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The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place...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?

▲

Nathanba 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Is Apple allowed to have an opinion about legislation in other countries where it operates?

Laws like the DMA were specifically made to fight the influence of mega corporations like Apple. For them to use language like "it should be repealed" instead of "it should be changed" shows their intent.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, they suggest creating a "more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument". Seems like you're kinda splitting hairs?

I support the EU's right to shape their digital environment. But if you're being threatened with fines on the order of $38 billion which are levied based on vague, ever-changing rules, then of course you will want that situation to go away while the law gets fixed.

On the other hand, cynically speaking, maybe "fighting Apple's influence" through arbitrary fines is actually the point.

▲

matheusmoreira 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Considering that Apple has created their own digital fiefdom with users as their serfs, I'd say arbitrary fines are not nearly enough.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The fundamental reason why I fear a tyrannical corporation less than a tyrannical government is that generally speaking, for a tyrannical corporation, you can just stop using their products if you want.

My understanding is that Apple's proposed approach to CSAM prevention (which was subsequently abandoned) made significantly greater attempts to protect user privacy compared with the current EU chat control proposal.

	▲	LinAGKar an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not so much with smartphones though. While there is Android, it's slowly becoming just as bad as iOS, and modern society requires everyone to have one of those (and an aftermarket OS may not be a possibility either due to some apps using Play Integrity API).
	▲	immibis 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The chat control proposal which, I note, has been rejected every time it's been tried, and therefore has no impact on user privacy at all, versus the Apple solution which has actually been implemented and randomly uploads your private photos to Apple for a human to view.

▲

immibis 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apple has repeatedly, willingly, knowingly, on purpose violated EU orders. Like when they were ordered to allow alternative app stores, they said "fine, but we have to approve both the app store and the apps it sells" and then just didn't approve anything that wasn't already on Apple's store. They were fined a few billions for this and told to fix it. They didn't. They were fined a few more billions. The fines will keep increasing until compliance occurs. That's why Apple is throwing a temper tantrum.

▲

immibis 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The DMA is fit for purpose. Apple just doesn't like the purpose and wants to stall as long as possible.