Steve Troughton-SmithJun 21, 2024

The DMA is only vague if you're trying to game it. The rules amount to “don't be a dick”.

Apple's out here asking “well how will I know if I'm being a dick?? I can’t operate under this environment!”

Whereas most people don't have to ask themselves that question

Show threadMatthaus WoolardJun 21, 2024

@stroughtonsmith yes and no,

There are areas were the DMA is unclear on how much access the platform vendor must provide day one to third parties.

Eg does the DMA require apple expose apis so that MS and Linux devs can implement iPhone mirroring?

Is this an iPhone platform feature or a Mac feature, so does it fall under the DMA or not?

These are legit questions that are unclear and would likely require a good bit of dev work to comply with securely.

Show threadSteve Troughton-SmithJun 21, 2024
@hishnash what they can't do is self-preference their apps on their platform. So no, they don't need to implement mirroring APIs for other platforms. But they do need to let other screen sharing apps allow remote control — which is how the feature should have been built in the first place
Show threadMatthaus Woolard

@stroughtonsmith

DMA is not just about apps it also covers system features and services. There is clearly un-certainty within the teams with respect to the iPhone Mirroring feature and if that would be required to be exposed otherwise they would be shipping it.

As for remote controle, yes they should have an api to let other screens sharing apps (that already exists). But that will require more work.

Jun 21, 2024 at 11:25pmWeb
Show threadMichał JurewiczJun 22, 2024
@hishnash @stroughtonsmith That’s whole point that Apple tries to figure out what falls under DMA and what’s not, instead of assuming that every user faced feature should be treated as covered by DMA. Naturally, It’s more work but nothing which should be impossible for Apple. In this situation blaming regulation for its own incompetence is just silly. Especially without providing any solid arguments.
Show threadMatthaus WoolardJun 22, 2024

@malauch Yes but that is extra work, for any feature that might possibly fall under the DMA they are required to go put in extra work to ensure that they provide this parties access to it. (thus committing them to an API they then must support)

The DMA does not have the ability within it for apple to seek pre-aproaval they cant check with the commission in advance, all they can do is delay features or risk a legal battle.

Show threadMichał JurewiczJun 22, 2024
@hishnash It’s exactly the same as automotive has more work to keep products according to regulations. That’s the whole point of regulation to force more work on important topics. The same as developers have to put more work to be allowed on AppStore. It’s just a tiny bit more symmetrical now.
Apple has all resources of the world and definitely can do this on time or plan a delay in a more orderly fashion without silly excuses.
Show threadMatthaus WoolardJun 22, 2024

@malauch One of the differences with automative regulation is the clarity on what is and is not permitted.

The DMA is intentionally very vague in a way that you don't see with seatbelt or crumple zone regulation.

It would take a LOT more work to make iPhone mirroring and remote controle be exposed to third parties in such a way that it matinees the same level of security and is an API that apples teams want to commit to long term. Not to mention the system ML access for DMA.