You've misread the article, and Gruber more broadly. Gruber has been saying for years that Apple should have acted more strategically, that, in particular, the

You've misread the article, and Gruber more broadly. Gruber has been saying for years that Apple should have acted more strategically, that, in particular, they should have allowed apps to link out to their own website for payment processing, in order to avoid the DMA. Here's his article from last week: https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/coming_to_grips_with_apples_seemingly_unshakable_sense_of_app_store_entitlement https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/coming_to_grips_with_appl... > Apple should have been looking for ways to lessen regulatory and legislative pressure over the past few years, and in today’s climate that’s more true than ever. But instead, their stance has seemingly been “Bring it on.” Confrontational, not conciliatory, conceding not an inch. Rather than take a sure win with most of what they could want, Apple is seemingly hell-bent on trying to keep everything. To win in chess all you need is to capture your opponent’s king. Apple seemingly wants to capture every last piece on the board — even while playing in a tournament where the referees (regulators) are known to look askance at blatant poor sportsmanship (greed). Note the closing paragraph of today's article: > The delicious irony in Apple’s not knowing if these massive, complicated proposals will be deemed DMA-compliant is that their dealings with the European Commission sound exactly like App Store developers’ dealings with Apple. Do all the work to build it first, and only then find out if it passes muster with largely inscrutable rules interpreted by faceless bureaucrats.