> We need a DMA over here yesterday.

I understand why you would believe this, but Apple currently refuses to notarize UTM for distribution outside of the App Store via Notarization under rule 2.5.2:

> UTM also noted that Apple is barring UTM SE from being notarized for third-party app stores because the app apparently violated guideline 2.5.2. That rule states that apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.” [0]

While the DMA may eventually force Apple to slide on this rule, currently it doesn't actually solve the problem at-hand.

[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/24/24185066/apple-pc-dos-emu...

> apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.”

Meanwhile, on the very same app store:

iSH – runs unmodified x86 Linux binaries and even supports custom APK repos: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243

a-Shell – runs WASI binaries (via Apple's native out-of-process runtime, so it even gets to JIT, I believe!) and comes with a C compiler, as well as Python: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-shell/id1473805438

LibTerm – compiles and runs arbitrary C via lldb: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/libterm/id1380911705

But yeah, sure these are all somehow self-contained in a way that a DOS emulator can't possibly be in a way only App Store reviewers are enlightened enough to grasp.

Apple has been well known to be absolutely obtuse, random, and not reliable when it comes to approvals for over 12 years now[1], at least unless you're a big company and can hound someone in upper management about it.

It's a good reason why, for a lot of people, claims about Apple walled garden being such a privacy and security boon fall flat[2].

For all purposes, it's as capricious as other companies inscrutable "AI" systems.

[1] Back in 2011, when I tried my hand at the startup roulette, I remember meeting companies which due to bad experience decided that Apple market is not worth possibility of going bankrupt because approvals might suddenly get denied so late in the process to kill the project

[2] I remember how, before MS started submitting their own applications to AppStore/MAS, searching for certain microsoft products like a naive user got you a ton of scams that might be threading the needle on Apple rules - but not on intent.

Meanwhile, every RN app uses CodePush to dynamically update its code

What is a RN app?

React native. the code of the app is in javascript, and so updates can be downloaded dynamically by the app itself, without the need to submit another version to the app store

Let's hope it forces their hand. Either way, it shows that there is room for improvement to the DMA language to prohibit that type of behavior explicitly, which other countries could address in their DMA versions.

I could sort of see the justification for requiring notarization giving Apple a kill switch to shutdown malware. But if it's just turning into another kind of app review then we can't really say the Mac is still an open platform.

Notarization is not a reasonable implemetation of a malware kill switch. All you'd need for that is an Apple-published list of known-bad app ids that the OS could check itself against periodically. No, notarization is a control mechanism to impede the creation and distribution of any non-Apple-approved apps.

The requirement for a hardened runtime certainly supports this point of view.

App IDs don't really work for this purpose if Apple aren't in control of generating them, nothing is stopping a malware vendor from literally never reusing app IDs. Notarization is a reasonable implementation, and it can even require some form of developer identification, it just can't be very deep identification, an e-mail address is enough (along with IP and other metadata gathered during the process). That way they can disable all apps signed by one developer, and can more quickly react to malicious actors, without it becoming a problem for normal users.

> nothing is stopping a malware vendor from literally never reusing app IDs.

Or form using the ID of another vendor.

> and it can even require some form of developer identification, it just can't be very deep identification, an e-mail address is enough (along with IP and other metadata gathered during the process).

I expect the typical malware writer will easily find a way to have a unique “e-mail address (along with IP and other metadata gathered during the process)”.

Because of that, “That way they can disable all apps signed by one developer” will not be possible.

Yes, but all attempts at circumventing the system will give Apple more information about their behaviour. If 1000 different users are requesting to sign the same (or only slightly differing) IPA within a short period of time, from different IPs and different emails, it's a good indicator that something fishy is going on.

> While the DMA may eventually force Apple to slide on this rule, currently it doesn't actually solve the problem at-hand.

People keep saying stuff like this about the DMA and it's very confusing to me. Of course Apple can choose to break the law, but there are consequences for that. It doesn't mean the law is ineffective just because investigation and enforcement is not instantaneous.

Right?

By that logic, why have laws against murder?

Boeing whistleblowers ? /s

The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal.

Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal.

iPhone Mirroring - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.

Shareplay screen sharing - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.

There's a reason those features are not getting an EU release.

> Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal.

There's a very trivial solution here that Apple already applies to password managers and Android applies to a bunch of things: allow the user to pick a Music and a Maps app.

They even talked about letting in others such as Gemini in the very keynote in which they introduced the ChatGPT integration!

Does the DMA mandate that they actually implement extra apps/features, or just provide the API surface for others to do so? Like, just to pick the first one on your list - any reason they can't just let it point at an arbitrary app that's tagged as providing music (and, I presume, that implements some standard API to query songs or w/e). Does the law really want Apple to integrate with ex. Spotify, or just make it possible for Spotify to integrate the same way as Apple's own music app?

I'm pretty skeptical of your list, but in general they can easily support interoperability and if they choose not to it's not the fault of the law.

> The DMA stifles innovation

Real innovation would be for iOS devices to be interoperable with non-Apple technology.

Honestly, good.

If Apple can't make those features interoperable, then they shouldn't exist at all. With Apple's size and access to development resources, there is absolutely no excuse for them other than greed.

so what?! it's their product that they built and they sell. if it's not your use case for your app, take it elsewhere. why the fuck should a government have the right to tell a company what they can and can't do with their product?! this baffles my mind that people think this is ok

> why the fuck should a government have the right to tell a company what they can and can't do with their product?!

I mean, do we really need to enumerate the reasons for you? Next you will think it's okay for someone to manufacture a car that can't be opened when the 12V battery dies.

I think the issue is that of scope. Apple is not a mom and pop store, where you can just take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy. It is a global entity with means just to capture the market, but to dictate terms to it ( and by extension to its other participants ). We are now in a position where we effectively have two options ( Apple and Android ) and they both suck in their own special ways ( yes, we also have Purism and wossname, but last time I checked, neither is a decent daily driver ).

To address your main point, in theory at least, as a society, we should be able to tell government that something is not cool and address it as needed. The good news for Apple and most oligopolies now is that neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

> neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

I believe what you describe is called democracy. The counterpart of which, where everyone "agreees" is totalitarian.

Companies exist at the pleasure of societies (aka governments), so those societies have literally every right to tell those companies what they can and cannot do.

I guess you also think it's bonkers that car makers are required to put seatbelts in their cars.

actually yes, if i buy a car without a seatbelt anything that happens is on me.

if i buy an apple phone that requires a 9000$ magic charger that's on me

etc

And they won’t exist in the EU…

Good.

So you’re okay with a feature not existing for customers who want because the government deigns that they shouldn’t have it? You really want the government taking away your agency to make your own choices?

I'm okay with bad things not existing and I'm okay with Apple throwing a tantrum and going home because the government says it can't do bad things. It can miss out on all that juicy revenue if it wants to, and the world will be better for it.

So Apple Intelligence “is a bad thing” because from day one they don’t have interoperability? Does that serve customers in the EU better?

What juicy revenue do you think they were going to get from iPhone mirroring to the Mac?

And the EU as a whole is less than 10% of their revenue?

> So Apple Intelligence “is a bad thing” because from day one they don’t have interoperability? Does that serve customers in the EU better?

Yes

I for one am absolutely against features not existing for customers who want it just because the Apple deigns that they shouldn’t have it. I don't want Apple to take away my agency to make my own choices.

Good thing governments are on the side of the consumer at least, right?

Apple thought the risk of including it was too high because of the DMA.

Users in the US and the rest of the world do have it.

And we talking about the same EU government that every other year tries to make it a law that there must be a backdoor in messaging platforms?

> And we talking about the same EU government that every other year tries to make it a law that there must be a backdoor in messaging platforms?

And the same Apple that puts them there: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754

But hey, at least Apple is more principled than those filthy, corrupt and privacy destroying governments. They would never kowtow to a higher power, our stout and beloved Apple.

The problem isn't that it's illegal it's that it's unknown.

DMA enforcement is about the spirit of the law rather than the clear meaning and so everything is vague and subjective.

And with the fines being so ridiculously large it's not worth the risk.

1. Every law has the spirit of the law. Otherwise you wouldn't need courts to interpret laws, and no law would ever be made because it would have to describe every single permutation of every single possible human endeavour

2. Fines are capped at high numbers. It doesn't mean you will be immediately slapped with one. Stop perpetuating this bullshit. The law says up to, not just this fine and that's it.

EU especially doesn't like fining companies. The usual process in the EU is "please fix this -> please fix that -> minor fine -> greater fine if persisting in breaking the law -> even greater fine -> ..."

None of these seem like they're impossible for a company the size of Apple to provide open APIs for. They have even already hinted at that for Apple Intelligence!

Siri has supported playing music on apps other than just Apple Music for a while now too (after taking their time with it for obvious reasons, which I found infuriating as a Spotify user).

That's fine. If they can't implement features in a way that doesn't stifle competition or create vendor lock-in, then they don't get to implement those features. I think that's a totally reasonable consequence of the DMA, if true.

You mean:

Apple Intelligence - DOES NOT ALLOW COMPETING APPS AND ONLY points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal.

iPhone Mirroring - DOES NOT ALLOW COMPETING APPS AND doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.

Shareplay screen sharing - DOES NOT ALLOW COMPETING APPS AND doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.

There's NO GOOD TECHNICAL reason those features are IMPLEMENTED IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE WAY OR WHY THEY ARE LOCKED AWAY FROM EU.

Your point would have been more persuasive if you'd eased off on the caps lock.

Wow, thanks Tone Police Officer andybak!

People say cops ruin everything, but I'm glad you're here to prove them wrong.

DMA doesn't block Apple from making any of those features. It just makes it illegal for Apple to block others from implementing the same/similar features.

Indeed, the entire app store review is just a facade for Apple's market grabbing practices. I'm more than happy the EU is taking steps to address this. I really wish folks in the US would step back for a second and stop defending the corporation with "end to end" control of their life.

Yeah, it's crazy there's no other options, like a platform that openly allows sideloading. Its terrible that were all forced to buy Apple products, especially when this behavior from them is just so surprising.

/s in case.