No, that's not so. One of the relevant rulings (https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...) dictates that merely providing any API isn't enough. Among other requirements, the API must "properly consider the needs of third parties that will make use of the solution", it must be "properly tested for bugs or other shortcomings", and Apple must "provide adequate and timely assistance to third parties that report issues". A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough.
Yes, and?
> A barely hacked-together API that's hard to use without constantly pinging the team who implemented it - entirely normal for the first release of a big new feature - wouldn't be enough.
Oh, so Apple can't be bothered to be held to the same standard as, say, automotive developers?
Ahh, I see the problem. This may come as a shock to you: a phone is not a car.
Yes, a phone is vastly more important than a personal car right now. You can easily live (especially in Europe) without a car, but a phone is indispensable.
I would have more sympathy for Apple if they behaved ethically, respecting developers and users. They absolutely do not behave ethically, preferring to exploit everything they can.
Turnaround is a fair play, so I'm going to shed zero tears if Apple is forced to spend a couple hundred million dollars (at most) adapting their internal documentation for their APIs.
I don't understand the analogy. Are auto manufacturers in the EU required to publish a detailed spec and robust API for third party backup camera developers?
They are required to provide detailed repair manuals, spare parts, and diagnostic software to independent repair shops.