iOS 26.2 to Remove iPhone–Apple Watch Wi-Fi Sync in EU

Apple is sharing wifi networks info — the names AND the passwords — between iPhone and Apple Watch, right? So I assume that's what this is about.

A quick scenario:

I could create an app that harvests wifi names AND passwords. I wouldn't need a device to trick folks into do this, but a device would make it easier. Let's call it "free wifi passwords, everywhere" A social networks for sharing wifi.

Not secure at all but seems really useful, right? I know lots of people who'd install and grant permissions for that.

Or, say I have an "AI device that I wear" that I am sharing all that info with. That company goes out of business, and some unscrupulous company buys up that database that has everyone's wifi/password data. Very nice!

So there's a couple vectors to ponder.

@else Yes, it's called user agency. I fail to see how Apple infantilizing its users is the good alternative.

Also, your scenarios don't really hold the scary prepositions you think they do. Users already share their Wifi passwords with robotic vacuums, smart fridges and what not. China already has all WiFi passwords by virtue of owning Roborock and Dreame. Likewise, if a "free wifi db" app is created, that demands you share the Wifi password with it to get access to the database, users will gladly provide the passwords. just like they've done with similar apps for contacts, location, etc. So what exactly has Apple protected other than their wearables business.

Patiently waiting to hear Gruber's quality take on this.

Apple’s daring lapdog no doubt typing feverishly as we all sit here and wait.

@Someone else In theory, you would need an entitlement to prompt for access, and Apple wouldn’t grant it to such an app.

Regarding passwords, I thought the general guideline has long been that Wi-Fi shouldn’t be treated as secure, anyway. Only rely on HTTPS. Within my house, there are probably already more than 2 dozen devices that have my password. In public, most networks don’t have passwords, anyway. I think that's why Apple describes the potential danger being in “network histories,” e.g. tracking you from McDonald’s to Starbucks to the mall.

I do not find it convincing that no one should have access to their own Wi-Fi data because some hypothetical company might go out of business and sell it.

All of this seems less dangerous to me than apps that have access to the Contacts database, which has long been the case, and was exploited multiple times, yet it’s still allowed (as it should be).

guess Apple’s engineering really is slipping- they somehow figure out a way to preserve privacy whenever it benefits them, but something that might benefit users outside the walled garden? Guess that’s just too difficult.

Apple:

> 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.

This does not make any sense at all. This is the same Apple that shows a prompt if an app wants access to a user's address book. How is showing a similar prompt for Wi-Fi credential sharing when pairing a smart watch any different?

Apple prefers throwing their own users under the bus over to add a bit of interoperability. I guess everything for squeezing out the last pennies and to make the EU/EC look bad. Unfortunately for Apple, this just makes them look bad among most (European) Apple users that I know. All these little paper cuts that they put in out of spite makes the platform less attractive.

The Wifi credential sharing will come back very soon. There is a new API that is scheduled for release in iOS 26.2 that will facilitate the configuration of accessories through companion-apps. I'm sure Apple will also implement it for the Apple Watch as quickly as possible:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/WiFiInfrastructure

I believe this will also be available to other products, not only watches. For now it will be EU only though.

Is there really a way Apple could design a system that would verify the legitimacy of every single Android device made in the world requesting that the iPhone share the Wifi password for a user?

Asking for a fiend. ;)

I know this is not a popular opinion here, but a company should not be required to make their products interoperable with other companies' products. It may be in their best interest to do so, and it may be the "right thing to do", but it should not be required. Consumers/developers/etc who don't like that are free to choose another platform.

Also, I don't really get all the hate on Gruber. He writes his opinions, just like the rest of us are doing here. Well thought out counters to that should be based on more than just "fanboy" as a premise.

@Dan I noticed that too and was about to post that link here as well...

Those defending Apple must now explain why Apple is creating this API if sharing credentials is so scary and dangerous.

I think the main thing we're going to see is that the Apple Watch now has to ask to share credentials in the same way any other device will instead of getting automatic access to the credentials.

I also do think governments should start pushing big platform creators to use standards based systems to ensure interoperability and consumer freedom and prevent vendor lock in as much as possible. Interoperable cloud storage APIs will ensure vendors can't lock you into their cloud storage platform, repeat for all of the services a person might want and suddenly the vendor lock in is much weaker and means they will actually have to compete harder to keep customers instead of just being able to rely on lock-in effects.
Vendors should also be required to adopt standards for data export so that I can get my health data out if I want it, its my data, it should belong to me and be usable in a standard way.

@ Léo, Michael,

I believe Apple Watch proactively syncs all your wifi passwords, just like your iPhone does to your Mac. It never asks for permission to join any particular wifi, right?

So this is very different from giving a single wifi/pw to your robot vacuum. Facebook, third party apps, would get all your wifi passwords at once.

And re user agency: there are limits on what we allow scammers to do, and what we criminalize. Is that taking away user agency?

So my friend gives out my wifi password. Is that cool? Where’s my agency in this scenario?

Was I happy when my friends gave out my personal info by syncing all their contacts with Facebook? No. No, I was not.

There’s a reason why Apple cracked down/limited by default on this type of unlimited sharing of entire databases of contacts, photos, calendars.

If Apple is creating an api for individual wifi password sharing between devices… then there’s your answer. The current system is insecure, but the new one is coming soon, but it’s not ready.

So pull the insecure one from the EU until the new one is released rather than allow wholesale privacy leakage.

@Dan Thanks. I think I remember that API from WWDC, but I didn’t realize it would be EU-only. It looks like it doesn’t even work if your account is in the EU but you travel with your accessory to another country. They really want to block competition for Apple Watch.

@Niall Why would Apple need to verify the device? Wouldn’t that be up to the user granting permission?

@DJ It doesn’t apply to your company, unless it’s one of the small number of designated gatekeepers. The issue is that in most of the cases we’ve been discussing there isn’t really another platform. Yes, please no picking on Gruber (or anyone else). Stick to the arguments being made.

@Benjamin Yes, this pattern has played out several times now. It’s interesting that Apple would confirm that the automatic syncing is being disabled without mentioning that syncing will still be available with confirmation. Trying to score a PR victory at the expense of confusing users?

@Someone else The API lets you choose which ones to share, so it wouldn’t have to be all at once. What’s confusing is that they are pulling the old system and releasing the new one in the same iOS release without acknowledging the latter.

"a company should not be required to make their products interoperable with other companies' products"

Why not?

The arguments for why they should be required are apparent, but what makes you say that they should not?

@Plume Because it's *their* company. They shouldn't be forced to be interoperable by a government. Why not leave it to market pressure?

Having to manually approve each wifi network on my watch sounds like it’d be quite annoying.

@Plume,

Should any program you write be required to be compatible with Microsoft Office? That’s why not. It’s a burden on the manufacturer and potentially on the vast majority of consumers as well (in added complexity and risk). Should companies above a certain size be required to do so? Maybe?

Arguably, buying Apple stuff = buying into a somewhat-happily-closed-ecosystem — if you know what you’re buying into (and what you paid a premium to do)… that’s user agency — so for these people who bought into a low-risk ecosystem, this could be a negative.

The ‘it just works’ and ‘you can’t make a mistake’ (when’s the last time we heard that)… requiring interoperability arguably removes that last part and perhaps the prior as well.

The real issue is that when Apple was small, this was an academic exercise. But when Apple is now so large that other social (not technical) factors come into play like ‘competition’ aka ‘local businesses being able to survive vs the largest company in the world who also has a locked-down customer base and we can’t sell to them/exploit them’ and ‘repairs’…. that’s where conflicting stuff makes it all messy.

@Someone else The docs say: “People can authorize different levels of sharing, from automatic network sharing to manual approval for each network.” So it sounds like you can choose whether you want to be annoyed.

For Microsoft Office, the government pressure was from the other side, encouraging them to use open XML formats rather than proprietary binary ones. Nobody else had to be compatible with Office, but this made it easier for competing products to interoperate if they wanted to.

@DJ I think you are missing the point of these "gatekeeper" designations. Yes, it's "their" company, but it's users' personal data that is stuck in "their" company, and thus, for better or worse, people are pretty much stuck with Apple. The amount of switchers is very, very low. Even if people can take all their personal data, which they cannot, they still lose access to all the application they bought over the years, all their music, all their videos purchased, their podcast playing history, etc. So switching is nothing but a mirage, especially for people who have been with an ecosystem for decades.

So regulator has weighted a "their" company's rights vs the public rights, and has decided that the public's right to a better experience outweighs the "their" multi-trillion company's right to maximize profits. This is becoming increasingly true world-wide.

"Because it's *their* company"

Apple is partly *my* company, and I want it regulated. But either way, that doesn't answer my question. It's just a different way of phrasing your point — one that is entirely irrelevant to me in my role as Apple's customer.

So what are the advantages of *not* forcing them to allow interoperability, and how do these advantages measure up to the advantages of regulation?

"Should any program you write be required to be compatible with Microsoft Office?"

You've got it backward. I absolutely think that companies in a position like Microsoft should be forced to allow other programs to be compatible with its formats.

"That’s why not"

If you guys can't formulate an actual argument for your position, why are you so aggressively defending it?

"so for these people who bought into a low-risk ecosystem, this could be a negative"

Nobody is forcing you, as Apple's customer, to do something you would rather not do.

Do we know that this is a real requirement from the EU? Apple tends to interpret EU directives in the most broad and inconvenient way possible as part of their ongoing PR war against EU regulators.

@Nate There was a PDF from the EU here (“first set of measures”), but the link no longer seems to work.

Migrating your data in and out of a platform is separate, imo. And I agree that I should be able to export my data from a given platform so that I can import it on another. That's different than telling a company that has developed a widget for their platform that they now have to allow someone else to ride their coattails and connect their copycat widget.

Buying apps for a platform is like buying windows for your house. You get them to make living in your house better for you, but if you move you don't get to take the windows with you. The other stuff varies: You can buy a portable window AC for your house, or get central air. You have to decide which one you value more, and recognize the tradeoffs with each.

And, yes, I understand the "gatekeeper" designations. I just don't agree with them. :-)

@DJ One could argue that Apple didn’t develop a widget for its platform. It used private APIs that are not part of the platform. There was a similar issue during the Microsoft antitrust case. A potential defense is that the APIs needed time to be stabilized, but Apple Watch is now more than 10 years old.

Here’s a thought experiment to separate the issue of private APIs: suppose iPhone did not allow pairing any third-party Bluetooth headphones, only AirPods. Should that be allowed, “because one could always switch to Android”? And Google could do the same with its Pixel Buds, because unhappy customers could always switch to iOS?

Why should Apple even have the power to "allow" other companies to create add-one for its platform?

We've gotten so used to the status quo that we forget how insane it really is. It used to be the case that I, as the person who bought a computing device, got to decide what third-party things I allowed to connect to my device. Now it's Apple. That's complete BS.

To me it comes back to the app store and notarization. I don't think Apple should HAVE to develop public API's. The problem is Apple can and will block you from creating your app if you use private API's. There is no option for reverse engineering. Apple prevents you from using your device the way you want. And if you do find a way to get around the app store and/or notarization then they will send their impressive legal team after you.

Apple is a monopoly/duopoly and they use the app store and notarization to prevent competition. Hence the regulation.

@Tsai: In the case of third-party headphones, those predate... computers, even. So it was in Apple's/Google's best interest to support them, and that carried forward as wireless options became available. Apple included wired headphones with early iPhones just to check a box. They *could* pull that all back and say that you can only use Apple-branded headphones with Apple devices, but it would not be in their best interest to do so. It should not be illegal for them to do it though.

With the Apple Watch, it's not about it being a mature "widget". After investing 10+ years developing it, why should Apple then be forced to open it up to third party watches? Even if you discount the stated privacy risks in sharing user data out like that, why should third parties be able to just waltz in and build on Apple's work?

@Tsai, Oldham: The platform includes the hardware, OS, and first-party APIs. Apps, devices, and services sit on top of that. Some of the APIs are private, and some are public. The private APIs may be private for any number of reasons, or no reason at all, and there are published rules that say not to use them. You can reverse engineer them for yourself if you like, but you can't submit anything that uses any of that to the App Store, and you won't get support from Apple if your personal-use hack breaks in the future.

@Plume: Because it's *their* platform. Even in the "old days", I can remember hacking together some code to access internal data structures in VMS, but all of that was undocumented (private), and the code would sometimes break if DEC changed things in later releases. Of course, systems in those days were pretty much made for general purpose computing. And it may have been easier to move your data around, but people also weren't as concerned about privacy. Remember grades/schedules being posted with SSNs on college hallway walls?

@Plume

Likewise, no one is forcing you to buy into Apple's 'safe and easy to use' ecosystem of products or to become Apple's customer.

When we buy iPhones, we consumers -- especially tech people -- kinda know what we're getting into, right? A save and well-populated app store. No one is advertising side loading or 3rd party marketplaces or compatibility with this and that hardware from some other company.

Apple uses open standards when it benefits it (USB), creates its own when it needs something more (MagSafe) or wants to keep things closed (advertising ID access) or can't be bothered (Apple Notes). That goes for bluetooth headphones, but also things like import/export from Apple Notes, etc. It uses standards when it makes sense -- Apple Pages to/from MS Word, etc.

That said: It's not that difficult to switch platforms -- saying this is about switching platforms... I dunno about that. Most people leave Android to switch to iOS… and don't go back. Not so much because of lock-in but because it's a marginally better/seamless experience.

Also:
- While you are customers of Apple, and Apple values privacy and protecting/shielding/(perhaps locking in, but I don't really believe that) its users...
- The EU has every right to protect its society… to regulate and manage its markets, in this example. The market is not owned by any individual, but it's rather a societal contract that allows the market to exist, and society can change that contract (not unlike Apple changing it's dev store rules)

But as Apple recently said: there's a tension and even contradiction between parts of the EU's goals and laws (as Apple (and I) see it) : individual privacy and protection vs fostering a 'healthy business marketplace'. USA leans towards the latter.

EU citizens and the companies affected by those laws are gonna have to figure that part out .

@Someone else: I feel like government officials are more influenced by company lobbyists than the will of the people. Those officials almost certainly don't come up with these ideas on their own. The majority of consumers really don't care about these things.

@DJ It sounds like you’re saying that the current level of interoperability is sort of grandfathered in because of a historical accident but that in general anything that came along after Apple’s product is fair game for them to restrict. I guess we’re lucky that keyboards and USB have already been invented or else we’d be stuck with only flat keyboards and paying Apple SSD prices for external storage?

Back to Wi-Fi, you present sort of a catch-22. No one’s asking to “waltz in” and use Apple’s syncing system. But they’re not able to build their own because iOS is keeping the user data locked up. So the alternative is that to make a watch with Wi-Fi access you have to develop an entire alternative mobile phone and ecosystem.

Are you also against the GDPR regulations that users should be able to export their data for portability?

@DJ

Yup. Different parts of the EU's laws are surely/seem to be lobbied by/are protecting different groups:
- DMA (digital markets act) -- lobbied by/protecting the local "smaller" businesses (i.e. not two of biggest market cap companies in the world)... it's right there in the name of the law.
- GDPR -- lobbied by/protecting individual privacy of all EU residents

So not surprising there are conflicts when it comes to putting those laws into practice... they're very different groups (and one group wants to eat the other). In the USA, the first group has already eaten the second -- Apple being one of the better ones in this aspect.

"We" will have to force US business to cough up our individual privacy since they've already ingested ours ('we' because some of us commenters are probably also in the first group)

@Michael,

Apple is not immune to market forces, but it's also in the business of differentiation (as most companies are) -- and some of that differentiation doesn't rely on industry standard stuff or interoperability.

People gripe about paying for extra Apple's SSD storage… but seems like most people will still pay that higher rate for that sweet, sweet factory Apple memory. (does Apple have some special sauce here to make it worth more? Maybe? but the memory chip itself is generic commodity — it's probably the controller that's is/was special.)

So the tension here is where does Apple's differentiation and user-choice conflict with other societal issues... Is buying Apple stuff consumer-initiated buying into the closed ecosystem or is it because they were forced into doing so?

Apple's reputation for individual safety and privacy vs individual user's post-purchase choice and other business who want to access Apple's customer-base. But again, didn't we all buy knowing Apple's ecosystem was pretty closed? We (used to) hear folks saying all the time that they bought because of safety, and Apple definitely markets privacy.

Finally, one other alternative (Apple would say, and I'd agree) is to buy an Android phone or to make a separate tech stack/ecosystem. Markets work best for consumers when there are 3+ competitors (though capitalism tends to gravitate towards monopolies/duopolies). Too bad Palm and Microsoft bowed out and no one else has been brave enough/capitalized enough to build a new competitor (cough OpenAI).

@Someone else The last time I looked into this, it seemed like the “special SSD sauce” was pretty much a myth. People pay for Apple SSDs because Apple mostly sells notebooks and external storage is clunky. Also, macOS doesn’t work reliably with an external boot drive when you sleep the Mac. So, basically, it’s a captive audience.

Your last point kind of echoes Steve Jobs’s comment about having to wait for the end of the Dark Age because there was no way to improve things with Windows dominant, but eventually it would be supplanted by something else entirely. I’d like to think we can do better than that.

"Because it's *their* platform"

You're not making an argument for why it is better to allow Apple to do this; you're just asserting that it is their right. But that point makes no sense, because governments restrict the behaviors of companies all the time when doing so benefits society.

At any rate, when I buy a device, it is *MY* device, so by your own logic, I should be allowed to connect to it whatever I want, and run any code on it that I want.

"no one is forcing you to buy into Apple's 'safe and easy to use' ecosystem of products or to become Apple's customer"

Actually, they are. I need to have a bank account. In order to have a bank account, I need to own a phone that runs my bank's app. There are two platforms that allow that, Apple's and Google's. They both infringe on my rights.

So I have no choice but to pick a platform that infringes on my rights. Therefore, government intervention becomes mandatory.

If there were a dozen different, viable platforms all competing for users, and Apple was just one choice among many, you would have a point. But that's not the case.

"other business who want to access Apple's customer-base"

This is a genuinely bonkers thing to say. I'm not "a customer base" that companies want to "access." I'm a human being who wishes to make my own decisions. Apple has no right to restrict who I am allowed to buy products from.

It's difficult for me to understand how people can make that argument and actually base it on "Apple's rights." When did the rights of the world's largest multinational corporations become more important than the rights of actual human beings?

I don't think the 'people knew what they were getting into' when buying an Apple device argument makes any sense whatsoever. First off, while we computer touchers are aware of the differences between the platforms, that's certainly far from true for most people. And thinking about the smartwatch thing, did Apple (or the retailer you bought your iPhone from) at any point say 'this phone will only interoperate fully with Apple Watches, not any other smartwatch'? I suspect they didn't.

And even if every iPhone came with a big sticker saying 'Apple Watch only' (and presumably many more stickers for all the other cases where it's Apple or nothing), switching mobile platforms comes with enormous costs and challenges that make it unlikely that all but the most dedicated will do it. That's why regulators in the EU, UK, and elsewhere are treating both iOS and Android as having significant power to distort the market though self-preferencing. Just look at how many people bought AirPods because the pairing UX was nicer. That's not because other headphone manufacturers didn't want to invest in making this nicer, but because only Apple could do that, and they chose to make it exclusive to their own devices.

@Plume
You own the device, not the platform that runs it.
You can modify the hardware or even install different software, but you can't demand that Apple open its code, infrastructure, or collaborate with you on those ventures. Ownership of a product doesn't give you authority over its creator's intellectual property.
Apple's ecosystem is a private framework, built on its own design and maintained at its own expense. You enter it voluntarily because it offers something of value, like security, reliability, and integration. It's a choice. The fact that most people prefer iOS or Android doesn't mean they are forced to use them, but that the alternatives have failed to convince them they are better or more worthwhile.
Regulation exists to prevent abuse, not to punish success. Forcing Apple to open its system just because it's effective would destroy the very principle of property rights and innovation that made it possible in the first place.

True freedom isn't the power to bend someone else's creation to your will, but the ability to decide what you support and what you reject.

@Alex
People know exactly what they're buying. Apple's ecosystem has been closed, integrated and branded around that very idea for over a decade. Nobody buys an iPhone thinking it's a generic Android alternative, they buy it precisely because it's Apple. No company is obligated to guarantee interoperability with every third-party device on the planet. Interoperability is a business choice, not a moral obligation. Apple designs for end to end consistency, and that exclusivity is part of what consumers knowingly pay for.
The fact that switching platforms comes with a cost doesn't prove market abuse. The same thing happens with cars, consoles or software suites. The more integrated a system is, the higher the switching cost. "Self-preferencing" is just another term for a company optimizing its own ecosystem, something every major platform does.

So, when you mention AirPods, Apple's advantage isn't that it blocks others, but that it doesn't depend on them. The integration tools aren't a privilege denied to competitors, they're the result of owning the entire stack that others didn't bother to build. Every company faces the same decision. Create its own infrastructure or rely on someone else's. Apple chose the harder path and is reaping the rewards. Calling this "anti-competitive" confuses dependency with unfairness. If a company invests in, designs and maintains its own technology, it has every right to leverage that advantage. That's the essence of competition, to produce something others can't easily replicate, not to level the playing field for every participant.

"You own the device, not the platform that runs it."

That's a distinction without a difference if the platform prevents me from using the device as I want.

"you can't demand that Apple open its code"

Actually, I can, and I do.

"You enter it voluntarily"

No, I don't. See above.

"the ability to decide what you support and what you reject"

We do not have this, which is why we require government intervention.

"Interoperability is a business choice, not a moral obligation"

Societies can make it an obligation if they choose to.

I still don't see a single argument for why it's better to allow Apple to do this. All the arguments rely on Apple's "rights," for example, quoting Andy W: "It has every right to leverage that advantage."

But Apple is a corporation. It has no inalienable human rights. It only has the rights that societies grant it. So the question is, why is it better if we allow Apple to prevent us from running any code we choose to run on our devices? Why is it better if we allow Apple to prevent us from using any accessory we choose to buy?

If you want to make the case for Apple's behavior, you can't just claim that they have the right to do what they want. That's assuming the conclusion. You need to make the case that Apple should have that right.

@Plume.,

“Actually, they are. I need to have a bank account. In order to have a bank account, I need to own a phone that runs my bank's app. There are two platforms that allow that, Apple's and Google's. They both infringe on my rights.

So I have no choice but to pick a platform that infringes on my rights. Therefore, government intervention becomes mandatory.

If there were a dozen different, viable platforms all competing for users, and Apple was just one choice among many, you would have a point. But that's not the case.’

Web site on any number of non-smartphone devices, go to the bank, use an ATM, use the phone — there are usually plenty of ways to access banks.

I don’t think consumers are starving for choice. You can use a dumb phone. But you can certainly choose a more open smartphone than Apple if you choose to.

Your argument makes more sense if you replace yourself in the examples with “tech businesses”. They have basically 3 choices. Web, iOS, Android right now. Most tech companies don’t do in-person stuff, and when they do, they usually require a smartphone.

That’s why DMA exists — it’s for businesses, not consumers (which is why it’s effects are so weird and confusing for consumers)

Also, you own your device, you don’t own the software or its services, and you have a limited license to its software.

“We” however, own the ‘marketplace’ — we can define it by legislating what’s allowed, what’s not, what’s taxed, what’s subsidized, what can be inherited. (however, Americans are happy to ignorantly/lazily let big business and billionaires define that market for us

We can even decide that copyright and intellectual property should be nationalized or nullified. That kind of thing usually triggers an American invasion or coup attempt and puppet government, but it’s certainly in the power of humanity to decide it and make it happen. It’d be curious what the downstream effects are.

Anyway, DMA is a light version of this. The question is how much to insist without killing the goose that lays the golden egg (I.e. capitalism and the expectation/demand of business that effort will be rewarded at a certain multiple of investment)

"Web site on any number of non-smartphone devices, go to the bank, use an ATM, use the phone — there are usually plenty of ways to access banks."

None of these work in most banks nowadays. For example, I can't log into my bank without a 2FA app, which only runs on phones that Google or Apple officially bless.

But even so, what you're suggesting is obviously ridiculous. "Just not using a smartphone" isn't an option anymore unless you intend to become a friendless, moneyless, undocumented hermit.

"Most tech companies don’t do in-person stuff, and when they do, they usually require a smartphone."

Well, yeah.

"Also, you own your device, you don’t own the software or its services, and you have a limited license to its software. "

Again: That's a distinction without a difference if the platform prevents me from using the device as I want.

"Distinction without a difference" is something people throw around when they want that to be true, whether or not it actually is. There is a vast difference between owning a physical device and having a license to use the software that runs on it. We can enumerate those if you like, but I think it's pretty obvious.

Back to Tsai: It's not about the use of some legacy connectivity method or legacy peripherals, it's about what happens once the connection is made. In Apple's case, they developed the iPhone as a platform (device plus OS and APIs). They then developed (for example) the Apple Watch and tightly integrated that with the iPhone. Some of that integration is done using private APIs and proprietary knowledge of how things work inside the iPhone platform. They spent a lot of time and money developing all of that. Are you saying that they should now be required to open all of that up for anyone to use, for free?

And having a right to your own data doesn't necessarily mean that a company has to make that data available live. Being able to export it in some reasonable format would meet that burden of "rights". Again, the company may decide that it's in their best interest to provide API access to the live data, but that should be up to them.

@DJ It's not about the use of some legacy connectivity method or legacy peripherals, it's about what happens once the connection is made.

In this case, yes. My point is that the same arguments about it being Apple’s platform so they can do whatever they want would logically also apply to pre-existing devices and protocols—leading to what I think are absurd results.

Are you saying that they should now be required to open all of that up for anyone to use, for free?

No, that’s the false choice that Apple was presenting. On the one hand, they won’t let anyone else build their own sync system, citing privacy. On the other hand, they won’t let anyone else use Apple’s secure sync system, because that would be “forcing us to give away our new features for free.” But it sounds like they are working on an API, so maybe the first option will be possible.

I still think it’s unclear exactly what’s happening. Why are they removing the feature if they’re adding the API? Or is the feature still there, and it just requires opting in now?

"Distinction without a difference" is something people throw around when they want that to be true, whether or not it actually is."

I explained why it is a distinction without a difference, while you only assert that it is not.

"There is a vast difference between owning a physical device and having a license to use the software that runs on it"

And that difference is completely irrelevant because, once again, you are talking about Apple's rights rather than explaining how granting Apple these rights makes things better for actual human beings.

You're making a category mistake. You're making assertions like "that should be up to them" without explaining why leaving it to them is better for society, which is the actual question. If you believe that we're better off if Apple is allowed to use its market dominance to suppress competition and limit what its customers can do, then make the argument that supports that belief.

The closest anyone has come to actually making an argument is Someone else, who wrote, "...demand of business that effort will be rewarded at a certain multiple of investment." I'm assuming the argument here is that Apple will stop making new products like AirPods or the Apple Watch if it can't use its market power to prevent other companies from competing with them. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous claim (if I understand it correctly), but at least it's an argument. If anything, competition will force Apple to improve its products.

Another argument I've seen is that Apple's devices will become too dangerous or complicated if they have to support third-party products. However, there's no reason to believe that using third-party devices has to be less secure or more complex than using Apple's unless Apple intentionally makes it so.

@Andy W

> People know exactly what they're buying. Apple's ecosystem has been closed, integrated and branded around that very idea for over a decade.

I've never seen Apple advertising the iPhone as 'closed'. Of course they're not going to say 'Buy the iPhone if you want exactly one real choice of smartwatch'. So I completely disagree that everybody knows what they're getting into. I know more than one person who switched phones and then reluctantly bought an Apple Watch later once they realised that their smart watches were now much less useful due to Apple's self preferencing.

> The fact that switching platforms comes with a cost doesn't prove market abuse. The same thing happens with cars, consoles or software suites. The more integrated a system is, the higher the switching cost. "Self-preferencing" is just another term for a company optimizing its own ecosystem, something every major platform does.

But if the real outcome is that everyone gets exactly one chance in their lifetime to pick a phone platform (which we can see from the switcher numbers is pretty much what happens), then what impetus is there to improve the platform and to compete on price? Even if we accept the argument that 'everyone knows what they're getting into' with iPhones, then it means nobody can change their minds later, ever, even if their priorities change. It'd be as if buying a Volvo meant I could only put Volvo-branded shopping bags and suitcases in the boot, and could only drive it on roads approved by Volvo. Obviously I'd never be able to choose to *not* buy a Volvo unless I was willing to pay to replace all my luggage and move house.

Even if they opened the APIs, the OS vendors have a huge advantage because the engineers who use them can walk down the hallway and talk to the ones implementing them. So really, Apple is getting off lightly here – there's a conceivable world where they'd be required to implement APIs as designed by regulators, or to firewall their teams from each other so that, say, watchOS is just another iOS hardware accessory developer.

Fundamentally, Apple and Google's privileged position of being the only OS vendors you can use and still participate in society will come with enhanced responsibility to that society. Because they were incapable of reading the writing on the wall, they're now stuck having to implement piecemeal solutions for each country and bloc with different rules. I think this was a huge strategic mistake that is absolutely costing Apple reputationally (and perhaps eventually financially) as they continue their truculent approach here.

Maybe I’m crazy… are people finding it that difficult to switch between android and Apple and back? Is that really the issue here?

Most accounts are internet and in the cloud already anyway.

These are all businesses that we're talking about. As a business, Apple is responsible to their shareholders (maximize shareholder value and all that). Their business model happens to be to provide user-friendly hardware, software, and services that are tightly integrated to make the user experience pleasant, seamless, and secure ("it just works"). You can argue to what level they succeed, but they've been pretty clear that those are their objectives. Part of all of that is to protect that ecosystem, since they don't want some yahoo to come in make things less secure, less stable, etc. And, of course, they want to drive sales to their own products and not their competitors (again, maximize shareholder value).

"As a business, Apple is responsible to their shareholders (maximize shareholder value and all that)."

DJ, you're now making an argument in favor of regulation, right? They're businesses, so they are accountable only to shareholders and the government. Shareholders only care about maximizing profits, so it's up to governments to ensure that corporations act in ways that at least vaguely align with the public interest.

I'm making the same argument that I have been making all along. I don't see how that favors regulation. It seems that most/all of this government intervention is being sought by third-party developers who want a piece of the Apple pie, serving their own interests and not so much the "public interest". There's nothing wrong with that per se, but Apple shouldn't be *required* to provide anything. They may choose to do so if it's in their best interest, meaning it will increase/improve customer engagement/satisfaction, and thus help to maximize shareholder value.

DJ, you're not making an argument; you're making an assertion:

"Apple shouldn't be *required* to provide anything"

Now you also need to make the argument *why* they shouldn't be required to provide anything. You can't just say "that's their right", because Apple is a corporation. It only has the rights that society grants it, and the question we are debating is which rights we should grant.

"They may choose to do so if it's in their best interest, meaning it will increase/improve customer engagement/satisfaction, and thus help to maximize shareholder value."

Exactly. Apple will *only* do what maximizes shareholder value, which is precisely the argument for regulation. So you are, in fact, making the argument for regulation.

If iOS 26.2 removes auto-sync in the EU but adds a permissioned API, that’s not “more secure,” it’s just Apple moving from silent self-preferencing to consent. Interop with user choice shouldn’t degrade UX.

@Alex By adding an API, Apple is creating a documented, sanctioned, supported method for access to the data. This *can* make it "more secure", and by publishing an API for it, it's then on Apple to make sure it does.

@Plume Like "distinction without a difference", saying that I'm arguing for regulation and punctuating it with "in fact" doesn't make it true. This isn't about "regulation" in the general sense, it's about new regulations that would change the way Apple does business.

DJ, if what I said is not true, then make an argument that contradicts what I said.