I don’t like that Apple feels emboldened to demand that laws be repealed. I don’t recall if Apple has done this in the past but it’s a shift in tone that makes me uncomfortable.

The actual words from Apple quoted in the article:

>The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place... Despite our concerns with the DMA, teams across Apple are spending thousands of hours to bring new features to the European Union while meeting the law’s requirements. But it’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates.

The headline could just have easily said "Apple Requests" or "Apple Suggests".

I doubt it would make waves if Apple expressed the same opinion about some US legislation. Is Apple allowed to have an opinion about legislation in other countries where it operates?

It’s about who blinks first — or at least that’s what Apple thinks. Just keep in perspective at what acute angle Apple bends in China. It’ll be a shame if EU chooses to blink.

All arguments Apple puts in their statement are political, not real technical issues. Apple is acting like a country now.

Companies have been lobbying for laws for as long as there have been companies and laws.

A similar thing worked for Google when they were trying to stop Canada's Digital Services Tax. You can probably expect Trump to start threatening more tariff's over this any day now, although Tim Cook might need to have another 24K gold plaque made first.

I think you’re inferring a tone from the headline that isn’t actually present in Apple’s statement. They’re not demanding anything, they just think it would be a good idea.

“Demand” is pure clickbait editorializing on the part of this article’s author. Here is the actual comment from Apple:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...

Which doesn’t read like a demand to me. Now, we may all agree or disagree with Apple’s claim, but characterizing it as a “demand” is pure modern journalism.

FWIW, the headline is spun. Apple is providing feedback for the law via a routine legislative process. But yeah, they hate the law and they want it repealed, and they said so.

I mean, I think they're wrong. But that said... what's the argument here? Apple shouldn't be allowed to say that they hate a law that they actually hate? Apple should absolutely feel entitled ("emboldened" even) to express their opinions. That's the whole point about civil discourse, no?

You can only shake someone down so many times before they say no mas. There have been hints from the US administration that they recognized the DMA as something to be addressed. I'd imagine it was a topic of conversation when Cook gave Trump the gold statue.