daring-rss

Taylor Swift, in a post late last night on Instagram:

I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice. Your research is
all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make. I also want to
say, especially to first time voters: Remember that in order to
vote, you have to be registered! I also find it’s much easier to
vote early. I’ll link where to register and find early voting
dates and info in my story.

With love and hope,

Taylor Swift
Childless Cat Lady

Given her almost unfathomable popularity, any endorsement is a big deal, period. But this was a really well-written statement. The emphasis on doing your own research about both candidates and making up your own mind is persuasive. For one, it appeals to anyone young who’s leaning Trump but feeling squishy about it, and fancies themself an independent thinker. And it deflates any notion that she’s telling her fans for vote for Kamala Harris just because she is.

Timing this endorsement for after the end of last night’s debate seems strategic too. If Harris had done poorly, it would have presented a course-correcting narrative. Or, as actually happened, if Harris handed Trump his dumb red hat, it would run up the score.

And signing off that way? Chef’s kiss.

Social media nerd note: Swift posted this to Instagram, and Instagram only. In 2020, when endorsing Joe Biden, she posted both to Instagram and Twitter. She has a Threads account but has only posted there three times, all back in April, upon the release of her album The Tortured Poets Department.

 ★ 

Taylor Swift, in a post late last night on Instagram:

I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice. Your research is
all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make. I also want to
say, especially to first time voters: Remember that in order to
vote, you have to be registered! I also find it’s much easier to
vote early. I’ll link where to register and find early voting
dates and info in my story.

With love and hope,

Taylor Swift
Childless Cat Lady

Given her almost unfathomable popularity, any endorsement is a big deal, period. But this was a really well-written statement. The emphasis on doing your own research about both candidates and making up your own mind is persuasive. For one, it appeals to anyone young who’s leaning Trump but feeling squishy about it, and fancies themself an independent thinker. And it deflates any notion that she’s telling her fans for vote for Kamala Harris just because she is.

Timing this endorsement for after the end of last night’s debate seems strategic too. If Harris had done poorly, it would have presented a course-correcting narrative. Or, as actually happened, if Harris handed Trump his dumb red hat, it would run up the score.

And signing off that way? Chef’s kiss.

Social media nerd note: Swift posted this to Instagram, and Instagram only. In 2020, when endorsing Joe Biden, she posted both to Instagram and Twitter. She has a Threads account but has only posted there three times, all back in April, upon the release of her album The Tortured Poets Department.

Read More 

Juli Clover, reporting for MacRumors:

Apple today discontinued its ill-received FineWoven material, introducing no new cases that use the leather replacement. The company has also removed existing FineWoven iPhone cases for older devices from its website, though FineWoven versions of the MagSafe Wallet and AirTag Key Ring continue to be available.

You know what’s a great material for phone cases? Leather. Apple is so damn good at material engineering — I truly expect them to, sooner rather than later, come up with a leather-like non-leather that’s as good or better than actual leather. But FineWoven sure as shit wasn’t it.

 ★ 

Juli Clover, reporting for MacRumors:

Apple today discontinued its ill-received FineWoven material, introducing no new cases that use the leather replacement. The company has also removed existing FineWoven iPhone cases for older devices from its website, though FineWoven versions of the MagSafe Wallet and AirTag Key Ring continue to be available.

You know what’s a great material for phone cases? Leather. Apple is so damn good at material engineering — I truly expect them to, sooner rather than later, come up with a leather-like non-leather that’s as good or better than actual leather. But FineWoven sure as shit wasn’t it.

Read More 

My iPhones 16 briefing yesterday was at this new building. It is very nice. A little cozy — it’s not that big. Great light, and from the main room, a splendid view of the main building. Restroom doors are like bank vault doors.

 ★ 

My iPhones 16 briefing yesterday was at this new building. It is very nice. A little cozy — it’s not that big. Great light, and from the main room, a splendid view of the main building. Restroom doors are like bank vault doors.

Read More 

My thanks to 1Password — which, earlier this year, acquired longtime DF sponsor Kolide — for sponsoring last week at DF. When the EU enacted GDPR in 2018, executives and security professionals waited anxiously to see how the law would be enforced. And then they kept waiting … and waiting … but the Great European Privacy Crackdown never came.

But the days of betting that you’re too big or too small to be noticed by GDPR are over. Recently, EU member nations (plus the UK) have started taking action against data controllers of all sizes–from the big (Amazon), to the medium (a trucking company), to the truly minuscule (a Spanish citizen whose home security cameras bothered their neighbors).

If you’re an IT or security professional, you may be wondering what to do. Unfortunately, GDPR compliance isn’t the kind of thing you can solve by buying a tool or scheduling a training session. The best place to start is to adopt a policy of data minimization: collect only the data you truly need to function, on both customers and employees. After that, your second priority should be securing the data you have — keeping it only as long as you absolutely need to, and then destroying it.

1Password can help with all aspects of GDPR compliance. To learn more about GDPR compliance, check out this post at 1Password’s blog.

 ★ 

My thanks to 1Password — which, earlier this year, acquired longtime DF sponsor Kolide — for sponsoring last week at DF. When the EU enacted GDPR in 2018, executives and security professionals waited anxiously to see how the law would be enforced. And then they kept waiting … and waiting … but the Great European Privacy Crackdown never came.

But the days of betting that you’re too big or too small to be noticed by GDPR are over. Recently, EU member nations (plus the UK) have started taking action against data controllers of all sizes–from the big (Amazon), to the medium (a trucking company), to the truly minuscule (a Spanish citizen whose home security cameras bothered their neighbors).

If you’re an IT or security professional, you may be wondering what to do. Unfortunately, GDPR compliance isn’t the kind of thing you can solve by buying a tool or scheduling a training session. The best place to start is to adopt a policy of data minimization: collect only the data you truly need to function, on both customers and employees. After that, your second priority should be securing the data you have — keeping it only as long as you absolutely need to, and then destroying it.

1Password can help with all aspects of GDPR compliance. To learn more about GDPR compliance, check out this post at 1Password’s blog.

Read More 

As it stands, fun side is not the EU. But hope springs eternal.

There’s a scene in Martin Scorsese’s Casino. Gangster Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) and two of his goon friends are in a nightclub in the Tangiers casino resort (a fictionalized version of the old Stardust), which is run by Ace Rothstein (Robert De Niro). Santoro and Rothstein, who’d been friends for decades, are now on the outs. The Tangiers is a front for the mafia and the Teamsters. Rothstein, a gambling genius who was born to run a casino, is earning major bank for the bosses back home. Santoro is gangstering up Las Vegas, and is under severe law enforcement scrutiny. They just held a contentious meeting, just the two of them, at Santoro’s request, in the middle of the desert — a meeting Rothstein wasn’t sure wouldn’t conclude with him dead in a freshly dug hole in the sand.

Santoro and his two friends are just a threesome. All men. Morose.

Rothstein comes in with Billy Sherbert (Don Rickles) and a party of half a dozen or so men and women, including Oscar Goodman, famed defense attorney and future mayor of Las Vegas (playing himself), and several women. Everyone (but Rothstein, who’s not much for fun) is laughing. You’d be laughing too if you were out having drinks with Don Fucking Rickles and Oscar Goodman.

Santoro gripes about Rothstein not acknowledging him, and, well, makes some comments that suggest he doesn’t hold Jews in the highest esteem. Santoro’s right-hand man, Frank Marino (played by the great Frank Vincent, of Billy “Go Get Your Fucking Shine Box” Batts fame), dryly observes, “They’re having a good time, too.”

The camera pulls back to show their threesome, alone in their booth, isolated. Santoro, who is absolutely not having a good time, replies, “So are we.”

I’ve been thinking about that scene a lot, lately.

Allison Johnson, in a piece for The Verge headlined “European iPhones Are More Fun Now”:

Whining about stuff is a treasured American pastime, so allow
me to indulge: the iPhone is more fun in Europe now, and it’s
not fair.

They’re getting all kinds of stuff because they have cool
regulators, not, like, regular regulators. Third-party app
stores, the ability for browsers to run their own
engines, Fortnite, and now the ability to
replace lots of default apps? I want it, too! Imagine if
Chrome on iOS wasn’t just a rinky dink little Safari emulator!

Imagine if Chrome could deplete your iPhone battery as fast as it does your MacBook battery. Imagine if you were one of the millions (zillions?) of people whose “incognito mode” browsing history was observed and stored by Google and deleted only after they lost a lawsuit. Imagine — and this takes a lot of imagination — if Google actually shipped a version of Chrome for iOS, only for the EU, that used its own battery-eating rendering engine instead of using the energy-efficient system version of WebKit.

Imagine downloading a new dialer app with a soundboard of fart
sounds and setting it as your default! Unfortunately, Apple
doesn’t seem interested in sharing these possibilities with
everyone.

That sounds like fun.

Sure, we’ve got retro game emulators in the app store. And
that rules. But that’s only because Apple was worried everyone in
the EU was about to download AltStore PAL so they could
play Ocarina of Time on their iPhones.

If the benefit of the DMA is allowing emulators worldwide how is that an advantage for people in the EU?

Here’s the thing: wouldn’t it just be good business to offer
everyone the same choices no matter where they live? It’s not as
if Apple was making two different iPhones to try to appeal to
different cultural preferences. It’s making one iPhone that’s more
flexible and customizable and one that isn’t.

Maybe, bit by bit, Apple will cave in and offer parity the way it
did with emulators. But I think the company should make an
uncharacteristic move: drop the charade and let everyone,
everywhere have the same iPhone. It would be bold! Courageous,
even! But most importantly, it would be a lot more fun.

Yes, let’s allow everyone, around the world, to delete their Camera app. That sounds like fun.

Federico Viticci, on Threads:

My realization in 2024 has been that the DMA fork of iOS is the
best iPhone experience. We can finally use our phones like actual
computers with more default apps and apps from external sources.

And on MacStories:

It’s still iOS, with the tasteful design, vibrant app ecosystem,
high-performance animations, and accessibility we’ve come to
expect from Apple; at the same time, it’s a more flexible and fun
version of iOS predicated upon the assumption that users deserve
options to control more aspects of how their expensive pocket
computers should work. Or, as I put it: some of the
flexibility of Android, but on iOS, sounds like a dream to me.

Apparently, this thought — that people who demand options should
have them — really annoys a lot of (generally American)
pundits who seemingly consider the European Commission a
draconian entity that demands changes out of spite for a
particular corporation, rather than a group of elected officials
who regulate based on what they believe is best for their
constituents and the European market.

Let’s run a tally. On the EU side, there is Fortnite and other games from Epic, a shady company that was justifiably booted from the App Store for bait-and-switch chicanery intended to provoke a lawsuit in which they got their asses handed back to them. On the rest-of-the-world side we have the imminent release of iPhone Mirroring and Apple Intelligence. I don’t play Fortnite, and even if I did, I wouldn’t on my phone, but I find the latter far more interesting — and fun — than the former.

The non-Epic iOS software available exclusively in the EU is … well, nothing of interest. Maybe some apps that help with content piracy. Other than that, nothing. Admittedly, the DMA only went into effect 6 months ago. Long-term, maybe there will arise a thriving ecosystem of useful and fun apps and games that are exclusively available in EU marketplaces. Right now, it’s Fortnite. There are a bunch of articles (and surely soon to be more) informing EU citizens how to access Apple Intelligence (by lying about where they are). There are crickets chirping regarding how iOS users outside the EU can cheat their way into the EU’s new DMA rules. No one cares.

Meanwhile no one in the EU will get Apple Intelligence or iPhone Mirroring, both of which features are very useful, and, dare I say, quite fun. Should we judge how much fun each side of the continental divide is having by how much fun they theoretically could be having, or by how much fun they are having?

As it stands, the fun side is not the EU. But hope springs eternal.

Read More 

Emma Roth, reporting for The Verge last week:

Spotify users on iPhone will no longer be able to control the
volume on connected devices using their physical volume buttons.
In an update to its support page, Spotify said Apple
“discontinued” this technology, forcing iPhone owners to use an
annoying workaround. […]

“We’ve made requests to Apple to introduce a similar solution to
what they offer users on HomePod and Apple TV for app developers
who control non-Apple media devices,” Spotify says in its update.
“Apple has told us that they require apps to integrate into Home
Pod in order to access the technology that controls volume on
iPhones.”

I believe Spotify has subsequently edited their support page, because the above text no longer appear here, where it now reads:

Apple has discontinued the technology that enables Spotify to
control volume for connected devices using the volume buttons on
the device. While we work with them on a solution, you can use the
Spotify app to easily adjust the volume on your connected device.

It remains unclear to me exactly what is going on here. I think what happened is that what Spotify was doing to enable users to use the hardware volume buttons on their iPhones to control the volume of playback on other devices via Spotify Connect was making use of private or undocumented APIs, and Apple shut those APIs down in iOS 17.6. In short, that it was a hack that stopped working or just stopped working reliably.

But I was wrong yesterday to say — in the headline of the post, of all places — that Spotify could solve the problem by adopting AirPlay 2. Spotify Connect is, and needs to be, its own separate thing. Spotify users who use Connect love it. Here’s what one DF reader wrote to me: “AirPlay is a per-device feature, while Spotify Connect synchronizes Spotify sessions across devices. I can initiate playing on my iPhone, then control it from my iPad, Mac, or Watch. I can change the destination speaker from any device. It’s so good that I’m forever wedded to Spotify until Apple or someone else comes up with an equivalent experience. I think if AirPlay offered equivalent functionality, but Spotify refused to adopt it, Spotify would be open to more criticism, but from the perspective of a Spotify user, it’s lost functionality and even supporting AirPlay 2 would not fix what is now a diminished experience. So I think Spotify is doing the only thing they can, which is complain.”

The basic gist is that Apple has always controlled the hardware buttons and switches on iOS devices. Games can’t use the volume buttons as, say, left/right or up/down buttons. In the very early years of the App Store third-party camera apps started using the volume buttons as camera shutter buttons, but Apple then forbade it — and then started using those buttons as shutter buttons in the system Camera app, and then, like 15 years later, finally added an API for this use case in iOS 17.2.

But note that new API is only for using these buttons for capture:

Important You can only use this API for capture use cases. The system sends
capture events only to apps that actively use the camera.
Backgrounded capture apps, and apps not performing capture, don’t
receive events.

Spotify (and Sonos) were clearly using the hardware volume buttons in ways unapproved. It’s fair to argue that Apple should provide APIs they can use, especially if it’s for controlling audio volume, even if on another device. But they don’t.

Also worth noting: when using Apple’s own Remote app to control an Apple TV, the iPhone hardware volume buttons adjust the volume on the Apple TV. According to Apple this also works when using the Remote app to control an AirPlay-compatible smart TV. That’s the ability Spotify and Sonos seek for themselves.

See also: Michael Tsai.

 ★ 

Emma Roth, reporting for The Verge last week:

Spotify users on iPhone will no longer be able to control the
volume on connected devices using their physical volume buttons.
In an update to its support page, Spotify said Apple
“discontinued” this technology, forcing iPhone owners to use an
annoying workaround. […]

“We’ve made requests to Apple to introduce a similar solution to
what they offer users on HomePod and Apple TV for app developers
who control non-Apple media devices,” Spotify says in its update.
“Apple has told us that they require apps to integrate into Home
Pod in order to access the technology that controls volume on
iPhones.”

I believe Spotify has subsequently edited their support page, because the above text no longer appear here, where it now reads:

Apple has discontinued the technology that enables Spotify to
control volume for connected devices using the volume buttons on
the device. While we work with them on a solution, you can use the
Spotify app to easily adjust the volume on your connected device.

It remains unclear to me exactly what is going on here. I think what happened is that what Spotify was doing to enable users to use the hardware volume buttons on their iPhones to control the volume of playback on other devices via Spotify Connect was making use of private or undocumented APIs, and Apple shut those APIs down in iOS 17.6. In short, that it was a hack that stopped working or just stopped working reliably.

But I was wrong yesterday to say — in the headline of the post, of all places — that Spotify could solve the problem by adopting AirPlay 2. Spotify Connect is, and needs to be, its own separate thing. Spotify users who use Connect love it. Here’s what one DF reader wrote to me: “AirPlay is a per-device feature, while Spotify Connect synchronizes Spotify sessions across devices. I can initiate playing on my iPhone, then control it from my iPad, Mac, or Watch. I can change the destination speaker from any device. It’s so good that I’m forever wedded to Spotify until Apple or someone else comes up with an equivalent experience. I think if AirPlay offered equivalent functionality, but Spotify refused to adopt it, Spotify would be open to more criticism, but from the perspective of a Spotify user, it’s lost functionality and even supporting AirPlay 2 would not fix what is now a diminished experience. So I think Spotify is doing the only thing they can, which is complain.”

The basic gist is that Apple has always controlled the hardware buttons and switches on iOS devices. Games can’t use the volume buttons as, say, left/right or up/down buttons. In the very early years of the App Store third-party camera apps started using the volume buttons as camera shutter buttons, but Apple then forbade it — and then started using those buttons as shutter buttons in the system Camera app, and then, like 15 years later, finally added an API for this use case in iOS 17.2.

But note that new API is only for using these buttons for capture:

Important You can only use this API for capture use cases. The system sends
capture events only to apps that actively use the camera.
Backgrounded capture apps, and apps not performing capture, don’t
receive events.

Spotify (and Sonos) were clearly using the hardware volume buttons in ways unapproved. It’s fair to argue that Apple should provide APIs they can use, especially if it’s for controlling audio volume, even if on another device. But they don’t.

Also worth noting: when using Apple’s own Remote app to control an Apple TV, the iPhone hardware volume buttons adjust the volume on the Apple TV. According to Apple this also works when using the Remote app to control an AirPlay-compatible smart TV. That’s the ability Spotify and Sonos seek for themselves.

See also: Michael Tsai.

Read More 

What’s happening with Apple Intelligence and iPhone Screen Sharing this year is what I expect to happen with every new product or service Apple creates that integrates with iOS: they will come late, or never, to the EU.

At the end of August, Apple announced several more DMA compliance changes. They are worth examining in detail.

Changes to the Mandatory Browser Choice Screen

Developers of browsers offered in the browser choice screen in the
EU will have additional information about their browser shown to
users who view the choice screen, and will get access to more data
about the performance of the choice screen. The updated choice
screen will be shown to all EU users who have Safari set as their
default browser. For details about the changes coming to the
browser choice screen, view About the Browser Choice Screen in the EU.

Some of the choice details of the new changes:

All users with Safari as their default browser, including users
who have already seen the choice screen prior to the update,
will see the choice screen upon first launch of Safari after
installing the update available later this year.

The choice screen will not be displayed if a user already has a
browser other than Safari set as default.

The choice screen will be shown once per device instead of once
per user.

When migrating to a new device, if (and only if) the user’s
previously chosen default browser was Safari, the user will be
required to reselect a default browser (i.e. unlike other
settings in iOS, the user’s choice of default browser will not
be migrated if that choice was Safari).

I get it that the entire point of this mandatory choice screen is that because iOS is, in DMA parlance, a designated “gatekeeping” platform, the presumption is that Apple has unfairly advantaged Safari by bundling it with the OS and making it the default. So, from the European Commission’s perspective, some significant number of iOS users are using Safari only because it is bundled and default, and would prefer and/or be better served — or even just equally served — using another web browser as their default. Thus, Safari gets treated differently. It’s not just another browser in a list of 11. It’s the only browser whose users will be forced to choose again even if they’ve already chosen it in iOS 17.4 or later. It’s the only browser whose users will be forced to choose again whenever they migrate to a new iPhone or iPad. What exactly is the point of forcing this screen per-device rather than per-user, other than to repeatedly irritate Safari users who own multiple iOS devices?

At what point do these restrictions punish Safari users who want to use Safari? I’d say the EC has crossed that point by forcing these rules on Apple. Another detail:

Users will be required to scroll through the full list of
browser options before setting a browser as default.

You know how in certain “terms and conditions” agreement screens, you can only “agree” after scrolling all the way to the bottom of the legalese that almost no one actually reads? That’s how the browser choice screen must now work. Almost nothing in iOS works like this, and I suspect more than a few users who spot their preferred browser above the fold in the randomized list will find it very confusing that after selecting their browser, “nothing happens”. This is legally-mandated bad interaction design.

If Safari is currently in the user’s Dock or on the first page of
the Home Screen and the user selects a browser that is not
currently installed on their device from the choice screen, the
selected browser will replace the Safari icon in the user’s Dock
or in the Home Screen.

For 17 years, the iOS Home Screen has been consistently spatial. Wherever an app is placed on your Home Screen, it stays there. Now, obviously, the EC’s objection is that Apple has unfairly privileged Safari with default placement in the user’s Dock, and they are seeking to remove this privilege for any user who chooses a browser other than Safari on the choice screen. But surely some number of users will regret their choice. Or simply seek to open Safari while trying some other browser as their new default. But now, unlike the way iOS has worked for 17 years, the Safari icon won’t be where they left it. It’s also worth noting that apps in the iOS Dock don’t show their names, only their icons. There surely exist many satisfied Safari users who don’t even know what “Safari” is — they only know the blue-compass icon. And they know that whenever they open URLs from an email or text message, those URLs open in an interface with which they’re completely familiar. The browser choice screen does, of course, show the browsers’ icons, but still. This is legally-mandated confusion.

The list of browsers presented to users remains mostly unchanged from Apple’s previous browser choice screen: the 11 most-downloaded browsers in each member state of the EU. So each of the 27 EU nations has its own list. Apple lists the current browsers, per country, at the bottom of their support page.

Here is a single list of all included browsers, sorted by how many of the 27 EU nations they’re included in. For the 9 browsers included in all 27 countries, I’ve randomized the order:

Chrome, Google LLC (27)
Edge, Microsoft Corporation (27)
Opera, Opera Software AS (27)
Brave, Brave Software (27)
Safari, Apple (27)
DuckDuckGo, DuckDuckGo, Inc. (27)
Aloha, Aloha Mobile (27)
Onion Browser, Mike Tigas (27)
Firefox, Mozilla (27)
You, SuSea Inc. (23)
Ecosia, Ecosia (17)
Vivaldi, Vivaldi Technologies (13)
Web@Work, MobileIron (10)
Web, AirWatch LLC (5)
Want, Qwant (3)
Browser, Maple Media Apps LLC (3)
Access, BlackBerry Corporation (3)
Seznam.cz, Seznam.cz a.s. (2)
Presearch, Presearch.org Global Limited (1)
Avast Secure Browser, AVAST Software (1)

I was familiar with most of the 9 browsers included in all 27 countries, and you probably are too. But I’d never heard of Aloha or Onion Browser — and Onion Browser in particular stands out for coming from an individual developer, Mike Tigas. (Onion Browser also stands out for being open source.) Both Aloha and Onion are advertised as “privacy focused”, which seems particularly true for Onion Browser, which is connected to Tor. Aloha includes built-in ad-blocking and a geo-fence skipping VPN.

So 9 of the 11 spots are occupied by the same popular browsers across the entire EU. Of the other 11 browsers, the only one I’d ever heard of was Ecosia, which, like DuckDuckGo, is better known as a search engine (and, like DuckDuckGo, is on the very short list of search engines Safari offers in most countries around the world).1

Did you know that BlackBerry made an iOS browser, and that it’s oddly popular in Ireland, Poland, and Sweden? I did not. (Did you know that BlackBerry still exists? I did not.)

The entire point of this mandatory browser choice screen is to reach Safari users and make it as easy as possible for them to switch default browsers. But how many such users are there, who should switch? How many users are there who understand what a web browser is, what a default web browser is, are currently using Safari by default, but who see this choice screen and think “Oh this is great, I had no idea I could switch to one of these other browsers, I’ll do it…”? I’m sure there exist some such users. But I’m also sure their exist other users who don’t quite know what a web browser is, don’t know that the browser they’re currently using — and perhaps have been using for over a decade — is named “Safari”, and won’t know how to undo a mistake they might make on this browser choice screen. Users who already know how to change their default iOS web browser don’t need this mandatory choice screen; users who don’t know how to change their default browser might be stuck with a mistaken or regretted choice. Pick Safari and you will see this browser choice screen again; pick anything else, perhaps as a lark, and you’ll never see it again.

My guess is that, perhaps counterintuitively, the single biggest beneficiary of this mandatory browser choice screen will be Google Chrome, which I consider the single most dominant software monopoly in the world today. Users who already know they want to use a non-Safari browser and have set one as their default won’t even see this screen. Users who want to use Safari and know they want to use Safari will merely be annoyed by this screen (repeatedly). But non-technical users who are confused by this screen — and I guaranteed there are millions of such users in the EU alone — will surely just pick a browser they’ve heard of and hope they’ve made the right choice. Chrome is by far the most-used web browser in the world, and for some number of users the only one they’ve ever heard of.

Shortly after iOS 17.4 shipped in March — the first version with DMA compliance features, and thus the first with a mandatory browser choice screen for Safari users in the EU — there were a few stories about third-party browsers seeing an uptick in users. This one from TechCrunch is perhaps the best example. The gains were mostly reported in Bezos numbers — relative gains with no absolute numbers. Aloha Browser “said users in the EU jumped 250% in March”. Opera reported “39% growth in users on iOS selecting its browser as their default specifically, from March 3 until April 4” — but that was down from 164% growth the previous month, before iOS had implemented the mandatory choice screen in the EU. The one browser that reported actual numbers was Brave:

“The daily installs for Brave on iOS in the EU went from around
7,500 to 11,000 with the new browser panel this past March,” per a
company spokesperson. “In the past few days, we have seen a new
all time high spike of 14,000 daily installs, nearly doubling our
pre-choice screen numbers.”

Since April, I’ve seen bupkis about any continuing “success” of the browser choice screen for small browsers. I suppose that played a part in the EC forcing Apple into the further concessions — especially re-presenting the browser choice screen to all EU iOS users who selected Safari in iOS 17.4, 17.5, or 17.6 already. But I think the truth is obvious: the vast majority of iOS users use Safari because they want to, spanning the gamut from informed nerds who appreciate Safari’s features, UI, and privacy, to non-technical typical users who just know they like the experience with Apple’s first-party ecosystem of apps and services.

But whatever the effect of this browser choice screen on iOS browser usage in the EU, it’s hard for me to see any way that Chrome doesn’t benefit from it the most. That seems like a perverse outcome for a law intended to regulate “large gatekeepers”. Chrome, with 65 percent market share across all web browsing globally, is a bigger monopoly than iOS, Android, or Windows, and the only other browser with double-digit market share (19 percent) is Safari — the browser the EC is attempting to steer users away from.

‘Default’ Apps

Back to Apple’s announcement on its Developer News site:

For users in the EU, iOS 18 and iPadOS 18 will also include a new
Default Apps section in Settings that lists defaults available to
each user. In future software updates, users will get new default
settings for dialing phone numbers, sending messages, translating
text, navigation, managing passwords, keyboards, and call spam
filters. To learn more, view Update on apps distributed in the
European Union.

Additionally, the App Store, Messages, Photos, Camera, and Safari
apps will now be deletable for users in the EU.

Keep in mind that at least since iOS 14 (four years ago), we’ve been able to remove any apps we want from our Home screens. It’s just that certain essential system apps can’t be deleted — when removed from your Home screen, they remain available in the App Library. The App Library was a great addition to iOS, and probably should have come years sooner. But what the EC is demanding from Apple now is the ability to delete these apps. This is particularly tricky with the App Store app, because it’s through the App Store that one can reinstall deleted default iOS apps. Presumably, the App Store app will be reinstallable via Settings, one of only two non-deletable apps.2

What those cheerleading these changes miss is that deleting these core system apps doesn’t magically make iOS a modular system. Apple hasn’t announced any sort of API for third-party apps in the EU to handle SMS (and now RCS) cellular text messaging. I have no idea what will happen with incoming SMS messages for users who delete Messages.3

Likewise, Apple hasn’t announced any sort of API for modular photo storage. Users who delete the system Photos and Camera apps won’t — at this writing — be able to choose some other app to handle photo storage. Photos and videos shot will still go to the system photo library. Images that users have previously stored on their devices will still be in the system photo library. There just won’t be an app from Apple to show the system photo library. My understanding is that, under the hood, neither Photos nor Camera are really “apps” in the traditional sense. They’re just thin wrappers around low-level system frameworks. The same system-level frameworks allow third-party apps to access the system photo library. Apple, seemingly, hasn’t been forced to allow third-party software to replace these low-level system frameworks. They’re just being forced to allow users to “delete” these thin wrappers that present themselves as apps to users. But the actual way that the system photo library works remains unchanged. It’s like if the Mac let you delete the Finder — the file system would still be there, but the user would have no way to browse it.

An OS with a fundamentally modular design, with APIs that allow nearly every system component to be replaced by third-party software, sounds like a great idea. But no major OS is actually architected like that. iOS certainly is not. So requiring Apple to allow apps like Photos and Camera to be “deleted” is purely facile, and betrays the European Commission’s technical ignorance. The EC bureaucrats issuing these dictums clearly have no idea how iOS actually works. They just know what they can see. iOS ships with a bunch of apps. All they care about is that now users in the EU will be able to delete those apps.

Sure, many photographers prefer using third-party camera apps to Apple’s system Camera app. But iOS has long offered rich support for using third-party camera apps, and with iOS 18 that support is getting even better, with users soon being able to configure the Lock Screen button that was previous dedicated only to launch the system Camera app. (Same goes for the button heretofore dedicated to the system Flashlight “app” — that’s configurable in iOS 18 too.) Camera apps added to the Lock Screen even gain special privileges in iOS 18 — for all users, worldwide, not just in the EU. Even the developers of third-party camera apps don’t see any point to being able to delete the system Camera app.

So who benefits from being able to outright “delete” the Photos and Camera apps? As far as I can tell, only people suffering from OCD who are bothered that after removing them from their Home Screen, that they’re still listed in the App Library. It’s unclear to me whether users in the EU will be able to delete apps like Photos and Camera even if they don’t have any third-party photography apps installed, which would leave their iPhone in a state where there is no way to take new photos or view existing ones. This is performative regulatation. None of this deletable apps nonsense increases competition; it merely increases the chances of profound user confusion.

To be clear, just like with the browser choice screen, I don’t think these “default apps” and “deletable apps” compliance concessions from Apple are going to matter much. By design, deleting apps in iOS is a multi-step process and requires a long tap-and-hold even to get into jiggle mode. Even novice users don’t accidentally delete apps. But it’s also true that there’s no measurable demand from users to be able to delete essential system apps. So what’s the point of requiring Apple to support this? Just to watch the company dance?

I mean why stop here? Why not mandate that users be allowed to delete the entire OS?

Apple Intelligence and iPhone Mirroring

When Apple announced, a few weeks after WWDC in June, that the two biggest features of the year — Apple Intelligence and iPhone Mirroring — would likely remain unavailable in the EU this year “due to the regulatory uncertainties brought about by the Digital Markets Act”, DMA supporters suspected spite as the motivation. I quoted Ian Betteridge then and will quote him again, because I think his reaction epitomizes this viewpoint:

So, Apple, which bits of the DMA does Apple Intelligence violate?
Because unless you can actually tell us — which case we clearly
have a bit of a problem with some of the claims you’ve made about
how it works — or you’re talking bullshit, and just trying to get
some leverage with the EU. Which is it Tim?

I absolutely guarantee that people are going to swallow this “well
you can’t make Apple Intelligence work thanks to the DMA!!” line
without actually asking any questions about what it violates,
because “well Apple said it and they don’t lie evah”

My response to Betteridge in June holds up, and looks even more prescient with these latest concessions from Apple.

As the DMA applies to Apple in particular, where I think DMA supporters go wrong is that they’re not really DMA supporters, but rather App Store opponents. What they feel strongly about is opposing Apple’s tight control over all third-party software on iOS, including, if not especially, control over payments for apps, games, and digital content accessed through native apps. And so they endorse and support the DMA because the DMA breaks that control. Because of the DMA, third-party app marketplaces for iOS now exist in the EU, and apps in Apple’s own App Store are able to opt into new terms to use their own payment processing (in the EU). Thus, from the perspective of opponents of Apple’s App Store, the DMA must be a net good overall, because they see the point of the DMA (as it pertains to Apple at least) as being about breaking up the App Store’s stranglehold over all iOS third-party native software.

But that’s not really the point of the DMA at all. It’s just one byproduct of it. And a very high profile byproduct, because supporting alternative app marketplaces and alternative payment processing were regulations that Apple needed to comply with starting in March of this year. If your personal beef with Apple is the App Store model, it’s easy to see how you could conclude that the DMA is about breaking up that model. And if you think the DMA is mostly about breaking up the App Store model, it’s easy to see how you think it’s nonsense that Apple Intelligence and iPhone Mirroring would raise any compliance issues, and so withholding those features from EU users (along with a third feature, enhancements to SharePlay Screen Sharing) must be spite on Apple’s part.

The thinking, I presume, is that Apple is being spiteful by withholding these features from users in the EU, in the hopes that EU iOS users will turn against the DMA and somehow demand from their EC representatives that it be repealed or amended. But that’s facile. Apple made its case against the DMA, best exemplified by Craig Federighi’s keynote address at Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, back in 2021 — to no avail. The DMA passed by an overwhelming margin in the European Parliament: 588 votes in favor, 11 votes against, and 31 abstentions. It’s the law of the continent.

It makes no sense for Apple to withhold tentpole iOS features from EU citizens out of spite. Even if you think Apple is guided by its own self-interest above all else, their biggest self-interest is selling new iPhones. And the biggest new feature in this year’s iPhone 16 models is going to be Apple Intelligence, and the best new feature in iOS 18 is iPhone Screen Sharing. These features will sell iPhones — but not in the EU, at least this year.

The key is that the DMA is not a targeted attack on the App Store model. It’s a sweepingly broad attack on the entire idea of integration. And integration is Apple’s entire modus operandi. The integration of hardware and software designed to work together. The integration between different devices — Continuity — that are designed to work together.

Also: the integration between different apps on the same device. Safari isn’t just a web browser that just happens to be Apple’s. It’s the web browser designed by Apple to do things the iOS way on iOS (and the Macintosh way on MacOS). If, as a user, you do things the Apple way — owning multiple Apple devices, using iCloud for sync, using Safari as your web browser — you get an integrated experience, with access on device A to the tabs open on device B, shared browsing history and bookmarks between all devices, and support for systemwide services and features. The default apps from Apple on a factory fresh iPhone are designed to work together and present themselves consistently. That’s not to say no one should third-party apps that are alternatives to Apple’s own. Of course not. Surely almost every reader of Daring Fireball uses one or more third-party apps that are alternatives to Apple’s. I use several. But the built-in Apple apps, taken together, constitute the Apple-defined experience. Those really are the apps most non-expert users should use. And the best third-party alternatives — like Fantastical (calendar), Cardhop (contacts), and Bear (notes) — fit seamlessly within that overall Apple experience. They’re third-party apps that feel integrated with the first-party experience.

From the EC’s perspective, everything ought to be modular and commoditized. That’s their ideal for “competition”. A dominant position in “phones” and “tablets” shouldn’t give the company that makes those devices a leg up in the market for web browsers, email clients, messaging, or camera apps. But from Apple’s perspective, the iPhone isn’t merely a “phone”, a piece of commoditized hardware. That’s why the company generally eschews articles, speaking and writing not of “the iPhone” but just “iPhone”. For Apple, iPhone is an integrated experience, encompassing hardware, software, and services, all designed and engineered by Apple itself.

Now that we have proof that the DMA demands Apple to allow all apps other than Settings (and on iPhones, Phone) to be deleted, and to allow third-party defaults to be set for everything from contactless payments to password management to maps to translation and even to keyboards, it’s obvious that the EC might also demand that users be able to specify a third-party “default” AI language model for Apple Intelligence. Not just the optional “world knowledge” layer that Apple is currently partnering exclusively with OpenAI to provide, but the base layer of Apple Intelligence with semantic personal knowledge. Apple Intelligence isn’t designed that way. It’s not a module or an “app”. It’s a deeply integrated layer of the system software. Faced with a decision from the EC that Apple either make all of Apple Intelligence open to third-party AI (including AI systems unvetted by Apple itself), or never offer Apple Intelligence in the EU, I think Apple would choose never to offer it in the EU.

As for iPhone Screen Sharing, gatekeeping platforms aren’t permitted under the DMA to preference other products or services from the gatekeeper itself. iPhone Screen Sharing only works between iPhones and Macs — computers made by Apple. That’s against the DMA — or, at least, the EC could clearly rule that it’s against the DMA.

If the DMA had been in effect 10 years ago, I don’t think Apple Watch would have been available in the EU until and unless the EC said it was permitted. Same for AirPods, which pair with Apple devices in a vastly superior but proprietary way compared to standard Bluetooth. Any sort of integration between an iPhone and another Apple device that isn’t available to third-party devices could be ruled to violate the DMA. By the letter of the DMA, the EC should, I think, rule that all such integration is a violation.

This uncertainty will likely become clear over time. Perhaps the EC will rule that Apple Intelligence and/or iPhone Screen Sharing pose no violation to the DMA, and Apple can make those features available, as they exist today, in the EU. Like, maybe the EC commissioners themselves really just want to break up the App Store model and that’s it. But European Commission vice president Margrethe Vestager clearly believes that Apple Intelligence is anti-competitive and thus a violation of the DMA. Speaking at Forum Europa in July, she said:

I find that very interesting that they say we will now deploy AI
where we’re not obliged to enable competition. I think that is
the most sort of stunning open declaration that they know
100% that this is another way of disabling competition where they
have a stronghold already.

She’s very clear that she believes Apple is “obliged to enable competition” with AI under the DMA. Apple Intelligence enables no competition at all. Something has to give here.

The EC’s apparent expectation is that because the European Union is so large and so essential to the world, Apple — along with the DMA’s other targeted “gatekeepers” — will bend to its will and henceforth design its products and services with the DMA in mind. Modularity over integration, at all layers of the stack. Thierry Breton, the EU internal market commissioner, quipped in July: “Apple’s new slogan should be ‘act different’.”

But the EU isn’t that large or essential. The European Commission is beset by delusions of grandeur. What’s happening with Apple Intelligence and iPhone Screen Sharing this year is what I expect to happen with every new product or service Apple creates that integrates with iOS: they will come late, or never, to the EU. And all new products and services Apple creates integrate with iOS, so almost everything new from Apple will come late, or never, to the EU.

While not the intention, that’s the actual effect of the DMA.

Read More 

Sarah Perez, writing for TechCrunch:

Spotify claims Apple may again be in violation of European
regulation, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which requires
interoperability from big technology companies dubbed
“gatekeepers.” This time, the issue isn’t about in-app purchases,
links or pricing information, but rather how Apple has
discontinued the technology that allows Spotify users to control
the volume on their connected devices.

When streaming to connected devices via Spotify Connect on iOS,
users were previously able to use the physical buttons on the side
of their iPhone to adjust the volume. As a result of the change,
this will no longer work. To work around the issue, Spotify iOS
users will instead be directed to use the volume slider in the
Spotify Connect menu in the app to control the volume on connected
devices.

The company notes that this issue doesn’t affect users
controlling the volume on iOS Bluetooth or AirPlay sessions, nor
users on Android. It only applies to those listening via Spotify
Connect on iOS.

Who should get to decide the rules for how the hardware volume buttons work on iPhones and iPads? Apple, or the European Commission?

 ★ 

Sarah Perez, writing for TechCrunch:

Spotify claims Apple may again be in violation of European
regulation, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which requires
interoperability from big technology companies dubbed
“gatekeepers.” This time, the issue isn’t about in-app purchases,
links or pricing information, but rather how Apple has
discontinued the technology that allows Spotify users to control
the volume on their connected devices.

When streaming to connected devices via Spotify Connect on iOS,
users were previously able to use the physical buttons on the side
of their iPhone to adjust the volume. As a result of the change,
this will no longer work. To work around the issue, Spotify iOS
users will instead be directed to use the volume slider in the
Spotify Connect menu in the app to control the volume on connected
devices.

The company notes that this issue doesn’t affect users
controlling the volume on iOS Bluetooth or AirPlay sessions, nor
users on Android. It only applies to those listening via Spotify
Connect on iOS.

Who should get to decide the rules for how the hardware volume buttons work on iPhones and iPads? Apple, or the European Commission?

Read More 

Annie Karni, reporting for The New York Times:

During an event at Duke University, Ms. Cheney told students
that it was not enough for her to simply oppose the former
president, if she intended to do whatever was necessary to
prevent Mr. Trump from winning the White House again, as she has
long said she would.

“I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’
names, particularly in swing states,” Ms. Cheney said, speaking to
students in the hotly contested state of North Carolina. “As a
conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the
Constitution, I have thought deeply about this and because of the
danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for
Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”

The room erupted in cheers after she made her unexpected
announcement.

I have so much respect for Cheney. Her father too, but he’s retired. Liz Cheney took this principled stand while she was one of the most influential Republicans in the nation. I get being a conservative, politically. I get being opposed to the Democratic Party, politically. Liz Cheney is a conservative and — like her father — endorses very different policies than Kamala Harris. But (lowercase ‘d’) democratic politics ought to be viewed very much like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are in psychology. Some things matter more than others. And nothing — not climate change or the environment, not reproductive rights, and certainly not fucking tax rates — nothing matters more than support for democracy itself and the rule of law. The only way we’re going to those other things right — which are really, really important — is through democratic governance and the rule of law.

Trump is 100 percent anti-Democratic-Party but he’s no conservative. I don’t support or endorse a Reagan/Bush/Cheney political viewpoint, but that viewpoint is coherent. Trump espouses no coherent views at all. He literally tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. He’s a criminal. He’s mentally deranged, decrepitly old, and failing before our eyes. “I don’t like Democrats” is — with Trump on the ballot and polling within the margin of error of winning — not high enough on the political hierarchy needs to cast one’s vote for anyone but Kamala Harris.

If the Democratic candidate were a Trump-like decrepit crooked lunatic, I wouldn’t hesitate, for a second, to vote for, say, Republican Liz Cheney for president. None of this namsy-pamsy bullshit about “writing in” a non-candidate’s name. No protest voting for a third-party candidate. The next president is either going to be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and only one of the two believes any anything at all — anything — that this great country stands for.

 ★ 

Annie Karni, reporting for The New York Times:

During an event at Duke University, Ms. Cheney told students
that it was not enough for her to simply oppose the former
president, if she intended to do whatever was necessary to
prevent Mr. Trump from winning the White House again, as she has
long said she would.

“I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’
names, particularly in swing states,” Ms. Cheney said, speaking to
students in the hotly contested state of North Carolina. “As a
conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the
Constitution, I have thought deeply about this and because of the
danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for
Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”

The room erupted in cheers after she made her unexpected
announcement.

I have so much respect for Cheney. Her father too, but he’s retired. Liz Cheney took this principled stand while she was one of the most influential Republicans in the nation. I get being a conservative, politically. I get being opposed to the Democratic Party, politically. Liz Cheney is a conservative and — like her father — endorses very different policies than Kamala Harris. But (lowercase ‘d’) democratic politics ought to be viewed very much like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are in psychology. Some things matter more than others. And nothing — not climate change or the environment, not reproductive rights, and certainly not fucking tax rates — nothing matters more than support for democracy itself and the rule of law. The only way we’re going to those other things right — which are really, really important — is through democratic governance and the rule of law.

Trump is 100 percent anti-Democratic-Party but he’s no conservative. I don’t support or endorse a Reagan/Bush/Cheney political viewpoint, but that viewpoint is coherent. Trump espouses no coherent views at all. He literally tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. He’s a criminal. He’s mentally deranged, decrepitly old, and failing before our eyes. “I don’t like Democrats” is — with Trump on the ballot and polling within the margin of error of winning — not high enough on the political hierarchy needs to cast one’s vote for anyone but Kamala Harris.

If the Democratic candidate were a Trump-like decrepit crooked lunatic, I wouldn’t hesitate, for a second, to vote for, say, Republican Liz Cheney for president. None of this namsy-pamsy bullshit about “writing in” a non-candidate’s name. No protest voting for a third-party candidate. The next president is either going to be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and only one of the two believes any anything at all — anything — that this great country stands for.

Read More 

Alex Isenstadt, writing for Politico:

“Save America,” a Trump-authored coffee table book being
released Sept. 3, includes an undated photograph of Trump meeting
with Zuckerberg in the White House. Under the photo, Trump writes
that Zuckerberg “would come to the Oval Office to see me. He would
bring his very nice wife to dinners, be as nice as anyone could
be, while always plotting to install shameful Lock Boxes in a true
PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT,” Trump added, referring to a $420
million contribution Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla
Chan, made during the 2020 election to fund election
infrastructure.

“He told me there was nobody like Trump on Facebook. But at the
same time, and for whatever reason, steered it against me,” Trump
continues. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything
illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison — as will others who cheat in the 2024 Presidential Election.”

I was not aware that “steering” a social network against a presidential candidate was not only illegal, but subject to life in prison. Elon Musk better be careful with anti-Kamala-Harris posts like this one, because I’m sure Trump feels just as strongly about “steering” in either direction. The law’s the law, and Donald J. Trump is a stickler for the law — not some sort of thin-skinned crackpot megalomaniac who is obsessed with “life in prison” because it’s looking more and more like that’s his own fate.

 ★ 

Alex Isenstadt, writing for Politico:

“Save America,” a Trump-authored coffee table book being
released Sept. 3, includes an undated photograph of Trump meeting
with Zuckerberg in the White House. Under the photo, Trump writes
that Zuckerberg “would come to the Oval Office to see me. He would
bring his very nice wife to dinners, be as nice as anyone could
be, while always plotting to install shameful Lock Boxes in a true
PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT,” Trump added, referring to a $420
million contribution Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla
Chan, made during the 2020 election to fund election
infrastructure.

“He told me there was nobody like Trump on Facebook. But at the
same time, and for whatever reason, steered it against me,” Trump
continues. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything
illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison — as will others who cheat in the 2024 Presidential Election.”

I was not aware that “steering” a social network against a presidential candidate was not only illegal, but subject to life in prison. Elon Musk better be careful with anti-Kamala-Harris posts like this one, because I’m sure Trump feels just as strongly about “steering” in either direction. The law’s the law, and Donald J. Trump is a stickler for the law — not some sort of thin-skinned crackpot megalomaniac who is obsessed with “life in prison” because it’s looking more and more like that’s his own fate.

Read More