Okay. We're just about ready to start. So if you find your seats, I'll settle down. We're
getting near the end here. I'm delighted that we have Lucas the Sota from the FSF Europe and
he's going to tell us all about the battle for software freedom with Apple. Lucas, over
to you.
Hello everybody. Just a quick check. Is my sound good? Can you hear me well? Who? Good. All right.
So I'm really, really thrilled and I'm amazed to be here. This is my forftime in
Keynote and looking to this audience is a little bit threatening. I'm full of butterflies
in my belly. But thank you very much for being here and for your undivided attention to this
topic. I'm Lucas LaSota. I work for the Free Software Foundation Europe and for those
who are watching us at home or here who are visually impaired, I'm about guy with beard.
And we are in a room full of very beautiful people. And today the topic is how we are defending
software freedom against Apple at the EU highest court. So the agenda, what we're going
to talk today and what I would like to discuss with you a little bit today is about power
of very large companies against software freedom. And in order to do that, I would like
for us to have a small mind exercise, which I called an awkward neighbor. And as soon
as we pass through this exercise to understand the power of this companies over software
freedom, we'll talk about monocotors. And then the perils that the FSF has gone and
is going still in order to defend software freedom against one of the most powerful and
the most richest companies in the entire world. So let's go to our, oh my god, yeah,
to our exercise. Think about you, you have a neighbor, right? And this guy is a little
bit awkward, you know? And why it's, he's a little bit awkward. Because well, you invite
him to your home and he just stays there. And then you call a pizza delivery and then
this guy takes 30% of the pizza or the or the cake that you order. And this guy's usually
your energy even when you don't allow it. So it's constantly using the energy that in
your home. And you know, when when you invite your family or when you invite other people
to your home, he doesn't allow it. It controls this for you. And it never lives, right? It's
look like our cats. It never lives. It controls people in our home. And yeah. But so I think
perhaps, you're going to say, why are you making this exercise talking about an awkward
neighbor when we are talking about devices here? Because I would like perhaps to propose for us
this that gatekeepers are our awkward neighbor and who are gatekeepers? Gatekeepers are
device manufacturers, device vendors, device and other organizations and companies that are commercializing
devices. But they are acting as this awkward neighbor taking control of things that actually
big lungs to us, right? So when we buy new mobile devices for an example, right? And we are thrilled
to explore everything that this device has to offer to us. And the first thing that when you turn
on your device, you are flashed with a screen that mandates you to create an online account in order
to use this device, right? Or when you are not entitled to enjoy software freedom in your
or your device, you cannot install software on it. You cannot only install software in it. You cannot
have access to third party app stores on it for an example, right? So alternative free software
app stores cannot run in such devices. I do think the gatekeepers act like this awkward neighbor,
right? That are controlling our devices that are hampering us to exercise our food agency,
our food control, our autonomy over the devices that we are actually using. And from where comes
this power, this gatekeeping power of these companies, when they have this ability to actually
put devices on the market in a way that when we buy these devices, our freedoms unlimited
in such extent. And the power comes from market concentration. The device markets on mobile devices,
they are extremely concentrated. Nowadays, Android and iOS have together 99% of the word markets
of mobile operating systems. And both of them are proprietary. And Android has 70% and iOS has 27%.
There's a lot of free software operating systems of their mobile devices, but they are just a
fraction of it. And therefore, since these two companies, these two proprietary companies,
literally they dominate the entire market, they can do whatever they want, right? And we as
end users, we are trapped, basically, we are trapped in the power of these companies, in the
terms of services, this companies, because they can do whatever they want with us. But we need to
change that. We literally need to change that. When we think about ecosystem, and today,
ecosystem is a buzzword, right? Everybody talks about it, right? Because ecosystem remind us
of an idea of richness and diversity. And in an ecosystem, we have plenty of choices. We have
freedom of choices, and we are free to choose whatever we want. We think of an ecosystem
as something that is sustainable and fair. But look, when we check this set situation, what we have
right now, we don't have digital ecosystems. We have a digital plantation, right? It is characterized
by mono-coachers, by the absence of freedom of choice. And it is high,
high-snow-trailities that our devices should be neutral in relation to the softer that we are running on it.
So, basically, a device manufacturers, devices, vendors, they should not impose their own
wheel on us to decide which type of software we want to run. Google devices, Apple devices,
they are general purpose computers. It means like we should run each type of software that we want,
and not be limited by commercial interest. We need to be able to run software in order to extract
the most of their devices. So, the whole history of the free software movement is about
people running software on their own devices. And therefore, the device neutrality translates
into principles of software freedom, no lock-in and the user control of data. But perhaps someone
would say this is perhaps too philosophical, because look at the word right now, we don't have that
what we're going to do. And I would like to introduce to you to some progress in this area,
some steps forward. It's not still, the heaven is not still the perfect solution that we still
have. But here in Europe, we have something to be proud about, I would say, there are some
developments in policy area, in legal area, that are path in the way for us in order to achieve
in the future, perhaps device neutrality. Yesterday, in the policy dev room, we had an amazing talk
by Mark and Promo, who gave us a very good introduction about the DMA. Please make sure to check
it online. But why DMA, the digital market sector, this law is important for device neutrality.
Now, my presentation will become a little bit bureaucratic fuel with some legalist terms. Please
bear with me, it will be cool in the end, but bear with me. The digital market sector is a law
that regulates economic activity of very large tech corporations. And what it means regulating
economic activity. It means like the DMA has two functions to prevent market abuse from big tech
and to open up the market for smaller competitors. So, perhaps you can already start to understand
why this is important for us, because if there is a law that aims to open up the market for smaller
competitors, perhaps this law wants to change exactly that. So, basically, the ones that are there
in the bottom, the law aims to increase the diversity of this graph a little bit. And this
is at least what we are hoping with the DMA. And how it works with this law? So, the European Commission
designates the companies and the products and services that this law should apply. So,
this law doesn't apply to all companies in the European Union. It has a list of companies, right?
And since this applies to only very large corporations, is the corporation that everybody knows.
The graph on Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, but there is still booking and guidance and
Apple. Right? Apple, the hero of our presentation, was a designated gatekeeper in 2023
for not for all the services, but for Apple App Store, iOS, and iOS, and the Safari browser.
So, it means like all the Juicy obligations that we're going to talk about right now about it
applies to App Store, iOS, and Safari browser. And here is what it's very, very interesting.
And here's the Juicy part of the DMA. And DMA is very large. There's a lot of things on it,
but I have just listed some of the most interesting obligations that concern software freedom
and interoperability in general. For an example, we have exclusive obligations concerning
installation and change default settings. We have rules about third-party software installation.
People nowadays call it side loading. There are rules about interoperability with software
and hardware futures. Rules about data portability, interoperability of messaging apps.
And the good thing is that for no compliance, DMA has some good tips that some penalties,
the commission can impose penalties that max up to 10% of the worldwide turnover of the company.
So, if we are talking about companies with billions or trillions of turnovers,
the penalty can be quite good. But here is where things started to get a little bit messy.
Because as soon as the European Commission disignated Apple, as a gatekeeper,
forget products and services that we just talked about, Apple was not happy with that.
And the first thing that Apple did instead of setting a serious compliance plan with the law,
they appealed against the decision, right? And they appealed against the European Commission
decision, trying to dodge the DMA rules over the Apple App Store, iOS, and iPadOS.
More than that, they claimed at the European highest court that the interoperability
obligations of Article 67, and we talk about this article in a minute, as this proportionate
in relation to the company's commercial economic interest. So, basically, they are saying that
Article 67 is illegal inside the framework, right? And this is the article in all its glory
that we are talking about. I love this article is a very powerful article. It's like a
can opener, you know? Because with this article, we can really open some very tough infrastructures.
And, along the way, we will write what is most important here. There's a lot of legalism.
The gatekeeper, so the gatekeeper is the company, Apple. So, Apple shall allow
providers of services and providers of hardware, for example, free software providers of
free software project, free of charge, effective interoperability with,
same hardware and software features provided by the gatekeeper. So, this is very powerful. So, it
means like Apple should open infrastructure and provide free of charge, effective interoperability
to the same features, hardware and software features that are provided for the gatekeeper.
And that's why Apple fought very hard against the DMA, and they are scared of the DMA,
because the DMA can really change the landscape here. Because now alternative app stores, free
software, alternative app stores can request this. Alternative free software payment systems can
request this and compete on the merits with Apple services and product. And this is how competition
should be. If you think your product is good enough, then you will have the hearts and minds of
your clients, not because of your monopolistic practices in the market, but because your product is good,
and that's why we claim that they should compete on trustworthiness. And as soon as we saw that
they Apple decided to appeal against it. Well, the red flag in the FSFU office, you know,
we red and say, oh my god, we need to do something about it. And then Dr. Martin Hussovic,
he's very known in the community, he's a great lawyer, he's a great scholar, a great professor,
contact us and said, perhaps we need to do something about it. And hearing fostering last year,
in February last year, we decided that we would intervene against Apple. So it was a super cool
that now one year after. Thank you. And one year after it, I'm here to talk about the progress of
this case law. So in February, we asked the court to intervene with, and I have to be quite
frank to you, only to the fact that we were accepted in this court case is already a great victory,
because this is a big dog's game. You know, the European Parliament is involved in this court case.
Friends, the Republic of France is involved in this court case. You know, other large players in the
industry are also involved in this court case. And there there is FSFU with 20 staffers there in the
middle, you know, saying that softer freedom is important. But I would like to highlight what
court already said, because when we submitted, we faced opposition by Apple, of course. And
what the court in the August decision, when court allowed us to intervene, the court said,
the case is like to have a significant impact on the supply of free software, free exchange of
information, and equal chances in accessing software. And then the court continues saying,
such result would have an impact on an ability of developers of applications or free software
to enter a connect, their application free of charge with Apple's iOS, which in turn would affect
FSFU's ability to further distribute such software to as as wide as the public as possible.
So the court recognized it, right? And then in September of 2027, we submitted our arguments
via our lawyer, Dr. Martin Huzovic. And everything that we pushed back against Apple,
and first we started saying that SSFU grows in complexity, interoperability is inevitable, right?
And so actually this article here is the pinnacle of our recognition that if this company's
grew in size, they need to give back, they need to open the infrastructure, so other smaller
place can enter the market, and then we can have a fair competition, and we can have a more
diversity in the market. So European Union recognized this and put this in law.
And that's why we claim that Apple is being regulated in the light of public interest, right?
And that's why they should respect and they should comply with these interoperability obligations.
We also claim that interoperability is fully proportional to fundamental rights.
We claim that interoperability is not against what people call intellectual property, right?
I know this is a charge term, so we don't need to necessarily give all your patents or
copyright in order to provide interoperable solutions, right?
Last but not least, Apple should compete on trustworthiness. If they are good enough,
they should not fear competition, right? If they are open their system and let's,
let's the best win, right? And that's what we at the free software world are accustomed to,
right? Everything is open, so if people like it, right, they will prosper.
And that's why we think that Apple's products should compete on the merits,
and that's why free software is smaller, free software alternative AppStores,
free software alternative payment systems, alternatives,
services that Apple provides that are provided by free software should also prosper in the market, right?
And that's why we think that the image should apply in full force to Apple's AppStore,
iOS and Apple OS. So what is the standard of the case right now?
I would say 70% because, well, we already submit our positions and Apple already
replied to them. Unfortunately, it's confidential, I cannot say anything about it,
but we are now waiting perhaps for a hearing and then there will be a decision, right? But
what the outcome of this court case is important for free software, how free software can benefit
in winning this case against Apple? Let's start with developers, right? We do believe that
if we want this case and then DMA, we are applying full force to Apple, we will have a more
software freedom, right? Software developers will be able to demand that Apple
allow installation of third-party apps and the use of third-party app stores in any
installation of pre-installed software in devices. For example, a great example is that alternative
free software stores would then be possible in iOS. We hope this court case in order to get
better interoperability policies, right? Free software developers will be able to demand effective
in the free of charge interoperability between their software and Apple's software and a hardware
controlled by Apple's operating system. For example, free software payment system having access to NFC.
And of course, for end users, we do believe that more competition will be beneficial for end users.
We'll have enhanced freedom of choice. Users will enjoy more freedom of choice in regarding
software on app devices. So, as we can see here, there's a lot of at stake, right?
I do think that this case boils down to, if interoperability, as we know in the free software
road, is still relevant for the rest of the digital markets. And I do believe it is. And I'm really
happy to leave on these times into able to make these arguments. And 20 years ago, in 2004,
the FSFE was also involved in a fundamental case against Microsoft. And we discussed interoperability
back then, right? And now we have a new go-layer, right? There's also, again, is trying to
to block interoperability. But with the power of our community, I do believe that we will prevail,
right? And that's why I would like to ask for your support, right? Right? Now, being engaged
on this court case, engaging with the digital makers, it requires us to be there, to talk to the
commission, to talk to the European Parliament, to talk to national competition authorities.
And that's why we need resources. We need resources in order to continue this fight in order to continue
this work. So, please, there is a keyword code here. There is this link. Please donate to us.
And I do hope that in order with your support, we will have an opener and more just internet.
I think you're very much for your attention.
Great talk. Great fight. Good news is we've got plenty of time for questions for Lucas.
So, yeah, put your hands up and between us. We'll get the microphone here.
Hello. Thanks for your efforts. Let's address the elephant in the room. The regime change in
do you say and let's address the elephant in the room, which is called Trump, who said recently,
out loud that, you know, European Commission, Regulation, blah, blah, so on. Form of taxation,
basically, how are we going to play with this enemy? Yeah, this is a good question, actually.
There's a lot of people in the US that understand that monopolistic control is also bad for people
in the US, right? That's why I don't like to put the to frame this whole thing in the US of
viruses, European Union, but it's big tech against everybody, right? I think the power of big tech
is detrimental to people here in Europe, to people in Latin America, to people in Asia,
in Africa, and also in the United States, right? How to do with Trump? I don't know. I'm not paid
to do that. I mean, it is very, but I do hope that last week we wrote an open letter together with
more than 40 civil society organizations here in Europe encouraging the European Commission to not
step back, you know, to continue, to move forward with the remaining enforcement, to not be afraid
of the political changes, and to do the legal work that they're supposed to do, and we'll be there.
That's as if we will be there. We are in contact with the Commission. We are submitting papers there
in order to make sure that the interests of free software developers are being heard in this
process. Let's remain optimistic in this sense.
Hi, thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting.
I lost you. Can you? How? Yeah. Thank you for presentation.
While I fully support the court case, he was talking about, I wanted to address some statements
you made, which I think I bit misleading. First of all, you said that Android is property software,
which is actually not the case because it's open source project, and anyone can register or
contribute and push the code to Android. It's not like proprietary at all. It's actually
there is part of true in Z, because device manufacturers apply things that are become like,
make it more proprietary, but it's really nuanced. Then you also, in the next slide,
well, through the slide, you also said that Google gate keeps from installing
another operating system on devices, which is also not really the case, so I just spent a couple
minutes. If you go to even plasma mobile.org, there are like four operating systems based on
arch Linux based on day-by-end, and I don't remember, and I'll find Linux, and you can install them
even on like Samsung device on Google Pixel. Look, whatever. Do you have a question?
Yeah. I guess it's more of a common question, that it's like a bit misleading because
while Apple is totally like, it's able, and it prohibits doing everything. It's not,
eventually, exactly the same is Android. Thank you. Thank you.
More question. We have one here.
We have got the microphone running around. If you keep your question short, we can get more people in,
sorry, fire. Thanks. Hello. Thank you for the talk. If you return your presentation on
slide where this guy, it's 30% of the pizza and everything, but oh, I see this guy, he's like
pretty, he's like smiling, he's like always good. He actually cleans your stairs also.
Sometimes he prevents that somebody robs your apartment, and if he, it's like not 30% and 5% of
the pizza, would you change your mind?
Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure if you find the question, but
I have been around in the regulatory debates on this, and many companies here in Europe,
they would be okay in lowering down only the fees and not going full into the area of softer
freedom, right? For them, they are proprietary companies as well, and if they can reduce the
30% fees, for 5% that would be already massive when and then for them would be fine.
That's why again, it's important to have a not-for-profit organization like the Free
Software Foundation, but in these debates, in order for us to say, look, only lowering this
fees is not enough. We need the software freedom. We need the vise neutrality. In order to push forward
this agenda, otherwise, DMA and any other type of legislative innovation in Europe would be watered
down by this commercial interest as well, yeah.
Well, yes, if I quite understand, you said,
European community chose the companies that the low apply to, and I was wondering on what
criteria is something that's from lobbying of big companies inside the EU before the low apply to them.
Can you repeat please a little bit? I'm sorry, I'm a little bit sick, so I'm a really deaf
deaf, so it's not your fault, I'm sorry. You said you choose the company that the low apply to,
yes, on what criteria are these companies choose to them?
Can someone help me? Come again?
Ah, okay, so it's about the gatekeeper criteria you mean, right? Okay, good. So,
yes, the DMA meant to to simplify this process, because before that, in competition law,
in order, we had different factors to consider what would be an abusive position in the market,
so you needed to define markets, you have to define if the action taken is indeed uncompetitive,
you know, and then you have to define the products and services and a bunch of stuff.
And then the DMA just came, and then they set true criteria, it is criteria,
I don't remember the numbers right now, but basically it's the number of clients that you have in
Europe, right? And so it's very high, I don't remember, but it's in the areas of millions,
and if the company meets the criteria, then the commission should look into the services,
right? And just to give an example, in our court case, the commission has designated
Apple App Store, right? But Apple is claiming that it doesn't has just one App Store,
but it has several, and that's why the commission should look into it. However, we do believe that
the policies that Apple has for App Store is the same for every App Store, and that's why
the commission did a good job in designating this service App Store as a whole, right?
But that's the correct area, okay? Yeah, we have some other questions there.
Hi, thank you for the overview. I was wondering if what is happening with the other
giant tech players? Are they signing with Apple? Are they just waiting to be designated as a
gatekeeper? What's happening with the world or Amazon?
Oh, my God. Can you repeat your question?
So what about the other giant tech players? I mean, these companies are not the same
as well, right? They also have several problems in the GMA. We monitor them, but we have two
to prioritize, right? Apple is the most reactionary, most closed system right now, and it has taken
a very aggressive position against the GMA, and that's why we are focusing on Apple, right?
But there are others of three software projects that are working in the GMA, for an example,
F-tryed, and they have raised several concerns as well against a Google for an example.
But yeah, our work mainly here has been in relation to Apple, okay?
Hello, it's just working great. Okay, I appreciate you work a lot. I'm just wondering,
it specifies that they were designated as a gatekeeper for App Store, iOS,
iPad OS, and so for a browser, is there any like movement to, I don't know, allow replacing iOS or
iPad OS on their hardware or is it just about the App Store? Can you repeat your question, please?
So I'm wondering if there's any like provisions for allowing users to replace the
operating system on the devices to given that iOS and iPad OS were like mentioned as well.
Yeah, okay, thanks. I'm interested in the question.
Maybe I'm wrong and please detail the correct. I'm wrong. I don't think there is in the
GMA an obligation to change the operating system, right? So I think that's a short coming
other law. So you can install applications side load application, but there's no obligation
to change the whole operating system. Hello. So a few years ago there was a few decades ago,
actually, there was some legislation against Microsoft for having Internet Explorer pre-installed on
Windows machines and there was no browser choice. Legislation was put forward and then
we ended up in a situation where Google essentially just replaced that monopoly.
How does the digital market sacked deal with the potential unintended consequence of replacing
one monopoly with another? That's a good question.
I would like to manage the expectations on them all, right?
We don't, we must not put all our money, all our bets, all our eggs and ones on one basket, right?
We at the FSEFE and we have already published this a lot and we have this agenda saying that
DMA alone is not enough, right? We had a talk by Michiel Lennar's about Denji, right? And we were very
sorry in this year, for an example, when we heard that the European Commission cut it funded for
free software, when they cut the funding for the next generation Internet. So we needed to take
a strategic approach in order to avoid what exactly you are talking about. It's not just enough to
say, oh, we have the shiny DMA and the DMA will shape the future of the digital economy in Europe.
No, actually, we need public money, public code. We need a whole change in the digital economy
in order to avoid future gatekeepers, right? So there is a fundamental question with the DMA.
Do we want to do this in trench, North American, in Chinese, whatever companies with Europeans,
do we want a Google European version, right? We want a European Apple, or we want indeed
decentralized democratized digital economy based on free software, on digital commons, or people
have indeed freedoms to enjoy with their devices. This is a strategic question and I think DMA is
very important. DMA, on the legal area, it's very important, but we need more. We need funding
mechanisms for free software. We need policies that will change the future of the European economy
and the DMA is just a part of it.
APPLAUSE
Hey, just one more question. I would like to know regarding the new TAI or LLMs integrated in the new mobile
OS, like Apple Intelligence or Gemini, is there something already integrated in the DMA?
Or is there something prepared on this?
This is a good question. So the AI, I don't think is a core platform service, right?
It's not one of the services I've been in products that the commission can designate.
There is already academic work on this, claiming that AI and LLMs should be one
service that the commission should designate, but this is still in discussion.
Yeah.
There is this inevitable argument that Apple will make that any kind of interoperability will
carry security risks, that this will make their system, their beautifully guard
the world plantation is called it, more open, and therefore more susceptible to relevant actors.
How would you counteract that argument?
Yeah, thanks a lot for this question. I would like to use the expression that Mark yesterday,
he is wonderful presentation said that there is nothing more insecure than monocultures, right, Mark?
And I also think that we are in a very bad situation when we need to
to depend our security only one provider, right? So although Apple sells itself as a super
secure, I don't think that there is enough evidence to show that Android devices are less secure
than iOS devices, right? However, the GMA has some compromises, right? I didn't read the second
part of this article because that was the compromise, but the compromise where I say is that indeed,
the gatekeeper or Apple can limit interoperability on basis of the integrity of the operating
system, right? God knows what is integrity here, you know, so can be a lot of stuff,
and we have been countering this, right? So we have been in our court case, also we have been
putting forward that we need to be very careful in order to not overstate the security aspect of
it in order to hamper interoperability. To give an example, we have been working in the free
software foundation year for more than 10 years for router freedom, right? And every time that we
had to interact with with regulators or internet service providers, security was always a scapegoat
against interoperability. They say you cannot use your router because it will damage the network,
right? But look, last week in Germany, we had an amazing decision where the national regulator,
the Bundesnetsogan Tour provided a huge document, 70 trade pages explaining that interoperability
should be maintained, and the security risks were overstated. So network operators in Germany
has always said that router freedom was against security, but then Bundesnetsogan Tour asked them
and said look, okay, so you say there is a problem, please provide some evidence. There is just one
case in 2016, you know, one case, it offers disruption of the network caused by a more function
in the router. So, well, how many millions of subscribers are we having Germany using routers
every day, 24 hours, and we had one case, so here in the app, I think is the same, you know,
there are some nobody wants less secure devices. I want that my smartphone should be as secure
as possible, right? But we should not overstate this, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,
overstate this concerns in order to block interoperability.
Presentation is said about a letter to the EU, uh, and my question is, uh, can we
co-sign this letter, uh, as, uh, we are, I look at hackerspace that, you know, likes,
fees of trades, et cetera, and is it possible to co-sign this letter?
Uh, okay, uh, all right, thank you, no, uh, we already sent this letter, um, and it was, uh,
unfortunately, not, uh, I'm sorry, we already sent, but thank you for asking. Do you have a time
for one more question? Well, all right, one more question, and the last one, wow, this has
be a very intensive round. Have you tried out, uh, tried reaching out to Azahili Nox,
because they have excellent reverse engineering done on Apple hardware, and now we can
use free operating systems on MacBooks. And here, basically, we caught the use them on iPads.
Who? Azahili Nox, I'm going to write an email. Uh, okay, I'm summarized, all those things.
If you can put me in contact with them, that would be great.
All-direct is important. Okay, thanks a lot. Okay, guys, it was, it was, it was
be awesome to be here with you. Thank you very much for your own invitation. If you're
last time. I am a guest.