So now Apple says that "the DMA is not benefiting consumers in the form of lower prices".

Sure. Fine.

But maybe, just *maybe*, we're not seeing those benefits because Apple has never truly complied, has made it as difficult as possible for businesses to take advantage of the DMA?

5/5

...when further noncompliance starts to cost them actual money[1], Apple will delay[2][3] through court cases.

[1] www.theverge.com/news/627522/...
[2] open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apple-l...
[3] www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/2...

4/n

Apple will pretty much always opt to not-comply[1], then maliciously comply[2][3] and then...

[1] www.theverge.com/apple/659296...

[2] proton.me/blog/apple-d...
[3] www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24...

3/n

Let's not focus[1] on the fact that Apple has proven it will "at every turn [choose] the most anti-competitive option"[2] when it is ordered to change its anti-competitive conduct.


[1] Oh let's absolutely focus on that.

[2] www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/a...

2/n

Nilay: "I saw a fancy exec who used to work on Chrome and his read of things was that Apple was pulling away resources from the Safari team"

youtu.be/Br00gLOtB-c?...

David: "[Safari] haven't kept up. And the only reason they haven't kept up is because they have no incentive to keep up, whatsoever."

youtu.be/Br00gLOtB-c?...

Then something about...

"Apple nerfed the iPad *so* hard [by not allowing Chrome or any app to run its own browser engine] - they don't see it, because it's a threat to their app model and their taxes."

David: "No. 'They don't see it' gives Apple, like, not enough malicious credit."

Ah. Source link: www.theverge.com/games/815741...