{"id":47975,"date":"2025-06-05T16:24:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-05T20:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=47975"},"modified":"2025-06-05T16:24:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-05T20:24:00","slug":"apple-appeals-eu-digital-markets-act-interoperability-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/06\/05\/apple-appeals-eu-digital-markets-act-interoperability-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Benjamin Mayo<\/a> (MacRumors<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Apple has appealed parts of the Digital Markets Act law citing user privacy concerns. Specifically, Apple is contesting the interoperability requirements<\/a> that say data like notification content and WiFi networks should be made available to third-parties.<\/p>\n

Apple says the DMA as written allows others to “access personal information that even Apple doesn’t see”. This is because features like notification rendering and WiFi network data are currently handled on-device and stored in an encrypted fashion, so Apple cannot see that stuff. However, the DMA does not necessarily require third-party agents who would be able to access this same data to commit to the same standards of privacy and security.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The implication is that, say, Garmin wants your personal information and Apple doesn’t. But I think Apple’s framing of this is all wrong. The companies don’t necessarily want your information either, and it’s not as if it would be shared without your consent. The real issue is that Apple is trying to lock people in by preventing them from even choosing<\/em> to share their own<\/em> data. If you could opt into sharing notifications of iMessages<\/em> with third-parties, it would “hand data-hungry companies sensitive information.” But, in contrast, if Apple by default backs up actual iMessages and attachments<\/em> to their server, not E2EE<\/em>, somehow that’s “even Apple doesn’t see”? I’m sure there are aspects of the EU requirements that merit criticism, but I have little sympathy given how disingenuous Apple is being.<\/p>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

To cite just one example, the Commission’s March ruling requires Apple to make AirDrop available to third-party devices, as though AirDrop was an open standard. (It also requires Apple to allow AirDrop to be replaced on iOS devices, like an interchangeable component, with third-party file sharing software.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

The part I saw was not saying that Apple has to open up AirDrop<\/em> but that it has to allow third parties to build their own<\/em> wireless fire transfer solutions and that they shouldn’t be put at an API disadvantage vs. AirDrop. As with Tile, I don’t really see how such a non-built-in system would get enough traction, so enabling AirDrop competitors hardly seems like it should be a priority, but I don’t see it as harmful, either. I want<\/em> to be able to install interesting third-party apps on my phone. “Something only Apple could do” should be about the amazing things that Apple can design and build, not about how it actively blocks others from competing and innovating.<\/p>\n\n

\n

The EC’s March mandate<\/a> basically says that third-party devices must be permitted to do everything Apple’s own devices do when it comes to communicating or interoperating with iPhones and iPads, even if that requires allowing those third-party companies to install and run system-level background processes with broad privileges on iOS. In fact, as Mayo alludes to above, in order to have the same capabilities as Apple’s own devices do, third-party system software extensions might need broader<\/em> privileges.<\/p>\n\n

I’ve long seen that there are two ways Apple can comply with this mandate, if the EU court declines Apple’s appeal. The first is what most people are thinking, and surely what the European Commission’s bureaucrats are thinking: that Apple will somehow make all third-party devices as capable as Apple’s own when it comes to pairing with and communicating with iPhones and iPads. (And that when Apple is set to unveil new devices, they’ll share the details with third parties in advance so they can do the same things.) The second, though, is that Apple will limit its own devices in the EU and only in the EU<\/em> to the same features available to third-party devices through open standards like Bluetooth. New features and entire devices will either come late, or never, to the EU.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Rui Carmo<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Considering I use [AirDrop] almost every day and that there are zero<\/em> alternatives that actually work (remember when we had to use Bluetooth?), I am hardly amused.<\/p>

I am even less<\/em> amused by the fact that the EU has pretty much ignored more widely rampant abuses (off the top of my head, the way TVs are sending out advertising data or the way ISPs do traffic shaping and<\/em> sell your data) while focusing on a feature that is actually useful and works well.<\/p>

<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n