When we buy a car we can decide which tires to install, which workshop to repair it in or which browser to use. However, when we buy a mobile phone, that freedom does not always exist. For years, Apple has built one of the most closed technological ecosystems in the world. It is precisely this integration between hardware and software that many users value for its security, stability and ease of use. But That same philosophy has also limited the access of third-party manufacturers and developers to certain functions. of the iPhone. And now that strategy has just faced one of its biggest judicial tests.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has admitted a new intervention by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) in the litigation between Apple and the European Commission over the application of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This is case T-1080/23 and, although it may seem like a technical procedure, the The result could determine the extent to which Apple can continue to control the operation of its devices in Europe.
The discussion is usually summed up in one phrase: allow alternative app stores. But the conflict is much broader. The European Commission considers that Apple, as a designated “gatekeeper” company (gatekeeper), should facilitate the interoperability of your operating system with third-party devices and applications. That means that smart watches, headphones, applications or services developed by other companies can access certain iPhone functions under conditions similar to those enjoyed by Apple’s own products.
In March 2025, Brussels specified how Apple should meet these obligations: greater access to technical documentation, transparent procedures for requesting interoperability, defined deadlines for responding to developers, and mechanisms for monitoring requests. Apple appealed that decision before European justice. But what does “interoperability” mean? Suppose we buy a house and the lock manufacturer is the only one who can decide which companies can make compatible keys and which cannot. Basically that is interoperability. In the digital world it means that Other manufacturers may develop products capable of communicating with a device without relying exclusively on the authorization of the original manufacturer.
For iPhone, this could affect features such as quick pairing of headphones, smartwatch notifications, file transfers, certain wireless features, or access to system interfaces that today work better with Apple products than those of the competition. The Commission has already set a timetable for some of these functions to be progressively opened to third parties in the European Union.
Apple, for its part, maintains that many of these demands can put the privacy and security of its users at risk. The company defends that strict control over its ecosystem allows us to offer a more secure experience and better protect personal information, in addition to safeguarding its intellectual property. That has been one of the bases of his appeal against the decisions of the European Commission.
The European Commission maintains just the opposite. Consider that an excessively closed ecosystem hinders competition and limits the innovation capacity of other developers. The goal of the DMA is not to force Apple to share its source code, but prevent control over the operating system from becoming a barrier so that other products can compete on equal terms.
For this reason, organizations such as the Free Software Foundation Europe have decided to intervene in the judicial process. The foundation maintains that the outcome of the case could directly affect the possibility of developing free software compatible with Apple’s ecosystem and that limiting interoperability would reduce options for both developers and users. The court itself recognized that The outcome could have a significant impact on free software and the ability to connect applications with Apple operating systems.
But the case goes far beyond Apple. The underlying question is who controls a device once we have purchased it. For decades, ownership meant freedom to modify, repair or expand a product. In the digital age that idea has changed. More and more devices function as ecosystems controlled by their manufacturer, which decides which accessories can be connectedwhich applications can be installed and which functions remain reserved.
The ruling finally handed down by the European courts will not only mark the future of the iPhone in Europe. It will also help answer an increasingly important question in the digital economy: when we buy a device, Do we really own it or do we simply use a product whose operation is still controlled by whoever manufactured it?