Search results for "Europ"

European Commission Orders Apple To Improve Third-Party Device Integration

Just as I was linking to Eric Migicovsky’s post about the disadvantages third-party smartwatch makers face when trying to integrate with the iPhone, the European Commission (EC) released a pair of related specification decisions regarding Apple’s Digital Markets Act compliance. The first covers iPhone connectivity with third-party 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).

The other decision focuses on the process of interoperability:

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.

An unidentified spokesperson for Apple responded with a statement to 9to5Mac:

Today’s decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple’s ability to innovate for users in Europe and forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who don’t have to play by the same rules. 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.

This decision shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been following our DMA coverage. It’s easy to understand why Apple is unhappy about this decision, but it’s also just as easy to understand how the status quo holds back competition. There are no easy answers to any of this, but as difficult as this may be for Apple to do while upholding its privacy, security, and other standards, I’m glad the EU is pushing for change and hope those changes spread to other corners of the globe.

The European Commission Opens Two iOS Interoperability Proceedings Against Apple

The European Commission (EC) issued a press release today summarizing two specification proceedings that they have commenced against Apple:

The first proceeding focuses on several iOS connectivity features and functionalities, predominantly used for and by connected devices. Connected devices are a varied, large and commercially important group of products, including smartwatches, headphones and virtual reality headsets. Companies offering these products depend on effective interoperability with smartphones and their operating systems, such as iOS. The Commission intends to specify how Apple will provide effective interoperability with functionalities such as notifications, device pairing and connectivity.

The second proceeding focuses on the process Apple has set up to address interoperability requests submitted by developers and third parties for iOS and IPadOS. It is crucial that the request process is transparent, timely, and fair so that all developers have an effective and predictable path to interoperability and are enabled to innovate.

In a nutshell, the EC is unhappy with connectivity between iOS and third-party devices and plans to tell the company how to comply. The second part requires Apple to set up a process for third parties to request connectivity with iOS.

The EC has given Apple six months to comply with its latest proceedings, during which the commission will share its preliminary findings with Apple and publish a non-confidential summary of the findings publicly so third parties can offer comments.

Apple prides itself on its tight integration between hardware and software, and the EC is determined to open that up for the benefit of all hardware manufacturers. While I think that is a good goal, we’re getting very close to the EU editing APIs, which I find hard to imagine will lead to an optimal outcome for Apple, third-party manufacturers, or consumers. However, if you accept the goal as worthwhile, it’s just as hard to imagine accomplishing it any other way given Apple’s apparent unwillingness to open iOS up itself.

AI Companies Need to Be Regulated: An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress and European Parliament

[CC0: No rights reserved](https://pxhere.com/en/photo/489513).

CC0: No rights reserved.

Federico: Historically, technology has usually advanced in lockstep with opening up new creative opportunities for people. From word processors allowing writers to craft their next novel to digital cameras letting photographers express themselves in new ways or capture more moments, technological progress over the past few decades has sustained creators and, perhaps more importantly, spawned industries that couldn’t exist before.

Technology has enabled millions of people like myself to realize their life’s dreams and make a living out of “creating content” in a digital age.

This is all changing with the advent of Artificial Intelligence products based on large language models. If left unchecked without regulation, we believe the change may be for the worse.

Over the past two years, we’ve witnessed the arrival of AI tools and services that often use human input without consent with the goal of faster and cheaper results. The fascination with maximization of profits above anything else isn’t a surprise in a capitalist industry, but it’s highly concerning nonetheless – especially since, this time around, the majority of these AI tools have been built on a foundation of non-consensual appropriation, also known as – quite simply – digital theft.

As we’ve documented on MacStories and as other (and larger) publications also investigated, it’s become clear that foundation models of different LLMs have been trained on content sourced from the open web without requesting publishers’ permission upfront. These models can then power AI interfaces that can regurgitate similar content or provide answers with hidden citations that seldom prioritize driving traffic to publishers. As far as MacStories is concerned, this is limited to text scraped from our website, but we’re seeing this play out in other industries too, from design assets to photos, music, and more. And top it all off, publishers and creators whose content was appropriated for training or crawled for generative responses (or both) can’t even ask AI companies to be transparent about which parts of their content was used. It’s a black box where original content goes in and derivative slop comes out.

We think this is all wrong.

The practices followed by the majority of AI companies are ethically unfair to publishers and brazenly walk a perilous line of copyright infringement that must be regulated. Most worryingly, if ignored, we fear that these tools may lead to a gradual erosion of the open web as we know it, diminishing individuals’ creativity and consolidating “knowledge” in the hands of a few tech companies that built their AI services on the back of web publishers and creators without their explicit consent.

In other words, we’re concerned that, this time, technology won’t open up new opportunities for creative people on the web. We fear that it’ll destroy them.

We want to do something about this. And we’re starting with an open letter, embedded below, that we’re sending on behalf of MacStories, Inc. to U.S. Senators who have sponsored AI legislation as well as Italian members of the E.U. Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age.

In the letter, which we encourage other publishers to copy if they so choose, we outline our stance on AI companies taking advantage of the open web for training purposes, not compensating publishers for the content they appropriated and used, and not being transparent regarding the composition of their models’ data sets. We’re sending this letter in English today, with an Italian translation to follow in the near future.

I know that MacStories is merely a drop in the bucket of the open web. We can’t afford to sue anybody. But I’d rather hold my opinion strongly and defend my intellectual property than sit silently and accept something that I believe is fundamentally unfair for creators and dangerous for the open web. And I’m grateful to have a business partner who shares these ideals and principles with me.

With that being said, here’s a copy of the letter we’re sending to U.S. and E.U. representatives.

Read more

European Commission Preliminarily Finds That Apple Has Violated the Digital Markets Act

Today, the European Commission informed Apple that based on its preliminary investigation it has determined that the company is in violation of the Digital Markets Act. The EC has also opened a separate non-compliance procedure against Apple over the Core Technology Fee and other changes instituted earlier this year as part of its response to the DMA.

In particular, the EC’s preliminary findings take issue with Apple’s response to the DMA’s anti-steering provisions:

Apple currently has three sets of business terms governing its relationship with app developers, including the App Store’s steering rules. The Commission preliminarily finds that:

  • None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels.
  • Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice.
  • Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app.

Apple may respond to the EC’s preliminary findings in writing. A final decision regarding compliance with the law is due by March 25, 2025, the one year anniversary of the beginning of DMA proceedings against Apple.

The EC has also opened a separate investigation regarding Apple’s compliance with Section 6(4) of the DMA, which provides that:

The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

Specifically, the EC says it will investigate whether the Core Technology Fee, the multi-step process for downloading apps from alternative app marketplaces, and the eligibility requirements for running an alternative app marketplace are ‘necessary and proportionate’ under the DMA. The EC also notes that it is continuing to investigate Apple’s process for validating apps and alternative app marketplaces.

None of this is particularly surprising, given the complexities of the provisions Apple put into place in the wake of the DMA. The ‘necessity and proportionality’ of Apple’s changes are, by their nature, subjective determinations. That makes the DMA hard to comply with, but it also leaves ample room for the EC and Apple to negotiate a resolution of their dispute over the DMA. It’s time for the parties to put this dispute to rest.

The European Commission Announces an Investigation into Apple and Other Gatekeepers’ Compliance with the DMA→

The European Commission (EC) has opened non-compliance investigations against Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon in connection with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). With respect to Apple, the EC is investigating the company’s approach to uninstalling system apps, changing default settings, and prompting users to pick alternate services, including browsers and search engines.

According to the EC’s press release:

The Commission is concerned that Apple’s measures, including the design of the web browser choice screen, may be preventing users from truly exercising their choice of services within the Apple ecosystem, in contravention of Article 6(3) of the DMA.

The EC is also investigating the fee structure that Apple has implemented in connection with alternative app stores:

Apple’s new fee structure and other terms and conditions for alternative app stores and distribution of apps from the web (sideloading) may be defeating the purpose of its obligations under Article 6(4) of the DMA.

The EC’s press release helpfully reminds Apple and the other DMA gatekeepers that:

In case of an infringement, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company’s total worldwide turnover. Such fines can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement.

‘Turnover’ is an accounting term typically used in Europe that, for these purposes, is the functional equivalent of total revenue. The EC says that it intends to conclude the investigation announced today within 12 months.

Permalink

The European Commission Fines Apple Over €1.8 Billion

In a decision issued today, the European Commission leveled a fine of over €1.8 billion against Apple for preventing developers of music streaming services from letting iOS users know about subscriptions available outside their apps. After an investigation, the Commission concluded that Apple’s practices violated Article 102 of the TFEU and Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement.

In a forceful response, Apple pointed at Spotify as the instigator of the EU investigation and accused the EC of protectionist behavior, noting that:

Over the next eight years, and more than 65 meetings with Spotify, the European Commission has tried to build three different cases. With every pivot, they’ve narrowed the scope of their claims — but each theory has had a couple of features in common:

  • No evidence of consumer harm: European consumers have more choices than ever in a digital music market that’s grown exponentially. In just eight years, it’s gone from 25 million subscribers to almost 160 million — with more than 300 million active listeners — and Spotify has been the biggest winner.

  • No evidence of anti-competitive behavior: Eight years of investigations have never yielded a viable theory explaining how Apple has thwarted competition in a market that is so clearly thriving.

The European Commission is issuing this decision just before their new regulation — the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — comes into force. Apple is set to comply with the DMA in days, and our plans include changes to the rules challenged here. What’s clear is that this decision is not grounded in existing competition law. It’s an effort by the Commission to enforce the DMA before the DMA becomes law.

The reality is that European consumers have more choices than ever. Ironically, in the name of competition, today’s decision just cements the dominant position of a successful European company that is the digital music market’s runaway leader.

Apple has said it will appeal the fine, which was set at a level designed to “achieve deterrence.”

Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple with the European Commission→

Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, writing on recent actions the company has taken against Apple:

Spotify has filed a complaint against Apple with the European Commission (EC), the regulatory body responsible for keeping competition fair and nondiscriminatory. In recent years, Apple has introduced rules to the App Store that purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience—essentially acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers. After trying unsuccessfully to resolve the issues directly with Apple, we’re now requesting that the EC take action to ensure fair competition.
[…]
What we are asking for is the following:

  • First, apps should be able to compete fairly on the merits, and not based on who owns the App Store. We should all be subject to the same fair set of rules and restrictions—including Apple Music.
  • Second, consumers should have a real choice of payment systems, and not be “locked in” or forced to use systems with discriminatory tariffs such as Apple’s.
  • Finally, app stores should not be allowed to control the communications between services and users, including placing unfair restrictions on marketing and promotions that benefit consumers.

In addition to Ek’s note, Spotify has also launched a website, TimeToPlayFair.com, that outlines in greater detail its grievances against Apple. The site contains a timeline documenting Spotify’s working relationship with Apple, highlighting things such as Spotify’s inability to integrate with Siri, the long delay before they could offer an Apple Watch app, and Apple’s frequent App Store rejections when Spotify added language promoting its Premium service. The full timeline can be viewed here.

Spotify’s aim is to promote a level playing field between Apple’s apps and services and those of third parties. One example Spotify highlights at several points in its timeline is that they were unable to create an Apple Watch app until after watchOS 5 launched. Apple Music has been on the Watch for years, so there’s clearly a disadvantage to Spotify there – however, that disadvantage was due to the limitations of OS-level APIs provided to all third-party developers, not just those who compete with Apple services.

watchOS is still a relatively young platform. At what point should Apple be forced to prioritize development of frameworks that better equip third-party services to exist on its platform rather than developing other important enhancements to its software? These complexities are going to make it very interesting to see how the European Commission views this case.

Permalink

Apple’s Acquisition of Shazam Approved by the European Commission

Last December, Apple announced plans to acquire music-discovery service Shazam. The service, which makes iOS, watchOS, and macOS apps that can detect songs, TV shows, and advertisements from their sound signatures, has been on Apple’s platforms since the early days of iOS and is the engine behind Siri’s ability to recognize songs.

Since February, the deal has been on hold while the European Commission considered whether it would adversely impact competition. In a press release today, Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who is in charge of competition policy, explained:

“Data is key in the digital economy. We must therefore carefully review transactions which lead to the acquisition of important sets of data, including potentially commercially sensitive ones, to ensure they do not restrict competition. After thoroughly analysing Shazam’s user and music data, we found that their acquisition by Apple would not reduce competition in the digital music streaming market.”

Elaborating on the Commission’s findings, Vestager said the Commission concluded that “Apple and Shazam mainly offer complementary services and do not compete with each other.”

There has been no official word from Apple on the Commission’s decision, but it should clear the way to allow that deal to be consummated soon.

Past MacStories coverage of Shazam is available here.

Apple Debuts New Data and Privacy Website in Europe Ahead of GDPR Effective Date

Today, Apple unveiled a new data and privacy website to comply with the European Union’s GDPR legislation that goes into effect on May 25th. The site allows users to copy and correct personally identifiable information associated with their Apple IDs and deactivate or delete their accounts. Although the new copy and deactivation options are only available in the EU, they will be rolling out throughout the remainder of the year to the rest of the world.

Read more