so what?! it's their product that they built and they sell. if it's not your use case for your app, take it elsewhere. why the fuck should a government have the right to tell a company what they can and can't do with their product?! this baffles my mind that people think this is ok

> why the fuck should a government have the right to tell a company what they can and can't do with their product?!

I mean, do we really need to enumerate the reasons for you? Next you will think it's okay for someone to manufacture a car that can't be opened when the 12V battery dies.

I think the issue is that of scope. Apple is not a mom and pop store, where you can just take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy. It is a global entity with means just to capture the market, but to dictate terms to it ( and by extension to its other participants ). We are now in a position where we effectively have two options ( Apple and Android ) and they both suck in their own special ways ( yes, we also have Purism and wossname, but last time I checked, neither is a decent daily driver ).

To address your main point, in theory at least, as a society, we should be able to tell government that something is not cool and address it as needed. The good news for Apple and most oligopolies now is that neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

> neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

I believe what you describe is called democracy. The counterpart of which, where everyone "agreees" is totalitarian.

Companies exist at the pleasure of societies (aka governments), so those societies have literally every right to tell those companies what they can and cannot do.

I guess you also think it's bonkers that car makers are required to put seatbelts in their cars.

actually yes, if i buy a car without a seatbelt anything that happens is on me.

if i buy an apple phone that requires a 9000$ magic charger that's on me

etc

And they won’t exist in the EU…

Good.

So you’re okay with a feature not existing for customers who want because the government deigns that they shouldn’t have it? You really want the government taking away your agency to make your own choices?

I'm okay with bad things not existing and I'm okay with Apple throwing a tantrum and going home because the government says it can't do bad things. It can miss out on all that juicy revenue if it wants to, and the world will be better for it.

So Apple Intelligence “is a bad thing” because from day one they don’t have interoperability? Does that serve customers in the EU better?

What juicy revenue do you think they were going to get from iPhone mirroring to the Mac?

And the EU as a whole is less than 10% of their revenue?

> So Apple Intelligence “is a bad thing” because from day one they don’t have interoperability? Does that serve customers in the EU better?

Yes

I for one am absolutely against features not existing for customers who want it just because the Apple deigns that they shouldn’t have it. I don't want Apple to take away my agency to make my own choices.

Good thing governments are on the side of the consumer at least, right?

Apple thought the risk of including it was too high because of the DMA.

Users in the US and the rest of the world do have it.

And we talking about the same EU government that every other year tries to make it a law that there must be a backdoor in messaging platforms?

> And we talking about the same EU government that every other year tries to make it a law that there must be a backdoor in messaging platforms?

And the same Apple that puts them there: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754

But hey, at least Apple is more principled than those filthy, corrupt and privacy destroying governments. They would never kowtow to a higher power, our stout and beloved Apple.