EU sends Apple first DMA interoperability instructions for apps and devices
136 comments
·March 20, 2025ChocolateGod
rickdeckard
Nothing restricts Apple from continuing to be this unified in their ecosystem. What the EU DMA tries to break, is Apple's "weaponization" of iOS to gain an unfair advantage in sales of accessories.
So if Apple (the product-company) requires changes in iOS to realize a new feature in an accessory product, the changes in iOS will have to be opened to accessory-competitors as well.
They would still be first-to-market with such new features (because they had a head-start in implementing and launching them with their accessory), they would just be facing competitors catching up over time like in every other balanced market.
tpmoney
Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be. Inevitably something you want to change becomes some one else’s “hold space bar to heat room” feature. And sure you can have “private” Or reserved spaces in APIs, but that can often lead to messes like needed 5 different vendor specific CSS tags to accomplish the same thing in all browsers, which in turn really leads to consolidation around one “winner” (see also IE6 and Chrome). They might very well still be able to make unified systems on open APIs and platforms, but it’s not clear whether they would be able to make them as well as they do when they control and own the whole stack and can change it without having to worry about anyone else.
rickdeckard
> Open protocols are great but they are also absolutely a hindrance on change. If you’ve ever worked on a public API you know how painful making a breaking change to that API can be.
I worked on public API's. If there's a justified need for a breaking change, make a new API and deprecate the old one. It can of course be harder than this, but its complication mainly comes from proper PLANNING of the action and AWARENESS of the environment.
It's an OS, let's treat it as such and not buy into this narrative how hard and unfair the world is to this trillion dollar company.
makeitdouble
If your question is whether it will be more work for Apple, the answer is yes, to some point.
If you're also wondering whether Apple being mildly inconvenienced matters for the EU court or most users in general: honestly no.
They're at fault in the first place, and if for a new feature that took 2 years to build, users have to wait some extra months because of that decision, so be it IMHO. That has always been happening with the US only launch features, and nobody's been crying a river.
sealeck
Apple can change the API interfaces as they see fit, no?
regularjack
Apple can afford maintaining the public APIs.
catchnear4321
the existing os alongside the new instructions could restrict apple plenty
unless you are saying you have inside knowledge about the amount of refactoring and new development necessary to comply, that would be fascinating to hear more about
such restrictions would be likely to spill over into customer impact
> you’re speculating
which is essentially the same as providing an estimate in a work setting
so… yes
rickdeckard
I don't think it would actually restrict Apple. So far they are the owner of the playing field (iOS) and also invite other players (vendors) to play there, but whenever they also play they reserve the right to step in areas of the field noone else is allowed to.
They are now no longer allowed to play like that, so that maybe adds a new burden to them compared to before. But I wouldn't chime in on the framing how much they are suffering from that...
tpmoney
I feel like it would be easier to believe that Apple locking down access to things is the problem if anything at all comparable to their experiences existed outside. Yet whenever this discussion comes up, the answer to “why not just use Android’s ecosystem” largely seems to be that no such similar experience exists for Android. But why would that be the case if this was about Apple locking stuff down? Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see a comprehensive and more open integration ecosystem for non-Apple devices, if only to encourage Apple to keep building. But it doesn’t exist now, why would I expect it to exist if Apple is also open?
roblabla
> Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right?
It's entirely possible on Android? Pebble used to have decent integration with Android, from notifications/calls, to music controls, to sports tracking/health data. You could even get navigation integration! And that was a decade ago. That's what makes it so painful: the pebble android experience is really nice and integrates very well, while the iOS one is terrible due to the Apple lockdowns.
Despacito2019
garmin watch works like this at the moment on android and subpar on ios
pimterry
> Surely if a lack of open phone OS and feature access was the problem, we’d see a rich ecosystem of integrations that exist on Android devices that are just impossible to achieve on iOS right?
...yes, and that's exactly what has happened. Android has a thriving ecosystem of excellent smartwatches (Garmin, Pebble, Fitbit, Samsung & Pixel watches, etc) with lots of features (particularly around notifications and interactions with apps on the device) that are impossible to support on iOS. https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-... has some concrete details.
tpmoney
So what is the problem needing to be solved then? If there’s a thriving open ecosystem, that currently enjoys the majority of the market share in the EU per other commenters in this discussion, and the only way to get “locked in” to the closed ecosystem is to buy a phone and 100% of your accessories from a single minority vendor, why is this a problem? Why don’t people just chose the more popular, more diverse, open and thriving platform?
JKCalhoun
I play an Apple apologist online (sometimes).
Most here would agree that a public API is a liability regardless. Anything you can keep private (SPI) you should.
Opening up an API that has all manner of hooks into your Apple device is going to be (obviously, I think) one of the most challenging of API to expose. While a 3rd party watch might needs these API, a whole lot of n'r-do-wells (looking at you, Meta) will likely figure out a way to exploit it in their apps.
It's a can of worms or a Pandora's Box if you will. If Apple is forced to expose these API, but only after kicking and screaming, I would not be surprised.
roblabla
Apple has many, many tools to prevent this from being a problem. To name a few:
- They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple
- They can lock the API behind a user approval
- They can regularly prompt the user if they still wish to share notification data with the watch (same way they do to keep giving an app localisation data)
- They could enforce that the notification is sent encrypted over bluetooth, without giving access to it to the app itself - forcing its handling to be done on-device - if they're so concerned about this.
It's also worth noting that this problem is a complete non-issue for Android, and nobody seems to believe it is an issue there...
burnerthrow008
> - They can lock the API behind entitlements that must be manually requested and reviewed by Apple > - They can lock the API behind a user approval
Not if the EU has anything to say about it. Apple is already in trouble for requiring prompts for 3rd party vendors, and you know that already.
Same for entitlements.
JKCalhoun
Yeah, you're right. Not easy, but do-able.
Apple, probably due to their success and size, are trying "Make me!" as a response until, you know, someone makes them. But they're not willing to voluntarily offer these API up.
rickdeckard
Apple is using closed-down features in iOS to gain an unfair advantage in Sales of accessories.
They are still fine to do that, but at the moment such a new feature/accessory is launched by Apple the necessary interfaces in iOS also needs to be available to competitors.
The result is that Apple will still be first with such features as they can orchestrate the launch of the feature in iOS with the product. They will still have a leg up in marketing and scale, as they will be able to market directly to their users and instantly sell in much larger volume.
They will JUST face a better balanced market where competitors will be able to catch up and match the experience.
The fact that this is causing any backlash at all is surprising. Apple still has the best cards in this game, they are just not allowed to change the rules in their favor all the time.
radicalbyte
There was a time, long long ago, when the US had regulators with balls, they regulated Microsoft to stop them pulling this anti-competitive shit.
milesrout
They famously did basically nothing to Microsoft and Microsoft continued to maintain a near monopoly for many years and do all the same things it had always done to keep its monopoly.
rickdeckard
Some people apparently don't remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft tried to demonstrate that Internet Explorer is suddenly such an integral part of the OS that it's technically impossible to separate it.
It didn't work, they were forced to decouple it again (which was susprisingly simple), and despite the somewhat weak result for Win98 I think we can be thankful for that.
I don't want to imagine how Windows 2000 would have looked if they would have continued cementing IE6 into the frontend...
j_maffe
Microsoft became much more diversified and interoperable than it was before that crackdown.
ChocolateGod
And whilst the EU was focusing on Microsoft, Google took the chance to have it's turn.
ForTheKidz
[flagged]
null
milesrout
No emoji is a reason HN is still good. Among many.
Your comment IMO has little value to a reader. You forcefully state your opinions but give me no reason why I should adopt them or any basis on which I could challenge them. I am more interested in why you think what you do than in what you actually think.
Why is that the only feature worth paying for? How are watches an "extension of this behaviour"? Why should everything be "mandated open protocol"? Do you see how that can lead to ossification and the stifling of innovation?
Amazon offers returns... so what? I haven't bought anything from Amazon for years. Some people don't want unreliable crap they have to constantly fight over warranties on, even in places with good consumer protection laws. Some just want something that actually works.
ForTheKidz
Sure, but most comments on the internet (very much including this forum) offer zero or negative "value" to the reader. What we're doing now is typically called "socializing and discussing topics of the day", which is typically a non-transactional sort of relationship. Notably absent from this is any obligation to persuade you of anything. I won't waste my time; I know this forum and the kind of discourse people want to have. What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws.
> Some just want something that actually works.
Sure! Some people are rich and assign little "value" to money relative to time (including me). This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. But as it stands they're basically lighting aforementioned cash on fire for the vibes and quarterly reports. If I see you with white earbuds in, I'll start selling you a bridge.
ohgr
I think it’ll be good for Apple. Everyone will go “yay” and buy another brand of crap smart watch, realise it’s total garbage and buy an Apple watch anyway.
dividedbyzero
I'd love to use a Garmin or a Suunto, but they aren't integrated very well on iOS and I like the convenience of my iPhone and Macbook too much to switch to an Android. I think there are a lot of people who're not very satisfied with Apple Watches for sports tracking or who'd just like something that lasts a week at least. There are quality options outside of Apple Watches if you don't need it to feel like a tiny iPhone. Most of the UX I need was available on a Chinese smartwatch almost ten years ago (though super buggy back then), the basics aren't that hard and seeing how a fair lot of iOS apps have dropped their WatchOS apps for lack of usage I don't seem to be so singular in that.
But I don't think it'll hurt the Apple Watch sales all that much either, they still work very well as a fashionable accessory.
ohgr
I have both a Garmin (Instinct solar) and an Apple Watch (S10). The Apple Watch is actually slightly more useful even if it doesn't last more than a couple of days. Actually if I'm honest the Apple Watch saved my life a couple of times. The Garmin is nice, but it's just not as useful.
mrtksn
EU is still surprisingly naive and open for business.
After TikTok getting banned(postponed for now) in US for national security reasons, and after US cutting military support and intelligence in Ukraine I was expecting for things to start rolling by now.
They already start doing things on the military side of things with restricting the military equipment purchases to EU only with exceptions granted on the basis that foreign supplier should NOT have a way to shut down equipment use(be it a Killswitch, political pressure or supply chain control).
If USA decides to side with Russia on the invasion of Europe or maybe just annexing Greenland, they can shut down EU telecommunications or air propaganda messaging over Apple/Google devices or platforms and other social media platforms.
What worked for Russia and China was to restrict their markets and guarantee opportunities for homegrown alternatives.
I still expect for EU and pretty much all the world to end up doing this. I'm not enjoying it, I don't want things to go this way but no way that EU can afford giving full communications control to a hostile country.
Tough times ahead, this DMA stuff was the right approach last year. Sometime in the next 4 year a private company will be used to do something acutely military or political to EU like they did in Ukraine and enough people will panic and a similar response will be generated.
IMHO Apple will be served better if they play ball and make themselves useless for public warfare purposes and ensure continued access to EU market even if it means potential losses on services revenue. This will give them opportunity to say that you can just use EU services and keep buying the iPhones.
makeitdouble
> If USA decides to side with Russia on the invasion of Europe
USA is still part of the NATO, siding with Russia while it hits any of the NATO member will be a problem beyond shutting down EU telecommunications.
Now if your question is whether the EU can sustain an open war with the US and Russia simultaneously, I honestly don't think so, irrelevant to whether Apple/Google sabotage their EU infra or not.
I naively think it would need to get China on its side, but that sounds like the literal end of the world.
DaveMcMartin
I’m not enjoying this either. I get that it’s necessary for the EU, but I’m still in favor of free trade.
mrtksn
Me too but the USA decided to do something else. EU will be forced to follow suit, can’t be the only free market when everyone else is favoring their own companies.
null
twoodfin
I expect Apple will react to this by scaling down the sophistication and breadth of features they make available to EU users.
That most of these capabilities exist at all reflects Apple’s belief that they’re a way to differentiate their (closed) ecosystem through vertical integration. If the EU takes that away, Apple’s motivation to invest in these areas for EU customers goes away, too.
dividedbyzero
If they do then they'll just lose market share to Android, because the Asian manufacturers will offer all these features and they're getting more polished each year. For me personally, all Apple really has going for their products these days is being very stable and dependable, I can always just get the newest Pro phone and have something that'll work well for me. They used to be attractive because they weren't Chinese but US tech is becoming an even bigger liability, and the Asian competition has a lot more on offer in terms of features though it's a lot more of a gamble if it'll be executed well and get maintained and I don't like to gamble on things like that. Most casual users already don't care, nor should they.
But if Apple cripple their devices further I think a lot more of their core user base will be willing to try an Android, depending on what features they axe. If they make iPhones inconvenient in addition to somewhat lagging behind the market, all they'd have left is their brand and marketing and that's about to take a beating in the looming tariff wars.
No, I think they may do a little of that for symbolics and they certainly will throw a lot of fits but ultimately they'll just comply and that will be that.
kennysoona
> all Apple really has going for their products these days is being very stable and dependable,
That's not Apple that's everyone. Computers randomly crashing hasn't been a thing for a long time.
Etheryte
This sounds highly unlikely, as it would drastically hurt the sales of adjacent devices and accessories. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is the Apple regular, where they release docs, but the docs are so bad that they're practically unworkable.
WhyNotHugo
It might hurt short term sales, but it helps paint a picture of “evil EU won’t let us sell you the latest features”. I.e.: propaganda fuel.
j_maffe
If you're expecting a significant portion of EU citizens would take a stance with Apple instead of the EU, you'd be wrong.
dismalaf
The "USA" brand is currently taking a pummelling in Europe, this isn't a good strategy.
crote
How is that supposed to work?
Apple doesn't have the market share it has in the US - it's at 33% in the EU compared to 57% in the US. Sure, they are popular, but they are still just another phone brand. They simply don't have enough hardcore fans to make a huge impact on a political level.
The EU doesn't have the same kind of large-scale quasi-religious "all government bad" movement seen in the US. People may be skeptical about some details of some government regulation, but in general it is understood that consumer protection regulation actually protects the consumer. Calling the EU evil for this isn't going to work.
Due to Trump's recent political movements there is a huge anti-US sentiment, especially around US tech companies. We're seeing near-unanimous support for governments exploring ways of getting rid of Microsoft and Amazon, and even tech-illiterate Boomers are asking me if I switched to Signal yet. (For context, WhatsApp is universally adopted here - even my 95-year-old grandma is on it!) People aren't going to trust Apple, simply because it is American.
So no, I don't think Apple will be able to successfully paint a picture like that. They could try, but they would just be made fun of in late-night talkshows.
SkiFire13
I thought the Apple regular was rejecting apps from the App store for seemingly no reason.
twoodfin
If Apple has the choice to give up developing products in a controlled, vertically integrated manner OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them.
We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
atwrk
This is a false dichotomy: Noone is forbidding Apple doing intergration of their products. The DMA simply forbids barring competitors from the same access.
Just compare how Apple cripples third party smartwatches on ios.
piva00
Losing 20% of global revenue is not really an option.
simion314
>We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
This is FUD from Apple fanboys, Apple delayed their shit in UK and other non EU countries. Apple was probably incapable to release those AI features at the same time in more then a few countries.
And guess what, OpenAI , Anthropic and other AI companies will for sure try to replace Siri and Apple will try to avoid that and hopefully would pay fair and not cripple competitors.
I am from EU and I am not missing any AI providers, maybe some alpha/beta stuff that launches first in USA before they add the features about protecting the privacy of the user or until the lawyers are done rewording the ToS on how they sell your data but word it as a good thing.
troupo
> OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them.
It isn't hard at all. "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" is really not a hard decision at all. Funny how you end up with an answer that defies all common and business sense
> with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
They are coming despite all of Apple's posturing, and on a schedule that was already determined before all the posturing.
atwrk
I doubt it. So far, they have dropped every anti-competitive tactic that the EU has objected to.
After all, in which other market are they expected to grow? China already shifts to domestic brands, and other regions lack the purchasing power.
weberer
Yeah, they already started to do that. For example, if you try to use iPhone mirroring from a Mac within the EU, you get a little pop-up saying "iPhone Mirroring is not available in your country or region." But if you travel to a non-EU country, it works fine.
avdlinde
Doesn't that mean effectively losing market share to devices that do have capabilities in the eu, or that are accepting restrictions, say Android?
pjc50
Apple is, or has been, an EU company for tax purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute
zoobab
Make a subsidiary in Ireland, Apple paid 0% taxes by transforming every imposable EUR as a patent licence, imposed in Ireland. Then they bought US treasure bonds, where the yearly interests amounted to 50USD/american citizen.
They stole from european and american tax payers.
lotsofpulp
Companies have always been a “<insert any country/state/city they do business in> company”.
If you have a business, every new jurisdiction you do business in requires you to register as a business and comply with their tax/labor laws.
niemandhier
Lots of stuff is going to shift away from Mac / windows in the next years. If apple assumes they can get away with this tactic they’ll lose even more market share.
Not because the alternatives are better, but just because the exceptions that were made from valid legislation will not be prolonged in face of the “New American Way”.
All hinges on the future of the TDPF.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/tech/news/deafening-commiss...
Lots of public servants will have to suffer through Linux desktops.
oaiey
I also see this happening. Since a 80 year old alliance becomes unreliable, protective measures will go up. The US companies like the FAANGs profited a lot in the last 30 years by that, they will be a hit on their revenues, regulations will go up and alternatives will be funded.
How successful this all will be, another question.
akmarinov
Losing 20% of revenue sure sounds like a great look in front of investors.
Just open it up and let people sideload - 90% won't do it anyway and it'll cause people to switch from Android, which is a lot more prevalent in Europe
zoobab
DMA does not provide any means to run Linux on Apple devices.
I don't want their shitty OS, but I like their hardware.
Unfortunately, the law makers prefer to cement oligopolies (Android-iPhone), instead of installing fines for not documentating how their hardware works.
intrasight
Regulating the requirement that Apple support Linux on Macs makes no sense.
What does make sense - to me anyway - is for Apple to embrace Linux because they'd sell a lot more Macs. I assume there are many thousands of developers like me that detest macOS and won't even consider a Mac. But like you said, Apple is making some amazing hardware these days. I would buy a Mac if Linux was well supported.
Apple did just fine in the early days when their hardware and software was open source. But while it got them up and running, it's not a viable business model to get to be a multi trillion dollar company. It became understood in tech that the way to be profitable was to make your competitors stack a commodity.
zoobab
"Regulating the requirement that Apple support Linux on Macs makes no sense."
Not Linux, but any Operating System. They just have to publish the documentation of how the hardware works.
attendant3446
> for Apple to embrace Linux because they'd sell a lot more Macs.
If that was the case, I think they'd have done it a long time ago. It is more likely that keeping users on Apple-controlled operating systems brings them more profit
j_maffe
> I assume there are many thousands of developers like me that detest macOS
Out of millions of buyers. Developers are almost an irrelevant demography to consider for such a fundamental change.
milesrout
Apple's hardware is good because of the software on it. Hardware is controlled by software. Lots of stuff that once happened in hardware is now done in drivers. For example, Apple's speakers melt if you run them at maximum volume. Regulating that is what software is for.
I say that as someone that prefers to use Linux.
rickdeckard
It is not the scope of DMA to identify and regulate an OS, or demand a hardware-vendor to open and document his OS at his own expense.
They identified something more abstract and much less arguable:
They identified that Apple has created a closed market of significant size, made themselves the gatekeeper and invited companies to compete there.
But ON TOP Apple decided to enter the market also as a player, and skew the playing field in their favor.
So it's an unjust market where forces are unable to flow freely, and the EU is attempting to rectify that.
kjreact
Apple’s strongest advantage is their seamless integration between their hardware and their software. The best way for rivals to weaken this advantage is to lobby for breaking this integration under the guise of consumer protection.
hello_computer
[flagged]
kirstenbirgit
EU forgets that this kind of overzealous, micromanaging intervention only reduces incentives to innovate new features and products. If the EU forces companies with a competitive edge (better software, in this case) to make it available to their competitors, what’s the point?
I can make my own decisions about which platforms and software to use, thank you very much. I don’t need or want EU to force companies to build software and products a certain way for some pipe-dream goal of making everything "interoperable."
And if anything, given that EU has repeatedly failed to implement sensible tech regulation, why should the same institution have the authority to dictate how tech businesses build their products?
arrrg
Apple has been completely unwilling to play ball. They behaved like a petulant child through all of this.
I’m completely convinced that no one at the EU wants to micro manage any of this. But they have to. Because Apple has been failing to read the room for years.
elric
What do you mean "what's the point"? Before Apple got to the point of being subject to this particular attempt at regulation, it amassed billions in revenue and reached a 3+trillion dollar valuation.
Very few startups (innovative or otherwise) will ever come close to that. Only a handful of companies globally are subject to these regulations.
regularjack
You think it makes sense that non-apple smartwatches work fine on Android but not on iOS? If I have a Garmin and decide to switch phones from Android to iOS, the Garmin won't work as well.
That doesn't make sense to me and this is what will be fixed.
DaveMcMartin
Good.
Apple fanboys, no need to worry!
If you’re in the US, all these features will be geoblocked, so you can enjoy your walled garden as much as you like. If you’re in the EU, just stick to Apple products and avoid any alternatives.
As cool how unified the Apple ecosystem is, I do think the EU is right that it's extremely unfair for Apple to give its own smartwatches access to the phone that other smartwatches have zero chance of getting access to.