Apple ordered by EU antitrust regulators to open up to rivals

Media sourcing and primary documents

• Several commenters criticize large news agencies (including the linked one) for not linking to the actual EU order or legal basis, calling it “fake news journalism” without sources.
• Multiple people share EU DMA pages, press releases, and PDFs and argue that primary links should be mandatory for major claims.

Lock-in, user experience, and interoperability

• One camp mocks Apple’s claim that interoperability is “bad for users,” arguing it’s really about shareholders and lock‑in (chargers, services, messaging, accessories).
• Others openly prefer Apple’s closed ecosystem, valuing uniform features, predictability, and “it just works” behavior.
• The idea that “interoperability ⇒ worse UX” is heavily challenged; critics call it marketing talking point or an excuse for under‑resourcing, asking for concrete examples where lock‑in was necessary for better UX.
• Counterpoint: some argue Apple can optimize UX more when not constrained by external compatibility, but are pressed for real-world evidence.

Scope and burden of the EU order

• Links to the actual instructions show Apple must provide interoperability (or at least not block it) for AirPlay, AirDrop, smartwatch integration/notifications, headphone handoff, proximity pairing, NFC emulation, background execution, and documentation around private APIs.
• Some view this as “ridiculously onerous,” especially turning internal/private capabilities into supported interfaces, and fear this would discourage selling hardware in Europe.
• Others respond that only very large “gatekeepers” are affected, Apple can easily afford it, and users should be able to run competing software and use non‑Apple hardware fully.

Market power, gatekeepers, and analogies

• Comparisons are drawn to Microsoft’s secret Windows APIs and AT&T’s telecom monopoly; several see Apple using its phone dominance to tilt adjacent markets (watches, headphones, payments).
• Others push back that Apple’s share (around a quarter in EU) is far from a classic monopoly or “natural monopoly”; DMA targets gatekeeper behavior, not just raw share.
• Debate continues over whether Apple’s ecosystem lock-in constitutes a new kind of monopoly and whether definitions should expand.

Security, privacy, and DMA abuse

• Some worry companies like Meta will invoke “interoperability” to gain access to messages, photos, and call logs, arguing technical experts—not regulators alone—should gate such requests.
• Replies note privacy is already regulated in the EU and Apple is a conflicted party if it acts as sole gatekeeper; interoperability doesn’t remove privacy/consumer‑protection obligations from third parties.

Innovation, startups, and unintended consequences

• Critics argue this regime penalizes success: once a company becomes big, it must effectively “give away” polished designs and protocols, reducing incentives for deep UX/infra investment.
• Supporters counter that almost no startups will ever hit DMA thresholds, and historically, forced openness (e.g., telecom unbundling) unlocked competition and new services.
• Some worry the order unintentionally elevates Apple’s proprietary protocols into de facto standards, bypassing broader standards bodies and possibly distorting future technical evolution.

Enforcement, timelines, and compliance

• One thread laments that Apple effectively ignored key DMA principles for over a year with little consequence, gaining extra time on an uneven playing field.
• Others say Apple complied with “most” DMA obligations and that this decision is more a detailed compliance roadmap than a punishment; EU documents include specific timelines (20–40 working days for assessing interop requests, 6–24 months for implementation).
• There is disagreement over whether current enforcement is meaningfully pro‑competitive or mostly symbolic.