Apple’s new DMA criticism, EU-only feature delays, and what’s next

Apple has issued a sharply critical statement regarding the impact of the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) and its impact on Apple products in the EU. The company says EU users will see delays to features such as AirPods’ live translation and iPhone Mirroring on macOS. Apple attributes the delays to the DMA’s interoperability requirements—specifically, the need to ensure these features operate safely with non‑Apple devices. By Brussels standards, Apple’s tone is confrontational and unlikely to improve its relationship with the European Commission, though there is little love lost. Apple’s core complaint, however, is valid: the DMA enforcers either disregard or actively welcome the DMA-forced “enshittification” of Apple’s offerings in the EU. For now, Apple is absorbing the cost of re‑engineering its products to meet the Commission’s demands.

Why the statement? Apple may be hoping that vocal criticism creates political pressure on DMA enforcers when direct engagement has failed. Alternatively—and perhaps more plausibly—it mostly wants to explain EU‑only delays to customers.

On Apple’s relationship with the enforcers, there is a perception perception that officials see the company as less cooperative than other regulated “gatekeepers,” including Meta and Alphabet.

I an earlier piece, I suggested that Apple may be on a road to leave the EU. But I also speculated about other choices open to Apple:

First, Apple could do what I just suggested—attempt to comply with the DMA by giving third-party developers the kind of access that the European Commission calls for, but with robust and effective safeguards controlled by users. This would be a transformation for Apple, because it would require treating its own apps as untrusted. However, I’m skeptical the Commission would allow this (which, of course, would show that the DMA enforcers don’t really care about EU customers, and are firmly committed to a Nirvana fallacy). (...)

Second, Apple could transform itself and abandon the identity of being special even among Big Tech companies in how they approach user privacy and security. This might involve acceding to all the requirements from the European Commission without an attempt to introduce zero trust for all first- and third-party applications on iOS. It would, of course, be a loss for users, but probably what the Commission wants.

It appears Apple is pursuing the first path. As predicted, the DMA enforcers are unwilling to recognise user privacy and security concerns. Hence the feature delays—potentially indefinite for some features.

Apple’s new statement also hints at the strategic flaw in the second option. Fully opening its platforms in the EU might be cheaper in the short term, but it would undercut the differentiation on privacy and security that defines Apple’s brand.

Is the current situation a stable equilibrium?

Recall that, during DMA workshops, Apple said its engineers have spent “hundreds of thousands of hours” on DMA‑driven changes and that “thousands” of employees across engineering, design, operations, and marketing are involved. That suggests Apple will tolerate significant friction—at least for now. The EU market may still be large enough to justify the pain, and Apple can reasonably assume that other jurisdictions could adopt similar rules, making EU compliance work reusable elsewhere.