[ptx]

On the other hand, the article does say that

"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"

and

"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"

[tpmoney]

    the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist

Not that I don’t think Apple is being petulant and maliciously compliant, but just because a politician passes a law declaring something to be so doesn’t mean that it is so. Apple built their platform for years assuming a lot of these things are and would remain private. When you design private APIs and locked down features, you make different choices and design decisions than if you make open APIs. Any interoperability was going to take months or years to get to, no matter what.

[musicale]

TFA claims that it needs to be built into the platform from the start. Which would seem to disqualify most Apple platforms.

[traspler]

I tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.