Apple interoperability efforts under EU law falls short, advocacy groups argue
Apple’s response to new EU interoperability rules is seen by many as “malicious compliance,” technically following the law while preserving its walled‑garden business model and market power. Commenters argue that relying on the “letter” of regulation, rather than its spirit, allows dominant tech firms like Apple and Google to maintain duopolies and impose restrictive terms on competitors and users. The exchange broadens into criticism of how EU privacy and competition rules are enforced in practice—highlighting cookie-consent dark patterns and contrasting treatment of Apple, Microsoft, and desktop Linux as examples of both regulatory success and failure.
Apple, EU Regulation, and “Malicious Compliance”
- Several commenters expect Apple to obey only the bare legal minimum, not the “spirit” of EU interoperability rules.
- Others counter that law is binary: either Apple complies or not; if the spirit isn’t enforced, that’s a legislative problem, not Apple’s.
- Some argue EU still under-regulates Big Tech; others worry that forcing openness undermines privacy and security.
Walled Gardens, Duopoly, and Consumer Choice
- Strong sentiment that Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem is effectively a monopoly and harms the broader economy.
- Counterpoint: if customers prefer a walled garden and alternatives exist, regulators shouldn’t interfere.
- Critics reply that Android is converging toward a similar garden and that “just use Android/iOS” is a false choice in a de facto duopoly.
- Niche Android-without-Google vendors (e.g., in Europe) are mentioned but questioned as non-viable at scale.
GDPR, Cookie Banners, and Dark Patterns
- Long subthread on EU privacy rules: many complain about ubiquitous, complex cookie popups that make rejecting tracking hard.
- Others insist the popups are not required by law; they result from companies pushing tracking and using dark patterns.
- Some note enforcement actions and fines against “reject-harder-than-accept” flows, but argue enforcement is weak and slow.
- Debate over whether constant consent prompts “educate users” or simply exhaust them into submission.
- Disagreement on GDPR’s territorial scope; some see it as overreaching and unclear, others cite official guidance limiting jurisdiction to targeted EU users.
Responsibility and Policy Design
- One side blames legislators for predictable bad UX outcomes and not mandating browser-level signals.
- Others blame data-hungry companies: if they didn’t insist on tracking, no banners would be needed.
- Advocacy groups (like those filing GDPR complaints and class-like actions) are seen by some as the main effective enforcers.
Microsoft, Linux, and Comparative Regulation
- Some wish the EU targeted Microsoft as hard as Apple, to normalize Linux-preinstalled machines in retail.
- Others respond that Windows already allows third-party apps/stores and isn’t a walled garden; Microsoft is now probed mainly for cloud/Office bundling.
- Debate over why Linux laptops are rare in stores: low demand vs lingering OEM–Microsoft incentives.
- ChromeOS and Linux market share trends are discussed, with disagreement over whether they signal a meaningful shift away from Windows.