> 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.

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.

So, you do without. Easy Peasy.

> 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...

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.

> 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.

Spoiler: It won't work this time neither.

> Yes, they can.

Then why aren't they?

Because Apple decided you don't deserve them.

It literally is:

EU: users must have choice.

Apple: no.

Apple literally says that because they are required to give users more choice they will give users less choice: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...

> 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.

I do take your general point here, but if you know you need to implement the DNA requirements then you need to build and plan for some of that well in advance of launch.

I guess I don't see how much time they gain unless they don't plan to ever release a DMA compliant version.

The cost is almost certainly in time, not staff