Apple threatens to stop selling iPhones in the EU

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perception of Apple’s Threat

  • Many see the “we may stop shipping products in the EU” line as a bluff: Apple is unlikely to abandon such a large, affluent market and anger shareholders.
  • Others think it’s at least partially credible because Apple is defending control over its ecosystem, not just revenue.
  • Some argue Apple’s statement is more about explaining why features are withheld in the EU than a direct threat to pull iPhones.

Impact on EU Consumers and Market

  • Several commenters say Europeans would “survive” and simply switch to Samsung, Chinese brands, or emerging European vendors; some even welcome this as space for local competition.
  • Others insist many consumers are emotionally attached to Apple products and would blame Brussels if they disappeared, possibly buying via grey markets or traveling abroad.
  • A counterpoint: brand “love” is viewed by some as unhealthy; if Apple withholds products, anger could flip against Apple instead.

Regulation, Sovereignty, and DMA

  • Strong support for the DMA’s aims: preventing tracking, locking in, and artificial barriers to competition. Apple is framed as holding users hostage to weaken EU regulation.
  • Critics highlight EU overreach and raise broader fears about “chat control” and potential mass surveillance, arguing courts and treaties aren’t permanent safeguards.
  • Some say the DMA is central to EU digital sovereignty and the bloc is unlikely to back down, just as with GDPR and the USB‑C mandate.

Walled Gardens vs Interoperability

  • One camp: Apple’s tight hardware–software integration and private APIs enable superior battery life, low‑latency audio, and features like Live Translation; forcing interoperability makes engineering “10x” harder and can degrade quality and security.
  • Opposing camp: the barriers at issue are artificial policy choices (hidden APIs, punishing compatible devices, blocking default‑app choice). Public APIs don’t require Apple to support or optimize third‑party devices, only to stop actively sabotaging them.
  • The debate repeatedly invokes Android’s poorer real‑time audio and third‑party driver problems on Windows as cautionary or contested analogies.

How Important Is the EU to Apple?

  • There’s heavy argument over numbers: a misread “7%” App Store figure versus much larger overall European revenue.
  • Some insist forfeiting EU iPhone sales would be corporate “self‑sacrifice” markets wouldn’t tolerate; others cite Russia, where iOS share rose despite official exit, to claim Apple could endure leaving.

Media Framing and Accuracy

  • Several commenters note the submission headline overstates things: Apple talked about “products and services” in general and specific features, not explicitly “iPhones”, and within an EU‑mandated feedback process on the DMA.