The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) has fueled the preexisting rivalry between Apple and Meta. The DMA wants gatekeepers like Apple to open their systems to competitors. Meta submitted 15 requests to Apple for access to their hardware and software on the grounds of interoperability. Unsurprisingly, Apple is pushing back, framing these requests as excessive and a threat to user privacy.
Interoperability refers to the ability of different systems, devices, applications, or software to work together seamlessly, exchange data, and use that data effectively. Making products or services interoperable is generally considered a pro-consumer move. A good example would be Apple allowing RCS in their messaging app, which allowed for a more convenient messaging system between iPhones and Androids.
While I used Apple as an example of interoperability, they are notorious for making it extremely difficult for devices outside their ecosystem to work well with their products. As someone who uses an Android phone and a MacBook, the lack of a standard file-sharing system is just one of the many annoyances I have to face on a regular basis. So, I am all for interoperability.
Privacy vs Interoperability
Apple’s argument hinges on user privacy. According to the company, granting Meta the level of access it demands could expose sensitive data, such as messages, photos, and even phone call logs, to misuse. And I can kind of see Apple’s point. Meta’s track record is not really clean when it comes to data privacy. I think we all remember the Cambridge Analytics incident. At the same time, Apple likes their platforms to be closed off. It’s convenient for them to justify this as a privacy hazard while retaining full control over their ecosystem.
This tension between the two companies underscores a broader dilemma in the tech industry. Should companies prioritise openness or safety?
Why This Matters for Users
Meta argues that interoperability would improve user experience. Seamless integration across devices like Apple’s iPhone and Meta’s Quest VR headsets could benefit the users who own both. Now, yes, it’s in Apple’s best interest not to allow that to happen, as they have their own mixed-reality headset, Vision Pro. But Apple’s rejection isn’t just about protecting its turf or getting Mac users to buy Vision Pro. It also reflects on broader concerns about Big Tech overreach. Allowing Meta deeper access might mean opening a Pandora’s box of privacy risks.
A big question remains: do these companies truly have their users’ best interests in mind? If so, why not let the users decide? Apple could just inform their users of the consequences and give them the option to allow access.
EU’s Role in the Dispute
The EU aims to level the playing field between the tech giants with their rulebook, also known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA). They have already forced Apple to add USB-C ports to its phones, allow third-party app stores, and enable alternative payment methods, so compliance is negotiable here.
But will this regulation truly benefit users? Or will it simply force companies to find new ways to protect their competitive edge? While Apple may cite privacy, its reluctance to open up could be as much about preserving its ecosystem as safeguarding user data.
This feud isn’t just about Apple and Meta. It’s a proxy war for how we envision the future of tech. As much as I lean toward Apple’s stance on privacy, I can’t ignore that their monopoly on iOS features has often stifled competition. At the same time, I’m not exactly thrilled about handing Meta even more access to user data. The outcome will set a precedent, not just for Apple and Meta, but also for the future of user autonomy in a hyper-connected world.