Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
EU Apple

Apple Challenges EU Order To Open iOS To Rivals (reuters.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the fighting-back dept.
Apple has filed an appeal with the European Union's General Court in Luxembourg challenging the bloc's order requiring greater iOS interoperability with rival companies' products under the Digital Markets Act. The EU executive in March directed Apple to make its mobile operating system more compatible with competitors' apps, headphones, and virtual reality headsets by granting developers and device makers access to system components typically reserved for Apple's own products.

Apple contends the requirements threaten its seamless user experience while creating security risks, noting that companies have already requested access to sensitive user data including notification content and complete WiFi network histories. The company faces potential fines of up to 10% of its worldwide annual revenue if found in violation of the DMA's interoperability rules designed to curb Big Tech market power.

Apple Challenges EU Order To Open iOS To Rivals More | Reply

Apple Challenges EU Order To Open iOS To Rivals

Comments Filter:

  • why is that? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Monday June 02, 2025 @12:28PM (#65422415)

    "Apple contends the requirements threaten its seamless user experience while creating security risks..."

    Why is that Apple? Are you not good enough to create a secure, level playing field? Your programmers don't know enough? You have to conceal information from 3rd parties because your interfaces are insecure? Or is it because you know 3rd party products will be better than yours? And what is this "seamless user experience" anyway? Is that when every purchase of the user goes through Apple?

    • Re:why is that? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Monday June 02, 2025 @12:43PM (#65422457) Homepage Journal

      The Apple brand includes the idea that the security and privacy of its products and services are higher than rivals. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter; this is how Apple bills itself out and this is believed by many Apple users.

      Well, it's pretty clear that if Apple starts handing over low-level control to non-Apple providers, it can't keep those promises. Any kind of privacy guarantee Apple might make is null the instant some third party can get at the user data. Same goes for security. That is how I understand their argument, at least, without looking any deeper into it than the article summary.

      It is outright obvious that Apple would prefer that customers buy everything from it, and nothing from its competitors, so of course they are going to say whatever they think they need to say to protect this (whether it's true or not). Equally obvious is the fact that most people would prefer to have the choice. So, rather than say "we can't do that because of security and privacy," they should just have some disclosures that state that their promises do not extend to the use if third party components.

      Apple still won't like that, but it seems reasonable to me. The alternative is a level of vendor lock-in that is harmful to consumers.

      • The Apple brand includes the idea that the security and privacy of its products and services are higher than rivals.

        Those who believe that aren't forced to install any non-Apple application or buy any non-Apple device.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unrtst ( 777550 )

        While in an ideal scenario, I support the goals of this EU directive, I kinda think Apple should treat this threat like some are treating the trump tariffs. Eg. EU requires Apple pay 10% of profits UNLESS..... OK, then everyone in the EU gets charged 10% more and just continue as normal. That's the product they have and the price they're selling it; If the EU wants to impose some penalty on their users, go for it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by taustin ( 171655 )

          According to the summary, it won't be "everyone in the EU" getting charged 10% more, it will be "everyone in the world," or "everyone in the EU" being charged a lot more than 10% more. (Estimates are that between 1/4 and 1/3 of their total revenue comes from the EU. To offset 10% of the total worldwide revenue with EU sales only, they'd have to charge 40-50% more. Which would be a real wakeup call to consumers in the EU, without a doubt.)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by unrtst ( 777550 )

            Yeah! Whatever the reciprocal is, charge them for the privilege of using stuff they are so against that they're fining them for it. It'll hurt everyone, but whatever I guess.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rmav ( 1149097 )

          Yes but it is 10% of global revenue, not just 10% of the revenue in Europe.

          • Revenue they have no right to impound or include in the calculation, as that means they are trying to legislate for the entire damn world. I'd put all the extra fees on EU consumers. Let them deal with the consequences.

      • Re:why is that? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Monday June 02, 2025 @01:03PM (#65422545)
        Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.

        Imagine you're running a 4-star restaurant. Your provide good service, charge high prices, and your customers expect a good experience when they show up. Your entire business model is built on quality and, yes, a certain level of exclusivity. The customers don't want to be bothered by the riffraff while they're at your establishment.

        The city government decides to mandate that you include a 5-dollar dinner on the menu, and demands that you allow any homeless person to get a table for dinner. When you complain that it'll wreck your reputation, the city shrugs its shoulders and says "just post a sign on the front door that you're not responsible for any bad behavior from the homeless guys, that'll fix the problem".

        Reasonable, right? No. You'll take them to court, fight it tooth and nail, and utilize every trick in the book. Which is exactly what Apple is doing.

        This sort of thing would be appropriate if Apple was a monopoly, which is it not, despite what the Apple haters claim. There are real, legit alternatives. One of them starts with "A" and ends with "D". China is working very hard at building their own alternative to serve their billion-person market and would like to export it as well.

        • This.

          You donâ(TM)t like a walled garden - use the competition. I like being able to know that if a device works with Apple, that Apple has given them limitations that prevent them from outright stealing data.

          If you donâ(TM)t want that, buy from the competition. Android controls the majority of EU market alreadty

          • This.

            You donâ(TM)t like a walled garden - use the competition. I like being able to know that if a device works with Apple, that Apple has given them limitations that prevent them from outright stealing data.

            If you donâ(TM)t want that, buy from the competition. Android controls the majority of EU market alreadty

            This.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sosume ( 680416 )

          That's a false equivalency. Each user has their own walled garden.

          A better equivalence would be a gated community with a an extremely strict HOA managed by Tesla, and it allows home owners only to drive Tesla cars, have solarcity solar panels, internet by starlink and AI from Grok.
          Now the local government is demanding that the HOA allows home owners to buy other brands as well. And the HOA responds that thais against safety and uniformity.

          • In your hypothetical there would also have to be a ton of other places a person could live, for basically the same cost, and they are choosing to live in the Tesla neighborhood because they prefer it that way. That might not be for me, but I'm hardly going to force my preference on you.

        • Imagine you're running a 4-star restaurant. Your provide good service, charge high prices, [...] The city government decides to mandate that you include a 5-dollar dinner on the menu,.

          In a previous city I was living in, the city mandated some private residences to host disfavoured people that the social services sent them. (It was not 4-star but it better than average.) I can imagine the city paid them a rent at a regulated price slightly below market.

          and demands that you allow any homeless person to get a table for dinner.

          I think that part is already law. If your business is open to the public, then you must accept the public. If you want more than minimum standards e.g. "no short no service" then you register as a "private club" rather than "open to the pub

          • I don't think you need to be a private club to post "no shoes no service" or require diners wear a jacket.

            • I don't think you need to be a private club to post "no shoes no service" or require diners wear a jacket.

              I meant: "no shoes no service" is the baseline that you can demand; if you want significantly more, then you need a be private club. I guess you can try demanding a jacket, it probably works unless a local charity sues for discrimination.

              • Lots of places have dress codes, especially restaurants and malls.

              • Okay, I think you're talking about discrimination in public accommodation but just have some of it mixed up. You need to be a private club if you want to exclude people on the basis of things like sex or ancestry (i.e. you have to be Irish to join the AoH, Catholic to join the KofC...), yes. You don't need to be a private club to exclude people based on dress or conduct.

                A private club could come up with an excuse to exclude a homeless person, but you're right that most establishments could not exclude s

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          That's a bullshit comparison, as it is exactly the opposite of this situation. In your scenario, someone is forced to provide products and services. What's being demanded by the EU is alternatives to products and services provided by Apple.

          • That's a bullshit comparison, as it is exactly the opposite of this situation. In your scenario, someone is forced to provide products and services. What's being demanded by the EU is alternatives to products and services provided by Apple.

            How do you get THAT?!?

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by karmawarrior ( 311177 )

          This is probably the single most obnoxious analogy you could have made. Leaving aside no government would do this, the sneering contempt you have for the homeless and programs designed help them drips out of every word.

          You need to rethink your life.

          • And unless the moderator of my comment also moderated the GP as off-topic too, it goes for the moderator that moderated my comment above too.

            What the fuck is wrong with you people?

        • Your analogy doesn't make sense.

          Apple customers are not being asked to allow other people to share their devices, nor to share the space in which those devices are being used. Nor is Apple being asked to offer its own product at a lower price.

          Apple is being asked to allow their customers to use third party components, should their customers choose to do so. Their customers remain free to avoid all such third-party tools, and stick with a purely-Apple setup, if they choose.

          Opening this up will not harm pur

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          A more accurate analogy would be requiring the restaurant to offer tap water along side its other beverages. That's actually a thing in much (all?) of the EU. You can get free tap water with your meal.

          The customer doesn't have to have it, and they can decide if the local tap water is safe for themselves.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.

          Imagine you're running a 4-star restaurant. Your provide good service, charge high prices, and your customers expect a good experience when they show up. Your entire business model is built on quality and, yes, a certain level of exclusivity. The customers don't want to be bothered by the riffraff while they're at your establishment.

          The city government decides to mandate that you include a 5-dollar dinner on the menu, and demands that you allow any homeless person to get a table for dinner. When you complain that it'll wreck your reputation, the city shrugs its shoulders and says "just post a sign on the front door that you're not responsible for any bad behavior from the homeless guys, that'll fix the problem".

          Reasonable, right? No. You'll take them to court, fight it tooth and nail, and utilize every trick in the book. Which is exactly what Apple is doing.

          This sort of thing would be appropriate if Apple was a monopoly, which is it not, despite what the Apple haters claim. There are real, legit alternatives. One of them starts with "A" and ends with "D". China is working very hard at building their own alternative to serve their billion-person market and would like to export it as well.

          Your analogy is completely wrong. Apple has no exclusivity. Anyone can get one. Completely different to a club or restaurant that maintains an exclusive clientele (which is entirely legal in the EU). A more apt analogy is that you run a supermarket that forces it's customers to only buy from your supermarket, measures preventing you from using a competing supermarket, even for the same brands is enforced. You're suing the government because they insist that people should have the right to shop where they

        • When there are only two restaurants in the entire world, I will accept your analogy. And I will agree that the city should indeed mandate a $5 menu item.

          In a world of millions of restaurants, there are no problems with having some of them being exclusive; however, their exclusivity is maintained merely by price. You are unable to discriminate against customers based on a large number of basic characteristics, such as race or sex.

          Your analogy is deeply flawed.

          • whoosh.

          • When there are only two restaurants in the entire world, I will accept your analogy. And I will agree that the city should indeed mandate a $5 menu item.

            In a world of millions of restaurants, there are no problems with having some of them being exclusive; however, their exclusivity is maintained merely by price. You are unable to discriminate against customers based on a large number of basic characteristics, such as race or sex.

            Your analogy is deeply flawed.

            Apple didn't create a world where only Apple and Android existed; "evolutionary" Market Forces did that all by themselves!

            Apple (and to a lesser extent, Google), are being punished for creating a Platform that enough people enjoy to sustain market viability.

            As long as there is a viable choice (and there is), government needs to stay the hell out!

      • Well, it's pretty clear that if Apple starts handing over low-level control to non-Apple providers, it can't keep those promises.

        If that's true, then Apple's platform is already insecure. Why? Because it's depending on security through obscurity. If you can only keep APIs secure by not allowing anyone to use them, then they are clearly insecure. And if your API's security depends on blocking third parties, then anyone who compromises one of your first party devices and has access to the API is going to have the opportunity to find its defects.

        I don't know if that's true or not. It's at least equally likely that Apple's security is av

        • If that's true, then Apple's platform is already insecure. Why? Because it's depending on security through obscurity. If you can only keep APIs secure by not allowing anyone to use them, then they are clearly insecure. And if your API's security depends on blocking third parties, then anyone who compromises one of your first party devices and has access to the API is going to have the opportunity to find its defects.

          You should already know that there is a large delta between designing an API, Protocol, Stack, etc. to work in an "assumed friendly" environment, where 100% of both sides of every Transaction, Call, etc, is 100% vetted and "assumed clean"; and one that is Designed from the ground-up to deal with a bunch of random bullshit, both innocent and malicious.

          This is not "Security Through Obscurity"; it is just an common Design expedient in systems Designed to favor tight-integration over "Openness" or "Standards Co

      • What about the consumer's right to choose a walled garden granting that it provides a more private, secure and reliable device? I had the choice when I last bought a new phone, and I picked an iPhone even though I would never buy an Apple computer. What I want from a phone and what I want from a computer are very different. I neither want nor need a phone where the software can access hardware however it wants. I thought I would prefer otherwise, but after using a smartphone for a while I realized I rea

        • What about the consumer's right to choose a walled garden granting that it provides a more private, secure and reliable device? I had the choice when I last bought a new phone, and I picked an iPhone even though I would never buy an Apple computer. What I want from a phone and what I want from a computer are very different. I neither want nor need a phone where the software can access hardware however it wants. I thought I would prefer otherwise, but after using a smartphone for a while I realized I really didn't. I rooted an iPhone, found that provided me with no practical benefit but plenty of practical risks, and that was that.

          Screw the EU, let Apple keep the ecosystem their users (including me) prefer.

          Exactly. And kudos for understanding the difference between a Smart Appliance, and a General Purpose Computer.

          But I'd still recommend giving their computers and OS a try. . . ;-)

    • You have to conceal information from 3rd parties because your interfaces are insecure?

      This is probably the biggest reason IMO. Look at past incidents, even recently, where even apple is aware of how badly written their shit is that they resorted to quietly deleting texts that contain an ampersand. That's just downright fucking sloppy.

      • Obfuscation is just one layer in a multi-layer security posture.

        It is very hard to crack a safe that you don't know is present. Hiding the safe improves the security of that safe.

        Suppose you break into a house. You want to be in and out in 8-10 minutes (the typical length of a home burglary according to the FBI). In which situation are you more likely to get away with cash?

        A). The cash is in a nightstand drawer.

        B). The cash is in a beautiful gun safe, sitting in the living room.

        C). The cash is in a gun safe

        • Obfuscation is just one layer in a multi-layer security posture.

          That's security through obscurity, which isn't what this is. This is more like securing your money by saying, "money is liable to getting stolen, so we'll just burn any money that we encounter."

          There is definitely value in using obscurity as just one layer in a multi-layer security posture.

          This is actually taking some words right out of my mouth because I've said exactly this and had other people here, who don't know shit about security but like to pretend they do, were giving me shit about it.

      • You have to conceal information from 3rd parties because your interfaces are insecure?

        This is probably the biggest reason IMO. Look at past incidents, even recently, where even apple is aware of how badly written their shit is that they resorted to quietly deleting texts that contain an ampersand. That's just downright fucking sloppy.

        That was just a badly-tested input sanitation case resulting from how an incorrectly-designed Function screwed-up the Input to another Function, resulting in the second Function discarding the Message without Raising an Error.

        A very typical sort of bug in that kind of Code; but one that definitely should have never made it through QA!!!

    • Who is good enough to create that "secure, level playing field"? MS isn't. Linux isn't. Google isn't... In fact, we know that nobody is because nobody has.

      I don't like how Apple does it, but iOS is still inherently more stable and secure than other platforms. I wouldn't accept a walled garden on a laptop or desktop, but I like that it is the case for my phone.

    • Get this...I use Facer (a utility to use different watch faces). NONE of their watch faces will tell me how much battery life is on my iPhone. Because Apple will only allow this on THEIR watches.

      How the hell is that a security issue???

  • apple could of been ok if the app store rules where not as bad as they got and now it's going to be FULL side loading.
    With no core fees

  • The only surprise would have been if Apple did not appeal (and accept the threat to its revenue model, which is what this is really about). The entire judiciary system is intentionally designed to deliberate and moving slow. And if you lose a battle, you try to push off the final reckoning for another day.

  • I mean, really, why the hell should Apple make their ecosystem more compatible with other companies' hardware? Why shouldn't those companies have to make their crap work with the Apple ecosystem? That aside, this sounds suspiciously like EU grift to me.

    • I mean, really, why the hell should Apple make their ecosystem more compatible with other companies' hardware? Why shouldn't those companies have to make their crap work with the Apple ecosystem? That aside, this sounds suspiciously like EU grift to me.

      Those companies are more than willing to make their "crap" work with the Apple eco-system - its just that in many cases Apple is actively preventing them from doing so.

      They're basically saying that if you make an external device that can interface with the phone, then other people need to be able to make similar devices without you locking them out. Just because you buy an Apple phone you shouldn't be forced to buy every other accessory from Apple.

    • Why shouldn't those companies have to make their crap work with the Apple ecosystem? That aside, this sounds suspiciously like EU grift to me.

      You can't put "that aside" because Apple is prohibiting those companies' "crap" working with Apple products. Remember when Microsoft used a secret API for Office, and the public API functions were often literally nothing but the secret API functions plus a delay loop? You should feel about this the same way you felt about that, except moreso — because this is the same thing, only worse.

  • If it's such a security risk to open those internal APIs, just eliminate them entirely. Make all the Apple applications work without them as well, and then everybody is on a level playing field without terrible security risks.

    If Apple really needs extra access to make add-on products work nicely, then the EU really does have a point. (And I assume that's the case.)

    • The items specifically called out in TFS are WiFi network lists and notification data. Things currently handled in the OS, and at least the notification data is very sensitive. The WiFi data is probably too.
      It's clearly not possible to eliminate notifications, at least w/o making iOS inferior vs Android's functionality.

      Consider the potential ramifications of there being a BonziBuddy re-skin for the home screen that intercepts all notifications and adds bouncing bananas... and also feeds back the notificatio

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        I was going to push back and say that those are things that Apple's own products also don't make use of (other than the iPhone itself), so excluding those from third party use isn't giving Apple an advantage in selling additional products, which is what I think the whole complaint is about. If Apple is using restricted APIs to sell additional stuff that works with iPhone, but competitors can't, I can see why that would be an issue the courts would be concerned about.

        So the "I was going to" was before I rea

        • I was going to push back and say that those are things that Apple's own products also don't make use of (other than the iPhone itself), so excluding those from third party use isn't giving Apple an advantage in selling additional products, which is what I think the whole complaint is about. If Apple is using restricted APIs to sell additional stuff that works with iPhone, but competitors can't, I can see why that would be an issue the courts would be concerned about.

          So the "I was going to" was before I realized that Apple does have just such a product: The Apple Watch. I haven't used one, but I expect it wants to work as an extension of the phone, so it would need to do many things that normally are only allowed to be done by the phone itself, including access to all notifications and sharing WiFi login data so it can also connect.

          So, yeah, that's an issue.

          No it is not.

          Are there other Phone OSes?

          Are there other SmartWatches?

          Problem Solved!!!

    • If it's such a security risk to open those internal APIs, just eliminate them entirely. Make all the Apple applications work without them as well, and then everybody is on a level playing field without terrible security risks.

      If Apple really needs extra access to make add-on products work nicely, then the EU really does have a point. (And I assume that's the case.)

      Now you're going to dictate how Apple Designs ITS OWN APPS?!?!?

      Sieg Fucking HEIL, Motherfucker!!!

      GTFO!

  • Is there any legitimate reason for this? When I go to a Chinese restaurant is it reasonable to demand Greek food? It isnâ(TM)t like Apple is a monopoly in any sense of the word in terms of smartphones in Europe. They are not only not the only game in town. They are not even the top dog. The only they have is an on average more wealthy clientele. That is what these companies are demanding access to. This is just another case of Europeans not being able to compete in the technology sector and this tryin

    • Is there any legitimate reason for this? When I go to a Chinese restaurant is it reasonable to demand Greek food? It isnâ(TM)t like Apple is a monopoly in any sense of the word in terms of smartphones in Europe. They are not only not the only game in town. They are not even the top dog. The only they have is an on average more wealthy clientele. That is what these companies are demanding access to. This is just another case of Europeans not being able to compete in the technology sector and this trying to siphon profits from American companies.

      Precisely.

  • Not a systems level programmer, but I've done some app dev; if I'm missing something and a sys programmer wants to clear it up, I'll be glad to know about it.

    Typically if I were building an app, there would be a set of core functions that create the underlying data model and necessary rules for the app to work. Then there would be an API layer for "user stories" that defines inputs and outputs for each specific activity that a user would be allowed to execute, and and on the other side of that would be the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Its well known that Safari and Webkit use (or have used) private undocumented OS APIs to do things that other apps don't get to do (there is a library in the Webkit source code called WebKitSystemInterface that exists solely as a wrapper around these private OS APIs, not sure if its still being used today or if they changed things)

      Back in the day Microsoft software such as Internet Explorer, Outlook, Office etc were alleged to be using private APIs that weren't documented in the SDK and Microsoft got in tro

      • Back in the day Microsoft software such as Internet Explorer, Outlook, Office etc were alleged to be using private APIs that weren't documented in the SDK and Microsoft got in trouble for it (Microsoft did eventually document a bunch of functions with "don't use this API" notices on them).

        Should Safari/WebKit (either on MacOS or iOS) get to make secret API calls that competitors don't get to make?

        Yeah, I remember that stuff with Microsoft... ! At the time it bugged me more for the security implications than the anti-trust stuff, though I wasn't shy about generally preferring the Linux model back then either.

        My gut reaction is the same here - if you've got a system level API that's too dangerous to expose to application developers at large, it seems like the last thing you should be doing is opening it to a web browser, even if it's your own developers working on the browser.

        My secondary reaction is

  • The iPhone is great hardware, you built a great smartphone, just one problem the software sucks, its locked down so users can not side load free open source software, users are locked in to your store where most software costs money or advertising supported, and I refuse to use either, at least android I can side load free open source apps and after spending a considerable amount of time comparing both android and iPhone I won't be buying another iphone because of what I mentioned in this comment,
    • Then you and I don't use our phones in at all the same way. There's nothing I'd want to side load on my phone, and nothing I want installed that isn't in the App Store. So, I keep my iPhone and you buy an Android. No big deal, no skin off either of our noses.

      Forcing Apple to be more like Google doesn't benefit either of us; and is skin off my nose.

      Let users pick, not EU bureaucrats.

    • The iPhone is great hardware, you built a great smartphone, just one problem the software sucks, its locked down so users can not side load free open source software, users are locked in to your store where most software costs money or advertising supported, and I refuse to use either, at least android I can side load free open source apps and after spending a considerable amount of time comparing both android and iPhone I won't be buying another iphone because of what I mentioned in this comment,

      If an iOS App is TRULY Open Source, as in an XCode Project Published on a Website, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking your Mac and Building and Installing your Self-Signed App onto YOUR iPhone.

      Nothing. No $99 Dev. License. No "Approval" Regime. Just you, XCode, and Your Brain.

      And yes, there are plenty of Source Code iOS Projects; most are Swift; some are Objective-C.

      Here's a good place to start:

      https://www.projectscouts.com/... [projectscouts.com]

      And before you whine about "needing a Mac", boo fucking hoo. Th

  • 10% of world wide revenue fine incoming for Apple.

    • 10% of world wide revenue fine incoming for Apple.

      For WHAT, Exactly?

      Making Long-Ago-Settled Design Decisions about Assumed Proprietary (not a dirty word!) technologies, protocols and features no one else had ever done before, or done as well???

      Excuse Apple all to Hell for not anticipating that they would be forced to hand over crucial competitive and potential security advantages that they Developed, simply because their Competition is too fucking stupid to come up with something even better!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania

Close