mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

380K
active users

Steve Troughton-Smith

I think how the EU intends to enforce & litigate the DMA has become much clearer over the past couple weeks: Apple must allow competition in everything it does on iOS and iPadOS from now on.

Not: check off a bunch of checklist items in a law in the minimum way possible to pretend you're allowing competition

Not: everything Apple does on iOS and iPadOS must be available to users on other platforms (like Windows or Android)

It's about fairness to the users & developers within Apple's platforms

You can put every single one of Apple's behaviors through that lens and predict what the outcome will be.

Is the CTF fair and enabling of competition? No

Is using Notarization as a bespoke review process fair? No

Is building new features for Apple services, without providing reasonable APIs for devs, fair? No

If Apple is still building or planning to build features that don't meet that criteria, they won't be able to ship. Different choices are necessary at the very start of project planning

Apple is going to spin this as 'regulatory uncertainty’, but I don't think it's uncertain at all. And it will require a shifting of priorities in building software features, elevating 'fairness’ right up beside privacy and security. iOS 18 might get a pass, because it was already in progress before the DMA launched. But there is no good reason for any project planned from now on to intentionally make architectural choices that will leave it in a place where it can't ship in the EU

And on that note, it would be real irresponsible of Apple to not take this into account for its new platforms, like visionOS.

It may not qualify under the DMA today, but if it succeeds as Apple hopes, it absolutely will someday. Maybe having a fair and competitive platform from the start would help it avoid the rut that iPad is in.

visionOS today, however, is even more locked down and restrictive for third-party developers than iOS, and if they stay on that track they're in for a huge problem

@stroughtonsmith In short, provide full access to their platform for free. If Apple can’t ship, I guess that’s another argument in favour of their eventual withdrawal from the EU market, if it ever comes to that.

@Abazigal I love the optics of Apple pulling out of a huge western-freedoms-aligned market because they dared to ask for fairness, yet staying in places like Russia and China with brutal, genocidal, police-state regimes. Really picking the right side of history, huh?

If that's the choice they make, we won't miss them

@stroughtonsmith I view it more as China allowing Apple to retain what makes their products unique (ie: their integration), but not the EU. So if Apple products lose their key selling point in the EU because everyone else gets the same benefits, then what’s the point?

@Abazigal everybody on their platform* gets the same benefits. Not other platforms. This only strengthens Apple's platform offering (if not its particular services). If you're on Apple's platform at all, you've already bought the device. Apple is just prevented from double-dipping without making that fair for other apps

@stroughtonsmith @Abazigal I think RCS is a great example of what Steve means. iPhone with RCS will be a better product than an iPhone with SMS. Full stop. Apple has been artificially withholding that feature to make iMessage look better and lock in users, who missed out on having a genuinely better experience. All for the sake of profit.

@Abazigal @stroughtonsmith

"For free".

Is your iPhone free? iPhone revenue is 3x Apple's entire R&D spend.

Developers pay money to Apple for the iPhone, for the Mac to develop on, and 30% of their revenue on top of that.

In what world is this "for free"?

@dmitriid I assume apps sold via third party app stores won’t need to pay Apple anything.

And my point isn’t that Apple must charge for APIs, but the expectation that Apple had to readily provide access to all of them. A one-year lag time may be more reasonable. Otherwise, I can see Apple electing to simply not release a particular feature if they feel it’s not worth the effort to open it up to everyone else as well.

@Abazigal

> I assume apps sold via third party app stores won’t need to pay Apple anything.

Except you know, paying for hardware, and paying dev fees

@Abazigal

1-year lag is quite reasonable, but Apple should clearly communicate that instead of vaguely blaming DMA for everything.

They used to do that for many of their APIs and features: release as private APIs, see how things perform in the wild, open up access to developers.

But then for no reason at all it took them 4 years IIRC to open up access to HomePod etc.

@dmitriid Then maybe that will just become the new normal, where the EU gets new iOS features later than the rest of the world while Apple takes their time to ready the necessary APIs for that market.

@Abazigal

Might be.

As people mentioned elsewhere it's already the case in reality: Apple releases a lot of features for the US first, and for the rest of the world later (if at all). My only wish for them to be honest about it (but it's a childish dream to hope for an honest supranational megacorporation :) )

@dmitriid I would also like for the EU to be honest about how they are violating Apple’s property rights, which is why I appreciate Apple continuing to push back against the DMA and make them say the unpleasant part out loud. We will see how this plays out over the next couple of years. What I see happening is Apple ends up forking iOS for the EU and nobody really ends up winning here.

@Abazigal

Which "property rights" does EU violate? What does this even mean?

@dmitriid Try telling Nintendo that they need to open up their switch platform to the epic games store. Suddenly, they have to host another competitor who keeps 100% of Fortnite revenue, plus they get to host other apps and charge developers a cut. It feels hypocritical that game developers evidently don’t have an issue with paying Nintendo or Sony 30%, yet find that an iniquity on iOS. You want to put an end to closed ecosystems? I challenge the EU to attack them all at one go.

@Abazigal

1. Developers do have a problem with those fees and many ridiculous restrictions that game consoles impose

2. None of the game consoles are anywhere near the all-encompassing platform status that mobiles have

3. You managed to completely ignore and avoid the question I asked

@dmitriid And yet I don’t seem to hear a squeak about consoles. It’s always Apple this, Apple that.

iOS is the intellectual property of Apple, and the DMA all but insists that Apple not only open it up to third party app stores, but is not allowed to collect any money from them for apps sold in this manner.

Is not allowing Apple to monetise their property essentially a violation of their property rights?

@Abazigal

I was going to write a lengthy response, but then realised that I've already answered most of what you ask/claim. And the rest can be answered by spending about 30 seconds of independent thinking and reading more than tabloids and anti-EU biased blogs.

1. Gaming consoles are irrelevant because a) I already answered why and b) you can find platform/gatekeeper definition in the DMA

1/

@Abazigal

2.Just because someone holds IP rights to something doesn't mean a) governments have no right to regulate and that b) it impinges on property rights

3. You keep pretending Apple is a charity that gives away everything for free and now needs to monetise stuff. I've addressed this claim several times already. And the need to monetise still doesn't mean they can't be regulated, or that they are allowed to do whatever they please

2/

@Abazigal

I cannot and will not go around in circles addressing easily refutable bullshit that you could refute yourself by literally spending at least some time actually reading the DMA (it's dense but many relevant sections are quite easy to read) or spending at least some time thinking about these issues independently.

You haven't done any of that. I don't have time for this.

Adieu.

3/3

@dmitriid Just so you know, I am aware of all those points. I simply don’t think they are reasonable, which is why, as I said, I am happy to see Apple push back against the DMA.

At this point, whether it is justified or not comes down to opinion, and in this regard, I don’t think yours is any more “right” than mine, since a government is free to come up with whatever law it wishes, right or not. We can only wait and see how this all plays out ultimately.

Good day. 🙂

@dmitriid @Abazigal @stroughtonsmith if they lose the ability to make that 30% and have to spend money to support methods to bypass getting paid what’s their incentive? Yes they made money once when you bought it, but there’s no incentive to support devices for as long or add new features when there’s no return for doing so. I’m not fully behind Apples stance/actions but not being allowed to monetize ongoing effort/support does not seem fair either. There needs to be a middle ground.

@muhlman @dmitriid @Abazigal @stroughtonsmith Did you know Microsoft supports its operating systems and applications for 10 years? It can do that because selling operating systems and applications is incredibly profitable at scale. The idea that Apple won’t have the money for long term support if it doesn’t double-dip is not serious. Don’t confuse the financial state of 3rd party application developers with Apple itself.

@muhlman @Abazigal @stroughtonsmith

> if they lose the ability to make that 30% and have to spend money to support

iPhone sales alone are 3x their *entire* R&D spend. That is, iPhone sales pay for literally everything Apple develops and supports: Macs, iPhones, AirPods, AppleTV, Vision Pro, HomePods, displays and every single piece of software that Apple releases for those platforms from MacOS and iOS to iWork, Final Cut Pro and calculators.

@stroughtonsmith you might be right in most of your analysis, but if so, I’d suggest there’s a logical flaw in your conclusion. Apple is not obligated to ship any particular feature in the EU just because they provide it elsewhere.

Far from “features that don't meet that criteria… won't be able to ship.” Rather, they use regional feature flags so things the EU demands be interoperable just don’t ship in the EU until such time Apple wants to offer an API for the feature.

@stroughtonsmith if anything, your posts here make from that perspective I think the strongest argument I’ve seen in *support* of Apple’s stance this year that it won’t be shipping Apple Intelligence and the other features in the EU. Like you say, features without that interoperability just won’t ship—*in the EU*.

@babbage there was an implied 'in the EU' in the post; I ran out of characters. Of course they can ship them elsewhere, but I'm not sure the benefit to slicing up the OS this way is gonna outweigh the cost of just doing the right thing from the start

@stroughtonsmith How do we get this into the heads of so many American podcasters and bloggers that cover Apple who still seem to think "EU BAD"?

@buck @stroughtonsmith Apple seeds them devices to review, if they don’t defend it, then they lose their preferential treatment. Small amounts of bias lead opinions to sway wildly over time.

@stroughtonsmith A bit of “regulatory uncertainty” back in their direction actually feels like poetic justice given the App Review and their totally arbitrary rejections.

@stroughtonsmith If Apple is no longer allowed to continuously charge developers for API access and documentation, then developers should no longer be allowed to use subscriptions. Especially developers that don't update their apps for months or years.

@richaesthetic who's stopping them? The problem isn't them charging for things, it's using their leverage to compete unfairly. Every developer still has to pay a yearly fee to be on the platform. Every developer needs to buy at least an up-to-date Mac and other devices. Every app they make is a selling point for Apple's platform. Are you saying Apple doesn't get anything out of this? That's already triple-dipping right there

@stroughtonsmith @richaesthetic Every developer has to pay for App Store ads to get visibility in the store!

@stroughtonsmith OTOH Apples approach undeniably creates a more private and safe computing environment. Perhaps the EC should battle this out with their own privacy agency and good security experts before going after Apple and destroying what for many, many people is the reason why the buy Apple devices and not Android/Windows.

@stroughtonsmith You make it sound like this is simple but how deep does it go? Is having a system file dialog OK or must Dropbox be able to replace it? A system color picker, or should Pastel be able to provide it? File system? Memory manager?

@stevex it's about competition; if a third party developer can reasonably create an alternative, without Apple having an unfair price or functionality advantage, then there's no problem. There is a mechanism to provide alternative filesystems, other apps can build and share their own color pickers, etc

@stroughtonsmith But only Apple can be the system colour picker; a third party subscription colour picker can't replace the one that shows up in Notes. How is this not Apple preferring their own functionality?

@stevex there is no 'market' here, no consumer harm. And nothing preventing a third party from making an app with their own subscription color picker. The harm comes in using policies and entitlements, not technical skill, to prevent third parties from competing with first party experiences. That's self-preferencing. Apple can still compete on technical merit, nobody's taking that away

@stevex there are a couple points the system color picker has against it: 1) it runs out of process, and 2) it has an eyedropper tool that works across all apps.

That would count as self-preferencing, if it were not for the fact that Apple offers this color picker to third party developers to use too.

Having a systemwide color picker with special features isn’t anticompetitive, as long as that color picker is available to all apps in the same way. There's no requirement that it be replaceable

@stroughtonsmith The Notes app will never use a third party color picker, it will use the Apple one. You don’t think there’s any ambiguity about whether this would be allowed?

@stevex I honestly don't think it's ambiguous now. The DMA has very specific carve-outs for bespoke lanes of competition, like app stores & browser engines. Anything else is going to be viewed through the lens of ‘can a third party reasonably compete’, not ‘can every feature in the OS be replaced by a third-party’.

I think that will only be tested if Apple adds paid subscription services that use private API or entitlements to do things in e.g. Notes or the color picker that can't be replicated

@stroughtonsmith Maybe there’s no market there because there's never been an opportunity to create one because of Apple's gatekeeping.

Grammarly can't plug their grammar checker in on iOS and replace the system one; I could totally see them bringing that up to the EU. Why wouldn't they?

@stevex Grammarly can reasonably offer an API (web, or native) that other apps can implement. Again, no problem here.

There is a mechanism for third-party developers to request interoperability via the DMA, and Apple has a feedback form for it. They can ask for a pluggable grammar checker, but it's up to Apple to decide whether they need/want to based on the law. And it would be up to Grammarly to then take that further, to the EC, to debate it. The law doesn't specifically demand this

@stroughtonsmith Ok cool, that’s the part I was missing. Will be interesting to see how those requests go.

@stroughtonsmith It seems like the EU has a mechanism now to fine Apple for any built-in functionality that can't be replaced by a third party. If Grammarly shows up and says it's unfair that Apple's built-in grammar checker can't be replaced system-wide, is that another billion dollar fine?

@stroughtonsmith I do agree with you that new services like the AI stuff should be provided through an API where developers can provide their own implementations.

Apple could have provided iPhone mirroring through an open mechanism but of course they didn't because that's not who they are. The EU is mandating that Apple become a very different company.

I think they're going to pull or withhold features until that starts costing them sales.

@stroughtonsmith And after app stores, eBook stores and streaming services. No more Apple Vig. Liberation.