Tim Hardwick:
Normally, when an iPhone connects to a new Wi-Fi network, it automatically shares the network credentials with the paired Apple Watch. This allows the watch to connect to the same network independently – for example, when the iPhone isn’t nearby – without the user needing to enter the password manually.
The feature’s removal appears to be Apple’s response to the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) interoperability requirements, which Apple has publicly criticized on more than one occasion. Under the DMA, regulators want Apple to open iPhone Wi-Fi hardware access to third-party accessories by the end of 2025.
[…]
Apple has previously warned that complying with EU interoperability requirements could give “data-hungry companies” access to sensitive information, including notification content and complete Wi-Fi network histories.
It seems perfectly reasonable that if I have a third-party watch I should be able to opt into having my phone share Wi-Fi info with it. You can debate whether mandating this is the proper role of government, but the status quo is clearly anti-competitive and bad for the user experience. I’m open to hearing a story where Apple’s position makes sense, but so far it just seems like FUD to me. What is the argument, exactly? That Fitbit, which already has its own GPS, is going to sell your access point–based location history? That Facebook is going to trick you into granting access to their app even though they have no corresponding device?
Amy Worrall:
Of course, what they mean is “Apple refuses to let third party watches share known wifi connections, so they’d rather cut off their nose to spite their face.”
Nico Reese:
At this point I don’t know where Apple will draw the line if they now even touch existing features, albeit not a very big one. I just can’t fathom how leadership still cannot see that they lost.
Previously:
Antitrust Apple Watch Digital Markets Act (DMA) European Union iOS iOS 26 Legal Privacy Strategy Tax watchOS 26 Wi-Fi
Apple (9to5Mac, MacRumors, Reddit):
Next month, Live Translation on AirPods will expand to the EU, making face-to-face conversations easier by helping users communicate even if they don’t speak the same language.
[…]
Live Translation on AirPods is available in English, French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional Mandarin), Japanese, and Korean when using AirPods Pro 3, AirPods Pro 2, or AirPods 4 with ANC paired with an Apple Intelligence-enabled iPhone running the latest software. Live Translation on AirPods was delayed for users in the EU due to the additional engineering work needed to comply with the requirements of the Digital Markets Act.
So what happened here? What was this extra engineering work? Back in September, Apple said:
For example, we designed Live Translation so that our users’ conversations stay private — they’re processed on device and are never accessible to Apple — and our teams are doing additional engineering work to make sure they won’t be exposed to other companies or developers either.
But it doesn’t sound like Apple has opened up Live Translation to third-party Bluetooth devices or to third-party apps. Does the DMA not require that? Or is Apple actually doing that but deliberately left it out of the announcement?
The other main theory for the delay was that Apple had not yet shown the regulators how the feature complied with the GDPR. But would that require “additional engineering work”? Apple was cagey before but now specifically blames the DMA, not the GDPR.
Based only on a plain reading of the public statements above, the logical conclusion is that the initial version of Live Translation had privacy flaws, which the EU forced Apple to address before shipping in that region. That would be a very interesting story and completely at odds with Apple’s framing that the EU’s demands would reduce privacy.
There are some other possibilities. Maybe the feature just wasn’t ready before. Maybe Apple created a false conflict to drum up anti-DMA sentiment. Maybe the EU caved and let Apple ship the feature without changes—though that doesn’t explain the additional engineering. All of Apple’s communication about this feature in the EU seems designed to obscure rather than elucidate, so who knows?
Nick Heer:
If Apple wants to be petty and weird about the DMA in its European press releases, I guess that is its prerogative, though I will note it is less snippy about other regulatory hurdles. Still, I cannot imagine a delay of what will amount to three-ish months will be particularly memorable for many users by this time next year.
Previously:
AirPods Antitrust Apple Intelligence Digital Markets Act (DMA) European Union GDPR iOS iOS 26 Legal Natural Language Translation Privacy
Sean Hollister (PDF, Hacker News, Slashdot):
Just when we thought Epic v. Google might be over, just one Supreme Court rejection away from a complete victory for Epic, both sides have agreed to settle Tuesday evening.
[…]
Now, instead, Google is agreeing to reduce its standard fee to 20 percent or 9 percent, depending on the kind of transaction and when an app was first installed. It’s agreeing to create a new program in the very next version of Android where alternative app stores can register with Google and (theoretically) become first-class citizens that users can easily install. And it appears to be agreeing to offer “Registered App Stores” and lower fees around the world, not just in the US, lasting through June 2032 — six and a half years instead of just three.
[…]
The details also seem to be somewhat tailored to the needs of a game developer like Epic Games. Google can charge 20 percent for an in-app purchase that provides “more than a de minimis gameplay advantage,” for example, or 9 percent if the purchase does not.
[…]
If Judge Donato approves the settlement and these revisions, it sounds like it could also resolve one of Epic’s biggest arguments against the big app stores since day one: the friction and “scare screens” that Epic alleged keep users from sideloading alternative app stores.
Juli Clover:
Google agreed not to enter into agreements that would see apps launch "first or exclusively" on Google Play, and it will not require an app to provide the same features on Google Play that it does on another app store. Developers are also free to communicate with customers about cheaper prices available outside of the Google Play Store.
Tim Sweeney:
Google has made an awesome proposal, subject to court approval, to open up Android in the US Epic v Google case and settle our disputes. It genuinely doubles down on Android’s original vision as an open platform to streamline competing store installs globally, reduce service fees for developers on Google Play, and enable third-party in-app and web payments.
Sarah Perez:
In a post on X, Sameer Samat, president of the Android Ecosystem at Google, wrote that the company’s proposed changes “focus on expanding developer choice and flexibility, lowering fees, and encouraging more competition all while keeping users safe.”
Manton Reece:
Epic’s lawsuits were derided by many, years ago, but there’s no question now on how consequential their approach has been.
John Voorhees:
What does this mean for Apple and its App Store skirmishes with regulators around the world? Nothing technically; however, contextually, if the settlement is implemented, it should add to the pressure on Apple to open the App Store more widely in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Previously:
Android Antitrust Epic Games Google Google Play Store Lawsuit Legal
Nassim Khadem (via Diego Barros):
Microsoft has apologised to customers and said it will refund them, after the consumer watchdog alleged the tech giant misled about 2.7 million Australians over subscription costs so they would remain on more expensive plans.
[…]
Announcing the court action last week, the consumer watchdog slammed Microsoft for the conduct, alleging it “deliberately hid” a subscription option from Australian customers and said it would be seeking a penalty that would deter similar behaviour from other firms.
[…]
Following the integration of Microsoft’s AI feature, Copilot, the company increased the annual subscription price of its Microsoft 365 personal plan by 45 per cent from $109 to $159.
[…]
The ACCC alleged that since October 31, 2024, Microsoft had told these subscribers with auto-renewal enabled that to maintain their subscription, they “must accept the integration of Copilot and pay higher prices for their plan, or, alternatively, cancel their subscription”.
Simon Sharwood:
Your correspondent, who has a personal account for M365, tried to find info about Classic mode by re-subscribing to the service. I saw dialog boxes reading, “I don’t want my subscription,” and “I want to keep my benefits”, but no info about a Classic version.
That’s a classic “dark pattern” – a deliberately confusing or complex process that vendors use to steer customers towards the things they want them to buy, instead of presenting a comprehensive menu of choices.
[…]
Microsoft also sent its January price rise advice to subscribers in Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. We’ve asked if the company plans to issue apologies in those nations, too, but haven’t received a response at the time of writing.
Previously:
App Subscriptions Artificial Intelligence Australia Copilot AI Dark Patterns Lawsuit Legal Mac Mac App macOS 15 Sequoia Microsoft Microsoft Office
