5 ms·

The point isn’t that it’s easy or straightforward to do. The point is that one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with

The point isn’t that it’s easy or straightforward to do. The point is that one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with the regulations of one of the world’s largest markets.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with the regulations of one of the world’s largest markets At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions.
- disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
  > At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions. I totally agree with you in principle here, but Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here (and in the other cases, like Mac mirroring) so I honestly don't see that happening at all. This is purely a lobbying move against the EU to get EU citizens/politicians to complain about the laws and get an exemption. And to be fair, Apple's business model is currently structurally incompatible with a lot of the DMA (which I personally think is a good thing), so they kinda have to fight it for a while.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > purely a lobbying move It can be more than one thing. It’s a lobbying move, to be sure. But it’s also almost certainly a time-to-market and potentially cost-mitigation play, too.
    - disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
      I do take your general point here, but if you know you need to implement the DNA requirements then you need to build and plan for some of that well in advance of launch. I guess I don't see how much time they gain unless they don't plan to ever release a DMA compliant version.
  - ahartmetz 4mo ago
    That lobbying move has been tried how many times? It hasn't worked once. There is no disagreement along any political lines I can think of. It's not that we particularly like the EU government here in the EU. But we do like when they make pro-consumer laws.
    - tqwhite 4mo ago
      So, you do without. Easy Peasy.
  - inetknght 4mo ago
    > Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here Yeah that needs to stop. This is kinda why the DMA was created in the first place...
    - jen20 4mo ago
      It doesn't _have_ to stop - the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, which is exactly what is happening here. The law is working as intended, just not in the way the proponents thought it would.
      - troupo 4mo ago
        > the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, Yes, they can. Apple wields its duopoly power to try and bend governments to its will.
        ahartmetz 4mo ago
        Spoiler: It won't work this time neither.
        jen20 4mo ago
        > Yes, they can. Then why aren't they?
        troupo 4mo ago
        Because Apple decided you don't deserve them. It literally is: EU: users must have choice. Apple: no. Apple literally says that because they are required to give users more choice they will give users less choice: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-acts-impacts-on-eu-users/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...
- lokar 4mo ago
  The cost is almost certainly in time, not staff
Keyframe 4mo ago
Yet, they chose not to. That also speaks for itself.
hector_vasquez 4mo ago
Having worked at Apple and similarly giant companies, the idea that "they have enough money to do it" is incredibly naive. Rewriting all the basic software primitives of the iPhone, or the Mac, or iCloud, or CloudKit, or choose whatever massive surface area this legislation impacts, is not a matter of simply spending enough. Doing so requires the time and attention of the very few subject matter experts who are able to competently do it. The true cost is to your strategy, your business plan, and your product roadmap. So it becomes a purely business decision: Do we risk a 10% global revenue penalty to release this globally, do we release this everywhere the DMA does not apply, or do we simply not build it? And make no mistake, even if Apple moved heaven and earth to try to comply with DMA they are STILL RISKING the full 10% penalty if the EU decides against them.
- fnordsensei 4mo ago
  Didn’t write “money”, wrote “resources”, but sure. Yes, there’s a risk to releasing a product whenever you can be held accountable for that product. I understand that Apple seeks to be as unaccountable as possible. So we ultimately agree with one another: Apple can do it, but doesn’t want to, for various reasons.
rpdillon 4mo ago
It's simply a prioritizing time to market over a global release. You tend to release into the most restrictive environments last and the most forgiving environments first, for obvious reasons.
stouset 4mo ago
They can, and if they had thought it was advantageous for them to do so, they would have done so.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with the regulations of one of the world’s largest markets At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions.

disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
> At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions. I totally agree with you in principle here, but Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here (and in the other cases, like Mac mirroring) so I honestly don't see that happening at all. This is purely a lobbying move against the EU to get EU citizens/politicians to complain about the laws and get an exemption. And to be fair, Apple's business model is currently structurally incompatible with a lot of the DMA (which I personally think is a good thing), so they kinda have to fight it for a while.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > purely a lobbying move It can be more than one thing. It’s a lobbying move, to be sure. But it’s also almost certainly a time-to-market and potentially cost-mitigation play, too.
  - disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
    I do take your general point here, but if you know you need to implement the DNA requirements then you need to build and plan for some of that well in advance of launch. I guess I don't see how much time they gain unless they don't plan to ever release a DMA compliant version.
- ahartmetz 4mo ago
  That lobbying move has been tried how many times? It hasn't worked once. There is no disagreement along any political lines I can think of. It's not that we particularly like the EU government here in the EU. But we do like when they make pro-consumer laws.
  - tqwhite 4mo ago
    So, you do without. Easy Peasy.
- inetknght 4mo ago
  > Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here Yeah that needs to stop. This is kinda why the DMA was created in the first place...
  - jen20 4mo ago
    It doesn't _have_ to stop - the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, which is exactly what is happening here. The law is working as intended, just not in the way the proponents thought it would.
    - troupo 4mo ago
      > the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, Yes, they can. Apple wields its duopoly power to try and bend governments to its will.
      - ahartmetz 4mo ago
        Spoiler: It won't work this time neither.
      - jen20 4mo ago
        > Yes, they can. Then why aren't they?
        troupo 4mo ago
        Because Apple decided you don't deserve them. It literally is: EU: users must have choice. Apple: no. Apple literally says that because they are required to give users more choice they will give users less choice: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-acts-impacts-on-eu-users/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...
lokar 4mo ago
The cost is almost certainly in time, not staff

Keyframe 4mo ago

Yet, they chose not to. That also speaks for itself.

hector_vasquez 4mo ago

Having worked at Apple and similarly giant companies, the idea that "they have enough money to do it" is incredibly naive. Rewriting all the basic software primitives of the iPhone, or the Mac, or iCloud, or CloudKit, or choose whatever massive surface area this legislation impacts, is not a matter of simply spending enough. Doing so requires the time and attention of the very few subject matter experts who are able to competently do it. The true cost is to your strategy, your business plan, and your product roadmap. So it becomes a purely business decision: Do we risk a 10% global revenue penalty to release this globally, do we release this everywhere the DMA does not apply, or do we simply not build it? And make no mistake, even if Apple moved heaven and earth to try to comply with DMA they are STILL RISKING the full 10% penalty if the EU decides against them.

fnordsensei 4mo ago
Didn’t write “money”, wrote “resources”, but sure. Yes, there’s a risk to releasing a product whenever you can be held accountable for that product. I understand that Apple seeks to be as unaccountable as possible. So we ultimately agree with one another: Apple can do it, but doesn’t want to, for various reasons.

rpdillon 4mo ago

It's simply a prioritizing time to market over a global release. You tend to release into the most restrictive environments last and the most forgiving environments first, for obvious reasons.

stouset 4mo ago

They can, and if they had thought it was advantageous for them to do so, they would have done so.