PayPal and Epic raise concerns that an Apple settlement on iPhone interoperability would be too light

Someone who wears a non-Apple smartwatch with an iPhone gets less than an Apple Watch owner does. Rival smartwatches lack much of the integration available to the Apple Watch, according to MacRumors' account of The Information's report ^[13]. Gaps like that are what the DOJ has asked developers to list ^[2].

The developers' worry rests on a single report. 9to5Mac and MacRumors both relay The Information, which is the source for the DOJ's focus on interoperability ^[1] and for the concern that a settlement could impose "relatively light requirements on how its devices interact with other companies' devices" ^[3]. PayPal and Epic Games raised that concern directly with DOJ officials ^[4]. According to 9to5Mac, they declined to comment, and Apple did not respond ^[15].

Apple has changed things: RCS support in Messages with iOS 18, and wider NFC access for third-party contactless transactions from iOS 18.1 ^[8]. What the report describes is competing payment apps that reportedly still face disadvantages despite the NFC access ^[13]. Access to a technology and parity with Apple's own products are separate deliverables, and the reported complaints are about the second.

The worry on record is about what developers can build. Neither 9to5Mac nor MacRumors reports any term on fees or commissions ^[16].

Apple's position is on record. It offered interoperability concessions during an earlier attempt to avert the lawsuit ^[14], and it argued that the government's proposed intervention would threaten its ability to design integrated products ^[10]. The Information says Apple is likely to resist more substantial changes ^[7]. Proton said it doubted Apple would accept terms developers would regard as satisfactory ^[9].

A DOJ spokesperson declined to discuss specifics and said the department would "continue to prioritize affordability for all Americans across our economy" ^[12].

For a team with an iPhone-dependent item on the roadmap, we'd sort each dependency on two axes. The first is whether Apple has already granted the access, as it did with NFC and RCS. The second is whether the product needs parity with Apple's own device or app, as a smartwatch does. Access granted and parity not needed: build on it now. Access granted and parity needed: build, and price in the disadvantage the report describes for payment apps. Access not granted: plan as if it stays closed until settlement text names it, since a light settlement is the outcome developers and antitrust lawyers say they worry about ^[3]. The cost of that stance is a workaround a later deal could make redundant. The cost of the alternative is a launch date tied to talks that currently have no agreement ^[11].