Apple says it may stop shipping to the EU

Overall reaction to Apple’s threat

• Many commenters respond with “then go ahead,” saying they would not miss Apple and even wish other US tech giants would leave too.
• Others doubt Apple is serious, calling it an empty or political threat designed to pressure regulators or rally fans.
• A minority of Apple users say they do want new features and would be upset if the EU experience keeps degrading.

Regulation, monopoly, and power

• Commenters frame this as anti-monopoly rules disrupting Apple’s core business model and ecosystem lock-in, which they see as positive.
• The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is widely defended as necessary to prevent self‑preferencing and to enable competition in app stores, devices, and services.
• Several note that US antitrust enforcement has weakened for decades, and the EU is effectively doing what the US “wrote the book” on but no longer enforces.

“Think of the children” and porn argument

• Apple’s concern about porn apps from alternative marketplaces is widely seen as moral panic or PR cover; users point out Safari already gives access to porn.
• Some parents appreciate stricter defaults but criticize Apple’s own parental controls as buggy, arguing the DMA doesn’t actually increase risk if controls work.
• A recurring theme: “for the children” is described as a generic, effective pretext used to justify restricting user rights.

APIs, interoperability, and headphones

• Apple’s claim that DMA-mandated support for third‑party headphones creates privacy risks around live translation is heavily challenged as technically dubious or dishonest.
• Critics argue Apple already lets third‑party apps record audio, and the real issue is Apple reserving powerful private APIs (e.g., seamless photo backup, deep ecosystem integration) for itself.
• Supporters worry untrusted hardware plus required apps could exfiltrate audio, but others respond this should be solved via sandboxing and app review, not by blocking competition.
• Discussion clarifies that DMA “gatekeeper” obligations apply only to a handful of giants; Samsung is cited as not yet subject to these interoperability rules.

Market size, gray markets, and consequences

• Multiple comments dispute the idea that the EU is small enough to abandon; some link to figures suggesting Europe is a significant share of Apple’s revenue.
• If Apple stopped official sales, people expect large parallel import markets, with messy warranty and VAT implications but continued device usage.
• Some foresee that if Apple really left, competitors would quickly fill the gap and EU users would adapt.

User experience and delayed features

• Apple warns EU users will fall behind due to delayed or missing features; critics say that’s Apple’s choice and “malicious compliance,” not a DMA requirement.
• Some EU users already report switching or planning to switch to competitors if feature gaps grow, saying they care more about functionality than Apple’s control.
• Others argue the DMA is working as intended: if Apple withholds features rather than comply, it simply opens space for more competitive ecosystems.

Trust, hypocrisy, and sentiment shift

• Several comments highlight Apple’s willingness to comply with restrictive demands in China or disable features in the UK, contrasting that with its aggressive stance toward EU rules.
• There is noticeable frustration with Apple’s marketing of itself as uniquely privacy‑protecting while lobbying hard against regulations that would curb its gatekeeper power.
• Some note that Hacker News sentiment, traditionally skeptical of EU regulation, is in this case largely unsympathetic to Apple’s complaints.