EU Wants Apple To Open AirDrop and AirPlay To Android (9to5google.com) 47
The EU is pushing Apple to make iOS more interoperable with other platforms, requiring features like AirDrop and AirPlay to work seamlessly with Android and third-party devices, while also enabling background app functionality and cross-platform notifications. 9to5Google reports: A new document released (PDF) by the European Commission this week reveals a number of ways the EU wants Apple to change iOS and its features to be more interoperable with other platforms. There are some changes to iOS itself, such as opening up notifications to work on third-party smartwatches as they do with the Apple Watch. Similarly, the EU wants Apple to let iOS apps work in the background as Apple's first-party apps do, as this is a struggle of some apps, especially companion apps for accessories such as smartwatches (other than the Apple Watch, of course). But there are also some iOS features that the EU directly wants Apple to open up to other platforms, including Android. [...]
As our sister site 9to5Mac points out, Apple has responded (PDF) to this EU document, prominently criticizing the EU for putting out a mandate that "could expose your private information." Apple's document primarily focuses in on Meta, which the company says has made "more interoperability requests" than anyone else. Apple says that opening AirPlay to Meta would "[create] a new class of privacy and security issues, while giving them data about users homes." The EU is taking consultation on this case until January 9, 2025, and if Apple doesn't comply when the order is eventually put into effect, it could result in heavy fines.
As our sister site 9to5Mac points out, Apple has responded (PDF) to this EU document, prominently criticizing the EU for putting out a mandate that "could expose your private information." Apple's document primarily focuses in on Meta, which the company says has made "more interoperability requests" than anyone else. Apple says that opening AirPlay to Meta would "[create] a new class of privacy and security issues, while giving them data about users homes." The EU is taking consultation on this case until January 9, 2025, and if Apple doesn't comply when the order is eventually put into effect, it could result in heavy fines.
the security of our profits are at stake! (Score:2, Insightful)
the security of our profits are at stake!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Salaries for engineers tend to be a bit lower in the EU, and of course employers don't need to prove health insurance.
Just go the whole way, EU... (Score:4, Insightful)
EU, why not just go the whole way: declare every piece of of software must be usable on all hardware, and you can't have such a thing as platform-specific hardware, nor can you have platform-specific communications protocols, and you can't charge people for using those libraries/APIs/interfaces either because that would be "uncompetitive".
So you can't have Windows-only software, iOS-only software, Playstation-only software requiring Sony approval, Nintendo-only software, Tesla-only software, uh... Panasonic microwave-only software... and of course printer software (talk about gatekeeping!).... you can't have APIs that are available only to paying customers but must make them open to everything...
And why make it limited to software? Every hardware part should be compatible with every other hardware part, with completely open specifications. NVIDIA must publish the low-level interface to their chips so anyone can write drivers for them; anyone should be allowed to see the tech specs for Infineon automotive chips...anyone should be allowed to write device drivers for the cell modems, etc. etc.
I mean this would not be so bad if the EU said "you have to at least offer them for sale, but you can charge for them." But the EU seems to have this stance of "once a product is too popular, you're not allowed to make money on it any more, and in fact you have to lose money on it by continuing to support it for all possible competitors, too."
I just don't understand why something like AirDrop / AirPlay can't be a differentiator... why does it have to be open, when there are hundreds of other protocols that are open and are supported?
Re:Just go the whole way, EU... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't understand why something like AirDrop / AirPlay can't be a differentiator... why does it have to be open, when there are hundreds of other protocols that are open and are supported?
Because Apple has a history and current reality of giving itself an advantage that others cannot compete with. Per the TFS:
let iOS apps work in the background as Apple's first-party apps do, this is a struggle of some apps, especially companion apps for accessories such as smartwatches (other than the Apple Watch, of course)
Apple allows it's own offerings capabilities that others are not allowed, and then uses it's hardware to enforce those restrictions against the end user whom Apple claims "owns******" the device. This would be a non-issue if owning an iPhone meant you could install whatever OS you wanted on it like many other computing devices. But because Apple has to be special, that doesn't work, and gives Apple incentive to give itself advantages over others it wouldn't otherwise have.
The real takeaway from this should be: Locking down a device as the manufacturer, against the end user who purchases it, places a lot more scrutiny on your operations. You might get away with monopolistic / mafia style shakedowns of others using your devices at the beginning, but come a certain point, groups like the EU will crackdown on you. If that's not something you want to deal with, then either: Limit your market share to levels that don't take up a sizable majority, or have a means ready to go to give the end users back control of their purchases and wind down the shakedowns when you get too large.
Re:Just go the whole way, EU... (Score:4, Informative)
> and you can't have such a thing as platform-specific hardware
sure you can
> nor can you have platform-specific communications protocols
yep, and that should be a no-brainer.
> and you can't charge people for using those libraries/APIs/interfaces either because that would be "uncompetitive".
Sure you can, but you can't prevent someone reimplementing said APIs/Interfaces and using that, even on other platforms. See Google vs Oracla over Java.
> I just don't understand why something like AirDrop / AirPlay can't be a differentiator... why does it have to be open, when there are hundreds of other protocols that are open and are supported?
Because, for instance, iOS purposely doesn't support the obex file transfer protocol (known as bluetooth file transfer), making AirDrop the only way to directly transfer data between iOS devices.
As a developer myself, I wholeheartedly agree with the EU's requirements listed here. Not allowing iOS apps work in the background prevents everyone from writing something as "simple" as a standards complying email client. (because normal mail servers can't do push notifications, and IMAP IDLE requires a persistent TCP connection).
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest players get special treatment. Like monopolies do in the US.
Apple uses this exclusivity to distort the market. Google uses more open protocols, e.g. RCS, and Microsoft supports Linux and Mac.
Re: (Score:1)
this seems to limit Apple's market differentiation. Isn't that how any business is a business?
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't cheer for Microsoft. I absolutely prefer open standards. What I don't like is forcing people to make their standards open just because the company has some arbitrary total revenue or number of customers.
If companies don't want their standards to be open, then let the customers sort it out. Apple didn't get big because they forced people to buy their stuff. The "barriers to switch" away from Apple are there, but they aren't impossible. I mean, they are no less onerous than switching from say Pla
Re: (Score:2)
Mega-corporation but a victim (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this like Google, where it wanted Apple to buy Google's propriety messaging API.
If Apple doesn't want compatibility with Google/Garmin/etc devices, they don't have to. As long as Apple doesn't restrict access to the API, as Microsoft did.
It looks like Apple is playing favourites.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Apple doesn't restrict access to the API, as Microsoft did.
Apple *is* restricting API access. That's sort of the entire point. If you identify as a wrist mounted fruit you get more out of your iPhone then anything else wrist mounted. That was Garmin's specific complaint - they literally are not able to offer a competitive product to the Apple watch due vendor lock-in (and this kind of restriction runs afoul of not only the DMA but likely antitrust law too).
Step too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine people buying an Apple product on the basis that it has "AirDrop" or "AirPlay". I haven't seen Microsoft marketing a tablet based on having "SMB", or Google marketing the Pixel phone on that it has "Snooze". The EU could decide to regulate pure software services, but right now they seem to dedicate their resources in hardware compatibility rather than pure software.
* You might say that Microsoft uses technologies like OneDrive for customer lock-in, but the protocol is open enough for GPL licen
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to force Apple to open up AirPlay & AirDrop, then Microsoft should be forced to open up NTFS, SMB, DirectoryAuth and all the various tech they use to keep people locked into their ecosystem.
Microsoft does nothing whatsoever to prevent anyone from interoperating with them. I am using samba as a DC for Windows VM guests right now. There are lots of things wrong with Microsoft but that isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One that's impossible to reproduce without all the little quirks of Word.
It's like reverting back to the Internet Explorer era, when every page was subtly broken.
Re: (Score:2)
That spec is a joke. Microsoft doesn't know how Word works. That's why it keeps getting worse.
Re: Step too far (Score:2)
Last I checked you can download the specs for SMB from Microsoft and there has been at least one instance of a Microsoft engineer contributing code the the Samba project.
So unless something has changed all that networking stuff is open.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you could even force Google to open their Cast and Quickshare protocols.
Re:Step too far (Score:4, Informative)
Also, Microsoft has published a lot of their specs. [microsoft.com] And so has Google [google.com]. This is a good thing, and Apple seems to be the odd man out here.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with EU on the anti-competitive nature of the Apple AppStore, but this is a step too far. If they want to force Apple to open up AirPlay & AirDrop, then Microsoft should be forced to open up NTFS, SMB, DirectoryAuth and all the various tech they use to keep people locked into their ecosystem. Google should also be similarly forced to open up the Gmail API and not restrict features like “Snooze” to their own apps.
Erm, I've had no issues using the Microsoft ecosystem on Linux for years, almost decades now. In fact, you can thank the EU in large part for that by taking Microsoft to task for their anti-competitive practicies in the 90s. So effective was this and the DOJ's efforts (although they can't be counted on these days) that MS has all but given up on maintaining exclusivity with it's products.
The problem Apple has (and Microsoft was smacked down for in the 90s) is abusing a dominant market position in an anti
Screw that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only in the US, No one in Europe gives a shit about iMessage. They all use other services (WhatsApp being one of the most popular)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us that have bought into Apple‘s ecosystem, don’t want a cesspool of Meta or others implementations and poor policing. If this is going to be forced on Apple, I as a consumer would like an option to disallow outside ecosystem communications. Then the regulators can force what they want, and I can choose not to participate in the information stealing ecosystem that live outside of my investment choices.
So? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple says that opening AirPlay to Meta would "[create] a new class of privacy and security issues, while giving them data about users homes."
Give users granular control over permissions, teach them how to set those permissions, and warn them about the security and privacy dangers represented by third-party apps. Let them suffer the consequences of not heeding the warning. Now THAT would be a sign of real "courage", so I guess Apple won't go there.
Also, given that Apple sold its Chinese customers' privacy to Winnie the Pooh [nytimes.com], virtue-signalling about European customers' privacy seems more than a little disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
non-paywall link
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple says that opening AirPlay to Meta would "[create] a new class of privacy and security issues, while giving them data about users homes."
Give users granular control over permissions, teach them how to set those permissions, and warn them about the security and privacy dangers represented by third-party apps. Let them suffer the consequences of not heeding the warning. Now THAT would be a sign of real "courage", so I guess Apple won't go there.
Better yet, design the protocol correctly so that this isn't an issue.
AirPlay shouldn't need to "give them data about users' homes." It should just be a DNS service discovery record with the name of the TV set or whatever. Connecting should involve an initial handshake involving a device (TV) certificate signed by a trusted authority (presumably Apple), followed by a key exchange, and there should be no information transferred other than the name of the TV, which by virtue of the fact that there are *alre
Re: (Score:2)
I think Apple sees every bit of interoperability with other vendors' products and ecosystems as a lost revenue opportunity, and possibly even as lost converts. Like any company, they really want to own the whole pie.
As an aside, those interested in countering Apple fanboi arguments that iOS is logical, intuitive, and "just works", this Linus Tech Tips vid may be useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I think Apple sees every bit of interoperability with other vendors' products and ecosystems as a lost revenue opportunity, and possibly even as lost converts. Like any company, they really want to own the whole pie.
But they don't. They have zero interest in owning the whole pie. They only want to own the high-profit parts of the pie. Case in point, the market for 23-inch wall-mounted tablets is probably only thousands of units per year, or maybe tens of thousands. Apple will never be in that market, because at 0.1% of iPad sales volume, there's just no profit in doing it at prices that anyone can realistically afford. Only one platform truly has the potential to be able to do everything I could ever want to do, a
Re: (Score:2)
All good points - thanks. Any idea then of why Apple is so opposed to playing well with others?
Re: (Score:2)
All good points - thanks. Any idea then of why Apple is so opposed to playing well with others?
I think part of it is that they got popular and it went to their heads. Before the iPhone, Apple was way more involved in the standards process, open source, etc. than afterwards, as best I can tell. They still participate in standards bodies that they can co-opt for their benefit, but way less benevolently. The whole company basically went from "do the right thing for users and the money will follow" to "get the money and the users will follow".
I'm starting to see some bright spots — the shift bac
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Android doesn't support AirDrop, and I can't use an iOS device because Apple doesn't *make* 23-inch iPads for any amount of money. (And no, buying two iPad Pro 13" devices and putting them side by side for $2k+ isn't a realistic alternative to spending $400 for that Android tablet.) So in my case, the Apple users are getting a substandard experience because they can't be easily made compatible with Android.
Incompatibility doesn't benefit Apple. It hurts their users. What Apple sees as a competitive advantage, I see as a sh**ty user experience. And Apple really needs to relearn that.
(Posting AC to preserve Mods).
Bullshit.
Just use the Files App on the iPhone and the Finder on your Mac to shove the Files to your Android Tablet via SMB over WiFi.
Or use ftp.
Your Android Tablet does support at least one of those file-sharing standards, right?
FFS, You're manufacturing problems.
You're comparing a Waymo self-driving car to a stick-shift Ford Pinto here.
AirDrop is more than a simple file transfer protocol. It provides integration with Bluetooth and peer-to-peer Wi-Fi. Apple provides ways to do peer-to-peer Wi-Fi from apps, but unless something has changed recently, it works only with other Apple devices. So unless you have an infrastructure Wi-Fi network or one device has cell service with personal hotspot support so you can connect them together, things like SMB are non-starters
Re: (Score:2)
I guess in Windows, it still works through iTunes. On the Mac, iPhone management moved from iTunes into Finder five years ago (Catalina).
I'm not sure how else you would do it, though, other than perhaps SMB. It's not like Apple could plausibly expose the internal storage as a USB mass storage endpoint, because you can't realistically mount a single block storage volume from two operating systems simultaneously. Things would get hosed rather quickly if you tried to do that. And you probably don't want t
Good as long as (Score:1)
EU wants an iPhone (Score:1)
Smart move EU (Score:2)
Let's not fix our queues and e-gates at airports but let's make sure we can airdrop music and gifs between iphone and android, neither of which is made in EU. And let's also make everyone use usb chargers on phones but forget about electric cars using swappable battery packs that opel (and nissan?) developed 20 years ago because overloading grids at peak times with superchargers is cool. And let's forbid smoking everywhere but let the kids melt out their brains with booze and cheap drugs. Because we are EU
Run that by me again? (Score:2)