.

kxrm 2y ago
https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100203 https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100... and https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100204 https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100...
- distortedsignal 2y ago
  Thanks!

bri3d 2y ago

Here are the actual instructions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/20253/DMA_100203_1283.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/20253/DMA_100204_1752.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...

bri3d 2y ago
On first read, this seems ridiculously onerous to me. They're trying to compel Apple to deliver interoperability for basically every unique Apple feature: * AirPlay * AirDrop * Notifications + Smartwatch integration * Headphone smart handoff (I don't even think this is possible with any standard technology, so I'm not sure what they're looking for here compliance wise) * Proximity pairing (I also don't know that this is possible with any standard technology...) * NFC Emulation * Background Execution Also, * API documentation for all private symbols (?!) I get the push for openness in devices but I'd never want to sell hardware in Europe, honestly. If you get big enough, they swoop in and make you turn everything you've invented into an open standard? Anyone who's maintained a private vs. a public API knows that one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other.
- hx8 2y ago
  It's a big ask for a region that only represents about 7% of Apple revenue. I don't see how Apple leaves the EU, or how they will comply with all of these demands.
  - giorgioz 2y ago
    7% for Europe seemed unlikely to me so I googled it. First link I opened says Europe is the second biggest market for Apple at 24% after the US at 42%. https://www.bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-geography https://www.bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-geogra... Could you post your source for the 7% or explain how you got that number?

DavideNL 2y ago

For reference: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission/114189933933461437 https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission/1141899339... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

_ink_ 2y ago

Guess, that's good news for repebble users in the EU. Re: Post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245

spogbiper 2y ago

This brings back memories of the bad old days on Microsoft Windows where only Microsoft applications had access to secret APIs. Nobody defended MS back then. Surprised to see comments defending Apple now.

radimm 2y ago
Lived through it and while it might be similar, Microsoft had monopoly at that point (90% and higher share in personal computers - depending on the market). Apple is nowhere near that.
- spogbiper 2y ago
  it seems awfully similar.. MS using their dominance in the OS market to establish dominance in the application software market vs apple using their mobile phone to establish dominance in smart watches, etc.. the scale is a bit different since we have the duopoly in the mobile market, but it still doesn't seem like something we want.
- threeseed 2y ago
  It was around the time Apple was about to go bankrupt when Microsoft had about 95% share. Compare this to iPhone activations of new phones which is at 33% and declining [1]. Which means Android's market share of 70%+ is going to get larger over time. https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-android-dominates/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-a...
  - gundmc 2y ago
    No, the article you linked specifically says this is because of increased quality and fewer new features reducing the rate at which users upgrade. Apple still has roughly 60% of the installed user base in the US.
- thyristan 2y ago
  Apple is a monopoly due to their closed ecosystem. They do have a monopoly on headphones that properly work with iphones, operating systems that properly work with apple computers, operating systems and application delivery mechanisms that work with iphones, etc. They could get rid of their legal problems by being more open and supporting open standards, but they don't want to. So as a monopoly, they have to be forced...

mullingitover 2y ago

I imagine this was already in the works before the recent prison shanking of transatlantic relations. Get ready for a raft of new and extremely principled anti-monopoly regulations from former allies, I'm sure they're just getting started on writing those.

threeseed 2y ago

I wish the EU was a little less short sighted with this regulation. It's completely fair to request that Apple provide APIs for interoperability purposes. And these requests obviously need to come initially from third party hardware developers. But there needs to be some mechanism for protecting the privacy and security of users that is evaluated by experts and not EU regulators. It's very obvious that companies e.g. Meta are trying to abuse the DMA in order to try to get more user data and not for interoperability purposes. And it's not what the world needs right now.

bigyabai 2y ago
> But there needs to be some mechanism for protecting the privacy and security of users That sounds like an implementation issue that can be solved by Apple securing their runtime and APIs.
- threeseed 2y ago
  This has nothing to do with the security of APIs. Meta has been requesting things like access to all Messages, Photos, Call Logs etc under the guise of interoperability but which would be an unprecedented gift of private data.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    Meta already profiles and molests the data of iOS users in Safari. Apple can try to play superhero net-nanny for their userbase, but the choice to give a company your data is a deliberate choice. After all, you can't use either MacOS or iOS without agreeing to Apple's own EULA. It's facetious to pretend that Facebook users aren't aware of what they're getting into post Cambridge Analytica. Apple has no right to moderate what iPhone users run on their hardware any more than they can on Mac. That includes borderline malware like Avast Antivirus and the Facebook app.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      Please enlighten me how Meta has access to my call logs, messages etc. They don't. These are entirely new datasets.

rchaud 2y ago

> "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe" the company said in an email. Authored by Apple Intelligence? Certainly enough training material exists, considering all prior statements bemoaning the EU/EC. Here's Apple sounding the alarm on the evils of USB-C [0] "When it was introduced in September 2021, an Apple representative told BBC News: "Strict regulation mandating just one type of connector stifles innovation rather than encouraging it, which in turn will harm consumers in Europe and around the world." [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571

jsnell 2y ago

Well played by Apple, I guess. I really thought there would have been consequences for so blatantly ignoring the DMA. Instead they got to do so for over a year for absolutely free, and since I'm seeing no kind of timeline for implementation of this decision, I'm guessing that Apple managed to squeeze out an extra 18-24 months of benefit from the uneven playing field. There were no monetary penalties for doing that. The measures imposed appear to not be onerous in any way, but the pure minimum that Apple would have needed to do from the start. If this is the way DMA is going to be enforced, why would any company try to be compliant in good faith?

threeseed 2y ago
None of what you said is true. Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. And for the parts they didn't the EU announced a modest fine: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-apple-over-dma-yet-again/ar-AA1ADG7N https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-ap...
- bigyabai 2y ago
  > Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. If you comply with "most of" a law, you can still be complicit in ignoring it.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Hardly. So far the enforcement has been overwhelmingly disappointing. They are still charging the Core technology fee for alternative app stores which undermines the very essence of what the DMA is about.
  - shuckles 2y ago
    Maybe you don't understand the essence of what the DMA is about? There certainly seems to be a lot of wishcasting in these parts.
    - dns_snek 2y ago

dmitrygr 2y ago

I am suddenly seeing why EU has many fewer startups than US. Get successful enough and you are forced to give your work away to everyone. What clearly took millions of hours of work to perfect becomes public property with no compensation to you. Why is AirDrop better than Android Beam? Probably much work on polishing and designing it right. It uses a very clever custom peer-to-peer wifi mode that "magically" coexists with existing WiFi connectivity to make it work in all cases, something google never invented, Apple did. And yet... now Apple is forced to give the design away (because interop requires implementing the same design on both side).

Blackstrat 2y ago

Apple should withdraw from the EU’s market. Apple’s closed ecosystem is why I use them. Open it up and Apple users are screwed.

jiriro 2y ago
> Apple’s closed ecosystem is why I use them. Oh, boy – this at 100% ! Only I am in the EU. So please, stay and find a way! :))

quitit 2y ago

My take aways from this: - The EU’s interpretation of the DMA is vastly different from what they actually wrote on paper. - If Apple were asking hardware vendors to access iOS through these methods it would be deemed anticompetitive. - There is now an opportunity for Apple to not support standards, forcing vendors to use their methods or not have access to the platform: making it more costly for hardware vendors to access the full market.

impish9208 2y ago

The actual implementation requirements are insane. You thought your clueless product manager asked for unreasonable timelines? Well now get ready to write code to politicians’ specs! Plagiarizing my own comment from a few months ago below. We need to ensure maximum interoperability and no differentiation across different computing platforms and applications. And politicians are, of course, the most knowledgeable about these things. Perhaps they should also consider enforcing the following suggestions to open up the marketplace: — All applications that expect to be in scope for EU regulations should be written in one of the programming languages approved by the Secretariat on Digital Interoperability. The Division of Programming Languages and Operating Systems within the aforementioned agency will also be tasked with adding, removing, or otherwise modifying the list of approved languages and runtimes. In the future, it may even design and release a new language of its own in order to minimize arbitrary uniqueness among digital services within the bloc. — Companies must submit their feature plans to the Bureau for Open Competition before releasing them to their customers. The BOC will then convene a task force comprising of the submitter's competitors to ensure that the proposed feature would not unfairly harm them in the marketplace. — Gatekeepers under the DMA must make their source code (extensively documented) available to any other gatekeeper upon request. This will ensure maximum competition in the marketplace. — Non-EU compliant Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) are hereby banned from being used by gatekeeper and future-gatekeeper companies. Compliant IDEs will enforce policies that discourage and prohibit anti-competitive practices as part of the bloc’s Shift-Left initiative. This will enable digital service providers to prevent tendencies that might harm their competitors.

bigyabai 2y ago
I know you're joking, but none of these things actually foster fair competition so it's not making it into the language of a real bill. It's possible to enforce meaningful interoperability without forcing source code disclosure or enforcing a particular IDE/language.