I'm at an EU workshop for Apple to discuss and justify its DMA compliance plans. They've been forced into 3 huge u-turns by EU (killing PWAs, removing Epic Games' developer licenses, sideloading) so I'm interested to see their demeanour. Will it be humility, or the usual 'fuck you, we're Apple'? There are people from EU companies that Apple blithely planned to bankrupt by sneakily removing PWAs here. And regulators have human feelings too; no-one like "fuck you". I'll be here all day (try the baguettes!)
EU intro: "We have hundreds of people joining online, showing the level of interest … the views of 3rd parties are vital in assessing the compliance plan. … compliance must be with the spirit of the DMA, not just the letter".
Apple: "for a long time, Apple has made it easy to choose a default browser other than Safari". No mention of alternative browser engines, even though this is explicitly mentioned in the text of the DMA.
Apple: ""iOS Customers have come to trust the App Store as a way to find applications". Yeah. Nothing to do with there being absolutely no other option. Also "The effort to be able to delete Safari from iOS isn't an easy one" - and here we are back at Microsoft claiming IE is an integral part of Windows …
There was a brief nod to humility at the start of this first Apple session (thanking the EU etc), but Apple are now trash-talking competitors, saying that they've had to work really really hard for the last 18 months to meet the DMA, and avoiding/ evading John Ozbey's direct question about Apple still self-preferencing.
A vital Q from a developer in the room who, as a kid, made a free open-source app that was downloaded millions of times. Under Apple's new proposal that apps distributed through an alt app store pay them a Core technology Fee of 50c per first install, he would have owed Apple 5 million Euros for his free app. Is that fair? (Dozens of hands raised.)
@rileytestut@brucelawson Great question! Core technology fee is really going to undermine all free apps from distributing outside the App Store including browsers.
@rileytestut@owa@brucelawson
Why not?
In any other OS you can install apps without paying any fee to the manufacturer of the device or the author of the OS and all of them have the same costs about improving the devices, the OS, ...
Even in MacOS you don't have to pay to provide an app for the users to download and install on their own.
Apple lawyer blames the DMA for forcing this change, after his pat line about how Apple has driven innovation over 15 years. But he says they don't want to penalise "the dreamers", so "stay tuned". Which on the face of it sounds good, but no-one should pay a fee if their app gets installed on an expensive device owned by someone who has already paid Apple a premium for the core technology it contains. Would people buy an iPhone if there were no apps available?
Apple lawyers are really tugging at my heartstrings with their third mention of just how much effort and hard work Apple has done to meet their obligations. It's not like Apple is one of the largest companies in the world or anything. I might organise a gofundme.
And now, rather bafflingly, an Apple VP is freestyling, and musing about how they've seen competition in regulated environment making everything better.
Apple's VP just said ""Apple has done a lot to enable web apps over the years and will continue to do so. If developers want a specific feature they can 'reach out', or come to WWDC". Web Apps do not incur Core Technology Fee.
This new Apple love for web apps is somewhat surprising so soon after some naughty boys from, er, Apple tried to sneak out and drown Home Screen Apps in a bucket without telling anyone, then bawled "The EU made me do it!" when they were caught. https://brucelawson.co.uk/2024/happy-dma-day-to-all/
And lunch. The excitement resumes in 1 hour. Stay tuned while your intrepid reporter wolfs down a reheated chicken biryani during an unrelated meeting …
And we're back, for the session on Interoperability. "Interop will always be an essential design principle when designing new versions of iOS. Each year we reinvent iPhone to add new features etc. We err on the side of protecting users."
"There's a new process for developers to submit new interoperability requests. Apple will decide if those fit within scope of DMA. If it does, Apple decides if effective interop exists. If it doesn't, we'll decide if we can open it up and open a tentative project plan. If we decide against it, we'll tell the developer."
"We've done this in order to open up a dialogue between Apple and developers. … the risks to privacy and security are real." And now to alternative browser engines....
3rd party engines - including in-app browsers - will have access to a set of iOS APIs on a managed entitlement basis. They will have access to JIT compilations. "We're confident that most major browser vendors already meet relevant security and privacy thresholds."
Some more stuff about how WebKit is deeply integrated into iOS and the hard, hard work that Apple is doing to decouple them. (There has, apparently, never been a major security problem with WebKit and iOS. Ahem, xCode Ghost apps)
The last section is on data-related DMA provisions, so not something I know much about. Apple kicked off with the laudable statement that "privacy is a human right". (unless you live in China, of course.)
We asked Apple why their compliance report is only 12 pages (Microsoft was 421pp, Google's was 221pp). They replied that it's very clear and everyone understands what they're doing to comply with DMA.
I'm sure PWA owners, devs and users in the EU are enormously grateful for Apple's clarity over the last few weeks on what they're doing to comply with the DMA.
And that's a wrap for the Apple one. Chair noted that they promised to come back with more answers and some Qs were not, ahem, fully answered. It's the beginning of a process; EU facilitated, but did not ask questions (that's later). Other gatekeepers get to sit in the Chair of Interrogation throughout the week. Phew. Over and out, Fam. xx
An interesting article about how yesterday's DMA meeting was full of "Complaining Competitors" (which is untrue; we are web developers, not megacorps) from the "Center for European Policy Analysis", whose 2024 "supporters" include Amazon, Google, Meta … and Apple. https://cepa.org/article/europes-dma-a-chorus-of-complaining-competitors/
"We believe WebKit is the best and will therefore keep it as a requirement outside the EU. It has allowed Apple to send important security updates to all apps."
@brucelawson Would it be bad if other browser engines were allowed and everyone basically started using Chrome (or derivatives) and wiped out any market share that Webkit has as an engine?
Like, this is a genuine question.
Apple making everyone use Webkit is clearly not great, but at the same time, if iOS gets monopolised by Chromium too, surely that just spells death for any competition to Chromium-based browsers?
@matt
But according to Apple, Safari is the best browser? Why would anyone want to use another browser?
If I have already the best browser in my phone I don't need any other one, unless it's not the best browser and those lawyers are liers.
@matt Or Apple could compete and make webkit so great people want to use it (as on Mac). If anyone has marketing clout, engineering nouse and brand loyalty to compete with Google, Apple can.
@matt@brucelawson Apple makes billions ($20b, I think) from Google for making them the default search engine in safari, so there’s quite some cash at risk for them here.
@plankton@brucelawson Okay, they sure do. But right now they have the monopoly on "browsers using Webkit on iOS and iPadOS" but as soon as they give up that control, whats the point in maintaining Webkit anymore?
They could ditch all the engineers that work on WebKit, set the default engine to be Chromium/Blink like every other browser, launch on #Windows + #Android and use the money they save on #Webkit development to further their marketshare.
When Chromium comes in to play and Brave, Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, etc. start moving away from #WebKit, there is very little incentive for Apple to continue maintaining it for just their browser share.
🤷
They can keep #Safari as a brand, just like Chrome / Brave / Opera and ditch the development cost in favour of better marketing budgets.
@brucelawson@plankton This is the same company that advertised the Lightning Port as being the best way to charge your device until they were forced to use USB-C like everyone else and then made a big song and dance about how fast and efficient USB-C was on their new devices as if they just invented a new technology.
WebKit is the best for them until it isn’t. Then suddenly it’s not the best for their users either. 🙃
@craiggrannell I'd have to dig into the transcript but it was something about how the pesky EU stop them charging 30% for every app (b/c now there will be alternative app stores) this fee is a way to ensure Apple is compensated for all the work it does building a brilliant developer platform. Apple staff need to eat. And some of them have children. Will no-one think of the children?!?
@brucelawson Yeah – that notion that Apple appears to have forgotten that it makes a platform and that the value of that platform is derived from what you can do with it, which itself is very heavily reliant on third-party apps.
That thing it did of suggestion value was offered to Spotify in doing a billion app reviews. I mean, come on.
Add comment