Apple’s Thoughts on the DMA
The DMA requires Apple to make certain features work on non-Apple products and apps before we can share them with our users. Unfortunately, that requires a lot of engineering work, and it’s caused us to delay some new features in the EU:
- Live Translation with AirPods uses Apple Intelligence to let Apple users communicate across languages. Bringing a sophisticated feature like this to other devices creates challenges that take time to solve. For example, we designed Live Translation so that our users’ conversations stay private — they’re processed on device and are never accessible to Apple — and our teams are doing additional engineering work to make sure they won’t be exposed to other companies or developers either.
- iPhone Mirroring lets our users see and interact with their iPhone from their Mac, so they can seamlessly check their notifications, or drag and drop photos between devices. Our teams still have not found a secure way to bring this feature to non-Apple devices without putting all the data on a user’s iPhone at risk. And as a result, we have not been able to bring the feature to the EU.
- We’ve also had to delay useful features like Visited Places and Preferred Routes on Maps, which store location data on device so it’s only accessible to the user. So far, our teams haven’t found a way to share these capabilities with other developers without exposing our users’ locations — something we are not willing to do.
We’ve suggested changes to these features that would protect our users’ data, but so far, the European Commission has rejected our proposals.
[…]
The DMA also isn’t helping European markets. Instead of competing by innovating, already successful companies are twisting the law to suit their own agendas — to collect more data from EU citizens, or to get Apple’s technology for free.
Some of Apple’s specific complaints above don’t make much sense to me. For example, with the Live Translation feature, are they against both using Live Translation with third-party earbuds and using third-party translation apps with AirPods? They seem to be saying that it’s not acceptable for a third-party app to have access to the same audio that Apple does, even if it’s kept on-device. And they don’t want third-parties using (potentially superior) online translation services, either. They don’t want any option besides AirPods with their model, even if the user approves of the privacy implications.
For iPhone Mirroring and Maps, they seem to be setting an impossible standard that they themselves don’t really meet. If your starting assumption is that it’s OK for Apple’s code to access the data, but not OK for anyone else’s to, obviously there’s never going to be a way for this to work. But I don’t think that’s what people are actually asking for. They know that, if they had iPhone Mirroring on Windows, the pixels from the iPhone screen would appear on non-Apple hardware. That is, in fact, the point. They’re already using third-party earbuds for their sensitive phone calls, even though in theory they could be nefariously sending the audio to other Bluetooth devices.
I find the way Apple is communicating this really frustrating. It reads like either a bad faith smokescreen or that something got lost in the translation between engineering and marketing. I would have a lot more respect if they just said that DMA compliance is too slow or too expensive or that they don’t believe in interoperability. Instead, we get this nonsense where we’re supposed to believe that their teams are actively working on a way to share data without actually sharing data, but they haven’t quite cracked it yet.
Apple’s claim of “the same standard we provide in the rest of the world” rings somewhat hollow, given that it often adjusts its technology and services to comply with local laws. The company has made significant concessions to operate in China, doesn’t offer FaceTime in the United Arab Emirates, and removes apps from the still-functional Russian App Store at the Russian government’s request. Apple likely pushed back in less public ways in those countries, but in the EU, this public statement appears aimed at rallying its users and influencing the regulatory conversation.
[…]
Ultimately, we’re witnessing a clash between two immense power structures—the European Union, a democratic federation of 27 countries representing 450 million people and the world’s third-largest economy—and Apple, one of the world’s most influential and valuable companies, with a market capitalization of about $3.7 trillion and roughly $100 billion in net income over the past 12 months.
Apple has called for the European Commission to repeal a swathe of technology legislation, warning that unless it is amended the company could stop shipping some products and services to the 27-country bloc.
William Gallagher and Mike Wuerthele:
“Apple has simply contested every little bit of the DMA [Digital Markets Act] since its entry into application,” said Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier in a statement seen by Politico. “This undermines the company’s narrative of wanting to be fully cooperative with the Commission.”
[…]
Significantly, Regnier also says that Apple has refused the European Commission’s attempts to have positive talks about complying with the DMA. That is the exact opposite of Apple’s claim that its proposals have been ignored.
“Despite our concerns with the DMA, teams across Apple are spending thousands of hours to bring new features to the European Union while meeting the law’s requirements. But it’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates,” the company said.
A European Commission spokesperson said it was normal that companies sometimes “need more time to make their products compliant” and that the commission was helping companies to do so.
“It’s been more than a year since the Digital Markets Act was implemented. Over that time, it’s become clear that the DMA is leading to a worse experience for Apple users in the EU. It’s exposing them to new risks, and disrupting the simple, seamless way their Apple products work together. And as new technologies come out, our European users’ Apple products will only fall further behind,” the company wrote.
[…]
“Nothing in the DMA requires companies to lower their privacy standards, or their security standards. It is just about giving our users more choice, opening up the European market and allowing companies to compete on an equal footing,” Regnier added.
Previously:
- AirPods Live Translation Blocked for EU Users
- Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules
- DMA Compliance: Watch and Headphone Interoperability
- Apple’s DMA Compliance Criticized
- Apple Settles Siri Spying Lawsuit
- Meta’s iOS Interoperability Requests
- App Store Search Queries Appear to Violate Data Minimization Practices
- EU iOS Envy
- Apple Intelligence Privacy Dark Patterns
- Apple Found in Breach of DMA
- No Apple Intelligence or iPhone Mirroring in EU at Launch
- Keeping Your Data From Apple Is Harder Than Expected
- DMA Compliance: Interoperability Requests
- Lawsuits Over Apple Analytics Switch
- Apple’s Threat Analysis of Sideloading
8 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
Apple speaks about experience being worse for users, but it is Apple themselves choosing to make it worse so they don’t budge a centimeter. Every time it’s the same tired and hollow excuses of privacy and security, which nobody replay buys anymore, but zero mention of user agency. If a user shall choose to share any data they want, it should be their prerogative; Apple can market their own products as more “secure” and “private” and let the market (read: the users) decide which is better for them. Michael, you give them too much credit for believing there could be an alternative explanation that got lost in translation. They’ve been using the same excuses for years now.
Apple's entire statement being a "bad faith smokescreen" is right on the money. Being the largest corporation in the world, I don't think Apple deserves any leeway on this whatsoever. It's pretty clear Apple is operating in bad faith, and it's just whining that there is actually a government that is willing to actually regulate part of its operations and put some teeth behind that regulation.
I think this is a prime example of why government regulation is necessary and good. There really isn't any other person or entity willing or capable of holding large corporations like Apple to account.
It's actually quite wild how Apple "complies" with the DMA. I'm a European citizen and I was in Europe a month ago. I downloaded a couple alternative app stores to my device. Now that I'm back in the United States, Apple *COMPLETELY BARS ME* from downloading any new apps from the alternative app stores, *and* bars me from any *updates* to existing apps I've downloaded after 30 days. That is beyond ridiculous, and illustrates exactly why Europe is holding Apple to account: Apple fights tooth and nail to make the experience as ridiculous as possible for users who want to use Apple devices outside of the way Apple wants them to.
There's a solution to all of this, just ask the user what is ok share. To be fair, I also think you're spinning their communication, mostly to the negative.
Bad faith smokescreen is indeed a good phrase. This is why it's hard to believe Apple. They've pushed their whole secrecy and reality distortion field thing too far.
They're getting a reputation as essentially liars. They clearly act one way and then say the opposite, complete with passive aggressive phrasing and weasel words.
So how are we supposed to take them at their word when we have to. When they say things like for example "we are the only ones that can be trusted to distribute software on iOS, but iOS apps is not a category for monopoly." or "We actually have a real useful LLM working that can make SIri good, but we just can't show it to anyone now or for the foreseeable future."
They’re concerned about “The full history of Wi-Fi networks a user has joined: Wi-Fi history can reveal sensitive information about a user’s location and activities. For instance, companies can use it to track whether you’ve visited a certain hospital, hotel, fertility clinic, or courthouse.”
But meanwhile the App Store is full of apps used by millions of people sending actual location data (not just WiFi history) to data brokers, as described on e.g. https://netzpolitik.org/2025/databroker-files-new-data-set-reveals-40000-apps-behind-location-tracking/
Interesting comments...
@Leo... nailed it with a user has the right to decide (however naive that may be) how their data is used.
@Simone... totally disagree about government intervention. While I'm happy to hear you are a European citizen, without getting political, I'd be curious how you feel/felt about the US government having control under Biden/Trump.
@Jon... nailed it. And using less words than any other comment, including mine.
@bart... not sure how much I agree with you. But please explain why you chose to talk about Apple's secrecy and reality disruption field? I don't compete. It's privacy, and PR. Nothing more, nothing else. Unless you want to talk politics and government intervention....
@Mark... also not sure how much I agree or disagree... if you look at @Leo's comment, isn't it about user choice? Are you saying Apple's App Store doesn't show what these 40,000 apps track?
But did the request come with a lump of gold?
That's sounds ridiculous right? No one is expecting Apple to have it gold to top EU people.
That shit only happens in autocracies.
Apple is obviously right that DMA compliance requires additional work on their side, but the way they present this here doesn't make sense to me. None of the things they describe is impossible or difficult.
"store location data on device so it’s only accessible to the user"
No, they are also accessible to Apple. What's needed is for third-party apps to request access and for users to either grant or deny that access. Is that additional work for Apple? Yes. Is it some kind of impossible conundrum that their engineers haven't devised a solution for yet? No!
