6 ms·

If Apple has the choice to give up developing products in a controlled, vertically integrated manner OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory

If Apple has the choice to give up developing products in a controlled, vertically integrated manner OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them. We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.

troupo 2y ago
> OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them. It isn't hard at all. "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" is really not a hard decision at all. Funny how you end up with an answer that defies all common and business sense > with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all. They are coming despite all of Apple's posturing, and on a schedule that was already determined before all the posturing.
- walterbell 2y ago
  Revamped AI is delayed to 2027 anyway.
  - dividedbyzero 2y ago
    Lets see how that'll go when the competition starts offering really polished LLM assistants on their devices and people see their friends use them on their 400 Euro Androids and all they get on their 1700 Euro iPhone is Siri from 2011.
    - walterbell 2y ago
      EU can mandate that Apple open up more interfaces for 3rd party LLM assistants to run locally,
- xvokcarts 2y ago
  > "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" I think the wants (of the EU buyers) are far less homogeneous than the group of open integration activists make it look like, so there's no "we". We hear the opinions of the vocal ones and based on those voices regulation is enacted, but nothing changes for the silent majority. However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own. Sure, most people don't care. That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists. Better than by corporations any day.
    - xvokcarts 2y ago
      >EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own. That was my point. There is no "we". >That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists. Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. So far all the companies regulated by EU have accepted the regulation - we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
      - FeepingCreature 2y ago
        > Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. That's not just any regulation, that's any act of government. > we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants. My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
        xvokcarts 2y ago
        > My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place. Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise. We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.
piva00 2y ago
Losing 20% of global revenue is not really an option.
- intrasight 2y ago
  How would disabling certain features in certain markets hostile to their business model result in 20% revenue loss?
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Because less people would buy Apple devices.
  - monooso 2y ago
    I realise this wasn't your point, but there is something deeply dystopian about referring to the EU's attempt to act in the best interests of its citizens as "hostile to [Apple's] business model."
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  Losing 20% of global revenue while also losing 20% of global COGS is a much better option than losing 10% of revenue and incurring an extra 10% of R&D.
atwrk 2y ago
This is a false dichotomy: Noone is forbidding Apple doing intergration of their products. The DMA simply forbids barring competitors from the same access. Just compare how Apple cripples third party smartwatches on ios.
simion314 2y ago
>We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all. This is FUD from Apple fanboys, Apple delayed their shit in UK and other non EU countries. Apple was probably incapable to release those AI features at the same time in more then a few countries. And guess what, OpenAI , Anthropic and other AI companies will for sure try to replace Siri and Apple will try to avoid that and hopefully would pay fair and not cripple competitors. I am from EU and I am not missing any AI providers, maybe some alpha/beta stuff that launches first in USA before they add the features about protecting the privacy of the user or until the lawyers are done rewording the ToS on how they sell your data but word it as a good thing.

troupo 2y ago

> OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them. It isn't hard at all. "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" is really not a hard decision at all. Funny how you end up with an answer that defies all common and business sense > with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all. They are coming despite all of Apple's posturing, and on a schedule that was already determined before all the posturing.

walterbell 2y ago
Revamped AI is delayed to 2027 anyway.
- dividedbyzero 2y ago
  Lets see how that'll go when the competition starts offering really polished LLM assistants on their devices and people see their friends use them on their 400 Euro Androids and all they get on their 1700 Euro iPhone is Siri from 2011.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    EU can mandate that Apple open up more interfaces for 3rd party LLM assistants to run locally,
xvokcarts 2y ago
> "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" I think the wants (of the EU buyers) are far less homogeneous than the group of open integration activists make it look like, so there's no "we". We hear the opinions of the vocal ones and based on those voices regulation is enacted, but nothing changes for the silent majority. However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own. Sure, most people don't care. That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists. Better than by corporations any day.
  - xvokcarts 2y ago
    >EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own. That was my point. There is no "we". >That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists. Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. So far all the companies regulated by EU have accepted the regulation - we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
    - FeepingCreature 2y ago
      > Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. That's not just any regulation, that's any act of government. > we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants. My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
      - xvokcarts 2y ago
        > My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place. Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise. We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.

piva00 2y ago

Losing 20% of global revenue is not really an option.

intrasight 2y ago
How would disabling certain features in certain markets hostile to their business model result in 20% revenue loss?
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  Because less people would buy Apple devices.
- monooso 2y ago
  I realise this wasn't your point, but there is something deeply dystopian about referring to the EU's attempt to act in the best interests of its citizens as "hostile to [Apple's] business model."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
burnerthrow008 2y ago
Losing 20% of global revenue while also losing 20% of global COGS is a much better option than losing 10% of revenue and incurring an extra 10% of R&D.

atwrk 2y ago

This is a false dichotomy: Noone is forbidding Apple doing intergration of their products. The DMA simply forbids barring competitors from the same access. Just compare how Apple cripples third party smartwatches on ios.

simion314 2y ago

>We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all. This is FUD from Apple fanboys, Apple delayed their shit in UK and other non EU countries. Apple was probably incapable to release those AI features at the same time in more then a few countries. And guess what, OpenAI , Anthropic and other AI companies will for sure try to replace Siri and Apple will try to avoid that and hopefully would pay fair and not cripple competitors. I am from EU and I am not missing any AI providers, maybe some alpha/beta stuff that launches first in USA before they add the features about protecting the privacy of the user or until the lawyers are done rewording the ToS on how they sell your data but word it as a good thing.