They were mandated to create a scheme in isolation on a deadline, without having input either from navigation apps or from consumers, and without any requirement that web browsers or other operating systems would need to support the same scheme.
As another comment pointed out - it doesn't work. Websites and apps still integrate with a navigation product directly, rather than use this scheme. And why wouldn't they? Even if it was launched worldwide on iOS, it still is just a defined subset of any particular navigation product functionality. It also is just yet another navigation option to integrate into your platform, since the feature still wouldn't be available on desktops/Android.
Until everyone is sitting at the table wanting to work towards interoperability, the feature simply can't work. So why perpetuate a broken chooser into other markets?
Self-imposed isolation and deadline.
> without having input either from navigation apps or from consumers
Because Apple never asked either navigation app developers or consumers since "Apple knows best" and spent several years fighting DMA instead of implementing these features.
> Websites and apps still integrate with a navigation product directly, rather than use this scheme.
Because there was no scheme to begin with, and when Apple finally relented and made it, it only made it available in the EU.
> Until everyone is sitting at the table wanting to work towards interoperability, the feature simply can't work.
Yes, Apple doesn't want to sit at the table to work towards interoperability.
Apple Maps was made default on iOS in 2012. They literally only implemented the "scheme" last year, 13 years later.
DMA entered force in 2022. Apple had known about it coming for at least two years before that.
And even without DMA that would be a proper thing to do to begin with which they had to be forced to do by government action.
It’s paternalistic, but I agree with Apple that free for all access to this kind of data is not a great idea. Ironically, before this could work we’d actually need much more EU style data regulation, and more consistently enforced.
Ultimately I think it's important for the EU to regulate companies like apple to ensure competition. But in this instance, it doesn't seem like we have all the other pieces in place that would be necessary for a sensible rollout of that.
Funny how the word user never enters these conversations. As in user device that the user has paid for and where the user should have a choice of what the user wants to do.
And we know why. E.g. Apple literally argues that giving users more choice forces Apple to give users less choice: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...
Apple uses "privacy and security" as a cudgel to prevent anyone from breaking into the vendor lock in. To the point that EU actually had to explicitly tell Apple what to do [1], as Apple delayed features, made them extremely hard or convoluted for third-parties to use, and pulled every trick out of the malicious compliance manual.
This whole virtual assistants thing will drag on for another several years.
Edit: I mean they show their models accessing and changing a password on the user's bank site at the same time as accessing and changing passwords on another random site. Which is one prompt away from exfiltrating user data. So spare me the "Apple knows best about privacy and security so they should keep any access to their platforms locked down"
[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in...
Apples incentives are not, currently, as strongly misaligned with their user interests as many other tech firms (meta, google, random startups, etc). Going slowly might not be a bad idea for most people here.
That said, I hadn't seen the demo you mention. If they do do that (bank passwords etc) they are stupider than I thought they would be.