Apple and Meta trade barbs over interoperability requests

The European Commission (EC) has continued pushing Apple to open up more of iOS to third parties, and Apple has pushed back, warning that doing so risks user privacy.

It’s all part of the interoperability measures in the European Digital Markets Act (DMA), which, among other things, requires gatekeepers – such as Apple – to “provide interoperability with and access to software and hardware features of designated operating systems.” This includes iOS and iPadOS.

Apple, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the proposals and has published a document [PDF] detailing how the DMA’s interoperability mandate can be abused, and, significantly, names names when it comes to who is making the requests.

Apple said: “Meta has made 15 requests (and counting) for potentially far-reaching access to Apple’s technology stack that, if granted as sought, would reduce the protections around personal data that our users have come to expect from their devices.”

These requests include access to iMessage to send and read messages and direct access to TVs and smart speakers via AirPlay.

Apple also pointed out that Meta had been repeatedly fined for privacy violations.

In the US, Meta was fined billions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to settle an investigation into Facebook following the disclosure of millions of user records to a third party. Last year, Meta sued the FTC to strip it of the authority to regulate the social media giant. The company was also sued by several US states over design practices that were alleged to damage the mental well-being of teenagers and children.

In the EU, Meta was slapped with an eye-popping $1.3 billion fine over EU data being transferred to the US. This week, it was fined $264 million for accidentally allowing miscreants to steal tokens via the “View As” feature.

The iPhone vendor warned: “If Apple were to have to grant all of these requests, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp could enable Meta to read on a user’s device all of their messages and emails, see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use, scan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their passwords, and more.”

Andy Stone, Meta Communications Director, responded to the EU’s proposed measures and Apple’s remarks on X. He said: “So let’s cut to the chase. Here’s what Apple is actually saying: they don’t believe in interoperability. In fact, every time Apple is called out for anti-competitive behavior, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality.”

• Apple hit with £3 billion claim of ripping off 40 million UK iCloud users
• Elon Musk’s X isn’t important enough to feel the full force of EU regulation
• Rival browsers cry foul after Microsoft Edge slips through EU gatekeeper cracks
• Europe to force Apple to help rivals connect to iOS, iPadOS

Andrew Bosworth, Meta CTO, said: “If you paid for an iPhone you should be annoyed that Apple won’t give you the power to decide what accessories you use with it! You paid a lot of money for that computer and it could be doing so much more for you but they handicap it to preference their own accessories (which are not always the best!). All we are asking for is the opportunity for consumers to choose how best to use their own devices.”

The Register asked Meta for a list of the requests that irked Apple and a response to Apple’s specific allegations – for example, that Meta would be able to access user passwords – and will update the article if the company responds.

The DMA prescribes interoperability by design for new features but permits gatekeepers to use a request-based process for existing, non-interoperable features. However, the EC does not appear to be impressed with Apple’s actions to date and has published a lengthy list [PDF] of proposals for consultation.

The EC has also published proposals [PDF] for how Apple might handle requests, including providing a “reliable, responsive and accessible contact point” to deal with developer requests and be more transparent regarding the whys and wherefores of rejection. ®