If they are changing the decisions that Apple makes? Probably. iPhones are a luxury item; Apple is not skimping and doesn't want to accidentally assassinate their customers. Reliability and safety are selling points to them. We're not talking about explosive Lebanese pagers here.

My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.

So your opinion is that it would be better for the world if Apple was not subjected to anything that causes them to do anything different than what they would naturally do? If a country passes a law to limit conflict minerals, and it impacts Apple, we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals? Apple knows how to design phones, and if they think they need to use conflict minerals, we should just trust them.

I just don't think this logic works. It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.

> ...we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals...

It makes me laugh because back in the day people would have been complaining about Apple assembling their phones in Chinese sweatshops. But in the intervening time it turned out that working hard generates lots of wealth and now the conversation is how to sabotage the Chinese to stop them getting too wealthy, technically advanced and powerful. Those sweatshops meant business.

But to your actual point, you feel a need to compare sideloading apps to promoting war and conflict on an international sale you might want to reset your sense of proportion. If the EU wants to focus on promoting global peace I would strongly advise that they go do that rather than trying to backseat design iPhones. There is a major land war in Europe right now that involves pretty much every nuclear power except Pakistan they might like to turn their attention to. Some might say it involves resource rights too.

> It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.

The EUs regulators aren't so crash-hot either historically speaking. They've managed a grand transition from unchallenged global power to a 3rd tier continent over the last hundred years. They're doing something wrong. Telling Apple how to manage a phone is the least of their problems, but neatly emblematic of their strategy of having people who don't know how to make things work overulling the people who do.

If your argument is basically "the EU has more important things to do than tell Apple what they can and can't do", I'm sorry, but that's a losing argument.

There is nearly always something more important to do, no matter what you are doing. That doesn't mean that what you're doing is a waste of time.

In this case what they are doing is beyond a mere waste of time, these bureaucrats are trying to make phones worse after more than a decade of real-world feedback telling them that what they do makes phones worse. While claiming enthusiastically that they're trying to help I expect.

> My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.

This statement is a bit much. I don't think we can really have a productive discussion about this with you, because it seems like you've put Apple on such a high pedestal that you won't accept any criticism of them.

The idea that if a company -- at least one you hold in high regard -- would naturally design a product that would violate some regulation, then that regulation must be wrong... wow, that's an incredible statement to make.

Exactly. These are the people that champion "small government" thinking it hurts regulation, not realizing that without regulation companies screw over consumers as much as they possibly can.

> you've put Apple on such a high pedestal that you won't accept any criticism of them.

Apple's market share is like 20%, 30% globally. There is clearly a lot to criticise; most people don't use iPhones. If you want to compare an Apple phone and a Huawei phone then Huawei has them beat on a number of things. One of them can probably makes a phone detectably safer than the other too.

The issue is the criticism being used to justify going from decisions being made in Apple (capable of getting double digit percentages of the world that they make the best smartphone) to the EU (incapable of convincing anyone they know how to make a smartphone & a track record of driving business out of Europe).

What if we let people who don't have a proven track record of gross incompetence make the decisions? I think that is a good starting point. Giving design decisions to the only group of people to have destroyed and bungled their own smartphone industry is a bad idea.