Apple vs. the Law
James Heppell (via Hacker News):
A week ago today I had the pleasure of attending both the Apple and Google DMA compliance workshops in Brussels. More detailed articles on the questions and answers, technical and legal analysis etc will be published over at the OWA blog, where we’ve just done the first write-up on the Google part. Here though I’d like to focus more on my own experience and personal opinions, and how I feel about some of the gatekeepers’ approach to the law…
[…]
John and I asked a couple questions on Apple’s process, specifically on why the absolute best tracker system they could come up with in ~6 months was a link to a static, once-a-week-updated PDF, hidden behind an Apple developer account. They assured us it was all that they could do in time to meet the EC’s specification, ignoring the part asking why they didn’t simply use GitHub or Bugzilla like in their other projects.
[…]
Roderick asked about Apple’s absurd requirement that anyone who wants to ship their own browser engine has to release it as a new app, and so re-acquire all their users. Mike from CODE (Coalition for Open Digital Ecosystems - 13 members including Google, Opera, Qualcomm, Meta) asked why Apple doesn’t provide a system prompt to switch default browsers, and why they’ve placed so many onerous contractual requirements around launching an alternative engine.
[…]
The TLDR is users with “Age Restrictions” parental controls (11-15% of EU users) can only use Safari. All browsers - including Safari - get a 17+ rating on iOS. Which makes no sense, as the separate “Web Content Restrictions” manages all web content on iOS. […] I followed up asking Apple why they don’t allow web developers outside the EU to test 3rd party browser engines on iOS, bringing up their own point that EU iOS will “experience unique vulnerabilities and bugs”, and so it’s crucial that all web devs serving EU users can test the browser engines currently unique to it, to not put them and their users at a disadvantage compared to Safari.
Apple apparently accused multiple groups who have nothing to do with Spotify of receiving funding from them.
Something which was very hypocritical of Apple is that, despite making a lot of noise about some of their competitors being in the room, and insisting on all questions having a person and organisation, there were a lot of people attending who were paid to be there by Apple. Last year the EC did an investigation into this after the workshop, found there were a lot of hidden links, and so said that this year everybody had to disclose if a gatekeeper or other relevant party funded them. Unfortunately though it wasn’t always enforced. The most notable example of a pro-Apple group was the App Association
[…]
John brought up data portability, how Apple Photos doesn’t do proper photo export - except with Google Photos, and how it doesn’t allow users to choose which cloud provider they want to store their data with.
Previously:
- EU App Store Tiers and Core Technology Commission
- Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules
- Critical Warning for External Purchases in App Store
- Court Orders Apple to Comply With Anti-Steering Injunction
- EU Fines Apple and Meta Over DMA Violations
- Apple Denies Evidence of Hiding Browser Choice Setting
- iOS 18: Browser Choice and Default App Controls in EU
- iPadOS Also a Digital Gatekeeper in EU
- iOS 17.4 Changes PWAs to Shortcuts in EU
- DMA Compliance: Alternative Browser Engines
- DMA Gatekeepers Designated
- Funding The App Association (ACT)
- Open Web Advocacy
- Transferring iCloud Photos
Update (2025-07-14): Saagar Jha (via Jeff Johnson):
I attended the workshop remotely (one of my questions is in the recording, if you watched it) and IMO it was mostly a waste of time. I didn’t even stick around past the App Store section. Partly because it was daytime CEST but mostly because the format was awful. Apple would spend half the time talking about how the EU was forcing them to make their OS worse and then the EC thought it was a good idea to make Q&A a batched thing so Apple could just talk for five minutes about none of the questions instead of actually being forced to answer anything. I was thinking the EC would ask questions like why nobody actually used the provisions that Apple so generously provided third party developers (obviously, because Apple designed them to be unworkable) but they mostly just stayed silent and let the Apple lawyers talk the entire time :(
1 Comment RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
I mean, part of the founding myth of Apple is how they love to spend money on disregarding laws.
I'm talking about the company name and the whole Sosumi thing.
