Following an investigation, Elon Musk’s X has won its fight to avoid gatekeeper status under the European Union’s strict competition law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
On Wednesday, the European Commission (EC) announced that “X does indeed not qualify as a gatekeeper in relation to its online social networking service, given that the investigation revealed that X is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users.”
Since March, X had strongly opposed the gatekeeper designation by arguing that although X connects advertisers to more than 45 million monthly users, it does not have a “significant impact” on the EU’s internal market, a case filing showed.
A gatekeeper “is presumed to have a significant impact on the internal market where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7.5 billion in each of the last three financial years,” the case filing said. But X submitted evidence showing that its Union turnover was less than that in 2022, the same year that Musk took over Twitter and began alienating advertisers by posting their ads next to extremists’ tweets.
Throughout Musk’s reign at Twitter/X, the social networking company told the EC, both advertising revenue and users have steadily declined in the EU. In particular, “X Ads has a too small and decreasing scale in terms of share of advertising spend in the Union to constitute an important gateway in the market for online advertising,” X argued, further noting that X had a “lack of platform power” to change that anytime soon.
“In the last 15 months, X Ads has faced a decline in number of advertising business users, as well as a decline in pricing,” X argued.
Enlarge/ The Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California.
Apple is comprehensively restructuring its long-standing App Store team, splitting the team into two separate divisions as the executive who has run it for more than a decade says goodbye to the company.
There will now be one team for the familiar, Apple-run App Store, and another one to handle alternative app stores in the European Union. Apple recently partially opened the platform to third-party app stores in response to the Digital Markets Act, a set of European regulations meant to break up what legislators and regulators deemed to be app store monopolies.
As noted, the restructuring comes with some notable personnel changes, too. App Store Vice President Matt Fischer, who has been at the helm of the platform since 2010, will leave the company.
In a social media post and email to employees, Fischer wrote the following:
After 21 years at Apple, I’ve made the decision to step away from our incredible company. This has been on my mind for some time, and as we are also reorganizing the team to better manage new challenges and opportunities, now is the right moment to pass the baton to two outstanding leaders on my team—Carson Oliver and Ann Thai—both of whom are more than ready for this next chapter.
You can visit his LinkedIn post to see the full statement. According to Bloomberg, Carson Oliver will lead the Apple App Store division, while Ann Thai will head up the alternative app store team. Up to this point, Oliver has been a senior director of business management at Apple, while Thai has had the title of worldwide product director for the App Store and Apple Arcade.
It’s worth noting that Fischer was the overall lead for Apple Arcade, so that service will now be under new leadership.
Apple Fellow and former marketing SVP Phil Schiller will continue to oversee both of the new divisions.
It’s unclear what further changes, if any, will result from this shakeup. Apple has already made significant changes in response to EU regulations, but some developers and competitors are still critical, saying it hasn’t gone far enough.
Surprisingly, this step wasn’t taken under laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Instead, the EC announced Monday that Meta risked sanctions under EU consumer laws if it could not resolve key concerns about Meta’s so-called “pay or consent” model.
Meta’s model is seemingly problematic, the commission said, because Meta “requested consumers overnight to either subscribe to use Facebook and Instagram against a fee or to consent to Meta’s use of their personal data to be shown personalized ads, allowing Meta to make revenue out of it.”
Because users were given such short notice, they may have been “exposed to undue pressure to choose rapidly between the two models, fearing that they would instantly lose access to their accounts and their network of contacts,” the EC said.
To protect consumers, the EC joined national consumer protection authorities, sending a letter to Meta requiring the tech giant to propose solutions to resolve the commission’s biggest concerns by September 1.
That Meta’s “pay or consent” model may be “misleading” is a top concern because it uses the term “free” for ad-based plans, even though Meta “can make revenue from using their personal data to show them personalized ads.” It seems that while Meta does not consider giving away personal information to be a cost to users, the EC’s commissioner for justice, Didier Reynders, apparently does.
“Consumers must not be lured into believing that they would either pay and not be shown any ads anymore, or receive a service for free, when, instead, they would agree that the company used their personal data to make revenue with ads,” Reynders said. “EU consumer protection law is clear in this respect. Traders must inform consumers upfront and in a fully transparent manner on how they use their personal data. This is a fundamental right that we will protect.”
Additionally, the EC is concerned that Meta users might be confused about how “to navigate through different screens in the Facebook/Instagram app or web-version and to click on hyperlinks directing them to different parts of the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy to find out how their preferences, personal data, and user-generated data will be used by Meta to show them personalized ads.” They may also find Meta’s “imprecise terms and language” confusing, such as Meta referring to “your info” instead of clearly referring to consumers’ “personal data.”
To resolve the EC’s concerns, Meta may have to give EU users more time to decide if they want to pay to subscribe or consent to personal data collection for targeted ads. Or Meta may have to take more drastic steps by altering language and screens used when securing consent to collect data or potentially even scrapping its “pay or consent” model entirely, as pressure in the EU mounts.
“Subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries,” Meta’s spokesperson told Ars. “Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and we are confident it complies with European regulation.”
Meta’s model is “sneaky,” EC said
Since last year, the social media company has argued that its “subscription for no ads” model was “endorsed” by the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
However, privacy advocates have noted that this alleged endorsement came following a CJEU case under the GDPR and was only presented as a hypothetical, rather than a formal part of the ruling, as Meta seems to interpret.
What the CJEU said was that “users must be free to refuse individually”—”in the context of” signing up for services—”to give their consent to particular data processing operations not necessary” for Meta to provide such services “without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service.” That “means that those users are to be offered, if necessary for an appropriate fee, an equivalent alternative not accompanied by such data processing operations,” the CJEU said.
The nuance here may matter when it comes to Meta’s proposed solutions even if the EC accepts the CJEU’s suggestion of an acceptable alternative as setting some sort of legal precedent. Because the consumer protection authorities raised the action due to Meta suddenly changing the consent model for existing users—not “in the context of” signing up for services—Meta may struggle to persuade the EC that existing users weren’t misled and pressured into paying for a subscription or consenting to ads, given how fast Meta’s policy shifted.
Meta risks sanctions if a compromise can’t be reached, the EC said. Under the EU’s Unfair Contract Terms Directive, for example, Meta could be fined up to 4 percent of its annual turnover if consumer protection authorities are unsatisfied with Meta’s proposed solutions.
The EC’s vice president for values and transparency, Věra Jourová, provided a statement in the press release, calling Meta’s abrupt introduction of the “pay or consent” model “sneaky.”
“We are proud of our strong consumer protection laws which empower Europeans to have the right to be accurately informed about changes such as the one proposed by Meta,” Jourová said. “In the EU, consumers are able to make truly informed choices and we now take action to safeguard this right.”
In two weeks, iPhone users in the European Union will be able to use any mobile wallet they like to complete “tap and go” payments with the ease of using Apple Pay.
The change comes as part of a settlement with the European Commission (EC), which investigated Apple for potentially shutting out rivals by denying access to the “Near Field Communication” (NFC) technology on its devices that enables the “tap and go” feature. Apple did not develop this technology, which is free for developers, the EC said, and going forward, Apple agreed to not charge developers fees to provide the NFC functionality on its devices.
In a press release, the EC’s executive vice president, Margrethe Vestager, said that Apple’s commitments in the settlement address the commission’s “preliminary concerns that Apple may have illegally restricted competition for mobile wallets on iPhones.”
“From now on, Apple can no longer use its control over the iPhone ecosystem to keep other mobile wallets out of the market,” Vestager said. “Competing wallet developers, as well as consumers, will benefit from these changes, opening up innovation and choice, while keeping payments secure.”
Apple has until July 25 to follow through on three commitments that resolve the EC’s concerns that Apple may have “prevented developers from bringing new and competing mobile wallets to iPhone users.”
Arguably, providing outside developers access to NFC functionality on its devices is the biggest change. Rather than allowing developers to access this functionality through Apple’s hardware, Apple has borrowed a solution prevalent in the Android ecosystem, Vestager said, granting access through a software solution called “Host Card Emulation mode.”
This, Vestager said, provides “an equivalent solution in terms of security and user experience” and paves the way for other wallets to be more easily used on Apple devices.
An Apple spokesperson told CNBC that “Apple is providing developers in the European Economic Area with an option to enable NFC contactless payments and contactless transactions for car keys, closed loop transit, corporate badges, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty/rewards, and event tickets from within their iOS apps using Host Card Emulation based APIs.”
To ensure that Apple Pay is on an equal playing field with other wallets, the EC said that Apple committed to improve contactless payments functionality for rival wallets. That means that “iPhone users will be able to double-click the side button of their iPhones to launch” their preferred wallet and “use Face ID, Touch ID and passcode to verify” their identities when using competing wallets.
Perhaps most critically for users attracted to Apple’s payment options convenience, Apple also agreed to allow rival wallets to be set as the default payment option.
These commitments will remain in force for 10 years, Vestager said.
Apple did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. Apple’s spokesperson confirmed to CNBC that no changes would be made to Apple Pay or Apple Wallet as a result of the settlement.
Apple’s commitments go beyond the DMA
Before accepting Apple’s commitments, the EC spoke to “many banks, app developers, card issuers, and financial associations,” Vestager said, whose feedback helped improve Apple’s commitments.
According to Vestager, Apple’s changes go beyond the requirements of the EU’s strict antitrust law, the Digital Markets Act, which “requires gatekeepers to ensure effective interoperability with hardware and software features that they use within their ecosystems,” including “access to NFC technology for mobile payments.”
Beyond the DMA, Apple agreed to have its compliance with the settlement “ensured by a monitoring trustee,” as well as to provide “a fast dispute resolution mechanism, which will also allow for an independent review of Apple’s implementation.”
Vestager assured all stakeholders in the European Economic Area that these changes will prevent any potential harms caused by Apple seeming to shut other wallets out of its devices, which “may have had a negative impact on innovation.” By settling the yearslong probe, Apple avoided a potentially large fine. In March, the EC fined Apple nearly $2 billion for restricting “alternative and cheaper music subscription services” like Spotify in its app store, and the suspected anticompetitive behavior in Apple’s payments ecosystem seemed just as harmful, the EC found.
“This reduction in choice and innovation is harmful,” Vestager said, confirming that the settlement concluded the EC’s probe into Apple Pay. “It is harmful to consumers and it is illegal under EU competition rules.”
Meta continues to hit walls with its heavily scrutinized plan to comply with the European Union’s strict online competition law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), by offering Facebook and Instagram subscriptions as an alternative for privacy-inclined users who want to opt out of ad targeting.
Today, the European Commission (EC) announced preliminary findings that Meta’s so-called “pay or consent” or “pay or OK” model—which gives users a choice to either pay for access to its platforms or give consent to collect user data to target ads—is not compliant with the DMA.
According to the EC, Meta’s advertising model violates the DMA in two ways. First, it “does not allow users to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalized ads-based service.” And second, it “does not allow users to exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data,” the press release said.
Now, Meta will have a chance to review the EC’s evidence and defend its policy, with today’s findings kicking off a process that will take months. The EC’s investigation is expected to conclude next March. Thierry Breton, the commissioner for the internal market, said in the press release that the preliminary findings represent “another important step” to ensure Meta’s full compliance with the DMA.
“The DMA is there to give back to the users the power to decide how their data is used and ensure innovative companies can compete on equal footing with tech giants on data access,” Breton said.
A Meta spokesperson told Ars that Meta plans to fight the findings—which could trigger fines up to 10 percent of the company’s worldwide turnover, as well as fines up to 20 percent for repeat infringement if Meta loses.
Meta continues to claim that its “subscription for no ads” model was “endorsed” by the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), last year.
“Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA,” Meta’s spokesperson said. “We look forward to further constructive dialogue with the European Commission to bring this investigation to a close.”
However, some critics have noted that the supposed endorsement was not an official part of the ruling and that particular case was not regarding DMA compliance.
The EC agreed that more talks were needed, writing in the press release, “the Commission continues its constructive engagement with Meta to identify a satisfactory path towards effective compliance.”
Enlarge/ A screen shows a virtual meeting with Microsoft Teams at a conference on January 30, 2024 in Barcelona, Spain.
Microsoft may be hit with a massive fine in the European Union for “possibly abusively” bundling Teams with its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 software suites for businesses.
On Tuesday, the European Commission (EC) announced preliminary findings of an investigation into whether Microsoft’s “suite-centric business model combining multiple types of software in a single offering” unfairly shut out rivals in the “software as a service” (SaaS) market.
“Since at least April 2019,” the EC found, Microsoft’s practice of “tying Teams with its core SaaS productivity applications” potentially restricted competition in the “market for communication and collaboration products.”
The EC is also “concerned” that the practice may have helped Microsoft defend its dominant market position by shutting out “competing suppliers of individual software” like Slack and German video-conferencing software Alfaview. Makers of those rival products had complained to the EC last year, setting off the ongoing probe into Microsoft’s bundling.
Customers should have choices, the EC said, and seemingly at every step, Microsoft sought instead to lock customers into using only its software.
“Microsoft may have granted Teams a distribution advantage by not giving customers the choice whether or not to acquire access to Teams when they subscribe to their SaaS productivity applications,” the EC wrote. This alleged abusive practice “may have been further exacerbated by interoperability limitations between Teams’ competitors and Microsoft’s offerings.”
For Microsoft, the EC’s findings are likely not entirely unexpected, although Tuesday’s announcement must be disappointing. The company had been hoping to avoid further scrutiny by introducing some major changes last year. Most drastically, Microsoft began “offering some suites without Teams,” the EC said, but even that wasn’t enough to appease EU regulators.
“The Commission preliminarily finds that these changes are insufficient to address its concerns and that more changes to Microsoft’s conduct are necessary to restore competition,” the EC said, concluding that “the conduct may have prevented Teams’ rivals from competing, and in turn innovating, to the detriment of customers in the European Economic Area.”
Microsoft will now be given an opportunity to defend its practices. If the company is unsuccessful, it risks a potential fine up to 10 percent of its annual worldwide turnover and an order possibly impacting how the leading global company conducts business.
In a statement to Ars, Microsoft President Brad Smith confirmed that the tech giant would work with the commission to figure out a better solution.
“Having unbundled Teams and taken initial interoperability steps, we appreciate the additional clarity provided today and will work to find solutions to address the commission’s remaining concerns,” Smith said.
The EC’s executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, explained in a statement why the commission refuses to back down from closely scrutinizing Microsoft’s alleged unfair practices.
“We are concerned that Microsoft may be giving its own communication product Teams an undue advantage over competitors by tying it to its popular productivity suites for businesses,” Vestager said. “And preserving competition for remote communication and collaboration tools is essential as it also fosters innovation” in these markets.
Changes coming to EU antitrust law in 2025
The EC initially launched its investigation into Microsoft’s allegedly abusive Teams bundling last July. Its probe came after Slack and Alfaview makers complained that Microsoft may be violating Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), “which prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position.”
Nearly one year later, there’s no telling when the EC’s inquiry into Microsoft Teams will end. Microsoft will have a chance to review all evidence of infringement gathered by EU regulators to form its response. After that, the EC will review any additional evidence before making its decision, and there is no legal deadline to complete the antitrust inquiry, the EC said.
It’s possible that the EC’s decision may come next year when the EU is preparing to release new guidance to more “vigorously” and effectively enforce TFEU.
Last March, the EC called for stakeholder feedback after rolling out “the first major policy initiative in the area of abuse of dominance rules.” The initiative sought to update TFEU for the first time since 2008 based on reviewing relevant case law.
“A robust enforcement of rules on abuse of dominance benefits both consumers and a stronger European economy,” Vestager said at that time. “We have carefully analyzed numerous EU court judgments on the application of Article 102, and it is time for us to start working on guidelines reflecting this case law.”
Starting in March with the release of iOS 17.4, iPhones in the European Union have been subject to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a batch of regulations that (among other things) forced Apple to support alternate app stores, app sideloading, and third-party browser engines in iOS for the first time. Today, EU regulators announced that they are also categorizing Apple’s iPadOS as a “gatekeeper,” meaning that the iPad will soon be subject to the same regulations as the iPhone.
The EU began investigating whether iPadOS would qualify as a gatekeeper in September 2023, the same day it decided that iOS, the Safari browser, and the App Store were all gatekeepers.
“Apple now has six months to ensure full compliance of iPadOS with the DMA obligations,” reads the EU’s blog post about the change.
Apple technically split the iPad’s operating system from the iPhone’s in 2019 when it began calling its tablet operating system “iPadOS” instead of iOS. But practically speaking, little separates the two operating systems under the hood. Both iOS and iPadOS share the same software build numbers, they’re updated in lockstep (with rare exceptions), and most importantly for DMA compliance purposes, they pull software from the same locked-down App Store with the same Apple-imposed restrictions in place.
Apps distributed through alternate app stores or third-party websites will have to abide by many of Apple’s rules and will still generally be limited to using Apple’s public APIs. However, the ability to use alternate app stores and browser engines on the iPad’s large screen (and the desktop-class M-series chips) could make the tablets better laptop replacements by allowing them to do more of the things that Mac users can do on their systems.
Though Apple has made multiple changes to iOS in the EU to comply with the DMA, EU regulators are already investigating Apple (as well as Google and Meta) for “non-compliance.” Depending on the results of that investigation, the EU may require Apple to make more changes to the way it allows third-party apps to be installed in iOS and to the way that third-party developers are allowed to advertise non-Apple app store and payment options. Any changes that Apple makes to iOS to comply with the investigation’s findings will presumably trickle down to the iPad as well.
Of course, none of this directly affects US-based iPhone or iPad users, whose devices remain restricted to Apple’s app stores and the WebKit browsing engine. That said, we have seen some recent App Store rule changes that have arguably trickled down from Apple’s attempts to comply with the DMA, most notably policy changes that have allowed (some, not all) retro game console emulators into the App Store for the first time.
Meta is considering cutting monthly subscription fees for Facebook and Instagram users in the European Union nearly in half to comply with the Digital Market Act (DMA), Reuters reported.
During a day-long public workshop on Meta’s DMA compliance, Meta’s competition and regulatory director, Tim Lamb, told the European Commission (EC) that individual subscriber fees could be slashed from 9.99 euros to 5.99 euros. Meta is hoping that reducing fees will help to speed up the EC’s process for resolving Meta’s compliance issues. If Meta’s offer is accepted, any additional accounts would then cost 4 euros instead of 6 euros.
Lamb said that these prices are “by far the lowest end of the range that any reasonable person should be paying for services of these quality,” calling it a “serious offer.”
The DMA requires that Meta’s users of Facebook, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and Facebook Marketplace “freely” give consent to share data used for ad targeting without losing access to the platform if they’d prefer not to share data. That means services must provide an acceptable alternative for users who don’t consent to data sharing.
“Gatekeepers should enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to such data processing and sign-in practices by offering a less personalized but equivalent alternative, and without making the use of the core platform service or certain functionalities thereof conditional upon the end user’s consent,” the DMA says.
Designated gatekeepers like Meta have debated what it means for a user to “freely” give consent, suggesting that offering a paid subscription for users who decline to share data would be one route for Meta to continue offering high-quality services without routinely hoovering up data on all its users.
But EU privacy advocates like NOYB have protested Meta’s plan to offer a subscription model instead of consenting to data sharing, calling it a “pay or OK model” that forces Meta users who cannot pay the fee to consent to invasive data sharing they would otherwise decline. In a statement shared with Ars, NOYB chair Max Schrems said that even if Meta reduced its fees to 1.99 euros, it would be forcing consent from 99.9 percent of users.
“We know from all research that even a fee of just 1.99 euros or less leads to a shift in consent from 3–10 percent that genuinely want advertisement to 99.9 percent that still click yes,” Schrems said.
In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) “requires that consent must be ‘freely’ given,” Schrems said. “In reality, it is not about the amount of money—it is about the ‘pay or OK’ approach as a whole. The entire purpose of ‘pay or OK’, is to get users to click on OK, even if this is not their free and genuine choice. We do not think the mere change of the amount makes this approach legal.”
Where EU stands on subscription models
Meta expects that a subscription model is a legal alternative under the DMA. The tech giant said it was launching EU subscriptions last November after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) “endorsed the subscriptions model as a way for people to consent to data processing for personalized advertising.”
It’s unclear how popular the subscriptions have been at the current higher cost. Right now in the EU, monthly Facebook and Instagram subscriptions cost 9.99 euros per month on the web or 12.99 euros per month on iOS and Android, with additional fees of 6 euros per month on the web and 8 euros per month on iOS and Android for each additional account. Meta declined to comment on how many EU users have subscribed, noting to Ars that it has no obligation to do so.
In the CJEU case, the court was reviewing Meta’s GDPR compliance, which Schrems noted is less strict than the DMA. The CJEU specifically said that under the GDPR, “users must be free to refuse individually”—”in the context of” signing up for services— “to give their consent to particular data processing operations not necessary” for Meta to provide such services “without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service.”
Apple’s iMessage service is not a “gatekeeper” prone to unfair business practices and will thus not be required under the Fair Markets Act to open up to messages, files, and video calls from other services, the European Commission announced earlier today.
Apple was one of many companies, including Google, Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, and Microsoft to have its “gatekeeper” status investigated by the European Union. The iMessage service did meet the definition of a “core platform,” serving at least 45 million EU users monthly and being controlled by a firm with at least 75 billion euros in market capitalization. But after “a thorough assessment of all arguments” during a five-month investigation, the Commission found that iMessage and Microsoft’s Bing search, Edge browser, and ad platform “do not qualify as gatekeeper services.” The unlikelihood of EU demands on iMessage was apparent in early December when Bloomberg reported that the service didn’t have enough sway with business users to demand more regulation.
Had the Commission ruled otherwise, Apple would have had until August to open its service. It would have been interesting to see how the company would have complied, given that it provides end-to-end encryption and registers senders based on information from their registered Apple devices.
Google had pushed the Commission to force Apple into “gatekeeper status,” part of Google’s larger campaign to make Apple treat Android users better when they trade SMS messages with iPhone users. While Apple has agreed to take up RCS, an upgraded form of carrier messaging with typing indicators and better image and video quality, it will not provide encryption for Android-to-iPhone SMS, nor remove the harsh green coloring that particularly resonates with younger users.
Apple is still obligated to comply with the Digital Markets Act’s other implications on its iOS operating system, its App Store, and its Safari browser. The European Union version of iOS 17.4, due in March, will offer “alternative app marketplaces,” or sideloading, along with the tools so that those other app stores can provide updates and other services. Browsers on iOS will also be able to use their own rendering engines rather than providing features only on top of mobile Safari rendering. Microsoft, among other firms, will make similar concessions in certain areas of Europe with Windows 11 and other products.
While it’s unlikely to result in the same kind of action, Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said at a conference yesterday that the FCC “has a role to play” in investigating whether Apple’s blocking of the Beeper Mini app violated Part 14 rules regarding accessibility and usability. “I think the FCC should launch an investigation to look at whether Apple’s decision to degrade the Beeper Mini functionality… was a step that violated the FCC’s rules in Part 14,” Carr said at the State of the Net policy conference in Washington, DC.
Beeper Mini launched with the ability for Android users to send fully encrypted iMessage messages to Apple users, based on reverse-engineering of its protocol and registration. Days after its launch, Apple blocked its users and issued a statement saying that it was working to stop exploits and spam. The blocking and workarounds continued until Beeper announced that it was shifting its focus away from iMessage and back to being a multi-service chat app, minus one particular service. Beeper’s experience had previously garnered recognition from Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Ars has reached out to Apple, Microsoft, and Google for comment and will update this post if we receive responses.
To comply with European Union regulations, Apple has introduced sweeping changes that make iOS and Apple’s other operating systems more open. The changes are far-reaching and touch many parts of the user experience on the iPhone. They’ll be coming as part of iOS 17.4 in March.
Apple will introduce “new APIs and tools that enable developers to offer their iOS apps for download from alternative app marketplaces,” as well as a new framework and set of APIs that allow third parties to set up and manage those stores—essentially new forms of apps that can download other apps without going through the App Store. That includes the ability to manage updates for other developers’ apps that are distributed through the marketplaces.
The company will also offer APIs and a new framework for third-party web browsers to use browser engines other than Safari’s WebKit. Until now, browsers like Chrome and Firefox were still built on top of Apple’s tech. They essentially were mobile Safari, but with bookmarks and other features tied to alternative desktop browsers.
The changes also extend to NFC technology and contactless payments. Previously, only Apple Pay could fully access those features on the iPhone. Now, Apple will introduce new APIs that will let developers of banking and wallet apps gain more comparable access.
Developers will have new options for using alternative payment service providers within apps and for directing users to complete payments on external websites via link-outs. They’ll be able to use their apps to tell users about promotions and deals that are offered outside of those apps. (Apple warns that it will not be able to provide refunds or support for customers who purchased something outside its own payment system.)
Apple says it will give users in the European Union the ability to pick default App Stores or default contactless payment apps, just like they already can for email clients or web browsers. EU users will be prompted to pick a default browser when they first open Safari in iOS 17.4 or later, too.
Developers can “submit additional requests for interoperability with iPhone and iOS hardware and software features” via a new form.
All of the above changes impact only the EU; Apple won’t bring them to the United States or other regions at this time. There is one notable change that extends beyond Europe, though: Apple says that “developers can now submit a single app with the capability to stream all of the games offered in their catalog.” That opens the door for services like Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass or Nvidia’s GeForce Now.
Apple notes that “each experience made available in an app on the App Store will be required to adhere to all App Store Review Guidelines,” which could still pose some barriers for game streamers.
Meta will allow some Facebook and Instagram users to unlink their accounts as part of the platform’s efforts to comply with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) ahead of enforcement starting March 1.
In a blog, Meta’s competition and regulatory director, Tim Lamb, wrote that Instagram and Facebook users in the EU, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland would be notified in the “next few weeks” about “more choices about how they can use” Meta’s services and features, including new opportunities to limit data-sharing across apps and services.
Most significantly, users can choose to either keep their accounts linked or “manage their Instagram and Facebook accounts separately so that their information is no longer used across accounts.” Up to this point, linking user accounts had provided Meta with more data to more effectively target ads to more users. The perk of accessing data on Instagram’s widening younger user base, TechCrunch noted, was arguably the $1 billion selling point explaining why Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012.
Also announced today, users protected by the DMA will soon be able to separate their Facebook Messenger, Marketplace, and Gaming accounts. However, doing so will limit some social features available in some of the standalone apps.
While Messenger users choosing to disconnect the chat service from their Facebook accounts will still “be able to use Messenger’s core service offering such as private messaging and chat, voice and video calling,” Marketplace users making that same choice will have to email sellers and buyers, rather than using Facebook’s messenger service. And unlinked Gaming app users will only be able to play single-player games, severing their access to social gaming otherwise supported by linking the Gaming service to their Facebook social networks.
While Meta may have had choices other than depriving users unlinking accounts of some features, Meta didn’t really have a choice in allowing newly announced options to unlink accounts. The DMA specifically requires that very large platforms designated as “gatekeepers” give users the “specific choice” of opting out of sharing personal data across a platform’s different core services or across any separate services that the gatekeepers manage.
Without gaining “specific” consent, gatekeepers will no longer be allowed to “combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services” or “cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper,” the DMA says. The “specific” requirement is designed to block platforms from securing consent at sign-up, then hoovering up as much personal data as possible as new services are added in an endless pursuit of advertising growth.
As defined under the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU requiring “specific” consent stops platforms from gaining user consent for broadly defined data processing by instead establishing “the need for granularity,” so that platforms always seek consent for each “specific” data “processing purpose.”
“This is an important ‘safeguard against the gradual widening or blurring of purposes for which data is processed, after a data subject has agreed to the initial collection of the data,’” the European Data Protection Supervisor explained in public comments describing “commercial surveillance and data security practices that harm consumers” provided at the request of the FTC in 2022.
According to Meta’s help page, once users opt out of sharing data between apps and services, Meta will “stop combining your info across these accounts” within 15 days “after you’ve removed them.” However, all “previously combined info would remain combined.”
