[internetter]

56: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware

[Spivak]

That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't give themselves special private APIs to do things other apps can't or charge to access them.

Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.

[InsomniacL]

As an example,

Using 'Tile' trackers, ios pops a messages up every so often saying 'Tile' has been accessing the Location API from IOS.

But Apple introduced a competing product, 'AirTags', and this doesn't have the same (annoying) regular popup.

Does this mean that Apple's Product will no longer be allowed to use a special Location API bypassing the security/barriers their competitors have?

I understand the need for security, but Apple has no incentive to remove friction from the process when it negatively impacts their competitors and doesn't impact them at all.

[iamacyborg]

That’s strange considering I get those location access popups for the Apple Weather app on my iphone.

[FireBeyond]

The only reason you do is to negate negative commentary or performance around battery usage, and the increased drain of always allowed location.

[Spivak]

It seems RAW they could go a few directions:

1. They make AirTags follow the same rules as every other app.

2. They introduce a new toggle that users can grant to Tile that gives them the same abilities as AirTags.

3. They introduce a new entitlement that can be granted to developers who apply for that give them the access that AirTags has.

They've taken #3 for both alternative stores and web downloads so I imagine that would take it here.

[philistine]

If that ends up meaning that competitors can make Bluetooth headphones with the functionalities of Airpods, I'm all for it !

[InsomniacL]

4. They make 'Find My' available to competitors

[alerighi]

It's basically saying the same thing. One thing other apps can't do on iOS is... installing packages on the system. This is only a thing that the App Store app can do. So Apple has to open up to third party the possibility to install packages on the device, exactly how on Android any third party can install apps on the device.

By the way, this will impact Android too, since there are permissions that are limited only to Google applications such as the Google Play Services, that (interpreting this rule) now shall be opened to any apps that require them.

[internetter]

Yes. The App "App Store" has special APIs that allow other apps to be installed on the phone that do not experience this charge.

[Spivak]

That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores.

This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.

[candiodari]

I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading.

Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either.

It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.

[Spivak]

Y'all really need to read the whole act. The quote that stated this doesn't even come from (56).

> (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms and the software used to operate those technologies, which can be required for the effective provision of a service provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party undertaking providing such service.

> (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual act, you can write whatever you want in there (and legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of this is the actual law.

For the relevant bit it's article 6 paragraph 7.

[candiodari]

I read that as: if Apple wants to allow installation of programs ("apps") on IOS, it must allow, free of charge, others to do the same. Free of charge to everyone. Free of charge to alternative app stores, free of charge to developers, free of charge to apple customers, ... free of charge to anyone. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but that is definitely a valid interpretation to me.

What exactly is unreasonable about that reading?

[_Algernon_]

"free of charge" is pretty clear, but IANAL.

[_v7gu]

Using that loophole would be an Article 13 violation

[drstewart]

Wow, cool. So how do I get distribution on Mercedes (HQ: Germany) or Renault (HQ: France)'s infotainment systems to install any apps I want on cars?

What? These European companies are exempt? Crazyyy

[layer8]

Petition your representatives to designate those as gatekeepers of a core platform service. But first look up the definitions of those, and the criteria for gatekeeper designation, in the DMA.

[yoavm]

This is has nothing to do with the companies being European. DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.

[Spivak]

Ahh yes, the "all lightbulbs regardless of their manufacture are required to have at least <this> energy efficiency" style regulation where <this> is set "neutrally" at the efficiency of LED bulbs.

Read article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 and tell me this wasn't written to target like five US tech companies in total.

[yoavm]

I have read it. I defines how much money the company needs to be making the EU and how many users they need to have. Sure, it's targeting big companies.

The LED example you gave is actually a great one: I don't think the regulator cares if you're using LED or not. The intention is to reduce the usage of lightbulbs that aren't as energy efficient as modern technology allows them to be. If you can make a incandescent lightbulb that is as efficient, good for you. No one has targeted incandescent light.

Same here. Yes, companies this size are almost only American (and Chinese). That doesn't mean that American companies were the target.

[int_19h]

US, with its severe underregulation of oligopolies, allows companies to grow that big. Why do you then complain that they are the ones targeted by laws in countries which are sane enough to understand the need to regulate such things?

Apple is welcome to vacate the EU if it finds it all too onerous.

[drstewart]

>DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.

Gee, I wonder why. Maybe you should re-examine this statement:

>This is has nothing to do with the companies being European.

[dns_snek]

If you're going to mindlessly accuse the EU commission of favoritism you should look through the mountain of cases that prove otherwise.

https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartel...