4 ms·

> If you knew the restrictions day one you’d be able to engineer the system to accommodate them This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if

> If you knew the restrictions day one you’d be able to engineer the system to accommodate them This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if the target is moving, it may make sense to build lightly so one can pivot, and then build in the compliance stuff after you know you have a winning configuration. The EU has its laws. Apple has its strategy. The only thing I fault anyone on is the public bickering.

Forgeties79 5mo ago
I imagine complying with all kinds of laws and regulations slows releases in some way or another and having none of them would allow people to ship faster, so what makes these EU regulations so distinct? Do what you have to do to comply with the law and release, as always.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > complying with all kinds of laws delays release in some way or another and having none of them would allow people to ship faster, so what makes these EU regulations so distinct? DMA was designed to be a comprehensive regulatory suite. Lawmakers knew it would be onerous; that’s why it only applies to large companies. Also, the DMA’s interoperability requirement creates external partners. Let’s face it, Apple’s track record with Siri sucks. If they launch a system and it is crap again, they may not now want an entire ecosystem of folks who will cry foul if they dump the API and start over. > Do what you have to do to comply with the law and release, as always Just follow the law. If that means not releasing in a jurisdiction, do that and then don’t tweet snotty things about it. (Siri AI isn’t launching in China, either. I don’t see PMs complaining about that in public.)
  - Forgeties79 5mo ago
    No one complains (out loud) about US regulations either. Ultimately it’s about the weight you can throw as well as PR. Probably easier for Apple to make the EU look bad and drag their feet on it. I imagine they’re still not thrilled about the Lightening->USB-C change
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > No one complains (out loud) about US regulations either Everyone constantly does!
      - Forgeties79 5mo ago
        The same way they constantly do and don’t about the Chinese government I’d say.
      - nkozyra 5mo ago
        > Everyone constantly does! In the aggregate, I agree, but in tech things are pretty loose outside of California.
    - stouset 5mo ago
      Apple was literally the first major company to go all-in on USB-C. They shipped entire devices that only had USB-C ports. If anything, I would wager they were happy about it. They were going to have to do it anyway, and it would inevitably cause friction for users who were already invested in Lightning cables and third-party devices. The EU forcing this just meant they could shift the blame for any negative sentiment onto the EU.
      - Forgeties79 5mo ago
        They weren’t all-in or first because they refused to add them to their mobile products until years after everyone else. They fought tooth and nail against integrating it into the iPhone until the EU forced them to. It’s well documented. The MFi program - namely the associated accessories - was very important to them. Putting USB-C on their laptops in 2016 is a different discussion and it wasn’t a tough decision because none of their computers had lightning integrated into it anyways. If anything we should be asking why they did that and then took 7 years to put them on their phones. They could’ve had one port for literally everything since 2016 and yet the EU had to force them to do it.
        stouset 5mo ago
jefftk 5mo ago
Laws and strategy are not fixed, and public bickering is part of how they get optimized.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  That’s fair. Apple bickers in the EU and U.S. It doesn’t in China. I have a clear preference for one set of political systems.
  - square_usual 5mo ago
    They aren't releasing it in China either.
    - t-sauer 5mo ago
      And they are framing the completely different in that case.
    - seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
      Yet. But they are probably working with Chinese partners (including the government) on releasing something (maybe with Alibaba models instead of Google models, on a Chinese-local cloud rather than google cloud).
      - robocat 5mo ago
        A quick check showed it is estimated that Apple gets about 18% of it's profits from China but only maybe 7% from EU countries (ignore Apple's definition of Europe!). Maybe China is easier to work with - perhaps their rules are made clearer?
        seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
        China has 1.4 billion people and they are rapidly increasing their wealth. The only surprising factor is that Chinese cell phone producers haven't eaten up apple's marketshare yet.
jasonmp85 5mo ago
[dead]
dylan604 5mo ago
If Apple is so pro-privacy like they claim, then they'd look for the most strict international privacy laws and abide by them. Then they could feel safe in knowing they could release the product anywhere. The fact they want to make the product available under the "rules" of the least privacy protecting countries first says a lot to me
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  DMA is about competition, not privacy. Apple weren’t requesting a GDPR waiver.
  - inetknght 5mo ago
    So Apple doesn't want to compete? Cry me a river. I could almost feel sympathy if it were something to do with some contract that Apple signed with their AI provider. Who's that, Google? Ahh, a "competitor"? Yeah... cry me a river.
  - overfeed 5mo ago
    Apple's concern is at the intersection of DMA and privacy. Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of data access that Apple has today would create privacy issues. This is because Apple's current privacy posture is "Trust Apple with your data" rather than "Trust no one with your data - including Apple", but that would be less profitable, but would have prevented the request for an exception because Apple would be on an equal footing with everyone else, if all they could see was client-encrypted data indistinguishable from random bytes.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of access that Apple has today would create privacy issues But this is solvable. The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)
      - 5mo ago
baq 5mo ago
Then don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy This isn’t about privacy. DMA is about interoperability.
BrenBarn 5mo ago
> This slows down deploying the system globally. Good. Pretty much everything should roll out way slower.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  So win-win. EU consumers get a fully-baked, slower-rolled-out product. American consumers and developers get to see it earlier, warts and opportunities and all.
sandeepkd 5mo ago
> This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if the target is moving, it may make sense to build lightly so one can pivot, and then build in the compliance stuff after you know you have a winning configuration This kind of approach is how startups justify everything, however for established companies this would be backward. I get a feeling that Apple never wanted to do it. They already knew the compliance requirements existed and if they would have wanted to test things then the narrative could have that they are rolling out in other markets first and would roll out with compliance in EU later. Asking for exemption was a bet they tried to play here, they lost and now spinning the narrative.

Forgeties79 5mo ago

I imagine complying with all kinds of laws and regulations slows releases in some way or another and having none of them would allow people to ship faster, so what makes these EU regulations so distinct? Do what you have to do to comply with the law and release, as always.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> complying with all kinds of laws delays release in some way or another and having none of them would allow people to ship faster, so what makes these EU regulations so distinct? DMA was designed to be a comprehensive regulatory suite. Lawmakers knew it would be onerous; that’s why it only applies to large companies. Also, the DMA’s interoperability requirement creates external partners. Let’s face it, Apple’s track record with Siri sucks. If they launch a system and it is crap again, they may not now want an entire ecosystem of folks who will cry foul if they dump the API and start over. > Do what you have to do to comply with the law and release, as always Just follow the law. If that means not releasing in a jurisdiction, do that and then don’t tweet snotty things about it. (Siri AI isn’t launching in China, either. I don’t see PMs complaining about that in public.)
- Forgeties79 5mo ago
  No one complains (out loud) about US regulations either. Ultimately it’s about the weight you can throw as well as PR. Probably easier for Apple to make the EU look bad and drag their feet on it. I imagine they’re still not thrilled about the Lightening->USB-C change
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > No one complains (out loud) about US regulations either Everyone constantly does!
    - Forgeties79 5mo ago
      The same way they constantly do and don’t about the Chinese government I’d say.
    - nkozyra 5mo ago
      > Everyone constantly does! In the aggregate, I agree, but in tech things are pretty loose outside of California.
  - stouset 5mo ago
    Apple was literally the first major company to go all-in on USB-C. They shipped entire devices that only had USB-C ports. If anything, I would wager they were happy about it. They were going to have to do it anyway, and it would inevitably cause friction for users who were already invested in Lightning cables and third-party devices. The EU forcing this just meant they could shift the blame for any negative sentiment onto the EU.
    - Forgeties79 5mo ago
      They weren’t all-in or first because they refused to add them to their mobile products until years after everyone else. They fought tooth and nail against integrating it into the iPhone until the EU forced them to. It’s well documented. The MFi program - namely the associated accessories - was very important to them. Putting USB-C on their laptops in 2016 is a different discussion and it wasn’t a tough decision because none of their computers had lightning integrated into it anyways. If anything we should be asking why they did that and then took 7 years to put them on their phones. They could’ve had one port for literally everything since 2016 and yet the EU had to force them to do it.
      - stouset 5mo ago

jefftk 5mo ago

Laws and strategy are not fixed, and public bickering is part of how they get optimized.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
That’s fair. Apple bickers in the EU and U.S. It doesn’t in China. I have a clear preference for one set of political systems.
- square_usual 5mo ago
  They aren't releasing it in China either.
  - t-sauer 5mo ago
    And they are framing the completely different in that case.
  - seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
    Yet. But they are probably working with Chinese partners (including the government) on releasing something (maybe with Alibaba models instead of Google models, on a Chinese-local cloud rather than google cloud).
    - robocat 5mo ago
      A quick check showed it is estimated that Apple gets about 18% of it's profits from China but only maybe 7% from EU countries (ignore Apple's definition of Europe!). Maybe China is easier to work with - perhaps their rules are made clearer?
      - seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
        China has 1.4 billion people and they are rapidly increasing their wealth. The only surprising factor is that Chinese cell phone producers haven't eaten up apple's marketshare yet.

jasonmp85 5mo ago

[dead]

dylan604 5mo ago

If Apple is so pro-privacy like they claim, then they'd look for the most strict international privacy laws and abide by them. Then they could feel safe in knowing they could release the product anywhere. The fact they want to make the product available under the "rules" of the least privacy protecting countries first says a lot to me

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
DMA is about competition, not privacy. Apple weren’t requesting a GDPR waiver.
- inetknght 5mo ago
  So Apple doesn't want to compete? Cry me a river. I could almost feel sympathy if it were something to do with some contract that Apple signed with their AI provider. Who's that, Google? Ahh, a "competitor"? Yeah... cry me a river.
- overfeed 5mo ago
  Apple's concern is at the intersection of DMA and privacy. Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of data access that Apple has today would create privacy issues. This is because Apple's current privacy posture is "Trust Apple with your data" rather than "Trust no one with your data - including Apple", but that would be less profitable, but would have prevented the request for an exception because Apple would be on an equal footing with everyone else, if all they could see was client-encrypted data indistinguishable from random bytes.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of access that Apple has today would create privacy issues But this is solvable. The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)
    - 5mo ago

baq 5mo ago

Then don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> don’t deploy it for Pete’s sake if you can’t guarantee basic privacy This isn’t about privacy. DMA is about interoperability.

BrenBarn 5mo ago

> This slows down deploying the system globally. Good. Pretty much everything should roll out way slower.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
So win-win. EU consumers get a fully-baked, slower-rolled-out product. American consumers and developers get to see it earlier, warts and opportunities and all.

sandeepkd 5mo ago

> This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if the target is moving, it may make sense to build lightly so one can pivot, and then build in the compliance stuff after you know you have a winning configuration This kind of approach is how startups justify everything, however for established companies this would be backward. I get a feeling that Apple never wanted to do it. They already knew the compliance requirements existed and if they would have wanted to test things then the narrative could have that they are rolling out in other markets first and would roll out with compliance in EU later. Asking for exemption was a bet they tried to play here, they lost and now spinning the narrative.