Apple vs the Law

Apple’s Confrontation with the DMA

• Many see Apple’s response as no longer about specific DMA provisions but about whether Apple must obey EU law to operate in the single market.
• Commenters contrast Apple’s confrontational, PR-heavy stance (rallying users and US politicians, reframing this as geopolitics and “privacy”) with other tech firms that push back but eventually negotiate and comply.
• Apple’s legal tactics (e.g. arguing about commas, human-rights conflicts, claiming iPadOS is a different OS) are seen as deliberate delay and rules‑lawyering rather than good‑faith implementation.

“Impossible Engineering” vs Business Interests

• Apple claims full DMA compliance is “impossible” or extremely complex; critics mock this given its resources and point to code-signature checks as conceptually simple.
• More technical commenters agree it’s non-trivial: security, entitlements, sandboxing and API decoupling are deeply baked-in and require years of engineering (BrowserEngineKit cited as an example).
• Others counter that Android already enables sideloading, third‑party stores and JIT, so the problem is not feasibility but Apple’s desire to protect App Store rents and platform control.

Security, Safety, and User Freedom

• One side argues iPhones must remain tightly locked to protect non‑technical users from scams and malware; guardrails should be strong even at the cost of flexibility.
• The opposing view: guardrails are fine only if the owner can override them (as on macOS), and “security” is being weaponized as a pretext for preserving monopoly power.
• Debate extends to whether smartphones are general‑purpose computers that users truly “own,” or closed appliances sold under restrictive EULAs.

App Store Economics and Gatekeeping

• Long thread around whether Apple is justly charging for access to “its platform” (stadium/concession analogy) versus illegitimately taxing access to users who own their devices.
• Developers complain that Apple’s cut, self‑preferencing (e.g. Apple Music vs Spotify), and hostile review process make the ecosystem predatory, especially within an iOS/Android duopoly.
• Some argue DMA correctly targets “gatekeepers” who both run the platform and compete on it; others fear overreach and suggest EU is indirectly helping certain large competitors.

EU Law, Intent, and Overregulation Concerns

• Several explain that EU law is interpreted teleologically: intent and systemic context matter more than narrow text, so Apple’s literalist defenses won’t work.
• Others criticize vague rules, shifting interpretations (e.g. Meta’s pay-or-consent model), and complex compliance burdens that smaller European firms struggle with, calling this de‑facto protection for incumbents.
• There’s a meta‑debate: some laud the EU as the only actor with enough scale and will to confront Big Tech; others say Europe risks becoming anti‑innovation and protectionist.

Developers’ and Users’ Sentiment Toward Apple

• Mobile developers describe iOS as increasingly hostile: arbitrary rejections, dependence on one store, and the feeling of “begging” for access to customers. Some have quit the platform.
• Users report growing frustration with Apple’s UX regressions, PWA limitations, and the perception that Apple has shifted from underdog innovator to litigious, rent‑seeking “big business.”
• Yet many still see Apple as the “least bad” option versus ad‑driven Android and enshittified Windows, which helps explain Apple’s confidence in pushing the EU to the limit.