Posts tagged with "EU"

Opening iOS Is Good News for Smartwatches→

Speaking of opening up iOS to more types of applications, I enjoyed this story by Victoria Song, writing at The Verge about the new EU-mandated interoperability requirements that include, among other things, smartwatches:

This is a big reason why it’s a good thing that the European Commission recently gave Apple marching orders to open up iOS interoperability to other gadget makers. You can read our explainer on the nitty gritty of what this means, but the gist is that it’s going to be harder for Apple to gatekeep iOS features to its own products. Specific to smartwatches, Apple will have to allow third-party smartwatch makers to display and interact with iOS notifications. I’m certain Garmin fans worldwide, who have long complained about the inability to send quick replies on iOS, erupted in cheers.

And this line, which is so true in its simplicity:

Some people just want the ability to choose how they use the products they buy.

Can you imagine if your expensive Mac desktop had, say, some latency if you decided to enter text with a non-Apple keyboard? Or if the USB-C port only worked with proprietary Apple accessories? Clearly, those restrictions would be absurd on computers that cost thousands of dollars. And yet, similar restrictions have long existed on iPhones and the iOS ecosystem, and it’s time to put an end to them.

Permalink

European Commission Orders Apple To Improve Third-Party Device Integration

Just as I was linking to Eric Migicovsky’s post about the disadvantages third-party smartwatch makers face when trying to integrate with the iPhone, the European Commission (EC) released a pair of related specification decisions regarding Apple’s Digital Markets Act compliance. The first covers iPhone connectivity with third-party devices:

The first set of measures concerns nine iOS connectivity features, predominantly used for connected devices such as smartwatches, headphones or TVs. The measures will grant device manufacturers and app developers improved access to iPhone features that interact with such devices (e.g. displaying notifications on smartwatches), faster data transfers (e.g. peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connections, and near-field communication) and easier device set-up (e.g. pairing).

The other decision focuses on the process of interoperability:

The second set of measures improves the transparency and effectiveness of the process that Apple devised for developers interested in obtaining interoperability with iPhone and iPad features. It includes improved access to technical documentation on features not yet available to third parties, timely communication and updates, and a more predictable timeline for the review of interoperability requests.

An unidentified spokesperson for Apple responded with a statement to 9to5Mac:

Today’s decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple’s ability to innovate for users in Europe and forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who don’t have to play by the same rules. 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.

This decision shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been following our DMA coverage. It’s easy to understand why Apple is unhappy about this decision, but it’s also just as easy to understand how the status quo holds back competition. There are no easy answers to any of this, but as difficult as this may be for Apple to do while upholding its privacy, security, and other standards, I’m glad the EU is pushing for change and hope those changes spread to other corners of the globe.

Epic Games Announces iOS Store Expansion in the E.U.→

The Epic Games Store, which is available in the E.U. on iOS as a result of the Digital Markets Act and globally on Android, is expanding.

During a press briefing, Epic’s Tim Sweeney said:

Our aim here isn’t just to launch a bunch of different stores in different places, but to build a single, cross-platform store in which, within the era of multi-platform games, if you buy a game or digital items in one place, you have the ability to own them everywhere.

As part of the store expansion, The Verge’s Lauren Feiner reports that Epic will cover Apple’s E.U. Core Technology Fee charged on free games for the first 12 months. Epic will also offer monthly free games, and eventually, weekly freebies. The new games aren’t available just yet, but should be soon.

It’s good to see Epic expanding its offerings on iOS and Android. Alternative marketplaces have grown slowly in the E.U., but with Epic willing to reduce the financial risk of Apple’s Core Technology Fee, we should start seeing Epic’s store expand more rapidly.

Permalink

EU Seeks Input on iOS and iPadOS Interoperability

In September, I wrote about two interoperability proceedings commenced by the European Commission (EC) against Apple. As I wrote then:

In a nutshell, the EC is unhappy with connectivity between iOS and third-party devices and plans to tell the company how to comply. The second part requires Apple to set up a process for third parties to request connectivity with iOS.

Late yesterday, the EC published two follow-up documents requesting input from EU citizens and companies on the interoperability proceedings. DMA.100203 seeks feedback on these technical aspects:

  • The effectiveness of the measures in practice: if implemented, will the proposed measures result in effective interoperability with iOS for each feature
  • The completeness of the measures: if anything else is needed to ensure effective interoperability for the relevant feature
  • Feasibility of the measures: would there be any difficulties or obstacles in implementing each relevant proposed measure in your connected device or app
  • Timelines: is the proposed timeline for Apple to implement each proposed measure achievable?

Under DMA.100204, the EC is requesting input on the following:

  • Is the mapping of existing frameworks adequate to provide developers with prior information to submit a request and to obtain interoperability?
  • Are the proposed timelines adequate to establish a timely and predictable process that takes into account the specificities of the varying technical needs?
  • Are the proposed measures on communication and feedback allowing adequate developers’ involvement in the process?
  • Are the transparency measures allowing developers to be sufficiently informed about the process and its outcome?
  • Would the proposed process ensure a fair treatment of the requests and accountability for Apple’s decisions?
  • Are the proposed measures adequate to ensure that the request process delivers interoperability solutions that are effective and future-proof?

The deadline for commentary on both EC requests is January 9, 2025.

In response, Apple published a document yesterday explaining how it believes Meta and other companies will “weaponize interoperability,” undermining user privacy and security. As Apple puts it (emphasis in original):

If Apple were to have to grant all of these requests, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp could enable Meta to read on a user’s device all of their messages and emails, see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use, scan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their passwords, and more. This is data that Apple itself has chosen not to access in order to provide the strongest possible protection to users.

Interoperability is shaping up to be the field where the fight over opening up more of iOS and iPadOS will be fought. There are places where third-party devices, like many wearables, are at a disadvantage when connecting to iOS. However, deep system-level interoperability necessarily raises potential privacy and security concerns. This isn’t going to be an easy balance to strike, and a lot is at stake, which is why I expect these EC proceedings to be the biggest DMA story of 2025.

The European Commission Opens Two iOS Interoperability Proceedings Against Apple

The European Commission (EC) issued a press release today summarizing two specification proceedings that they have commenced against Apple:

The first proceeding focuses on several iOS connectivity features and functionalities, predominantly used for and by connected devices. Connected devices are a varied, large and commercially important group of products, including smartwatches, headphones and virtual reality headsets. Companies offering these products depend on effective interoperability with smartphones and their operating systems, such as iOS. The Commission intends to specify how Apple will provide effective interoperability with functionalities such as notifications, device pairing and connectivity.

The second proceeding focuses on the process Apple has set up to address interoperability requests submitted by developers and third parties for iOS and IPadOS. It is crucial that the request process is transparent, timely, and fair so that all developers have an effective and predictable path to interoperability and are enabled to innovate.

In a nutshell, the EC is unhappy with connectivity between iOS and third-party devices and plans to tell the company how to comply. The second part requires Apple to set up a process for third parties to request connectivity with iOS.

The EC has given Apple six months to comply with its latest proceedings, during which the commission will share its preliminary findings with Apple and publish a non-confidential summary of the findings publicly so third parties can offer comments.

Apple prides itself on its tight integration between hardware and software, and the EC is determined to open that up for the benefit of all hardware manufacturers. While I think that is a good goal, we’re getting very close to the EU editing APIs, which I find hard to imagine will lead to an optimal outcome for Apple, third-party manufacturers, or consumers. However, if you accept the goal as worthwhile, it’s just as hard to imagine accomplishing it any other way given Apple’s apparent unwillingness to open iOS up itself.

The Risk to Apple of OS Envy→

With the rerelease of iOS 18.0, the EU and the rest of the world will have two flavors of the iPhone’s operating system. As Jason Snell writes for Macworld, this is one of Apple’s greatest fears, but there are potentially bigger risks on the horizon for the company. As Jason explains:

…to me, the bigger danger is envy. It strikes me that Apple has tried to make residents of the European Union envious of other regions by withholding Apple Intelligence, at least at first. There are legal reasons to do so, of course, but it’s also a lesson to Europeans that if they support such a strict regulatory regime, they’re going to be left on the side of the road while the rest of the world enjoys the bounty of AI features inside iOS. (Whether that bounty actually exists is beside the point.)

Yet, when I consider everything being experimented with in the EU, I start to wonder if the envy is actually going to flow in the other direction. The Verge said that the iPhone is now “more fun” in the EU. Noted iOS expert Federico Viticci wrote that the EU version of iOS “is the version of iOS I’ve wanted for the past few years,” and that “we can finally use our phones like actual computers.”

As someone who loves clipboard managers and uses several apps that aren’t Apple’s defaults, I am warming up to their point of view.

I’m right there with Jason. At first, the differences between my iOS and Federico’s didn’t seem like that big of a deal. Sure, it was easier for him to access AltStore, but it’s available outside the EU if you jump through some extra hoops. However, over time, the differences have multiplied. I’ve also had the chance to try Apple Intelligence in 18.1, and although there’s more to come from Apple on the AI front, which could change my calculus, from where things stand today, I’d gladly trade iOS 18.1 for the EU’s 18.0.

Permalink

The DMA Version of iOS Is More Fun Than Vanilla iOS→

Allison Johnson, writing for The Verge on the latest EU-mandated and Apple-designed changes to iOS in Europe:

They’re getting all kinds of stuff because they have cool regulators, not like, regular regulators. Third-party app stores, the ability for browsers to run their own engines, Fortnite_,_ and now the ability to replace lots of default apps? I want it, too! Imagine if Chrome on iOS wasn’t just a rinky dink little Safari emulator! Imagine downloading a new dialer app with a soundboard of fart sounds and setting it as your default! Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t seem interested in sharing these possibilities with everyone.

And:

It’s starting to look like the company sells two different iPhones: one for people in Europe, and one that everyone else can buy. That’s weird, especially since keeping things simple and consistent is sort of Apple’s thing. But the company is so committed to keeping the two separate that it won’t even let you update apps from third-party app stores if you leave the EU for more than a month.

As I wrote on Threads (much to the disbelief of some commentators), I personally feel like the “DMA fork” of iOS is the version of iOS I’ve wanted for the past few years. It’s still iOS, with the tasteful design, vibrant app ecosystem, high-performance animations, and accessibility we’ve come to expect from Apple; at the same time, it’s a more flexible and fun version of iOS predicated upon the assumption that users deserve options to control more aspects of how their expensive pocket computers should work. Or, as I put it: some of the flexibility of Android, but on iOS, sounds like a dream to me.

Apparently, this thought – that people who demand options should have them – really annoys a lot of (generally American) pundits who seemingly consider the European Commission a draconian entity that demands changes out of spite for a particular corporation, rather than a group of elected officials who regulate based on what they believe is best for their constituents and the European market.

That point of view does Apple a disservice: rather than appreciating how Apple is designing these new options and collaborating with regulators, some commentators are just pointing fingers at a foreign governmental body. From my European and Italian perspective, it’s not a good look.

I think that Apple is doing a pretty good job with their ongoing understanding of the DMA. It’s a process, and they’re doing the work. I don’t find the installation of third-party marketplaces as horrible as others have painted it, and I’m excited about the idea of more default apps coming to iOS. Whether you like it or not, this is the world we live in now. A law was passed, and iPhones (and iPads soon) must be made more versatile. As a result, iPhones are more fun for people like me (a clipboard manager! Fortnite!), while very little has changed for those don’t care about new options.

Apple is adapting to this new reality. Perhaps more folks in the Apple community should, too.

Permalink

AI Companies Need to Be Regulated: An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress and European Parliament

[CC0: No rights reserved](https://pxhere.com/en/photo/489513).

CC0: No rights reserved.

Federico: Historically, technology has usually advanced in lockstep with opening up new creative opportunities for people. From word processors allowing writers to craft their next novel to digital cameras letting photographers express themselves in new ways or capture more moments, technological progress over the past few decades has sustained creators and, perhaps more importantly, spawned industries that couldn’t exist before.

Technology has enabled millions of people like myself to realize their life’s dreams and make a living out of “creating content” in a digital age.

This is all changing with the advent of Artificial Intelligence products based on large language models. If left unchecked without regulation, we believe the change may be for the worse.

Over the past two years, we’ve witnessed the arrival of AI tools and services that often use human input without consent with the goal of faster and cheaper results. The fascination with maximization of profits above anything else isn’t a surprise in a capitalist industry, but it’s highly concerning nonetheless – especially since, this time around, the majority of these AI tools have been built on a foundation of non-consensual appropriation, also known as – quite simply – digital theft.

As we’ve documented on MacStories and as other (and larger) publications also investigated, it’s become clear that foundation models of different LLMs have been trained on content sourced from the open web without requesting publishers’ permission upfront. These models can then power AI interfaces that can regurgitate similar content or provide answers with hidden citations that seldom prioritize driving traffic to publishers. As far as MacStories is concerned, this is limited to text scraped from our website, but we’re seeing this play out in other industries too, from design assets to photos, music, and more. And top it all off, publishers and creators whose content was appropriated for training or crawled for generative responses (or both) can’t even ask AI companies to be transparent about which parts of their content was used. It’s a black box where original content goes in and derivative slop comes out.

We think this is all wrong.

The practices followed by the majority of AI companies are ethically unfair to publishers and brazenly walk a perilous line of copyright infringement that must be regulated. Most worryingly, if ignored, we fear that these tools may lead to a gradual erosion of the open web as we know it, diminishing individuals’ creativity and consolidating “knowledge” in the hands of a few tech companies that built their AI services on the back of web publishers and creators without their explicit consent.

In other words, we’re concerned that, this time, technology won’t open up new opportunities for creative people on the web. We fear that it’ll destroy them.

We want to do something about this. And we’re starting with an open letter, embedded below, that we’re sending on behalf of MacStories, Inc. to U.S. Senators who have sponsored AI legislation as well as Italian members of the E.U. Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age.

In the letter, which we encourage other publishers to copy if they so choose, we outline our stance on AI companies taking advantage of the open web for training purposes, not compensating publishers for the content they appropriated and used, and not being transparent regarding the composition of their models’ data sets. We’re sending this letter in English today, with an Italian translation to follow in the near future.

I know that MacStories is merely a drop in the bucket of the open web. We can’t afford to sue anybody. But I’d rather hold my opinion strongly and defend my intellectual property than sit silently and accept something that I believe is fundamentally unfair for creators and dangerous for the open web. And I’m grateful to have a business partner who shares these ideals and principles with me.

With that being said, here’s a copy of the letter we’re sending to U.S. and E.U. representatives.

Read more

European Commission Preliminarily Finds That Apple Has Violated the Digital Markets Act

Today, the European Commission informed Apple that based on its preliminary investigation it has determined that the company is in violation of the Digital Markets Act. The EC has also opened a separate non-compliance procedure against Apple over the Core Technology Fee and other changes instituted earlier this year as part of its response to the DMA.

In particular, the EC’s preliminary findings take issue with Apple’s response to the DMA’s anti-steering provisions:

Apple currently has three sets of business terms governing its relationship with app developers, including the App Store’s steering rules. The Commission preliminarily finds that:

  • None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels.
  • Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice.
  • Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app.

Apple may respond to the EC’s preliminary findings in writing. A final decision regarding compliance with the law is due by March 25, 2025, the one year anniversary of the beginning of DMA proceedings against Apple.

The EC has also opened a separate investigation regarding Apple’s compliance with Section 6(4) of the DMA, which provides that:

The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

Specifically, the EC says it will investigate whether the Core Technology Fee, the multi-step process for downloading apps from alternative app marketplaces, and the eligibility requirements for running an alternative app marketplace are ‘necessary and proportionate’ under the DMA. The EC also notes that it is continuing to investigate Apple’s process for validating apps and alternative app marketplaces.

None of this is particularly surprising, given the complexities of the provisions Apple put into place in the wake of the DMA. The ‘necessity and proportionality’ of Apple’s changes are, by their nature, subjective determinations. That makes the DMA hard to comply with, but it also leaves ample room for the EC and Apple to negotiate a resolution of their dispute over the DMA. It’s time for the parties to put this dispute to rest.