> “The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place”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 company said.
The title of this article seems like sensationalized Clickbait, and I expect better from arstechnica.
Ars has fallen a long way from what they used to be (I say this as a former subscriber).
Expect clickbait articles, shallow tech coverage, rabid commenters (I don't visit the forum but the comments were previously - mostly - of higher quality).
I still follow it because I haven't found a worthy replacement yet.
As for the article, it actually says this was within a routine consultation, ie. EU asked companies what they think and (as you point out) Apple politely responded.
Empty threats to pressure the EU. Usual corporate policy to collude against regulations even as competitors.
Let's see if they walk the walk, I highly doubt it.
It makes it even funnier to see those two, with some of the highest margins of profit vs revenue in the industry, raking in double-digits billions of profit per quarter, complaining about higher costs.
I'm not sure I would expect better from Ars - the company that went all in talking about one of the sites users comments when he became news worth (Edward Snowden). I've stopped reading them since that.
I don’t like that Apple feels emboldened to demand that laws be repealed.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The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place...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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I expect there are many other falsehoods of yours in this thread, but I'm not going to try to identify all of them. I just want to know: What motivates you to make claims which can be refuted with a 30-second Google search?
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).
Places are increasingly expecting people to have a smartphone, and using an app for things like parking your car, charging you car, going to the gym, paying for stuff, identifying yourself online etc. Sure, for now most of the time you can get away with most things without one (possibly ate the cost of being a second class citizen), but every now and then you run into something that straight up requires a phone.
For example, at the gym I go to they do have a card reader as an alternative to checking in with the app, but at one point it was not working, which meant a smartphone was mandatory to go to the gym. And it was left that way for months; fixing it was clearly not a priority because the expectation of society is that everyone has a smartphone (you'll be met with surprise if you tell people you don't have their app installed, and incredulity at the idea that someone might not have a smartphone). And outside my workplace they put up car charging stations that have no way to pay for charging without an app.
And then (at least here in Sweden) there are increasingly places that accept no payment methods other than mobile payments (Swish here in Sweden), and online services like healthcare services requiring you to authenticate with BankID on a smartphone (or sometimes Freja e-ID, which also requires a smartphone), for things like ordering from pharmacies, doing your taxes online (and getting your tax return sooner), accessing healthcare services etc, and meanwhile physical alternatives like physical pharmacies are increasingly getting outcompeted and shutdown. So you may be able to get by without one, but at the cost of getting cut off from parts of society, and that's likely to increase.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read that statement and while I have some sympathy for the technical and privacy challenges, they made their bed by using the iPhone to lock people into the rest of their ecosystem, which is illegal under EU law.
As a US citizen, it'd be great to see the EU create its own digital economy, free itself of US hardware and software hegemony, and foster an environment for its denizens to out-create and revitalize the moribund state of the industry and the net. If there's a lack of resources, talent, or potential upsides standing in the way, I don't see it.
As for Apple, WTF gives a US company any right to demand anything from Europe? Chutzpa?
> As for Apple, WTF gives a US company any right to demand anything from Europe? Chutzpa?
I am also finding it bizarre, if there would be a European company in US ignoring US laws and wanting to repeal them for something more European, whole federal government would be screaming bloody murder.
If nothing else this shows the lack of leadership from Cook. Steve Jobs signed his name to corporate letters that appeared on the front page like “Thoughts on Flash” and “Thoughts on Music”
The guy who took the company to a multi-trillion dollar market cap has no leadership skills because he didn't write you an autographed philosophical treatise?
So in that case, I am sure you agree with Ballmer’s leadership at Microsoft?
Microsoft missed mobile under Ballmer. Apple is missing both AI and whatever becomes of AR. Isn’t kind of sad that Meta is pushing the envelope on AR more than Apple?
> “The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place,” the iPhone maker said in its response to a routine call for feedback on the Digital Markets Act.
How is this "Apple demands EU repeal the Digital Markets Act" ?
Interestingly there is no published filing by Apple, yet, and the consultation is closed for two days. Maybe they filed late and publishing the feedback takes time, due to the EC reading it before putting it on their website. Or quite possibly Apple did not actually file anything as part of the official process and is instead publishing their opinion on their blog.
Which will have unintended consequences, like falling behind competitors, who will use it against Apple as a leverage and slowly push it from European market, which is 26% of Apple's revenue.
Average European is like average American, they are not following these political and corporational dramas, but they can tell that i.e. Samsung has features, while Apple is stale.
It was soon after. It's a requirement of GDPR to get permission for certain kinds of cookies, and seemingly every website either falls under non-exempt or can't afford to prove they're exempt.
The GDPR is what really gave it enforcement teeth though and that's when it really exploded and made the banners more intrusive and adopted by non-EU-native websites that weren't based in but still did business inside the EU.
Is there an "or else?" Apple can't afford to just pack up and leave a market larger than the USA. While Apple has no particular interest in or loyalty to the past, without the EU Apple wouldn't have lived into this century.
"Or else" is already happening. MacOS and IOS have fewer features in EU than USA.
IPhone screen mirroring is not available in EU for example.
All regulations have cost and legal risks. At some point it may not worth it financially.
“Do this or else we’ll make our products less attractive by not making an effort to comply with your law” does not seem like a really compelling “or else”.
iPhone mirroring was cute when I first tried it, but now when I click on a notification on my laptop and it tries to open the mirroring application I am annoyed. It’s the tiniest version of my phone and takes a while to come up, if it doesn’t fail for some reason. I should turn it off.
The other features they mention aren’t very compelling. I’m in the Netherlands now with a US Apple account so I can use them, but don’t care to.
Apple has a vested interest in maintaining a presence in the Chinese market because that is where a large portion of its supply chain exists. It isn’t appeasing the CCP because Chinese users, it is because of Chinese manufacturers.
The Chinese government does not ask for public input on their regulatory decisions, and I’m sure Apple would have similar comments if they did. They can’t be happy the iPhone Air is delayed in China.
There's a difference between giving public input and suggesting a trillion dollar company will pull out of one of the largest markets in the world over milquetoast regulation.
>MacOS and IOS have fewer features in EU than USA.
In the EU Apple already has significantly less marketshare than Android. In an at least somewhat competitive market threatening consumers doesn't make a whole lot of sense because someone will always be glad to pick them up.
Simple. Make a law saying their products cannot be different than what they offer in other countries. Frame it as discrimination against europeans or something. Either give europeans something as good as what's sold world wide or get fined billions.
Corporations love giving consumers their "take it or leave it" deals. You either accept their long list of abusive "terms and conditions" in their entirety or you get nothing. So give them one of those deals. Either submit completely or lose the entire european market. No negotiation.
They lawyers can't figure out how to comply with the rules? Literally who cares? They are worth trillions of dollars. Their problems don't matter to anyone.
> Either submit completely or lose the entire european market. No negotiation.
Surely this just instantly backfires for the EU when we have such a strongman, protectionist president like Trump running things in the US? I doubt he'd sit by and say "well one of our most valuable companies got what they deserved, well struck EU."
I would think profits are more important than sales.
>...there’s evidence to believe the regulation is designed to extract from companies, rather than protect consumers: as we’ll see, the bloc often imposes massive, clearly premeditated fines immediately after compliance deadlines...
>...
>The fines permitted under both regulations are unprecedented; the DSA permits fines of up to 6% of a company’s global annual revenue, while the DMA permits fines of up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue, and an egregious 20% for repeat offenses.
The EU can write itself a check for up to 26% of Apple's annual revenue (6% + 20%). Coincidentally, that's the same as your 26% number for Apple net sales from the EU. But if Apple gets fined 26%, that represents a huge loss of capital since they still have to pay for COGS, pay taxes, pay employee salaries, and so forth.
I would consider it incredibly unlikely to happen, but based on how much money they're banking, I'd say Apple could probably afford to live without the EU.
> “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 company said.
The title of this article seems like sensationalized Clickbait, and I expect better from arstechnica.