32
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

Apple was ordered by EU antitrust regulators today to open up its closed ecosystem to rivals, with the latter spelling out details on how to go about it in line with the bloc's landmark rules and where non-compliance could lead to an investigation and fines.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] x00z@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

"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," added Apple.

LOL. Europeans wanted this. Rivals just means third party apps. So people can actually do with their device what the hell they want to.

[-] Jakule17@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee

[-] InfiniteHench@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Apple, laying on a couch, head propped up with a seasonally colorful pillow from IKEA: “They just don’t understand the immense pressure I’m under…”

[-] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who don't have to play by the same rules,

You mean the features you rip off from Samsung and Google each year?

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

I love living in the EU

[-] Eideen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Connected 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). 

As a result, connected devices of all brands will work better on iPhones. Device manufacturers will have new opportunities to bring innovative products to the market, improving the user experience for consumers based in Europe.

The measures ensure that this innovation takes place in full respect of users’ privacy and security as well as the integrity of Apple’s operating systems.

Effective process for interoperability requests 

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. 

Developers will benefit from a fast and fair handling of their interoperability requests. The measures will accelerate their ability to offer a wider choice to European consumers of innovative services and hardware that interoperate with iPhones and iPads.

Source https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-provides-guidance-under-digital-markets-act-facilitate-development-innovative-products-2025-03-19_en

[-] vermaterc@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Can someone explain to me, a person that did not have any Apple device ever, what do they mean by:

easier device set-up (e.g. pairing).

So you could not pair non-apple device with your Apple device? And seriously no smartwatch could work with iPhone other than Apple Watch?

[-] Eideen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

The paring between apple devices are much easier. Put it next to each other, turn it on , and you get a pop up notification.

[-] Eideen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Poorly written article but it does end with a correction that “Spotify has not opted in to using the required APIs”.

While I have no way of knowing who to blame here, I see Spotify trying to blame Apple rather than talk about the api claim. If they have an objection to that api, let’s meet there, a little closer to reality

[-] Eideen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

I believe that only apply to the HomePod

Although some third-party music services can stream directly from Apple’s HomePod, many major streamers, including Spotify, never adopted the necessary API. Instead, users have to use AirPlay to play songs from Spotify — though, a workaround in iOS 17 made this process a little easier by allowing users to ask Siri to start an AirPlay session.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah but that still makes no sense.

I have Spotify and lost that easy volume control capability when this issue first surfaced. However I have never used a HomePod. Whatever changed has nothing to do with my non-existent HomePod

Maybe this is unrelated but there was also a change to HomeKit where we had to accept some sort of architectural update having to do with my non-existent HomePod. I can easily believe a common ground of API changes and that Spotify didn’t want to update

[-] Eideen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Am only replying to you talking about some unrelated to the issue at hand. That is what they trying to say. Apple removes a feature that we all used, and only mad it only available for apple products.

[-] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody who gives a damn about artists being paid fairly and not swindled out of their already miniscule pay should use spotify.

[-] vermaterc@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

If it wasn't for Spotify, I wouldn't know most of the artists I listen to now. They might receive little money from me listening to them, but it's still more than they would receive if I didn't knew about their existence.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Security thru ubiquity :) I like it

[-] Tuxman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Cool…cool… but what about game consoles?

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think Apple makes any game consoles.

[-] Xatolos@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

This tired whataboutism... Really? Just stop.

It's the same answer as always, the iPhone/iPad was marketed and sold as a "do all" device ("IPhone, there's an app for that" and the iPads "What's a PC?"). Game consoles are sold as a limited functionality device. These aren't the same at all.

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 3 points 2 weeks ago

"It's not the same because it's different, stop trying to change things"

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I rarely find myself defending giant corporations but after having looked at the list it seems I am going to have to.

Some of the things do make sense, like allowing other smartwatches the same notification access as Apple Watches. But others like the audio switching seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how that even works.

I keep trying to figure out though what exactly Apple has a monopoly in… they don’t have the largest segment of any market they are in so it makes it seem like the EU is complaining that they have a monopoly on iPhones… which… yes… but that is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on the Switch.

Edit: I seem to have failed to express the nuance I wanted to. None the less there seem to be some issues with the demands here and I think it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

I disagree. Apple should not force other companies' products to work in an inferior way to their own. They already tried to force us all onto wireless headphones by removing the jack. They need to at least allow the 3rd party ones access to the same pairing and multihoming tech they use for their own. Openness is never a bad thing IMO.

[-] DJDarren@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

As someone who has recently moved away from an iPhone, while still having much of the rest of the Apple ecosystem in place: for me it's things like AirPlay and AirDrop. There are alternatives to AirDrop, but as I have an Apple TV, it would super handy to be able to AirPlay to it from my Pixel. As it stands, there appears to be literally no way to achieve this.

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

They have a trust. As in the term “antitrust”. They control a significant part of multiple inter-dependent markets and have unethically used that control to block competition and harm the free market.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They don't have a monopoly, but they do have anticompetetive practices

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago

While I appreciate semantic clarity as much as anybody else I’m not sure it changes my question in this case.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Really? Anticompetitive practices don't require you to have a monopoly over any specific area though. The answer to "what do they have a monopoly in" is "they don't."

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I didn’t say that. What I said was if you change “monopoly” for “anticompetitive practices” my question still stands. “How is it different from how Nintendo acts with the Switch?” Keeping in mind that I had already conceded that better smartwatch access made sense.

[-] 0xD@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago

Because Apple is a Gatekeeper. With their control over the entire operating system and which apps and firmware you're allowed to install ("ecosystem"), they have a lot more economic power over other companies and people than Nintendo.

The Switch is a game console, smart phones are the portal to modern society.

[-] MorphiusFaydal@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

So the only difference is one is a phone, and the other a gaming device? Because Nintendo js a gatekeeper in exactly the same way Apple is. Nintendo controls the entire operating system and which apps you're allowed to install on the Switch. You're going to have expand on how Apple has economic power over other companies and people for me.

[-] 0xD@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Go read up on the Digital Markets Act, everything will be spelled out for you.

Do you really not grasp the fundamental difference in magnitude between controlling a store where a limited amount of media is sold versus a store for applications of everyday life for basically everyone?

[-] airglow@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Nintendo restricting game and app access on the Switch is also anticompetitive. However, Apple's anticompetitive restrictions on iOS are a higher-priority problem because smartphones are essential communication devices while video game consoles are not.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

It does require that though, at least in the US. Previous antitrust actions have made it clear that a monopoly is the distinction. If you don’t control the market it’s acceptable to use all sort of sketchy practices to grow your market share. It’s only after you’ve succeeded enough to control the market that these same behaviors are “anti trust”, unfairly locking out competition.

[-] Enkrod@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

at least in the US

And there's your answer

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
32 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68349 readers
1945 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS