[kevingadd]

"Apple looks set to argue, contra everyone else subject to the DMA, that the moment from which features must be made interoperable is the end of the fair-warning period, not the date of designation." is an interesting point I hadn't seen before. I was under the impression that as long as they removed PWAs before the final deadline, they'd be able to claim they were complying in good faith. But I suppose that might not be true, and it could actually be as-of the warning period?

[jeroenhd]

Like with the GDPR, the DMA had a long lead-in time in which the law has gone into effect but the EU wasn't prosecuting anyone for incompliance yet. The designation took place half a year ago but you can't expect companies to act on a rough draft and unmade commission decisions, so while the right EU people got started, nobody needed to comply yet.

Of course Apple could've acted earlier out of the goodness of their hearts and to serve customer interests (lol), but like with the GDPR, companies tend to prepare longer and only launch their changes right when they're about to see any real risk. The end of the fair warning period is the final deadline.

Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing, I think it's to be expected with regulation like this, and the regulation was designed for this.