Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Apple

EU Orders Apple To Open Ecosystem To Rivals (reuters.com) 135

EU antitrust regulators ordered Apple on Wednesday to open its closed ecosystem to competitors, detailing how the company must comply with the bloc's Digital Markets Act or face potential fines. The European Commission's decision comes six months after initiating proceedings against the tech giant.

The first order requires Apple to grant rival smartphone, headphone and VR headset manufacturers access to its technology for seamless connectivity with Apple devices. A second order establishes specific processes for responding to app developers' interoperability requests. Apple criticized the decision, saying: "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe." EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera countered: "We are simply implementing the law." Non-compliance could trigger investigations resulting in fines up to 10% of Apple's global annual sales.

EU Orders Apple To Open Ecosystem To Rivals

Comments Filter:
  • So does this mean that pressing play on my keyboard will now launch Spotify instead of Apple Music, or what?

  • legit question... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:21PM (#65245569)

    I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?

    If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      under this logic, you'd still have Standard Oil, AT&T monopolies...
      • by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:35PM (#65245591)
        Or you can just use Android instead and load whatever you want onto the phone you own and paid for.
        • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @07:59PM (#65246119) Homepage

          You have misunderstood who is being protected here. This action isn't about the end user being able to load whatever software they want. The action is instead about Apple abusing its market dominance to keep competitors out of its ecosystem, or to charge developers abusive rates for access to its customers. The injured parties are the app developers who want to reach iPhone customers, but don't want to pay Apple's 30% commissions for everything they sell.

          • FIFTEEN PERCENT!!!

            Only fairly-successful Developers (over $1 million in annual App Sales) pay that 30 percent.

            Incessantly Chanting "OMG!!! Thirty Percent!!!1!11!!" is nothing more than The Big Lie.

      • by r0nc0 ( 566295 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:36PM (#65245603)
        Oh FFS - Apple is not a monopoly. You have many choices for phones, computers, etc.
        • Re:legit question... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @08:01PM (#65246121) Homepage

          This is true, but this antitrust protection is aimed at preventing Apple's abuse of other app developers. It's not about YOUR choice of phone. If an app developer wants to reach Apple customers, they must pay Apple's abusive fees, or else not participate in the marketplace.

          • If an app developer wants to reach Apple customers, they must pay Apple's abusive fees, or else not participate in the marketplace.

            How is this bad for the market? To me it would appear that "abusive fees" on the developers they rely upon to add value to their iProducts would be detrimental to their profits, and without profits they'd go out of business.

            If the best app developers can not or will not pay the fees to gain Apple users as users of their app then doesn't that hurt Apple for not having the same options of quality apps for their iProducts? I would expect such an activity to drive people to Apple competitors. Apple is a prov

            • There is no problem with Apple wanting to make a profit. The problem, from the perspective of antitrust law, is that Apple's dominant market position allows them to charge fees that are unreasonable. Unreasonable is defined as profits they would not be able to command in a competitive market. We can get a good idea of what a competitive rate is, by looking at other online store systems like Shopify, which charges https://www.shopify.com/retail... Apple's fee is literally 10x more. There is no way Apple can

            • I remember a lot of similar whine back when the EU mandated uniform USB chargers.

              "OOhhooohahhhgarrrhaa EU bad Oypple innuvashon vill be gone arrghghhghgh marghghghghh red tape shoshulizm arrghghgh whargarblll"

              Fast forward a few years, literally everything I have has a USB charging ports on everything that needs power, goes by with 2 mutiport USB chargers and 3 cables instead of lugging around a kilo of chargers and cables for every device.

              Has the "innovation" been "stifled"? Did the problems of the "whargar

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They don't have to be a monopoly, they just have to be distorting the market with their policies.

        • Apple is not a monopoly. You have many choices for phones

          You have two choices. Android and Apple. That's it.

      • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:46PM (#65245635)

        I don't think that's really comparable. Nor do I think GP is understanding correctly. They don't appear to be asking for technology transfers. To put it another way, they're saying if apple makes an icar, it has to be able to drive on regular roads, not just the iroad.

        • by cjeze ( 596987 )

          Upvote this comment

        • It's not about letting the iCar only drive on other roads. It's more like say Tesla having their remote app and being forced to allow anyone to make a remote app to talk to the car. Or allow anyone to write their own OS or software for the car.

          The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply. I mean, there are surely many companies out there capable of writing their own vehicle control software for a Tesla, or Ford, or GM or whoever, why shouldn't they be allowed to "access" the hard

          • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @05:58PM (#65245943)

            It's more like say Tesla having their remote app and being forced to allow anyone to make a remote app to talk to the car.

            In other words, a documented API specification. Why do you figure this a problem?

            Or allow anyone to write their own OS or software for the car.

            This doesn't appear to be part of the scope of what they're asking for. Why are you getting the idea that it is?

            The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply.

            And they're bullshit in this case, much like the same arguments against right to repair.

            • That was largely my point: why single out the tech companies, or make it depend on number of customers or whatever. If the principle is interoperability, just make the principle be interoperability.

          • The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply. I mean, there are surely many companies out there capable of writing their own vehicle control software for a Tesla, or Ford, or GM or whoever, why shouldn't they be allowed to "access" the hardware features of the vehicle?

            A better comparison might be John Deere.

        • Re:legit question... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @04:54PM (#65245793) Journal

          they're saying if apple makes an icar, it has to be able to drive on regular roads, not just the iroad.

          and that you can put any tire brand you want on it, not just iTires.

          • Don't the consumers deserve to get a choice in walled garden or multiple app stores?

            LOL, sorry I couldn't say that with a straight face. Most phone users are idiots and barely understand the one app store they already have. Two or more? That's crazy!

            So I suppose we must protect consumers from choice so as to protect them from themselves. Poor stupid consumers.

            Is Google getting this same treatment or have they already bowed down? Some of this just sounds like fleecing US tech for money. Did you notice the fi

    • Re:legit question... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:34PM (#65245589)

      They are called antitrust laws, they stop large organizations using their power to unduly influence the market. If you grow big enough you can effectively stifle any competition. Its effectively bulling on an industrial scale.

      • âoeStifling innovationâ. âoeBullying at an industrial scale.â

        This is exactly what the EU is doing telling a business how they must play with competitors.

        Apple is not a utility.

        There are other cell phone, computer, and VR headset makers out there. What specific âoetechnologyâ must Apple share?

        Developers can get developer accounts and write apps for the various platforms. They can purchase hardware, like we do if they want to build hardware to extend or interoperate with it.

        Wh

        • by Anonymous Coward

          posted from my iPhone

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Say you buy some Air Pod headphones, a few Air Tags. Then you drop your phone and need a new one, but decide you don't like the new iPhone. Problem is that they don't work very well with Android phones. You are locked in, with a hefty exit fee if you want out.

          Or maybe you are happy with your iPhone, but would prefer not to use iCloud. Unfortunately all other cloud apps don't work as well because iCloud has access to secret APIs and is exempt from the usual aggressive power management that prevents long back

      • From what I can find with a few quick searches, Apple doesn't even have 40% market share in Europe. I think it's rather difficult to claim they run afoul of antitrust regulations when they don't even control more than about a third of the market. As other posts have pointed out there are plenty of Android devices available for anyone who wants one. If some people prefer to live in a walled garden of their own volition then let them do so.
        • Antitrust regulations in Europe start applying above 10-15% market share. Formally the criterion is 50 million monthly users.

        • As other posts have pointed out there are plenty of Android devices available for anyone who wants one
          You are just an idiot, right?

          How the fuck does an Android phone access the users data in the Apple cloud?

          Oh it can't.

          The rule is not about the user buying hardware. It is about programmers and users being able to do what Apple can do. Can I write my own payment app? Sure. But it does not run. The API blocks the function calls.

          It has nothing to do with android versus apple. Or users buying phones. It is abou

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?

      The law of the land. [slashdot.org]

    • I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?

      If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?

      I'm surprised to find myself possibly in agreement with you. I hate Apple's products, UI, ecosystem, and lock-in, so their products aren't for me. At the same time, I've come to believe - tentatively - that they have the right to sell their locked-in, locked-down shit in a locked-down market. But I added the "possibly" and "tentatively" because there's an aspect of the smartphone market that really bothers me.

      I also believe that people should be able to choose TOTAL freedom over their operating system, apps

      • So I feel that some kind of legislative intervention is necessary, to force manufacturers and service providers to offer a freedom-honouring, privacy-honouring option to anyone who wants it.

        I don't see how the EU legislation does that. In fact, I would argue it does the opposite. What creates the demand for an alternative when the EU has declared they will step in and micromanage any mobile platform? For the most part their requirements will insist that every platform be the same. They want it to be a PC.

        The EU has the power to prop up a third platform that meets all of their specifications. They could put out an RFQ for a mobile platform that meets their specifications, contract it out, and t

      • Interesting idea. The "community version". If Apple was savvy, they would agree to X, then deliver whatever they want, yet claim it meets requirements, and slug it out in court. Its hard not be to that cynical.

        I agree in principle that regulation against abuse of position should be addressed in a just society. There are arguably other ways to do business through alliances and standards.
    • I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?

      If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?

      https://digital-markets-act.ec... [europa.eu]

    • A phone is a phone is a phone: is a computer.

      If I can write software for that computer, but can not use the GPS functionality, or the internet or NFC(near field communicator) - but Apple can: I have a big disadvantage. Of course this are only examples, for the lack of better ones.

      Point is that Apple has dozens of APIs that are kept secret, and are not available for random programmers like me. I mean: you could compile your code against them, but the APIs would reject your calls.

      Apple now has to open its OS/

    • This isn't going to change anything for people (probably most of them) who will still stick to Apple's walled garden, its just for people that want something outside that eco system. But developers should not be prevented from adding their better browsers etc to the store, its anti-competitive.

      Its always strange that people who laud capitalism don't seem to understand that lockins are not the open market.
  • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:21PM (#65245573) Homepage
    Frustrating as hell that this kind of regulation never happens in USA. Apple knows they have no "innovation" leg to stand on here.
  • Pot meet kettle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:32PM (#65245585) Homepage
    I love the quote "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape". It has been a while but the last time I remember releasing a product to work with both Android and iPhone that Apple made the process for developers slow and painful by creating a lot of red tape of their own. I don't know if that is still true, I avoid Apple product support as much as possible these days.
  • by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @03:42PM (#65245613) Journal

    Apple (via Tim Cook) back in 2017 [cnbc.com]:

    "[...] we follow the law wherever we do business"

    ... and today:

    "Today's decisions [that implement laws] wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe."

    Now, who didn't see this coming from Apple from that decision?

    • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @05:46PM (#65245909) Journal

      When's the last time Apple innovated something, anyway? AI-generated emoji schlock? A crappy notched screen that is always annoying? Crappy AI that nobody uses because the things that people might want (better Siri) are so shitty that they can't even ship it as a "beta"? Or maybe each version of macOS that is worse than the last one, and doesn't ever fix long-standing issues?

      No wait, that last one is a Microsoft "innovation" that debuted with Windows 8.

    • Following the law and being happy about it are entirely different things. Complaining about the law doesn't make him a hypocrite, nor does trying to obtain a favorable interpretation of the law in court.

  • Open Market (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 )
    Pro Open Market EU: Apple has to open up it's ecosystem to competitors, we won't allow monopolies Also Pro Open Market EU: Champagne can only be made in one part of France
    • Hey genius, why do you think they call it champagne?

    • Re:Open Market (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @04:21PM (#65245729) Journal

      Also Pro Open Market EU: Champagne can only be made in one part of France

      Alcoholic drinks labelled as 'Champagne' can only be made in one part of France - doesn't preclude a similar "sparkling wine" [wikipedia.org] from being produced anywhere else.

      I believe it's the same with Tequila.

    • by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      Have you ever purchased bourbon made in EU, UK, Japan or anywhere else in the world?

      • by sodul ( 833177 )

        Bourbon was (is) the name of the French Royal Family so it would be fair use for the French to make any Bourbon they like.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • Except for the trade laws that the US has signed with basically everyone saying that the alcoholic beverage titled "bourbon whiskey" must have these three properties:

          1. made with at least 51% corn in the mash
          2. aged in charred white oak barrels that have never been previously used
          3. must be distilled, aged, and bottled within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America

          See: 27 CFR 5.22 [cornell.edu] in the Code of Federal Regulations.

          • by sodul ( 833177 )

            I guess we could call it Bourbon Liquor ;-)

            I did not know the barrels were single use only. That explains why there is a market for rums aged in Bourbon barrels.

            All that talk of good things, got to be 5PM somewhere.

    • Yes, let's smack around the EU for having exclusivity to calling sparkling wine "champagne" all the while being fine with "bourbon" only being able to be produced in the US under the exact same reasoning, with the rest of the world free to create whiskey with a mash that is at least 51% corn, and aged in previously-unused charred white-oak barrels.

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      I don't understand why Americans have a problem with PDOs (i.e. the rule that says that Champagne can only be made in one part of France). It is exactly like a trademark, but for a region instead of a company. If anyone can make Champagne, anyone should be able to make Coca-Cola too.

      PDOs absolutely don't prevent you from making similar products, you just can't use the name. Again, just like trademarks. you can make your own cola, you just can't call it "Coca-Cola".

      In the case of Champagne, the generic name

  • ok apple will add an 0.50 euro fee per user for interoperability access.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      ok apple will add an 0.50 euro fee per user for interoperability access.

      ... thereby proving they're anti-competitive, justifying the regulation.

  • by kaatochacha ( 651922 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @04:25PM (#65245733)
    Europe could replace the iPhone with a local version? I suggest "Francophone"!
    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      Europe could replace the iPhone with a local version?

      Or just use Android instead.

      • Yay, so much choice...

        Once the EU kicks Apple out they'll need to go after the game consoles, TV manufacturers, car manufacturers, razor manufacturers, printer manufacturers, and so on and so on. It'll be wonderful to watch... from a distance.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          It'll be wonderful to watch... from a distance.

          And make sure you stay that distance, otherwise we'll kick your fuckin' asses.

        • * cars, razors, printers: not concerned here, the law in question is only about interoperability of digital services, not at all about hardware parts.
          * TV manufacturers: this law would apply if there existed a "Netflix TV" that would ONLY allow you to use Netflix as service provider (but there isn't such a thing, at least according to a quick search on internet).

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I'm all seriousness, the EU has companies like Nokia and Alcatel.

  • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2025 @04:39PM (#65245765)
    And accept the fact some people dont need daddy Apple to hold their hand and put a âoeJailbreakâ button in the Settings with a popup warning dialog, and once activated users can sideload apps from any source
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

      Apple never actually thought people needed a "daddy" to hold their hand. Their walled garden is about greed, nothing else.

      • Apple never actually thought people needed a "daddy" to hold their hand. Their walled garden is about greed, nothing else.

        As a user of Linux, Windows, and Apple products - wanna know what we think? We want a reasonably secure system where our devices integrate with each other seamlessly, and work when we use them.

        We want regular updates as needed. And people such as myself want Unix, because I spend a lot of time in terminal. and want terminal seamlessly integrated into our systems.

        And despite your belief that it is all about greed - funny how Apple runs its ecosystem like we think it should be run. And your idea that it

  • Apple built a marketplace, app devs want a free ride...... grant rival smartphone, headphone and VR headset manufacturers access to its technology for seamless connectivity with Apple devices.......ah NOPE ! That would open more hacking !
  • EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera countered: "We are simply implementing the law

    I was only following orders! EU saying the quiet part out loud. They demand total control.

    Personally, The EU will not stop until any company doing business in the EU will have to be nationalized.

    One thing for certain - they will not stop until that happens, and politicians write the software. We need a big player to exit the EU.

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...