I don’t like that Apple feels emboldened to demand that laws be repealed.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The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place...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 For them to use language like "it should be repealed" instead of "it should be changed" shows their intent.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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> “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.
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.
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.
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."
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Considering that Apple has created their own digital fiefdom with users as their serfs, I'd say arbitrary fines are not nearly enough.
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.
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).
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.
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 DMA is fit for purpose. Apple just doesn't like the purpose and wants to stall as long as possible.
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.
All arguments Apple puts in their statement are political, not real technical issues. Apple is acting like a country now.
Companies have been lobbying for laws for as long as there have been companies and laws.
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.
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.
“Demand” is pure clickbait editorializing on the part of this article’s author. Here is the actual comment from Apple:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...
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.
Fair enough. But totally orthogonal to the point I'm making.
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?
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.
For context, here's some background on why US companies view the DMA as a shakedown:
https://www.piratewires.com/p/eu-weaponizes-regulation-us-te...
> “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.
> teams across Apple are spending thousands of hours to bring new features to the European Union while meeting the law’s requirements
Do they really expect us to feel sorry for this trillion dollar corporation...?
> it’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates
Then pull out of the european market and eat the loss!
Why not stay in the market and pass on the costs to the customer?
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.
IME, it's still better than the average tech news site—but since the buyout by CondeNast, it's nowhere near what it used to be.
I don't
Is it?
Apple say it may stopping shipping to the EU
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372515
Google say The Digital Markets Act: time for a reset
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381013
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.
Cry me a river...
arstechnica lost me as a reader about 8 years ago. it's like reading business insider with a hilariously liberal comment section.
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.
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.
Discussion (74 points, 11 hours ago, 131 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372515
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?"
"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.
These are the same companies that go out of their way to appease the demands of the CCP so they have access to the Chinese market.
It's a bit wild to suggest the mildest of regulation is going to make abandoning a market of 700m people "worth it" lol
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.
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.
> Simple. Make a law saying their products cannot be different. Frame it as discrimination against europeans or something.
Same can be said by the USA to EU car maker. Make BMW the same in EU and the USA, by adhering to the US law of course. No half measures.
Are european car companies intentionally making cars meant for the US market worse to punish attempts at regulation?
Probably? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
> 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."
Surely the EU has enough economic leverage to withstand such pressure...
The US has a lot of security leverage right now.
>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.
According to the Guardian article:
> the company could stop shipping some products and services to the 27-country bloc.
But not all products of course.
EU is #2 (behind the US) in terms of net sales accounting for 26% in 2024. There is no "or else".
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.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/eu-weaponizes-regulation-us-te...
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.
That’ll go over well with investors.
“Hey, we’ve decided to cut 25% of our revenue”
The stock price would love it
For how long? Or at least, how long after they lose their second largest consumer market do shareholders demand a shakeup of leadership?
Not with the declines they're seeing in China.
Or else they look to the guy they gave the gold disc to reciprocate against EU crown jewels. LVMH looks like a big target to me.
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?
> So in that case, I am sure you agree with Ballmer’s leadership at Microsoft?
No. I don’t see how that necessarily follows.
Microsoft had explosive growth under Ballmer. If that’s your metric for a good CEO.
AR is kinda useless
“No wireless. Less space than the Nomad. Lame”.
Whatever AR product Facebook is selling, it's not the next iPod. MP3 players had a use, iPod was the coolest one.
This generation maybe not. It may not even be Meta. But Apple thinks it’s a product category worth pursuing. They just did it badly
Yeah that's fair, Apple should've done AR well if they were going to do it at all
> “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" ?
It’s “Yet again, Apple misses a DMA feedback opportunity to peddle PR”.
Apparently this was in "a routine call for feedback on the Digital Markets Act." Can anyone link to it?
Consultation documents and published feedback: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
The documents link the DMA page on the EC website: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/consultation-first-...
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.
Was this coordinated with Google's statement?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381013
How far the Apple has fallen from the tree.
just reduce the services you provide Europeans, let the Europeans vote out these people
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.
How did they view GDPR over there in hindsight? All that really did was nag everyone about cookies forever after.
The cookie stuff was separate to the GDPR wasn't it? Pretty sure it came in before.
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 original ePrivacy Directive that created the cookie banners is from 2003, and EU users have been seeing cookie banners since then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Directive#Cookies
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.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372515
Apple has no such problems complying with similar laws in other markets - most notably China.
They likely do, but China's not exactly renowned for welcoming the input or feedback of western corporations when it comes to their laws and policies.
[dead]
[flagged]
I can't help but think: "Carjackers demand repeal of Anti-Carjacking law".