undefined

points

[-]

> one of the world’s wealthiest companies can spare the resources needed to comply with the regulations of one of the world’s largest markets

At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions.

by disgruntledphd22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> At what cost? This is Apple’s second bite at AI. Giannandrea fucked up the first time. I’m honestly with Cupertino on not over complicating it the second time around. If they found the right mix of features and architecture, great, then work to port it to high-bar jurisdictions.

I totally agree with you in principle here, but Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here (and in the other cases, like Mac mirroring) so I honestly don't see that happening at all.

This is purely a lobbying move against the EU to get EU citizens/politicians to complain about the laws and get an exemption.

And to be fair, Apple's business model is currently structurally incompatible with a lot of the DMA (which I personally think is a good thing), so they kinda have to fight it for a while.

by ahartmetz2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That lobbying move has been tried how many times? It hasn't worked once. There is no disagreement along any political lines I can think of.

It's not that we particularly like the EU government here in the EU. But we do like when they make pro-consumer laws.

by inetknght1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here

Yeah that needs to stop. This is kinda why the DMA was created in the first place...

by jen201 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It doesn't _have_ to stop - the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, which is exactly what is happening here. The law is working as intended, just not in the way the proponents thought it would.

by troupo1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place,

Yes, they can. Apple wields its duopoly power to try and bend governments to its will.

by JumpCrisscross2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> purely a lobbying move

It can be more than one thing. It’s a lobbying move, to be sure. But it’s also almost certainly a time-to-market and potentially cost-mitigation play, too.

by lokar2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The cost is almost certainly in time, not staff

by Keyframe2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Yet, they chose not to. That also speaks for itself.

by hector_vasquez1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Having worked at Apple and similarly giant companies, the idea that "they have enough money to do it" is incredibly naive. Rewriting all the basic software primitives of the iPhone, or the Mac, or iCloud, or CloudKit, or choose whatever massive surface area this legislation impacts, is not a matter of simply spending enough. Doing so requires the time and attention of the very few subject matter experts who are able to competently do it. The true cost is to your strategy, your business plan, and your product roadmap.

So it becomes a purely business decision: Do we risk a 10% global revenue penalty to release this globally, do we release this everywhere the DMA does not apply, or do we simply not build it? And make no mistake, even if Apple moved heaven and earth to try to comply with DMA they are STILL RISKING the full 10% penalty if the EU decides against them.

by fnordsensei54 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Didn’t write “money”, wrote “resources”, but sure.

Yes, there’s a risk to releasing a product whenever you can be held accountable for that product. I understand that Apple seeks to be as unaccountable as possible.

So we ultimately agree with one another: Apple can do it, but doesn’t want to, for various reasons.