[spullara]

Personally, I wouldn't want Apple to comply with this EU law and I hope that more companies refuse to release features with onerous requirements. Opening up all access to control the phone to some random app the consumer installed seems super dangerous.

[necovek]

Letting a US company (under jurisdiction of, say, US Cloud Act, but also unknown administration orders that might come) strictly control the phone for a privacy focused EU citizen (or more broadly, non-US citizen) seems super dangerous.

The requirements are not onerous, it is the basic preemption of monopolist behavior.

Qualifying "random apps" is something that is a true challenge, but that holds regardless of the API being offered — the problem is that Apple saves some programming API only for themselves, instead of introducing acceptable & objective market terms to be met (if deemed unsafe, they could require companies to demonstrate compliance with things like CRA to get access to these APIs).

[spullara]

I am perfectly ok with EU having different rules of their own but they also can't be upset when features aren't offered there. That is the trade-off they have chosen and I am ok with it.

[necovek]

People in EU are upset that Apple is saying that EU would not let them build it, not that it's not offered there.

[abigail95]

Phrasing it like that that without mentioning the $40B penalty if Apple releases the feature today feels a bit off to me.

[microtonal]

Nobody in the EU would have been upset if they said: we cannot offer this in the EU because we want to shut out competitors from providing alternative LLMs and this is not allowed in Europe. Fine. I don't care.

Many Europeans are upset that Apple blames Europe that they cannot implement this because it would sacrifice privacy. (Which is kind of ironic, because the EU has nearly the best privacy protection worldwide.)

Apple doesn't care about privacy. By default (without ADP), your (i)Messages, Drive files, contacts, calendars, backups of data from third-party apps are not end-to-end encrypted [1]. US law enforcement can request it. EU citizens are not protected because the US can use the CLOUD Act to demand the data. If Apple really cared about privacy, they would have closed that hole long ago.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

[abigail95]

I think that's exactly what people would be upset about as it was the impetus for the DMA in the first place.

[throwaway329847]

Ah yes, famous EU privacy protections like Chat Control or ProtectEU

[reloadtak]

That's how the EU enforces its laws - a fine that hurts. How else would you like them to it?

[abigail95]

You are agreeing with me. Apple would be violating the law by releasing it.

Thus the people that are mad at Apple for saying the EU is trying to stop them releasing this feature don't have much ground to stand on.

[flumpcakes]

Don’t install the app then. Consumer protection at some level means the consumer needs to be informed. I’d rather have a choice than just chow down on whatever the gatekeepers call food.

[troupo]

"Onerous requirements": users have the right to chose, users have the right to privacy.

[tticvs]

Correct, they can choose not to buy an iphone. Also, in this case, the EU regulations are undermining privacy.

[troupo]

> choose not to buy an iphone

That's not really a choice. Hint: duopoly

> Also, in this case

You can't claim regulations to be onetous and bot onerous at the same time

[xigoi]

> Opening up all access to control the phone to some random app the consumer installed seems super dangerous.

Do you never install software on your desktop computer?

[patrickmcnamara]

True hacker spirit here.