[burnte]

> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to.

Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons.

I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it. I like that Apple also is refusing to just bend over to the EU. We need more of these types of conflicts so we can work out good regulations, and not just always bend over and take it from whatever party won.

While I like a lot of Euro regulations, some of the privacy ones go too far with the whole "we're going to enforce this on the whole world" crap. I like California's method of "to sell it here you have to have this but we're not going to sue you for selling a noncompliant product elsewhere."

[Nifty3929]

Yes, exactly! Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services, and whether the regulations are worth it not to have them, or to have watered down versions of them. I say this without judgment - I see it as a legitimate area of consideration.

I think the worst is hugely impactful laws for which exceptions are constantly carved out so nobody can truly evaluate whether the law/reg is a good one or not.

[shykes]

> Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services

It's been a while since I left Europe, and I'm rusty on that particular layer of civics. Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

[tonoto]

It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in. Such as: - Chat Control - Vehicle regulations (mandates on "eCall", disturbing audio visuals and other "safety measuers) in Regulation (EU) 2018/858 - Eventual upcoming ethanol restrictions - Ban on plastic drinking straws - Drink caps that are stuck to the bottles - Ban on plastics with one hand, on the other handd there are huge plastic enclosers for batteries, scissors and in countries with a "green" profiles, such as Netherlands it seems impossible to just buy one or two apples - you have to buy a emplastered six pack of apples (lots of waste if I just wanted one apple).

[mountain_peak]

Maybe this is just a fantasy, but drink producers were previously responsible for their "waste". Bottlers would pick-up and recycle glass bottles, but the onus shifted completely to the consumer - first with a glass bottle deposit, then with the advent of disposable plastic containers. Glass bottles largely didn't require a straw, unlike the latest frappuccino, which generally comes with a plastic container, lid, and soggy paper straw.

Instead of banning plastic bottles or unrecyclable plastic-lined paper cups (or, as you mention, apple blister packs...what?) where the vast majority of plastic resides, we now have paper straws to deride. Each time you peel your lips off a dry paper tube, you're reminded of your personal culpability in the global waste shell game.

The only viable solution seems to be to stop consuming (see 'fantasy' in the opening line). I'm guilty as charged, BTW, but will politely decline paper straws (I have my own stash of plastic straw contraband).

[tonoto]

I don't even know whom they try to fool (apparently, they are succeeding in many ways...), but as you mention.. they (the politicians and institutions) complain about nanoplastics, and at the same time moves towards a plastic world. It is hypocrisy of many degrees. Milk containers used to be only paper, but now they are both paper and plastic for some reason. It's hard to find drinking bottles that are glass as they most turned plastic (I do, however, choose metal before plastic due to taste). Drinking straws.. in the super market it's now possible to buy "reusable" (Made in P.R.C) drinking straws for a really cheap price (that they are in practise, one time straws)..

[bratwurst3000]

the idea was to have less of those things people buy and consum on the way and throw them away and the wind puts them put of the trash and now shitload of plastic everywhere .... i switch between clean beaches in europe to cigarrete and plastic straw infested ones on other parts of the world. As a european i like thos clean beaches etc

[fragmede]

The only solution? Not "carry a metal reusable straw around with you"?

[cogogo]

Have to say I love the drink cap thing. It makes a lot of sense. The caps wind up everywhere so the regulation probably/most likely does some good (have not seen any data so who knows). But once you get used to it you appreciate not being able to lose the cap. Straws seem pretty useless to me in general so why not avoid plastic? but that is probably a me problem. Plastic on fruit is annoying as hell but it is not a mutually exclusive problem.

[fc417fc802]

If you don't personally find straws useful that's fine but why should something like that be dictated for everyone else let alone at such a high level of government and without a direct vote by the citizens?

To make matters worse the expected environmental impact is miniscule and the entire thing is predicated on a popular misconception that gained virality. It's a perfect example of the government failing to function well.

[cogogo]

Is that really a perfect example of a government failing to function well? In what country government does every action require a direct vote? Representative democracy is by definition imperfect.

Bet you can think of a better “perfect” example of a government failing to function well. It all depends on which government you are referring to but the best example to me would probably be a government needlessly bombing another country. Not a ban on plastic straws.

[consp]

Don't know where you get your apples but I can buy 1 if I want. Just not at the supermarket since they optimise to sell you more than you need. No regulation involved here.

[tonoto]

I believe it was both in Albert and Aldi (during 2023). Felt really awkward to waste fruit, but that's nice that there are sanity among other stores. I get it that folks can be annoyed when I hand pick my potatoes at the grocery store to match for size and to have good coloured exemplars, but to pick and choose is one of the few delights buy groceries.

[singpolyma3]

I can also buy 1 at the supermarket

[mulmen]

Care to share your secret?

[speleding]

The ideal solution for all this is would be what the Japanese have: a population trained to just throw garbage in the bin instead of on the ground. I don't think I've heard any politician who is even considering measures to get there. He would get my vote.

[mschuster91]

> It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in.

Well... your government certainly has a say in Brussels. Often enough, national politicians use "Brussels" as a scapegoat... nothing can happen in Brussels if national governments (or the Commission) don't propose it first, the Parliament has no right to initiative.

If people would stop electing dumb fucks to national governments or to at least hold their dumb fucks in national governments accountable (yes, it is possible, even Hungary managed to do so), you'd get a lot less "Brussels" bullshit.

(And yes, I am aware, this statement is particularly ironic given I'm German and we were utterly infamous for shipping off utter wastes of space to Brussels)

> and in countries with a "green" profiles, such as Netherlands it seems impossible to just buy one or two apples - you have to buy a emplastered six pack of apples (lots of waste if I just wanted one apple).

That's a Dutch specialty. Here in Germany, I can buy single apples, pears, bananas or whatever just fine if I want - although I don't because apples suck.

If I were to guess, it's a logistics thing. Sixpacks of apples are easier to handle and transport than a bunch of loose apples.

[Yhdz]

Not sure where you live in the Netherlands, but where I live we have plenty of places where you can buy single pieces of fruit. Maybe it changes per supermarket.

[coldtea]

>Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation?

Barely.

>Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

It's decided by a mix of unelected bureucrats and opaque procedures people track even less than their national politics.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

They do have a say. They can elect representatives who could change the legal framework and the incentives for the bureaucrats, or even remove the ability of the bureaucrats to regulate certain things. Then these regulations would not get passed and that would be that.

[eastbound]

We have a say at a 4th level of derived decision, which is 2 levels more than what people call a democracy. Also, the other political party will do it too.

= We don’t have a say. We voted NO to the new EU treaties in 2008 and the new president decided that electing him meant that we approved the same treaties.

They only let us vote when we agree, anyway.

[Muromec]

The lower chamber of parliament that votes on the regulation is directly elected and can rewrite and amend proposals. The higher chamber (EU Council) is comprised from government (or state?) heads which are either directly of indirectly elected with a length of 1. The commission (executive branch) that drafts the laws that are amended and passed by the parliament is voted in by a parliament which is directly elected.

Where do you get 4th level of deriviation exactly?

[coldtea]

It's even less direct than national parliaments, which already are a joke.

And the unelected bureucracy, careerists, and 2-3 big country interests pressuring others under the table, are driving the show...

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Not sure what other mechanism would be possible for creating a rule system like the DMA presuming that the EU countries remain independent. Treaties are too slow, and direct democracy on an issue this complicated is the realm of science fiction (see Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space universe for a take on this -- particularly the Demarchist faction).

[Henchman21]

Voting the world over is a joke. IIRC it was Carlin who said “if voting mattered they wouldn’t met us do it”.

[afthonos]

People the world over: (die for the right to vote)

One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable.

The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.

[dotancohen]

Carlin was excellent at delivery, but don't confuse clever delivery with wisdom.

[mike_hearn]

> They can elect representatives

They cannot. The EU Parliament cannot pass, change or repeal laws. Its representatives can't represent.

If you mean elect national representatives, then the EU treaties were deliberately written to only give them one option - exit entirely and be trade sanctioned by the others as a result, who must obey constitutionally even if it's self harm and they don't want to do it.

The EU is designed from the ground up to look slightly democratic from a distance without actually being so. Ordinary people living and working in member states have zero influence over these kinds of regulations which is why stuff like the DMA doesn't reflect their actual legislative priorities, which according to polls for a long time are primarily economic and immigration related, sometimes climate.

If you look at how the political class treated Brexit, you can see why it's so hard to influence these decisions.

[KoolKat23]

If it's not in the EU parliaments jurisdiction, it's in the EU council's. As a rule, all members states have to be democratic and you can simply vote out your EU council member i.e. your head of state. It is democratic.

[mike_hearn]

The EU Councils decisions are taken in secret. You have no idea if it's democratic or not, nor does it matter even if they do hold a vote because by convention none of them ever campaign on the decisions they make there.

To see this, try and find out how Ursula von der Leyen ended up the most powerful woman in Europe. What qualified her for that, who were the alternative candidates considered, what was said during the debate and by whom.

You can't because the entire process was secret from end to end. Was she even voted on? Nobody knows.

Again, the EU is designed to pass itself off as democratic without being so. But so is China.

[M95D]

> The EU Parliament cannot pass, change or repeal laws.

I suggest you verify that.

[mike_hearn]

It's a constitutional fact. The most they can do is propose amendments to laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission drives the whole process and isn't required to accept them (worst case, they just cancel the law and then try again later).

There is literally nobody you can vote for to if you want to repeal the DMA.

[Danox]

The lawyers and the politicians make the decisions. You really don’t think it’s the common man or woman. So there’s a year or two year tape delay.

[BurningFrog]

You get to vote for one of ~5 alternatives every 4 years. This then propagates to hundreds of decisions in a way that dilutes your influence to practically nothing.

[miroljub]

> Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation?

EU voters don't have any saying in any EU level regulation. The EU regime do basically what they want.

[mrln]

While the democratic process in the EU deserves its criticism, this is plain wrong. EU citizens can vote for the EU parliament.

[miroljub]

And EU Parliament can't propose a new law. Or propose to change a law. How super democratic.

[mrln]

Yup, but laws have to be approved by the EU parliament and that's not just a formality. As I said, I do think it is valid to critizise that system, but what you stated is plain wrong and even when I pointed it out you wouldn't admit it.

[christkv]

None. The EU is getting more and more un democratic by the year. More power centralized in the bureaucracy vis regulations and other mechanisms.

[solid_fuel]

You have anything to back up that claim, or is it just knee-jerk drivel with no evidence based on your feelings and distrust of scary government bureaucrats?

[Saline9515]

Why is chatcontrol being pushed every year by the european commission, while people and their representatives are in majority against it?

Besides given the amount of lobbying in the EU institutions, it's obvious that citizens don't have a chance against corpos with infinite money.

[jyounker]

And how is that different from any other governmental level? Seriously, we in Berlin got a freeway that nobody I know wanted or wants. It's not the EU's fault.

[Muromec]

Because puritans gonna puritan and security services want to read your comms. That's like any day of the week everywhere since forever.

[miroljub]

Do you have any evidence supporting the notion that EU decisions process is democratic?

[aucisson_masque]

EU has a parlement and a commission.

[slekker]

I value them a lot, happy that the EU didnt bend down to Apple.

If it werent for the EU, the companies would get away with all sorts of shit.

Is as if people forget companies are evil by nature and will fuck you any chance they get.

[thesmtsolver2]

Meanwhile: EU pushing to snoop on private chats and US companies are pushing back.

[junto]

Where do you think that lobbying money is coming from?

[viktorcode]

I'm curios what kind of shit specifically DMCA protects you from?

[wtb04]

I think you mean DMA, not DMCA. DMCA mostly protects copyright holders. DMA is about protecting users and competitors from platform lock-in. Bending for Apple would just make that lock-in harder to challenge.

[duskwuff]

DMCA provides some rather important protection for service providers (including small-scale services like web forums, not just ISPs and web hosts) - it makes them not liable for copyright violations by their users, so long as they take down infringing content upon receipt of a DMCA notice.

But I agree, that's probably not what OP meant.

[krzyk]

Doesn't "DMCA", make, well, the DMCA notice a thing?

[redviperpt]

EU "voters" don't get a say in any of this.

[yxhuvud]

What are you talking about, DMA has passed in the parliament.

[Saline9515]

The parliament doesn't get to choose the laws it has to vote. The parliament can't repell a law, and doesn't hold the pen during negociations.

[burnte]

So the laws that Parliament votes on just appear in session magically? They're not written by EU citizens and politicians?

[Saline9515]

Yes, European Commission decides the laws. Then a “trilogue” negotiation happens between the Commission, MPs, and EU government representatives, but the MPs don't hold the pen on the final wording (Commission does).

MPs can't therefore repeal laws; they can at most ask the Commission to set themes on the program. The Commission is therefore strongly dominant, as it is composed of career unelected officials who can wait for a compliant Parliament to pass the laws they want and target MPs in negotiations. This is what they do with ChatControl.

Of course there are no checks and balances for the Commission officials, who are bureaucrats with an opaque agenda. The EU is a weak form of democracy, which is geared toward bureaucratic capture and legal inflation.

[Muromec]

It's a bit complicated to feed more stability into the system, but then this gets hijacked by national governments as an excuse to never take any blame for any shit that follows. Everything good is us, sovereign entities and all that is bad is always the other people in Brussels. Even zo the people in Brussels are mostly deputies of the same people or just themselves, but 26x.

[Muromec]

This isn't exactly true. They can't propose but they can amend. The final text has to be agreed by the commission, the lower chamber (the parliament) and the higher chamber (the council, which is heads of states).

[Saline9515]

They can't propose, they can amend, but they don't hold the pen, and the Commission can veto it. Seems really democratic, Stalin would be proud!

[perks_12]

I'd argue the average EU citizen has absolutely no idea how any of the Brussels bullshit works in reality. We learned it in school once, very briefly, just long enough to learn it is a clusterfuck of chambers. We are told it is democratic, and that's it. Once you get older, all you hear is: Brussels forbids this, forbids that. The EU is ripe for disruption.

[ThatMedicIsASpy]

Tech companies are ripe for disruption and breakups.

[michelb]

Well sort of? The more right-wing we vote, the more room corporations and their cronies get.

[pjmlp]

As EU voter, I couldn't care less that Apple behaves like a spoiled brat when it comes to following laws it doesn't like, it is one customer they will never get.

I only use Apple hardware that is project assigned to me, my household is Apple free.

In fact, this applies to every single company that thinks they should control governments and not the other way around.

[troupo]

"Let's discuss how countries should bend their knee before supranational corporations"

[burnte]

Government and corporations are natural enemies, they are two halves of an ecosystem that must be maintained in balance. This is a good thing.

[browningstreet]

That's not exactly how I would summarize the current moment in time.

This OP article doesn't really go into it, but they did actually propose a solution to the divide, they just needed more time to develop it. The Reuters article is reporting on one person's response to the proceedings, which involve more details than this particular article covers.

For instance:

> To address those concerns, Apple designed a system called Trusted System Agent, an intermediary that would let competing virtual assistants safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI on EU devices. Apple also proposed launching Siri AI in Europe while rolling out the Trusted System Agent gradually over 18 months. The European Commission rejected both proposals, and according to Apple, did not agree to any alternative.

https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-siri-ai-eu-dma-delay-ios-2...

[burnte]

That only reinforces my argument. Apple could have waited, but they decided to go ahead now and bring it to the EU later when they can address the concerns. That's great, that's the law working.

[rambambram]

> While I like a lot of Euro regulations, some of the privacy ones go too far with the whole "we're going to enforce this on the whole world" crap.

Care to explain? EU is also a jurisdiction, so why would EU law be legal in other areas than EU?

[Muromec]

Jurisdiction concept is not strictly bound by territory. Classic example is two parties based in two jurisdiction dealing with each other somehow.

Imagine there is a law in your jurisdiction saying if you hire a person there are rules A, B, C which are a bit inconvenient to you, the employer. What if you incorporate in a different jurisdiction where the salaries are higher but there are no rules B and C, but there are rules B and D. Then this incorporated entity offers to hire people in your jurisdiction, but not offer the higher salaries of the other one.

Which rules should apply? The answer, as usual, is -- "it depends".

[rambambram]

I'm not talking about incorporated bodies, I'm talking EU law. EU decides what it wants in EU, not outside EU. Or am I missing something?

[Ravus]

GDPR also applies to companies that provide services to EU citizens, no matter where the company is based.

This makes a lot of sense, because otherwise you'd get situations where Multi Corp X could claim, "Oh, but our Berlin office is actually offering this service hosted in Kiribati. We just happen to have German users" and not offer access to personal data.

Seen as enforcement is through fines, companies that do not have an EU presence are completely unaffected. So even if technically true, in practice claiming that there's global reach is false. Concretely, no one is going after a hypothetical Baton Rouge Herald for not providing an opt-out of data harvesting on their news website.

[rambambram]

I know about that. These situations are logical, if you'd ask me. The OP suggested EU law works where all parties involved are outside EU. Like EU playing world police, or something.

[chrisandchris]

And as a consumer, I am somewhat happy that a company says "well, then not" if it cannot comply with the law.

If the law makes sense, that I cannot judge in this case.

[kergonath]

> And as a consumer, I am somewhat happy that a company says "well, then not" if it cannot comply with the law.

As a citizen, I find it both fascinating and disturbing that this is even a thing. Of course companies have to follow the law. Why is this even a thing? If the product fills a real need and the externalities are acceptable, that will be a demonstration that the law needs an update.

[ghaff]

Yes. If a company in another country elects not to deliver a product or feature because of local regulations, consumers should take that up with their local legislators. That company has no obligation to sell something just because local consumers want it. And if those consumers want to bypass local regulations in some manner, that's their business.

[yxhuvud]

Market pressure is a pretty strong obligation to their shareholders. I expect Apple to fold, eventually.

[ghaff]

Possibly. At that point it becomes a cost/profit calculation. Maybe the EU is big enough to matter. Maybe it isn't.

[mbowcut2]

Totally agree. Granting exemptions feels like trying to have their cake and eat it too. If regulations mean anything they need to be enforced so we can see the real downstream effects.

[sneak]

> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it.

The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense.

It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

[burnte]

> The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense.

Remember Silk Road? You could order cocaine, heroin, and even execution contracts, which the founder himself go caught doing. I don't think making something illegal to buy is authoritarian nonsense. I don't want people ordering a murder on me from Uber Hits.

[kergonath]

> It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

You will always find people willing to spend money on anything. The whole point of politics is that we have to draw a line between what people want to do and the effect that it can have on other people. To put it simply, if your freedom affects mine, then someone needs to decide how far you can go and how much I have to accept.

We commonly accept that scams are bad, even though someone might participate willingly, just because it is much more likely that someone is taken advantage of in a way that most people find immoral, for example. Even in bastions of free speech such as the US. That someone somewhere knowingly gave money to someone else is neither here nor there.

[mocamoca]

That is quite a libertarian point of view, and Europeans tend to disagree with it.

The most extreme example could be the legislation on weapons. A less extreme example could be legislation on food additives or PFAS.

[koyote]

The most extreme example would be child prostitution or child porn, in my opinion. But I guess it would be authoritarian to deny people from purchasing such services/items???

[sneak]

The former directly infringes on the rights of someone else, so it's a bad example.

[sneak]

In Europe you can still buy cigarettes everywhere, and gamble in most jurisdictions.

QED, Europeans don't tend to disagree with the basic principle of letting people buy things to harm themselves and those around them.

[viktorcode]

You should remember that according to a court testimony the whole European area (which goes beyond EU) gives Apple 7% of their revenue, whereas breaking DMCA may incur penalties of ups to 10% of global turnover.

Those numbers make withholding "risky" products a no-brainer strategy. Also, those numbers put a hard limit of how much Apple will want reevaluate their general strategy of tightly integrated first-party software.

[solid_fuel]

Why do you keep bringing up DMCA?

> The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a 1998 United States copyright law

The DMCA is a law in the United States, it's not related in any way to Apple's decision to not roll out Siri in the EU.

[t-sauer]

Which court testimony are you talking about? A quick google search suggests that Europe is responsible for roughly 25% of their revenue.

Edit: 26% of their net sales comes from Europe for Q1: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2026-q1/FY26_Q1_Consol...

[bryanrasmussen]

there's a difficulty in evaluating how much goes into Apple revenue because Apple mixes Europe (not just EU) and Middle East.

The 7% probably comes from a Daring Fireball article, based on misunderstanding some Apple communications, and which Gruber later had to backtrack

https://medium.com/luminasticity/when-smart-people-cant-reas...

[viktorcode]

Yes, I was coming from Gruber's article, thank you for correcting me!

[ChrisClark]

Using an old AI to comment? What does the DMCA have to do with it?