Apple Intelligence and other features won’t launch in the EU this year
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
If the DMA has created an environment where Apple could be compelled to share user data with Google or Microsoft, the EU has fucked up massively.
Upvote
35
(131
/
-96)
I'm surprised that something such as screen-mirroring could run afoul of the DMA, but I'm glad the whole "Generative AI" is being delayed for now.
European privacy laws FTW. Yes I know the DMA isn't a dedicated privacy law, but anything that protects the consumer and restricts data collection is a good thing.
European privacy laws FTW. Yes I know the DMA isn't a dedicated privacy law, but anything that protects the consumer and restricts data collection is a good thing.
Upvote
-11
(105
/
-116)
Screen mirroring will run afoul of the Digital Markets Act?
Yeah, that sounds entirely reasonable and not petty at all.
Yeah, that sounds entirely reasonable and not petty at all.
Upvote
83
(163
/
-80)
Maybe they’re presuming the EU would mandate the iPhone mirror must work with any computer, not just Macs?
Upvote
252
(257
/
-5)
It only works on Apple platforms. Maybe they foresee being required to open it up?
Upvote
167
(171
/
-4)
You may have missed it but because of things mixed into DMA, etc. regarding interoperability between Apple solutions and non-Apple solutions Apple is rightfully concerned that it can't ensure their stated/target data privacy / security since one or more 3rd parties maybe forced into the mix. These 3rd parties cannot be evaluated fully by Apple, etc.
Yes this does overlap with Apple getting benefits from having a moat around their ecosystem (aka encourages users to stay with Apple).
Personally the regulations should encourage data portability if you want to leave Apple's system and an amount of sensible interoperability but shouldn't force a reduction of security / privacy since a non-trivial number of Apple users are buying Apple products with that a major factor in their purchasing choice.
Last edited:
Upvote
128
(160
/
-32)
Living in a smallish EU country where many Apple features arrive sometime never, I really can't say I miss what I'm not getting.
Upvote
42
(79
/
-37)
One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that Apple fairly frequently makes decisions that on their face have a valid logical or technical reason but that, if you were cynical, you might believe was for some other, more self-serving motive.
These feels like one of those.
These feels like one of those.
Upvote
59
(119
/
-60)
If it’s just about the DMA, surely Apple
intelligence would still launch on macOS (and possibly iPad) in the EU.
intelligence would still launch on macOS (and possibly iPad) in the EU.
Upvote
14
(33
/
-19)
More likely, that phone Mirroring support would have to be accomplished via an open API that any non-iOS phone maker could utilize. That, in turn, could easily have security and privacy implications. If that hypothesis is correct, that API would instantly become an attack vector against all phones with the mirroring feature enabled. Within Apple’s ecosystem, they’ve clearly been working hard to support seamless and secure device-to-device authentication for a single user’s devices. In any event, I expect we’ll hear a lot more about this shortly.
Upvote
112
(130
/
-18)
This feels like it’s part of a showdown with the EU. Yes, I’m sure that Apple can provide justification for withholding these features based on a strict reading of the DMA, but the EU seems to be looking for a fight with Apple over DMA compliance and this looks like a response.
Upvote
105
(112
/
-7)
The DMA costs Apple money, so by taking a relatively minor hit on brand conquests these features would have driven, Apple has a chance to save much more money by getting the DMA watered down.
Upvote
36
(42
/
-6)
As if the law itself is written clearly. And interpreted based on what it says.
Upvote
75
(95
/
-20)
Is it a service, or a feature though? I think they can be required to make features interoperable. I can see the connection between “the phone supports applications, so anyone must be able to install an application” and “the phone supports mirroring, so anyone must be able to mirror”.
Upvote
68
(70
/
-2)
One thing I've noticed over the years is that Apple fairly frequently makes decisions that inspire the cynical to quickly assume a self-serving motive, even though it turns out that there are valid logical or technical reasons for them.
This feels like one of those.
Upvote
80
(136
/
-56)
Upvote
36
(69
/
-33)
Any feature that potentially exposes Apple to additional oversight, then either software revisions or possible fines from the DMA likely now goes through a very thorough legal review inside Apple. Seems probable that Apple legal flagged these features as a possible risk. Frankly, I might have expected a longer list, given that the DMA seems more 'aspirationally written' than definitive.
Upvote
103
(107
/
-4)
Hopefully it will be available for the UK Europeans. The Swiss will miss out as they’re part of the DMA.
Upvote
4
(18
/
-14)
No, Apple thinks they can be required to do so, and have decided to not risk it. Maybe the EU needs to be a bit more precise with both their law writing and law application. (Note, I think the US tends to be too overprecise in these.)
Upvote
87
(95
/
-8)
Cute but that’s actually the same thing. They tell us the technical reasons so obviously they exist too, but since we can’t know about any underlying intentions we also can’t know whether the cynical are right. There can be technical and self-serving reasons at the same time.
Upvote
47
(69
/
-22)
OrangeCream
Ars Legatus Legionis
From the “don’t” provision:
The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
Discover how the Digital Markets Act ensures large online platforms in the EU behave fairly, and allows new players to enter the market, thus developing a fast evolving digital sector.
It might mean allowing any platform with a mouse and keyboard to be able to remote control an iPhone. Right now the feature is intended to encourage iPhone owners to buy Macs and Mac users to buy iPhones, a classic lock.
The iMessage integration between iPhones and Macs is a similar setup, in that Macs are the only PC option to support iMessage.
Upvote
77
(80
/
-3)
This reminds me of Apple's very conservative interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley which seemed to make it illegal to deliver value to a customer without taking revenue for that (it's a tax law, so the feds were trying to capture tax avoidance mechanisms) and chose to take their iPhone revenue distributed over 5 years so that they were always reporting revenue while they were adding features to OS updates that they weren't collecting revenue on.
They weren't necessarily wrong - that provision later got clarified. But they were one of the few companies that didn't take the risk. It had a pretty serious detrimental effect on their earnings when they started the practice because it meant they were deferring 80% of their revenue to future fiscal years, which over time evened out. It had another detrimental effect when they ended the practice and investors forgot that the unusual revenue runup from the overlapping deferred revenue and the reversion to taking it all immediately meant that once the deferral ended it would look like revenue fell, when in fact it didn't - it was just an accounting byproduct.
Upvote
86
(88
/
-2)
But what are the self-serving ones here? Surely Apple is introducing these features believing that it'll add value to their devices, making them easier to sell. How is withholding those features self-serving?
Upvote
53
(65
/
-12)
My guess: based on the EU's past behaviour, it may be reasonable to assume that the EU would fine Apple billions because screen mirroring does not work with Android phones, thus, in the mindset of these politicians, providing an unfair competitive advantage for Apple's iOS devices..
Upvote
48
(69
/
-21)
Yes, and iOS is considered a gatekeeper in the EU, even if MacOS is not. That means any MacOS Feature that requires unique hooks into iOS could potentially be subject to all the additional scrutiny the EU places on gatekeepers, because the feature could be interpreted by as an iOS Feature as much as a MacOS Feature.
Will it be viewed that way? I don't know, and neither does Apple, becuase the EU has made it clear that the spirit of the law is the standard, as opposed to the letter of the law. As such Apple can't know how the EU will interpret any new feature under this framework because even if they ensure compliance with the letter of the law, they could still end up on the wrong end of a fine. And since the EU does not have a framework for pre-market consultation on issues like this, Apple has to try and read the tea leaves through actions like this. Publicly delaying the feature, in the hopes that the EU will weigh in one way or the other. Or using back-channels to try and get unofficial feedback before they launch.
you can think that is a feature, as it gives the EU the flexibility to adapt and counter malicious compliance attempts. But feature or bug, it makes it difficult for Apple to know and therefore act, without first consulting with the EU and hearing from them how they will interpret the new features, which means delays for EU citizens.
This is the problem with unclear or vague regulatory frameworks (not unlike Apple's own App Store Rules, ironically enough), the uncertainty that comes from "Build it, and then we will tell you if it is a problem" type regulatory environments leads to all sort of self-censorship, delays, and other weirdness as petitioners try to essentially guess at what the reviewers will think and decide.
Upvote
121
(131
/
-10)
I think it's a bit more abstract than that. iPhone and iPad are 'gatekeeping' platforms under DMA. The Mac isn't. These are features invoked from the Mac and could cause the Mac to fall into the 'gatekeeping' category if the EU wills it to be unless Apple brings support to linux/Windows, which given how they are secured using hardware capabilities of Apple Silicon is, to Apple's view, impossible. The EU has dismissed the 'impossible' argument from Apple in favor of 'we don't see a problem lowering the security around these features'. Apple disagrees.From the “don’t” provision:
treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platformThe Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
Discover how the Digital Markets Act ensures large online platforms in the EU behave fairly, and allows new players to enter the market, thus developing a fast evolving digital sector.commission.europa.eu
It might mean allowing any platform with a mouse and keyboard to be able to remote control an iPhone. Right now the feature is intended to encourage iPhone owners to buy Macs and Mac users to buy iPhones, a classic lock.
The iMessage integration between iPhones and Macs is a similar setup, in that Macs are the only PC option to support iMessage.
Upvote
54
(56
/
-2)
The difference is that you can negotiate with Apple. Even smaller developers have successfully done that. Laws are more formal, and not subject to negotiation after the lobbying effort. If the law fucks up the market, the only solution is to go back to the start and modify the law, which can take months to years. Apple can at least reverse their decision in a day, which isn't likely to be financially ruinous.
Though the 'build it and find out approach' can be ruinous if you spent 2 years building an iOS app only for there to be no way to sell it if you fail to convince Apple. My understanding is that there is a cooperative approach at least for known developers to float the idea to Apple and have Apple give constructive feedback on where it might run afoul, and why, and even give ideas on how to make it compliant. That has suffered as Apple has grown, from my understanding.
Upvote
17
(28
/
-11)