I expect Apple will react to this by scaling down the sophistication and breadth of features they make available to EU users.
That most of these capabilities exist at all reflects Apple’s belief that they’re a way to differentiate their (closed) ecosystem through vertical integration. If the EU takes that away, Apple’s motivation to invest in these areas for EU customers goes away, too.
If they do then they'll just lose market share to Android, because the Asian manufacturers will offer all these features and they're getting more polished each year. For me personally, all Apple really has going for their products these days is being very stable and dependable, I can always just get the newest Pro phone and have something that'll work well for me. They used to be attractive because they weren't Chinese but US tech is becoming an even bigger liability, and the Asian competition has a lot more on offer in terms of features though it's a lot more of a gamble if it'll be executed well and get maintained and I don't like to gamble on things like that. Most casual users already don't care, nor should they.
But if Apple cripple their devices further I think a lot more of their core user base will be willing to try an Android, depending on what features they axe. If they make iPhones inconvenient in addition to somewhat lagging behind the market, all they'd have left is their brand and marketing and that's about to take a beating in the looming tariff wars.
No, I think they may do a little of that for symbolics and they certainly will throw a lot of fits but ultimately they'll just comply and that will be that.
This sounds highly unlikely, as it would drastically hurt the sales of adjacent devices and accessories. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is the Apple regular, where they release docs, but the docs are so bad that they're practically unworkable.
Macron in France and the current German government are centre right. Poland is socially way to the right. Baltics, Scandinavia, Italy, all pretty right wing.
Only Putinistas support what the US is doing with Trump, which is to say, almost no one in Europe.
He's literally a former investment banker who's been trying to dismantle the welfare state, lower taxes, increase business friendliness, etc... He's also been tough on immigration lately. Not sure in what world any of this would be considered leftist policies...
Apple doesn't have the market share it has in the US - it's at 33% in the EU compared to 57% in the US. Sure, they are popular, but they are still just another phone brand. They simply don't have enough hardcore fans to make a huge impact on a political level.
The EU doesn't have the same kind of large-scale quasi-religious "all government bad" movement seen in the US. People may be skeptical about some details of some government regulation, but in general it is understood that consumer protection regulation actually protects the consumer. Calling the EU evil for this isn't going to work.
Due to Trump's recent political movements there is a huge anti-US sentiment, especially around US tech companies. We're seeing near-unanimous support for governments exploring ways of getting rid of Microsoft and Amazon, and even tech-illiterate Boomers are asking me if I switched to Signal yet. (For context, WhatsApp is universally adopted here - even my 95-year-old grandma is on it!) People aren't going to trust Apple, simply because it is American.
So no, I don't think Apple will be able to successfully paint a picture like that. They could try, but they would just be made fun of in late-night talkshows.
If Apple has the choice to give up developing products in a controlled, vertically integrated manner OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them.
We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
This is a false dichotomy: Noone is forbidding Apple doing intergration of their products. The DMA simply forbids barring competitors from the same access.
Just compare how Apple cripples third party smartwatches on ios.
Losing 20% of global revenue while also losing 20% of global COGS is a much better option than losing 10% of revenue and incurring an extra 10% of R&D.
I realise this wasn't your point, but there is something deeply dystopian about referring to the EU's attempt to act in the best interests of its citizens as "hostile to [Apple's] business model."
>We already see it in another regulatory regime, with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
This is FUD from Apple fanboys, Apple delayed their shit in UK and other non EU countries. Apple was probably incapable to release those AI features at the same time in more then a few countries.
And guess what, OpenAI , Anthropic and other AI companies will for sure try to replace Siri and Apple will try to avoid that and hopefully would pay fair and not cripple competitors.
I am from EU and I am not missing any AI providers, maybe some alpha/beta stuff that launches first in USA before they add the features about protecting the privacy of the user or until the lawyers are done rewording the ToS on how they sell your data but word it as a good thing.
> OR losing a substantial fraction of EU device and accessory sales, I don’t think that’s a hard one for them.
It isn't hard at all. "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales" is really not a hard decision at all. Funny how you end up with an answer that defies all common and business sense
> with AI features coming much later to the EU, if at all.
They are coming despite all of Apple's posturing, and on a schedule that was already determined before all the posturing.
I think the wants (of the EU buyers) are far less homogeneous than the group of open integration activists make it look like, so there's no "we". We hear the opinions of the vocal ones and based on those voices regulation is enacted, but nothing changes for the silent majority. However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.
> The upcoming iOS 18.4 update introduces an option to set a default navigation app, other than Apple Maps, but unfortunately this new setting is limited to users in the EU.
This one seems kind of spiteful. I get that Apple doesn’t want to make sideloading available throughout the world just because the EU and Brazil have mandated it, but they’re going to hide the very useful maps setting in countries that don’t have a DMA?
>EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own.
That was my point. There is no "we".
>That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists.
Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. So far all the companies regulated by EU have accepted the regulation - we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
> Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them.
That's not just any regulation, that's any act of government.
> we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
> My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.
We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.
> The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.
Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.
On top of that, a lot of people want interoperability, they just don't know how to express it in terms that the regular highly technical divorced from reality crowd on HN understands.
An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. Apple keeps redesigning the app, and making it worse and more cumbersome to use. Even if there is an app that better suits my mom, I can't recommend it to her because Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS.
And it's just on anecdote out of hundreds. There won't be a single person who wants all of the interoperability. There will be multiple people with multiple different requirements for interoperability. From epub readers to navigation apps to Pebble watches (https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...).
Too bad they can't express their wishes in terms of "we want interoperability", and instead express them in terms of "why the hell Apple redesigned Books again" and "why can't Pebble show notifications". Then their wishes don't count, apparently.
> We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big
How did "Let's make platforms more open to increase competition and the umber of things people can do on those platforms" become "it's bad, and only exists to stick it to big US companies" is beyond my understanding (and defies all logic, if we're honest).
Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.
About epub, Apple is just mad because they were not able to corner the market in a way that would allow them to dictate everything about it.
Their proprietary format is a failure (the only benefit was to be able to use their publishing app, that they killed) and their marketplace sucks for all the usual Apple reasons.
Even though Amazon is not a great actor in the field, they still manage to be not as bad as Apple so people went there.
In any case, there is something fundamentally broken with ebooks, because of DRM. Because you know, somehow you weren't able to share books before. I know that don't "lose" your copy when you share digitally but for all intent, once a book has been read it is "consumed" the residual value it has for the owner is very little and mostly about archiving or collecting.
Sadly, as with many things of modern Apple they had a bad influence on the market and they continue to do so and it is especially aggravating since, like you explained, their software isn't even good anymore.
iBooks and macOS is just as bad, if not worse, which is something.
> Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.
I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote.
> An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out.
When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind.
> Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.
Only when monopoly was involved.
I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice.
The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.
> “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say
How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?
> When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android
"I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.
> Only when monopoly was involved.
Word of the day: duopoly.
When there are only two platforms, and the world is very much dependent on them for a huge chunk of people's lives (to the point that banks refuse to support other platforms), it's strange to claim that a requirement for interoperability is a threat, or is forcing someone to do something, or is bad, or shouldn't be done.
Just listen to yourself. At which point did simple things like "setting default apps" or "letting apps use OS-level functionality" become "threats", "weird to force" and "government dictate"?
BTW. This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.
> How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?
It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time.
But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how?
> "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.
I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive.
> Word of the day: duopoly.
First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"?
> This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.
This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices.
> It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases
My quote was in relation to the context about some unnamed activists and expertise that is somehow harmful to people.
> if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point?
Depends on the product, of course. E.g. you can sell an exclusive phone, and companies like Vertu made good money on it. What you can't do is make it non-interoperable with other phones, or phone networks, or...
> I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher
In short response you've now come up with the following attempts at analogies: additional taxation, game publishing, triopoly...
And none of them are applicable in this case.
> First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly.
If you were discussing this in good faith, you wouldn't have typed this. I never claimed Apple was a monopoly. The EU never claimed it was a monopoly.
I described the situation as it exists, and why this regulation appeared. Yes, if there's a third company with the same size, influence, and problems, it will also be subject to the same regulation.
Since you are a fan of analogies: just like car manufacturers are subject to standards and regulations, and electronics manufacturers, and construction companies, and ship builders, and airlines, and food companies, and...
Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around when it comes to supranational corporations, is beyond me.
While also ignoring the simple facts that people do want interoperability, and that it's government's literal job to enforce standards and interoperability.
"I know what's best for you and I'm going to make sure it happens" is Apple's entire ethos. So as we're going to have that anyway, I much prefer it done by elected officials.
> Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS.
Stuff like that is why I can never use Apple products. It's my device, not theirs; I own it, I'm not renting it. Let me do what I want with it. Or be honest and rent it out to people instead.
Well they are kind of doing that with their buyback-recycling and no interest loan program on top of their programmed obsolescence but they are not upfront about it. I agree that it should be made clearer to the customers that they don't actually fully own the device.
When a modern Apple device stops getting updates, for all intent and purpose it is mostly a useless brick to most people.
The saving grace of their older computers was that they could run alternative OS because they used a mostly compliant PC architecture, but with Apple Silicon it's not even on the table anymore.
It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.
> It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.
That's why I think it should be regulated, and don't find the arguments about stifling innovation to ever be convincing.
To be clear, I do think this regulation is best for everybody and will improve human lives, including for people in the USA. Not including the companies affected, but I don't think they're morally deserving of protection beyond the necessary.
> However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.
And what exactly will people not buy because of activists?
I’ve been an owner of Volvo’s like since I can afford to buy my own cars. Nowadays the full Volvo experience can only be achieved with a Google Account and log-in.
For me it was the end of Volvo’s in my garage and I switched brands.
> And what exactly will people not buy because of activists?
I think that was my reply to a post about Apple exiting the EU market (completely unlikely IMO, since that would reduce profits), which may cause those unable to buy what they want to question the sensibility of specific regulation.
> "companies are so good for customers why do activists try to ruin a good thing"
I don't think anyone said that. But enacting regulation forcing Volvo to give you a full experience without Google Account login is just acting a step too late if you already bought it, or taking a step too far if you'd like to buy it but don't like it enough, and are now demanding they change it.
> . But enacting regulation forcing Volvo to give you a full experience without Google Account login is just acting a step too late if you already bought it, or taking a step too far if you'd like to buy it but don't like it enough, and are now demanding they change it.
Translation: no one should demand sensible things from companies ever. Because it's either too late, or too far.
How has the world, especially the tech world, become so enamoured with corporations, walled gardens, and the idea that nothing done by any corporation can ever be challenged?
> Are you trying to make a career of misunderstanding my replies? Or am I just really that bad at writing?
No, I'm just looking past the florid language. You've literally said that regulation is useless because it's either too late or too far.
There's probably some fantastical perfect moment when regulation is just right, but it will never come because there will always be people for whom regulation is either too late, or too far.
> _People_, potential buyers, are _supposed_ to demand sensible things from companies. By voting with their money. Does that not work anymore?
It has never worked. At least not to the extent people pretend it's working.
No, what I said is that were I to be interested in buying a Volvo, I would've gone to the dealership to see it, and upon finding out that some functionality is available only if I login with my Google account, would tell the dealer that that's a dealbreaker and walk out.
If the car market is such that all car manufacturers are in a way colluding with Google to require such login, that's different and should already be regulated (if not, regulate). But if another manufacturer will sell me what I want, I fail to see the issue for me as a consumer.
But, I'm not against regulation per se (as you've accused me of), so I'm not ready to die on this hill :) You may be right after all.
Lets see how that'll go when the competition starts offering really polished LLM assistants on their devices and people see their friends use them on their 400 Euro Androids and all they get on their 1700 Euro iPhone is Siri from 2011.
Yeah, they already started to do that. For example, if you try to use iPhone mirroring from a Mac within the EU, you get a little pop-up saying "iPhone Mirroring is not available in your country or region." But if you travel to a non-EU country, it works fine.
Lots of stuff is going to shift away from Mac / windows in the next years. If apple assumes they can get away with this tactic they’ll lose even more market share.
Not because the alternatives are better, but just because the exceptions that were made from valid legislation will not be prolonged in face of the “New American Way”.
I also see this happening. Since a 80 year old alliance becomes unreliable, protective measures will go up. The US companies like the FAANGs profited a lot in the last 30 years by that, they will be a hit on their revenues, regulations will go up and alternatives will be funded.
How successful this all will be, another question.
Make a subsidiary in Ireland, Apple paid 0% taxes by transforming every imposable EUR as a patent licence, imposed in Ireland. Then they bought US treasure bonds, where the yearly interests amounted to 50USD/american citizen.
Losing 20% of revenue sure sounds like a great look in front of investors.
Just open it up and let people sideload - 90% won't do it anyway and it'll cause people to switch from Android, which is a lot more prevalent in Europe
Dropping their second biggest region, which makes them 25% of revenue sounds unlikely. Especially as it's just putting that money into competitors' pockets.
They don’t have to drop it entirely, they just stop enabling features there that would trigger the EU’s gatekeeper requirements.
It will hurt their competitiveness and sales, but that’s a relatively small price to pay vs. giving up the product design culture they’ve honed for almost 50 years.
They support plenty of non-Apple interoperability. They support HTTP and IMAP and SMTP, for example. They support SMS and phone calls. They support lots of standards, including de facto standards around things like calendars.
They don't support everything, but to say they don't support interoperability is silly.
> They support HTTP and IMAP and SMTP, for example. They support SMS and phone calls.
But they also need to support the updates to these standards, rather than purposely holding it back to push people to their own services which are not open.
It’s also a way to phrase, “Hey, we’ve figured out how to save 10% battery life on the Watch by rejiggering the sync protocol and can ship it in the next iOS / watchOS point release.”
The flexibility and agility you have when the only engineering constraints are internal are night and day vs. having to evolve a documented external spec with interop requirements.
Unfortunately for Apple, they've been too successful to get away with self-preferencing anymore.
As an EU citizen, I don't like everything they do, but the DMA is rocking as otherwise we'll end up with 5-10 companies basically running all technology and way less competition.
It's very interesting to me that so many people claim to be in favour of competition but don't like laws like the DMA.
Picking an ecosystem with working and chaper peripherials vs one with partially-working and more expensive peripherials seems like an easy choice for consumers.
Yes, please, I'd be glad if Apple began removing their new "sophisticated" features from the phones of EU users. Especially their AI spying agent and endless non-consensual and intrusive telemetry.
And yet, for all their posturing and trying to blame EU for their own failures, Apple has no intention of doing so, complies with demand, and released all the features in the EU.
That most of these capabilities exist at all reflects Apple’s belief that they’re a way to differentiate their (closed) ecosystem through vertical integration. If the EU takes that away, Apple’s motivation to invest in these areas for EU customers goes away, too.