Apple to EU: "Go fuck yourself"
Apple’s response to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, widely seen as “malicious compliance,” has reignited debate over how tightly dominant tech platforms should be allowed to control app distribution, payments, and browser engines on mobile devices. Commenters weigh the trade-off between Apple’s walled-garden security model and user freedom, arguing over whether strong regulation like the DMA and GDPR truly protects consumers or instead entrenches large firms by creating compliance moats. The conversation also broadens to the EU’s role in tech governance, from Ireland’s tax and data protection posture to the possibility of Apple limiting or exiting the European market rather than fully embracing more open rules.
Bias, activism, and role of the piece
- Some see the article as activism rather than neutral reporting; others argue that explicit advocacy is appropriate and needed against Big Tech power.
- There is disagreement over whether the rhetoric is effective or counter‑productive, with some calling it hyperbolic, others saying it “puts things into perspective.”
Apple’s DMA “compliance” and user safety
- Many view Apple’s EU changes (fees for alternative app stores, engine limits, scary payment warnings) as malicious compliance and open contempt for regulators.
- Defenders argue Apple is legitimately prioritizing safety for non‑technical users, citing the risks of sideloading and shady app stores.
- Critics counter that existing tools (sandboxing, fraud systems, community stores like F‑Droid) show safety doesn’t require a monopoly app store, and that Apple’s warnings are more about steering users than protecting them.
Monopoly, choice, and platform lock‑in
- One side stresses that users can simply choose Android and that Apple’s “walled garden” is a valuable, voluntary trade‑off.
- Others argue that mobile platforms are now infrastructure for daily life (payments, transport, IDs), so gatekeeping is a societal problem, not just a consumer choice.
- Debate over whether more options inherently harm non‑experts versus whether paternalism is being used to defend monopolies.
EU regulation, GDPR, and DMA enforcement
- Some think DMA is poorly designed and EU‑“tech hostile”; others see it as a necessary check on extractive platform behavior.
- Discussion of GDPR as a “compliance moat”: small firms were hammered while large US platforms largely violated rules with impunity.
- Several expect the EU to eventually rule Apple non‑compliant and possibly impose heavy fines or even temporary sales bans.
Apple in Europe and local tech ecosystem
- One view: Apple might exit the EU given App Store revenue is a small share globally.
- Counter‑view: Europe represents tens of billions in sales; pulling out would be implausible and unacceptable to shareholders.
- Broader debate over whether EU regulation hinders or reshapes its own tech scene, versus US‑style venture‑driven Silicon Valley.
Ireland, tax, and regulation
- Strong criticism of Ireland’s role as an EU base for US tech and its data protection enforcement.
- Others defend Ireland, noting its small size, rapid DPC buildup, and record GDPR fines, while acknowledging earlier under‑enforcement and perceived conflicts of interest.