I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"
and
"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist
Not that I don’t think Apple is being petulant and maliciously compliant, but just because a politician passes a law declaring something to be so doesn’t mean that it is so. Apple built their platform for years assuming a lot of these things are and would remain private. When you design private APIs and locked down features, you make different choices and design decisions than if you make open APIs. Any interoperability was going to take months or years to get to, no matter what.
DMA/DSA are all about fair competition, not necessarily about user freedom. They tackle the inability to compete with the App Store, not the inability to manage your own apps.
I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.
On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it
It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?
So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?
I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.
Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
> also, I care about PWAs / glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.
TLA overload strikes again.
Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently.
Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.
I too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.
I too was confused
Same here lol.
I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
On the other hand, the article does say that
"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"
and
"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
Not surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
DMA/DSA are all about fair competition, not necessarily about user freedom. They tackle the inability to compete with the App Store, not the inability to manage your own apps.
Oh the hoops I had to jump through to get UTM with JIT enabled on my 17 Pro Max with iOS 26…
I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.
On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it
It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?
So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
> allow it when iOS started allowing third-party
Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"
First iPhone had no App Store: no third-party apps.
Security is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
Closed systems are fundamentally more secure. Principle of least privilege demonstrates this
Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?
I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.
Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.
> nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
Incorrect, see https://pwascore.com/ for a non-religious take. Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
> also, I care about PWAs / glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
I wonder how much this will change now that Tim Apple, is out and John Apple is in. (probably none)
The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
Break it up
Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-fro...
Or they start limiting sales of Apple Hardware. Not something I expect to happen either.
Is anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.
It's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete.
Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.
Let's not dismiss this ourselves.
This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".
Disappointed but not surprised. Their intent is not to comply, so you'll have to sue them at every step for every atom of compliance.
FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.