4 ms·

The exemption Apple wanted was not from a privacy law, but from the DMA. They never claimed to have an issue meeting their privacy laws when using their own pr

The exemption Apple wanted was not from a privacy law, but from the DMA. They never claimed to have an issue meeting their privacy laws when using their own product, it was other people's products that they said they couldn't guarantee the privacy of. Here's their argument in their own words: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-delayed-in-eu-for-ios-27-and-ipados-27/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...

spwa4 4mo ago
You mean they wanted there to be no confusion whatsoever that they wouldn't allow competition in their ecosystem.
- kube-system 4mo ago
  The exemption requested was temporary.
  - necovek 4mo ago
    EU response said it was "for a minimum of 18 months" — does not sound temporary to me.
    - Johnny555 4mo ago
      How is that not temporary? "Ok, you asked for an exemption for a minimum of 18 months, we're granting you what you asked for, an 18 month exemption".
      - microtonal 4mo ago
        By now, Apple has accrued years of malicious DMA/DSA compliance. After those 18 months they'll try to find another reason not to allow competition. Besides that, the law is the law and the DMA/DSA has been around for years. Why should they get an exception is one part of a duopoly?
  - microtonal 4mo ago
    The 18 months was to entrench themselves in favor of other players.
gmueckl 4mo ago
That's even worse, then. They are not responsible for other companies' products. So this is just another piece of anti-DMA propaganda then. They have been fighting it loudly and with toddler-level arguments since they became subject to it.
- kube-system 4mo ago
  > They are not responsible for other companies' products. Legally, maybe not, practically it becomes their problem.
- macintux 4mo ago
  A huge part of Apple’s marketing, whether you believe them or not, is that they try to protect your privacy. The smartphone is probably the most sensitive device most people own. It knows your location always. It has your banking apps. Your password manager. Your instant messages, and social media chats, it knows whether you’re walking, or driving, or talking on the phone, and to whom. Once Apple allows any other vendor to vacuum all of that intensively private information out of an iPhone, Apple becomes indirectly responsible for potentially massive privacy breaches.
  - schubidubiduba 4mo ago
    All of that happens only if the user chooses to do it though. Anybody is free to stay in the caged Apple garden. The EU just wants them to leave the door unlocked.
    - happyopossum 4mo ago
      A door with a lock is different from a wall with no door. Same argument that gets made with government-keyed or government-breakable encryption schemes: it's better for everyone to not have the backdoor at all.
      - gmueckl 4mo ago
        It's not a backdoor. It's a front door that can only be opened from the inside when done correctly.

spwa4 4mo ago

You mean they wanted there to be no confusion whatsoever that they wouldn't allow competition in their ecosystem.

kube-system 4mo ago
The exemption requested was temporary.
- necovek 4mo ago
  EU response said it was "for a minimum of 18 months" — does not sound temporary to me.
  - Johnny555 4mo ago
    How is that not temporary? "Ok, you asked for an exemption for a minimum of 18 months, we're granting you what you asked for, an 18 month exemption".
    - microtonal 4mo ago
      By now, Apple has accrued years of malicious DMA/DSA compliance. After those 18 months they'll try to find another reason not to allow competition. Besides that, the law is the law and the DMA/DSA has been around for years. Why should they get an exception is one part of a duopoly?
- microtonal 4mo ago
  The 18 months was to entrench themselves in favor of other players.

gmueckl 4mo ago

That's even worse, then. They are not responsible for other companies' products. So this is just another piece of anti-DMA propaganda then. They have been fighting it loudly and with toddler-level arguments since they became subject to it.

kube-system 4mo ago
> They are not responsible for other companies' products. Legally, maybe not, practically it becomes their problem.
macintux 4mo ago
A huge part of Apple’s marketing, whether you believe them or not, is that they try to protect your privacy. The smartphone is probably the most sensitive device most people own. It knows your location always. It has your banking apps. Your password manager. Your instant messages, and social media chats, it knows whether you’re walking, or driving, or talking on the phone, and to whom. Once Apple allows any other vendor to vacuum all of that intensively private information out of an iPhone, Apple becomes indirectly responsible for potentially massive privacy breaches.
- schubidubiduba 4mo ago
  All of that happens only if the user chooses to do it though. Anybody is free to stay in the caged Apple garden. The EU just wants them to leave the door unlocked.
  - happyopossum 4mo ago
    A door with a lock is different from a wall with no door. Same argument that gets made with government-keyed or government-breakable encryption schemes: it's better for everyone to not have the backdoor at all.
    - gmueckl 4mo ago
      It's not a backdoor. It's a front door that can only be opened from the inside when done correctly.