[bnj]

As I follow the situation, it seems that regulatory uncertainty is a major issue though- the EU’s requirements are framed in terms of outcomes sought, rather than in terms that can be quantitatively shown as met or broken. So it’s not a matter of dedicating a team to meet a list of requirements, but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes aren’t being met.

[necovek]

In this case it looks much simpler: Apple strictly does not want to open up the iOS platform to other competing agents, as they lose the monopolistic moat if they do. While making a true developer platform with good documentation is often hard and expensive, with the market access they'd get, companies would gladly jump on it even if it was badly documented as long as they have guarantees of continued legal access.

At the same time, this potentially opens up the entire worldwide market (imagine EU iPhones being imported into US to use with OpenAI or Claude Cowork), and they probably made the estimation that keeping EU out is still better value (70% of the market all to themselves) than fair competition in the 100% of the market (I guess they estimate they might get less than 70% in that case).

Or they are hoping that EU customers will want Siri AI enough to campaign for a change, but I'd find that highly unlikely.

[rock_artist]

> imagine EU iPhones being imported into US to use with OpenAI or Claude Cowork

That's not the case. it's merely software (exactly like my iPhone 16 lacking the promised AI features claimed at WWDC24).

Anyway as I'm now within the EU with phone I bought before moving to the EU, regional features (or restrictions) depends on the logged in account and device regional settings. Except physical considerations (eSIM design, actual radio transceivers). The hardware is the same thank god.

[krzyk]

Yeah, Siri was such a poor solution compared to Google (and Google's is also poor in EU) that no one would make a campaign.

If Siri wants to be seen as anything it should first support every EU language and they can work from there.

[schubidubiduba]

Those requirements are explicitly on the outcomes because companies like Apple used to abuse loopholes in previous, non-outcome defined laws. They, as always, have no one to blame but themselves.

[bnj]

It sounds like what you’re saying is that because the legislature can’t anticipate how companies will abuse loopholes, they sidestep that by outlining the outcomes instead.

The issue I have with that approach is that I don’t agree with that approach to governance. I believe it’s incumbent on the regulator to define what is acceptable vs. disallowed in unambiguous terms.

[mastermage]

This is a spirit of the law vs letter of the law debate. Europe in general (i know its not that easy) tends to go more towards Spirit of the Law. While the US usualy tends more to letter of the law.

[gmueckl]

A lot of regulation is legally defined in terms of outcomes. That in itself isn't unusual. Checklists of technical requirements are almowt always a derivative and a suggestion about a safe path to meet the regulated outcome. This is how "blessed" standards for e.g. medical devices work. This shields the laws themselves from overly technical discussions.

The only difference that I can see here is that the standards layer hasn't solidified yet.

[bnj]

That’s a good point. So maybe another point of divergence here is that the outcomes of the DMA are rooted in inherently unpredictable market interactions, whereas a medical device standard depends on the device performance and characteristics.

I don’t think it makes sense to create an accountability framework for a company that requires the cooperation of the market, because I think companies should be in a position to either comply or be held accountable on their own merits

[vrganj]

That is fundamentally how EU law works

The intent matters, not the letter of the law. No loopholes, no bad faith interpretation. Just do what the law wants from you, if you make a mistake in good faith, you'll be given leeway to fix it.

> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...

[bnj]

Thanks for sharing this, I didn’t realize that there was a fundamental philosophical divergence here- you’ve really helped me expand my thinking

[orangecat]

No loopholes, no bad faith interpretation.

The endless cookie banners would beg to differ.

[swiftcoder]

> but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes aren’t being met

This is true of most things that involve legal. Laws are not code, in basically any jurisdiction they are subject to interpretation, and just because you've dotted your Is and crossed your Ts, doesn't mean an enterprising enforcement agency won't still come after you

[thrance]

EU laws are written like this to give companies maximum freedom in how they implement their solutions, not to lay traps for them to fall into.

[ahartmetz]

The criticism reads like people who don't understand a high trust society - which I don't think is actually the case here, more like assuming that the foreign guys are bad guys.

"They really don't try to fuck you over if you engage with them in good faith?"

"Yes, really."

[celiacFun]

Apple might not want to risk 10% of their global revenue on whether EU regulators like the outcome of their compliance efforts. And there isn’t any real risk of an EU based startup competing in this space like there would be in China.