Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Steve Troughton-Smith

The European Commission is going through Apple’s OSes feature by feature, with the help of interested parties and industry collaboration, and deciding where the API lines should be drawn. It’s absolutely fascinating.

And remember, Apple brought all of this on itself through its years of misconduct and inability to follow the law.

Don't miss the 30 pages of proposed specs in the PDFs here (summarized in screenshots here; no alt-text, follow through to original link): digital-markets-act.ec.europa.

164 comments
Steve Troughton-Smith

How granular is this stuff?

"If Apple presents end users of [3rd-party apps] with a choice regarding the level of background execution capabilities or background connection to a connected physical device, it must present the same choice in the same manner, including regarding time, place, and cadence, to end users of Apple’s connected physical devices. Apple may only present end users with a specific choice […] if Apple implements and offers this choice for its own connected physical device.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

“Apple shall implement the measures above in the next major iOS release, and in any case by the end of 2025 at the latest.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

"Apple shall provide a protocol specification that gives third parties all information required to integrate, access, and control the AirDrop protocol within an application or service (including as part of the operating system) running on a third-party connected physical device in order to allow these applications and services to send files to, and receive files from, an iOS device.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

"For future functionalities of or updates to the AirDrop feature, Apple shall make them available to third parties no later than at the time they are made available to any Apple connected physical device.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

"Apple shall make available the possibility for a third-party connected physical device to become an AirPlay receiver, i.e., allowing the iOS device to cast content to a receiving third-party connected physical device, to all interested third parties independently of the product category, for video, audio, and screen mirroring”

Steve Troughton-Smith

Re AirPlay and Chromecast et al

"Centralised availability: Apple shall allow third-party casting providers to centrally provide their casting solution on iOS, e.g., through an extension, such that end users who install the casting solution can access the third-party casting provider in any third-party app that uses standard media playback APIs without the need for the third-party app developer to integrate an SDK in their applications.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

"For the purpose of ensuring that effective interoperability continues in the future, third parties must also have access to any future feature functionalities and updates of the media casting feature insofar and as soon as they are available to Apple’s AirPlay. For example, if Apple updates AirPlay to stream video at higher resolution, or to allow end users to initiate screen mirroring via an AI assistant, these updates should be made available to third parties as well.”

Again 2025 deadline

Steve Troughton-Smith

"Apple shall not impose any restrictions on the type or use case of the software application and connected physical device that can access or makeuse of the features listed in this Document.

Apple shall not undermine effective interoperability with the 11 features set out in this Document by behaviour of a technical nature. In particular, Apple shall actively take all the necessary actions to allow effective interoperability with these features.”

Steve Troughton-Smith

"Apple shall not impose any contractual or commercial restrictions that would be opaque, unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory towards third parties or otherwise defeat the purpose of enabling effective interoperability. In particular, Apple shall not restrict business users, directly or indirectly, to make use of any interoperability solution in their existing apps via an automatic update.”

EC having to legislate around Apple's poison pills, which is wild. Apple is that untrustworthy

Steve Troughton-Smith

My takeaways from the proposal: the EC is prepared to go into detail on specific features, mandate various avenues of interoperability and APIs required, ensure that Apple can't make them burdensome in implementation or by policy, set a concrete timeframe for the changes to be made (i.e. by next release of iOS), and ensure that Apple can't pull the rug out from under these APIs in the future or self-preference for new or unannounced devices. All the proposals are great, necessary changes

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

It's always amusing when detractors cry that the EC’s policy-makers know nothing about technology, but even a casual reading through their proposals and specs would tell you they have extensive amounts of input from subject matter experts

(From the case PDFs at digital-markets-act.ec.europa., a separate set of studies/proposals on Apple's interoperability mechanisms)

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

This proposal effectively states that Apple should provide private headers to internal frameworks on request, and developers should subsequently decide whether they need to submit an interoperability request to make the frameworks or APIs public

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

(Apple can, however, require an NDA for any provided headers/reference docs)

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

lolol

"Where appropriate Apple may include other information, however Apple may not disclose any additional information about the developer’s request without explicit consent from the developer”

No more throwing developers under the bus publicly? I wonder why that provision had to be added /s 😛

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

In this proposal, Apple has to notify the European Commission of every interoperability request or internal headers request it rejects in part or in full, and provide all relevant material to the EC. Apple wants to nanny developers, so now Apple has the EC as a nanny.

jack :clippy: replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith why tf are the EU doing this to be fair?
I get why they’re doing some of the stuff they’re doing, but all of these measures seem a bit far, imo.

Jorge Salvador Caffarena replied to jack

@jglypt @stroughtonsmith Apple has a proven record of not playing fair and not following EC guidelines , unsurprising they go full steam ahead. Deserved.

jack :clippy: replied to Jorge Salvador Caffarena

@jorgesalvador it’s not _just_ Apple though. The EU are going after a ton of tech companies where we’re now at the point where some are just not releasing products within the EU to begin with. that’s a shame for the company & the consumer, and imo things need to change.

Jorge Salvador Caffarena replied to jack

@jglypt yes we agree on that point, things need to change, companies must change and not be anti consumer

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to jack

@jglypt 1) because Apple refuses to follow the existing laws, and 2) because developers need all of this to fairly compete with the lock-in Apple has created.

It just so happens that it will make the platform better, too, but that's an aside.

jack :clippy: replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith ohh ok i didn’t know the full context - that they weren’t following current rules

I feel like some of this stuff seems unnecessary though, and not dev-related, no?

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to jack

@jglypt none of it should be necessary, but Apple has demonstrated that it is

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to Steve

Also, just to acknowledge the spin Apple is taking on this, which I have no interest in linking to: they just threw Meta under the bus for interoperability requests, something that is forbidden under the EC's proposal, triple-underlining why the EC needs to legislate all of this in writing in the first place

Jimmy Callin replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith ”Meta can see everything we can see!!”

Yes, that is what we have GDPR for.

Americans are so used to dysfunctional governments they have to place trust in specific companies to guard their privacy, causing them to see interoperability as a threat model.

Jimmy Callin replied to Jimmy

@whereami @stroughtonsmith You're treating personal privacy rights as if it should be up to company values. You're not choosing airlines based on whether they have seatbelts or not.

Mischa replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith all these proposed changes sound great, but I don’t see Apple having the resources to implement this stuff by next year (or maybe rather: I don’t see them prioritizing this stuff as highly)

Almost feels like there will be an iOS EU version or no iOS update in the eu next year at all

… which I hope the EC would come down hard as well

Tom Klaver :prami: replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith One of the dumbest things I can remember recently is the disabling of volume buttons inside the Sonos app. It's such terrible UX now. Thanks, Apple. Assholes.

multigreg replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith why, these processes should be kept out of the public eye?! There should be maximum transparency about what tech companies are doing

akafester replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I’m really wondering. This all sounds like Apple is being forced open up to all, and effectively hollow out what make Apple products special in the first place.
Won’t all this just force Apples hands and have them look into other means of revenue (more aggressive ads, more iAPs, raise service pricing etc)? It seems like a slippery slope this.

I’m wondering as an end-user. Not a developer.

RAOF replied to akafester

@akafester @stroughtonsmith I have broadly two trains of thought here:

1 - Much like OpenAI, I have negative sympathy for the argument “You can't enforce the law! Our business model is illegal!”

2 - From a consumer perspective, I expect this to make Apple's products better. It's not a consumer benefit that you can only use an Apple watch with an iPhone, or that you can only get full functionality by paring an iPhone with a MacBook (or, for that matter, that you can only use an M3 processor with MacOS).

I fully expect that Apple products will continue to work most seamlessly when combined - after all, Apple has a great incentive to do the work required to make that happen. Apple will now have more of an incentive to continue that, rather than an incentive to half-arse it because they can prevent anyone else from doing better!

@akafester @stroughtonsmith I have broadly two trains of thought here:

1 - Much like OpenAI, I have negative sympathy for the argument “You can't enforce the law! Our business model is illegal!”

2 - From a consumer perspective, I expect this to make Apple's products better. It's not a consumer benefit that you can only use an Apple watch with an iPhone, or that you can only get full functionality by paring an iPhone with a MacBook (or, for that matter, that you can only use an M3 processor with MacOS).

James White replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith reminds me of when I get email from people complaining that my apps aren’t available on Android.

John Gruber replied to Steve

@stroughtonsmith My takeaway is that this is a list of features that, if this proposal is enacted as written (which I believe to be a huge "if”, given the regime changes on both sides of the pond) will no longer be available to EU users at the end of 2025.

AC replied to Guy

@Gte @gruber @stroughtonsmith Is that offer to secede from the States and join Canada still open? Please?

Steve Troughton-Smith replied to John

@gruber oh don’t worry, there will be more lists! This is but two spec sheets for doing business in Europe

Daniel :nixos: replied to John

@gruber This is the same company that bends over backwards for the Chinese market.

John Gruber replied to Daniel

@daniel These EU proposals are far more broad and disruptive than anything China has required. And, China is a bigger market than the EU.

Richard Smith replied to John

@gruber @stroughtonsmith This is everything the Trump venture boys want too. They can’t make money off Apple at the moment. But they can invest in the companies who would now be able to build devices and services that more properly compete and integrate.

James Atkinson replied to John

@gruber @stroughtonsmith What is it with people who once championed the iPad now taking glee in any trouble that comes Apple’s way? I remember the now forgotten Fraser Speirs(?) being absolutely furious that Phil Schiller wished the Mac a happy birthday. Very strange people.

Jonathan Isom

@stroughtonsmith can all of you Europeans start calling your version of iOS, ipadOS and I guess macOS the “Freedom Editions”.

I think it is funny that the US, “the land of freEdOm” doesn’t have the “Freedom Edition“

Jan Philipp Sachse

@stroughtonsmith Looks like iOS 19 is going to make my iOS devices way more capable! After iOS 18 only added dark mode icons as useful creature I‘m looking forward to this! 🫣🤣

Kᑐᑌᑐᕮ

@stroughtonsmith Finally… love it 🥰
Let’s hope the walled garden gets torn down and competitors get a chance to compete on an equal level. #dsa #dma

Mikołaj Hołysz

@stroughtonsmith If I understand this correctly, what it boils down to is "there shall be the same rules for Apple and third-party apps".

For example, if background execution for third-party apps is gated behind a pop-up, the same rules must apply to the Apple Watch.

Granularity doesn't matter, as long as both Apple and the apps are on the same granularity

farcaller

@stroughtonsmith fascinating. What I find hilarious is that I never had any concerns about the apple's walled garden (because all of my stuff is in it). I'd rather have the same level of scrutiny to be targeted at various LGs and VWs, where the actual UX is bad and there's no options to interop properly whatsoever.

johankool

@stroughtonsmith Thanks for bringing attention to this! Struggling for almost a year now to get the proper push notification entitlements for a client’s app where Apple just stays silent. I think we’re going to have to propose something to add during the consultation.

Awax

@stroughtonsmith ouch

« Apple will have to make available to third parties any new functionalities of the listed features once they become available to Apple. »

No room for innovation and experimentation and see how the thing actually work: you must have the feature mature from day 1 (and you’ll have to support 3rd party for a long time).

dmitriid

@awax @stroughtonsmith

This is prompted by features that developers requested, or found a workaround for, and Apple sat on for years only making it available to themselves.

Apple has literally no one to blame for this. Plenty of innovation to be had even with this provision.

Awax

@dmitriid @stroughtonsmith

I totally agree that Apple has no-one but themselves to blame.

But personally, as a software platform architect, if all my API were to be perfect from day one with zero opportunity for progressive roll-out and early adopters, I would be stressed.

And Apple would never have a beta period for their API because they’ll never have a beta period for their new hardware either.

dmitriid

@awax @stroughtonsmith

Why wouldn't Apple have a beta for their APIs? They are free to have betas for their APIs.

Perhaps they will learn to run actual betas, and software testing, and quality assurance before releasing things into production :)

RAOF

@awax @stroughtonsmith Yeah, it turns out that if Apple consistently fails to make a good-faith attempt at compliance the EU will eventually say “Ok, then, I guess we're making a big explicit list of the things Apple must and must not do” and that list will be less flexible than initial good-faith compliance.

Ramón Corominas

@stroughtonsmith @modulux I hope they will do the same with Meta, for the moment only them can use the Rayban sunglasses

jlnprssnr

@stroughtonsmith great thread, thanks for the sane explanations. Can't wait to see what's possible with broad access to private APIs used in Swift Playground, notifications, Watch and Health

Rocketman

@stroughtonsmith Wow. 🤩

I’ve never seen the EC work at this level of detail so far.

Nils

@stroughtonsmith I just imagined what that could mean by an example:
- Allow 3rd party headphones to seamlessly switch
- Apple has no advantage anymore, so why not have headphones switch between >any< device
- Need for a new standard that’s eventually implemented across manufacturers
- Now I can seamlessly Switch AirPods from iPhone to Nintendo Switch to Windows to iPad

The Janx Devil

@stroughtonsmith Oh nice. Looks like they’ll need to hire some people with experience working standards development organizations. I wonder if they know anyone like that…

chetman

@stroughtonsmith @mhoye This really just sounds like the EU deciding that Apple platform benefits are somehow anticompetitive and unfair, which is a weird look.

B

@stroughtonsmith it’s astonishing to me how aggressively they’re wrong in this. Real “nerd becomes bully energy” 😔

Nicolás Alvarez

@stroughtonsmith With respect to network protocols I personally think the most important thing is that Apple shouldn't *actively stop* others from implementing them.

Don't want to give me AirPlay protocol specs, fine, but if I try to reverse-engineer the protocol and implement it anyway, then I better not find that Apple is using cryptographic hardware attestation to keep third-parties out...

Nicolás Alvarez

@stroughtonsmith "DMA.100204 - Proposed measures", page 5 cites theapplewiki, LFG 😎

Francesco

@stroughtonsmith an independent EU court has to say if Apple didn’t follow laws, not you or EC. And rules shouldn’t be used as revenge; the jungle works like that. While gatekeepers should be regulated, this entire thing looks like written by lobbyists from Facebook, Epic Games and Spotify and it’s pure 💩 Sad that fans of one side like you can’t see the reality...

Ian Williamson

@stroughtonsmith Not defending the misconduct, but surely they only began breaking the law once designated as a gatekeeper? So a couple of years at best. Or were laws other than the DMA broken?

John Mark :blobcatverified: ☑️

@stroughtonsmith If apple is smart they will use this as an opportunity to build an open source ecosystem

L0wKey

@stroughtonsmith @ianb

On the bright side, in sci-fi stories, movies & shows, people are never stopping and asking the room ‘what devices do you have? Anyone know what to use to cast to the main screen??!’ If Apple gets their head around what’s happening here, they can potentially create and maintain the standards for the future. That would be awesome.

I hope they get on board with what’s happening here. IMHO the EU is doing a service to the future.

Dave Johnson

@stroughtonsmith I'm an open source dev myself and my initial take is that forcing companies to make private APIs public is government overreach. I want my SoundCore headphones not to suck compared to Apple ear pods, but that is not free and who should bear the cost?

Take It EV Podcast 🎙️

@stroughtonsmith I hope they dissect google and chrome and all privacy crimes they commit to the same extent they do look at apple. That would be awesome

uis

@stroughtonsmith where? All of them. If Apple is sent where is should have been from the start, then it will not learn anything. Or rather they will learn to fuck over end user as much as possible to get as much money as possible while they can fuck over.

Rahul Vadhyar

@stroughtonsmith Honestly I think this is not going to end well. Having a company open up their APIs that they develop and maintain is bad. I really wonder how Apple is seeing all this, cause earlier it was more reasonable changes that everyone(but Apple) agreed with. Now though, asking Apple to open up Airplay? This actively disincentives Apple from releasing new cool features in the EU, knowing that they will sabotage it like this. Cause as much as Apple is not trustable, third party companies are even more untrustworthy and do worse things.

@stroughtonsmith Honestly I think this is not going to end well. Having a company open up their APIs that they develop and maintain is bad. I really wonder how Apple is seeing all this, cause earlier it was more reasonable changes that everyone(but Apple) agreed with. Now though, asking Apple to open up Airplay? This actively disincentives Apple from releasing new cool features in the EU, knowing that they will sabotage it like this. Cause as much as Apple is not trustable, third party companies...

Go Up