Apple ordered by EU antitrust regulators to open up to rivals

bri3d · 2025-03-19T20:11:04 1742415064

Here are the actual instructions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...

bri3d · 2025-03-19T20:20:32 1742415632

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.

freedomben · 2025-03-19T20:24:39 1742415879

> They're trying to compel Apple to deliver interoperability for basically every unique Apple feature

IANAL but the impression I got wasn't that they are requiring Apple to deliver interoperability, just that Apple can't block it. I.e. they can't create APIs that enable those things and not allow third parties to invoke them.

bri3d · 2025-03-19T20:26:49 1742416009

Each feature I listed comes with a clause equal to "Apple shall implement an interoperability solution that provides third parties with access to the same AirPlay feature described in the preceding paragraph as available to Apple, in a way that is equally effective as the solution available to Apple."

Even each sub-functionality (for example, AirDrop Contacts Only mode) is enumerated as "shall implement."

tacticus · 2025-03-19T20:26:11 1742415971

> they can't create APIs that enable those things and not allow third parties to invoke them.

Entertainingly the same reason microsoft didn't lock down the kernel interfaces that lead to crowdstriking everything. MS wanted to be the only security product in the kernel.

inetknght · 2025-03-19T20:28:29 1742416109

> If you get big enough, they swoop in and make you turn everything you've invented into an open standard?

If you've become a de-facto standard ("get big enough") then making that standard be open so that other things can interoperate with you is a good thing.

hx8 · 2025-03-19T20:24:04 1742415844

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.

messe · 2025-03-19T20:23:21 1742415801

> but I'd never want to sell hardware in Europe

This is a weird take. By the time you have enough market dominance for this to affect you, you should be able to afford to make these changes.

satvikpendem · 2025-03-19T20:25:20 1742415920

As a user, that all sounds great to me. I should be able to run whatever software I want on my hardware, not just what the manufacturer deems so.

sofixa · 2025-03-19T20:25:05 1742415905

> If you get big enough

Don't worry, you have a higher chance of getting hit by an meteorite while doing jumping jacks while riding a giraffe than getting big enough to be covered by DMA/DSA.

> Proximity pairing

Bluetooth?

> AirPlay

Chromecast exists and is quite open, this is not rocket science.

> AirDrop

Bluetooth and the new thing where you can just send to a nearby Android phone exist, again, really not rocket science.

And etc etc etc. None of these are some prorpietary unsolvable issues (like if the EU had said that they have to allow anyone to build their own M-chips), it's just that Apple choose to only make them work with their ecosystem.

tacticus · 2025-03-19T20:24:54 1742415894

> If you get big enough, they swoop in and make you turn everything you've invented into an open standard?

well they could force them to split up like the US did for standard oil and bell. but the US doesn't do that any more cause they've been bought out.

I mean headphones is obviously using control of one market to impact another segment for control.

ilogik · 2025-03-19T20:21:49 1742415709

Good thing they have the money then

rchaud · 2025-03-19T20:26:05 1742415965

> "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

spogbiper · 2025-03-19T20:17:17 1742415437

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 · 2025-03-19T20:21:58 1742415718

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.

threeseed · 2025-03-19T20:28:09 1742416089

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-a...

spogbiper · 2025-03-19T20:26:53 1742416013

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 · 2025-03-19T20:24:46 1742415886

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 · 2025-03-19T20:25:33 1742415933

> 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 APIs.

_ink_ · 2025-03-19T20:16:18 1742415378

Guess, that's good news for repebble users in the EU.

Re: Post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245

mullingitover · 2025-03-19T20:21:13 1742415673

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.

throw0101d · 2025-03-19T20:00:19 1742414419

https://archive.is/https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-...

https://archive.is/ZICMb

DavideNL · 2025-03-19T20:11:45 1742415105

For reference:

https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission/1141899339...

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

distortedsignal · 2025-03-19T20:05:12 1742414712

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 · 2025-03-19T20:14:32 1742415272

https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100...

and

https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100...

thefounder · 2025-03-19T20:04:57 1742414697

>>>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 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*".

tw600040 · 2025-03-19T20:11:52 1742415112

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.

Aachen · 2025-03-19T20:18:21 1742415501

> interoperability with subpar user experience

I keep seeing this being touted by Apple users (and only by Apple users, whose vendor has been telling them this for decades now). Genuinely wondering if you have any source for this besides Apple saying so. Are there any examples of this? Where a better experience was explicitly possible because of a vendor lock-in? Or where one company, that competes in e.g. the market for watches or headphones while already controlling a large share of another market (like phones), was forced to open up their system and give competitors the same access, and then the market-controlling party's product somehow got worse by giving competitors the same access?

refulgentis · 2025-03-19T20:24:19 1742415859

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool kool-aid-drinking Apple fanboy, and think you're being too kind: it's a shibboleth, cargo-cult thinking, a thought-terminating cliche: most simply, utterly irrational and meaningless as rendered.

I'm more than happy to entertain it when there's specifics, but it's most kindly described as lazy, the way I see it deployed these days.

pas · 2025-03-19T20:13:25 1742415205

it's pretty important too for consumers when they live among non-Apple folk

it directly leads to subpar UX when they can't communicate with others, can't share files/battery/photos/cables.

janis1234 · 2025-03-19T20:23:43 1742415823

interoperability with subpar user experience is just an excuse for poor engineering or low resources. I.e, my x-wifi-network card doesn't work in Linux. No one is spending time making it work / too many devices to test properly. It is the manufacturers responsibility to make it work with linux and they don't care so there are a few people that make it work and write generic drivers that may or may not be optimized to the specific manufature. Same story for all " interoperability subpar user experience"

croes · 2025-03-19T20:20:39 1742415639

Where does interoperability = subpar user experience come from?

gxs · 2025-03-19T20:09:51 1742414991

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 · 2025-03-19T20:19:51 1742415591

> knowing everyone that uses an iPhone has the same features as me

Only if they use the same version

terinjokes · 2025-03-19T20:27:32 1742416052

Has this been true at any point since the original iPhone? Features have differed:

- Across concurrent iOS releases

- Across phone models in a series

- Across a phone model, due to regional differences

- Owner's Apple Account region

- Physical location of the iPhone at the time

- Feature rollout phases

- Features disabled (or enabled) depending on SIM card and plan.

lysace · 2025-03-19T19:57:09 1742414229

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 · 2025-03-19T20:17:32 1742415452

I would start here

https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...

then

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

lysace · 2025-03-19T20:23:31 1742415811

More detailed links have been posted already in the thread.

But I want Reuters/etc to include these links.

gsich · 2025-03-19T20:21:25 1742415685

no source == fake news journalism.

eknkc · 2025-03-19T20:00:10 1742414410

[flagged]

vvillena · 2025-03-19T20:05:38 1742414738

EU didn't give you cookie warnings. Malicious compliance by corporations did.

cm2012 · 2025-03-19T20:07:04 1742414824

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.

sMarsIntruder · 2025-03-19T20:03:52 1742414632

e.g. AI Act, that killed an unborn sector in EU.

bad_user · 2025-03-19T20:09:32 1742414972

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 · 2025-03-19T20:22:17 1742415737

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.

（评论） (comments)

（评论）
(comments)