As I follow the situation, it seems that regulatory uncertainty is a major issue though- the EU’s requirements are framed in terms of outcomes sought, rather than in terms that can be quantitatively shown as met or broken. So it’s not a matter of dedicating a team to meet a list of requirements, but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes aren’t being met.

▲

necovek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case it looks much simpler: Apple strictly does not want to open up the iOS platform to other competing agents, as they lose the monopolistic moat if they do. While making a true developer platform with good documentation is often hard and expensive, with the market access they'd get, companies would gladly jump on it even if it was badly documented as long as they have guarantees of continued legal access.

At the same time, this potentially opens up the entire worldwide market (imagine EU iPhones being imported into US to use with OpenAI or Claude Cowork), and they probably made the estimation that keeping EU out is still better value (70% of the market all to themselves) than fair competition in the 100% of the market (I guess they estimate they might get less than 70% in that case).

Or they are hoping that EU customers will want Siri AI enough to campaign for a change, but I'd find that highly unlikely.

	▲	rock_artist 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> imagine EU iPhones being imported into US to use with OpenAI or Claude Cowork That's not the case. it's merely software (exactly like my iPhone 16 lacking the promised AI features claimed at WWDC24). Anyway as I'm now within the EU with phone I bought before moving to the EU, regional features (or restrictions) depends on the logged in account and device regional settings. Except physical considerations (eSIM design, actual radio transceivers). The hardware is the same thank god.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	krzyk 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, Siri was such a poor solution compared to Google (and Google's is also poor in EU) that no one would make a campaign. If Siri wants to be seen as anything it should first support every EU language and they can work from there.

▲

schubidubiduba an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those requirements are explicitly on the outcomes because companies like Apple used to abuse loopholes in previous, non-outcome defined laws. They, as always, have no one to blame but themselves.

▲

gmueckl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of regulation is legally defined in terms of outcomes. That in itself isn't unusual. Checklists of technical requirements are almowt always a derivative and a suggestion about a safe path to meet the regulated outcome. This is how "blessed" standards for e.g. medical devices work. This shields the laws themselves from overly technical discussions.

The only difference that I can see here is that the standards layer hasn't solidified yet.

▲

swiftcoder 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes aren’t being met

This is true of most things that involve legal. Laws are not code, in basically any jurisdiction they are subject to interpretation, and just because you've dotted your Is and crossed your Ts, doesn't mean an enterprising enforcement agency won't still come after you

▲

thrance 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

EU laws are written like this to give companies maximum freedom in how they implement their solutions, not to lay traps for them to fall into.

	▲	ahartmetz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The criticism reads like people who don't understand a high trust society - which I don't think is actually the case here, more like assuming that the foreign guys are bad guys. "They really don't try to fuck you over if you engage with them in good faith?" "Yes, really."