iPad users will miss out on third-party app stores, browser engines, and more
Apple’s decision to exclude iPadOS from new EU-mandated changes like third-party app stores, alternative browser engines, and looser payment rules is raising questions about how “separate” the tablet OS really is from iOS. Commenters debate whether this distinction is a technical reality or a strategic move to evade the EU’s Digital Markets Act, noting that the European Commission has so far only designated iOS, not iPadOS, as a regulated “gatekeeper” platform but has opened an investigation into iPadOS. The thread also explores wider tensions between user safety and control, developer freedom and fees, and the role of regulation in curbing platform power without degrading the user experience.
iPadOS vs iOS and DMA designation
- Apple and the EU currently treat iOS and iPadOS as separate “operating systems” under the DMA.
- Technically, they share a codebase, SDK, and app binaries; differences are mostly device‑specific features and some API availability.
- Some see the separation as primarily a business/legal distinction; others argue tablets and phones are different markets, so treating them separately is defensible.
- The Commission has only designated iOS as a gatekeeper so far but has opened a specific investigation into iPadOS.
Why iPadOS might have been split
- One view: the rebranding in 2019 was about marketing and de‑synchronizing feature delivery so iPhone could be prioritized.
- Another view: large companies anticipate regulation years in advance and may have split iPadOS partly to reduce future regulatory exposure.
- Skeptics say there’s little pre‑2019 evidence regulators were pushing toward this exact kind of OS‑level split.
EU process and Apple’s compliance stance
- EU does not pre‑approve compliance plans; Apple’s approach will be judged after the DMA deadline, with potential fines and required changes.
- Some fear a pattern of companies submitting clearly inadequate plans, then “fixing” them later, so regulators may need to respond harshly.
- Apple is seen by many as engaging in minimal, adversarial compliance (e.g., keeping iPad outside DMA scope, aggressive new fees).
Developer economics and Core Technology Fee
- Opting into the new EU business terms lowers headline commissions but adds per‑install “Core Technology Fees” across all Apple platforms, including iPad, even though iPad lacks sideloading.
- This can disadvantage free or very low‑priced apps, especially hobby or niche tools; some argue it removes any viable path for certain experimental apps.
- Others counter that developers now at least have two sets of terms and can choose based on their pricing model.
Sideloading, app stores, and user safety
- Strong divide: one side values Apple’s locked‑down model as protection against malicious or exploitative apps and corporate pressure (e.g., being forced to use a particular store).
- The other side emphasizes user freedom, competition, and the ability to run software Apple rejects, arguing sandboxing—not store control—provides the real security.
- Fears include “race to the bottom” app stores that woo big apps by weakening consumer protections, versus hopes that competition will improve terms and lower fees.
Market power and antitrust framing
- Some argue Apple has no classic monopoly (global OS/phone/browser share is limited), others say it has de facto monopoly power over iOS‑compatible app distribution.
- Several comments note Apple’s own history benefited from antitrust pressure on Microsoft, and that today’s regulation similarly aims to keep platforms contestable.
- Debate persists on whether such regulation enhances consumer choice or undermines the ability to buy a tightly controlled, curated platform.