[OkPin]

This is fascinating and troubling. Apple’s presentation felt more like a marketing defense than a compliance discussion. Their claim that meeting the DMA “current interpretation” is “impossible” really stood out, it’s almost like they’re banking on legal ambiguity to stall real change.

I’m curious: if Apple and Google are using workshops as delay tactics, what’s the EC’s real enforcement power here? Are small fines enough leverage or do we need tougher mechanisms, like mandatory timelines or public transparency on third-party integrations?

[oaiey]

Rule of law also means, that fair process is given. which takes time. It is a problem, 100% agree, but I prefer a slow enforcement because of this than a unjust enforcement.

[concinds]

Why is slowness synonymous with rule of law?

Apple's implementation is overtly malicious. This malice is a publicly-known, conscious effort on the part of some of their trashier employees to make it as malicious as possible to please their execs ("Ohh, keep going").

All you need for "rule of law" is an independent judicial entity to notice this. Why give them months and months "to comply", when everyone on Earth knows they have no intention to? Why turn up the fines slowly, when we all know we're headed all the way to the seizure of 10% of global turnover in 4 years? Why are we all pretending not to know the end-state?

[oaiey]

Preparation of arguments, making sure that it is well rationalist. In this case, making sure all parties are heard and that they can explain themselves.

I am not arguing pro Apple here. IMHO the right approach should be maximum penalty after this round. They act malicious and everyone with a little IT understanding knows it.