[inetknght]

> Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper).

Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it.

> complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere.

Oh no! Anyway...

Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product. That seems to be gone these days and end-users have garbage products as a result.

[tqwhite]

If, like me, you specifically do not want third parties inside the Apple ecosystem, Apple has done a great job. I totally hate the EU's insistence of tearing down Apple's walled garden. That is a huge reason I like their products so much.

[inetknght]

Interoperability only requires Apple to allow third parties to have the same capabilities that Apple does on your device. It doesn't require you to purchase or use a third party service or device. It merely allows you to have that choice in the first place.

[stouset]

And I explicitly do not trust third parties with that sort of access. I am personally thrilled that they don’t and can’t have it.

[mastermage]

Ah yes famously people do not want apps on their phone. (Which are third parties by definition)

[JumpCrisscross]

> Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it

It makes sense if you’re prioritizing time to market and agility. Once you’ve nailed down your product, you can make it compliant for more-onerous jurisdictions. You see this in finance all the time, where the U.S. tends to have the tightest rules around e.g. betting and crypto.

> Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product

Because software shipped in a box. Also, compliance is orthogonal to how good a product is. Siri AI might be crap. It might be great. It might be almost perfect and then made great on second release. Everything slows down if the entire development process has to deal with open APIs and lawyers at every turn.

It’s perfectly legitimate to say we’ll develop this in other markets and ship it to the EU when it’s fully baked.

[inetknght]

> It’s perfectly legitimate to say we’ll develop this in other markets and ship it to the EU when it’s fully baked.

It's also perfectly legitimate to legally require business to slow the fuck down and consider how the thing will be used or abused, to make the product not crash for even just basic usages, and to put real safeguards in place against problematic scenarios.

But no, move fast and break things wins the day every day in the US.