[Nextgrid]

It's only a matter of time before the EU gets wise to this - this move is simply to delay the inevitable and buy themselves some more time to act anticompetitively. When they feel like the EU is closer to disproving their argument (because there is no technical reason this can't be opened to third-parties in a secure way), they will suddenly announce that they have found some magic and miraculous way to do it and release the feature, bringing them back into compliance.

[samatman]

> It's only a matter of time before the EU gets wise to this

"gets wise to this" how, exactly? The EU can certainly set conditions which Apple must meet to ship a feature. They have no legal grounds whatsoever to demand that Apple ship that feature to Europe, specially modified to meet their exacting requirements.

How would that even work? One way to comply with the EU's demands that a product work a certain way, is to not sell that product in the EU. Is your stance that EU has a right to force companies to sell their wares in the EU?

[Nextgrid]

Gets wise that this is blatant malicious compliance, and use this to inform potential enforcement action and/or revisions to the regulation.

It could very well become that after enough of this, DMA 2.0 would have a provision stipulating that any feature withheld in the EU would need to have a valid technical justification that passes review by a panel of independent experts.

[seec]

Yep, I hope they work on something like that. Maybe we could get a chance for another competitive OS in the EU.

Sometimes I wish they tax the hell out of those US behemoth in a way that would open space for EU companies to become competitive. The network effects are too big when it comes to IT, it's not very wise to let the US be the sole beneficiary of such an industry.