Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
fsfe.org
fsfe.org
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.
"12 too long" might lead to acronyms.
would be nicer if they could say:
Apple ignores 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act, leaving third-party developers locked out of iOS and iPadOS.
"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
First paragraph
> 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act have produced no concrete solutions by Apple,
The chart, stupidly created as a pie chart and with percentages rather than numbers: 21% of requests are in Phase III, ie implementation by Apple.
When liars make clear their intent is to deceive, the correct reaction is to ignore them entirely. You can fairly quibble about what requests are approved or not, but honest people fairly communicate the state of things.
Maybe you are saying something that makes sense. But your comment doesn’t read that way.
A “concrete solution by Apple” would be a solution that shipped.
Cook got accused of acting illegally by a judge. Which is very unusual. It is pretty clear that Apple is dragging their feet as hard as they can get away with.
Liars only: Apple is doing nothing.
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 ;)
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.
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.
Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"
And if only mean old Apple is suppressing PWAs, then why are the same companies who make apps for iOS also making apps for Android instead of telling Android users to use the web?
Second point, Apple could care less about random indie developers using a PWA. It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from loot boxes and other in app purchases for pay to win games.
Third point, users no more wish they could have shitty PWAs than Electron apps. It’s just what we are stuck with on the desktop
One reason Apple was cautious about third party apps was the concern (from both Apple and carriers) that iPhone features would be misused or the iPhone itself might become unreliable or unusable. So when the App Store was rolled out the next year, apps required approval from Apple and were restricted to running in a sandboxed environment. (Background execution was also forbidden at first due to concerns relating to responsiveness, memory usage and battery drain, as well as security and privacy.)
Ironically in 2026 many "native" apps on desktop and mobile are basically wrappers for web apps.
Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.
You don’t need Apple, Microsoft or Linux approval if you have the talent and the money you can create your own ecosystem. I would’ve loved to have bought a Next computer or a SGI computer back in the day, but I couldn’t afford it at that time.
Someone talented or a group of someone’s who don’t know any better will get the ball rolling again.
It's not mainstream but it doesn't have to be. You could use an iPhone and another computer for hacking.
Incorrect, see https://pwascore.com/ for a non-religious take. Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.
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
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.
a) Native app: publish to App Store, make links on your website directly open the App Store page where the user can install your app
b) PWA: your app is usable directly on your website, but push notifications don't work unless your users add the page to their home screen. You can't have a button on your website to install it - you must instruct the user to navigate some Safari menus to find an option which is hidden *six* taps away
Do you think b) is a viable option? I don't, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons the tech industry is anti-PWA. It also doesn't help that Apple drags its feet with supporting new standards (web push only supported in iOS Safari from 2023, but 2016 in other browsers).
> If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.
I'm dealing with this right now! Rewriting a React Native app as a PWA because reasons. Current plan is to ship it as a WebView app to avoid Apple's PWA installation hurdle. Everyone else will be able to easily install it as a PWA.
Still, I count 4 taps ("...", Share, "To home screen", "Add") and one swipe.
Don't get me wrong, I do blame Apple for the fact that people don't know about PWAs.
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.
Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example.
And there are alternative app stores now, AFAIK.
"Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start"
-- Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager
To my mind, this is almost exactly opposite of true. Most new capabilities need to be incubated in private first, so that the APIs can get real-world usage and have a chance to evolve into a stable state before they become public interoperability promises.
So the solution is for Apple to offer Linux (or FreeBSD, etc.) as setup options for people who don't want to be locked into a proprietary, walled-garden, vertically integrated platform?
That is an interesting idea. Apple has some experience writing hardware drivers for other operating systems, as they did with the Boot Camp drivers for Windows.
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!".
> But Apple rejected the request from the developer and said JIT for non-browser apps was not a feature controlled by iOS.
We have reviewed your submission and determined that your request falls outside the scope of
Article 6(7) DMA because it is not seeking interoperability with a software feature accessed or
controlled by iOS or iPadOS and used by an equivalent Apple service. Apple does not itself
offer emulation functionalities on iOS or iPadOS and it does not offer JIT compilation for non-
browser apps on iOS or iPadOS.
That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
I stand with Apple here :)
If you don't like how Apple conducts their business, you really should want clear, open discussion of flaws in EU regulations that make them not effective against Apple, rather than threads full of blaming Apple for reacting to the incentives in front of them.
> “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...