Apple says it may stop shipping to the EU

2025-09-2513:3892164www.theguardian.com

The iPhone-maker criticises Brussels’ Digital Markets Act and says delayed features are leading to a worse experience for users

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.

In the latest of a series of clashes with Brussels, the iPhone maker said the Digital Markets Act was leading to a worse experience for Apple users, exposing them to security risks, and disrupting the seamless way Apple products work together.

The Silicon Valley company hit out in a submission to the commission’s review of the three-year-old anti-monopoly legislation, which is intended to regulate the gatekeeper power of the largest digital companies including search engines, app providers and messaging services.

It said it had already delayed the launch of features such as live translation through AirPods and mirroring iPhone screens on to laptop because of the act’s demands for interoperability with non-Apple products and services.

“The DMA means the list of delayed features in the EU will probably get longer, and our EU users’ experience on Apple products will fall further behind,” it said. Apple added that Brussels was creating unfair competition as the rules were not applied to Samsung, the largest smartphone provider in the EU.

Among the requirements of the DMA is that Apple ensures that headphones made by other brands will work with iPhones. It said this has been a block on it releasing its live translation service in the EU as it allows rival companies to access data from conversations, creating a privacy problem.

Apple said the DMA should be repealed or, at a minimum, replaced with more appropriate legislation. It did not specify which products could in future be prevented from being distributed in the EU, but said that the Apple Watch, first released a decade ago, might not be released today in the EU.

It is the latest clash between the California-based company and the European Commission. Earlier this year, Apple launched an appeal against a €500m fine imposed by the EU for allegedly preventing app developers from steering users to cheaper deals outside the app store.

In August the US president, Donald Trump, threatened tariffs against unspecified nations in retaliation to rules binding US tech companies.

He said in a post on Truth Social: “I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies. Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology.

“They also, outrageously, give a complete pass to China’s largest Tech Companies. This must end, and end NOW!”

Apple said that under the DMA, “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”.

It said that rules under the act affected the way it provided users access to apps. “Pornography apps are available on iPhone from other marketplaces – apps we’ve never allowed on the App Store because of the risks they create, especially for children,” it said.

The European Commission was approached for comment.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By lucasyvas 2025-09-2514:224 reply

    > Among the requirements of the DMA is that Apple ensures that headphones made by other brands will work with iPhones. It said this has been a block on it releasing its live translation service in the EU as it allows rival companies to access data from conversations, creating a privacy problem.

    This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue? How are headphones going to exfiltrate data unless they have their own Wi-Fi connection or application that can serve as a bridge? Just disallow both.

    • By STKFLT 2025-09-2515:103 reply

      It is somewhat complicated by the specific requirements of the DMA specifications for Apple:

      > The interoperability solutions for third parties will have to be equally effective to those available to Apple and must not require more cumbersome system settings or additional user friction. All features on Apple will have to make available to third parties any new functionalities of the listed features once they become available to Apple.

      Apple is saying, "We designed our API in a way that requires trusted headphones as part of the privacy model, and DMA would force us to give everyone access to that API."

      What goes unstated is that trusted headphones aren't necessary for the feature and a company trying to meaningfully comply with the spirit of the DMA probably would have chosen to implement the API differently.

      https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...

      • By isodev 2025-09-2515:40

        And “trusted headphones” - all headphones, including AirPods, are untrusted until paired. This entire narrative that Apple is pushing is political, not technical.

      • By sceptic123 2025-09-2515:221 reply

        Can you explain how you know that trusted headphones aren't necessary and where Apple is saying what you are quoting here?

        • By STKFLT 2025-09-2517:321 reply

          Those are fair questions. This is what Apple says in the press release:

          > 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.

          We know it isn't necessary because Apple believes it is possible and are working on it. That's a pretty good indication that Airpods and their associated stack are currently being treated differently for a feature which fundamentally boils down to streaming audio to and from the headphones. It's not even clear how 'securing' live translated audio is any different from 'securing' a FaceTime call in your native language. I think a reasonable reading sans more technical information from Apple is that they give Airpods more data and control over the device than is necessary, and they want us to be mad at the DMA for forcing them to fix it.

          • By atq2119 2025-09-2518:021 reply

            Agreed. There is no sane reason why live translation and/or its privacy properties should depend on the specific headphones used. Even if the live translation were to happen in the headphones themselves, that should only tie the availability of the feature to the headphones. The privacy implications ought to be orthogonal.

            I see three possibilities. Either the whole thing is made up entirely by Apple for bad faith reasons. Or some non-technical person with bad faith motivations at Apple suffered from some internal misunderstanding. Or somebody at Apple made some incredibly bad technical decisions.

            Basically, there's no way that this isn't a screw up by somebody at Apple in some form. We just can't say which it is without additional information.

            • By timschmidt 2025-09-260:44

              Official communications to an international governmental agency are surely checked by multiple employees and subject to review by lawyers, marketing, C suite, etc.

              Apple said what they said. It wasn't a mistake. It was attempted deception.

      • By amluto 2025-09-262:36

        Hmm, couldn’t Apple solve this properly with better technical measures? Right now, we have “Apple swears that its first-party AI system won’t exfiltrate data even though the OS doesn’t stop it from doing so” and “Apple doesn’t trust other vendors to pinky swear not to exfiltrate data”.

        But Apple could instead have a sandbox that has no Internet access or other ability to exfiltrate anything, and Apple could make a serious effort to reduce or eliminate side channels that might allow a cooperating malicious app to collect and exfiltrate data from the translation sandbox. Everyone, including users of the first-party system, would win.

    • By sippeangelo 2025-09-2514:252 reply

      It sounds like a straight up lie. Third party apps have always been able to record from microphones, and the live translation doesn't work without a connection to its app. They're just annoyed that they have to share their private APIs that let them do it without the normal restrictions for apps.

      • By giancarlostoro 2025-09-2515:03

        > Third party apps have always been able to record from microphones

        Maybe not the way Apple is doing it is my guess. Apple can bypass security concerns for Apple itself since they know they aren't doing anything malicious.

        I love Apple and would love better integration with other headsets, but I have a feeling none of us have the full picture.

      • By pk455 2025-09-2515:004 reply

        why should they have to share those private APIs?

        • By STKFLT 2025-09-2515:141 reply

          Because the DMA legally obligates them to share those APIs when they are necessary to implement a feature for a connected device. The goal of the regulation is to promote healthy competition for connected devices by outlawing self-preferencing by massive players. Reasonable people can disagree about the goals or the downstream effects of the DMA, but creating Private APIs for connected device features absolutely falls under the umbrella of self-preferencing.

          • By mbirth 2025-09-2515:352 reply

            > creating Private APIs for connected device

            In the same way, the EU could ask manufacturers of wireless headphones to open up and homologise their proprietary “APIs” with which they communicate with the other earpiece so you can mix&match single earpieces from different manufacturers.

            • By tpush 2025-09-2516:10

              Yeah, they could.

            • By tpm 2025-09-2515:431 reply

              The point of this regulation (DMA) is to enable more competition in important market segments. If this exact thing becames somehow very important, sure, it's possible, otherwise it's a bit contrived. What's the point?

              • By kenferry 2025-09-260:242 reply

                Their point is the reverse.

                Forcing standardization and interop is obviously good for interop, but it's bad for companies trying to innovate, because it ties their hands. The moment apple ships a v1 they have to ship an API, and then they have to support that API and can't change it. When it's private they can figure it out.

                • By timschmidt 2025-09-260:48

                  Apple already spends years in R&D before releasing anything. Many of their R&D devices never see market. Requiring them to share an API they've actually shipped to paying customers is not a significant additional hurdle. We know how to version APIs now. They can still make improvements to public APIs without hurting anyone.

                • By tpm 2025-09-267:19

                  > but it's bad for companies trying to innovate

                  Which is why DMA only applies to huge, dominant companies (the complete list: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft) and there too it does not apply to all technologies, only for those where standardization is important to enable competition. It's much more important to have at least some competition than letting dominant companies monopolise entire markets through 'innovation' with private APIs.

        • By AlotOfReading 2025-09-2515:151 reply

          Let's flip this. It's the user's device, providing the user's data to the user's headphones, via an app the user has chosen, that was written by a developer vetted by Apple, who's already reviewed and approved the code that will be running. And it's the law that they have to.

          Why shouldn't they share those APIs?

          • By danaris 2025-09-2516:151 reply

            Because the user's device, providing the user's data to the user's Meta headphones, via a Meta app, can then record all the time and exfiltrate all that recorded data to Meta.

            Or whatever other shady company wants to make headphones that sell for dirt-cheap in order to get their private spy devices into people's homes and offices.

            I'm personally a bit on the fence about whether I think this is a sufficient concern to justify what Apple's doing, but AIUI this is the gist of their objection.

            • By AlotOfReading 2025-09-2516:371 reply

              If it violates Apple's views on acceptable privacy practices, why are they approving the app? They already have guidelines against identifying information or collecting more data than absolutely required. The developer data use page is quite frank about the expectations:

                  Apps on the app store are held to a high standard for privacy, security, and content because nothing is more important than maintaining users' trust. 
              
              This is a rhetorical question, obviously. Apple is happy to stand on principle when it benefits them, and more than willing to soften or bend those principles when it'd be too difficult.

              • By danaris 2025-09-2517:18

                If a particular app only demonstrates this undesirable behavior when the phone is paired with a particular subset of headphones (or other hardware), then Apple may never notice it in App Review.

        • By fundatus 2025-09-2515:091 reply

          Because (since they control the platform/market) they're giving themselves an unfair advantage over competitors.

          Example: iCloud photos backup can upload a photo to iCloud in the background immediately after it was taken. Competing cloud storage providers cannot do this[1], because Apple withholds the API for that. Of course they're saying this is for "privacy" or for "energy saving" or whatever, but the actual reason is of course to make the user experience with competing services deliberately worse, so that people choose iCloud over something else.

          [1] There is some weird tricks with notifications and location triggers that apps like Nextcloud or Immich go through to make this work at least somewhat but those are hacks and it's also not reliable.

          • By troupo 2025-09-2515:26

            > Competing cloud storage providers cannot do this[1], because Apple withholds the API for that. Of course they're saying this is for "privacy" or for "energy saving" or whatever, but the actual reason is of course to make the user experience with competing services deliberately worse, so that people choose iCloud over something else.

            Which makes Google Photos so much more impressive because it's heads above iCloud in this regard. No idea how they do that, pure magic.

        • By troupo 2025-09-2515:41

          They can chose not to share them. But then they should stop preventing other from shipping the same functionality.

          So, I'm a user who's looking to buy some headphones. Why can't I buy any headphones that offer live translation functionality except Apple's?

    • By solatic 2025-09-2516:21

      I read this thinking about how movie studios tried to have a fully encrypted chain between the TV, the cable, the graphics card, all the way down so that HDCP would prevent anybody from putting something in the middle to record movies onto.

      I don't think it's beyond the pale to argue that some shady headphone company could throw a cell modem into a set of over-the-ear headphones to exfiltrate audio. I just can't see the business case for it, even considering shadier business cases.

    • By inetknght 2025-09-2514:433 reply

      > This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue?

      Wait until third parties "require" an app to be installed, and the headphones send audio as data to the app instead of calling itself a microphone, and the app then sends that data to wherever you don't want it to.

      Bose, for example, "requires" an app to be installed. For "updates", they tell you. Updates... to headphones...?!

      • By dragonwriter 2025-09-2515:01

        > Bose, for example, "requires" an app to be installed. For "updates", they tell you. Updates... to headphones...?!

        The headphones work without the app, but the app is required for updates (the headphones have onboard software) and also if you want to manage the multipoint connection capability from your phone (which can be more convenient than doing it from the headphones and each device you want to connect to, but is not necessary to use the feature.)

      • By mcsniff 2025-09-2514:571 reply

        Stop the FUD with those quotes. Bose does not require or "require" an app to be installed to use their headphones and I'm not sure any vendor of BT headphones does; feel free to share if that's not the case...

        I do not install vendor apps for BT peripherals, and have been through the QC and 700 series of headphones without using their app. Same for Google and Samsung BT earbuds.

        Can you install an app and get updates for bugs or changes to equalizer, noise cancellation, or other features (wanted or unwantes)? Yes, but it is not required nor "required", whatever that means.

        • By inetknght 2025-09-2519:021 reply

          > Stop the FUD with those quotes. Bose does not require or "require" an app to be installed to use their headphones and I'm not sure any vendor of BT headphones does

          Is it FUD? It's fear, for sure. Uncertainly maybe. Doubt, not really.

          An app that doesn't do that today is an app that could do that after an update tomorrow.

          As for firmware... well the fact that something that just processes audio needs a firmware update demonstrates that the company isn't doing proper engineering. Proper engineering processes would be able to resolve just about anything with firmware before it gets released. Yes there "might" be bugs. No, those bugs shouldn't be severe. And regardless of proper engineering, a firmware that doesn't send telemetry back today is a firmware that could send telemetry after an update tomorrow.

          So it is FUD? No. It's awareness of what's possible.

          • By StopDisinfo910 2025-09-2520:411 reply

            Yes, it’s FUD. You are implying things which are untrue to serve your purpose through fear. That’s dishonest.

            • By inetknght 2025-09-283:57

              Nothing about what I said is untrue.

              Apps get updated all the time, and most of the time the update is fine. That's not untrue. It doesn't change the fact that an app could be updated with new/additional telemetry. That's not untrue, either. Telemetry is nothing less than a data grab of my private information. What do I use, what do I do, where do I do it, blah blah. That's my data and no "business" has a right to it. That's also not untrue no matter what you think.

              Headphones, wireless or not, should not "need" firmware updates. That's not untrue. If the device is not fit for use, then make a recall.

              Bose has nice products. I've used several generations of QuietComfort headphones. But the fact remains that they offer an app for updates when it shouldn't be needed at all, and they strongly "request" that it's needed.

      • By general1465 2025-09-2518:12

        Yes this is a thing. I.e. I have Samgung Buds and first thing my Samsung phone did was to load new firmware into them, probably for active noise protection

  • By epolanski 2025-09-2514:345 reply

    > “The DMA means the list of delayed features in the EU will probably get longer, and our EU users’ experience on Apple products will fall further behind,”

    That's an Apple problem, they're the ones going to lose market share to competitors offering those experiences.

    Samsung already has live translation, including in calls.

    In any case, I find it interesting that Palantir and Thorn are much better at lobbying the EU against its interests than Apple and other companies on much smaller and less relevant issues.

    • By varenc 2025-09-263:121 reply

      > Samsung already has live translation, including in calls.

      Samsung isn't large enough to be considered a gatekeeper under the DMA. They're exempt from the rules Google and Apple have to follow.

      Also I believe Samsung's in-person live translation feature is tied to their Galaxy earbuds hardware. This would be non-compliant if they were classified a gatekeeper.

      If Samsung suddenly had to follow the same rules Apple does they'd either have to open up the API or pull this feature from the EU.

    • By aranelsurion 2025-09-2516:541 reply

      My anecdata is, I live in EU and have their Phone, Pad and Watch.

      Right now I’m not bothered by whatever “features” that are already delayed, but if the list gets larger, and their competitors find a way of not delaying them (I think they will), I’ll simply jump ship the next time I upgrade and that’s that.

      As a consumer I can’t care less about Apple’s woes around DMA.

      • By StopDisinfo910 2025-09-2520:47

        I have personally entirely divested myself of Apple this product generation because their overall attitude to EU regulation deeply annoys me.

        Between that and their pandering to the Trump administration, it will snow in hell before I buy another of their products.

    • By Vespasian 2025-09-2519:31

      Microsoft as well and even OpenAI.

      They do it quietly offer clear benefits to decision makers (e.g. Palantir with it's promise to reduce crime) and give up control where it doesn't disturb their core business model.

      Apple on the other hand is pretty much absolute in its desire control the Hardware and the software. They act like they themselves are beyond any doubt and publicly denounce politicians with their contrarian attitude.

      There is some strategy to this madness I'm sure but I don't see it.

    • By graeme 2025-09-262:44

      Samsung isn't a DMA gatekeeper and hence faces no restrictions on interoperability of its services. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    • By hshdhdhj4444 2025-09-2514:54

      Apple has massive NIH issues. Not just with engineering etc but also their marketing and I wouldn’t be surprised if it extents to their legal/lobbying departments as well.

      Apple used to partner with some of the best external ad agencies and released some of the most memorable campaigns ever. But sometime over a decade ago they switched to doing it primarily in house and we haven’t seen a memorable ad campaign since forever.

      I suspect they similarly are driving their EU lobbying/legal decisions from California but the EU system is completely different from the U.S. system.

      It’s been quite evident, even from the outside looking in, that Apple keeps making arguments and keeps getting surprised by decisions that should be obvious to anyone who has even the slightest inkling of how the EU operates.

  • By gbil 2025-09-2514:195 reply

    >It said that rules under the act affected the way it provided users access to apps. “Pornography apps are available on iPhone from other marketplaces – apps we’ve never allowed on the App Store because of the risks they create, especially for children,” it said.

    Oh the children card! Too bad you do ship such an app with your device since forever, it's called a Browser!

    • By johnisgood 2025-09-2514:293 reply

      Are there people around who still believe the narrative and gives the benefit of the doubt to whoever says that it is for the children? Crazy.

      • By some_random 2025-09-2514:38

        Yes of course, it's clearly extremely effective and is the go to excuse for restricting your rights across the world.

      • By danaris 2025-09-2516:10

        If there weren't, it wouldn't still be such a widely-used and effective tactic for getting people to shut off their brains and do whatever the person saying it wants.

      • By garciasn 2025-09-2514:332 reply

        No; they just want to have cover for the real reason they don't like these apps: because it goes against their duplicitous religious morality.

        • By some_random 2025-09-2514:38

          Yes, but it's not Apple who is driven by the nonsense religious morality

        • By add-sub-mul-div 2025-09-2514:38

          There's no morality. They'd sell porn in a minute if they thought it would be a net help to the bottom line.

    • By piva00 2025-09-2514:292 reply

      A browser, gacha-esque games with microtransactions to get kids addicted and spending, gambling and betting apps...

      Think of the children though, they can't see boobs.

      • By pcdoodle 2025-09-2515:161 reply

        Back in my day we had to go out to the forest to see boobs...

        • By balamatom 2025-09-2517:17

          While some just had to look in the mirror!

      • By balamatom 2025-09-2515:06

        >Think of the children though, they can't see boobs.

        And now for a word from our sponsor, Jacques Marie Émile Lacan (JMÉL)...

    • By deltarholamda 2025-09-2514:582 reply

      I'm all for playing the "oh, the children!" card. As a parent it's nice to not have to worry about that sort of thing.

      It does ring hollow when the Screen Time controls that Apple includes is such a muddled mess. And, sometimes, it just doesn't seem to work properly at all. Working properly, the browser bypass isn't really a problem, but it's very twitchy and fiddly to set up.

      • By NotPractical 2025-09-2515:201 reply

        If you enabled parental controls, then unrated apps from outside the App Store are already blocked by default. The DMA creates no additional risk here.

        • By 1718627440 2025-09-2516:14

          And if you could actually be the device administrator, you could set rules however you want instead of being on the same user level as the child.

HackerNews