The exemption Apple wanted was not from a privacy law, but from the DMA. They never claimed to have an issue meeting their privacy laws when using their own product, it was other people's products that they said they couldn't guarantee the privacy of.

Here's their argument in their own words: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de...

▲

spwa4 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You mean they wanted there to be no confusion whatsoever that they wouldn't allow competition in their ecosystem.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The exemption requested was temporary.

▲

microtonal 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The 18 months was to entrench themselves in favor of other players.

▲

necovek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

EU response said it was "for a minimum of 18 months" — does not sound temporary to me.

▲

Johnny555 an hour ago | parent [-]

How is that not temporary? "Ok, you asked for an exemption for a minimum of 18 months, we're granting you what you asked for, an 18 month exemption".

	▲	microtonal 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		By now, Apple has accrued years of malicious DMA/DSA compliance. After those 18 months they'll try to find another reason not to allow competition. Besides that, the law is the law and the DMA/DSA has been around for years. Why should they get an exception is one part of a duopoly?

▲

gmueckl an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's even worse, then. They are not responsible for other companies' products. So this is just another piece of anti-DMA propaganda then. They have been fighting it loudly and with toddler-level arguments since they became subject to it.

▲

macintux an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A huge part of Apple’s marketing, whether you believe them or not, is that they try to protect your privacy.

The smartphone is probably the most sensitive device most people own. It knows your location always. It has your banking apps. Your password manager. Your instant messages, and social media chats, it knows whether you’re walking, or driving, or talking on the phone, and to whom.

Once Apple allows any other vendor to vacuum all of that intensively private information out of an iPhone, Apple becomes indirectly responsible for potentially massive privacy breaches.

▲

schubidubiduba an hour ago | parent [-]

All of that happens only if the user chooses to do it though. Anybody is free to stay in the caged Apple garden. The EU just wants them to leave the door unlocked.

	▲	happyopossum 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A door with a lock is different from a wall with no door. Same argument that gets made with government-keyed or government-breakable encryption schemes: it's better for everyone to not have the backdoor at all.

▲

kube-system an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> They are not responsible for other companies' products.

Legally, maybe not, practically it becomes their problem.