This is the framing Apple wants to sell for their decision to withhold features from the EU, and blogs are parroting it.
In reality, Apple is purposefully withholding these features from the EU, either because Apple are being retaliatory against EU customers for the existence of the DMA, or because Apple (with full knowledge of the DMA for years) refused to build these features in compliance with it.
Apple chose to harm their products in the EU. The DMA didn't. This framing is marketing.
@stevestreza It also seems they just don't understand how negatively the average European views big megacorps. We despise them, deeply. Like, we choose government over corporation any day of the week.
I don't think they really understand what they're up against here. The DMA and similar laws are insanely popular here, as is the EU - despite the rightwing hate campaign, the EU enjoys like 80+% support here.
Nobody has sympathy for "uwu we are being bullied by regulators" from the mouths of the megacorp
I think you might be surprised how many people will very happily accept Apple's framing of the issue
@stevestreza On the other hand, only a multi-trillion another corporation has the resources to push back against the entire EU.
My guess is that is their goal, and this has been a long time coming. Sooner or later, the EU was going to impose enough restrictions on digital companies that we would see a company pull the "It is no longer economically viable to offer our products and services in the EU marketplace" card... And see if the European community has become globally monocultural enough to call the EU's bluff.
@stevestreza How could it be otherwise? If the EU wants to go to war with Apple and Apple wants to take up the banner instead of capitulating to a foreign power, what would you recommend we call it?
Apple isn't based in the EU and it can, in fact, pull up stakes and simply not offer products and services that are incompatible with the EU's opinion of how the internet should be run to EU citizens (and then leave it to the citizens of the EU to use their democratic authority to change those incompatibilities. Or to decide they prefer it the EU's way and they'd rather not have Apple's products and services. Or to discover that they never had those Democratic authorities in the first place, and then... Uh oh! In the 21st century, most war is economic war).
Let them pull out of the EU. It's not like it's a 500-million-people largely quite wealthy market that Apple could ill afford to loose.
I can't shed a tear for a supranational extremely arrogant US megacorp who thinks they are mightier than God and deserve anything and everything they want and demand
@dmitriid @stevestreza indeed, I think that's the next play in this game.
I believe Apple is seeking to determine whether a 500-million-person-quite-wealthy demographic is dependent enough on their ecosystem of products and services that they would be willing to leverage the power such wealth and influence brings to try and push back on the EU's new laws.
What soft power can they leverage that will make it politically inconvenient for the EU to continue to pursue this gatekeeping strategy?
You mean, what soft power can we leverage to make it inconvenient for Apple to pursue its gatekeeping strategy.
I also like that you basically say "Apple should figure out how to hold Europeans hostage to get whatever it wants"
As for the EU, first understand what the EU is and does: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-eu-and-tech/
@dmitriid @stevestreza If Apple cuts off services in compliance with the law, is it Apple holding EU citizens hostage, EU citizens holding themselves hostage (i.e. "They saw this law coming; why didn't they distance themselves from Apple's ecosystem and find alternatives?"), or EU's regulators holding citizens hostage?
I think Apple is betting there's more than one answer to the question.
(To be clear: it's a huge, weird bet and I respect the opinion that the starting-gate position should have been "Don't do that." But I've been watching governments regulate the Internet long enough to also not accept the premise that regulators are always right in what citizens want or need. It'll be interesting to see how this sifts out).
FTA:
The EU absolutely is for protecting and strengthening the European single market.
No disagreement there. But I also observe that Apple is under no obligation to be aligned with that goal (over, say, strengthening and regularizing a global marketplace that simplifies the creation of Apple's products by requiring fewer special cases).
The EC has identified six gatekeepers, zero of which are European companies. This specific move is pretty naked protectionism (which, to be clear, is well within the EU's purview). Apple is making an... Interesting decision by saying "Okay, we play ball. You're protected. Someone else, we're sure, will backfill the products and services we provide."
(ETA: What I find most interesting in all of this is that Alphabet is also a gatekeeper company and, AFAIK, they are playing ball. So Apple is really betting that their offering is so good that people won't jump ship to Android, which is more-or-less "right over there" from a consumer perspective.
Will that bet work? I'll be interested to see).
Thank you for this very detailed and measured response!
I could argue or disagree with some minor points, but that would not be productive.
The only "big" disagreement I have is "if Apple withholds services in compliance with the law" in that this assumption rests on Apples claims. And we've already seen in the past how Apple reversed course after making similar claims.
But yeah, it truly is a huge weird bet, so we'll need a lot of popcorn to watch how it plays out.
@mark @stevestreza EU has no desire to “go to war with Apple”. EU is trying to protect its citizens. If you put a fence around a chicken coop you’re not going to war with foxes. The fact that Apple is trying to weaponize features of their operating system as political campaign tools doesn’t imply that they are subject to an attack.
And like any other company, if Apple is unable to run a viable business while respecting the rule of law, then good riddance. But I do think Apple are the ones doing most of the bluffing here.
@stevestreza it’s useful to read John Gruber about Apple stuff because he’s good at thinking like the people inside of Apple - you can look at the flaws in his thinking and see if they act as good predictors of how Apple ends up behaving.
What I’ve seen from him recently is an inability to understand that the EU has genuinely different values than an American of his age and economic class, along with a petulant desire to show up those who disagree. I bet he’s mirroring the attitudes of Apple executives.
(about Apple values)
I am not sure if i am imagining it but would not this email be considered toxic if i would write it ? (from apple intelligence press release ) https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/06/introducing-apple-intelligence-for-iphone-ipad-and-mac/
@stevestreza There are actually plenty of people who think that Apple are the good guys and that the EU regulators are meddlers. Here's one.
Attached: 1 image Apple will not ship Apple Intelligence, iPhone Mirroring and SharePlay Screensharing in the EU this year because of the Digital Markets Act. The company blames interoperability requirements which would force them to compromise user privacy and data security. 🙃 The EU’s journey to legislate getting shittier versions of American tech products is almost complete. It’s all going according to plan I guess. 🤷🏾♂️ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-21/apple-won-t-roll-out-ai-tech-in-eu-market-over-regulatory-concerns?embedded-checkout=true
@stevestreza but we should have sympathy for this commission that tells us we are too stupid to choose for ourselves what we want?
Apple’s closed system has always been proven lightyears ahead when it comes down to privacy and security.
In the meanwhile in the EU we are still clicking “reject cookies” on every website whilst cookies are still being installed. 🙄
@SebastienK @stevestreza this is another lie you’ve been fed. There is no GDPR cookie banner law.
https://www.amazingcto.com/cookie-banners-are-not-needed/
https://www.bitecode.dev/p/there-is-no-eu-cookie-banner-law
Similarly, Apple’s promise of superior security is nonsense. Android zero days sell in black markets for similar prices, if not higher, *despite* being a more open platform. On Android, users can make informed choices in sacrificing security for freedom — the default platform is highly secure
@SebastienK @stevestreza The simple reality is that Apple has found touting privacy to be an effective marketing strategy, but their actions consistently demonstrate regard for nobody other than shareholders, as is their legal responsibility as a public company.
This is why government regulation is necessary.
This EU smear campaign is obviously a carefully crafted lie to this end, and Americans are buying it.
@SebastienK @stevestreza
> the only thing it cares about is protecting EU monopoly tech
It’s crazy to accuse the EU of wrongdoing because it doesn’t regulate monopolies *while* complaining that it is regulating monopolies. Your double standard is just as bad as the one you accuse the EU of.
Actually, it’s arguably worse, because if the EU is playing favorites as you say, well god forbid they protect the interests of… their own economy.
@SebastienK @stevestreza You deleted your replies, or blocked me, but ok, but I can provide sources to substantiate my nonsense:
https://www.crowdfense.com/exploit-acquisition-program/
https://boehs.org/node/private-apis
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1039938
https://archive.is/wW8AD
Apple refused to support RCS, a protocol that unarguably allows more privacy to users than SMS, but would challenge their monopoly
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/05/why-your-wi-fi-router-doubles-as-an-apple-airtag/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html
It goes on and on. Do *you* have evidence?
@SMillerNL @SebastienK @stevestreza you missed the "than SMS" in the message. RCS is more private than SMS. On a basic spec level, the security improvements of SMS are marginal over SMS (though non-zero), granted, but RCS also has the capacity to be extended for E2E.
Also, I wasn't trying to assert that Apple is somehow more evil than google, just that they aren't the good guys in any sense of the word, despite people tending to be much softer towards them (imo this makes them dangerous tbh).
@SMillerNL @SebastienK @stevestreza some more nuanced thoughts:
"but iMessage was explicitly not regulated by the EU"
imo, converse to Gruber's opinion, the reversal was an unexpected win for apple, after they had already announced RCS they decided they couldn't walk back. Also, imo it helped china apply more pressure asw, but the real hesitancy was always in US markets where iMessage *is* a monopoly, and where RCS support hurts said monopoly
2/3
@SMillerNL @SebastienK @stevestreza in regards to the "credit to apple" point, I'm hesitant give them a cookie.
To the extent we are aware of, Google is the likely the worser privacy (*not* security) evil. Still, there's a lot that we *don't* know. They make it immensely difficult to monitor any part of the network stack (e.g. some apple connections bypass VPNs). On android, for many reasons, its much easier to audit, and hence trust we get the real picture.
https://protonvpn.com/blog/apple-ios-vulnerability-disclosure/
@cy “that's the same argument people made to kill universal healthcare care”
Please be consistent in your thoughts
@stevestreza alas, many people *will* have sympathy for them, because they just want to use the shiny new thing without regard for how it got there
those people are wrong, but they exist
Steve Streza
Thom, exceedingly pure
Fluffy Kitty Cat
Gerbrand van Dieyen
Jan Lehnardt 
Tom Casavant
Jack Jackson
Mark T. Tomczak
dmitriid
Johan Pelck Olsen
Pasadena CAS
jabberjabberdoo
Bodhipaksa
Sebastien 🌍 🇵🇸🇺🇦 
Evan B🥥ehs
SMillerNL
the notorious gzt
Cy
PointlessOne 
Michael Bond
emily, blinkenlight witch
Matt