|
Top-level
 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.” 125 comments
"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.” "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.” "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” 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.” "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 "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.” "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 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 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 https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/dma100204-consultation-proposed-measures-requesting-interoperability-apples-ios-and-ipados-operating_en, a separate set of studies/proposals on Apple's interoperability mechanisms) 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 (Apple can, however, require an NDA for any provided headers/reference docs) 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 😛 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.  @stroughtonsmith why tf are the EU doing this to be fair? @jglypt @stroughtonsmith Apple has a proven record of not playing fair and not following EC guidelines , unsurprising they go full steam ahead. Deserved. @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. @jglypt yes we agree on that point, things need to change, companies must change and not be anti consumer @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. @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? @jglypt none of it should be necessary, but Apple has demonstrated that it is 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 @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. @callin @stroughtonsmith Meta has never cared and will never care about GDPR. @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. @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 @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. @stroughtonsmith why, these processes should be kept out of the public eye?! There should be maximum transparency about what tech companies are doing @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. I’m wondering as an end-user. Not a developer. @RAOF @akafester @stroughtonsmith How is it Apple's fault that other operating systems don't support M3? That's one of the few things Apple is doing right here, you can fully unlock your Mac to run any OS. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith They don't ship drivers, or the documentation to produce drivers, and while the Asahi project has done an excellent job of reverse-engineering drivers there's still a catch up required as firmware interfaces change with each MacOS release. But more: Lenovo, Dell, Asus, etc would buy as many M3 chips as Apple could produce; they can't, because you can only by an M3 in a Mac. This is not a benefit to consumers! @RAOF @akafester @stroughtonsmith How many laptop vendors provide Linux drivers or documentation? Isn't most of it reverse-engineered? The suggestion that Apple sells its custom chips for third parties is just absurd. It's like requiring car manufacturers to sell their engines standalone for other companies to use in their cars. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith I don't think it's at all absurd; Apple is unique in not selling its CPUs. But I don't particularly think that Apple should be required to sell M3 CPUs; I think that Apple Silicon should be a different company to Apple Computers, at which point it would obviously sell M3 CPUs. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith
I think you may have missed the last decade or so of Linux development; I don't know of a laptop vendor that doesn't provide Linux drivers? And almost all of them are open-source (the notable holdout being NVIDIA). @stroughtonsmith reminds me of when I get email from people complaining that my apps aren’t available on Android.  @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. @gruber @stroughtonsmith This you guys? Seems to the world you’ve all elected to forgo the idea of government at all. https://globalnews.ca/news/10924862/trump-republicans-us-government-shutdown-spending-deal/ @Gte @gruber @stroughtonsmith Is that offer to secede from the States and join Canada still open? Please? @gruber oh don’t worry, there will be more lists! This is but two spec sheets for doing business in Europe @gruber This is the same company that bends over backwards for the Chinese market. @daniel These EU proposals are far more broad and disruptive than anything China has required. And, China is a bigger market than the EU. @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. @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. @stroughtonsmith is this a response or have they responded to apple’s abuse of the notarizing? @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“ @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! 🫣🤣  @stroughtonsmith Finally… love it 🥰  @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 |
Gregory's Server
“Apple shall implement the measures above in the next major iOS release, and in any case by the end of 2025 at the latest.”