> Someone at Apple did math on this and it's not worth their time to make this feature interoperable just for the EU market. That's because of this law

Let's not pretend like Apple isn't doing everything it can to turn its EU users against their government by complying with the DMA in the most obtuse, disruptive, and useless ways possible. They're risking fines and further punishments betting that they can ultimately subvert the democratic process that put in place laws that would require more developer and user freedom. To Apple, the threat of users owning their computers is an existential one.

▲

jacobjjacob 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the consumers in EU don’t like the legal and predictable effects of the DMA in this case, how is Apple subverting the democratic process? If the act isn’t having the intended effect, then either voters will change their minds or it will need to be reformed. But this sounds like a successful outcome of the law insofar as preventing anticompetitive behavior.

Subverting democracy, to me, would involve things like dark money campaigns and lobbying.

▲

idle_zealot 5 days ago | parent [-]

> If the consumers in EU don’t like the legal and predictable effects of the DMA in this case, how is Apple subverting the democratic process

The issue is that Apple isn't following the law. It's breaking it and then miming to its customers that its actions are on account of the law. That misrepresentation is meant to convince citizens of the EU that DMA is a bad law with consequences they don't support so that they pressure their representatives to get it removed.

It's Apple making a big show of directly harming consumers as part of a misinformation campaign to get policy that limits their power repealed. To me that reaches the bar for subverting democracy.

▲

jacobjjacob 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not breaking the law in this case as far as I know.

The law requires Apple to provide equal access to the iPhone hardware and software in marketplaces that it competes in.

That can be done in a manner that is either additive, by providing access to third parties (which is potentially a significant expense and liability) or subtractive, by choosing not to engage in the regulated activities at all, in that jurisdiction.

	▲	idle_zealot 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're right that they're not breaking the law in this specific instance. I was referring to the many instances they've lost or are disputing in court, mainly around browser engines/JIT, their handling of default app screens, third party app distribution, extra fees, and mandatory app bundle signing. In this case they're merely being obtuse by refusing to provide an API to other device manufacturers. Unless you genuinely believe that the cost/benefit analysis of adding a new feature to their OS dictates that they basically freeze development unless they're able to recoup costs by tying it to their accessories, then you must conclude that they made the live transcription API Apple-only, and therefore not DMA-compatible, only to make EU citizens feel like their laws were depriving them of new features. An organization interested in good-faith compliance would expose their internal API surface with some vetting process for access by interested parties. Then as the API becomes stable they would open it up more broadly. If accused of being anti-competitive by restricting access they could easily and correctly argue that they were working with potential competitors on that stable and secure API, and that their actions balanced the interests of market competition and security. Of course, Apple is not interested in good-faith compliance. It's my belief that they should be made an example of so that they and other companies running the math in the future decide that proactive and good-faith compliance with regulations is more cost-effective than attempting to fight them.

▲

nostrebored 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Proponents of EU competition law seem to be the most egregious version of “America isn’t the center of the world.” Why should international companies build products to align with regulation that has put the nail in the coffin of European innovation?

▲

realusername 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They don't have to, Apple is free to leave the market if they really don't think it's worth it.

That reminds me of Zukerberg's bluff saying he's going to leave the EU which lasted exactly one day.

▲

ab5tract 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The DMA is barely past the toddler stage. I think it’s a bit premature to claim lids on coffins here.

▲

nostrebored 5 days ago | parent [-]

It’s not just the DMA. The EU has been regulating innovation to death for decades.

	▲	dns_snek 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Typical meme comment with zero substance. The DMA is a competition-promoting regulation which will breed innovation as long as it's properly enforced. Inventing a substandard product and using your market dominance in one area to ensure that nobody can compete with your substandard product is as far detached from innovation as you can possibly be. One size fits all solution with centrally planned development where one person knows best and competition isn't considered a driver of progress, isn't that a very communism-shaped approach to "innovation"? I'm not even joking here and it's bizarre that I'm having to promote the good parts of free market capitalism to someone who claims to care about innovation.

▲

sroussey 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How is it breaking the law?

▲

NewsaHackO 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They risk getting fines for not releasing a feature? The EU is insane

	▲	rickdeckard 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, they're not risking fines that way. They are free to not bring such features to the EU-market which prevent a level playing ground for competition. But they were found to have already skewed the market with several Apple-accessory-exclusive iOS-features in the past (Proximity pairing, Watch-integration, etc.) and for those they have to provide interoperability now. They worked with the EU for a year now on how exactly they should reach compliance, then the ruling was made, ordering them to make such interoperability features also available to other brands than Apple. Now it seems that they try to rally their userbase against that ruling, in hopes to create a political climate that gets the ruling revoked again...