Compliance overhead is real, but it doesn't rule out strategy.

Two things can be true: big fines risk slow launches, and companies also use that friction to shape narratives and sequence rollouts.

> regulation with punitively high fines attached to it creates massive regulatory risk for public companies that have a duty to shareholders to take them extremely seriously

There were multiple cases where this didn't stop Apple from keeping anti-steering rules long enough to get a €1.8B fine (music streaming), eating €50M in Dutch penalties over dating-app payments, delaying Apple Intelligence/Phone Mirroring in the EU citing the DMA, and then getting fined again under the DMA for App Store steering.

There are strict rules in China as well. Apple just plays a different game there. In China it's rapid, quiet compliance with content/data controls. In the EU, the DMA forces structural changes that touch Apple's model, you see legal fights, staged rollouts, and public messaging (e.g., delaying Apple Intelligence/Phone Mirroring).

▲

crazygringo 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> and companies also use that friction to shape narratives

If Apple were doing that, it would be telling us why it wasn't supporting this feature in the EU, putting anti-DMA ads out, open letters, etc. But it's not. It's clearly doing the opposite and trying to stay out of the narrative.

And all of the fines you point to are exactly why Apple is now exceedingly cautious. The fines are working. They've changed Apple's behavior because they're an established proven risk now.

You contrast China with the EU and claim Apple is playing a different game, but it's not. The types of regulations are what's different. Chinese regulations have mainly been about requiring Apple to block certain features or content, which is easy, and Apple complies. The EU is demanding Apple build a lot of extra stuff to enable third-party interop or else not release a feature at all... and Apple is complying by not releasing features because the interop is hard and takes much longer and delays features for the rest of the world and might not be worth the effort at all.

▲

zsoltkacsandi 4 days ago | parent [-]

> It's clearly doing the opposite and trying to stay out of the narrative.

Apple itself publicly tied EU delays to the DMA ("regulatory uncertainties") when it postponed Apple Intelligence/Phone Mirroring/SharePlay in the EU.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/a...

> And all of the fines you point to are exactly why Apple is now exceedingly cautious. The fines are working. They've changed Apple's behavior because they're an established proven risk now.

After the €1.8B music-streaming fine, the Commission still found Apple in breach of DMA anti-steering in 2025 (additional penalties), and Dutch courts upheld ACM's earlier finding in the dating-apps case. That looks like an ongoing contest, not just "we complied and moved on.". So no, not really.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

> Chinese regulations have mainly been about requiring Apple to block certain features or content, which is easy, and Apple complies.

Apple doesn't only "block stuff" in China. It made major engineering/process changes (moved Chinese iCloud keys to a state-affiliated host) and shipped region-specific feature behaviour quickly (AirDrop "Everyone for 10 minutes").

https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/apple-moves-to-st...

https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/09/apple-limits-airdrop-every...

▲

crazygringo 3 days ago | parent [-]

Apple has not publicly tied the AirPods translation feature rollout to the DMA, or many other delays. I didn't say it never has said anything. But the grand narrative you're claiming, Apple's silence on these other features directly contradicts that.

I never said Apple "complied and moved on". I said they're being cautious. Nothing is black and white. I honestly don't know what you're arguing. That because they've been fined in the past... they ought to release the translation feature and get fined again?

And I said Chinese regulations have been mainly about blocking features. I didn't say exclusively. But the overall asks from the EU and China have been very different qualitatively. Adding a timer to a feature is orders of magnitude easier than designing and building a performant third-party real-time API that needs to be supported for presumably decades to come.

	▲	zsoltkacsandi 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You are trying to shift from facts to meta, "I never said this", "I did not say that”. You are accusing me of a grand narrative, so let's quote it: "Two things can be true: big fines risk slow launches, and companies also use that friction to shape narratives and sequence rollouts." That was the "grand narrative": that both things can be true. That nothing is black and white... Before replying, please first read, and if you still insist on writing something, talk about facts, not vibes. So far I'm the one who has provided sources.

▲

throw4f532s6u 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The biggest difference is China only applies their laws when operating inside of China.

They don’t care about Apple’s global business, only Apple inside of China.

	▲	dns_snek 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Neither does the EU. The DMA only concerns itself with the products and services they offer on the EU market.