Apple ordered by EU antitrust regulators to open up to rivals
114 comments
·March 19, 2025bri3d
bri3d
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.
enragedcacti
> 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)
Multipoint is part of the bluetooth standard already, Apple just has to provide a means for the headphones to determine which stream to play.
> Proximity pairing (I also don't know that this is possible with any standard technology...)
Fast Pair exists for Android and allows third parties to implement it. It's not a standard but it doesn't have to be, Apple just has to make the proprietary capability available for mfgs to implement if they want. The fact that Google+random OEMs can do it on android using off-the-shelf BT chips should show that its feasible for Apple as well.
do_not_redeem
> Anyone who's maintained a private vs. a public API knows that one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other.
Maybe this will finally give Apple something to do with their $100 billion cash on hand.
averageRoyalty
That they earnt by creating these features and building the best cross device ecosystem in history?
Has HN - the home of tech VC - become anti-capitalist? I wonder how many people want Apple's walled garden torn down whilst never considering they make their money with a smaller one.
surgical_fire
> I get the push for openness in devices but I'd never want to sell hardware in Europe, honestly
Then don't.
I am certain other companies would be fine occupying that space.
swat535
Ironically, this would be the best thing that could happen to EU, reducing its reliance further from US by building in house technologies.
ankit219
Wouldn't other companies run into similar issues given they know whatever they make could be used by other companies for free if they become big enough?
Vespasian
The intention is to not allow hardware vendors to give themselves an edge on said hardware when it comes to software and services.
You can sell hardware just fine without having to disclose anything .
When you want your "hardware" to become a "platform" and offer a lot of other services on it (including distributing third party software) then you have to provide a level playing field.
And you being very large means that you can afford to add another API to the documentation.
spiffytech
Without commenting on the broader topic:
Apple is a top-tier member of the Bluetooth SIG. If standard Bluetooth doesn't support certain features, Apple is empowered to influence that.
shuckles
Not only are they onerous, but also they are really random. What innovation is being held back by AirDrop being proprietary?
freedomben
> 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
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
> 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.
neilv
> If you get big enough, they swoop in and make you turn everything you've invented into an open standard?
Are they asking for real open standards?
Or just Apple publishing an interface that Apple controls, which is much preferable to a company that doesn't want to play well with others, and is also vulnerable to malicious compliance.
(Which isn't to say that open standards aren't sometimes heavily biased towards one particular company. But even then, a company has to battle for their preferred standard, within in an industry consortium or a more public standards organization, or they often try to create a foundation with governance that at least has the appearance of not being totally captive to the one company. But an open standard is different than just tossing out whatever interface you want, and saying, "Here's an interface, which might or might not be suitable, but our obligation is satisfied, and try to convince a judge if you disagree, we can tie that up until our competitors go out of business.")
snotrockets
To comply, for every item in that list, Apple can decide to enable it world wide, or only enable it for devices sold in the EU.
The latter would cost them more, both to initially implement and to maintain.
It'd be interesting to see which items they'd decide are not worth the forking cost and would be enabled world wide then, and what they consider enough of crown jewels to be limited to the EU.
spogbiper
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
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.
thyristan
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...
averageRoyalty
You've moved the goalposts. A monopoly usually refers to market share or ownership over unique technology. Neither are true with Apple.
threeseed
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...
gundmc
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.
spogbiper
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.
eastbound
AirDrop has 100% monopoly on iPhone. iPhone has 0% other ways to share files via bluetooth than AirDrop.
As a user, I must be able to switch platforms at the end of the lifespan of a phone or Mac. So, buy a non-mac computer and then later a non-iPhone phone. So things need to interoperate.
That position from the EU is genius because it’s capitalism at its highest form. (Next is, all Windows apps must work on Macs, sounds like a joke but you’ll notice we already live in a world where they’re all webapp/electron, so it’s literally not a problem).
shuckles
This is really funny. Seriously? Sharing files _over a particular protocol_ is the scope of your monopoly? Going further: your claim isn't even true. Any app can write data to a bluetooth connection. So the monopoly is even narrower than that.
Tteriffic
There’s a difference. Microsoft competed unfairly because it sold software like Word that apparently internally used secret system calls only Microsoft devs knew about. They gave their other software divisions a big advantage, extending their dominance in OS to apps. Apple software, like Pages, apparently only uses the same set of system calls available to everyone else.
spogbiper
right.. but Apple watches and headphones get to use secret/enhanced calls. Apple payment software as well, basically all the things on the EU's list are using some form of the same idea to restrict any other vendor from having comparable functionality.
indrora
For those curious: It's somewhat documented if you read between the lines that the "secret APIs" that everyone was afraid of were really things like string management and what-have-you in a shared library among many different Microsoft products.
Meanwhile, Apple has a habit of hiding functionality behind a lot of obscure API calls that aren't documented and require special entitlements to call.
jemmyw
Pages doesn't do anything that interesting. There are private APIs that Apple apps use or that they gatekeep. https://www.idownloadblog.com/2021/05/10/apple-zoom-ipad-cam...
psittacus
Can you say the same thing about iCloud, AppStore?
rchaud
> "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."
_ink_
Guess, that's good news for repebble users in the EU.
Re: Post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245
Blackstrat
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
> 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! :))
mullingitover
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.
lysace
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
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
More detailed links have been posted already in the thread.
But I want Reuters/etc to include these links.
distortedsignal
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.
jsnell
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?
ankit219
This isn't true. They complied with most of it. This is a guidance in EU-DMA parlance, where EU is specifying[1] how it wants Apple to comply, not that apple hasnt complied and getting punished. Those woudl have been fines.
From the document itself, strangely, EU also announced expectations on how long every part should take.
> Apple must follow a structured timeline for handling interoperability requests. Eligibility assessments must be completed within 20 working days, project plans communicated within 40 working days, and development cycles must be completed within 6, 12, or 18 months, depending on complexity.
> After development, solutions must be released in the next relevant iOS or iPadOS update, with, in any case, a maximum total timeline of 24 months. Solutions requiring minor or mild engineering efforts will be included in the next interim (“dot”) release, while more complex solutions will be part of the next major release.
This is for third party requests. As Apple is required to comply with every reasonable interoperability requests it gets.
[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...
threeseed
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-ap...
jsnell
Your source does not support the claim of the EU having announced a fine. It's an anonymous source saying that the EU will fine Apple and Meta later this month.
You'd expect any fines to be announced along with the corrective measures. Here we only got the corrective measures, which implies that (at least for the domains that these decisions are scoped to, i.e. wearables and the process for handling interop requests) that's all we're getting.
dns_snek
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
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.
bigyabai
> 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.
thefounder
>>>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
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
tw600040
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
> 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?
kmeisthax
Let me rephrase Apple's argument: "If we can't make the Apple Experience™ exclusive to Apple products only, then we will actively harm that user experience so our competitors can't ride our coat-tails."
You absolutely can make interoperability a good user experience, it's just work Apple doesn't want to do. Apple wants you to think their competitors are scary; they want the Internet to be a slum so that their walled garden looks safer.
refulgentis
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
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.
croes
Where does interoperability = subpar user experience come from?
janis1234
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"
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...
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...