When a company withholds a feature from the EU because of the DMA — Apple for AI, Meta today for the fediverse — they should document which sections of the DMA would potentially be violated. Let users fact-check whether there’s a real problem.

@manton No AI opt-out maybe?

@manton Presumably the EU should documents which sections of the DMA Apple is violating too, right?

I'm really torn here, because I think that someone ought to come down on Apple with both fists over exactly these issues, and the CTF seems especially petty.

But the EU published a law using English words, and Apple seems to have complied with the English words of that law, so for the EU to now press forward because Apple is engaging in malicious compliance, it's... Look, it feels good, but it seems to mean the normal rules don't apply, right?

Normally you can say that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But the EU is saying nope, not here, the real rules are whatever we need them to be to accomplish what we envision, so bend over backwards to make us happy and you should probably be fine, but you probably won't be sure until we officially say so after the fact.

I can kinda understand why companies would be shy about doing anything in that environment, especially if they're already on the EU's list of Naughty US Companies.

In other words, I think Apple would claim that they ARE complying with the DMA, just like they are with everything else.

@manton Why? The only opinion that matters is the EU’s. Better for the EU to review the US release and tell them what parts are permitted, instead of waiting until it’s released in the EU and issuing a huge fine.

@jmwolf I guess because I want to understand what’s going on right away instead of waiting a year or however long it’ll take to sort out. 🙂

@manton This is the problem with ‘spirit of the law’ regulation. When things are vague in terms of new technology, corporations are better off not introducing new technology in regions where you aren’t sure if it runs afoul of the non-specific legislation. Hedging your bets amidst uncertainity is a common side effect and thus EU citizens will be worse off (if they think not having these features is worse-off)

@pratik having knowledge of policy seems to disadvantage us talking to others on the internet.

@jsonbecker Hence I think some tech people who may know how policy-making and implementing legislation works out to start speaking up coz other tech people aren’t going to listen to us.

@manton I think that’s an excellent idea. We’d then see if it’s a real issue or an action just out of spite.

@manton Given the dynamic situation and uncertainty of outcome, Apple's fiduciary responsibility should favor caution and discretion over satisfying our curiosity and desire for information. It seems clear they're already heading toward a big fine that will only increase if they add more infringing services.

@jmwolf Maybe. But the current fines were easily avoidable. Just allow actual free linking from apps to the web, and scrap the CTF which is clearly an effort to route around the DMA rules.

@manton Those are also two maybes, which may be completely unrelated to the next set of services Apple rolls out for the EU to nitpick, fine, and set arbitrary deadlines to change. This will be the new normal with such regulations in place, and that is by design.

@pratik there's not much vagueness in the DMA in my reading. It's pretty short and not a tech but a market regulation. It's also always clear up front whether the DMA applies to you and concerning which platform services. (For Apple it's Safari, iOS, iPadOS and their App Store). If you bring a new platform service to the market and it grows big you'll know some 3 years in advance if and how the DMA will be applicable to you. Circumvention as in 'malicious compliance' is covered in the law and specific too (Art 13) (cc @pwinn)

@ton The DMA applies to current services only on the existing platforms, right? Since neither the EU nor Apple knows or will comment on the extent of its application to the new features in iOS 18. I don't think the DMA is intended to force Apple to offer feature parity with the rest of the world, right? If Apple considers it a fiduciary risk to implement certain new features that may or may not run afoul of the DMA, they should have the choice of not offering those features in that region. Unless the intent is established, no one can say whether this exclusion was done out of spite or purely based on risk aversion.

@pratik with 'apply to new features too' I mean not the features but the way that iOS interacts with them, the DMA obligations rest on iOS and its interface with whatever runs on top of it.

@ton I cannot argue with EU’s DMA application on existing iOS and the features embedded within it. However, my initial post was about Apple withholding AI rollout

As you say that all doesn't mean it's compulsory to roll out features in the EU indeed, but if it's said to be based on uncertainty or risk assessment then that is not at all a believable story from Apple.

I understand the tempation to believe this but unless we have a smoking gun (e.g., an email thread from Apple leadership to hold off AI features as payback), it remains an opinion.

@ton sorry, but this is kind of nonsense. Your own response notes a whole process that Apple “may” use to inform a government regulator of their features for pre-approval. But it’s not believable that Apple, who sure as hell isn’t going to work through the details of a new feature with the EU before publicly announcing it, is going to delay the rollout of new stuff because they have no idea how the EU would rule on it at the time of announcing it?

This is the core problem of regulation by intent— Apple cannot have certainty that what it does doesn’t violate the DMA without deeply involving regulators. It doesn’t have that confidence, and it’s still figuring it out via what is essentially administrative case law that is going to take years. In that situation, saying, “We haven’t talked to the EU yet, so you’ll have to wait,” is totally plausible. Top of their list may not be, “Work with the EU and risk leaks and repeated redesigns of the features until they’re satisfied,” versus “getting working and shipping, then we’ll talk about it”.

There’s a whole lot of assumption of intent for a series of actions that neatly fit a rational actor in the face of these rules.

@pratik

@pratik the internet Covid analysts who became experts in statistics who then applied those learnings to terrorism, battlefield strategy in the 21st century and the geo political history of not just Russia, but Central Europe AND the Middle East over the last century oh AND Islam and their clear high level access they most have to the CIA archives …

might need a new topic soon …

• the legal aspects of the broad international legislative changes
• the differences between US legal thinking and European - and why
• European Legislation
• Corporate Strategy
• Market Freedom and Categoried
• lock-In versus open .. and definitely a few more besides

I mean the internet knows so much - thanks to the relentless pursuit of #winning .. I for one never want to listen to anyone who truly understands the topic under discussion .. much more fun to sit in the peanut gallery and listen to eejits who watch everything through their single lens of their experience, feelings and wants and apply not even a single filter of nuance.