Okay? I don’t see the problem, these requirements are known from the beginning so if complying wasn’t planned and requires re-architecturing the software to make it happens that’s on the engineering org not on the EU regulator. Unless I’m missing something?

▲

jonhohle an hour ago | parent | next [-]

These are relatively recent and may have come into force after development began, definitely after Siri development an initial integration into personal data.

I suppose if you think these rules are reasonable, you’d be happy to not have this functionality. The rest of the world will be happy to not allow third parties access to our data.

As a small developer, the cost to support something like this would be so overwhelming I wouldn’t consider supporting the EU officially.

	▲	miken123 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> As a small developer, the cost to support something like this would be so overwhelming I wouldn’t consider supporting the EU officially. As a small developer, you wouldn't fall under the DMA.
	▲	ragazzina an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> These are relatively recent and may have come into force after development began, If it were the case, Apple would just say it (with receipts). > I suppose if you think these rules are reasonable, you’d be happy to not have this functionality. As a European Apple user I am absolutely OK with not having these functionalities, which I am 100% sure would not even work as advertised given the company track record.
	▲	rsynnott an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> These are relatively recent and may have come into force after development began, definitely after Siri development an initial integration into personal data. The DMA was substantially finalised by 2020, and came into force in 2023. Apple's AI thing was developed with the full knowledge that it existed. The issue isn't personal data here (that'd be the GDPR, and maybe to some extent the AI Act). The DMA is about _competition_. The EU's issue here is that Apple is giving its own AI thing a level of access unavailable to other vendors' AI things, I'd assume. > As a small developer You are not covered by the DMA. You'd need an EEA turnover of 7.5bn and/or a market cap of 75bn, for a start. And you'd also need to be a _platform_. The DMA only really applies to a few companies.
	▲	ornornor an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’m happy to not have it if it’s not compliant, yes.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere. Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper).

▲

a minute ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

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

> Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper).

Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it.

> complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere.

Oh no! Anyway...

Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product. That seems to be gone these days and end-users have garbage products as a result.

▲

microtonal an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They have already launched two years late. Remember when we all had to buy an iPhone 16 to get Apple Intelligence?

Besides that, Google has shipped many (not all) similar features to Pixels in the EU and have been for years.

	▲	alt227 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		DMA has been a thing for 4 years. Whatever Apple is cooking and however long its taken them, the DMA is not a surprise and they could well have been taking it into account from the very beginning.